Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-08 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - -. 17 2008 — 5:3D p,m. Regular Meeting July P Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Tragish, Andrews, Tkac Absent: Commissioner Stanley 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Speaker cards from Mr. Thompson and Mrs. Davisson were received regarding item 4.2c, which will be removed from the consent calendar and a speaker card from Mr. Aboshamaa was received regarding items 6.3a& b. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of June 5, 2008. Commissioner Johnson amended page 3, second paragraph 5th line down, the word "he" should read "staff," and on page 6, 3rd paragraph from bottom there's a typo; the word "instruct"should be"construct." Commissioner Andrews requested adding an "S"to his name on the last page. 4.1 b Accept-and File Plannina Director's Re ort for Administrative Review 08-0845 (Tom Byland) 4.1 c Accept and File Plannin Director's Report for Administrative Review 08-0966 (Everygreen DevCo, Inc.) Commissioner Tragish requested removal of item 4.1c from the non-public consent calendar. Commissioner Andrews moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Motion carried by group vote. 4.1 c Acce t and File Planning Director's Report for Administrative Review 08-0966 (Everygreen DevCo, Inca Staff report given. commissioner Tragish inquired if this project is subject to the exception of the ordinance discussed. Staff responded it is not subject to the exception. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant is requesting permission to approve their use of the exception to the ordinance by using the sound report. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish inquired if approval was given and the noise report is submitted, if there will be certain hours that will be in their request, or is the applicant just seeking an exception and they can set the hours at will. Staff responded that until they see a copy of the sound report, they do not exactly know what direction the applicant is going in. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -- July 17, 2008 Page 2 Commissioner Tragish asked the applicant, Rick McCann with Evergreen DevCo, what the proposed hours are. Mr. McCann responded that the hours of operation for all stores in Bakersfield are currently not going to be 24 hours. He explained that in the initial stages they were not against the hour restrictions because they were not sure what their client Fresh-N-Easy desired. He further explained that they are looking at being treated like a larger center that would have the same right to bring a noise study to allow them to have a larger window for delivery. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the proposed hours are for delivery. Mr. McCann responded that existing store open hours would be 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. and currently they can only delivery from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the store will be opened 24 hours a day at some point. Mr. McCann responded that since there is not a prohibition against it in the city, it is up to Fresh-N-Easy to make that decision. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant would have any objection if a motion was made approving the applicant's request as long as the applicant limits the hours to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. in conjunction with a noise report. Mr. McCann responded that he does not agree because currently with the ordinance, if the noise level is above a certain acceptable level between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., a complaint can be filed and Staff can make a recommendation to limit the delivery hours. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Eggert if the applicant is asking for delivery hours between 5 a.m. and 10 p.m. and he inquired if a motion is made and the condition provided that whatever noise report they came up with it would only support a B a.m. to 10 p.m. delivery time. Mr. Eggert responded in the negative. Commissioner Tragish stated that his concern is that he does not want deliveries at 3 o'clock in the morning. commissioner Tragish inquired what the length of discretion Staff has, if Staff feels the requested hours are not supported. Staff responded that the condition is not written as hours, but written as the noise level of the activity versus the noise level in the immediate area. He explained that the ordinance looks at a continuous three minutes every hour and therefore it is going to depend on what the ambient noise level is to begin with. Mr. Eggert stated that this area is probably going to be very quiet in comparison to Stockdale Highway. The applicant will not be able to exceed a noise level of activity that is 3 decibels higher. Mr. Eggert explained that if it is higher then 3, then they will have to do sound mitigation, or limit their hours to what the ordinance states, which is 7am to 10pm. Commissioner Tragish inquired under what circumstances would Staff refer to the Planning commission. Mr. Eggert responded that they would bring it to the Planning Commission if the applicant was wanting to change the standard to something that is currently not provided. Commissioner McGinnis commented that as long as the applicant can stay in the 3 decibel limit, they have unlimited time and delivery. Staff confirmed this. Commissioner McGinnis explained that the applicant is going to do the study and fall within the 3 decibel limit because they can pick the type of deliveries that will fall within that limit. And while there won't be deliveries from one particular individual, they may not all fall within the 3 decibel limit. He stated for these reasons, he would not support the applicant's request at this time, because 1) it doesn't fall within the 50,000 square foot limit , and 2) the applicant should be restricted to the parameters of when those deliveries should take place and whether it exceeds or is under the 3 decibel limit. Commissioner McGinnis commented that he thinks it would be setting bad precedent by allowing anyone to come forward and try to seek something like this. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by commissioner Andrews, to deny the Planning Director's report as filed. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -- July 17, 2008 Page 3 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Johnson, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Blockley ABSENT: Commissioner Stanley 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6444 (Pinnacle ..PI_IIII.II.PIIPI.I.II.11_ Engineering, Inc.) 4.2b Agwoval of Extension of Time for Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6453 (SmithTech U.S.A.) 4.2c Apmoval of Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6485(KB Homes) 4.2d Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6591 (Delmarter & Deifel Engineering) 4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11792(McIntosh & Associates) 4.2f Continuance of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6776 until August 21 2408 (Dewalt Corporation) 4.2g Approval of Zone Change 07-204111(Porter&Associates) 4.2c is removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of two members of the public via speaker cards. The public hearing is opened, Julie McDade requested removal of 4.2f. Chair Johnson responded that it will be continued until August 21, 2008. Commissioner Tragish recused himself from item 4.2a. Commissioner Tkac recused himself from item 4.2a. The public hearing items are closed with the exception of 4.2c, which was removed from consent, and 4.2f which has been continued. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve the consent calendar with the exclusion of items 4.2c and 4.2f. Motion carried by the following roll tail vote: AYES: Commissioner Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Stanley 4.2c Approval of Extension of Time for Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6485■(KB Homes) �. _I..__ -. --------- -- - I_II_■IIPIIII.I.I.I_PII_PN_NN The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Michael Thompson stated he lives on Green Hills Street, representing the homeowner's association. He stated that there are eight adjoining homeowners to the tract. He stated that his problem is that the drainage from all of their lots did go to the east and across the land that is now Tract 6485. He indicated that the grading has been completed on that subdivision, which changes the drainage. He pointed out that the ultimate facility which will handle the drainage from their lots is a wall with a 6' wide concrete gutter that runs north and south along their common property line. He pointed out that the wall is 10' inside their property line and their CC&Rs allow that 10 foot area for equestrian access. Mr. Thompson stated that his goal is to get that wall and that gutter built in a timely manner and would like to work with the developer to accelerate this part of the construction before the rainy season. He indicated that he tried to contact the developer on May 1 oth through an e-mail and the individual he Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — July 17, 2008 Page 4 contacted is no longer with the company and then in November 2007 he sent another communication with no answer received back. Mr. Thompson stated that he tried to contact the developer through the city of Bakersfield for the last three weeks during the advertisement period of this hearing and he still has had no luck making contact with the developer. Mr. Thompson stated he would like some method or way of getting some sort of a timeline on the drainage facility, because it is not only their water that will be a problem but there is water that is coming from the tract. Dallas Medley stated he lives on Cliff Street and KB Homes backs up to his property. He indicated that they cut the road and left a mess and it is currently full of tumble weeds currently. Mr. Medley commented that from the right corner where he is standing they cut his property where he cannot get down into it to take care of it anymore, because they created a 45 degree slope down to their property on the corner where the road is going in. Mr. Medley submitted the dimensions to the clerk. Mr. Medley stated he did give KB Homes permission to bring their equipment on his land to make their cut. He asked them to put the ground back the same way they found it and now he cannot get down to his property because it's on a 45 degree angle. Mr. Medley pointed out that "They left one hell of a mess on that road." He further commented that they, KB Homes, are only looking out for themselves and are not looking out for any of the surrounding area. Michael Thompson explained his overhead which showed the boundary of the properties and the drainage issues presented. Beth Davisson stated that she lives next to Dallas Medley and in conjunction with what the previous speakers have said, she pointed out that some of the bags that are holding back the debris are black plastic and are beginning to deteriorate so when there is rain and wind there may be a problem. She also stated that there is suppose to be a Swale between their properties and the lots and there is none. She stated that there does not seem to be room between their property line and the pad to have a swale put in place. Ms. Davisson also stated that she is concerned about light pollution, because their property is above the proposed property. She also pointed out that she is requesting that there be no air conditioners on the roofs. In addition, because her property is in the county and this tract is in the city, there have been problems with code enforcement overlap. Ms. Davisson commented that with respect to the road for fire access, they actually cut down the road below the level of their road, so unless there is an improvement to the road as it is developed, any fire truck trying to make a turn onto that road would tip over because of the road's angle. She also pointed out that during the time the work was being done on the property, they did have people that crossed over onto their property line and they have since put up a fence to hopefully prevent the developer from crossing over. Mr. Thompson suggested that this be put off until August 7, with a recommendation to the developer that he contact the neighbors that have concerns and issues. Jerry Hendricks indicated that he is with Hendricks Engineering, representing Global Investment, who is now the current owner of this property. He responded that the grading is done in such a way that any water coming off the other properties will continue on and comes onto this tract and therefore, there wouldn't be any place along the site where any runoff would cause any problems to those properties. He pointed out that the runoff from those other properties will be diverted into this tract as it is currently graded. Mr. Hendricks stated that the tract is currently rough graded and has been thoroughly covered for dust control, slope protection, and erosion control. He stated that the new owner plans to replace the deteriorated bags because they want to minimize erosion until such time as this property can be developed. Mr. Hendricks stated that the block wall already diverts water coming off the neighbors' properties. Mr. Hendricks stated that they have talked to Mr. Medley prior to acquiring the property and they are aware of his concern with regard to the one corner and the owner plans to do something about it. He explained that the emergency access road which goes south of this property T's into the road that is on the south end of Mr. Medley's property. He pointed out that the grading is such because it is graded to subgrade and the road it is cut down a little bit because eventually there will be Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -- July 17, 2008 Page 5 road base and paving. At this point in time, there is no need for emergency access. Mr. Hendricks stated that they want a good relationship with the neighbors. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley inquired what the City policy was regarding grading property prior to recording a map. Staff responded that this tract has an approved tentative map and that is when they start processing their plans for streets, sewers, storm drain, as well as a grading plan, which is required to be completed before the street and sewer plans, etc., can be signed. Staff pointed out that in this case the applicant does have approved street and sewer plans, as well as an approved grading plan and once they pay the habitat conservation plan fees and grading permit fees they are allowed to grade the site. In conclusion, a map does not have to be recorded first. Commissioner Tkac referenced, "Buffalo Avenue" as intersecting with "Canyon Street," which appears to be the main ingress for this tract and the overhead indicating a "Jade Hills Drive." Staff explained that there are street name changes on similar alignments in town. Commissioner Tkac inquired if the access into this tract is considered old Commanche Drive, or will Green Hill Street ever circle around the top? Staff responded this is not legal access. Staff explained that access to this site is provided along Buffalo Avenue from the new Commanche Drive and old Commanche Drive has been partially abandoned. There is no access from Highway 178 on old Commanche Drive to this tract. Commissioner Tkac pointed out that the drainage concerns are the same concerns everyone has been facing. He stressed to the developer the importance of really reinforcing the ground. He further referenced the concern expressed with the lighting and inquired at what point will this issue be something the Planning Commission will see or can dictate lighting controls. Staff responded that the Planning Commission would not see anything related to light for single family development and further explained that lighting issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Staff pointed out that there are no real lighting restrictions for any single family residence other than shining it on streets and onto neighboring properties where it causes a nuisance. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there is an easement consisting of a roadway or spillway, between the two properties between the east end of Green Hills. Staff responded that they are not sure if what is there now is legal, however the developer would have a drainage easement. Commissioner Tkac inquired at what point the city checks property lines and boundary lines. Staff responded that they are checked with the maps and for this tract they would look at the closure of that particular tract, however they do not go onto other properties and check the legality of their lot lines. Commissioner Tragish inquired if a request for an extension of a tentative tract is made what type of showing has to be made and what kind of discretion does the Planning Commission have to grant or deny such a request. Staff responded that the applicant's need to have their application filed before the map expires. Staff further explained that the Planning Commission's authority to approve or deny is based on the state map act. A decision for denial has to be based on one of two findings: 1) It would be a public health or safety issue to the residents of the subdivision or to the immediate community, or both. 2) A condition or denial is required in order to comply with either State of Federal law. If one of the two findings is not made,then the extension it would have to be approved. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if there were sufficient grounds, and if it was within their discretion, and the application was denied, would the applicant would have to start the whole development process all over again. Staff responded that the applicant could appeal it to the City Council and if that was turned down the map would have actually expired June 1 S#, so they would have to start over. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — July 17, 200$ Page 6 Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant did have to start over, would the Planning Department have any control over compelling this developer to correct any of the grading that had been previously done. Staff responded that if the map is not in existence, the applicant has nothing more to work on, however, they still have an approved grading plan regardless of the status of the map, which could still be honored. Staff further explained that they do not require approval of some other land use entitlement for somebody to grade their property. Staff commented that it does not appear that this applicant is currently non-complaint. Staff further explained that if the applicant is not in compliance with the grading plan, the city does have the ability, through building and code enforcement, to either make them comply through a revised plan or to meet the obligations under the approved plan. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff is aware of any state legislation regarding the extension of certain types of developments or maps. Staff responded that there was a law just signed by the governor that could extend the life of the maps, however in this particular case the map would have been before the Planning Commission anyway and probably would not effect this application. Staff further clarified that there are only two ways to deny the extension of time and the second basis previously discussed does not seem to exist, so the only finding for denial would be for the health, safety and welfare of the community. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff knows it to be true what the new owner says about the current grading condition. Staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Mr. Hendricks had any contact with Mr. Thompson. Mr. Hendricks responded in the negative. Mr. Hendricks confirmed that the implementation of the approved rough grading plan will not allow water to run onto the property to the west. Mr. Hendricks stated if you look at the cross section it can be seen that it drains away from the other property owners' wall into his clients property. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant has any time line when they intend to put in some of the off-site development, which would include the gutter and the wall. Mr. Hendricks responded that they do not have a time line due to the current nature of the housing market. Commissioner Tragish inquired if this situation where the owners to the west are claiming that water may be running off to their property is a civil matter, or if it is something that the Planning Department should get involved in. Staff responded that it would be a civil matter. Commissioner Tragish commented that if this map is not approved, whatever funds there are to correct the purported or alleged shortcomings would not be forthcoming because it would have to be utilized to get the map approved again, which costs an incredible amount of money. He noted that if it does get approved you have the current owner to bring to the forefront if you think they haven't complied with the approved grading plan. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not know whose allegations are correct with regard to the grading plan. He suggested that Mr. Hendricks get with Mr. Thompson to discuss these issues. Commissioner Andrews inquired if Mr. Thompson's main concern was with erosion of the equestrian right of way or the water draining back on his property. Mr. Thompson responded that is correct, but it is anybody's guess if it's going to rain. He commented that it is a federal law that one guy cannot pond water on another guy's property. He stated that if he could talk to the present owner for a little while they could work this out. Commissioner Andrews stated that he was going to suggest that they talk with the owner. Commissioner Johnson stated that his only hope out of this is that the residents that live in the vicinity leave here tonight knowing that they are going to get a chance to have a clear Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — July 17, 2008 Page 7 understanding of what is going to happen. He inquired if there will be any deadlines under the subdivision map act that would interfere with their vesting rights, or their pending vesting rights because they have already submitted their application. Staff responded there currently are no issues with respect to that. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Hendricks if he would be in favor of a continuance to August 7t". Mr. Hendricks responded that it would not be his preference because he does not see what the extension would accomplish as far as the overall extension for the map. He indicated that they are willing to work with the adjacent property owners, but as a practical matter building the block wall all the way up the side, which is about 1,000 ft, is very expensive for something that is just going to be left sitting there. Mr. Hendricks commented that he does not think that a continuance accomplishes an awful lot. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to continue this item to August 7, 2008 for further review so that the homeowners and the developer can get together. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Stanley Break Taken. 5. PUBLIC HEADING—Housinn Element Update,(Negative declaration on file) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Caren Northcutt with Northcutt and Associates, the City's consultant preparing the Housing Element stated that the Staff report does outline where they are and how they got to where they are. She indicated that they did receive a comment letter back from the Department of Housing and Community Development. She pointed out that the comment letter was relatively innocuous, in that they brought up some issues that required clarification. Her department has been working directly with their reviewer at HCD and he has agreed in concept to all our proposed changes and supplemental information they were going to providing the housing element to respond to all of the items that were mentioned. Ms. Northcut explained that they are adding statistical information specifically to discuss supportive housing, transitional housing and single room occupancy units. She pointed out that the comment letter requests additional clarification