Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/04/99 AGENDA MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION . OF-THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday - March 4, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL ALTERNATE: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TA VORN RON SPRAGUE NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, c/o Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $330 non- refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $330 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdraWn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, Thursday -March 4, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 1) Zone chan[le P98-0940 (City of Bakersfield) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held January 4 and January 7, 1999. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW DECISION (Martin-Mclntosh) Appeal by Kathy Neufeld of the Development Services Director's decision to approve a Negative Declaration for a site plan review (File No. P98-0684) of a 484-unit multiple family residential projectl The appeal specifically concerns traffic impacts of the project and that the effects are significant requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (focused on traffic impacts) located at 1901 Gosford Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Deny appeal Group vote PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1 Vestin~l Tentative Tract 5937 (Dandy & Associates) Located on the southwest corner of Hosking Avenue and Akers Road, consisting of 26 lots on 7.5 acres zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and a waiver of mineral rights owner's signature pursuant to BMC Section 16.20.060 B.1. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote 6.2 Revised Vestin~l Tentative Tract Map 5667 (Simpson Lusich VanCuren) Located on the northeast corner of Campus Park Drive and Mountain Vista Drive, consisting of 95 lots for single family residential and one church lot on 24.9 acres on property zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and a waiver of mineral rights owner's signature pursuant to BMC Section 16.20.060 B.1. (Negative Declaration on file) Agenda, PC, Thursday - March 4, 1999 Page 3 10. Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARINGS -ZONE CHANGES 7.1) Zone Change P98-0940 (City of Bakersfield) 7.2) Located on the east side of Quantico Avenue, approximately 300 feet north of Texas Street, consisting of a change in zone from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) on 0.68 acres (29,604.44 square feet) adjusting the zone line to recognize the existing limited multiple family development. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Roll call vote. Approve Located on the northwest corner of Campus Park Drive and Almaden Drive' consisting of a change in zone from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to R-1 CH (One Family Dwelling-Church). (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote. WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN- VESTING TT 5921 (P99-0086) (Porter-Robertson) ' Located on the west side of Calloway Drive, and south of Noriega Road requesting deviation from landscape policies adopted by the Planning Commission. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Deny Group vote COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees Zone Change P99-0011 (Simpson Lusich VanCuren) Agenda, PC, Thursday - March 4, 1999 Page 4 11. 12. March 1, 1999 DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT Held Thursday March 4, 1999 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California ¸-0 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN ' RON SPRAGUE, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: ANDREW THOMSON, Deputy City Attorney RUSS COMBS, Building Official MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Tkac read the Notice of Right to Appeal Commissioner Tavorn stated that he did not attend the Monday pre-meeting but that he had listened to the tape and would be taking part in tonight's meeting. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 4, 1999 Page 2 .._A motions.was made. by Commissioner_ Brady, seconded by Commissioner_Sprague to move Item 6.1, Vesting Tentative Tract 5937, to the Consent Agenda. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) Zone Change P98-0940 (City of Bakersfield) 3.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 5937 (Dandy & Associates) A motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Kemper to approve the consent agenda items. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held January 4 and January 7, 1999. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW DECISION (Martin-Mclntosh) Staff report was given recommending denial of the appeal. The public hearing portion of this item was opened. Kathy Neufeld, a resident in the area, spoke opposing the project due to her concerns about traffic problems at the corner of Ming and Gosford. Her major concern was the location of the main entrance on Gosford which is only 800 feet frorfl the intersection at Ming Avenue. Ms. Neufeld mentioned that no other apartment complex on Gosford had an entrance on Gosford. She feels that an entrance on a side street would cause less traffic problems via an access read near the Cambridge Apartments. Jeff Prude, a neighbor and resident in the area, expressed his concern over the traffic impacts of such a large apartment complex. He lives on Dumfries Court in the Laurelglen subdivision, one lot from Gosford. One of his concerns was the location of the entrance to the complex. He feels a traffic light so close to the one already there on Ming Avenue and Gosford would cause traffic congestion. Also, the increased noise pollution from an added traffic light would give little peace and quiet. He requested a serious examination be made of the potential to move the entrance to a new side street to avoid the problems he has described. Kenneth Hersh spoke regarding the traffic issue. He also feels that the entrance on Gosford is too close to the intersection. Also, the Ming Avenue entrance is too close to the library. He felt it would be hazardous for people trying to enter and leave either place. Mr. Hersh also feels the deceleration lane on Gosford is too close to the Ming Avenue intersection. Mr. Hersh recommended that this project be subject to an EIR or be sent back for more study. Minutes~ PC, Thursday, March 