Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 7, 2006, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' December 7, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: BARBARA LOMAS, Chairperson RUSSELLJOHNSON TOM McGINNIS' JOHN S. SPENCER Absent: TED BL©CKLEY, Vice Chairman (arrived at 5:43 p.m.) JEFFREY TKAC MURRAY TRAGISH 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of November 2, 2006. Commissioner Lomas stated she would like to read additional language into the record. Agenda Item 5, November 2, 2006, Westside Parkway, pertaining to fog and a question she asked to Mr. Chapman. She stated that she asked Mr. Chapman about the issue of fog and lighting being addressed in the environmental document. Commissioner Lomas stated Mr. Chapman's response was as follows: "Mr. Chapman said the safety lighting that we have put in there, and the deflector shields would deflect it down towards the roadway would help to some extent in foggy conditions, instead of having a light just disperse into the fog. It would focus down on the roadway so you would get a bit of safety even in fog condition with that lighting. What you're looking for is in our project description. We need to include some of the details that would address potential foggy conditions like pavement markers instead of just painted stripes on the roadway so the person can actually feel and hear as well as see the roadway ahead so the site lines are diminished because of fog. You actually see this a lot on Cal Trans freeways. You could also use what's called rumble strips on the edge of the road on the shoulders so that if you're getting off to the right you would feel that and then you would know you need to correct and get back into the lane. We've considered signing during foggy conditions, even a lighted sign that would have a yellow light potentially that would say, foggy conditions ahead'. They aren't currently in the project description, but City staff is aware that is something that needs to be a part of the project. I think it would be no problem to add that kind of detail to the project description to make sure that the project is implemented and is actually in the record those elements of the project." • Items on this Agenda will be heard at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, but not necessarily in the same order. Planning Commission — December 7, 2006 Page 2 Commissioner Lomas stated that she asked another question about lighting sometimes helping and sometimes hurting, and inquired if Mr. Chapman could address that in the project description. Mr. Chapman responded, "Yes we can. Add that to section two which would be the description." Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 2, 2006 with the corrections stated by Chairwoman Lomas. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6871 (Phased) (Hendricks Engineering) 4.2b Approval of Zone Change 06-1043 (Hendricks Engineering) 4.2c Approval of Zone Change 06-1766 (M.S. Walker and Associates, Inc.) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative parcel Map 11593 (Phased) (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative parcel Map 6567 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative parcel Map 6568 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2g Approval of Vesting Tentative parcel Map 6586 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2h Approval of Vesting Tentative parcel Map 6827 (Phased) (SmithTech/USA) 4.2i Approval of Tentative Tract 6945 for Condominium Purposes (Terra Surveying Consultants No one from the audience requested removal of any consent calendar item. Commissioner Spencer requested removal of items 4.2a (Agenda Item 6.1 a), and 4.2b (Agenda Items 6.1 b) for comments. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of 4.2a and 4.2b. Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARING -Planned Development Review#06-1672 (Stantec) The public hearing is opened. The staff report was given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Lee Jamison, for the owner of FastStrip Food Stores stated they agree with Staff's conditions and are available for questions. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve Development Plan for file number 06-1672, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution. Planning Commission — December 7, 2006 Page 3 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Lomas NOES: None Commissioner Blockley stated that he abstained from voting as he was not present to hear Staff's report or testimony. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Tentative Tract Map /Zone Changes 6.1a Vesting Tentative Tract 6871 (Phased) (Hendricks Engineering) 6.1 b Zone Change 06-1042 (Hendricks Engineering). The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Jerry Hendricks, representing the developer and landowner, stated he is available for any questions. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Spencer read into the record a late condition. The condition is: "if this tract is constructed prior to tract 6805, which is to the west, this developer shall construct full improvements on the north side of east White Lane from the west boundary of the tract to the intersection of Cottonwood Road. Improvements shall include curb, gutters, street lights and sidewalks." Mr. Hendricks responded that it has already been required by 6505, and it would be a burden to make his client have to put curb, gutter, sidewalk and streetlights in for this. He stated he did not think his client would object to putting sufficient paving in to provide for traffic, but requiring development for another piece of property is quite a bit of additional expense be a financial burden to the benefit of the people next door. Commissioner Spencer asked how they would get to the subdivision otherwise. Mr. Hendricks stated that they would probably have to put in at least enough paving for two full lanes anyway so there is paved access to the project if 6505 is not developed before this project. He stated he has no objection to putting in access pavement. He went on to say that it is an added burden for them to have to do all of the improvements for the street, which really is benefiting tract 6505 since that is something they wouldn't have to pay for. Commissioner Spencer asked if the applicant wants the Commission to approve the project without adequate ingress and egress. Mr. Hendricks responded in the negative explaining that he does not have any objection to having the applicant provide the paving for east White Lane from Cottonwood to their project put in if 6505 does not develop before them. He stated that his only objection is to providing the concrete work, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, and landscaping for tract 6505, because it is an added burden that his client should not have to pay for. Commissioner Spencer inquired if there should be a condition that prior to recordation of the tract that they might require of this developer to provide adequate ingress and egress, and inclusionary concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk before occupancy of the tract. Ms. Shaw inquired if Commissioner Spencer's concerns revolve around getting full improvements, or getting adequate pedestrian and automotive traffic access to this parcel. Commissioner Spencer responded his concerns were for full improvement. Ms. Shaw responded that since this is the tentative tract and not the GPA, they may have difficulty making the nexus with full improvement. She stated that there is not a problem with a nexus for requiring minimum paving, and drainage to get the paving through, and perhaps requiring an additional walkway if there is the possibility of children having to access something on the other side of Cottonwood Road. Ms. Shaw commented that these requirements are usually done at the GPA stage. Planning Commission — December 7, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Spencer inquired if the current wording provided can be amended. Ms. Shaw stated that there is a condition 28 that addresses access which includes the paving, and not curb, gutter and sidewalk, which is not strictly needed for vehicular access. She pointed out that it is their standard condition for a tentative tract that does not have adequate access. Ms. Shaw further pointed out that in the past during the GPA cycle the PC has been requiring full improvements for small portions of roadway to get a zone change and a land use change, however once it gets to the tentative tract stage, that window of opportunity is not there anymore. She commented that they have been requiring the 32' of paving with the paved shoulders, and they could add a requirement for a walkway outside of this for pedestrians. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that they have two sets of conditions for this project. One with a zone change and one for the map. Staff stated that number 20 should be number 29, but staff said that it was condition 28, and it is condition 28. Commissioner Spencer indicated that he would yield for a moment. Commissioner Blockley stated his questions were along the same line as Commissioner Spencer's. He pointed out that there are two tracts southwest of this project that front on Cottonwood Road and span east White Lane, and when they are developed they will develop the full arterial width of White Lane. He pointed out that if those tracts developed first it would eliminate the need for 28' to Cottonwood Road. Staff confirmed that if those two tracts go first, then they no longer have substandard access to their tract, and the condition would just go away. Commissioner Blockley further inquired about the development of Cottonwood Road, to which Ms. Shaw confirmed is an arterial. He inquired if Cottonwood will be zigzagged with width differences if part of Cottonwood is not developed. Ms. Shaw responded that she does not believe that there is a mechanism in place to do the full improvements for Cottonwood to prevent any width differences. She pointed out that there is a transportation impact fee future for additional travel lanes, but it does not include curb, gutters, side walks. Commissioner Blockley pointed out that even if the two tracts to the west disappear and condition 28 is in effect, access from the current tract to Cottonwood and along Cottonwood would essentially be as good as it is now or better. Ms. Shaw pointed out that there are no conditions on this project to make any improvements on Cottonwood. Commissioner Blockley stated that he is satisfied that condition 28 covers what they got going there. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is a mechanism that if they had such a condition that the developer pay for the other tract's improvements that when the other tracts to the west were improved this developer would be reimbursed. Ms. Shaw responded they only mechanism that she is aware of that could be used is the use of the major bridge and thoroughfare area. Commissioner Spencer inquired if he could add wording for full improvements to these tracts to the west prior to occupancy, and ask the applicant to agree to this condition of approval. He stated that he would not be in support of this project without knowing that they're going to have some full improvements to a big subdivision. Mr. Movius responded that prior to occupancy is very problematic to the City is because somebody has purchased a home and is waiting for it to be built, and these are a lot of improvements to be put in, and therefore there will be a lot of angry people who bought their homes, and then the City is holding up their ability to move into their brand new dream home. Mr. Movius stated that it is much easier to require something prior to recordation because then they are just dealing with one property owner. He further added that with regard to traffic movement in the area, and the ability to serve this tract, the existing conditions fulfills these concerns. He pointed out that Staff believes that the 32' 2-lane with an 8' shoulder provides adequate access and safety for traffic in that area. Mr. Movius continued by stating that it is difficult for the City to justify, without some evidence on the record, why full improvements as far as all the traffic lanes on a major arterial are necessary to provide access to this particular tract. He pointed out that if the other issue is pedestrian access, you could argue that the 8' shoulders do not provide adequate pedestrian access for this area. He stated that he does not see any attractors out there for them to want to walk. Planning Commission — December 7, 2006 Page 5 Commissioner Spencer said that he is okay with that. Commissioner Spencer inquired of Mr. Hendricks if he could shed a little light on where he's going on this and what he needs to do for this subdivision to be created in that there is not adequate access. Mr. Hendricks stated that they do have adequate access with the Staff's requirement for 32' paving, and in addition they are providing good low-income housing for the people in this area which is needed. Mr. Hendricks pointed out that they feel the tract is a benefit to the area, however he does not believe that they need to be providing more than a normal paved street to get to this tract. Commissioner Spencer inquired if it's because it is a low-income project that more paving is not needed. Mr. Hendricks stated that the project is designed to be able to get new low-income housing for this area, and that's why they are going in with small lots. Mr. Hendricks stated that if you start putting a lot of off- site improvement requirements on it the developer could no longer afford to keep the price of the houses down to where the market should be for this area. Commissioner Spencer stated that he cannot support this project as presented. Commissioner Johnson stated he had asked Ms. Shaw about secondary access, and her response was that it was not required based up on the fact that White Lane is going to be an arterial. Commissioner Blockley stated that Staff's suggestion of providing a walkway is a good suggestion because although Cottonwood Road is not improved, and does not have sidewalks, the destination would be for pedestrian to get out to Cottonwood where there is a bus route. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve vesting tentative tract map 6871 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution with the amendment to condition 29, which shall read: "and,pedestrian walkway on the north side to the satisfaction of the city engineer." and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Lomas NOES: None Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve zone change 06- 1043 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution with the amendment to condition 10, which shall read: "and pedestrian walkway on the north side to the satisfaction of the city engineer." and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Lomas NOES: None 6.2 Zone change 06-1766 (M.S.Walker and Associates, Inc.) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS—Tentative Parcel Map/Tentative Tract Maps 7.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11593 (Phased) (McIntosh &Associates Heard on Consent Calendar. Planning Commission — December 7, 2006 Page 6 7.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6567 (McIntosh and Associates) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6568 (McIntosh and Associates) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7.4 Vesting Tentative Tract 6586 (McIntosh and Associates Heard on Consent Calendar. 7.5 Vesting Tentative Tract 6827 (Phased) (SmithTech/USA) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7.6 Vesting Tentative Tract 6850 (San Joaquin Engineering) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Patty Wilson, a resident of the Rio Bravo Phase 1 Homeowner's Association. She stated that they have three issues that they feel have not been resolved. 