about available land. Her staff was able to verify that the City had adequate water and sewer to be able to meet the regional housing allocation needs, which is the 27,252 dwelling units that was identified over the next five year period. Ms. Northcutt further pointed out that they were asked to clarify some things in the zoning ordinance to make sure that as the City moves forward and State law changes over time, during the time frame of the housing element, that the City has an expanded program to make sure that they continually review the zoning ordinance to make sure it stays in compliance with State law. Ms. Northcutt concluded by stating that they are in good shape with responding to HCD. At this point they would ask that the Planning Commission to approve the environmental document and forward this on to the City Council, at which point it will probably be heard in September and by that time they will have final comments back from the Department of Housing and Community Development. Thereafter the state gets an additional 90 days to actually review what the City Council approves to make sure that during the process nothing has been changed from what the State has previously agreed to. No one from the audience spoke in opposition or in favor of Staff's recommendation. The public hearing on this item is closed. Commissioner Andrews commented that from his experience with the Department of Housing and Community Development, staff has done an excellent job of preparing what is before the Planning Commission tonight, and Staff needs to be commended because rarely does the State see this level of statistical detail in this particular document. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt the Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration, recommending the draft housing element update be adopted by the City Council with incorporation of comments from the State Dept. of Housing and Community Development. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — July 17, 2008 Page 8 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Stanley 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS 1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS/ ZONE CHANGES 6.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel MgR_11792 (McIntosh &Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 6.2 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6776 (Dewalt Corporation) Heard on consent calendar. 6.3a Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7161 (McIntosh &Associates) 6,3b Zone Chan-ge 08-0594(McIntosh &Associates) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Linda Aboshamaa stated she moved into their home in September and they picked Windemere because they liked the smaller streets and more neighborly atmosphere than the wider streets with high walls designed to isolate neighbors. Ms. Aboshamaa stated that she does not want to see the development lessened by changing the design in any way and opposes any change in zoning that would allow the character and design of Windemere to be diminished. Steve Fox stated he is a homeowner in Windemere and the primary reason they decided to move there was because they liked the design. He indicated that the changes before the Planning Department will cause the design to be lost and it will affect their current property values. He further explained that his lot is above average in size and with the proposal to reduce the number of lots, the lot sizes will increase and therefore the average lot size will come up and his will just be average. This will cause a negative impact in his property value. Mr. Fox also stated that the alleys are an important distinction because they have a three year old and a six year old and it was one of the major features for them to move to this neighborhood. He explained that with the alleyway, some of the vehicular traffic and some of the parking is moved behind the house, therefore making the front loaded areas less congested and safer for the children. Ernesto Armoneta stated he shares the same sentiments as Steve Fox. He stated he purchased a home in this area for the safety of their children and his father in-law. He also stated that they would like to work with Castle & Cooke to preserve the neighborhood that they invested in. Brian Lee agrees with the previous speakers. He pointed out that he has investigated the differences between the different zonings that when he purchased his home he had to agree to some things with Castle & Cooke and the things that were excluded when he purchased might come back in as acceptable if this application is granted to re-zone to R-1. Mr. Lee also pointed out that with R-1 there could be home occupations, garage sales, child care facilities and multiple dwellings. Brenda Mondeleseta stated she agrees with the previous comments and added that not only would this change the lot sizes, but it would compromise their investments. She stated they decided to move to this location because they liked the layout of Windemere. She stated she feels that this proposal is at the expense of the existing homeowners. She also stated that they have contacted Castle & Cooke and requested that they keep some of the green belts and pointed out that if this application is approved there will be very little green belts in those areas, which will negatively impact where they currently planned. Ms. Mondeleseta further stated that Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — July 17, 2008 Page 9 the new construction that has come into the neighborhood does not fit into the land requirements as previously approved and they were not informed, nor are the homes of the same architectural character. She stated her concern is that if the application is approved and the changes take place, are they then going to compromise the existing homeowners and their architectural selection to move into that neighborhood to put in less expensive homes to sell at a lesser value. She inquired to what extent will these changes affect the existing homeowners. She stated that they would like an opportunity to be involved and see