Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/01 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, May 17, 2001 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL NOTE: STEPHEN BOYLE, Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y 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. 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 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 May 17, 2001 Page 2 (Ward 4) (Ward 4) 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) willlbe 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 5.1) - General Plan Consistency Finding for vacating 149 square feet of Right-of-Way on Hayes Street, just south of East Brundage Lane. 3.2) Agenda Item 5.2) ~- General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of a .42 acre parcel located adjacent on the west side of Union Avenue, just south of 8th Street. 3.3) Agenda Item 5.3) - General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of right-of- way easements in the unincorporated area east of Coffee Road and west of Hwy. 99. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 4.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6030 (Mclntosh & Associates) Containing 77 lots for singlefamily residential purposes on 38.78 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow for private streets, and alternate lot design; and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC ~:16.20.060 B.1 .;. generally located %1 mile west of Buena Vista Road, on the south side of Ming Avenue (extended).. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION:' Approve Group vote 4.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 6055 (Mclntosh & Associates) Containing .116 lots for single family residential purposes 43.23 acres, zoned R-i (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow for private streets and alternate lot design; and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.I.; generallY located 3/4 mile west of Buena Vista Road on the south side of Ming AvenUe (extended). (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - May 17, 2001 Page 3 (Ward 4) 4.3) Vesting Tentative Tract 6058 (Dewalt Corporation) Containing 37 lots on 14.68 acres for single family residential purposes, Zoned R-1 (one Family Dwelling) including a request for non-perpendicular, non-radial lot lines, deviations.from street standards, and a ten-foot wide median island; located at the southeast corner of Hageman Road and Main Plaza Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote (Ward 4) 4.4) 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.1.; generally located % mile west of Buena Vista Road, north of White Lane (extended), on the northwest corner of Chamber Bivd. (extended) and future Windermere Street. (Negative Declaration on File) (Continued from April 19, and May 3, 2001) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote (Ward 4) 4.5) 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 lot;' and waiver of.. mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1.; generally located % mile west of Buena Vista Road, north of White Lane (extended)i on the southwest corner of Chamber Blvd. (extended) and future Windermere Street. (Negative Declaration on File) {Continued from April 19, 2001 and May 3, 2001) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote GENERAL PLAN cONSISTENCY FINDINGS 5'1) General Plan Consi'stency Finding for the vaCation of right-of-way on Hayes Street (149 sq.ft.) just south of East Brundage Lane. (Exempt from CEQA) Agenda, PC, Thursday - May 17, 2001 Page 4 (Ward 1) (Ward 1) ,5.2) 5.3) (County) RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding GrOup Vote. General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of a.42 acre parcel located adjacent on the west side of Union Avenue, just south of 8th Street. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding GroupV°te. General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of right-of-way easements' foran eighteen inch sanitary sewer pipeline across several parcels in the unincorporated area east of Coffee Road and west of Highway 99, between Rosedale Highway and the Kern River. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding Group Vote. 6. 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) (Continued from May 3, 2001) .(City-wide) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote 7. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET FY 2001-2006 DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL AND . SPECIFIC PLANS. (City of Bakersfield - Public Works Department) (City-wide) RECOMMENDATION: Find consistent with General and Specific Plans Group Vote COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal Agenda, PC, Thursday - May 17, 200t Page 5 10.. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DIscUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. 11. ADJOURNMENT May 14, 2001 ~STA'NLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director Held Thursday, May 17, 2001 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL coMMISSIONERS: Present: STEPHEN BOYLE, Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS DAVID GAY RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC Absent: -STEVE WAGES ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: Staff: CARL HERNANDEZ Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN'SHAW. Engineer IV Present: JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Boyle read the Notice. of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk ) 3.1) Agenda Item 5.1) - General Plan Consistency Finding for vacating 149 square feet of Right-of-Way on Hayes Street, just south of East Brundage Lane. 3.2) Agenda Item 5.2) - General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of a .42 acre parcel located adjacent on the west side of Union Avenue, just south of 8th Street. 3.3) Agenda Item 5.3) - General Plan Consistency.Finding for the acquisition of right-of- way easements in the unincorporated area east of Coffee Road and west of Hwy. 99. Minutes, PC~ May 17, 2001 - .. page 2' Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the.consent-agenda items. Motion carried. " ' A'motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Trak, to move Agenda Item 7 the Capital Improvements Program Budget for 2001-2006, to be heard next.' Motion carried! 7. CAPITAL IMPRovEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET FY 2001-2006 DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL AND: SPECIFIC PLANS. (City of Bakersfield - Public Works Department) (Ci~,-wide) Ted Wright, Engineer IV with the Public Works Department, gave a detailed presentation regarding the 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program. He recommended that a finding of consistency be made with the General Plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to make a finding that the Capital Improvement Program Budget for FY 2001-2006 is consistent with the generallplan. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ Tentative Tract Maps 4.1) VeSting Tentative Tract 6030 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward4) staff.report given recommending approval. Public. portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh with Mclntosh & Associates, representing Castle & Cooke California, Inc., stated that they concur with the Staff Report and Memo dated May 1.7, 2001., and ask for the Commission's concurrence. The public portion Of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague inquired of Condition 14 where it says "prior to recordation of any phase within 250' of the pipeline easement the subdivider shall record a covenant disclosing the location of the pipelines on all lots of the subdivision within 250' of the pipelines" and how this is going to be disclosed; will it be recorded in CC&R's, or deed recorded, or just to be recorded on the parcel map? Mr. Sprague stated that if it is just disclosed on the parcel map that many times the homeowner does not get to see that. Mr. Mclntosh responded that this is a tract map, and the covenant is consistent with all the past tract maps that they have done. It is a separate recorded document that will show up in the title' report, separate .from the tract map. Commissioner Sprague asked about the item regarding the waiver of the mineral' ~rights signatures on'a surface waiver which had not been obtained, and what the present status is of'the mineral rights holders? Mr. Sprague asked if there were' any objectionable letters on record from the mineral rights holdersas far as building-this tract? *MinUtes, PCi May 171 2001 Page-3 Mr. Mclntosh responded that the status of the mineral rights holders in this particular_ tract, and-under all but 30 acres of this entire section, is that the mineral rights holder has waived his right to surface access, and they are asking for a waiver of th'ose signatures; not necessarily a waiver of the Surface access rights. Because they have no surface access right they requested the waiver of. signatures. ' - Mr. Mclntosh confirmed that they have a 500"Surface waiver. commissioner Boyle asked how far the park on White Lane and Windemere is from this tract to which staff responded that it is approximately 3/4 of a mile from this subdivision. At this time there is a proposal for an 8 acre park that would be about ¼ mile southwest of this subdivision, however this subdivision falls into the calculation that contributeS to this anchor park. There would be one closer to this. : Commissioner Boyle_also asked if there is a requirement that parks be within-a certain, distance of subdivisions, to which staff responded in the negative, although the General Plan generally considers a 3/4 of a mile to a mile surface radius for. neighborhood parks. There were no other Commissioner comments. Motion made by COmmissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt,the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative T~act 6030 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A", and incorporate the May 16, 2001. memorandum from Marian Shaw to thePlanning Commission. Motion carried.` 4.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 6055 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) Staff report recommending approval was given. Public pOrtion 'of the'hearing was opened. No one spoke against this project. Roger Mclntosh wi(h Mclntosh & Associates, representing castle & Cooke california, Inc., stated that they concur with the staff report and memo dated May -16. 2001, and ask for the Commission's concurrence. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, *to approve and ado pta Negative' Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative TraCt Map 6055 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution- Exhibit "A", and including the memorandum from Marian Shaw, Public WOrks Department. dated May 16, 2001 MinUtes,. PC,-May 17, 2001 Page4 4.3) Motion carried. Vesting Tentative Tract 6058 (Dewalt Corporation) (Ward 4) Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened.. No one spoke againstthis project. Kathy:McWhorter, With DeWalt Corporation, representing Kurt Carter, the developer of the subdivision explained the lot lines. They requested the Commission overrule staff's recommendation for denial and approve their request for modification to allow non-radial and non-Perpendicular lot lines. The applicant stated that the remainder of the staff report and the other conditions of approval have been reviewed and the incorporation'of the revised memorandum dated May 14, 2001 recommending approval of their request for modification for non-standard cul-de-sac design, modifiCation to alloWa landscape median island in a local street and modification to allow a city maintained landscape strip on an interior local street. They agree with the conditions as presented, except that they do request approval for non-radial and- ~non-perpendicular lot lines. The applicant presented a detailed graphic display showing other tracts in the area that had been allowed non-radial and non- perpendicular lot 'lines. T. he public portion df the hearing was closed. - Commissioner Sprague asked if South Pass Road is presently existing to which the .applicant responded in the affirmative, and indicated 'that it will be an extension to the north from the existing street. Commissioner Sprague inquired if it was a gated community to' which the applicant responded in the negative, so they will be dedicated public streets. CommisSioner Brady asked what the rational is behind the city ordinance that the rear yards be non-symmetrical? Under the applicant's proposal !the rear yards ' would be symmetrical for all the houses. Staff responded that reconstruction of property .lines is easier if they are radial than non-radial. CommiSsioner Gayrequested clarification regarding Item 3 on the Conditions of Approval and staff responded that the revised white memo strikes condition three all together. The city has agreed to take over maintenance of the landscaping adjacent to lots 18 and 19 There were no other Commissioner comments. Commissioner_Bi-ady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to .approve and adopt a Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6058 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit ".A", and-incorporate the white revised memorandum from. Marian P. Minutes, PC, May 17, 2001 Pa~le 5 4.4) Shawto the Planning Commission dated May 14, 2001, and make an - amendmeht to that*memorandum as to Item No. 1.1 deleting the recommendation to.deny the request and replace that recommendation with the recommendation to approve the request. Motion carried. Vesting Tentative Tract 6045 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) Staff informed the Commission that a request for continuance until June 7, 200i has been made by the applicant. Public portion of the hearing wasre-opened for those in opposition. No one spoke_against a continuance. Public portion of the hearing was opened for those .in favor of the requested continuance. Jim MarinO, representing Stream Energy, said they are in'favor of the continuance. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by COmmissioner McGinnis, to continue this item to the June 7 2001 meeting. Motion carried. 4;5) Vesting Tentative Tract 6046 (Mclnt0sh & Associates) (ward4) Staff informed the Commission.that a request for continuance until June 7, 2001· has been made by the applicant. Public portion of the hearing was re-opened for those in opposition. No one spoke against a continuance. Public portion of the hearing was opened for those in favor of the requested continuance. Jim Marino, representing Stream Energy, said they are in favor of the 'continuance. - The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded b'y Commissioner Tkac, to continue this item to the June 7,-2001 meeting. . Minutes, PC, May17, 2001" Page 6 Motion carried. 7. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET FY 2001-2006 DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE. GENERAL AND = SPECIFIC PLANS. (City of Bakersfield - Public Works Department) (City-wide) See page 2. :Item was moved by the Commission to be heard after the consent agenda (item 3). . GENERAL PLANCONSISTENCY FINDINGS '5.1) . General Plan Consistency Finding for the vacation of right-of-way on Hayes Street (149-sq.ft.) just south of East Brundage Lane. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 1) See Consent Agenda. 5.2) General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of a .42 acre parcel located adjacent onthe west side of Union Avenue, just south of 8th Street. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward ~) See Consent Agenda. 5.3) General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of right-of-way easements for aneighteen inch sanitary sewer pipeline across several parcels in the unincorporated area east of Coffee Road and West of Highway 99, between Rosedale Highway and the Kern River. (Exempt from CEQA) (County) See Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to the Text of the Zoning Ordinance (City of Bakersfield) regarding landscaping standards (Chapter 17.61). Staff gave a ~eport going over the comments made by the Commission at its last meeting. Staff recommended.the ordinance attached to the May 11 memorandum be approved with an adjustment on Item H, Page 4 where the word "required" be struck. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. The following spoke in favor of the ordinance: Stephanie Lynch, Mary Helen Barro, Lorraine Unger, Dennis Fox'and Pauline Tarwood. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, May 17, 2001 Page 17 Commissioner McGinnis a§ked how this ordinance will be policed. 'Mr. Eggert said that first the city attempts to correct the situation with the property owner. If they don't cooperate,-the second'step is a formal hearing with our code enforcement department.- Additional aCtion could res.alt in a misdemeanor citation. It could go to court. The city could actually end up having to do the work and a lien is placed on the pi~operty. Usually, we are successful in getting cooperation up front. Commissibner McGinnis aSked about pOlicing of existing shopping centers. Mr. Eggert said that one-of the things with existing shopping centers is that a number of them, especially those before 1'991, had approved landscape plans that met cOd. These amendments Will noaffect them unless there is a change in their property value of 50%' or more based on' new improvements. At that point they would be subject to the current req uirement.~ Mr. Hernandez went into a discussion about enforcement procedures and how they are handled by the City'sCode Enforcement Department. Commissioner Brady asked how a property owner is suppose to correct a problem if he is doing everything that a normal person would do? What we're talking about is replacing a treewith an.appropriate sized tree that's one thing, but that's not making the' _trees provide 40%-c0verage in 15 years. There has to be an out for situations that are beyond the control of the owner. And, we also have to understand that the person that develops these commercial properties is most likely not going to be the owner of that property when 15 years comes. 'E/Ir.. Hernandez said that~ the Code Enforcement Division, along with his.office, exercise: the beSt judgment that they can. We will recognize that there 'will be circumstances -where'fairness and justice dictate that we interpret the ordinance in a way that does 'not detriment the- property own er. Commissioner-Brady.said that would bean out for a problem with this ordinance, but it's not in the ordinance. He said'he is concerned about 15, 20, 30 years from now because the ordinance doesn't address the situation. Another problem he foresees happening is' how a new owner is going to be put on notice that they're buying a-landscaped compliance property versus a-non-landscaped compliance property? How do we pUt people on notice that certain properties are going to be landscaped properties, and -others aren't? - Mr. Hernandez said that someone that already has an established business will not be required to abide by the ordinance. If there is a change of use, it will require a site plan review and at that time the Planning Department will be able to look at the site plan and impose the new requirement if they deem that to be appropriate at the time. CommissiOner Commissioner Boyle asked when this ordinance wouldgo into effect? Mr. Hernandez saidthat if the'ordinance is forwarded onto City Council for first reading at one of their June meetings, the second, reading would be held at the ~nd of' June or July and the ordinance would go into effect 30 days-after that. Minutes, PC, May i7, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner Boyle asked what "voluntarily removed" means under the tree preservation protection? Mr: Hernandez said by the property owner's choice - not by the direction of the city. Commissioner Tkac said that one of his biggest concerns is not h'aving a master tree list. They have not discussed what kind of trees are going to be out there. Commissioner Tkac Said he was in favor of continuing this item until a master tree list could be established. CommisSioner_Sprague said that he feels the Planning Director and Urban Forester can come-up with proper tree types and feels the item should not be continued. Mr. Paul Graham, the City's Urban Forester, reminded the Commission that this is a 'landscape ordinance for private development, not a city-wide tree ordinance. Some of thesethings will be discussed in the' next year with the tree advisory ad hoc committee that has just been formed. Mr. Hernandez said that he has been trying to discern the direction of the Commission with respect to the'enforcement ~ssue, and trying to determine what language we might be able to put into this ordinance that will maybe help in the enforcement issue. First of all, there is always the option and opportunity if the Commission feels that they would like to make a recommendation with respect to misdemeanors,-then we can limit the liability to this to an :infraction. And, that takes away our prosecutorial discretion to do a wobbler, which is we can either charge it as an infraction or a misdemeanor. An infraction is like-a parking ticket. So that takes away the misdemeanor portion of it. The second point that he Wanted to make is the landscape maintenance section -provides that the tree pruning Should.be in accordance with the ISA standards which means that that is not a mandatory provision, and I believe the City Council's Urban Development Committee took that into account, and did not want to place a mandatory pruning standard within the ordinance. The third issue Mr. Hernandez pointed .out is if there are.some exceptions~, in section 1761050 B which provides for trees that are removed due to public safety, .property damage, or potential liability are not required to be replaced. We could probably put some language in there that deals with damage to trees through acts of God, or through wilful and lawful acts of persons other than the property owner tO also be exempted from the replacement requirements that would ~ appease the Commissions, concerns. Commissi0ner Brady expressed his concern about the ordinance and his opinion that it cannot be enforced 'because it is so vague. He feels there should be an out to allow us under redeveloPment circumstances to give some leeway to someone that's coming in and trying to correct an eyesore or an out for vandalism or Acts Of God. The only out is if you voluntarilygo out and pull your trees out. Commissioner Brady feels that we should not rush in -just.to get something down when the testimony of the.Urban Forester is he would like to get his Work done first before we move forward with this ordinance. Minutes, PC, May'lTl 2001 Page9 Commissioner Brady.Said that he supports the goal and wants more trees but he feels .this ordinance as it .is written creates problems .that haven't been addressed, and we. shouldn't rush in.just to have changes in the ordinance. He believes that a 30% coverage is appropriate, and if we have the appropriate tree list, Planning for a 30% coverage With the appropriate trees is sufficient. Gay said that he would like to see, as Ms. Larwood mentioned, the greening-of 0ur community but he has a real problem with Item H and would not support the Ordinance the way it is written. Gay asked Mr. Eggert if the new 5x5 standard for tree wells.and one well for every six baSes was designed to give us the 30 to 40 percent coverage? Mr. ,Eggert said the 5x5 foot wells were actually made to give sufficient space for the trees to grow. McGinniS said that he thinks the ordinance is a step forward.and the should support it as it is. - Brady feels ,that the Master Tree List is an important part of the ordinance as the cost of development is going to be determined on the trees, the variety and whatever footage assignment is going to be to those particular trees and what they are going to cover. That issueshould be defined and put into place before this ordinance gets put in place. Commissioner Brady said that he would support a 30 percent coverage and taking the enforcement down to an infraction. Commissioner Brady said that he would also supp0rt',the ordinance if the tree pruning requirements and standards -to be im were removed and placed in a more appropriate ordinance-Which is regulation of tree trimming. He said that he could support the ordinance with changes but because those aren't in it, he cannot support the ordinance tonight. ~r' BOyle said that he would like to remind the commissioners that the 40 percent was the amount recommended by the Urban Development Committee of the City Council. Commissioner Boyle said that the Commission has never challenged their decisionsbn things like this and he doesn't feel that we should start noW. He also suggested that the motion should include language that the City Attorney will draft that. -exce an Act of GOd, acts of third parties, to be included in whatever provision that they think' is appropriate. Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to 'ado attached resolution with the recommendation that the City Council adopt a proposed ordinance and 'amendment as depicted in the project description and ~ncorporating the items that Chairman Boyle just discussed as Written. The following roll call vote was called: AYES:. NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners McGinnis, Sprague, Boyle Commissioners Brady, Gay, Tkac Commissioner Wages MinUtes, PC, May 17, 2001 Page l0 - Commissioner Boyle asked. Mr. Hernandez what to do when there is a tie vote? · 'Mr. Hernandez said that in that case the motion fails. iC0mmissioner Boyle asked, if in.that case, the item is taken off the' calendar or continued to the next meeting? ~ 'Mrl Hernandez said that cOnsidering all of the discussion that has been made tonight, :there is some potential language changes to Section H that staff could_propose and that the Commission could consider again. The Commission could make another motion and have another vote or the chairman could at hisdiscretion send it back to committee for further discussion. Mr: Hernandez said staff would like the opportunity to read . further language into the record if theChairman would allow them that opportunity. commissione~ Boyle asked Mr. Hernandez to read the language into the record now. Mr. Hernandez'said that having heard all of the discussion from the Commission we've gone through and made a couple of changes to Section H which we think will leave the intent of what the Urban Development Committee has discussed, and at the same time pqtentially appease someof the Commission member's concerns. And, so starting with the second sentence in paragraph 17 610 30H to read "The landscape plan required by Section 17.08.080 shall be drawn such that tree canopy have the potential to attain a 40% shading of the total area of all parking stalls,_ loading areaS, drive aisles and maneuvering areas." And, to make a' change in the last sentence to read: "Except for trees damaged or removed pursuant to Section 17.61.050 B, any project will be deemed in compliance with this subsection if after the 15 year period the tree canopy shades 30% or more of this specified parking area." Moving on to section 17.610.050 B: "trees voluntarily removed from an existing project, except when necessary for protection of public safety, property damage, or liability, or damage to trees done by Acts of God; or the wilful, unlawful acts of persons other then .the property owner or damage to trees caused due to compliance with other federal or state" laws" ---- then continue on with the rest of the language "shall be placed at the average size" ---- Commissioner Boyle asked if Mr. Hernandez had any additional comments? Mr. Hernandez said that would be the sum of our comments. CommisSioner Sprague said that he was in favor of trying the motion again based on these changes. Minutes, PC, May 17, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt the attached Resolution with recommendations that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance and amendments as depicted in the project description and adding additionally the language Suggested by Counsel Hernandez, and institute that into the ordinance and forward to the City Council for action. Motion was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gay, McGinnis, Sprague,-Tkac, Boyle NOES: COmmissioners Brady ABSENT: Commissioner Wages There was a 10 minute recess at this time. ¸9. COMMUNICATIONs Mr. Hernandez announced, his resignation with the city. He stated he was taking a position with' Brigham' Young University's Law School as Assistant Dean. COMMISSION COMMEN'I;s COmmissioner Boyle-advised that Council Member Hanson indicated to him that Commissioner StePhen Wages was hospitalized. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE '11. July 5. 2001 NEXT PRE'MEETING. Motion made by Commissioner McGinnis to cancel the next pre,meeting, seconded by Commissioner Tkac. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the .Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary