Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/01AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD -Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, May 3, 2001 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL NOTE: STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRADY DA VID GA Y TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC STEPHEN WAGES 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. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW MEMBERS AND APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN 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 TOTHE 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 0r 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. .Agenda, PC, Thursday - May 3, 2001 Page 2 5. 6. (Ward 7) If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. · 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. 4.1) Agenda Item 5) ~ ApProval of Minutes for April 5, 200t 4.2) Agenda Item 6) - EOT for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5362 4.3) Agenda Item 8.3) - Vesting Tentative Tract 6045-continuance to May 17, 2001 4.4) Agenda Item 8.4) - Vesting Tentative Tract 6046-continuance to May 17, 2001 APPROVAL OF MINUTES, ApProval of minutes of the regular meeting held Thursday, April 5~ 2001. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME for Revised Vesting' Tentative Tract 5362 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 204 lots on 50.8 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); located at the southeast corner of Hosking Road and Wible Road. (Negative Declaration on File) RECOMMENDATION: Group Vote. Approve PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Parcel Map 7.1) Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10554 (Delmarter and Deifel) Consisting of 3 parcels on 18.49 acres for purposes of commercial development, zoned C-2 (Regional Commercial); a request to waive certain improvements; and a request to waive signatures of mineral right owners in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060 B. 1 .; located on the northeast corner of Burr Street and Gibson Street. (Categorically Exempt) (Ward 5) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - May 3, 2001 Page 3 7.2) (Ward 4) Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10781 (Mclntosh & Associates) Consisting of 7 parcels on 12 acres for the purpose of commercial development; zoned C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone; located on the northwest corner of Ming Avenue (extended) and Buena Vista Road. (Negative Declaration on File) RECOMMENDATION: Group vote Approve PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 8.1) Tentative Tract 6997 "Optional Design" (Porter-Robertson) Containing 50 lots on 22.31 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) and R-1 HD One-Family Dwelling - Hill side Development Combining). The optional design applies to doublefrontage lots, private streets, reverse corner lots, and block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet; located south easterly of Rio Bravo Golf course and south easterly of Casa Club Drive and Anacapa Drive. (Negative Declaration on File) (Ward 3) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote 8.2) VeSting Tentative Tract 6043 (Phased) (Mclntosh & Associates) Containing 204 lots for single family residential purposes, lot for private recreation facility, 1 lot for public facility purposes, 1 lot for the Kern River Canal, and 1 sump lot on 52.22 acres, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling); a request for alternate street improvements and lot design and size, and waiver of mineral right signatures pursuant to BMC 16.0.060 B.I.; generally located between Ming Avenue (extended) and the Kern River Canal, west of Buena Vista Road. (Negative Declaration on File) (Ward 4) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - May 3, 2001 page4 8.3) (Ward 4 ) 8.4) (wa~ 4) Vesting Tentative Tract 6045 (Mclntosh & Associates) A proposed subdivision containing 32 lots for single family residential pUrposes, and 1 lot for a well site on 13.47 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow for~private streets; and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.I.; generally located % mile west of Buena Vista Road,_ north of White Lane (extended), on the northwest corner of Chamber Blvd. (extended) and future Windermere Street. (Negative Declaration on File) (continued from APril 19, 2001) RECOMMENDATION: Continue to May 17, 2001 Group vote Vesting Tentative Tract 6046 (Mclntosh & Associates) A propOsed subdivision containing 48 lots on 20.83 acres for single family residential purposes, zone R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow maximum block length to exceed 1,000 feet, a reverse corner Iot;.iand waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.I.; generally located % mile west of Buena Vista Road, north of White Lane (extended), on the southwest corner of Chamber Blvd. (extended) and future Windermere Street. (Negative Declaration on File) (continued from April 19, 2001) RECOMMENDATION: Group vote Continue to May 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to the Text of the Zoning Ordinance (City of Bakersfield) regarding landscaping standards (Chapter 17.61). The amendments include changes to standards for trees, shrubs and general landscaping for new developments, including increasing the shading requirement in parking lots from 30% to '40%. (Categorically Exempt) (Citywide) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - Ma}/3, 2001 Pag® S 10. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to the Text of the Zoning Ordinance (City of Bakersfield) regarding wall height and front, side and rear yard setbacks for commercial/industrial developments; parking lot lighting standards; and drive-thru requirements. (Categorically Exempt) - (Citywide ) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote 11. RESCHEDULING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING.DATES'OF JUNE 18TM AND 21sT TO JUNE125TM AND 28TM , 2001. This meeting is for the 2nd General Plan Amendment Cycle of 2001. RECOMMENDATION:' Approve Group Vote 12. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) 'Committees 14. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. 15. April 30. 2001 ADJOURNMENT STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director Held Thursday, May 3, 2001 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue 'Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: STEPHEN BOYLE, Chairperson RON SPRAGUE, Vice Chairperson . MATHEW BRADY DAVID GAY TOM MCGINNIS JEFFREY TKAC Absent: -STEPHEN WAGES ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary Commissioners Brady and Tkac stated they had missed Monday's pre-meeting but listened to a copy of the tape and were prepared to participate in tonight's meeting. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW MEMBERS AND APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN .AND VICE-CHAIRMAN David Gaylwas acknowledge as being a new member of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Boyle was elected Chairman and Commissioner Sprague Vice-Chairman by Unanimous vote. '- *Minutes, PC, May 3,' 2001 Page 2 = PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman BOyle read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 4.1) 4.2) 4.3) 4.4) Agenda Item 5), ApPrOval of Minutes for April 5, 2001 Agenda Item 6) -EOT for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5362 Agenda Item 8.3) -Vesting,Tentative Tract 6045-continuance to May 17, 2001 Agenda Item 8~4) -Vesting Tentative Tract 6046-continuance to May 17, 2001 A request was made from a member of the audience to remove 4.2 (Agenda item 6) from the consent agenda so that he may discuss it. Motion was made by CommiSsioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to -approve the revised consent' agenda items. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES See Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5362 · (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) There was nothing to add from Monday's pre-meeting. Public portion of the hearing was .Opened. Mr. Roger Whitaker, a resident across the street from this tract,' complained that they hav® a real problem with tumbleweeds coming from this vacant property and feels that no extensions should be granted Until the tumbleweed problem is taken care of. Public portion_of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked staff if a person not cleaning up tumbleweedS makes the Commission have a legal right to deny the application? Mr. Hernandez said that this is a code enforcement issue and staff has attempted to deal with this problem but for purposes of extension of time for the tract map, it needs to be a condition that is - dangerous to the health and safety to the citizens of Bakersfield and the Commission would have to weigh whether or not the Commission feels that this is dangerous to the health and safety of the CitiZens. Commissioner Brady said in light of that he would support the extension.' Commissioner Gay.asked if Staff could assist Mr. VVhitaker in helping to control theSe items? Mr. Hernandez said that code enforcement is working on this issue at this time. MinuteS, PC, May 3, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Whitaker said he was contacted by Mr. Turk City code enforcement officer, who told him that if he had tumbleweed problems to call him and they'would, take.care of it: Mr. Whitaker~ saidthat they have had this problem for 10 years and he has called code enforcement and found out that all the owner is required to db is cut a 30-foot fire break around the field. Mr. Whitaker said that doesn't eliminate the tumbleweeds in the middle of the field that keep coming on his property. They have come out recently and cut the 30-foot fire break but he is concerned about fire because it wouldn't take much more than a spark. Commissi°ne~ Brady said that denying the request would not be a solution to the problem and there hasn,t been evidence presented tonight that would justify a denial. There were-no_Commission comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve a two year extension of time for Revised Tentative Tract 5362 to expire March 31, 2003, with-findings set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit A. Motion carried. = PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Parcel Map 7.1) Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10554 (Delmarter and Deifel) (Ward 5) Staff announced that the applicant has requested a continuance Until June 7, 2001, so that the aPplicant will have additional time to discuss Public Works conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against this project. Public Portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commission comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to continue this item until June 7, 2001. Motion carried. 7.2) Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10781 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward4) 'Staff reported that a memo was added to the staff report from Stanley Grady changing the wording of a condition involving the block wall along the commercial property. Public portion of. the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Minutes, PC, May' 3, 2001 Page 4 Roger Mclntosh representing Castle & Cooke CA, Inc., said that he is not familiar with the wording revised by the Planning-Department recommending a change in a condition. He requested it be read to him. Mr. Mclntosh stated the condition was fine'per the memo dated May 2 and he concurs with all the othei' conditions in the staff report and ask for their approval. PUblic portion of the meeting was closed - Commissioner Sprague asked how a' dispute would be handled ifa property owner doesn't want'his fence removed and rebuilt? Staff said that the ordinance reads that' the developer has to construct a block wall. There is.no requirement .that he (adjacent property owner) has to remove hisr wood fence.' . Commissioner Sprague said that a lawsuit could be avoided if the residential buyer knew that the easement was there by disclosure in his deed and 'knew that the-fence would be-removed in 'the future. Mr, Hernandez said~ that the city has a requirement in its-ordinances for local addendum transfer disclosure statements but that is only limited to special assessment liens so we really don't have the authority to require someone to put a disclosure statement on the deed. It becomes a Civil matter between the property owners. What the City is requiring here is that the developer plaCe the block Wall and what we are assuming is the developer place the block wall on the property line and not encroach into someone else's property. It is possible that it. may become a dispute between two property owners but we don't have any requirement in our ordinances that we require such a disclosure. Staff recommends that at this time that no disclosure be stated and we feel that the parcel map would be adequate disclosure to the property owners. Commissioner Spraguesaid that if Mr. Hernandez is satisfied that this is appropriate, then he recommends to go ahead and see if there are any disputes in the future. Commissioner'Gay Said that since Castle and Cooke is the owner on both sides they would probably put the block wall in expediently and not have to duplicate the coSt-of a wood fence and a block wall so he doesn't feel it is quite an issue at this 'time. There were no other Commissioner comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded byCommissioner ~. McGinnis, to approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10781 with the findings and conditions Set forth in attached' resolution Exhibit "A". Motion carried. Minutes, PC, May 3, 2001 Parle 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 8.1) Tentative Tract 5997 "Optional Design" (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 3) Staff reported that a memo was added to the staff report from Stanley Grady, Planning Director, ip response to an issue raised by Commissioner Sprague at the .Monday Pre-meeting. Staff is proposing some additional wording to provide a covenant on the' lots within 250 feet indicating the location of the drill site within the subdivision. Public portion of the meeting waS opened. No one spoke in opposition. RahdyBergquist, with Porter Robertson Engineering) said that.they have reviewed the conditions and are satisfied with all but two of them.' -Item 1 .c. which is a request fOr blocklength in excess of 1,000 feet. He said that because of the:topography they really don't have a lot of other options. He did meet with the Fire Department and they agreed to construct an all-weather road connecting that road with Casa Club just to the north. The length of the road would be about 1,200 feet between :the two intersections. " The secOnd item is Public Works condition number two which they.are · requesting that the requirement for a sidewalk be deleted so the subdivision can be constructed in conformance with surrounding developments in-the area. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner SPrague asked the Fire Marshal what his comments are regarding secondary access and the all-weather road on Miramonte. Mr. Shapazian said they agreed to the extended cul-de-sac due to the size of the lots. and the number of lots on the street. He was told the secondary access would lead them back to Miramonte and he did not have a problem with that. Commissioner Sprague. said ~he can support the application with that and the fact that there are no other sidewalks out there he also Supports deleting the condition requiring sidewalks. CommiSsioner Brady asked staff if they were in agreement to allow them to delete the sidewalks? Ms. Shaw said "no." Commissioner Brady .asked what staff's response is to the applicant's statement that topography prevents them from having a blocklength a 1,000 feet? Ms. Shaw said they can still connect to the tract to the south but it would result in a street that has slope greater than they' Would like to allow. Ms. Shaw said they will not be requiring an additional street to'be punched through to shorten the block length. They are not in opposition to allow the block length to be greater than 1,000 feet. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner SPrague, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to.approve - Tehtative ·Tract Map 5997 Optional Design with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit ".A" subject to the May 1,-2001, from Stanley Grady, MinuteS, PC, May 3, 2001 Page 6 8.2) modifying Public Works condition number 1.c allowing a modificatiOn to Via Bassano to exceed the 1,000 foot maximum block length and modifying Public Works condition number two to deviate from Bakersfield Municipal Code 16.32.060.3 'to allow the sidewalks to be deleted along private streets. Motion carried. ~ .Vesting Tentative Tract 6043 (PhaSed) (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward4) Staff stated that the Commission has receiveda memorandum dated May 3 from _ stanley Grady in resPonse to some issues that came up fi'om the Monday pre- meeting and that staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions and the memorandum dated May 3. -Ms. Shaw said that the concern they have about -*increasing the number of lots is that it is over their 5% traffic degree of error for some of their requirements. Most particularly, secondary access for subdivisions having, more.than 200 lots. Right now, there is a single point of access and two emergency secondary accesses but both of those will be crash gated. The Traffic Engineer and Ms.' Shaw have a concern regarding secondary access for this tract. Public portion, of the meeti_ng was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger-Mclntosh, representing Castle and.Cooke CA, Inc., said. that they have revieWed the staff report and the memo dated May 3 from Stanley Grady and they agree with that, memo and one dated May 3 from the Parks Department. Mr. *'Mclntosh said that he had few items he wanted to address. Mr.*. Mclntosh said that regarding condition 4.2, he spoke with Ms. Shaw about ' the construction of Ming Avenue from its existing terminus to 'the westerly tract boundary. The applicant would like it triggered with the first final map west of Grand Island Boulevard to be recorded They will probably start at Grand Island and work their way to .the east. Ms. Shaw said that provided they will have accesSto the sump.when it is constructed, she is amenable to the change. Mr. Mclntosh said that they also wanted to discuss secondary access issue. With-the change in the alignment of the pipelines, it may afford them to add up to 15 more lots on the:final map. This will be an age restricted community and the traffic-and the trip rates generated are significantly less. He showed the Commission some figures, on trip generation for retirement communities. They feel that the equivalent traffic will be reduced and they request that the threshold being 'at 200 'dwelling units be approved with the single access. Mr. Mclntosh said they were in agreement with the rest Of the conditions of a ppr°val. public portion of the meeting was closed. Minutes, PC, Ma}, 3~ 2001 -Steve. Walker, Traffic Engineer, said that with regards to age'restricted housing, the City has-no guarantee that that is what it would be Unless a PUD was done on the property. Mr. Walker said that with respect to .the National Transportation Engineer's charts, that Mr. Mclntosh referred to, the iri~ormation he has-is not comparable to the charts Mr. Walker has: One for retirement' community is "occupied dwelling units." The other for single family homes is referring to "rate per person" Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Walker if he sees it as a health and safety issue as far as traffic is concerned if the subdivision contains 215 homes and knowing senior citizens are living there and it has only one access for ingress and egress? Mr. Walker said it is not a matter of a safety issue as a complaint 'issue. There is another development like that on Old River Road'and the traffic department gets many complaints from the people who live there. - :~ Commissioner Sprague asked if there is a possibility that they could take the street to the east and require another gated entrance? Mr. Walker said that type . .of a location (Pound Hills Way) appears to be separated from other streets. It would be adequate to have an access point with right turn.in, right turn out and ' even possibly left turn in and out. Mr. Walker said-he would be satisfied with that. Mr. Mclntosh said they are willing to have a condition placed on this map that it be age restricted and nothing else. Mr. Mclntosh said that because the intersection is signaled at Grand Island Boulevard they feel that' is .the best and safest place to have entrance both north and south of Ming Avenue. They do not agree, to a secondary access point at Pound Hills Way. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Mclntosh what guarantee the Commission has that there will be a signal there? Mr. Mclntosh said that he is:certain that is required in the EIR for the entire Seven Oaks project. Commissioner Sprague said he wants it as a condition of approval for this map. Mr. shapazian, Fire, Marshal, said he is happy with the location of this particular emergency access..' It is located directly across the subdivision which makes it safer and it is wide enough for any of their equipment. commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Mclntosh how the owners will service the pipelines within the easement? Mr. Mclntosh said the easemenLhas expired and they are proposing to work with the pipeline company to relocate that ' easement into another 15 foot easement so they will have access along a 1'5 foot gated easement as they do now. Mr. Mclntosh said they would commit to put the signal in. Minutes, PC, May 3, 200t Page 8 Commissioner Brady asked how the city can make sure that this remains'a ' senior subdivision? Carl Hernandez stated that a condition of approval could be placed on the map that the applicant apply for and obtain a zone change to SC (Senior Citizen) and that could be required to be completed prior to recordation of the final map. Mr. Mclntosh said he did not think there was such a zone change as Senior Restrictive and they propose that CC&R'S are recorded over the entire subdivision and make it age restricted. Mr. Hernandez said! there is a zone' that is a senior citizens zone that is contained in the Municipal Code Chapter 17.51 which allows for that type of a use. Commissioner Brady asked if CC&R's cOuld do the same thing? Mr. Hernandez said that :if the CC&R's say that they cannot be amended without the express written consent of the City of Bakersfield it would work. Mr. Mclntosh said that would be acceptable. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Walker if placing the CC&R's on the project so that it will be a gated senior citizen community satisfy the Traffic Division's concern about not having a secondary access? Mr. Walker said that Mr. Mclntosh is correct, there is a reduced trip generation from a senior style community and that would satisfy them with the addition of a traffic signal as long as it was made known that this is an exception - not a change in policy. Commissioner Brady said that with the CC&R's and the traffic signal and in light of the'circumstances, he could support the project with a single access. Mr. MclntoSh said the signal should go in when it is warranted at the extension of Ming Avenue and the phases along Ming Avenue. Mr. Walker said he would agree to that along with a condition something to the effect that within a set period of time of notification, the developer, would initiate development or construction of a traffic signal at that location based upon standard traffic engineering warrants for a signal. Commissioner Gay said he has some concerns regarding the secondary access and exceeding the 204 lots without the secondary access. He is. in support of the signal and the age restriction in the CC&R's. A two minute recess was taken. Commissioner Brady said that he acknowledged the concerns of his fellow Commissioners regarding the secondary access issue. If this was a square piece of property, they would find a way to do a secondary access. This isa Minutes, PC', 'MaY 3,2001- Page 9 8.3) 8.4) very :odd shaped piece of property with a canal, park, police and fire station. Ming Avenue is on the south so by putting in a traffic signal he feels solves the problem. Commissioner Brady said that he sees a potential conflict in putting another roadway access in there close to the signalized intersection. Mr. Mclntosh said that the agreement that was approved April 25 by the City Council addressed the secondary access to this particular area. It took them two.- years to negotiate this agreement to accommodate a-joint fire and police facility ' ina park. They took this into account to provide an emergency aCcess because they were Concerne'd that it was cutting off that side of the subdivision for access to Buena Vista Road. They wrote that into the agreement. If the Commission required another secondary access outside of this agreement, it would effectively negate this agreement and there would be no park, fire station or police station. ' Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner. McGinnis~'to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Vesting TentativetTract Map 6043 with the findings and conditions set forth inattached' resolution' Exhibit "A" subject to the May 3, 2001 memorandum from Stanley .Grady, Planning Direction, with the following changes: Eliminate condition 4.2 and add in its place "with the first final map west of Grand Island, the applicant is 'to construct Ming Avenue from it's existing terminus to the westerly tract .