Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-07 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting – May 17, 2007 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac Absent: None Advisory Members: Bob Sherfy, Jim Movius, Marion Shaw, Chris Lee Staff: Jim Eggert, Robin Gessner, Jennie Eng 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. WELCOME NEW MEMBERS: Staff introduced new Commissioners. 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Jeff Chaney stated he will speak on the regular agenda. Dean Henderson stated that he will speak on the regular agenda. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 5.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of April 19, 2007 . th Commissioner Johnson requested that page 3, 7 paragraph insert the words: “for the benefit of the public” in between the words explained and what on the second line of the th 7 paragraph. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the amended consent calendar, non-public hearing items. Motion carried by group vote. 5.2 Public Hearing Items 5.2a Approval of Extension of Time - Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5900 (Stantec) 5.2bApproval of Extension of Time – Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6251 (San Joaquin Engineering) 5.2cApproval ofVesting Tentative Tract Map 7041 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) 5.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7042 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) 5.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7043 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) 5.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7044 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Planning Commission – May 17, 2007 Page 2 5.2g Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7045 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) The public hearing is opened. No one requested removal of any consent agenda item. Commissioner Tragish removed agenda items 5.2(c), 5.2(d), 5.2(e), 5.2(f) and 5.2(g) from the consent calendar and further requested that they be heard together for one hearing. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve consent calendar items 5.2a and 5.2b. Motion carried by group vote. 6. PUBLIC HEARING – Vesting Tentative Tract Maps/Revised Tentative Tract Map 6.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7041 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) 6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7042 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) 6.3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7043 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) 6.4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7044 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) 6.5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7045 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff’s recommendation. Bob Smith with SmithTech USA stated they are in agreement with Staff’s recommendation and conditions of approval. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish questioned the orderly development and circulation of these tracts. He inquired if this whole section, which is part of the Old River Ranch project, has a timing which indicates when the infrastructure will be done in conjunction with the beginning of construction of any of these tracts. Staff replied that the applicant had comments with respect to this question. Mike Petrini with Petrini Bakersfield Ventures and Old River Ranch, stated that Staff came up with a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare District in which when the maps are developed, they can put in the infrastructure and build and when the parcels do come in for development it will pay them back for the money put into the District. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if the project is phased. Mr. Petrini stated that there is phasing and all the maps that have gone in for approval are all in the first phase of the Old River Ranch project and they have not asked for any tract maps in the second, third or fourth phase. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if there are conditions that indicate the phasing of the project. Mr. Petrini responded that not all of the maps listed on there are his tract maps. He pointed out that there are five tracts to the west of Buena Vista Road that are the five that are up for approval tonight. He indicated that all of the other ones are out parcels that existed within the Old River Ranch project area. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the parcels to the north of Berkshire are their tracts. Mr. Petrini responded that one is under development currently (Lenar Homes), and the other four maps are owned by Antongiovanni family. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff if the other maps that are not part of this development have pulled any permits. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that the maps before them currently are contingent on other streets coming to them. Staff responded that they can’t say whether they have approved improvement plans for that portion of Old River Road. Staff indicated that because there are multiple developers, not all under the Old River Ranch umbrella, it is very difficult at any one time to say what needs to go in and what doesn’t need to go in. Staff further indicated that they will be working with the Petrini’s on a continuing basis on this but it would probably be best if there was a phasing Planning Commission – May 17, 2007 Page 3 plan that would be modified as tracts go in. Staff also indicated that the Bridge and Major Thoroughfare District is a methodology for the Petrini’s to get their money back if they are the first ones in and have to put in the gap projects. Staff also pointed out that the Petrini’s expressed their desire not to have gaps in the improvements so that they could work out a phasing plan as the tracts come in and make sure the roads are improved. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they can get a condition on all of the tracts to be consistent with Staff’s comments. Staff responded that they can add a condition that they will work with the Public Works Department to develop a phasing plan for major improvements. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would be more comfortable with a condition providing for the infrastructure. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant to point out the arterials and collectors that would be covered by the thoroughfare district. Mr. Petrini indicated that the arterials that would be included are a balance of Panama Lane, Buena Vista Road, Old River Road and Taft Highway, with McCutchen through the middle. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the stated arterial improvements will be completed as part of the special district. Mr. Petrini responded in the affirmative, and further confirming that they will be working with Staff to accomplish the improvements. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7041, agenda item 6.1, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution “A”, and to include the condition that, “the developer shall work with the Public Works Department on a phasing plan to reflect the infrastructure required to be constructed for any tract within the Old River Ranch,” and also incorporating the May 11, 2007 memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7042, agenda item 6.2, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution “A”, and to include the condition that, “the developer shall work with the Public Works Department on a phasing plan to reflect the infrastructure required to be constructed for any tract within the Old River Ranch,” and also incorporating the May 11, 2007 memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7042, agenda item 6.2, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution “A”, and to include the condition that, “the developer shall work with the Public Works Department on a phasing plan to reflect the infrastructure required to be constructed for any tract within the Old River Ranch,” and also incorporating the May 11, 2007 memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None. Planning Commission – May 17, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7043, agenda item 6.3, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution “A”, and to include the condition that, “the developer shall work with the Public Works Department on a phasing plan to reflect the infrastructure required to be constructed for any tract within the Old River Ranch,” and also incorporating the May 11, 2007 memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7044, agenda item 6.4, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution “A”, and to include the condition that, “the developer shall work with the Public Works Department on a phasing plan to reflect the infrastructure required to be constructed for any tract within the Old River Ranch,” and also incorporating the May 11, 2007 memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7045, agenda item 6.5, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution “A”, and to include the condition that, “the developer shall work with the Public Works Department on a phasing plan to reflect the infrastructure required to be constructed for any tract within the Old River Ranch,” and also incorporating the May 11, 2007 memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None. 6.6 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6283 (Delmarter and Deifel) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Jeff Fahme stated that there has been a lot of graffiti already in the neighborhood, and they are worried about the high density residential so near the school. He stated that his builder recently told him that it was disclosed that this area was going to be high density, however he does not recall this. He stated that the area around Norris Road, Coffee and Allen Road has no high density development and it makes him wonder. Dean Hendersen agreed with Mr. Fahme and stated that he is opposed to condos as well. He commented that he does not think there is room for a six lane road next to the high school and elementary school on Stine Road. He said there already is a safety issue with tenants parking on the road and getting the kids to the elementary school. He stated that the home values will go down with condos being built there. Mr. Hendersen also commented that traffic is already a concern for him. He stated that he thinks the vandalism will increase in this area. He also stated that both Berkshire Elementary and Panama Elementary schools are overcrowded and they are currently busing children out, and adding additional condo units is going to add to the already existing overcrowding problem. Mr. Hendersen stated that any renting that goes on in the project will eventually lead to the project becoming run down as there is no pride in ownership. He also stated that if there are six lanes there will be safety issues with elementary children crossing those six lanes to go to school. Planning Commission – May 17, 2007 Page 5 Gregg Sinner stated that he lives south of the proposed tract. He commented that the traffic is going to be a safety issue for the school children. He stated that he manages rental properties on Laybro(??) and he invests in his rental properties to keep the clientele up. However, he pointed out that other property management companies do not do this. He commented that he has reported drug dealings to the Police Department but they can’t respond or help with all of the criminal activity because they are overtaxed. He also commented that the police department is too busy to come and break up drunken fights on the street. He stated that there is a high population density on Laybro and this proposed project is another high density population project next to a high school. Eugene Defoya stated he is a resident in the area and he would prefer homes in the area. He stated that one of the homes had a car drive through the garage and into a bedroom on the day the new owners were receiving the keys to the home. He further stated that there is not a lot of policing in the neighborhood and on the weekends there are street cars doing donuts in the middle of the intersections. He also pointed out that there are no crossing guards for the children crossing the streets. Michelle Delalkazar stated that she went around to some of the neighbors and 100% of the people all signed a petition stating that they did not want apartment buildings or condos going in because they are families with children. She stated that it is not a safe place to be, and is not supervised well by the police department. She stated with the two schools there will be an increase in traffic. Jim Delmarter, the civil engineer on the project representing the owner, SWMF Development, stated that he understands the concerns from the speakers. He pointed to Mr. Movius’ comments regarding indicating that this project is basically a completed project except for building the apartments they were proposing to build. Mr. Delmarter pointed out that the improvement plans have been approved by the City and signed, the site has been graded, the water plans and sewer plans have been signed and are ready for the installation of the facilities. He also pointed out that the street plans are in for signature. Mr. Delmarter pointed out that all they are talking about doing is converting the property to a two lot subdivision to allow those apartments that are going to be built to be made into condos. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis asked Dave Weirather from the Fire Department if the decreased street width within the project has been reviewed, to which Mr. Weirather stated that they have reviewed it and approved it. He further commented that the emergency access meets the standards. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if McKee Road would be developed to the west, to which Staff responded that the applicant would be developing the frontage of McKee Road, pointing out that she does not recall if it includes the sump frontage but from the canal over it is improved by another set of subdivision plans. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if McKee Road is going to end at this individual’s property, to which Staff responded in the negative. Mr. Delmarter added that the south half of McKee Road has been built all the way from Stine over to Mountain Ridge which is where the arrow is now. He stated that the north half of McKee has been built from the west end of this property over to Mountain Ridge. He stated that this property will finish the north half of McKee so that there will be a full width for the entire half mile. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he has empathy with the public’s comments, but perhaps they are painting this applicant with the wrong brush, pointing out that the applicant’s intention is not to put apartments, but to put condos, which in a lot of respects, except for the fact that the lot sizes are smaller and they probably don’t own the lots, they are no different than the residences. He also pointed out that the graffiti and criminal activity in the area is not this applicant’s problem. Commissioner McGinnis further pointed out that the applicant’s decision to build condos is a better alternative for the area. In conclusion he stated that he is in favor of the project. Planning Commission – May 17, 2007 Page 6 Commissioner Tragish clarified that condos are an ownership of property. He also pointed out that there is going to be crime wherever you go in the city. He pointed out that this zoning has been in place since before the tracts, in which the people live in, came into effect and therefore should have known, or had a reason to know, that there was R2 zoning across the street. Commissioner Tragish also stated that converting them to condos is an acknowledgement of some of the concerns raised. He also pointed out that Staff amply pointed out that there is more than ample arterials and collectors going through this neighborhood and it is a low density neighborhood which is a big factor when looking at the traffic patterns and calculate what type of traffic there will be. He stated with regard to Ridgeview High School and the teenage issues, there are going to be a lot of teenagers congregating near these areas and you have to expect that you are going to have certain issues. He pointed out that the condos have nothing to do with the high school and have not brought all of the alleged problems to this area. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that the applicant has rights as well and the only way the Planning Commission can deny this particular tract map is if it in some way is not in compliance with the General Plan and this project is consistent with the General Plan. He stated that he thinks it is a lower use than apartments. He also pointed out that if the project was not physically suitable for the type of development being proposed the Planning Commission could deny the project. However, he believes that physically the project is suitable. Commissioner Tragish stated that an applicant for condos also has to follow the rules and regulations of the Department of Real Estate and doing condos is substantially more expensive for a developer than apartments. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that if the residents don’t believe they are getting sufficient police protection the residents need to call their city councilperson and ask for help. Commissioner Tragish stated that he supports this project. Commissioner Johnson thanked the residents who came out to speak. He stated that by right the applicant can build 178 apartments and the applicant is cutting it down by 32 units, which is about a 17% reduction in tenants, which is a benefit to the neighborhood as the density is going to be lower than what is allowed. Commissioner Johnson also commented that with respect to policing contacting the local city councilperson is the right step to get assistance with those concerns. He asked Staff to explain how policing is funded with new development. Staff responded that policing comes out of the general fund and would come from the tax revenue collected from the condos. Commissioner Johnson commented that the condo owners will be owners and usually can’t be rented out and the association is going to want to make sure that there is maintenance, etc., which all is a benefit to the residents in the area. He also referenced conditions 27 and 28 regarding the walls indicating that a chain link fence will be adjacent to the school and condition 27 which reads that it will have a 6’ high masonry wall and condition 28 which reads that the PC can require walls based on findings that is necessary for orderly development. He asked Staff to articulate where the walls are going to go. Staff responded that the wall requirement is for the north portion of the property that is right up against the school site, pointing out that there is a chain link fence higher than 6’ and that there would be an additional wall. Staff pointed out that there was some misnumbering and the reason they required things was also numbered as a condition, and therefore, condition number 28 should not have its own number. Staff indicated that there will be a 6’ wall along the north property line and that there is no requirement for a wall along the eastern or southern boundary because in this case there are no double frontage lots. Commissioner Johnson said with respect to graffiti the biggest target is probably going to be the wall that faces the school, and the odds of folks doing graffiti on a wall next to a school are probably a lot lower than a wall that’s a little further away from the school. He also suggested going to the school and talking with them to see if they’ll do a mural project or wall climbing plants to deter the graffiti issues. Commissioner Johnson commented on the traffic concerns pointing out that the applicant will have to pay into the regional traffic impact fee, and do work to improve certain intersections and roadways that are affected by the project, which is a benefit to the neighborhood for the overall circulation within the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson stated that on conditions 15 and 16 they are duplicative conditions and one of the conditions should be deleted. Planning Commission – May 17, 2007 Page 7 Commissioner Tkac stated his concerns are the same as some of the citizens and recommended that the residents go through their councilperson and police department to address their concerns. He commented that it might be interesting to have the crime statistics for areas. He recommended that the concerned residents get with the builder/developer to see if they can put lighting to deter crime, etc. Commissioner Tkac stated that the 2010 plan is followed by the PC and is put together by neighborhoods getting together and saying this is what they what and where. Commissioner Tkac inquired if ingress and egress will potentially be off of McKee. Staff responded that they don’t know how many entrances there will be until the site plan review. However, staff pointed out that McKee is a collector and there is a street off of McKee which will provide much access to the interior. Commissioner McGinnis commented that Panama Elementary School is south of this project and is in the county. He inquired if Staff could address any plans on how it will accommodate the widening of Stine Road as it intersects Taft Highway. Staff responded that they have no information at this time. Commissioner McGinnis further inquired of Mr. Delmarter about the overcrowded schools and with this project being condos what the distinction is between single family, multi-family and condos as far as developer fees. Mr. Delmarter commented that he thinks they pay by the square foot but does not know if there is a different formula for multi-family as opposed to single family. He pointed out that these issues are dealt with by the builder who comes in after he has worked with the developers to create the project. Commissioner Tragish stated that a big difference between the apartments and the condos is that apartments don’t have homeowner’s association whereas condos do and the significance is that they have to have a “body of law” which they call CC&R’s and they have a governing group which is the homeowner’s association which has a board. He pointed out that the Board’s job is to “police” the premises to make sure that some of the complaints and concerns are addressed internally by the homeowner’s association. He also pointed out that some associations have rules that you cannot rent. Commissioner Tragish commented that from the tentative map he has seen he does not believe there is access off of Stine Road, which provides a buffer. Commissioner McGinnis commented about the north border of the project where there is a proposed 6’ block wall, an existing 10’ chain link fence, inquired if the block wall is the responsibility of the developer and the chain link being the property of the school. Staff confirmed in the affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if it would be out of order as a matter of inquiry for the privacy of the owners of the condos to have the 10’ chain link fence slated. Staff responded that they can’t control anything the school district does however they could ask the developer to ask the school district. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve revised tentative tract 6283 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution and incorporating a memo from Marian Shaw dated May 14, 2007. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None. 8. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Planning Commission – May 17, 2007 Page 8 Commissioner Johnson extended a welcome to the new commissioners. Commissioner Tkac welcomed the new commissioners. Commissioner Stanley thanked the PC for welcoming them. Commissioner Blockley welcomed back the new commissioners. 10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director June 25, 2007