Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/00 AGENDA 'REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF T-HE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council. Chamber, City Hall Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL NOTE: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice-Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TI(AC Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A firiar agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. 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 interested person adversely affected by the decision of the Commission. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. The appeal shall include the appellant's interest in or relationship to the subject property, the decision or action appealed and shall state specific facts and reasons why the appellant believes the decision or action of the Commission should not be upheld. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 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 $334 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 If all appeals are Withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 - November 16, 2000 Page 2 3.. 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. 3.1) Agenda Item 4) - Approval of minutes for October 2 & 5, 2000. 3.2) Agenda Item 6.2) - Continuance of Vesting TT 6017 (Porter-Robertson) 3.3) Agenda Item 8.1) - Administrative Review - PCD Zone Change P00-0236 (Ming and Canter Way). 3.4) Agenda. Item 8.2) - Administrative Review - PCD Zone Change P99-0919 (Stockdale and Buena Vista). 3.5) Agenda Item 9.1) - Consistency Finding - Acquisition of parcel. 3.6) Agenda Item 9.2) - Consistency Finding - Acquisition of 40.44 acres. (Ward 6 ) o (Ward 4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held October 2 and 5, 2000. PUBLIC HEARING - Revised Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10465 (Mclntosh & Associates) Containing 29 lots on 148.77 acres for industrial uses, zoned M-2 (General Manufacturing); located at the southwest corner of Pacheco Road and Gosford Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Map-~ 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6013 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 187 buildable lots, two sump lots, and one lot for a water well on 84.75 gross acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); located on the north side of Hageman Road and the west side of Knudsen Drive, about ~ mile east of Fruitvale Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from October 5, 2000 and October 19, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - November 16, 2000 Page (Ward 4) (Ward 4 ) (Ward 4 ) 6.2) 6.3) 6.4) Vesting Tentative Tract 6017 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 47 lots on 7.56 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling); including a request for reduced lot area, non-radial and non-perpendicular lot lines, approval of vehicular access, double frontage lots separated from a local street with a masonry wall, and private gated streets with alternate street design improvements; generally located between Northshore Drive and Coffee Road, approximately 500 feet south of Olive Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Continue to December 7, 2000 Group vote Vestinq Tentative Tract 601R (Porter-Robertson) Containing 57 lots on 9.48 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling); including a request for reduced lot area, non-radial and non-perpendicular lot lines, double frontage lots separated from a local street with a masonry wall, approval of vehicular access, and private gated streets with alternate street design improvements; located between Southshore Drive and Coffee Road, approXimately 1,200 feet north of Hageman Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve .Group vote Vesting Tentative Tract 602~ (Porter-Roberts0n) Containing 112 lots on 47.3 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) including a request for double frontage lots separated from a local street with a masonry wall, reverse corner lots and non- radial and non-perpendicular lot lines; located on the northeast corner of Olive Drive and Calloway Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote (Ward 4 ) PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Chanqe P00-0723 (Marino Associates) Zone Change from a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) on a 4.05 acre portion of a 15.5 acre parcel of record. The applicant proposes to extend the existing Derrel's Mini Storage business onto the subject site.' Specifically, the applicant proposes to utilize the 4.02 acre site as an RV storage area. The applicant indicates that the site will accommodate about 200 recreational vehicles, 100 of which will be covered with portable carports. This project represents the final phase of site development. Located on the west side of Calloway Drive between Meacham Road and Rosedale Highway. (Negative Declaration on file) Agenda, PC, Thursday - November 16, 2000 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Roll Call Vote Approve (Wards 2 & 5) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS 8.1) Report from the Planning Director on PCD (Planned Commercial Development) Preliminary Development Plan Modification. The report documents the Director's approval of a minor Modification to PCD Preliminary Development Plan for PCD Zone Change P00-0236; located south of Ming Avenue, between Canter Way and Rain Tree Court. (Pursuant to BMC Section 17.54.100 D) (Categorically Exempt) RECOMMENDATION: Accept Report as Filed. Group Vote. (Ward 4 ) 8.2) Report from the Planning Director on PCD (Planned Commercial Development) I Preliminary Development Plan Modification for PCD Zone Change P99-0919 (River Oaks Shopping Center) located at the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road, requesting various minor site plan revisions to address conditions of approval or design requests of prospective tenants. (Pursuant to BMC Section 17.54.100 D) (Categorically Exempt) RECOMMENDATION: Accept Report as Filed. Group Vote. (Ward 2) (Ward ,~) GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 9.1) General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of a parcel by the City at the southeast corner of 14th and P Streets. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding Group Vote. 9.2) General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of 40.44 acres by the City along the north side of Stockdale Highway, north of the Cross Valley Canal. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding Group Vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday - November 16, 2000 Page 5 10. 11. 12. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF NEXT PRE-MEETING. 13. ADJOURNMENT November 9, 2000 Planning Director/ . / Held November 16, 2000 5:30 p.m, City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Assistant City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal Commissioners Boyle, Brady and Sprague stated they did not attend Monday's pre- meeting but listened to a copy of the tape from the meeting and were prepared to participate in tonight's meeting. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) 3.2) Agenda Item 4) - Approval of minutes for October 2, 5 & 19, 2000. Agenda Item 6.2) - Continuance of Vesting TT 6017 (Porter Robertson) Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Parle 2 3.3) 3.4) 3.5) 3.6) Agenda Item 8.1) - Administrative Review - PCD Zone Change P00-0236 (Ming and Canter Way). Agenda Item 8.2) - Administrative Review - PCD Zone Change P99-0919 (Stockdale and Buena Vista). Agenda Item 9.1) - Consistency Finding - Acquisition of parcel. Agenda Item 9.2) - Consistency Finding - Acquisition of 40.44 acres. A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held October 2, October 5 and October 19, 2000. See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARING - Revised Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10465 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 6) Staff report given recommending approval with findings and conditions attached to the resolution along with a memorandum from Public Works and one from Stanley Grady of the Planning Department. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle and Cooke CA, said that he concurred with the two memorandums from Ms. Shaw and Mr. Grady. He did have a couple of details he wanted to address in addition to the memos. The first one was condition No. 2 which calls for a dedication and construction of right turn lanes on Gosford Road at the two common access points mentioned in condition No. 1. He stated that they don't know at this time whether they are going to utilize the two access points and rather than "have to" put them in they would like the ability to put them in but if they don't put them in then they don't want to have to put in deceleration lanes. He proposed the wording "dedicate and if access points are utilized, construct right turn lanes on Gosford Road at those common access points." The second issue he wanted to discuss was condition No. 3.4.1. The condition stated the following shall occur with Phase D: "construct Young Street full width to Pacheco Road." Mr. Mclntosh stated that they propose they would construct Young Street to the phase boundary and install a secondary access road to the end of the street. Phase E and F would be the same until they get to Pacheco Road. The distance from the phase boundary to Pacheco is a little over 1/4 mile and the cost to build the road is a little over $300,000. They would prefer to put in a secondary access road over to Progress Road which is in use today and as the phases are recorded the vacation of Progress would systematically and orderly develop the area so that secondary access over to Progress Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Page 3 Road would continue. Mr. Mclntosh stated that he talked to Ms. Shaw and Mr. Shapazian about this condition and as far as he knows, it is o.k. with them. The last item he wanted to address was condition No. 6. The condition states "prior to recordation of the first map to be recorded, the subdivider shall request vacation of Progress Road and pay the fee..." Mr. Mclntosh said that on the first tentative map that was approved, this condition was not placed on the map that was already approved and as he understands it, the condition requires the subdivider to vacate all of Progress Road and in this particular area, there is a problem with the fact that the subdivider does not own all of Progress Road. The centerline of Progress Road is about 10 feet off of the boundary line and there is a small strip of land that is not owned by this subdivider and that Progress Road goes into their property about 20 feet. As it goes to the north of parcel three of Phase F, it tapers down to zero. The vacation of Progress Road in its entirety to be adopted prior to the first parcel map abutting Progress Road may be difficult. They have no guarantee that the adjacent property owner won't protest or file some kind of action that would prevent them from vacating that portion of Progress Road that is outside the blue border of the boundary of the property. Their proposal would be to request the vacation of Progress Road but not be held up for recordation of the maps and phases subject to an adjacent property owner having a problem with vacation. When the subsequent phases get recorded, it would facilitate the Progress Road vacation on the property that is being subdivided and if the adjacent property owner has a problem with it, then he is going to have to deal with that. They would rather not be 'subject to the complete vacation of Progress Road and tie the recordation of those phases. He would like to strike the last sentence which says, "the Council resolution ordering the vacation shall be adopted prior to recordation of the first parcel map abutting Progress Road." With those changes, Mr."Mclntosh asked for the Commission's approval and stated he is available to answer any questions they may have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kemper asked staff their opinion about the three changes that Mr. Mclntosh recommended. Ms. Shaw stated that with regards to Item No. 2, Public Works is in agreement with Mr. Mclntosh's recommendation. On condition 3.4.1, they are in agreement with his recommendation for that condition and with regards to condition No. 6, the vacation of Progress Road, Ms. Shaw said Mr. Hernandez was o.k. with the proposal. Commissioner Brady asked if a block wall along Gosford Road was required when the project was submitted to them previously? Mr. Grady said "no it was not." Commissioner Brady asked what kind of land uses were allowed in an M-27 He stated that if it were zoned commercial, he would not have a problem with the site not having a block wall but since it is zoned M-2, he feels the property should be screened especially since houses are immediately across the street only 200 feet away. Mr. Grady gave some examples of uses that could go into an industrial zone. Commissioner Brady asked if there were other locations in the city along major arterials where these manufacturing type industries are allowed to have direct access to Gosford as opposed Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Page to having commercial sites? Mr. Grady said the most recent he could recall which hasn't been developed yet is the project on the old North of the River Sanitation District site. They had the same kind of discussion about whether block walls should be put in · on one side. They did not require the block wall but part of the information that the Commission used to base its decision on was that the applicant had deed restricted the property on the north side to just M-1 uses. So, while they could still have some industrial, they could have the commercial as well but there wouldn't be the more intensive industrial. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Mclntosh if they are proposing that the parcels along Gosford will have direct access to Gosford like a commercial center? Mr. Mclntosh said that the conditions as they are setup have two access points. He demonstrated their location on the overhead.' They would have to waive all direct access for the rest of the way along Gosford so there wouldn't be other opportunity for access on Gosford Road. Commissioner Brady asked staff if they were indicating, based of their recommendation, that the Commission could not require a block wall along Gosford for these parcels? Mr. Grady said staff has struggled with the same concern. In looking for some basis for placing the condition on the project, they were using a section in the code under improvements that gives staff some discretion to apply conditions that are really not appropriate for this kind of project. The way the Commission could get there is through the Commission's police powers and exercising those powers by putting the condition on the project to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The problem is that staff could not identify what was so unique about this property and its proximity to Silver Creek than any other property that is in the city that is zoned Industrial and has residential across the street from it. Some of it has developed, fortunately, as commercial. White Lane is an example of that. Commissioner Brady said that his concern is that south of this project on Panama, there is some industrial uses, and no houses could be put in the area because of noise and everything else. His concern is that if they are putting the type of industries that are allowed in an M-2 zone directly across the street from housing, they should do everything they can to attenuate noise and other problems and typically they have used six foot block walls for that purpose. Mr. Grady said that in the sequence of events that leads them to a point of looking at a parcel map, the event that zoned the property in its proximity to the residential would have been the time to address the noise issue. Staff is limited to what they can apply to a parcel map to those rules and regulations that are on the book at the time the Planning Department takes the map in and deem it to be complete. Therefore, unless there is some new information that suggests that there will be some noise sources generated on this project site that is not typical where we would find this relationship somewhere else, without some new information that would give us the ability through the environmental process to waive that as an issue which we would not be able to act on the map tonight (as we are now saying there is some significant environmental information that was not evaluated as part of the project) we could then take that environmental information and go through the steps necessary to identify appropriate mitigation and that may lead to a wall or may not lead to a wall. Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Page 5 Commissioner Brady said he wouldn't have a problem with the type of industrial uses that are located on District but he wouldn't want a blast furnace or something else without a block wall. Commissioner Brady said he was unclear about using Progress Road as secondary access when we are eliminating Progress Road. How do you eliminate a road and also use it for secondary access? Ms. Shaw said that Progress Road would be vacated per phase. There are four phases adjacent to Progress Road. As each phase is completed, that portion of Progress Road would be vacated. Jim Shapazian, Fire Marshal, said that the Fire Department has no problem with it being secondary access as long as the road is maintained. Commissioner Brady asked how wide Progress Road is? Mr. Mclntosh said it was about 24 feet. Ms. Shaw said according to the map that was submitted it looks to be about 20 to 22 feet wide. Commissioner Boyle said he agrees with Mr. Brady. If this were a commercial site fronting Gosford Road, he wouldn't have the same concern. But with M-2 and no ability to know what is going in there, he does have a concern. He thinks it would be an appropriate use of their police powers to require a block wall. He thinks it could be worded to give the developer flexibility not to build the wall if he wants to use the property along Gosford. With the proximity to the residential neighborhoods to the west and to the north, there would be high probability that there would be pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk on the west side of Gosford and to the extent that you have people walking up and down the street and with manufacturing right there children and other people could be at risk. He said he would support making a finding under police powers that it is necessary for health and safety. Commissioner Sprague asked the Traffic Engineer about the access points and also staff if they wanted additional access would they come back to the Planning Commission for them? Ms. Shaw said they are filing a waiver of vehicular access. If they want additional access points along Gosford Road, they have to come before the Planning' Commission for a 65402 finding. Commissioner Sprague asked if Mr. Walker saw any traffic hazards? Mr. Walker said the spacing of the access points is within reasonable spacing for this type of use. They will be building out to full width when they develop along the road so it will be a six lane road eventually. This is nothing unusual, very typical, and they agree with the restrictions by focusing on the locations at two specific points rather than having a hodgepodge of access points every couple hundred feet. Commissioner Sprague asked if Mr. Walker saw a problem with a wall being installed as far as direct line access? Mr. Walker said that any wall would have to comply with city ordinance regarding line of sight for vehicular visibility. Commissioner Sprague said he would support Commissioners Boyle and Brady regarding the block wall. Commissioner Kemper asked staff if they had come up with a compromise such as Commissioner Boyle's idea regarding the wall and M-2, could it be written up so that it could be at the discretion of the Planning Director depending upon the proposed building? Mr. Grady clarified Commissioner Kemper's meaning by restating that if a property owner proposes a use that is in an M-1 zone we are saying that a block wall Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Page 6 would not be required but if it proposes an M-2 use, it would be required? Commissioner Kemper said "yes" that is correct. Mr. Grady asked Commissioner Kemper what finding she would make to set that in motion? Commissioner Kemper said that is what she is asking staff. Mr. Grady said staff is suggesting that through their deliberations the Commission might come up with a finding that would meet the test of health, safety and welfare and then apply the condition. Commissioner Kemper said that she is not personally in favor of the wall unless it is for extreme heavy industrial use. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Mclntosh to clarify how this area is to be developed? Mr. Mclntosh demonstrated on the overhead that the parcels that front on Gosford Road are the smaller parcels, the parcels on the west side of Cunningham are larger parcels and they have planned for a spur line to come down through the larger parcels to give them rail service. The smaller parcels are probably going to be more of the use that you see to the north of Pacheco along the opposite side of Gosford Road. The smaller parcels may be used for contracting yards, small users, and small manufacturing. Commissioner Dhanens said he would not support a block wall being added to the project. He feels comfortable with the way the parcel map is laid out. Commissioner Brady said that Gosford is the main roadway for the Silver Creek development. There is a lot a pedestrian and bicycle traffic now and he feels once the development is built there would be a lot of pedestrian and bicycle traffic accessing the sidewalk and if there are chemicals or something right on Gosford, he feels uncomfortable without some separation. On Ashe and District there is a chemical company with a block wall that separates their yard from the sidewalk and Commissioner Brady said if they are going to put a heavy industrial M-2 type use on Gosford, he feels that there is a potential health problem with children and other pedestrians having sidewalk access immediately adjacent to it.. Commissioner Brady feels there needs to be a block wall there. Commissioner Sprague asked if in this case they could say that if the five frontage parcels are developed under a commercial use that no block wall would be required but if they were developed under an M-2 use as designated by the Planning Director, then a block wall would be required from a health, safety and welfare issue? Mr. Hernandez said that they have been struggling with this issue trying to find an avenue to accommodate the same concern that they have. Mr. Hernandez said that there is no ordinance on the books that would require a condition of approval on this particular map requiring a block wall. Title 17 for instance says that where there is a manufacturing use constructed next to a residential use, you'require a block wall, but in this case you have a separation of an arterial and another block wall where the residential is so that will not come into play. If the Commission feels that there are concerns that have not yet been articulated, staff feels that they could require some type of noise study or a health and safety study that would allow them, under CEQA, require it as a mitigation measure that this block wall be required as a condition of approval of this project. At this time we don't have any such mitigation requirement that would support, under CEQA, requiring the applicant to place the wall along Gosford. Minutes, PC, November t6, 2000 Page 7 Commissioner Sprague asked that if under health, safety and welfare, an M-2 user were in there and created a nuisance in noise and dust and hazardous situationS, wouldn't that trigger something in that area so that the Commission could require the block wall? Mr. Hernandez said that if the Commission has that type of evidence then under CEQ^, you could require it as a mitigation measure. Commissioner Sprague said he supports the project but still wants to require the block wall. Commissioner Boyle confirmed with Mr. Hernandez that he understands there is no ordinance requiring the block wall but it is his understanding that the Commission could require it under "police powers." Mr. Hernandez said that is correct. Commissioner Boyle said that three Commissioners stated their belief that there is sufficient evidence in terms of having public access on the sidewalk immediately adjacent to a potential M-2 usage that creates a possible health and safety issue and this health and safety issue is aggravated by the fact that you have a large residential development immediately to the north with a large community park and that you have another large residential development immediately to the east which means you would have a higher volume than you would normally expect of pedestrian traffic in front of this M-2 zone. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Hernandez if that is a sufficient finding by the Commission to allow them to invoke their police powers? Mr. Hernandez said Commissioner Boyle has articulated some good reasons to support a finding to require the block wall. But that they would like to bolster the Commission's findings by additional analysis that is done by staff. If the Commission would like for staff to do some further analysis, they would be more than willing to do so. Commissioner Boyle asked if staff would like to continue this until the next meeting? Mr. Hernandez said "yes." Mr. Mclntosh suggested that this could be addressed with a CEQA document at site plan review. At that point each of the uses of each of the parcels along Gosford Road could be looked at. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Mclntosh which would be the lesser of two evils, the block wall or a downgrading of the zoning on the front parcels on Gosford Road? Mr. Mclntosh said that he is not in a position to commit one way or the other. His client is not there tonight but he would be able to commit to a two week continuance so that maybe they can pursue a better record or he could get back with staff to see which way his client would want to go. Commissioner Brady said that he would also support a continuance but would like staff to comment about addressing the CEQA issues at site plan review? Mr. Grady said there is an environmental review that is part of the site plan review process and the specific use could be looked at at that point in time and make some determination that because of the residential across the street or because of the use that some kind of separation other than the road would be necessary. Commissioner Brady said he supports the project but if a continuance will allow them to deal with the one issue he is willing to support that so that they get the right type of uses along Gosford. MinUtes, PC, November 16, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Boyle said that he wanted to make it clear that they were only talking about a block wall if the actual usage was M-2. They weren't requiring him to choose between a block wall and downgrading. Commissioner Boyle asked if the site plan review stage would be in front of the Planning Commission? Mr. Grady said that it is a noticed public hearing held before the Development Services Director. Commissioner Boyle said that he thinks they would have to build a record as to what their concerns would be and he thinks a continuance is a good idea so that staff can look at both the issue of bolstering their health and safety finding or looking at the opportunity to look at it at site plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to continue this item until December 7, 2000. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6013 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with findings and conditions attached to the resolution and including the memorandum dated November 16 from the Public Works Department. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson, representing the developer, stated that he concurs with the staff report and memorandum from the Public Works Department and is available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Robertson about the portion of the site that would be at the northwest corner of Hageman Road and Knudsen Drive. Mr. Robertson said that they are deleting this area from this application due to an agreement that the developer has with one of the industrial users in the area. They have submitted an application that the Commission will be hearing in the future concerning that piece of property. If the application is not successful, his client will meet with the industrial user and they will come back in and develop this as residential property. Commissioner Boyle asked what exactly they are planning on doing as that might have an impact on how the Commission acts tonight? Mr. Robertson said that Kyle Carter homes has been approached by Amber Chemical and between the two of them they have a verbal agreement based on a specific type of chemical that is utilized by Amber Chemical that the city and the appropriate agencies that reviewed the general plan amendment did not classify as