-boundary" and the developer shall enter into an agreement to construct a signal at the intersection of Ming Avenue and Grand Island upon the demand of the City of Bakersfield. The demand shall be triggered when traffic warrants are met or 80 percent of Tract 6043 have recorded. Whichever occurs first. Also, the applicant shall record CC&R's which age restricts occupancY of structures to senior citizens as defined in Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 17.51 which shall be aPproved bY the City Attorney and cannot be amended without the prior written consent of the city. Motion carried. Vesting .Tentative Tract 6045 (Mclntosh & Associates) See Consent Agenda 'Ward 4 ) Vesting Tentative Tract 6046 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward4) see ConsentAgenda PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to the Text of the Zoning Ordinance (City of Bakersfield) '(Citywide) Jim Eggert, Principa! Plannerl went over some issues that were brought up at Monday's. pre-meeting. Minutes, PC, May 3; 2001 page 10 Public portion of the hearing was open. The following people spoke regarding the amendmen_t: Fred Porter, Cheryl Bradwick, Lorraine Unger, Mary Barrow, Roger Mclntosh, Rick Hewitt, Dana Adams; Ken Hopper and Dennis Fox. Most of the comments were-regarding the tree canopy. Ms. Bradwick feels that if commercial properties are going to have to maintain their properties, that single family homes and'the city should be required to follow the same requirement. Ms. Unger agreed with this and also had a concern about enforcement. She feels that a $500 penalty is not large enough. She feels there should be something added regarding .replacement of the damage that is done. Mr. Mclntosh suggested that the 30 foot ratio of tree spacing be looked at. He feels that the Ordinance should consider the species of the trees when requiring the 30 feet' spacing. Some trees get up--to 45 feet in diameter and if they are only 30.feet apart, they would-grow into each other. Ms. Adams stated that she was on the committee that Worked on this ordinance and the committee suggested a 50% canopy so that perhaps a 40% canopy could be obtained. They have since compromised at 40%. Trees can also be a Iong-ter~m solution to our energy crisis and air Pollution. Mr. Hooper s[Jggested that a specific species list be added that Says which trees are allowed and which are not allowed. Crepe Myrtle and Oleander are examples of what should not be classified as a tree. They do not grow big enough for anything other than decoration. Mr. Fox suggested that the city look into a heat ordinance like some cities in Arizona. People who car pool get to.park in the shade. Public portion of the. hearing was closed.' Chairman Boyle requested the City's Urban Forester, Paul Graham, .to address the issue of 30, 40 or 50 percent coverage. Mr. Graham said tl~at the ordinance attempts to set an attainable goal for a reasonable amount of canopy cover. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Graham if a master tree list could.be added to the ordinance. Mr. Graham said that he is working with Planning staff on that now and could have a tentative list or a partially completed Fist in a few weeks.. Commissioner SPrague asked about the wording in Number H and if Mr. Graham would.· support changing the word ,"will" for "shall" to be consistent with the rest'of the ordinance. He said he would support that change. Commissioner Sprague said that he was in favor of making it mandatory for using 24- inch box containers for commercial projects that are adjacent to residential zoned property Whether it is developed or undeveloped to make the appearance consistent with the nearby residential property.' Commissioner-Sprague asked the rest of the Commission their opinion on this matter. Minutes, PC, May 3, 2001 Page -Mr. Graham said that the reason behind the 24 inch box-is for the reduction of vandalism .but 15 gallon trees in general will actually establish itself quicker than the 24- inch box due to gurling roots and the establishment of the root system of the 24-inch box. CommissiOner Sprague asked about the planting of shrubs and wondered if the 3 feet hedge that is planted for screening purposes should be three feet at planting or maturity? ;Mr. Graham said that he thinks the intention of this seCtion would be that it would be three feet at maturity or in four years. Five gallons is about the biggest size shrub you can buy and he thinks the three feet height could be attained in a reasonable span of time.