Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/20/01 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Thursday, December 20, 2001 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL PUBLIC STATEMENTS CONSENT CALENDER STEPHEN BOYLE, Chairman RON SPRAGUE, Vice Chairman MA THEW BRADY DA VID GA Y TOM MCGINNIS JEFFREY TKAC MURRAY TRA GISH 3.1 NOn-Public Hearing Items: 3.1a 3.1b 3.1c Majority report of the Oil Well/Drilling Operations Committee and referral of report to the Urban Development Committee of the City Council. Revised Wall. Plan for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5940 located on the southeast co~ner of Campus Park Drive and Mountain Vista Drive. (Mclntosh and Associates) (Categorically Exempt) Approval.of Planning Commission minutes for meetings held November 1 and 15, 2001. Group Vote 3.2 Public Hearing Items 5.1) Approval of Second Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5362 (Pinnacle Engineering) located at the southeast corner of Wible Road and Hosking Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) (Ward 5.2) ApprOval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5958 (Porter- Robertson) located on the south side of Hosking Road, approximately 800 feet west of Akers Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Ward 6) 6.Ia.b.c.) Group Vote Approval of General Plan Amendment P01-0684 (Kyle Carter Homes) generally located south of Olive Drive (extended), north of Hageman Road, west of RiverLakes Drive and east of the Friant-Kern Canal. (Categorically exempt) (Ward 4) Items on the Pre-Meeting Agenda will be continued to 5:30 p.m. on the following Thursday, but not, necessarily in the same order. Agenda, PC, December 20, 2001 --- COuncil Chamber, City Hall Page 2 (Ward 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS -Tentative Parcel Map 10522 (2nd Submittal) (Mclntosh & Associates) located between the Kern River and Stockdale Highway, on the east and west sides of Calloway Drive, east of Buena Vista Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Containing eight parcels on 65.56 acres for commercial development, zoned C-O (Professional and Administrative. Office) and C-2 (Regional Commercial); and a waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps -s.1) 5.2) See Consent Agenda See Consent Agenda 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, · (Ward (Ward 6) AND TEXT AMENDMENTS: 6.Ia.b.c. See.Consent Agenda 6.2a General Plan Amendment P01-0326 (William Gammon) generally located along the west side of Stine Road, between Taft Highway and McKee Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Land use designation ~change from ER (Estate Residentia!) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 111.73 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote 6.2b Zone Change P01-0326 (William Gammon) generally located along the west side of Stine Road; between Taft Highway and McKee Road, (Negative Declaration on file) Zone change from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 111.73 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote A~lenda, PC, December 20, 2001 Council Chamber, City Hall Page 3 (Ward Z) PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change P01-0762 (E.G. Patterson) located on the southwest corner of Pacheco and Wible Roads. (Negative Declaration on file) From an A (Agriculture) zone to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development), or more restrictive zone, on 18.12 +/- acres to allow a 246 space recreational vehicle park and related buildings.. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. 11. ADJOURNMENT December 20, 2001 Acting Planning Director Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue - ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish None Advisory Members: Ginny. Gennaro, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Marc Gauthier, Jennie Eng, Louise Palmer, Pam Townsend PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR: 3,1' Non-Public Hearing Items: 3.1a Majority repod of the Oil Well/Drilling Operations Committee and referral of report · to the Urban Development Committee of the City Council. 3.1b Revised Wall Plan for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5940 located on the southeast corner of Campus Park Drive and Mountain Vista Drive. (Mclntosh and Associates) (Categorically Exempt) ~ 3.1C Approval of Planning Commission minutes for meetings held November 1 and 15, 2001. Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, tO approve the non-public hearing items portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. 3.2 Public:Hearing Items 5.1) Approval of Second Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5362 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 7) 5.2) Approval of Revised Vestinq Tentative Tract 5958 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4 ) 6.Ia.b.c.) Approval of General Plan Amendment P01-0684 (KYle Carter Homes) (Ward 4 ) No additional staff reports were given. No One spoke either in opposition or in favor of the projects. There were no Commissioner comments. Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 2 Motion was made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve .the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 10522 (2"d Submittal) (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) Staff report was given recommending approval of the project. Public portion or the hearing was opened. No one spoke against the project. ROger Mclntosh stated that they agree with the conditions of approval and the tw° memos staff has outlined. The public portion' of the hearing closed. The hearing is opened for Commissioner comments. CommissiOner Sprague asked if in Condition 25 the restricted uses includes no car washes on the site, to which staff responded ,that is correct. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10522, second submittal, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit A, and with Public Works memorandum dated December 18, 2001 and Planning Department memorandum dated December 20, 2001. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AyEs: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARINGS.- Tentative Tract Maps. 5.1) See COnsent Agenda 5.2) See COnsent Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, AND TEXT AMENDMENTS 6.2) General Plan Amendment P01-0326,(William Gammon) {Ward 6 Staff indicated that they have a memo from Marian Shaw modifying the Wording in Condition 16 dealing with the payment per dwelling unit for off-site facilities on Taft Highway. Staff spoke with Darrel Witton, the waste water manager on the site located mile to the west, and there are odor controls. Public portion or the hearing was opened. No one spoke against the project. Glen Barnhill, president of Barnhill Consulting, Inc., representing Mr. Gammon, stated they concur with staff's recommendation, although they are not happy with the condition for the $1,500 per lot to pay towards the facility at Taft Highway and 99. Existing development extends approximately 1/4 mile south of McKee Road, which is about 1/4 Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 3 north (if Taft Highway, and about 1/4 east of this project, and therefore the development has already gone south of McKee Road. Public portion of the hearing Closed. Chairman Boyle asked staff if the Commission has the authority to turn down the fee requested by CalTrans, to which staff responded that it is their understanding that there is adequate necessity in the traffic study for CalTrans to assign the fee. Staff feels that it is appropriate to attach the fee condition. Commissioner Spiague stated that he feels it is not right to impact developers for widening the bridge. He would like to approve the project without the fee to see what happens. He asked if there was an area on each side or adjacent to Taft Highway that impacts all the develoPments or existing developments with this same fee as he does not feel that this burden should be placed on this developer. Staff responded that CalTrans has a formula for assessing the trip generation and the fees. In this case not all the traffic is CalTrans traffic, but local traffic, therefore local is required to participate and fund it. Staff indicated that it is consistent with what has been done in the past, and it is staff's recommendation. Commissioner Sprague indicated that not all of the traffic is local and there is regional traffic on Taft Highway, and the bridge widening is usually funded through gas taxes. He stated that burdening ~the developer is the wrong thing to do, and put a $~1,500/dwelling on the developer is wrong. Commissioner Sprague inquired if there is an area around Taft Highway that is impacted by the CalTrans decision and are other developers required to pay the $1,500 fee, to which staff responded that this same type of condition would appear on any zone changes or general plan amendments that would have any traffic going through the area and would vary with the amount of dollars per unit and the type of development. Staff indicated that anything that has any kind of traffic onTaft Highway could have a similar assessment. Ms. Gennaro indicated that if the Commission passed the am(~ndment without the fee that the project would be approved, but the City would be exposed to litigation by CalTrans. Chairman Boyle reminded the Commission that their political opinions are irrelevant, and that the issue is that staff has indicated that there is a finding that has created the nexus. If the fee is disputed, there has to be evidence that contradicts the finding. Commissioner SpragUe asked if it could be approved subject to the Attorney's Office researching it to find the nexus to make sure that it is in fact what it is, and that they can impose that fee on thi~ developer or any other developer in the future? CommissiOner Gay stated that he would support the project in helping the applicant move forward, even though he does not agree with the fee. ~ Chairman Boyle asked what the density per acre would be with the current zoning, to which staff responded- one unit per acre. Chairman Boyle asked staff what the density per acre would be under the proposed zoning to which staff responded around 4.7 units per acre, which is what the traffic study was done on. Chairman Boyle stated that he is not sure that there should be a rush to give a density of 4.7 units per acre. He stated that if and when this developer is ready to actually develop this property and has a project and we know more of what the City looks like, the applicant could then request a higher density. He feels that the Planning Commission can Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 4 do a density that is greater than the County so that the developer has a right to build, but one that is not as dense a property so that if the lots are more expensive it makes it more encouraging for people to build in other areas. Commissioner Brady~stated that he supports the applicant. He stated that our land use density is Iow compared to other areas in the valley. He feels that this developer is trying to do the right thing - to put more houses on a lot so we don't have to expand so fast into ag land. The smaller:the lots, the more houses that are put on them, the less ag land that is going to be taken in the community. Commissioner Brady feels that is something that should be praised not criticized. He feels the applicant has put forth a reasonable use of his property and they should support it. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not support this particular plan amendment. There is ag land to the south of this project and he does not feel it is appropriate to have a high density next to agricultural land. He would support it if it had a lesser density than what is being sought. He agrees with Commissioner Brady on the $1,500 fee. CommissiOner Sprague stated that he agrees with Commissioner Brady regarding the density units because they are average and is consistent with what has been done in the past.. He requested staff to work with the developer to issue a formal letter of protest to CalTrans regarding the $1,500 fee and possibly present it to the City Council for app[oval when this comes up so that the local government could put a little extra Charge behind the letter of protest. To apply to one developer without applying to all is the wrong thing to do. Commissioner McGinnis asked about the gas line going through this property and asked what measures were taken to safeguard anyone buying in the tract besides the covenant in the conditions? Staff responded that this is one of the lines that a risk'assessment was done, and it was determined at that time that a 50-foot setback from the line was adequate, and that was agreed to with the Fire Department. There is a 250 foot covenant put on lots that are within 250 feet which will be specifically addressed when the subdivision comes upfor approval on the property. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he concurs with several of the Commissioners on the development with this high of density. He thinks it is a hop scotch development and does not favor the high density zoning, Staff commented that under LAFCO law right now, whatever zoning is approved now and through City Council Will be in effect for two years and he believes that they are closer than two years from development of this property because there are brand new subdivisions about 1/4 mile away to the northeast, and with the school going in they would anticipate tracts within that time. Staff believes that at this time there are no policies in the General Plan that talk about this type of phasing as you go out from the City. The formal policy we have in the general plan is when there is property adjaCent to agricultural land you 13ave to provide deeper lots, and there has to be setbacks. The policies in the General Plan have to be looked at in order to make a decision on this project. Limit lines and development periods within a certain distance was considered with the last General Plan and it didn't succeed. Staff recommended that the policies in effect now be used, and the project be approved and then when City Council gets it and they want to increase the lot size based on their personal preferences or they decide to look at new policies, it should come from City Council. Commissioner Gay stated that the County is looking at smaller lots south of this project, and that the applicant will respond to the market, and when the applicant starts designing he may find the market will require a little larger lot than is currently planned and the applicant may increase the size of the lots. He stated that he would support Commissioner Brady's comment.. Minutes, PC, December 20" 2001 Page 5 Chairman-Boyle said ithat his problem is that if we are really talking about developing high density as a method of decreasing ag land conversion, this isn't high density. If we are talking about trying to give an incentive in order to get people to build in other areas, then the incentive is to make it more expensive to build here. There are impacts that residential property cause on agricultural land and it seems to Chairman Boyle that it is not inconsistent with their job as a Planning Commission to take a look at those issues. No one wants to slow development in the city but the question is trying to direct it. Commissioner Brady said that we do not want ag land next to our high schools. Ridgeview High is right above this project. We want neighborhoods next to them so people can raise their kids and send them to high school and the community can support the school. This is not high density development. This applicant has proposed a reasonable development. It is what all of our neighborhoods are typically based on. It is not unusual. It is how this area is developing. It is not high density and it is not Iow density, it is reasonable density. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt the resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, and approving-the requested general plan amendment to amend the land use designation from ER (Estate Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 111.73 acres located generally along the west side of Stine Road between Taft Highway and McKee Road as delineated in Exhibit 1 and recommend the same to City Council incorporating the December20, 2001, memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: commissioners Brady, Gay, Sprague, Tkac NOES: Commissioner McGinnis, Tragish, Boyle. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt the resolution making findings, approving the requested zone change to amend the zoning district from A (Agriculture) to I:{-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 111.73 acres located generally along the west side of Stine Road between Taft Highway and McKee Road as delineated in Exhibit 1 and recommend the same to City Council incorporating the December 20, 2001, memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, Sprague, Tkac ~ NOES:i Commissioner McGinnis, Tragish, Boyle. ABSENT: None Chairman Boyle asked, at the request of the City Council, for those Commissioners who voted ho to state their reasons why if they wish to do so. Commissioner McGinnis said that his main reason for objection on this particular issue is the fact that they are taking good farm land out of production by doing this. Developers would rather develoP his property on easily plowed land rather than the hard pan of the northeast.. It is an economic bottom line but it shouldn't reflect on the Commission's opinion about where the development and growth should go. Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 6 Co, mmissioner Tragish said his comments are similar to Mr. McGinnis. He believes that they are cOnstantly rubbing up against this issue of taking good agriculture land out and they as the Planning Commission should encourage development in other areas of the city. Chairman Boyle stated that if we are really talking about high density as a method of decreasing ag land conversion, this isn't high density. If we are talking about trying to give an incentive in order to get people to build in other areas, then the incentive is to make it more expensive to build here. The bottom line is that we have a specific plan amendment for a freeway out here and'we still don't know where it is going to be. In order to approve a general plan amendment like this, the City can offer the developer a higher density but not a density that is automatically the City's maximum density. The developer is not going to keep this property in the county if he can only do one unit an acre if we are offering him three units an acre. Chairman Boyle said he would support the general plan amendment if it were a different density. This is in the path of development and he has no doubts that the property will be developed, but until they know where the freeway is and until they 'know what the community is developing like around it, he sees no reason to always give the developer the highest possible density. We would encourage them to look at other areas of the city by giving them lower densities. Commissioner Tkac said it is an American property right to either sell or develop his property. The biggest reason that farmers get rid of their property is because it is not viable to farm it because they are competing on a world market. He noted that he does not agree with the hopscotch approach, but if the farmers cannot afford to farm the land, they opt for a zone change to turn it into houses. Chairman Boyle said that nobody has a property right to a General Plan Amendment. PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change P01-0762 (E.G. Patterson) (Ward 7) Staff indicated that the Commission should have in their possession two memos 'responding to questions brought up at Monday's pre-meeting. Mr. Movius went over one of the memos explaining changes to the conditions from the Planning Department and Ms. Shaw went over her memorandum with changes from the Public Works Department. The changes have been discussed and agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Movius also brought to the Commission's attention correspondence received'in opposition to the project from the Rodriguez's who live at 3505 Nugget Way. Also, correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. McCoy which included some compatibility changes to which staff has responded to several of those concerns, and responded to them in writing. Staff received a phone call from a person in the area asking for information. Another letter requested that no access be provided directly off of Sara Jane, and staff indicated that it would be a gated emergency access only. Staff is recommending approval of this project with the condition changes. The public portion of the hearing was opened for those in opposition. Nita Bugni, a resident in the area, stated that she has concerns with the RV park :because if there was access to Sara Jane the RV's would add considerable traffic to the neighborhood, as well as the lighting and noise factors..She stated there are other parcels closer to Panama and Highway 99 that are more suitable for this project. Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 7 Dennis Fox was referred to sPeak to the legal department about his conservation question. The public portion of the hearing was opened for those in favor. Jim Delmarter, representing Mr. Patterson, noted that concerning the Sara Jane access there is an existing gate access now, and will only be used in an emergency situation when the other access to Pacheco Road is blocked. The existing chain link fence along Sara Jane would have to be replaced with a block wall, and the landscape outside of the wall on the street area would also be landscaped, which will make it more aesthetically appealing. Pacheco Road will have to be widened to provide proper left:turnage in and out of the property. Applicant is in agreement with conditions set by Staff. Steve McKinzie, a relator in Bakersfield, representing Mr. Patterson and the seller of the property, stated that this site makes a really nice RV park because it is in an area that is easily accessible from two freeway off-ramps, and is visible without being on the freeway, and the nice thing is that it is being designed in such a way that it affords the traveler an easy place to get off the road, come to Bakersfield and has all the facilities. He stated that the Patterson family does not do anything halfway. Nita Bugni stated that the access gate already in existence was never ever used ibecause the :back part of that property was never used by Crest Drive In. She indicated that getting off of Highway 99 at White Lane is not easy and Panama Lane is getting more and more congested. Chair asked staff if the gate on Sara Jane would be a crash gate, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Chairman Boyle explained that a crash gate is only used by the Fire Department in an emergency. John Ulhman asked if there was going be a widening of the streets, to which Ms.:Shaw responded that ultimately yes, but this particular project only needs a double turn lane down the center. Mr. Ulhman asked ~if it would affect the 1.8 acre parcel property encumbered by the yellow line, but not a part of the RV project, to which Ms. Shaw responded that no additional right-of-way for Pacheco Road would be required with this PCD for that parcel. He stated a concern for the restriction of the 15 day stay limit. The public portion of the hearing was closed. The hearing was opened for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Brady stated he has some concerns about how this new use would impact the existing neighborhood. He thinks a condition should be placed wherein a time flame, such as after 9 p.m., that there be a prohibition about using a generator so that the neighborhood is not subject to excess noise. He aisc has a concern with how the project will interface with Wible Road. He would like to see a block wall instead of an ugly slatted chain link fence. Staff commentedthat the requirement for a block wall is not needed as the users of the RV park are not to be permanent residents so that impacts from Wible Road are not something they can't get away from. Secondly, the wall typically is required for noise and is a requirement to limit access on double frontage lots. In this particular case, staff looked at the noise contour maps and the 65 dB contour is at the back of the canal. Staff feels that a wall was not needed to mitigate acceptable noise exposures in this area from Wible Road. Commissioner Brady asked staff if would be appropriate in this circumstance in light of the fact as there is such limited space that rather than require landscaping along Wible we could require block wall and sideWalk with no landscape requirement? Mr. Movius said that it is his own preference that the City has so many block walls that he would like to see something different, and thinks that the effect of a slatted chain link fence provides visual diversity in our community. Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 8 CommissionerBradyasked if a sidewalk is going to be required along Wible Road on the east side of the project to which staff responded in the affirmative. commissioner Brady inquired if it was.staff's position that there Will not be any landscaping between the sidewalk and the fence on the east side to which staff responded in affirmative that there will not be any landscaping at all. The interior will have landscaping to shield the RV's. Commissioner Brady stated a-concern of the height differential between Pacheco and the level of the property. Staff stated that the RVers are not to make a permanent residence. The walls eliminate noise and limit access on double frontage lots. -Commissioher Brady inquired.if Fire has looked at the grade issue, to which Fire Prevention Services responded that they have not looked at the grade, but have looked at the exit and access. Staff commented that the access points have to be approved by the Fire Department. Commissioner Brady stated that he would be in support of the project with the cOnditions placed on the project. He stated that ~he feels that the concerns of the neighborhood have been addressed. Commissioner Sprague asked about Item 22 in the December 20th memo, regarding what evidence can be presented to support staff's suggestion that the asphalt/concrete requirement should be changed ~to rock duSt? He feels that a more stable concrete or ashphalt would be more appropriate. Commissioner Sprague stated that he agreed with the concerns of the letter writer and Commissioner Brady regarding generator noise. He also said he thinks it would be appropriate to have an 8' fence on the west boundary. Commissioner~Sprague asked who owns the property between the west boundary of the canal and the east boundary of Wible Road, to which the applicant responded the canal is an easement, and the applicant does own the property. Commissioner Sprague said that it would improve the area and give a noise and dust barrier if the applicant would continue the Wall to the north and then incorporate the landscape and the sidewalk. TheY could also extend the curb, gutter and sidewalk and tree scape so that it all looks the same, and is not a hopscotch situation. Jim Delmarter responded that this situation has been looked at with staff and at presently the canal company has access roads for maintenance on both sides of the canal. By moving the fence back to accommodate the curb, gutter and sidewalk this will adversely effect that. He proposed that the sidewalk would not be used very much at all and offered to trade the sidewalk for a landscape strip. Jim Delmarter stated that an all block wall perimeter would increase the cost of development to the point that it would not be economical for development. The rock duSt pad would eliminate the heat factor from the sun, and the drainage is more of a problem with asphalt. ~ Commissioner Sprague stated that he still disagrees with the rock dust concept for the pad areas. Staff confirmed that the state agrees that the rock dust is an industry standard for these types of development. Dust has not been a problem. The 3' thickness requirement ensures that there is proper control. Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 9 The applicant inquired why the Commission would be concerned with the inside maintenance issues of the property to which Commissioner Sprague responded that he views it as a Health and Safety issue. Commissioner Sprague stated that something has to be done with the slated fence, or it will look like it presently looks forever. Believes this would create a hopscotch situation of cyclone fencing from Pacheco Road south to the block wall fence that is already improved there, and it will be a eyesore forever. Would like to mitigate the problem along there. Commissioner Sprague inquired of the proposed road in and out of this project with larger RV vehicles what the traffic conditions/congestion mitigation would be, to which the applicant responded that in speaking with the Traffic Department, it will be required that the pavement be widened on Pacheco Road in order to provide adequate turn lanes, and also additional paving for cars to continue passing by on both sides, and the width of the road is in excess of most local ordinances and does not appear to be a problem. The second access was shown as an emergency access because it was an existing access to the road on the property. The applicant- does not intend to use thatsecondary access except in an emergency. It might also be determined that it is not necessary at all for the development of the park and may not be used at all. Staff stated that the PCD plan. as proposed is adequate for the vehicles that will be using it. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he likes the 8' fence. He stated that the east side of Wible Road is much more attractiveithan the west side. He stated that he does not like the look of the chainlink fence. He suggested continuing the chainlink fence along where the existing block wall is, and then on theexterior on, the east side of the fence landscape with the sidewalk to accomplish both issues and would take care of the safety issue of the canal, as well as trying to keep the cost down for the developer on the east side of the canal. Commissioner McGinnis stated his concern about the parking issue and the configuration currently and asked what the allowed stacking space is to the entrance, to which: staff responded that at least five spaces will be provided, and the applicant has two aisles 100' long coming into there, and would be adequate. Commissioner McGinnis asked about the sewage issue to which the applicant responded that the typical holding tank is relatively minor compared to what could be put on the property. The applicant stated that most RV parks are designed using a maximum of 100 gallons per day per space, which would be about 25,000 gallons per day for this particular park, and would be the equivalent of 25 houses, and the amount should be substantially less and should not tax the system. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if an 8' block wall would diminish the noise from generators to which the applicant responded that he believes most RVer's would use the electricity hook up. Commissioner McGinnis stated he was satisfied with the conditions on the project and believes it would enhance the neighborhood, and would support the project. Commissioner Gay stated his concern of access off of Pacheco. Staff responded that one of the conditions placed on the project is to add sufficient additional street paving so there is a continuous two-way turn lane. There will be an east and westbound lane, and a two-way turn lane for the entire length of both the RV parcel and the 1.8 acre parcel. There will be adequate lanes/median for stacking. Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 10 Commissioner Gay asked if that was stricken in the revisions' and staff responded that there was the removal of the requirement to provide additional right-of-way. Condition 12 requires the additional paving. A determination was made that there is adequate right-of-way now to accommodate the additional paving. Commissioner Gay asked if there is an air quality impact from the rock dust. Staff responded that they feel that it would be preferable to not seal the rock dust so there could be percolation of water through into the soil. Dust should not be a problem either with the speed of the vehicles driving through there. Staff does not isee an air quality problem. Commissioner Gay stated he Supports the 8' block wall surrounding the residences, and the wall should replace existing fences so there is not a dual fence situation that creates a problem in the future. Commissioner Gay stated that he supports the block wall along Wible Road, similar to what has been done on Old River Road with the canal, sidewalk, landscaping and a block wall. Staff stated that along Old River Road there is some landscaping which enhances the aesthetics of the chainlink slated fence. ~ Mr. Delmarter commented that the logistics of going to each residence and telling them they are going to tear down the existing fencing and put up a block wall is questionable, and requests that they be allowed to put up a block wall in such a manner that the footing is up against the existing fence and/or retaining wall providing a solid no dirt type of situation, Mr. Delmarter Commented that with regard to the requested wall along Wible Road there is a road on either side of the canal. He has made all kinds of offers to put in landscaping as opposed to curb, gutter; sidewalk and a fence. He has been told that the street has to be 45! wide, and the curb and gutter have to be 45' from the center line, and than a 5' sidewalk. If that is put in, it is going to restrict the roadway on the side of the canal for maintenance. If additional landscaping is required, the developer will have to redesign/rebuild the canal. Mr. Delmarter stated that the economics of developing the property have to be considered. Commissioner Gay said he would like to see the block wall put up along that side. He also said that he wants the sidewalk, the road to width and then looking for an alternative behind that 5' sidewalk whether it be 5' or 10' of landscaping with a chainlink fence and then their fence, or possibly a block wall with 4' or 2' of landscaping to improve the corner. A road is necessary to drive between the canal and the fence. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Delmarter if there is enough room to put a block wall along the west side of the canal to which Mr. Delmarter replied yes because it is all their property. Mr. Delmarter stated that to put a block wall 100 or 80 feet away from the road serves no purpose that he can see. The applicant had proposed to put up a chainlink slated fence and plant sufficient landscaping. Mr. Delmarter asked if the applicant could put in a regular chainlink fence on the Wible Road side so you can see through it, and split the landscaping on the westside so that some of it is on the east side of the fence that you~ can see and the other portion of it is on the west side of the fence. In this way you. get the landscaping and the fence for the health and safety of those within the park. Commissioner Tragish asked if that would diminish any of the landscaping that is now required,' or if this would be additional landscaping on the west side of the canal, to which Mr.: Delmarter responded that originally the applicant had proposed a minimum of 8' on the south end and maybe 17' on the north end. The applicant could provide a 5' strip on the east side of the fence,. along the fence so that it would be continuous and on the west side of the canal Work out a -maintenance situation with the canal company for what's on the other side of the fence. Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 11 Mr. Delmartei' commented that one of the other concerns about landscaping along Wible Road is the nature of drainage. There is an existing catch basin near the south end of the property which is close to the block wall, and he does not believe that there is an actual storm drain that takes the water. If the existing storm drain that is there that takes the water currently off of the existing pavement goes into the canall the canal company will not want any additional drainage going into their canal over and above what is going there. Additional landscaping on the canal side would tend to increase the amount of water that could potentially run off, plus it would cost the developer additional expense to get the water over there. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would prefer to have a block wall along the east boundary of the canal and does not believe that there would be a drainage problem. He stated he believes this would provide necessary aesthetics and provide a barrier for the noise and dust that comes off Wible Road which is becoming increasingly busier all the time. Mr. Delmarter asked if he was concerned about the noise from Wible Road to th~ park to which Commissioner Tragish stated that he was concerned about the noise going into the park and concern about the nOise that is created in the neighborhood. Commissioner Tragish stated~that he would like to see an 8' wall on the west boUndary. Commissioner Tragish asked ;about the rock dust to which Mr. Delmarter stated that the rock dust in his experience has not been a problem. Commissioner Tragish stated rthat he is not sure if this project is really right for this particular neighborhood, but with the auto mall and other commercial being there, he would give the benefit of the doubt on this project. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not know what the answer is with regard to the block wall. Staff commented that with regard to the wall, a wall on the east side of the canal !next to Wible Road will .reflect a lot of heat so the environment on the sidewalk will not be that desirable, whereas the slated fence tends to let the breeze and air circulate within the area, and also lets the sound move through the area and not reflect off the wall. Staff further commented that with regard to a slated fence on the western side of the canal, adjacent to the park project, a wall will collect dirt and mud as the canal is maintained and there is a visual impact. Staff also commented that the applicant could possibly put the trees closer together. On the west side of the wall. there is a tree for every 35', and these could possibly be spaced closer. The real visual impact is where the RV's stick up above the fences or walls. 5 minute recess taken Commissioner Sprague inquired if the sewer fee is pad on a per pad basis or per acre to which staff responded the sewer connections are paid on a connection basis, which is an equivalent dwelling unit, but would be less than a regular house. Commissioner Sprague is still concerned with the fencing issue on Wible Road. Commissioner Sprague asked if it would require an approval by the canal company to place a fence on the easement to which staff responded they would need to read the easement, but would assume that it would require the canal company's permission. Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 12 Commissioner.Sprague commented that the canal company probably would not want to give up their right to that space to which staff agreed. Commissioner Sprague asked if they could move the existing fence or six foot block wall moved over proportionally because the canal can be serviced on the other side of the canal as it gets closer to Pacheco. - Commissioner SpragUe stated that he would prefer to have a 6' blOck wall with or without landscape, and exclude the sidewalk if necessary. Other than this, a cyclone wall with greenery that would fill in thecyclone fence so that it blended in would be another way to beautify that strip of land and still offer a noise barrier. Chairman Boyle asked what the cost of wrought iron would be? Mr. Delmarter said about $20 per linear foot. Chairman Boyle stated that there are three alternatives. First 5 ¼' sidewalk, City standard, with a block wall next to it without landscaping. Second, normal sidewalk with a chainlink fence that the applicant will provide landscaping on the west side of the canal. Third alternative is something in' between these two. The third alternative could be to continue the block wall landscaping per City design as far north as is possible. Landscaping inside the fence may be a compromise. There does not appear to be enough room on the north end of the project and the applicant has no ability to legally control, obligate or otherwise place a burden on the easement property, and does not want to require the City to file a suit for condemnation to put in a block wall and landscaping. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Delmarter whether he would prefer to put in 5-1/2 feet of conCrete or 5-1/2 feet of landscaping? Mr. Delmarter said that once the sidewalk is in there is no maintenance and as far as cost is concerned it is about the same, however, the city would have to maintain the landscaping. It would look nicer than the south side where there will be a block wall and a tree every 25 feet or so. Commissioner Brady asked staff if there is a reason there has to be a sidewalk o.n the west side of Wible as opposed to a landscape strip? Mr. Movius stated that after talking with Ms. Shaw that the Commission does have the ability to go less restrictive than current city standards. With the evidence regarding Iow usage!in the area, staff feels that is within the Commission's capabilities. Commissioner Brady said he would be amenable to support that even with a chainlink fence. Commissioner Gay stated that the landscape median sounds interesting and that wrought iron would be half the cost, but would be a maintenance concern. He stated that he would favor a chainlink fence,- or a coated chainlink fence on the east side of the canal with the landscaping, and then have the applicant put his chainlink fence in with the wood slates where they would be protected on the applicant's side. Chairman Boyle asked if Mr. Delmarter would have any objection to deleting the sidewalk and putting in landscaping and going with a chainlink fence, to which he responded in the negative. Commissioner Tkac clarify that the fences on both the east and west side would be a least 6 foot high? Mr. Delmarter said "yes'." Chairman Boyle asked staff if the area is changed to a landscape area instead of a sidewalk who is responsible for the maintenance to which staff responded that the City would maintain the' landscaping on Wible Road. The condition could be attached tonight, but there may be an ADA issue for reasons of continuity, but staff could sort this out before it went to Council and advise them on that. Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 13 Commissioner Tkac confirmed that the light shielding will be proper to which staff responded that the applicant has a very subdued lighting plan that they are on 12' standards, and the closest one is 40' way, and after that they are all like 80' away and they are spaced widely apart. Commissioner Boyle inquired !if the applicant would favor disallowing generators Completely, to which Mr. Delmarter responded that they could post this, but with regard to the noise pollution he stated that most parks have a "no noise time limit", and that the use of a generator could be used by the same control method. Chairman Boyle asked Mr. Movius if anyone looked at generators and the air pollution issue? Mr. Movius said that this was circulated to the Air Quality Control Board as part of the CEQA process and no comments were received from them. Chairman Boyle stated that he thinks it would be appropriate to place a condition on the project that there would be a single rate so that the charge is for all hookups. If the hookup rate is required, most.people will use. the hookups rather than a generator, and will be self-policing. Commissioner Tragish stated he like the compromise of no sidewalk and the 6' fence with landscaping. He asked if the landscaping plan would be approved by staff to which staff responded that they would propose utilizing part of the existing wording on 27.1 where the first sentence would be stricken; on the second sentence it would state "area between curb" instead of sidewalk now. It would say"area between curb and the canal shall be landscaped with one tree for every 30 feet, grass and shrubs and minimum 15 gallon tree size as approved by the Parks Department." Staff indicated that if the intent is to create a wall of landscaping on the east side of Wible Road it needs to be clearly stated and clarified. Commissioner Tragish indicated that 30' is a little far apart. Staff commented that one per 30' is the typical spacing for the trees, and the shrubbery would actually create the screening effect at car level. Commissioner Tragish asked if the ADA issue needs to be addressed in the motion, to which staff responded in the negative. : CommissionerTragish stated that he would support the fiat single fee. Chairman Boyle asked if the landscaping could include a five gallon climbing plant every 10 or 15 feet to get the shielding, to which staff responded in the affirmative, although the :effect of the integrity of the fence is questionable with the weight of the climbing plant. Staff suggested saying "vegetative screening" and not require an actual climbing plant. Staff further noted concerning the generators that on the site plan the units are all designed to pull in front wards to access utilities which puts the generator about two feet off the ground at the back of the unit which in most c~ses is at least 50 feet away from the residences. Staff attorney is not comfortable with the Commission getting into a fee regulation as suggested. A condition could be attached for night time noise exposure. Chairman Boyle stated that his concern was not limited to the noise issue but in addition the air pollution sourCe which was not studied as part of this application. There are potentially 246 sources of air pollution. As long as the applicant is willing to having a single fiat fee to encourage the Use of the hookups-rather than generators in order to reduce air pollution and control noise after 10 p.m. at night. Minutes, pC, December 20, 2001 Page14 Commissioner Brady stated that he is uncomfortable with conditioning a single fiat fee. To alleviate the generator noise then a condition that generators won't be used in the park is more acceptable. He stated that he would be agreeable to limit the noise pollution to a "no night time use of the generator." Commissioner Brady stated that with regard to the tree spacing a tree does branch out 10 or 15 feet so that a 30' spacing is sufficient screening at maturity of the trees. · CommissionerBrady asked if'there was a standard as to whether the trees would be evergreen versus deciduous? Staff responded that there is a standard for streetscaping for percentage of evergreens and that it can be set since it is a PCD. ~ Commissioner BradY stated that he would feel more comfortable if the intent of landscaping is described and the plant material is approved by the Parks Department. Mr: Delmarter stated that there are certain cases where a generator may need to be used such as if the battery is drained, and he would be more agreeable to Mr. Boyle's suggestion of the unified pricing and everybody has the ability to hook up. He does not feel that you can take the right away of the use of a generator if somebody needs it. Commissioner Brady stated that he would agree to this if there was a time limit on the use of a generator, to which Mr. Delmarter stated that the use of a generator would be prohibited between 10:00 p.m and 7:00 a.m. Chairman Boyle sUggested that phone and cable would not be included in the single, flat fee, but only water, sewer and electrical would be included in the single flat fee. Staff responded that enforcement is an issue. Staff stated that :regarding landscaping on Wible Road, number 27.1 should read: "Area between curb and the canal fence shall be landscaped as per City Code with the intent of creating a vegetative screenj minimum of 15 gallon tree size as approved by the Parks DePartment." Commissioner .Brady stated that an additional condition should read: Where appropriate that the applicant shall have one fee s~:hedule for electrical, water and sewer hookup, and further that there be a condition that there will be no generator use on site between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. Motion made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the negative declaration~ and to approve Zone Change P01-0762 with findings and conditions as set forth in attached Resolution Exhibit "A" including the revisions contained in the Planning Director's Memorandum dated December 20, 2001, and the Public Works Department Memorandum dated December 18, 2001 and recommend same to City Council, and adopting the conditions set forth by staff. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, December 20, 2001 Page 15 COMMUNICATIONS A) There was a written communication from Ginny Gennaro regarding a previous subject the Co'mmission wanted brought up regarding pipelines that the Commission wanted staff to look into. B) Mr. Movius expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission for the kind comments that were directed his way by them at the last meeting. He went on to say that it has been a pleasure to work with each one of them and he has been very fortunate to work with a group such as them that are so consensus and really committed to building a better Bakersfield. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) B) Commissioner Tragish corrected himself on Agenda Item 6.2b. He was talking about lowering the density and cited the HMR and higher density designation instead. Commissioner Tragish expressed his appreciation of Mr. Movius during his short term on the Commission. Mr. ~Movius reasoning and logic seem to be right on the mark. Commissioner Sprague further expressed his appreciation of Mr. Movius. Commissioner Sprague inquired of staff about the California League of Cities Conference in Monterrey and the progress with,pre-registration, to which staff responded the information is expected out at the end of the month. c) D) Commissioner Gay expressed his appreciation of Mr. Movius. Chairman Boyle stated that he has this month's edition from the League of California Cities for review. 10, DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING. It was decided not to hold a pre-meeting on January 14, 2002. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. January 17, 2002 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary ,,/' /JAML....... ActinEgSpl~,nMn~nV~UD~;eSc;;rretary '