to what extent they are wanting to make these changes. She concluded by stating that they do not want their neighborhood to be just any other common neighborhood. Isa Crisgereba stated he resides in Windemere. He stated that lot square footage is a big concern and when he bought he could only get a 7,800 square foot interior lot and if this is approved there will be interior lots that are quite larger by 2,200 to 2,400 square feet on up. He stated that this does compromise his value. Mr. Crisgereba stated that the greenbelt area was a factor when he purchased his home and he does not want to see the disappearance of the greenbelts. He also commented that they would like to see the consistency of what they bought into. Roger McIntosh, with McIntosh & Associates, representing Castle & Cooke, explained what they are proposing using the overhead. He explained that in the original layout they had a number of open space areas, with some pocket parks and linear areas. He stated that they incorporated an alley-loaded product, with some of the lots being front loaded. Mr. McIntosh stated that they are requesting deletion of most of the alleys in the western part of the subdivision. With the deletion of the alleys the lots become front-loaded lots. He explained that some of the green space will be deleted. Mr. McIntosh stated that statistically the amount of green space in the current configuration is 8.7 acres and the proposed green space is 7.03 acres. In this particular subdivision, the minimum city requirement for the existing layout is 1.82 acres. Therefore they are proposing 6.2 acres more then what was required by the city. He explained that the 8.7 acres is the private park, or private green space area in that original tract for 242 lots. Mr. McIntosh further explained that the new layout of 7.03 acres is for 224 lots. He pointed out that the City requirements for public space in the new subdivision is 1.68 acres and therefore they are still 6.2 acres more than is required for public parks. Mr. McIntosh went on to explain that with the alley-loaded product, they had in general a 65 foot wide lot by 120 feet deep and with the garage coming off the rear lane or the alley, it created a very small backyard. When the alley is deleted, even with a 25'front yard set back, they end up with a much bigger backyard, and by going another 10' wider to 75' and doing away with the alley, they can make the proposed lots 130' deep instead of 120' deep. This makes the proposed lots larger by about 2,000 sq. ft. He explained that this proposal not only provides for a backyard that is desired by this market, but it also provides for another opportunity to put a pool in and have more outdoor recreation, along with more privacy. Mr. McIntosh explained that they are not changing the walkability of the neighborhood and they still have the narrow streets, detached sidewalks, short blocks, as well as with a grid system with only two short cul-de-sacs. While some of the green spaces have been removed, some of the lots have been removed as well. Mr. McIntosh stated that increasing the lot sizes should increase the value of the existing homes. Mr. McIntosh concluded by stating that they are in agreement with the memo from Public Works, pointing out that it took them three years of discussion and a lot of debate with Public Works, garbage collection, and the fire department to come to an agreement on the narrower streets and alleyways. He pointed out that the fire department is in support of their design change, as well as the sanitation, and Public Works. Darlene Molkey, with Castle & Cooke, stated that they agree with the residents about the uniqueness of Windemere, and they are standing behind Windemere. They would like to upgrade this property and meet market demands. She explained that they have only been selling about 6 homes each year, and at that rate it will take them 40 years to build out Windemere. Ms. Molkey stated that in March 2007 she started studying the market, and polled Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -- July 17, 2008 Page 10 three months of people who walked through their models at Windemere, and polled as many as would talk to an independent market study group about what they thought about Windemere, including price point, community design, and it was very clear that any home in Bakersfield in those prices wanted a full sized lot. She explained that not only has there been a decrease in home sales in the market, but there also diminished need for alley loaded product. Ms. Molkey advised that in mid June they sent a letter to the residents explaining to them that they were going back to a more traditional sized lots, which would ultimately create more homeowners living in the neighborhood. She pointed out that last week Castle & Cooke met with many of the neighbors (about 10), and discussed various scenarios that they were looking at, and tried to work through their concerns. Ms. Molkey also noted that Castle & Cooke is currently subsidizing every single month all of the maintenance on all of the parks that are in that community right now. She indicated that in one year they spent over $175,000 just in the homeowners association maintenance subsidy program. Ms. Molkey pointed out that by making the proposed lot change, Castle & Cooke is actually losing lots to the tune of about $100,000 per lot. She stated that they hope that the Planning Commission will support a solution that is in the best intention of everyone associated with Windemere. She said with regard to Mr. Lee's comments to the changes to the community regarding the R-1 zone, she thinks he was actually referencing the Covenants that Castle & Cooke provides, which are in place and cannot be changed as they are recorded documents. She pointed out that the homeowners would have to take a vote to rescind anything in the CC&Rs, which they are not proposing to do, nor would they want to do that. Ron Sanders stated they looked at Windemere when looking for a home, but felt the backyard was too small. Therefore they purchased a perimeter lot, and with the increased lot sizes, and