~-An eighteen inch plant above the root ball would be a standard size plant. Commissioner Sprague asked if "all plant material" included trees? Mr. Graham said "yes" Commissioner Sprague asked how the ordinance could be enforced? Mr. Graham said that they would be discussing that in the Bakersfield Metropolitan Tree Advisory Ad Hoc Committee meeting in June. Commissioner Brady said that he has a problem with Section N limiting the Commission to how they can protect the public regarding drive through lanes. They are limited to plant materials, berming and in some cases a retaining wall with plant material. He asked-staff to respond to his concern. Mr. Movies said that this concern goes hand to hand to the next item on.the agenda which requires that drive through lanes within 100 feet of residential go. through a conditional use permit process which would require additional screening. Commissioner Brady said that for the ordinance to have his support additional language needs to added which allows the applicant to present an alternative to accomplish the goals of the Ordinance depending on the circumstance with the' approval of the Planning Director or appropriate agent. Commissioner Brady also had some concerns regarding the size of the canopy which Mr. Graham explained that it is not the size of the trees itself. It also has to do with the height of the canopy. The shade canopy is not necessarily developed on the height component or the density of the leaf area. It is not a single variable equation. It is a multi-varied equation. It is not only the quantity of the trees that are put into parking lots but also the_quality of the trees. Commissioner Brady said that he is concerned that parking lot size will have to be increased and .therefore shopping centers will have to be bigger. Mr. Graham said:that has been a concern of the BIA also. It is a technical solution that would have to be undertaken by the contractor to develop underground, planting space available for the roots ~system of the tree which is outside of the five by five diamond that 'is allocated within the ordinance. Currently, one of the problems that we have in parking lots is the underlying, structure of the parking lots and the road base that is put dOwn and ~ompacted to 90 percent..There is not a lot of roots to venture from that original five by five diamond underneath the asphalt where there is moisture and' allow Minutes, PC, May 3~ 2001 Pa~e 12 the roots to search the soil :volume for the nutrients and the moisture the tree needs. These are-technical solutions that have not been.brought to the table yet, Commissione~ Brady said that he has a concern about future landowners who-had nothing to do'with the development be put on notice that they are not meeting the standard that was in place years ago. Commissioner Brady also asked if other cities have pruning ;standards? Mr. Graham said that there are a number of cities that comply to the'standard. It is a vOluntary standard at the professional level. COmmissioner Brady asked how we would publicize the Standard andadopt it as our own? Mr. Graham.said there is going to be a certain amount of long-term education that is going to.be involved and he hopes that organizati'ons such as the Tree Foundation of Kern will help. There is a tact that is. going to be taken to educate 'the people, not only in pruning standards, but other aspects of urban forestry and arbor culture. Commissioner Gay said that he had an opportunity to sit in on some of the committee meetings on behalf of the AsSociation of Realtors and said that some of the concerns of the business owners and their tenants are that the trees will block their signs. This tends to put the property manager and the business owner as a referee between City requirements and what the~wishes of the tenant or shopkeepers are. He is concerned .that they are putting a burden on the business owners. He feels that-Vision 2020. is-on- the right track wo~'k!ng toward the residential side and getting, some of the homeowners to cooperate and assume some of the tree-planting guidelines. Commissioner Gay said that he is all for the IsA standards being taught to local landScapers through workshops. Commissioner Gay-mentioned some concerns he has regarding item Number G. He wants to make sure that the tree ratio stays at one tree for every six spaces and that five byfive wells are satisfactory. A larger canopy couldbe achieved by increasing the well size. He also said that he would like to see the canopy area have a goal. of 30 per. cent: CommiSsioner.Gay asked Mr. Graham if he agrees with Mr. Mclntosh that trees would overlap if the size. were reduced from-30 feet on center to 20 feet on center? Mr. Graham sald .that it depends.on the species of the tree. Some trees overlap.more than others. It dePends on the species of tree and its eventual mature height.