Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-07 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting – April 19, 2007 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Lomas, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Tragish, Tkac Advisory Members: Bob Sherfy, Jim Eggert, Marian Shaw, Janice Horcasitas Staff: Jennie Eng, Robin Gessner, Marc Gauthier 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PRESENTATIONS: 3. Award presented to Commissioner Spencer for his four years of service on the Commission. Award presented to Commissioner Lomas for her four years of service on the Commission. Commissioner McGinnis thanked Commissioners Spencer and Lomas. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: 4. Timothy Chandler stated that his concern is with the piecemeal development of Agenda Item 8.1, and that he thinks developing multi-family instead of single family will result in low-income development. He further stated that the multi-family would cause the entire area to develop substandard housing without a future that will improve this area. Ms. Chandler requested that the Commission deny this project until such time that there is plan that involves a progression of development that has some rational and community concern associated with it. Commissioner Lomas stated that she would pull item 8.1 off the consent calendar. Bonnie Crawford stated that she would like to have item 8.5 pulled off the consent calendar. Commissioner Lomas noted that Commissioner Blockey has joined the Commission at 5:46pm. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 5.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 2007 and March 15, 2007 minutes. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the March 12, 2007 and March 15, 2007 minutes. Motion carried by group vote. Planning Commission – April 19, 2007 Page 2 5.2 Public Hearing Items 5.2a Approval of Acceptance of Planning Director’s Report on Administrative Review 07- 0437 on PUD 03-1073(Castle & Cooke California, Inc.) 5.2b Approval of Extension of Time – Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6169 (McMillian Albany, LLC) 5.2c Approval of Continuance of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6098 to May 17, 2007 (Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying) 5.2d Approval of Planned Development Review #07-0182 (Bill Schmitt and Justin Chan) 5.2e Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan (Revised) #06-2285 (San Joaquin Community Hospital) 5.2f Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 11473 (Jerry Hendricks) 5.2g Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 11592(Hendricks Engineering) 5.2h Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 11671 (Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying, Inc.) 5.2i Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6816(PB4 Ventures LLC c/o G. Petrini, Premier Land) 5.2jApproval of Revised Tentative Tract 6853 (Porter-Robertson Engineering & Survey, Inc.) Items 5.2j (Agenda Item 8.5) and 5.2f (Agenda Item 8.1) were requested to be removed from the Consent Calendar. Jeff Hodson requested removal of 5.2d (Agenda Item 7.1) from the Consent Calendar. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of 5.2d, 5.2f and 5.2j. Motion carried by group vote. 6. ZONE CHANGE 6.1 Zone Change 06-1699 (Adavco, Inc.) (Public Hearing closed on April 5, 2007) Staff report given. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he would like to include taxidermy on the list of restrictions. Commissioner Johnson commented as to previous discussion of widening Seventh Standard Road and about the development of streets such as Mustang and Stallion with regard to addressing the access issues concerning a future expressway. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would like to inquire as to the long-term plan of local streets dumping out onto an expressway. Ms. Shaw indicated that she does not have an answer or further information from the last meeting regarding this. Louise Palmer of Adavco, Inc., the applicant, responded that the property is still under the County of Kern’s jurisdiction. She indicated they are talking with the City of Shafter as well as the County of Kern, pointing out that there is discussion and engineering in the works that would alleviate the concerns of the neighbors and provide a safe intersection. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Ms. Palmer knew specifically what those plans were. Ms. Palmer responded that they involve construction of a frontage road on Calloway as well as on Seventh Standard Road. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the proposed frontage road would interfere with the widening of Seventh Standard to expressway standards. Ms. Palmer responded that her understanding is that it cannot interfere with the widening of Seventh Standard Road as the County will not allow it to interfere. Planning Commission – April 19, 2007 Page 3 Commissioner Johnson stated that this widening concern is one of the reasons this item was continued from the last time, and that while the boundaries of the proposed widening in the area is not within the boundaries of this current project, there needs to be significant discussion as to what Seventh Standard Road, as an expressway, is going to look like. He further commented that by approving large projects on Seventh Standard Road that are going to impact what the whole area is going to look like is important for the health, safety and welfare of the community overall. Commissioner Blockley commented that adding the frontage road is a good thing, and that the impact the shopping center is going to have on the area is a more direct impact on Calloway as opposed to Seventh Standard because there is going to be no way to turn in or out of the shopping center from the expressway. Commissioner Spencer commented that they may be confusing this general plan amendment with determination of circulation, which is not the problem before the Commission currently. Commissioner McGinnis concurred with Commissioner Spencer’s opinion. Commissioner Lomas stated that she is comfortable that the circulation can be worked out at site plan, and it is a PCD so it will have to come back before the Commission. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Ms. Palmer if during her discussions with the County if the County highlighted a timeline as to how long it will take to do the frontage road. Ms. Palmer responded in the negative, indicating that the design of the frontage road is still being worked out. Commissioner Johnson further inquired of Mr. Walker, Public Works Traffic Engineer, if he could explain what a frontage road is and what it would do for access and circulation. Mr. Walker indicated that a frontage road is a local road that runs parallel to a main arterial road and allows for complete local road type access to all the properties, driveways and smaller streets and can be completely separated by a physical barrier such as a median width island from the arterial or expressway type road. Mr. Walker gave local examples as on Stockdale Highway west of California/New Stine, as well as on Chester Avenue, north of Ming Avenue. Commissioner Johnson further reiterated that even though Seventh Standard Road is going to be widened to four lanes total, developments like this current project going in is going to be a third lane and increase traffic circulation. He also reiterated that with access to this commercial site from three different sides, based upon the roadways that go around it to the west, the south, and access from Calloway, there may be access from Seventh Standard if a deceleration lane and other things are added in to the expressway standard that the City outlined at the previous meeting. He stated that he thinks the project is a benefit to the area. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from R-2 (Limited Multi-Family Dwelling Residential) to C-2 PCD (Regional Commercial Planned Commercial Development) on 23.45 acres, and from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to C-2 PCD on 15.3 acres as shown on Exhibit “A-2” with the addition of condition 20 read in the Staff memo as: “The following land uses shall not be permitted within the zone change area: adult entertainment establishments, card room, bingo parlor, funeral services, crematorium, sanitarium, pond shop and taxidermies.”, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Tragish, Tkac Planning Commission – April 19, 2007 Page 4 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS -- Planned Development Review/Comprehensive Sign Plan 7.1 Planned Development Review #07-0182 (Bill Schmitt and Justin Chan) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Jeff Hodson stated that his concern is that the existing wall on Noriega needs to be carried out approximately 25 feet before it can drop down to eight feet for 200 feet and then drop to 6 feet. He pointed out that the first 25 feet that is built, will actually be about 10 feet tall because of the elevation drop. Bill Schmidt stated that he is not in opposition to the project and that he can accommodate their neighbors, he would be glad to build the extra height into the wall, except that they will be heavily landscaping the entire property line to get additional coverage and buffering. Victor Aerolla, stated he lives next to Mr. Hodson and would like the wall extended down to cover his property as well. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Walker, Public Works Traffic Engineer, why there is no right deceleration lane from Noriega into the project. Mr. Walker responded that there is a provision based on speed limit and volume of the street where if there is proof that it will not be above a certain threshold level of right turns going into the driveway a deceleration lane is not needed. Mr. Walker further stated that it is a secondary-type access based on the layout of the property and they do not anticipate there being enough traffic or right turns to trigger this threshold, and therefore was not required at the subject location. Commissioner Johnson read condition 5 dealing with facilities requiring infectious waste services, approval for separate infectious waste storage areas from the Kern County Health Department shall be obtained and in no instance shall the refuse area be used for infectious waste purposes. Commissioner Johnson inquired if this condition includes things such as needles and other surgical items, to which Staff responded in the affirmative and that it would include all medical waste. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the applicant’s analysis as to why they can reduce the amount of parking spaces, and stated that he is concerned about Laurel Park Avenue being used for overflow parking. The applicant, Bill Schmidt, stated they had outside traffic engineers analyze the property and he stated from their experience with building a lot of these types of facilities they are comfortable that there is adequate parking, and they have no intention of building a facility that would have overflow parking on the street. He stated that they set their threshold higher for parking then their competitors. Commissioner Johnson also inquired if the parking addressed parking for couriers, or a higher amount of people coming. Mr. Schmidt stated that being approved as medical has the highest requirement for parking stalls. He stated that 70% of their applicants are for medical and the other applicants would require less parking, and they have never had one problem with a shortage of parking. Commissioner Blockley asked for an update on the changes in the parking standards. Staff explained the historical changes. Mr. Eggert read the condition to B6: “A solid masonry wall shall be constructed adjacent to residentially zoned property as indicated by Staff on the return site plan. This wall must be shown on the final building plans, and shall be constructed a minimum height of six feet as measured from the highest adjacent finished property grade. The solid masonry wall shall be constructed a minimum height of eight feet as measured from highest adjacent grade along the west property line from the Noriega Road right-of-way boundary with the top of the wall to continue at that level for the first 25 feet before dropping to eight feet, and then continue at a height of eight feet to a point 200 feet south of the right-of-way boundary. The wall height shall be gradually transitioned from eight feet to six feet south of this point. The wall design shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits.” Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the planned development review 07-0182 as revised by the memo from Jim Movius dated April 18, 2007 and incorporating the changes made to the wall by Mr. Eggert. Planning Commission – April 19, 2007 Page 5 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, Spencer NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac 7.2 Comprehensive Sign Plan (Revised) #06-2285 (San Joaquin Community Hospital) Heard on Consent Calendar. 8. PUBLIC HEARING – Tentative Parcel Map/Tentative Tract Map 8.1 Tentative Parcel Map 11473 (Jerry Hendricks) Commissioner Blockley needs to abstain, and there is no quorum with Commissioner Blockley’s absence. Staff recommended that if the gentleman who spoke at the beginning could repeat what he said then Mr. Blockley will have heard everything. Staff report given. Tim Chandler reiterated that this project is piecemeal, and that no one that would be negatively affected by this hap hazardous development would be within 300 feet, except for those right across of Pacheco. He stated that it seems to lack a coherent plan and in order for planning to occur in this area there has to be some joint power coordination between the County and the City as to what they are going to do in that area without this makeshift approach. Jerry Hendricks with Hendricks Engineer responded to Mr. Chandler’s comments by stating that the parcel map has nothing to do with the zoning. He explained the reason that it is odd shaped is because of the Bakersfield Airport Zoning which does not permit residential properties within that flight zone. Mr. Hendricks stated that they are waiting for a sewer main down Cottonwood Road which will provide sewer for these developments and believes that this whole area will continue to improve and become a better area for raising families. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Johnson reassured Mr. Chandler’s concerns. Commissioner Spencer stated this was also part of the Casa Loma Specific Plan. Commissioner Blockley stated that he thinks the use is appropriate. Commissioner Lomas commented that they are trying to take it from an industrial obtrusive use into a nice warm fuzzy single-family, multi-family for families. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve tentative parcel map 11473 with findings and conditions set forth in the Attached Resolution Exhibit “A”. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tkac NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac Commissioner Johnson requested a break. 8.2 Tentative Parcel Map 11592 (Hendricks Engineering) Heard on Consent Calendar. 8.3 Tentative Parcel Map 11671 (Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying, Inc.) Heard on Consent Calendar. Planning Commission – April 19, 2007 Page 6 8.4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6816 (PB4 Ventures LLC c/o G. Petrini, Premier Land) Heard on Consent Calendar. 8.5 Revised Tentative Tract 6853 (Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying, Inc.) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Bonnie Crawford would like the report to state that it would connect to El Toro Viejo so that there is access in Phase 1. Commissioner Lomas stated they will go over this. Ms. Crawford further stated she has concerns with the traffic and the housing tract that backs up to the railroad tracts, as well as condition 27.B which states that homes shall have vents and air conditioning so that when closed the sound would meet the requirements. She pointed out that she lives 25 feet from the tracks and her house shakes when a train goes by. She stated she would like to have a brick wall between the houses and the park because there are two schools, a park and a swimming pool, and there are multiple children. She stated her main concern is the roads, because earlier it was stated that a frontage road is a traffic alternative, and they are using this as a main exit. She indicated that there is already backed up traffic on Calloway. Ruben Bartel stated that his concern is the Laborde operation and the odor at that corner. He also stated that over the years of his farming in this area, he always left a large area at the north side of the property vacant for public parking because of the events at the park. He stated that he is concerned with the