1) Single story homes (page 2 of Staff report): She stated they have repeatedly requested single story homes in the entire development so that their views of the mountains would not be entirely blocked. She stated that the last sentence of page 2 of the Staff report states that, "If the developer agrees voluntarily to single-story development on any portion of the project, Staff recommends a covenant be required on those homes." She pointed out that on March 27, 2006, the developer, Mr. Eugene Winter, attended their association meeting, and she provided a copy of the Minutes from that meeting. She stated that when Mr. Winter answered questions regarding the development he stated, "They will be single family, single-story homes." She stated that they accepted Mr. Winter's statement, and considered it a voluntary agreement, and therefore, they are requesting that the PC hold Mr. Winter to his word and put a condition on the vesting tract map for the entire development. Ms. Winter went on to state that while they understand that Bakersfield does not have a view shed, this development is the only one that is being developed directly behind an existing development that has a view. Her #2 item of concern is the transformer and electricity to their lake fountain (page 3 of Staff's report). She stated that during the demolition stage of the Rio Bravo Resort, the developer demolished the transformer and the electrical power to their lake fountain, even though he was advised of it on two separate occasions. She stated that the transformer and electrical power was placed in its location by the developer of the Resort George Nickel, and had been at that location for over 30 years. She stated that since the demolition of the Resort, Mr. Winter has supplied a generator to run the lake fountain. She further stated that it is their understanding that Mr. Winter has been in contact with PG&E regarding the relocation of the power source, and when questioned about this issue at the Homeowner's Association meeting, and as indicated in their Minutes, Mr. Winter agreed to relocate the electrical panel for their lake fountain. Ms. Wilson stated that they take these actions, along with Mr. Winter's statement at the March Board meeting to mean that he's accepted responsibility for replacing the transformer, and therefore, they are requesting the PC to hold Mr. Winter to his word, and put a condition on the vesting tract map that the electricity to their lake fountain be replaced by the developer. Ms. Wilson stated that their#3 concern is block wall fencing, Exhibit 1, Condition 22, the south and southwest portion of the development borders our private lake, swimming pool which are owned and maintained by homeowners association. (side B, tape 1) She stated it is a huge liability issue that will certainly increase their homeowner's association dues. She stated they are requesting permanent block wall fencing along the entire boundary of Phase 3 and 4 which is adjacent to their development. Planning Commission — December 7, 2006 Page 7 Brett Dawson, with San Joaquin Engineering, representing the developer, Kaveu Rock Properties, which is also represented by Eugene Winter, stated they are hoping to have the last and final public hearing for this project. He stated they have just completed a GPA on a portion of this project. He stated they have had numerous meetings with both of the phases of the homeowner's association next door, and have made many concessions and good will all for the benefit of those condo residents. Mr. Dawson stated that with respect to the conditions of approval they have met with Staff and gone over many of the items addressed in the conditions, and agree to all of the conditions as stated, with the exception of the following four: 1) Condition 5.7 requiring the construction of full half-width street improvements for old Alfred Harrell Highway. He pointed out that this highway is a local dead end road, and will serve no future development. He pointed out that, in fact, it serves only one single neighboring resident. He stated that improvement of this roadway will only serve to needlessly increase the area of impervious hardscape increased storm water runoff down stream. He requested that this requirement be reduced to only that portion of the roadway through to their secondary entrance at River Bend, about half-way through the map, along the north side. 2) Condition 5.7.3.2 requiring the construction of a cul-de-sac for Forrest Hills Drive. He stated Forrest Hills Drive is a private road within the neighboring private gated community. He stated it is not a public road and aside for the host of legal issues, this requirement raises, not to mention, the many liability concerns it would bring. He stated that they believe that this is simply an unfair requirement, and ask that this condition be excused entirely. 3) Condition Number 22 requires a block wall along the south boundary of the project. Mr. Dawson pointed out that the PC must recognize the fact that there will be a significant grade difference between the back of those future residential pads and the rear of the adjoining condominiums. He also pointed out that there exists a substantial buffer between their project and the condominium homes. He explained that the area consists of a swath of land in excess of 100', comprised of a natural drainage channel, natural vegetation, and in addition, additional landscape behind the condominiums. He pointed out that a block wall here will simply do nothing that this natural buffer does not already accomplish. He indicated that they would like condition 22 be excused entirely. 4) Condition Number 20 requires that a wall and landscape plan come back to the PC for approval. Mr. Dawson stated that they see no justification to treat this project any different then the hundreds of other projects that have been approved in this community without this requirement. He stated that their project will have wall and street side landscaping plans for all perimeter roads, and those plans, as is commonly done, are approved through the Public Works Department. He stated that to preserve the integrity of their perimeter fencing, they would have no problem with the requirement to not build wooden contractor fencing. He stated they request that condition number 20 be waived Mr. Dawson concluded by pointing out that contrary to what he thinks is a common perception, this project does have the support of one of the two neighboring homeowner's association, which is the larger of the two. He pointed out that this is a great project, bringing to the area an upscale residential development in one of Bakersfield's most beautiful areas, with the nearby Lake Ming and Kern River Golf Course. He pointed out that this project brings a substantially less intensive development than what could have been accomplished through the previous commercial zoning. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Johnson addressed the concerns of Ms. Wilson by asking Staff to elaborate on the reason as to why the PC cannot require single-story homes on the properties in question. Staff responded that the PC is very limited on a tentative tract as to what you can require a developer to do. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Dawson if he would agree to single-story homes for the properties abutting the northern boundary of the existing condos. Mr. Dawson stated that in the absence of view easements and a view shed ordinance, they think it is unfair to have this project limited to single-story homes, when those residents maintain the right to construct a two-story home, or add a second story to their structures. Mr. Dawson further indicated that his client has informed him that the bone pile is gone in that they have given numerous costly things to the neighboring residents. Commissioner Johnson stated that the PC's hands are tied from requiring single-story homes. He stated that with regard to the transformer to the lake, the Staff report is clear that it would be a civil issue, and not something the PC can get involved in. With respect to a block wall and the fencing, Commissioner Johnson stated he sees the residents concern with residents from the northern Planning Commission — December 7, 2006 Page 8 property coming down to their property with the lake and the liability it may expose them to, and therefore he is in favor of the landscape and wall plan and having the applicant come back for that. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the Staff report was prepared one day before the anticipated approval of the Negative Declaration. Staff responded in the affirmative. He further inquired if anything has happened with the transformer and the electricity. Staff responded that the issue is a civil matter and not in their auspice to even go any further with it. Commissioner Blockley inquired of Mr. Dawson as to the nature of the backyard boundary buffer area that separates this proposed project from the existing condos. Mr. Dawson said that as it sits today the land sits higher than the adjoining condominium project. He explained that the condo project is essentially in a hole and is below Lake Ming Road, Alfred Harrell Highway. Commissioner Blockley inquired if Mr. Dawson was intending to make any radical changes to the topography, to which Mr. Dawson replied that they do have to meet and match what is existing, in the absence of slope easements, and they are not suggesting any slope easements. Mr. Dawson explained that they could have retaining walls to allow them to bring it up, but they will not have slope easements. He further explained that the lots will drain north to the street. He also pointed out that the block wall really serves no purpose as there is a 100' buffer, and questioned what more a 6' block wall could do that the 100' buffer isn't doing. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about item number 32 in reference to a covenant disclosing essential noise impacts and drilling uses, and asked if it would require that the potential homeowner sign something in the CC&R's acknowledging the fact that there are problems that exist out there, i.e. boat drag racing at Lake Ming. Staff responded that they would not have to sign anything, and that it would be recorded on their properties, and would show up in the title report. Commissioner McGinnis.inquired if they are in a position to require a written acknowledge, to which Staff responded they do not know how they would enforce that. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if they have the authority to be specific language-wise on what would go in the CC&R's. Staff responded in the affirmative if it is regarding an impact such as these, and could include language that includes an estimated frequency and duration. Commissioner Lomas disclosed that she has spoke with Mr. Winter a couple of times, and there are issues on both sides. She commented on the issue of single-story homes, and the electrical panels, pointing out that there are some things that they just cannot do. She stated that with respect to Mr. Dawson's four requests, and regarding condition 5.7 and old Alfred Harrell Highway, it is nothing out of the ordinary and that it is the developer's obligation to put half widths in. She stated that she sees no reason to change the condition, and further commenting that it has been phased so that the cost is spread out. Commissioner Lomas further stated that with regard to Forrest Hills cul-de-sac she understands why Mr. Dawson would not want to do that. She stated that on 11-16-06 the PC approved tract 6868 where there was an existing street that had a stub-out to go into 6868, and they didn't make anybody do anything with that tract. Therefore to make this developer make improvements on their property doesn't seem reasonable. She asked Ms. Shaw to weigh in on the discussion they had. Ms. Shaw responded that when they were researching this tract proposal, they were looking at the adjacent property, the condo project, and they actually have an old circulation plan showing this particular roadway connecting to the north through another condo project that would be almost identical to the one existing there, and therefore the road was intended to go through and serve the adjacent property. She stated that since that is no longer going to be the case, they required that the read be terminated. She pointed out that they don't have strong feelings on that one way or the other, and they could delete that portion of the condition. Commissioner Lomas stated that she sees this as a private water feature that she doubts anyone drives to, but walks to it. She pointed out that to be concerned about the internal traffic shouldn't be the applicant's concern. Therefore, she would like to see 5.7.3.2 deleted. Commissioner Lomas stated that condition 22 seems reasonable to her. She read condition 22 as follows, "Prior to recordation of the final map for Phases 2 and 3, the developer will install a 6' permanent fencing, a block wall or an equivalent design approved by the Planning Director, along the rear lot lines for the lots with Phase 2 and 3 adjacent to the Rio Bravo condominiums. A wood Planning Commission — December 7, 2006 Page 9 fence shall not be considered a permanent fence." She inquired of Mr. Movius if this condition would fall under the wall and landscape plan, and if Condition 20, which talks about the wall and landscape plan that will come before the PC, can be combined with condition 22 so that it all comes before the PC. Movius replied that their interpretation is that every wall and fence around the perimeter come before the PC. Commissioner Lomas stated that she would like to add that this would be a public hearing. Patty Wilson was recognized and inquired about Staff report which talks about the transformer and the electricity to the pond indicating that unless they had an agreement with the previous owner then it was an issue that had to go before code enforcement. Ms. Wilson stated that she believes that the fact that the previous owner put that transformer and electrical to the fountain where it was placed 30 years ago that that is an agreement with the previous owner. Ms. Wilson further inquired about page 2 regarding the single family where it says, "If developer agrees voluntarily to limit single story development on any portion of the project Staff recommends a covenant to be required on those homes limited to single story." She pointed out that Mr. Winter came to them and told them that those were all going to be single story, and asked if that is not an agreement. Commissioner Lomas asked Brett Dawson to weigh in on the transformer issue. Mr. Dawson stated he is not really aware of the history of this, but that if they were to make a ruling about something, if a particular law was broken, they would have to address a correction notice to the owner of the land, and whoever is responsible for that land is the person they would give the correction notice to. He said that he would think that would be the homeowner's association if it's public. He stated that typically they don't get into the history and previous agreements, but rather just look at who currently owns the land. Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Dawson if he would like to weigh in on the transformer issues. Mr. Winter, representing the developer of this property, responded by stating that he has spoken with most of the condo owner's, and that this transformer was put in back in the 70's when the whole project was developed by George Nickels. He stated that this one transformer feeds the entire condo project next door, and he couldn't disagree to relocate it if he wanted to as he has to relocate it. He stated that he has advised the condo owners that they would relocate it. He pointed out that in addition to this transformer there happened to be an electrical panel that was installed next to it that fed one of the hotel buildings, and in that electrical panel there was a meter installed that was in