- .Commissioner Gay stated that he looks forward to Mr. Graham's'tree list and his help with the city to go in and keep the Commercial projects in compliance with the 'landscaping by replaCing .lOst trees. This should increase shade cover. Commissioner Gay said that he agrees with Commissioner Brady that the Planning Director needs some discretion on whether permanent screening would alleviate some of the problems with drive throughs being next to residential neighborhoods. Commissioner'McGinnis asked Mr. Graham if he had a preferred species list for - evergreen-shrubs that would grow three feet tall? Mr. Graham said at this time "no" but -one could be generated if necessary. Commissioner McGinnis also asked Mr. Graham if he saw abenefit in setting a maximum height? Mr. Graham said that depending'on; Vthe orientation and location, a height requirement may be necessary in the future. . Minutes, PC, May 3, 2001 Page 13 When asked if he had a preference for berming or a permanent fence or hedge Mi'. Graham said that he preferred plant material but he has no specific recommendation as the Commission has had more experience than he has in this type of thing. ' Commissioner McGinnis said that he would support the ordinance but would like to see.. some latitude given to the developer as far as creating some sort of buffer between residences and on-coming .traffic. Commissione~: B°yle said that he agrees with the 40 percent coverage as he feels it is reasonably clear that if you' plan for 40, you may achieve something as high as 34 percent and enforcement will not apply if a coverage of 30 percent is achieved. Therefore,'he thinkS that Paragraph H should be reworded that at the time of submission, the plans will be for 40 percent coverage with a provision at'the end of the. paragraph that if they achieve 30 percent within 15 years, that that meets the enforcement obligation. Commissioner Boyle stated that on Paragraph K, the reason for the 24-inch box trees on 20 footon-center was twofold. One for vandalism and the other reason is for instant' screen. There is reasonable evidence that within two to three years the 15 gallon tree will be every'.bit as big as the 24-inch box. Commissioner Boyle also said that ParagraPh N could be changed to read "a taller hedge, berming or other similar screening may be utilized at the discretion of the Planning Director if such additional height or physical constraints are necessary for adequate screening, because of physical conditions such as proximity to residential ' areas or other factors that warrant special treatment." COmmissioner Boyle asked if this ordinance will apply, to all landscaping in the city? Mri Hernandez said that it will apply to all development which requires a site plan review. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Hernandez if there is some reason the landscape requirements cannot apPly:to all commercial development city-wide? Mr. Hernandez said that it is his.understanding that the committee meetings specifically targeted to new uses that are required to go through site plan review and should the Commission desire to have a broader scope that Would have to be addressed. Mr. Hernandez said that-he .did not think it was addressed in any of the committee meetings or at the Planning Commission level or at the City Council. Commissioner Boyle said that he doesn't believe that tonight was the time to raise the issue but at some point in the future they should raise the issue that landscape maintenance should apply to all commercial property city-wide. Commissioner Sprague attempted a motion to approve the ordinance but it was decided to continue the item for two weeks so that staff can listen to the tape and try to incorporate all the comments made tonight. Commissioner.Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to continue · this item for two weeks to Clarify the issues to be presented to City Council incorporating all' of the amendments and discussion that were heard tonight. ~' Minutes, PC, May 3, 2001 Page 10. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to the Text of the Zoning Ordinance (City of Bakersfield) (Citywide ) Staff had nothing .more to add from Monday's pre-meeting. Public portion of the hearing was open. No one' spoke either for or against the item. Public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commissior~er comments. Motion by Commissioner SPrague, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt the attached resolution recommending the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance amendments as depicted in the project description. Motion was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Boyle None Commissioner Wages 11. RESCHEDULING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATES OF JUNE 12. 13. 18TH AND 21sT TO JUNE 25TH AND 28TH , 2001. This meeting is for the 2nd General Plan Amendment Cycle of 2001. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to move the meetingdate to June 25 and June 28, 2001. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS None COMMISSION COMMENT:S None Minutes, PC, May 3, 2001 Page 14. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on May 14, 2001. t5. July 5. 2001 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business adjourned at 8:37 p.m. to come before the Commission, the meeting was Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Secretary · g"Ptartnjhg Director Minutes, PC, May 3, 2001 Page 15 14. -DISCussION.AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE 15. NEXT PRE-MEETING It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on May 14, 2001. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary L JAMi~ ~) I~O~VIUS, Secretary ~Actirl'g~ g Director ~July 5, 2001