parking issues in the park area. Roland Vandervault, with Porter-Robertson Engineering and Surveying, stated they have read the Staff report, including the latest memos, and they are in support of Staff’s recommendations. He stated they understand they will discuss the access for everybody involved. He stated that they are not in favor of smelly public improvements, but that line does not belong to this development, but to the City and is in place and active. Mr. Vandervault stated that they are conditioned to improve the streets that are adjacent to the park and the school site to full standard street widths with street parking, which will be an improvement from what is there right now. He also indicated that this tract map was previously approved and changes were made because of some of the oilfield operations and the situation has changed and thus the developer saw a need to change the layout. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Lomas stated that her concern from the beginning has been getting the traffic in and out. She asked Ms. Shaw to draw what the 32 feet at Phase 1 means. Commissioner Lomas inquired about a secondary access on Calloway at the same. Ms. Shaw responded that since Phase 1 is shown as connecting to Calloway there will be access onto Calloway. Staff stated that there is no fencing required along the street that borders the park and indicated that the only wall is on the lot that is at the very top northwest corner, which is a side yard. It was clarified that around the park there will be side yards as well as front yards. Commissioner Lomas inquired as to the odor that is out at this location. Ms. Shaw responded that she does not know and that the closest sewer that she is aware of is down towards Brimhall, pointing out that there are no lift stations out there. Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Eggert to go over the noise study and why the condition reads as it does to deal with the sound issues of a train by standards that the City follows. Mr. Eggert gave an explanation of this. Commissioner Lomas reiterated that when you are outside you will have noise, but if you close up your house it is quieter. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the revised vesting tentative tract map 6853 with findings and conditions as set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit “A,” and incorporating the memo from April 19, 2007 from Ms. Shaw. Planning Commission – April 19, 2007 Page 7 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, Spencer NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac 8.6 Tentative Tract Map 6921 (Cornerstone Engineering) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Staff indicated they received a letter from Ms. Romesburg and April 18, 2007 from James Movius which references that letter. Staff also indicated that there is an issue regarding a 35 feet public access easement that the applicant has agreed to remove and therefore there is a condition noted in said memo, as well as a condition regarding the fencing (#22). Daryl Patman stated that his biggest concern is the road that runs out to Allen Road and pointed out that there is only one house difference between that road and Van Buren. He stated that he lives approximately 400 yards from Rosedale Highway and from three o’clock to six o’clock he cannot make a left hand turn there and can barely make a right hand turn. He stated that putting another road within 200 feet of his address is in no way that is he going to be able to make a left hand turn when competing with those cars. Mr. Patman stated that he does not think it will be a safe situation. He further commented that the neighborhood has very poor drainage and when they move the sump it’s going to be a bigger problem with drainage issues. Bonnie Patman stated that her and her husband own lot number 10 and have lived there 27 ½ years. She questioned the alley that at present leads to the sump area and inquired if it will be a walled off area. She pointed out the proposed block wall along lots 3-9 and that there is no landscape at lot 10, but there appears to be a landscaped area on the north side of lot 9, as well as a landscaped area to the northwest on lot 3. Ms. Patman stated that with the recent widening of Allen Road it has made it very difficult for them to ingress and egress to Van Buren Place. Derrill Whitten with Cornerstone Engineering, on behalf of the applicant, stated that the traffic situation on Allen Road versus extending up to Phairfield, is a knuckle and they are not connecting Phairfield up to their street running north and south to the tract. There was a need for a second access so they worked with City traffic and came up with the current arrangement. He pointed out that Lisa Marie, where it ties in to Allen Road, is going to be a right in/right out intersection and one of the conditions of the map requires them to construct a median in the center of Allen Road so that there will not be left turn out movements which will make the Allen Road intersection flow better. Mr. Whitten stated that while it is not the best situation it was the best they could come up with to allow for ingress and egress. Mr. Whitten further indicated that 28 additional homes is a drop in the bucket as far as traffic is concerned on Allen Road. He also stated that with regard to the sump, currently there is a catch basin and there is a storm drain pipe that goes into the sump. He stated they will put in a storm drain pipe and convey the water down the street into the sump and there should be no difference in the way that it currently flows. Mr. Whitten commented that with respect to the alley leading to the sump there should be a break in the block wall so that there can be pedestrian access between the street and the neighborhood. Mr. Whitten stated that as the condition is currently written it requires a wall along the easement or that side of the road so there will be no access from the alley and will simply be a dead end. In response to Mrs. Romsburg’s letter regarding the layout of the sump on the original tract map, the sump has been revised and the objective is to fence off the entire width of the PG&E easement to cut down on the illegal use of the vacant area from quads and motorcycles. Mr. Whitten stated that condition of approval 3.0 requires the payment of median fees for the frontage for about 265 feet and condition 5.5 requires the construction of the median 100 feet north and south of the intersection so that it is a right in right out intersection. They had requested that the construction of the full width median satisfy the condition for payment of half width median fees along the 265 feet because it is essentially 200 feet of full width median. Planning Commission – April 19, 2007 Page 8 Ms. Shaw stated that she attempted to discuss this with the Director but was unable to speak with him. She pointed out that they are open to the concept but she can’t make any promises this evening. Ms. Shaw and Mr. Whitten stated that they are comfortable with working this out prior to recording the map if the Commission so desires. Daryl Patman stated that he does not think Mr. Whitten answered his question regarding the sump because it’s only an eight foot sump and now it’s suppose to run a full city block and go all the way across. He stated that water needs to run down hill and something will have to be done to solve this issue. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Johnson thanked the Patmans for giving comment. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Walker about the requirement for a right turn lane onto Matthew John Avenue in the conditions of approval and further inquired if the condition require it to go to Cal Trans standards, Mr. Walker responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson inquired if they require a condition of a right turn lane onto Matthew John Avenue from Rosedale if, from a traffic standpoint, it is a benefit to the traffic on Rosedale Highway to keep Rosedale traffic moving in a consistent manner. Mr. Walker responded that the reason it was not required by the City was because it did not meet the threshold requirements for a right turn lane, however it would be a benefit. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would like to ask that there be a right turn lane off of Rosedale onto Matthew John Avenue. Commissioner Johnson further referenced the landscaping north of the existing development that is already there of lots 8 and 9, and inquired if the applicant will be installing the landscape on that particular landscape area, to which Mr. Whitten responded that the conditions of approval require the applicant to install low maintenance landscaping. Ms. Shaw stated that there is a condition in 4.1 requiring a drainage study and language can be added that requires that the drainage study include all drainage from the adjacent tracts to solve any previous problems when the County approved the subject tracts. Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Walker to describe the traffic issues, including Phairfield. Mr. Walker clarified that connection to the existing north/south street would have seemed logical, but it does present problems in the neighborhood and the neighborhood was very vocal about those problems. He further stated that the volume of traffic becomes a nuisance on this moderate to local-type street and would become a cut-through with speeding issues. Mr. Walker stated that the current proposal appeared to be the lesser of the two problems and coming out to Allen seemed to be the more practical solution. Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Walker to expand upon what Allen Road is and what it will be. Mr. Walker stated that Allen Road is an arterial and is under County jurisdiction, but will eventually have up to three lanes in each direction and a full median which will restrict left turns out of those streets. Mr. Walker further pointed out that when it is eventually widened out to its ultimate width it will be substantially easier to make a right turn and make a U-turn at a signalized intersection with the protected left turn, U-turn capability. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve tentative tract map 6921 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit “A,” and in the memo from Planning Director dated April 18, 2007, incorporating changes to the conditions starting with condition 3.2 starting with the first sentence from the wording, “…of the GPA zone change area and shall include a right turn lane at Matthew John.” And, condition 4.1 adding a sentence, “The drainage study must include drainage from the tracts adjacent to the south and east of this tract. The design of the new storm drain system shall meet all City standards for drainage and flood protection.” Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, Spencer NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac Planning Commission – April 19, 2007 Page 9 9. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Johnson thanked Commissioners Spencer and Lomas for their service and mentoring. Commissioner Blockley expressed his thanks and appreciation of the departing commissioners. 11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director May 7, 2007