control of the power that went over to the pump in the pond. Mr. Winter pointed out that when they relocate the transformer they will provide another meter for the condo owners. He stated he has been in touch with PG&E and the plans have already been engineered and designed. Mr. Winter further stated that he did meet with the condo owners, and he did make a comment about single story houses, but there were no guarantees. He stated they have not finished a marketing study or have house plans yet so they cannot limit themselves to single story, although they have agreed to those lots along the one side for single story, as well as along the block wall that was a condition at the City Council meeting. Commissioner Lomas restated that Mr. Winter has stated that they will take care of the transformer and the electrical, and that it will not be a condition because it is a civil matter. Commissioner Lomas stated the single story issue was heard at this Commission's public hearing, as well as at Council. She stated at that time they had the ability to put restrictions and the applicant did agree to those lots, and even some further, that directly affected the condo complex. In addition, she pointed out that the Council added a few more lots. She stated that conditioning the project to be entirely single story is not something the PC can do, pointing out that there is a large buffer. She further stated that there are no health and safety issues that would justify the project to be entirely single story. Commissioner Johnson stated that he is agreement with keeping 5.7.2, requiring the pavement for the whole frontage of old Alfred Harrell Highway to ensure that the roadway is improved. He inquired about the width of Forrest Hills, where they are discussing removing the condition for a cul-de-sac, pointing out that he could barely turn his pick up around. Dave Weyrather with the Fire Department stated that under the Article 9 of the California Fire Code, 2001, any cul-de-sac or Planning Commission — December 7, 2006 Page 10 dead end road that is in excess of 150' is required to have a turn around constructed. He said it could be a cul-de-sac or a hammerhead-type for emergency purposes. Commissioner Johnson stated that he is not in favor of deleting this condition. Break Taken. Commissioner Lomas recapped that there is an existing road on the condo complexes that doesn't go anywhere, and technically is not in compliance, and they could be sited. Commissioner Lomas stated that the applicant's project cuts off access to the condos, and therefore it has to be dealt with. Mr. Dawson stated that they recognize the fire code and the need for turn around, but pointed out that it has been a violation that's been in existence since the construction of their development, and the applicant did not create this access problem. Commissioner Lomas stated that their suggestion to rectify the problem is to: 1) At the northern end of Forrest Hills if permission for access can be obtained (the Homeowner's Association will have to insert the name of their association) the applicant shall supply all weather surface turn around to the satisfaction of the fire department, or 2) the applicant put a 20' emergency access, which would mean the loss of lots in phase 3. Mr. Dawson inquired about closing this portion of Forrest Hills off to vehicles as it goes to nowhere but to the lake. Staff confirmed that the PC doesn't have the authority to mandate the blocking of the road. Break Taken. Mr. Dawson stated that they would have no objection to constructing a turn around on their side of the property line, so long as DG is allowed without curbs. Commissioner Lomas read the condition again as follows: At the northern end of Forrest Hills, if permission for access can be obtained by the Homeowner's Association, the applicant shall supply an all weather surface turn around to the satisfaction of the fire department. Mr. Dawson agreed to this condition. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve vesting tentative tract 6850 with finding and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution and incorporating the memos dated December 1, 2006 and December 4, 2006 from the Planning Department, and adding four modified conditions which are as follows: 1) 5.7.3.2 shall read: "At the northern end of Forrest Hills, if permission for access can be obtained by the Homeowner's Association, the applicant shall supply an all weather surface turn around to the satisfaction of the fire department." 2) Conditions 20 and 22 will be modified to reflect the calling of a public hearing; and 3) Condition 32 ( regarding the covenant disclosing potential noise) the following wording shall be added at the end of the existing condition: "The same information regarding noise impacts shall also be specifically stated in the CC&R's for the project. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and City Attorney prior to recordation of a final map." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Lomas NOES: None 7.7 Tentative Tract 6945 for Condominium Purposes (Terra Surveying Consultants) Heard on Consent Calendar. 8 COMMUNICATIONS: None. 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. Planning Commission — December 7, 2006 Page 11 10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director December 26,2006