being dangerous, however, the supplier of this chemical has informed this user that if residences are located within a specified distance, they would not provide them with that Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Pa~e 9 6.2) 6.3) chemical. Mr. Carter has verbally agreed to attempt to accommodate them and that agreement is subject to approvals that would be submitted to the City of Bakersfield. Commissioner Boyle asked if this would be turned into commercial property or a park? Mr. Robertson said that currently they have submitted an application to the City Planning Department to convert it to a commercial corner. Commissioner Boyle asked if in the event that this is developed commercial, is there anything they should give thought to about what to do with the lots backing up to it or would that be addressed as part of the commercial project? Mr. Grady said that would be addressed as part of the commercial project. There were no other Commission comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve Tentative Tract 6013 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" and subject to the November 16, 2000, memo from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried. Vesting Tentative Tract 6017 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Commissioner Dhanens said that he had a conflict of interest on Items 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4. See Consent Agenda. Vesting Tentative Tract 6018 (Porter-Robertson) (ward 4 ) Staff report given recommending approval and adoption of the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6018 including the memorandum from Marian Shaw of the Public Works Department. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson, representing the developer, said they have read the staff report and been in contact with the Public Works and Planning Departments regarding their concerns over several of the conditions of approval. Mr. Robertson said that the double frontage lots request is an important issue on this tract. They feel that in the RiverLakes Ranch development South Lake Drive would be considered a main thoroughfare or a collector and there are several developments that feed off of it and they feel that this development warrants double frontage lots in that case. They ask that the Commission support Planning Department's staff and approve double frontage lots for this development. Mr. Robertson said that he received a memorandum from Marian Shaw of the Public Works Department regarding conditions they discussed with her and he concurs with her memorandum but has a few comments to make. In her memo Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Page 10 dated November 16 under No. 2 she struck the condition and added a condition regarding street radii meeting the city standard of 500 feet where possible and the developer may utilize down to 300 foot radii as long as designed such as no parking and construction meet the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Robertson said thatin adding that condition, it would be appropriate he thinks to delete condition numbers 5 and 6 which relates to alignment of the streets. Mr. Robertson asked that condition 7 be amended to read: "The street extending southerly off Via Basso Court shall provide a turnaround subject to approval by the Fire Department and Public Works Department." Mr. Robertson stated that he has discussed this with the Fire and Public Works Departments prior to the hearing this evening. Mr. Robertson said that he was prepared to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Kemper asked Ms. Shaw to comment on Mr. Robertson's requests. Ms. Shaw stated that with regards to condition No. 7 she has no problem with having it reworded as he has stated. Ms. Shaw asked for a moment to go over with the Traffic Engineer the revisions to conditions 5 and 6 that Mr. Robertson requested. Commissioner Kemper said that she is in favor of the double frontage lots in this community. Commissioner Kemper also asked that this issue be agendized to possibly rewrite the ordinance so that the Commission wouldn't have this problem keep reappearing. Commissioner Kemper said that she was in favor of the project. Ms. Shaw said she talked to Mr. Walker and condition No. 5 doesn't really have anything to do with the curvature of the street. It is strictly a site line thing. They have spoke to Mr. Robertson and he is not concerned about it being there now, As far as condition No. 6, with the revision regarding the centerline curve radaii it should not be a problem as they are alloWing them to go to substandard curve radaii. Ms. Shaw said that it could be eliminated. Commissioner Brady asked if Public Works is still opposed to double frontage lots? Ms. Shaw said yes simply because it is a definition. The specific plan for RiverLakes defines North Shore and South Shore as being a collector for a certain distance. It stops short of this particular development. City of Bakersfield standards define major streets strictly as arterial and collector. There is no question that South Shore functions as a collector but it is designated as a local. By the ordinance, it says "major street" and this does not meet the definition of a major street. However, it meets the function of a major street. If the Planning Commission feels it would be appropriate to consider South Shore as a major street as to function, she has no objection to having double frontage lots. Minutes, PC, November 16,. 2000 Page 11 Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Shaw to define "double frontage lots." Ms. Shaw stated that a double frontage lot is a lot that has frontage on two sides (front and back). Access to the front but backing up to a street. Commissioner Brady asked how you would define a front yard from a back yard? Ms. Shaw said that where they allow double frontage lots, they require a wall along arterial and collectors and do not allow the lots fronting the major street to have a driveway. They require a waiver of access which automatically makes the other side the front. Commissioner Brady asked if there was some health or safety concern for not approving the double frontage lots? Ms. Shaw said "no." It was simply a matter of following the ordinance. Commissioner Brady said that under the circumstances he was in favor of approving the project and allow the double frontage lots There were no other Commission comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract 6018 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the inclusion of the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated November 16, 2000 and changing the verbage of condition No. 7 to say: "Via Basso Court to provide a turnaround that Public Works and the Fire Department is agreeable with." Also, delete Condition 6. Motion carried. 6.4) Vesting Tentative Tract 602:~ (Porter-Robertson) (Werd4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions and findings attached to the resolution and include the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated November 16, 2000. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson said that they have received and reviewed the staff report and met with the Planning and Public Works Department to discuss their concerns and are in receipt of a memorandum dated November 16, 2000, from Marian Shaw addressing those concerns and they concur with those. He did have other issues that he wanted to discuss. In this particular application they are requesting double frontage lots along Lake Arthur Drive as you enter the tract from Calloway Drive. It was the developer's opinion in laying out this subdivision that since Lake Arthur Drive will eventually be a main source of access into the northern portion of the golf course, that having lots in this particular area with driveways fronting on Lake Arthur Drive and cars backing out into the street and potentially children playing in the area that double frontage lots is the proper thing to do in this case. He requested the Commission approve their request for double frontage lots. If this is approved, it would require Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Page12 an amendment to condition No. 7 which refers to limited access. He would like add to the condition after ...Olive Drive "and to Lake Arthur Drive." Mr. Robertson said that condition 25 is requiring that they remove a landscape easement at the southeast corner of Lake Arthur Drive and Saquaro Lake Court. The property is outside the boundaries of this map and is owned by the golf course. His client doesn't have the authority to abandon the easement. He said he was available for any questions the Commission might have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked the Fire Marshal if there is proper radaii turning for the fire trucks on the right hand dog leg on Tract 6023 at the area along Calloway and in the cul-de-sacs? Mr. Shapazian said they had reviewed and accepted the design. Commissioner Sprague said he supports the project. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mi'. Robertson about the issue of Lake Arthur Drive and it being a main entrance to the golf course. Mr. Robertson said that in that area of the golf course, Lake Arthur Drive will be one of the main entrances into that area. There could be potentially a significant amount of traffic feeding out to Calloway Drive to the east from the subdivision. Commissioner Brady asked if Public Works had a comment about the request for a change in condition No. 7? He suggested that it should read "...Calloway Drive, Lake Arthur Drive and Olive Drive." Ms. Shaw said that if the Planning Commission approves double frontage lots, it would be appropriate. Commissioner Brady asked what problem Public Works has with double frontage lots on this project? Ms. Shaw said that technically Lake Arthur Drive is a local street and does not meet the definition of a major street. Commissioner Brady said that he is willing to support double frontage lots and the change in condition No. 7. Commissioner Brady asked for a response from staff for the removal of condition No. 25. Mr. Grady said that he has had a conversation with the Parks and Recreation Department and they are in agreement to remove the condition. There were no other Commission comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract 6023 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the following changes: Add to Public Work's condition No. 7 adding a comma after Calloway Drive and inserting the phase Lake Arthur Drive and to eliminate Parks and Recreation condition No. 25 and subject to the changes set forth in the November 16 memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARING -Zone Chanqe P00-0723 (Marino Associates) (Ward4) Staff report given recommending approval with findings and conditions attached to the resolution. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Jim Marino, representing Derrel's Mini-Storage, said that he agrees with the staff report and showed an example on the overhead of the type of fence that they are planning to build. Mr. Marino said that some of the Commissioners had questions about it at Monday's pre-meeting. The only reason for the fence is for screening and security. The type of slats that Derrel's is proposing to use will handle the screening as well as a block wall. Mr. Marino said that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner McGinnis stated for the record that he had talked to Mr. Marino this afternoon. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Marino about the temporary RV storage area on the south side of the project and why would they stucco one part of the fence and chain-link the rest of it? Mr. Marino said that the RV storage is a temporary use in' the future and explained that Phase 3 of the mini-storage facility fence would match the existing fence. The chain-link would be a temporary fence that would tie into Calloway Drive. Commissioner McGinnis said he doesn't have a problem with the landscaping and thinks it is a good project but he could not support it with the chain-link fence the way it is. Mr. Fidler, the Building Director, said that PCD for signage is considered the same as for C-1 and what is allowed there for monument signs is that they are allowed four of them 32 sq.ft, each 50 foot apart, no higher than 8 feet. There is a section in the code that allows the building official to grant, if they get rid of the four monument signs, to have a monument sign of 64 sq.ft, no higher than 15 feet. The proposal the applicant is showing is less than the 15 feet we normally grant but is more than the 64 that is under the code. Mr. Fidler said that it is o.k. if the Commission wants to approve it. Commissioner Brady asked how temporary is temporary as sometimes temporary becomes permanent? Mr. Marino said that that is a good question. If the Calloway partners made an offer tomorrow, they would go into escrow. RV storage is not a very good money maker and it is an interim temporary use. Realistically it could be about 7 years but could be less. Commissioner Brady said he would not support the project with chain-link. Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Page Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Marino how wide the landscaping is along Calloway in front of the proposed chain-link fence? Mr. Marino said it is 35 feet wide. The trees will be 15 gallon trees. Commissioner Kemper asked if it has a waterfall and asked where it is located? Mr. Marino showed her. Commissioner Boyle said that he could not approve a project with a chain-link fence facing an arterial. He has no objections to a chain-link fence along the south side of the property. He would support the project on the condition that a block wall be built facing Calloway on the east side of the property. Commissioner Sprague said that he would not support the project with a chain-link fence and suggested other fences that might work. He also suggested that a continuance be considered so that this problem could be worked out. Mr. Marino said he would agree to a continuance of two weeks. Commissioner Kemper suggested that instead of an expensive block wall we give them the option to put up some sort of solid fence and make it approved at the discretion of the Planning Director. Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Grady if that could be done? Mr. Grady said "yes." Commissioner Dhanens said he would support the project if it had a solid wall. Commissioner Brady said he is not in favor of a continuance. He will agree to a wood with stucco or block wall. He said the vote should be taken tonight. Commissioner McGinnis said that he agrees with Commissioner Brady. There were no other Commission comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve Zone Change P00-0723 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resOlution Exhibit ;'A" and recommend same to City Council with the condition that the applicant provide the fence along Calloway be a solid wall that is acceptable to the Planning Director. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac Dhanens NOES: None ABSENT: None ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS 8.1) Report from the Planning Director on PCD (Planned Commercial Development Zone Change P00-0236) (Wards 2 & 5) See ConsentAgenda. Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Page 8.2) Report from the Planning Director on PCD (Planned Commercial Development Zone Change P99-0919) (Ward4) See Consent Agenda. 10. 11, GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 9.1) General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of a parcel by the City at the southeast corner of 14th and P Streets. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward2) See COnsent Agenda. 9.2) General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of 40.44 acres by the City along the north side of Stockdale Highway, north of the Cross Valley Canal. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS None COMMISSION COMMENT~ Commissioner Kemper said that she would like to form a committee, if needed, to consider correcting the verbage to allow a local street that is functioning as a collector to allow double frontage lots. Mr. Grady said that staff could draft the language for that section to include that and bring it back to the Commission to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to accomplish the change that was discussed tonight. Commissioner Brady said that he is pleased to announce that the Canal Fencing Committee has completed its work and they will be putting out a proposed 'ordinance for the Commission's consideration.. Commissioner Boyle said the Landscaping Committee has another meeting and if anyone has any comments or suggestions to please contact him. Commissioner Sprague said that he attended a meeting last week with property owners along the Comanche Drive area out at Rio Bravo and that Councilmembers Maggard and Couch attended. It was a very successful meeting, very pointed on a specific route along Comanche for a proposed East Beltway and he thinks that now is the time to do it so that there is no development along that area and eventually connecting to a proposed northern beltway. Commissioner Sprague said he thinks now is the time for the Commission and the County Planning Department to consider the East Beltway and the North Beltway so that we do entertain a loop around the city eventually. Minutes, PC, November 16, 2000 Page 16 '12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Due to the size of the agenda, it was decided to hold a pre-meeting on December 4, 2000. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Director [ ~ December 5, 2000