4, 1999 Page 3 ..... RogerAIred, a.resident on the corner of Ming and Gosford, spoke about the.danger of the intersection. Mr. Aired feels the intersection is already dangerous and feels that it will be more so with the apartment complex on the corner. David Lewis spoke in opposition about the entrance to the complex on Ming Avenue. He feels it should be an exit only as it might create a back up of traffic on Ming with people trying to enter through a gate on Ming Avenue. Chairman Tkac asked for those who wish to speak in favor of the staff report. Roger Mclntosh gave a history of the property. He stated that this property has always been zoned R-2. At one time the Marketplace Shopping Center was planned for that corner but due to the objections of the Southwest Community Action Committee, the project was withdrawn. Mr. Mclntosh produced a copy of a recorded document (CC&R's) that Castle and Cooke and the Southwest Community Action Committee agreed to in 1996 during the Vesting Map hearing. This document states that Castle and Castle would agree to preserve and mitigate the noise, traffic and visual buffering when a project was developed which Castle & Cooke has complied. He requested that the appeal be denied. Greg Yaley, a resident of Haggin Oaks Village, spoke in favor of the project. Castle and Cooke has worked with the residents to come up with some solutions to problems the residents thought were going to occur with this project. Synchronization of the lights should only make a minimal amount of extra danger. Betsy Teeter, representing Castle & Cooke, stated that Castle & Cooke's intent is to create a wonderful community where people can enjoy living and be a part of the overall planned community of Seven Oaks and the Marketplace. The community includes a number of items that will be beneficial to the community. It will be an infill project. An extensive study and review has been done concerning this project and all of the issues. Castle & Cooke has agreed to a number of items to help appease the situation. Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director, whose decision is being appealed, stated that the issue here tonight is whether or not the traffic was evaluated correctly. Mr. Hardisty stated that his background includes formal training in traffic engineering and transportation planning. He was the Regional Transportation Planning Director for Kings County for two years. He has worked on problems like this for 27 years. Mr. Hardisty stated that on this project he worked with Steve Walker, City of Bakersfield Traffic Engineer who has been the Traffic Engineer for the last 12 years. Mr. Hardisty stated that he feels that Mr. Walker is very well qualified. Mr. Hardisty stated that it is belief that traffic from this project will not cause a significant impact. This is based on the traffic study prepared in accordance with directions from the Traffic Engineer using CalTrans criteria and Kern Council of Governments model. The Traffic Engineer assured Mr. Hardisty at the hearing that he reviewed the study and based on his evaluation and the conditions of approval that there would not be a significant impact resulting from approval of this project. The project included all part and parcel of the improvements that go along with it. - Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 4, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Hardisty then went into a discussion about individual traffic problems that have been brought 'up by opponents to explain his position. Kenneth Hersh asked about a traffic light at the intersection of the read coming out on Gosford. He wanted to make sure that it was included. He also had a concern that the wall is awfully close to the curb. He explained why he feels a collector road at the rear of the property is needed. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady felt that the applicant has done everything possible to try to solve the same issues. He felt that no new issues have been brought up.and nothing was presented tonight to change the engineering studies. He stated that the applicant should be applauded for the efforts it has made to go into the community and address the concerns of the nearby residents. He felt that the appeal must fail. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw how many trips per day is estimated for apartments? Ms. Shaw responded by saying 7. Commissioner Boyle stated that meant there are 3,500 trips a day in and out of the complex. He also asked if there is an estimate on traffic in the peak times (morning and afternoon)? Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, said on Page 8 of the Traffic Study it is noted that there would be 3,104 trips per day projected and during the morning peak hour there would be 241 trips with a split of 24% in and 76% out. The evening peak hour had a split of 64% in and 36% out. Out of these trips 76% of them would be people exiting out of the Gosford entrance. Commissioner Boyle stated that based on the information heard this evening that no evidence had been put on the record on the appeal that a traffic impact is so substantial that an Environmental Impact Report is required. Commissioner Dhanens asked if it was on record that this is a private, gated community? Mr. Grady said yes it is. Commissioner Dhanens stated his concerns about the driveway length entering into the project that it would enable cars to stack up as they pull in off of Ming and/or Gosford Road. He asked if that should be included in the_conditions of approval in the Site Plan Review. Mr. Grady responded by telling Commissioner Dhanens that thesite plan is part of the approval. The length of the throat that is on the site plan design is part of the approval and would have to be submitted as it appears on the plan. Commissioner Dhanens stated that based on what he heard this evening and the testimony presented that he also concurs with staff's recommendation to deny the appeal. Commissioner Tavorn asked how we could allow an entrance in a southern part of the city but we don't in the northern part of the city such as north on Gosford when it turns into Rosedale Highway. Mr. Walker stated that that is two separate locations. In the northern area there is a collector west of the site. Here in the southern location there is no collector. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 4, 1999 Page 5 Commissioner Tavorn mentioned that the level of service for traffic in the area is a D but the 2010 Plan says it should 'be a C. Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer for the City of Bakersfield, stated that the condition is that if it is less than C, it would not be degraded any further. Commissioner Tavorn then asked how we could add 3,100 trips a day and not lower the traffic standards at that intersection. Jack Hardisty said to answer that question, it was no. In answer to Mr. Tavorn's first question, the circumstances for the two projects are very different. The RiverLakes Specific Plan specifically precluded access to Gosford Road from that apartment complex and directed it toward the collector street that was designed to serve it and by way of an agreement with the neighbors across the street, there was not to be a driveway onto Coffee from that complex. That was approved in hearings before the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council. On this piece of property, the driveway on Gosford was approved in a hearing before the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council. Commissioner Sprague commented that because there are only two streets that allows access because of the adjacent canal, the only thing to do is deny the appeal. Commissioner Brady proposed to change Public Works Condition No. E-7 concerning the location of the entrance per Commissioner's Dhanens request. He suggested to eliminate a portion of the last sentence. Strike a portion of the sentence that reads "if sufficient off-site dedication of right-of-way is not available or the entrance is too close to provide adequate separation from the drive approach to the library" to make it read "this entrance shall be moved east to a location approximately 620 feet west of Gosford Road with the final location subject to the Traffic Engineer." He asked staff if that was acceptable. It was. A motion was made by Commissioner Brady and seconded by Commissioner Kemper to adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal with the change to Condition No. E- 7 as stated. Motion carried. A two minute recess was called. PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1 Vestin~l Tentative Tract 5937 (Dandy & Associates) Approved as consent agenda item. 6.2 Revised Vestin~l Tentative Tract Map 5667 (Simpson Lusich VanCuren) Staff report was given. Staff is recommending approval of the tract map with the condition that requires realigning the property lines. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 4, 1999 Page 6 Bob Lusich, representing the developer and owner of the project, spoke in favor of the project. A revised tract map was done to create the Church site. Their goal is to be able to develop the 95 lots. They agree with the conditions of approval with the exception of Planning Department Condition 3 which requests a redesign to eliminate the non-radial lot lines. In the Commission's packet there should be an Exhibit C which is the original request that they made concerning the non-radial lot lines. They feel that using non-radial lot lines along the streets will provide superior lot design. Historically, in the design of subdivisions, whenever you have curvilinear element to the subdivision, you end up with some problems fitting them around the curbs and they are typically referred to as dog lots. Those lots are hard to build on. When he originally worked on the map, he saw that Jerry VanCuren had designed these lots specially to try to eliminate the problems associated with radial lot lines and the creation of lots that are more difficult and less appealing to fit homes on. Mr. Lusich also had a problem along the cul-de-sacs in the center part of the subdivision along Pinnacle. Mr. Lusich showed a diagram of the lot lines between Lots 21 and 22. They hope to improve Lot 22 by increasing its side and rear yard area so that the additional area that is typical in cul-de-sacs may be part of Lot 22 and make it a more desirable lot. Lastly, Mr. Lusich had a problem with the entrance to the subdivision along Morningstar Drive between the residential portion of the project and the church site. What they are trying to do is get away from the linear look when you enter the subdivision. The design of the lots would allow them to stagger the homes at different depths to get away from the linear look of a subdivision and make it more attractive. Mr. Lusich ended with a request to delete Planning Condition 3 and the following finding be made: The applicant has demonstrated that non-radial lot lines as provided in this design are consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked what the circumference width of the cul-de-sac's that are being proposed? Mr. Lusich responded by saying the radius of the cul-de-sac's bulb at the property line is 50 feet in conformance with the city standard. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Grady if that was sufficient for the lots that are laid out in the cul-de-sac for traffic coming out of those driveways in peak hours? Ms. Shaw said that the cul-de-sac layout is a standard and they allow up to a 600 foot long cul-de-sac. Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Lee why the City is opposed to the non-linear lot lines? Mr. Lee responded by saying the city is opposed to the lot lines because the ordinance prohibits it. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 4, 1999 Page 7 Commiss oner Kemper then asked Mr. Grady if the.Commission were allowed to make an exception to the ordinance? Mr. Grady said that the Commission would have to make a finding that there is something unique about the site that is not allowing this applicant to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Grady said there is nothing physically out there that would prohibit this subdivision meeting the ordinance requirements. The problem with the non-radial lots for this project and the type of structure he wants to place on there is because everything is designed to a minimum. If the depth of the lots were deeper, you would be able to accommodate the design standards. Commissioner Boyle asked staff what was trying to be achieved by having-the ordinance require perpendicular lot lines? Mr. Grady said that it gives a consistent measurement for determining setbacks. It also gives standard setbacks on all the sides of a house. A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle and seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve the Revised Tentative Tract 5667 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" including the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated March 1, 1999. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGES 7.1) Zone Chan,qe P98-0940 (City of Bakersfield) See consent agenda. 7.2) Zone Change P99-0011 (Simpson Lusich VanCuren) Staff report was given recommending approval with one condition contained in resolution. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Robert Lusich representing the owner and developer of the project spoke in favor of the project. They are in agreement with the condition recommended by Planning staff for the site plan to be reviewed in regards to parking. Public portion of the meeting was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Brady and seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Zone Change No. P99-0011 with findings as set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 4, 1999 Page 8 am ........ T, he.motion.was ,carried by thefollowing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac NOES: None WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN- VESTING TT 5921 ~P99-0086) (Porter-Robertson) Commissioner Dhanens declared a conflict of interest on this project. Staff report was given. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the need for an increase of 25% texture along the wall. The applicant asked for approval with about 5% texture made up of the cap and the pilasters every 60 feet. Staff recommended denial of that because of minimal tree spacing and minimal spacing on pilasters. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Kyle Carter showed the Commission some photographs of examples of walls that have been approved in the past which have less ornamentation that what they are proposing. He is requesting to paint the wall rather than use stucco. Mr. Carter is requesting pilasters every 60 feet with a manufactured cap that matches the pilaster called ElDorado stone. In between the pilasters and below the cap they want to provide two coats of paint. One with a block filler and one with the color which would provide a maintenance free wall that would be free of stains. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Kemper asked staff about the walls that were approved in the past and the difference between those and this project. Mr. Movius said that stucco was approved basically when Seven Oaks was being built. He said the pictures speak for themselves but the circumstances of their approval were different in many cases. It would require a research project to state exactly why they were approved which there is not time for tonight. Commissioner Kemper said that the proposal is an attractive looking wall and if the Commission can make sure there is enough planters and groups of trees a compromise could be made. Commissioner Brady asked what the wall treatments were for in the adjoining areas. Mr. Carter said that the project is surrounded on two sides by county but further along it was split-faced concrete block wall. Commissioner Brady thought the wall looked nice in the drawings and asked Mr. Carter if as a condition of approving the request if he would be willing to agree to increase the tree planting. Mr. Carter said that he would be willing to add an additional 20% in the landscaping to make up the landscaping. Mr. Doyle from the Parks Department said that that would be acceptable as long as the Planning Department concurs. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 4, 1999 Page 9 = 10. Commissioner; Boyle asked what the existing landsqape, requirements.we.r, ea,n, d what. , would a 20% increase mean? Jim Movius responded to the question of existing landscaping requirement by stating that 25% of the area should be in ground cover and a tree requirement that there will be one tree every 35 lineal feet. He also stated that the approach to the intersection does look really nice but the issue that Planning has is that there is a lot of linear wall away from the intersection that is going to be plain with the amount of tree landscaping present. Commissioner Boyle also asked staff if paint is an easier surface to clean? Mr. Doyle from the Parks Department said that the major concern is graffiti and perhaps Mr. Carter could tell us as to whether or not the paint was graffiti resistant and whether it would be easier to remove graffiti on the proposed paint as opposed to stucco. Mr. Carter said that it has been their experience that whenever graffiti is on a block wall it had to be repainted whether painted or stucco. Commissioner Boyle said that he would be willing to compromise if they could come up with a definite tree requirement, instead of just a 20% increase. He would propose if the applicant agreed, a tree every 25 feet. Mr. Carter said he would agree to that. A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle and seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to make findings as set forth in the attached resolution and approve the request in the attached resolution Exhibit A to be modified to include tree landscaping every 25 feet on center instead of 35 feet and the choice of paints will be subject to approval by the Public Works Department. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS There was a written memorandum from Jake Wager, ED/CD Department concerning a workshop for the redevelopment plan scheduled for the March 18, 1999, meeting. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Grady if its possible to extend Extension of Times for two years instead of one? Mr. Grady responded by saying that there are legal limitations on granting extensions of time. Commissioner Boyle requested a presentation from staff about the goal of the ordinance concerning perpendicular lot lines. Commissioner Dhanens asked how an appeal could be filed easily without some supporting documentation as to what their position would be. He also mentioned the issue of having the representative who is the applicant for a project, also act as Traffic Engineer for that same project? He asked Public Works to put something in writing as to whether they can support the continuing of that or whether some recommendations should be made to change that. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 4, 1999 Page 10 11. 12. April 6, 1999 DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. The next hearing will include the General Plan Amendment cycle, so a pre-meeting was scheduled for March 15, 1999. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary