Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-06-07 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting – December 6, 2007 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac Absent: Commissioner Andrews 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for regular Planning commission meeting of November 1, 2007. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the Consent Calendar Non-Public Hearing Item 4.1a. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time -- Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10522 (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2b Approval of Extension of Time – Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6181 (Jay Orman) 4.2c Approval of Extension of Time – Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6297 (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2d Approval of Extension of Time – Vesting Tentative Map 6338 (KB Home) 4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11740 (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2f Approval to Refer Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6760 back to Staff (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2g Approval of Tentative Tract Map 7106 (Project Engineering Group) 4.2h Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7123 (Regal Development) It was noted for the record that Commissioner Tkac joined the Commission at 5:35 pm. The public hearing is opened. No one from the audience or the Commission requested removal of any item from the consent calendar. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley excused himself from voting on 4.2a to avoid any potential or appearance of conflict. Planning Commission - December 6, 2007 Page 2 Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Andrews 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – Vesting Tentative Parcel Map/Vesting Tentative Tract Maps/Tract Maps 5.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11740 (McIntosh & Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 5.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6760 (McIntosh & Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 5.3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7027 – Optional Design Subdivision (Rick Engineering) The public hearing is opened. Commissioner Blockley indicated that he listened to the disc of the previous meeting and is prepared to act. Staff report given. David Clark stated that he lives at 13700 Rafael Ave., which is southeast overlooking the proposed tentative tract map. He stated that he just heard about the project in the Bakersfield Californian and was not noticed. He stated that his concerns are with the grading plan and the aesthetics. He commented that the grading plan is a typical flat grading plan concept which emphasizes the maximum number of buildable lots. Mr. Clark requested a continuance, which would allow the property owners on the adjacent hillsides the opportunity to look over the tentative tract map and make comments. He stated, in his opinion, as it stands right now the tentative tract map is not consistent with the Hillside Development Plan. He also stated that he would like to see the developer push back lots 18-24, on the southern boundary, which are approximately 100 ft. from his property boundary and less than 100 feet from adjacent neighbors. He pointed out that he would like the neighbors to work with the developer to come up with a grading plan that would best fit this area. Mr. Clark further stated that his second concern is conceptual landscaping plan. He referenced page 2 of the Staff report where the conceptual plan emphasizes views from the development up to the hillside and pointed out that most conceptual visual plans also look from the hillside down into the development. He stated that he would like the opportunity to work with the developer to come up with a conceptual plan that the people on the adjacent hillside could actually look at. Mr. Clark stated that he is concerned that the typical flat parcels that the developer is advocating is really a cut and slash. Mr. Clark reiterated that he would like to request a continuance so he can have an opportunity to work with the developers in coming up with a grading plan that adjacent hillside property owners could agree with and be able to work out an aesthetic plan with a compatible palette that would work for the Hillside Development. He concluded by stating that as it stands now, the plan is not consistent with the Hillside Ordinance. Mark Tate, the project manager for McMillan Companies, stated that they believe that this project will raise the standards of hillside development. He stated that studies showed that they could have yielded more than 50 lots on this site, but instead they decreased the density down to 36 lots, while preserving nearly 2/3 of the site as landscaped and natural open space. Planning Commission - December 6, 2007 Page 3 Martin Florez reviewed the project site as they see it. He pointed out that their project is surrounded by projects that are already developed or are in the midst of getting developed. He stated that this is one of the few projects that is under the Hillside Development zone and they understand the basic four principles, including maintaining views, minimizing development on slopes, preserving open space and adding to existing trail systems, as well as minimizing erosion and water quality. Martin Florez pointed out that they scaled down the lot quantities to preserve the natural topography, as well as designed streets that were compatible to the lots to promote a walkable neighborhood, which minimized grading through the site. He stated that all of the slopes are graded and planted as well as irrigated, with drought tolerate plants. He commented that the houses are sprinklered. Mr. Florez stated that they use contour grading which looks at rounding off the slopes rather than cutting them at obtuse angles, which gives slopes an unnatural look. He pointed out that this technique also maintains landform and ridgelines, as well as minimizes disruption of the natural drainage channels, which again helps with the proposed planting. Mr. Florez commented that they think they are going above and beyond, pointing out that the benefit is not only internal, but is also a regional benefit, including preserved reservation, double park dedication, enhanced landscaping and maintaining natural characteristics of the site, while increasing plant densities, as well as the use of ornamental grasses and natural shrubs so there is no unnatural look as the plants start to establish themselves. He pointed out that they are maintaining consistency with the natural landscaping along the Alfred Harrell Highway corridor. He went on to state that they are enhancing the trail systems by connecting to the Specific Parks and Trail Plan. Mark Moody discussed the landscape items. He pointed out that along the southern boundary they are planting beyond the graded slope area some additional trees to help screen fence lines that extend down the ridge of the slope. He indicated that the homes above are approximately 90 feet the contour grade and those trees will be oak trees, which are approximately a 50 or 60 ft. tree. He pointed out that these trees should not block the view out and will help screen views to the homes below from the houses above. He also stated that the shrub and tree planting are oaks and Sycamore, which will be used at the lower portion of the slopes which would be indicative of a natural situation where the slopes come down and they get more water and transition into a Sycamore woodland. He stated that up higher on the slopes they are proposing Oak trees. Mr. Moody stated that the landscape palette is low fuel volume with the grassland type of landscaping and trees and minimizing the number of shrubs planted. He pointed that this creates a good separation between canopies and the ground to avoid canopy fires in the trees and the spreading of fires to structures. Mr. Moody pointed out that at project entries and at important view points on the site there will be enhanced landscaping using more ornamental grasses, increasing the intensity of the shrub planting, however all of the shrubs and grasses will be in keeping with the native character of the site. Mr. Moody stated that they are proposing a compacted DG or stabilized DG surface, which is somewhat of an all-weather surface and supplemental landscape boulders to enhance the trail and create a higher quality experience on the trails. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Johnson addressed Mr. Clark’s letter, referencing the kit fox. He inquired of Staff if it is standard procedure to do a BIOTA report and a tailgate session to look for species of this nature. Staff responded they have done the BIO report and the recommendations in the report are the tailgate session and preconstruction survey. Staff further stated that there is adequate oversight to ensure that this has been mitigated and is protocol in the Habitat Conservation Plan. Planning Commission - December 6, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner Johnson referred to the screening issues referred to by Mr. Clark, stating that it has been adequately shown by the applicant that they are going to put some trees in to screen and block the views. He inquired about the difference between “cut and slash” and contour grading. Staff responded that their recollection is that “cut and slash” is regarding timber harvesting and not actual grading. Staff explained that contour grading is what is required under the Hillside Development Ordinance where you round off the edges of the hills and incorporate a natural type feature such as undulations and differences of slopes around the pads and edges of the development to soften the appearance and make it look more natural. Commissioner Johnson commented that he thinks the applicant’s presentation clearly represents the contour grading. With regard to the comment that this project is not in compliance with the Hillside Development, he inquired of Staff if this project was out of compliance if Staff’s recommendation would be to approve. Staff responded that the applicant is asking for a deviation from the Hillside Development in that they are encroaching into a protection area. However, Staff pointed out that they worked with this applicant early on to look at this specific issue and although they have a few lots encroaching in that area, Staff felt that they were receiving some benefits to the project as the applicant has gone over. Staff pointed out that the applicant is narrowing the streets to conserve grading, the lots are not overly large and the applicant will be asking the Board of Zoning Adjustment for reduced set backs to fit some homes. Staff also pointed out that the applicant has done some additional trail augments. Staff stated they feel that the deviations are warranted from the Hillside Ordinance. Staff also pointed out that in the conditions of approval, where old Walker Pass Road intersects Alfred Harrell Highway, there will eventually be an interchange, which is another view shed impact coming in the future and these people are being notified of that, therefore the view from Alfred Harrell Highway of this subdivision will be hampered by that eventual grade separation. Staff concluded by commenting that Staff does feel that the intent of the Hillside Ordinance has been met by this applicant. Commissioner Johnson stated that he concurs that it is in line with the Hillside Ordinance. Commissioner Johnson stated that he did meet with the applicant on this issue and he thinks this is an example of how the Hillside Ordinance can be put to good work. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if Mr. Weirather, from the Fire Department, had reviewed the landscape designs and various plantings, to which Mr. Weirather responded in the affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if Mr. Weirather was comfortable with what is being proposed from a fire standpoint. Mr. Weirather stated that there are provisions for fire safety and they will have continuing monitoring as the project develops. Commission McGinnis inquired as to the plantings and irrigation and Mr. Moody responded that all proposed landscaping on the project for all of the manufactured slope areas will be irrigated and all of the additional trees that will be planted will have irrigation. Mr. Moody pointed out that their goal is that by using the Oak and Sycamore trees, and planting them where they will be planted, they will be able to use the irrigation to establish those trees and then wean them off the irrigation waters so that they can grow naturally. With respect to the newly planted grassland areas, they will all be fully irrigated. Commissioner McGinnis inquired who would be financing the maintenance of the landscaping. Staff confirmed that it would be done through the Homeowners Association. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if there will be any policing of these areas that aren’t within the project themselves, to which Staff responded that they have to get a formal landscape plan approved by the Recreation and Parks because there will be a transition between the City and the developer. Commissioner McGinnis stated that the Tuscany illustration is one of the worst situations. The applicant’s representative stated that it is not what they are proposing because they are not running fences up the slopes. Commissioner Tragish stated that he met with Mr. Cal Rossi and the project manager. He explained that no project is perfect and every project has to be weighed carefully. He then inquired of Staff as to the language that discusses a waiver-type exception to the Hillside Ordinance. Staff responded that the language reads that where it can be demonstrated that the imposition of the Planning Commission - December 6, 2007 Page 5 standards in this ordinance would render an existing parcel of land unbuildable, or create a loss of all economic use, or where the development exhibits innovation and/or exceptional community benefits which cannot be realized through the imposition of the standards contained in the ordinance, development consistent with the General Plan may be allowed subject to the following provisions. One of the provisions, which this applicant is using, is that they can file an optional design subdivision to gain that exception. Commissioner Tragish clarified that there are some aspects of this project on first impression that may not be in compliance with the Hillside Ordinance, however they have been able to satisfy that exception to allow them to be able to pass the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance. Staff stated that they believe that the benefits that the applicant is providing to the community, as well as the specific location of this project, justify the exemption, which basically allows them to put those six lots within that one protection area. Commissioner Tragish referenced Mr. Clark’s request to have the applicant come back with a grading plan that better emphasized contour grading and context sensitive design and inquired of Staff if this has already been satisfied by this particular application. Staff responded that they do believe it has been satisfied. Commissioner Tragish inquired if a grading plan has been prepared for this tract. Staff responded that the applicant did provide a grading plan, as well as geotechnical reports. Staff responded that the applicant’s plan does meet the requirements and they did specifically look, as was shown in applicant’s presentation, at the contour grading effect in variation slopes. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that 2/3, or 23 acres, of this project is already open space. He also commented that the views down the slope where the fences are is a convoluted view for the people that want to build this project. He commented that Mr. Clark is actually up higher and in a more “superior position,” and therefore is not credible as being a reason to continue the project. Commissioner Tragish referenced Mr. Clark’s request to work with the developer and inquired of Staff if there was any type of ordinances that control the type of aesthetic treatments that would be done to these homes in the applicant’s area. Staff responded that there is nothing that regulates the color of the roofs or roof types, except what’s regulated under the fire suppression requirements. Commissioner Tragish stated he is not sure what the “appropriate” aesthetics is supposed to be appropriate to. He feels like Mr. Clark is requesting them to over manage this particular applicant’s project on a pretty subjective basis. With respect to the discussion of planting native plants, he would like to see how many people actually plant native plants in that area. He also pointed out to Mr. Clark that the applicant wants to reduce the center line radius for local streets, specifically to minimize the grading impact on existing topography, as well as reduce the curb to curb distance in the project to minimize the grading impact on the topography and reduce one of the corner lots to minimize the grading impacts. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that they are doing contour grading and have taken efforts to do things that will minimize the impact of any grading. Commissioner Tragish stated that he likes the project and will probably approve it. Commissioner Stanley stated that he met with the applicant and most of his concerns have already been addressed by fellow commissioners. Commissioner Tkac stated that he is absolutely going to vote for this project. He inquired as to the references made to flat versus contour and where they are going to set the houses. Staff responded that the applicant has minimized the areas by grading just the pad locations themselves where they are not oversized and not running the lot lines to the middle of slopes. Commissioner Tkac inquired if the valley down below is owned by anybody necessarily. Staff responded that it is all owned by somebody, with some dedication requirements on the project to the north on Rivers Edge, along the river and some other areas out there. Planning Commission - December 6, 2007 Page 6 Commissioner Blockley stated that if Mr. Clark had something new to add to the discussion he would entertain his comments. Mr. Clark stated that he was not noticed of the development. He stated that his use of “slash and burn” was to make a point that when they typically grade an area they will grade it all the way through, then they’ll start building up artificial slopes, which is called contour grading. He stated if they are going to use creative use of vegetation he does not have a problem with that. Mr. Clark also stated that when they grade this are, they are actually covering up a natural drainage where he has seen kit foxes. He would like to see the natural drainage area protected. He pointed out that the drainage area is approximately 15-20’ deep and there is not vegetation there, although it has been used by wildlife. He stated he doesn’t have any opposition to the grading plan. With respect to aesthetics, Mr. Clark stated he was trying to get the rooftops to blend into the natural area. He said the applicant’s proposal sounds nice and is very green, but it doesn’t fit into the natural area of that portion of Bakersfield. Commissioner Blockley stated he has a general sense of the soil characteristic out in this area, and asked the applicant to address the amount of remedial soil work that is required by the geotechnical report. Mr. Garith Mills, with Laten & Association, the geotechnical consultants for the project, stated they did prepare a geotechnical report where they drilled in a number of locations and sampled, tested and analyzed the alluvium that is on the site, as well as the bedrock that underlies the slope that descends from lots 18-24 on the south side of the property. Mr. Mills stated that they did stability analyses of the slope that descends on the south side of the property, and found that the factors of safety of the hillside exceed the City’s minimum standards. Commissioner Blockley inquired as to the amount of over excavation and recompaction that is required. Mr. Mills responded that they have to remove a limited amount of the loose alluvium on soils that are on the site to provide a compacted base on which the houses will be built. He explained that typically in some of the loose areas that will be at three feet of the compacted fill underneath the footings of the residences. He said that in other areas it will be one foot depending on the area that the grading occurs in. Commissioner Blockley stated in comparison to a 30-acre development, if there is more or less excavation with this current project, to which Mr. Mills responded it is difficult to answer this question, however it is very typical for a hillside development and flat land development such as this is. Commissioner Blockley stated his other concern was with the trails at Alfred Harrell Highway, and stated that maybe that will be looked at later. He stated that he is in favor of the project. He also pointed out that he did meet with the applicant. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve vesting tentative tract map 7027 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, incorporating the memos dated December 3, 2007 from Planning and Public Works. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Andrews 5.4 Tentative Tract Map 7106 (Project Engineering Group) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7123 (Regal Development) Heard on Consent Calendar. Planning Commission - December 6, 2007 Page 7 6. PUBLIC HEARING – Approval of Amendment to the text of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, relating to use of electronic message displays, pole banners, and pennants and to clarification of sign setbacks. The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in favor or against Staff’s recommendation. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac inquired as to the City’s position on advertising balloons. Staff responded that they currently allow advertising balloons for a special event through application of a permit which runs for a 15-day period and they will be increasing the number of events, because it is one of the issues that came up through the automobile dealerships. Staff further pointed out that there is a number of days total for the calendar year which is tracked by Building. Commissioner Tkac inquired if a foreign language is allowed, to which Staff responded it is permissible because they cannot regulate the type of language other than obscenities which is already regulated. Commissioner Tkac inquired if the County’s ordinances are similar to the City’s. Staff responded that they looked at the County ordinances and pointed out that the County does allow electronic boards more than the City’s current ordinance, however there is a restriction on how often the message can change. Staff responded that they are very interested in the City’s changes. Commissioner Tkac inquired if any of the billboards are City owned, to which Staff responded that they are not aware that the City owns any billboards and none of the billboards are on City property. Commissioner Tkac asked for clarification of a pylon sign. Staff responded that a pylon is a pole sign which is either on one or two poles, or structures, and it is open in the middle from the ground up to a height of 8’ above grade. Staff pointed out that a monument sign is to be a solid smaller sign that is limited in area and height, which currently is 32 sq. ft. and the height is 8’ maximum. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the sign ordinance makes any distinction between two different sorts of pole banners. Staff responded that it does not, pointing out that as soon as you allow a type of sign you need to keep the content neutral, which is the struggle with the automobile dealerships, because you have to treat everyone else in the same zone district equally. Commissioner Blockley stated that he thinks some consideration needs to take place as to the spacing of the signs. Staff commented that the way the ordinance is written, these types of signs can only be put on light poles and usually a parking lot does not have too much of a proliferation of a light pole. He pointed out that the change in the ordinance will be somewhat self regulating because of the fact that the parking lot will not have that many light poles in it to begin with and it would be somewhat cost prohibitive to add light poles just to hang a banner. Commissioner Johnson asked for the justification for using 5 acres or more for pylon signs, as opposed to some other number. Staff explained that, while it was somewhat arbitrary, they tried to balance the 5 acres with the architectural standards for large shopping centers at 50,000 sq. ft., and found that 5 acres was generally representative for this size shopping center. Staff used the Kern Schools Federal C.U. on Panama Lane as an example of a corner site that will not house a tenant of 50,000 sq. ft. but has over 5 acres and the appropriate setbacks to allow for the signage. Commissioner Johnson inquired if there is a corner center that has separate parcels at 3 acres and 2 acres each, but shared internal circulation in terms parking, if it would qualify for the signage because they share internal circulation. Staff responded yes, because the definition of a shopping center states that it could be either one or multiple parcels and if they have a common theme to the architecture, which would include the internal circulation, they would be eligible for the signage under the ordinance. Staff clarified that they have to go to the site and see what is going on with the signage and in some cases they have to remove something. Commissioner Johnson inquired currently how many monument signs are allowed on street frontage. Staff responded if the frontage is available there can be up to four and the code says that one of those four could have an electronic reader board. Staff pointed out that where there is not enough frontage to have more than one sign, then the only sign would be that one. Commissioner Johnson referenced the pennants and streamers and the limited use to property zoned C- 2 or M, where these are the only two zones where automobile dealerships and outdoor sales areas are allowed by right. He inquired about those properties where there is an outdoor sales area where the Planning Commission - December 6, 2007 Page 8 zoning is not consistent, but they have a CUP allowing them to have a car dealership. Staff responded that anything that is old, like on Oak Street, the code as written would not allow them to be able to have it because it is based on the zone district, however under a CUP it could be requested. Staff indicated that some of the old ones may have to come back and ask for that consideration. Commissioner Johnson inquired if it wouldn’t make sense to go ahead and add CUP to grandfather in those under the old ordinance. Staff responded that the banners and pennants which are currently up are prohibited and that dealerships that are under a CUP and have banners up are in violation of current ordinance and arguably in violation of their CUP. Some dealerships under CUP have severe restrictions about how large their sales area can be and where it can be located. Staff pointed out that it is prohibited now and they can’t just go back and change the CUP, unless the applicant wanted to under separate application. Commissioner Johnson referenced the allowance of pennants and streamers for special event, and inquired if they would be subject to the same rules of the 45-60 days as the special event signs would be. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson also inquired if an established business would be able to obtain a special event permit even though they don’t have an outside sales area, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to recommend the adoption of the attached Resolution with all findings approving the proposed ordinance, amendments and recommendations, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Andrews 7. COMMUNICATIONS: th Staff stated that the December 20 meeting is a general plan cycle so there will be a pre-meeting on th Monday, December 17 and will provide notification of this. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Johnson inquired when the Ad Hoc committee will be. Staff responded that it will be th December 19. 9. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director December 26, 2007