amount of greenbelt that will exist, he believes the property values will have a better chance of appreciating over time. Louis Gregorio, residential real estate sales person for over 25 years, stated that this project was a definite niche product when it came to the market. His opinion was that it would fit a few people in Bakersfield, but did not think that it would fit the majority. Now that the market has changed, and you have to make adjustments to the market, to have a project sit unfinished is very difficult. He stated that he does not think that changing the lot sizes to 1/4 acre lots is going to be a detriment to the neighborhood, but rather a positive. Mr. Gregorio stated that the typical request of the buyers he speaks with are for at least 1/4 acre. He pointed out that he has a home on the market in this area, and it has been difficult to sell, because the most common negative heard is that they don't like the alley entrance and they don't like the garage in the back. Mr. Gregorio stated that with a Castle & Cooke product, they will hold their values. He concluded that from his experience, he does not see how this proposal will drop the values of the current homes. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Lee if Ms. Molkey answered some of his concerns. Mr. Lee responded that she did address his concerns to some extent. Commissioner McGinnis explained that the CC&Rs have not changed and they will continue to exist. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he did talk to a representative from Castle & Cooke prior to today's meeting. He asked Mr. Molkey as to the sq. footage of the existing homes that have been sold. Ms. Molkey replied the sq. footage is 2,300 up to 3,100 sq. ft. She explained that Castle & Cooke has enough inventory for two years in Windemere, and they are hoping to see the market stabilize, because right now they would not want to make a decision on what type of homes and what they are going to ultimately look like based upon such a bleak market condition. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the CC&Rs include a minimum number of sq. ft. for this subdivision. Ms. Molkey replied that it would be in the ALCC Guidelines, and are not part of the CC&Rs. She pointed out that there is no minimum or maximum in those documents. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — July 17, 2008 Page 11 Commissioner McGinnis inquired how much on-street parking there is in the neighborhood. Ms. Molkey replied that when she goes through the neighborhood there is consistently two cars in the front area in front of the park on Oakley, and probably three or four down Parker Hill. She pointed out that there are only 13 residents currently living in this community currently. Ms. Molkey pointed out that there are parking guidelines in Windemere. commissioner McGinnis inquired what the guidelines are. Ms. Molkey responded that whatever the garage capacity is, one must park a passenger vehicle to the capacity of the garage. She explained that if you had a two-car garage and three vehicles, the third vehicle would have to go in the driveway. She pointed out that parking in the alley is prohibited. Commissioner McGinnis stated that the issue here is a matter of property rights, pointing out that overlying is Castle & Cooke's property rights as the owner of a large investment. He pointed out that castle & Cooke is probably one of the most honorable builders that comes before the commission. He stated he agrees with Mr. Gregorio with respect to property values, and would rather see the subdivision built out rather than see a lot of vacant lots. commissioner McGinnis further pointed out that with regard to the green belt areas, they are still well above the City's requirements. He stated that he personally feels that what is being proposed is going to be nothing but a plus for the residents. He concluded by stating that he would support castle & Cooke's request. Commissioner Blockley stated he liked the Windemere project from the beginning. He stated that he is in support of what is being proposed, with the exception that he finds it ironic that the condition on this is that the streets be widened. Commissioner Tkac stated that he will support the recommendation for some of the same reasons already expressed by other commissioners. He pointed out that Wasco has had six defaults on projects in that area, and that Castle & Cooke has a long history and wants to stay responsible to this area. Commissioner Tkac expressed that he does not see how this proposal will bring down any property values. He inquired as to the two year inventory, and at what level is that inventory existing. Ms. Molkey responded that the homes that are currently in Windemere are all completed. Commissioner Andrews disclosed that he did meet earlier with the developers on this project, and it is his opinion that what is being proposed is really the logical and most sensible approach to saving the values of the homes that are already developed and occupied. He stated that he thinks in the long run this will be a plus and an enhancement for those already in the subdivision. He stated that he will support the developer's request at this point. Commissioner Blockley disclosed that he met with Castle & Cooke and with one of the residents in the area. Commissioner Tragish stated that he met with a representative from Castle &Cooke. Commissioner Johnson stated that he sympathizes with the homeowners. He stated that looking at the property value issue, it is one of those speculative things and he doesn't know how you utilize that in weighing their judgment given the fact that the criteria they have to approve or deny, and specifically to deny, result around the health, safety and welfare issues. He inquired of Staff if a speculative issue like property values something they can deny a project on. Staff responded that any decision would have to be based on evidence in the record, and if you feel the information is speculative, that would not be a good basis to make a decision. Commissioner Johnson stated that in his mind there is a lot of speculation, and thinks that there are a lot of protections that are out there for the homeowners, such as the CC&Rs. He pointed out that another protection available is that it is going from a PUD to a R-1 PUD, which guarantees many public hearings. He pointed out that if the neighborhood is worried about the design standards, castle & Cooke will have to come back and get their design plan approved for all of the new homes. Therefore, the residents will have a lot of protection and can participate in the planning and design of the neighborhood. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission -- July 17, 200$ Page 12 Commissioner Tragish stated that in his mind there is a health and welfare safety issue, because you will note in any of the projects, especially in the northeast where there are a lot of projects, there is nothing happening. He pointed out that having empty lots invites negative problems, and you don't want a stale project because the project itself will get a bad reputation, which will hurt the value of the homes. He stated from a health and welfare safety point of view, to promote the development and move it along in a track to get it filled in, to get the buildings put in and the grading completed, and to get the off-sites completed absolutely promotes the health, welfare and safety of the neighborhoods. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve vesting tentative tract map 7161 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A, including the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated July 17, 2008, referencing a modification to condition number 1, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSENT: commissioner Stanley Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by commissioner Tkac, to approve zone change 08- 0594 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A, including the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated July 17, 2008, referencing a modification to condition number 1, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roil call vote: AYES: Commissioner Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Stanley 6.4 Zone Change 07-2041_(Porter&Associates) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7. Zone change 08-0224(Kimley-Horn Associates Inc.) The public hearing is still closed. Staff report given. Commissioner Blockley stated that he met with the applicant's representative prior to this meeting. Commissioner Andrews disclosed that he did meet with the applicant's representative prior to this meeting. Commissioner Andrews stated that one of his concerns was the two pads along the Ming Avenue strip, and the additional impact, and the proposed revisions reduce it down to one pad, which does have a significant impact in terms of traffic. Therefore, he stated that he does not have any additional concerns at this point. Commissioner Tkac stated that he met with the applicant's representative. Commissioner Tragish disclosed that he met with the applicant's representative and their attorney Charles Melton and Donna Berlin. He stated that he has read the Staff report and he is satisfied with the changes made, as well as the explanations provided how they are going to handle traffic during holiday situations. Commissioner Tragish commented that he was appreciative of the representative's explanation regarding the limitations of where they can put this particular change in commercial use. He concluded by stating that he agrees with Staffs recommendation. Commissioner McGinnis disclosed that he met with the representatives. He inquired of Donna Berlin as to the parking concerns, and the arrangements made for valet parking. She responded that they will use valet parking throughout the holiday season that would probably begin the weekend of Thanksgiving and through all of the weekends up through the Christmas season, and probably on a daily basis the last 10 days before Christmas. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if parking attendants would be stationed at the restaurant for the zone change. Ms. Berlin responded that the restaurant will not be in place by this year, Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission — July 17, 2008 Page 13 but parking attendants will be available at the main entrances to the shopping center. Commissioner McGinnis inquired what will occur when the restaurant is in place. Ms. Berlin responded that there will be an evaluation that will take place at the time the restaurant goes in as to where the appropriate locations are to stage the Valet parking. She pointed out that they will need to look at the traffic flow and where they can have a stacking lane. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they will have an area in proximity to the restaurant and dedicated to restaurant parking. Ms. Berlin responded no, pointing out that it won't be specifically restaurant parking, but will all be part of the mail parking. Commissioner Johnson stated that he met with the applicant. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac. to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, and to approve zone change 08-0224 with findings and conditions set forth in the Resolution attached to the Planning Director's memos dated July 2, and July 15, 2008, including the July 17, 2408 memorandum from Marian Shaw regarding modification, condition 1b, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: commissioner Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Stanley 8. COMMUNICATIONS: None. g. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Johnson referenced page three of minutes which notes that Mr. Ramming, who provided the report on the capital improvement program budget, would report back to the Pc on some items. Specifically he would like to have a response with regard to the discussions revolving around the Mesa Marin park construction. He requested a response to the progress being made with that issue, as well as the other comments made by other commissioners. 10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAM E V S, Secretary Plann ng ire or August 11, 2008