Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-08 MINUTES `K .�, PLANNING COMMISSION r • MINUTES oR Regular Meeting — September 18, 2008 — 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1, ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley, Andrews Absent: Commissioner Tkac 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Ms. Quinby stated she will wait to speak when it comes up during the regular order. Mr. Kelly Lucas spoke in support of the recommendation made by the Fire Department before the Commission in January 2206, pointing out that the City for the safety of its residents should take action on this appeal and revise building ordinances eliminating substandard street widths and proposed developments. Mr. Lucas stated he is further in support of the fire and public works department's recommendation to deny Andrew Fuller's request for substandard 28' wide streets associated with his 185 unit condominium project in the heart of the Rio Bravo golf course tentative tract 6736. Mr. Lucas pointed out that David Weirather made an appeal to this Commission during the January 19th 2006 meeting asking that projects in gated communities with private streets be required to have street widths of 36'for the health, safety and welfare of the residents. Mr. Lucas further stated that the Commission agreed with the necessity of his appeal, and in August 2008, the Fire Department is still standing firm on its request because of the City's experience with the Windimere Development, which also has 28' wide streets. Mr. Lucas presented his overhead comparison of the surrounding area to illustrate the density of the project. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the project Mr. Lucas refers to has been already been approved by the Planning Commission. Staff responded that it was continued. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 21, 2008. Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to approve the Non- Public Hearing Items. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-1806(Scott A. Underhill/Mark J. Smith) 4.2b Approval of Zone Change 07-1806(Scott A. Underhill/Mark J. Smith) 4.2c Approval of General Plan Amendment 08-1036(Jim Marino, Marino&Associates) 4.2d Approval of Zone Change 08-1036(Jim Moreno &Associates) 4.2e Approval of General Plan Amendment 08-1033(City of Bakersfield) 4.2f Approval of General Plan Amendment 08-1128 (Summit Engineering, Maurice Etchechury) Minutes of Planning Commission-September 18, 2008 Page 2 4.2g Approval of General Plan Amendment 08-1045(City of Bakersfield) Jim Moreno stated he would like to discuss 4.2c and 4.2d, which correspond to regular agenda items 5.2a and 5.2b respectively. Said items were removed from the consent calendar. Commissioner Tragish stated that he has reviewed the pre-meeting audio. He further stated that he would like to recuse himself from any vote on items 4.2a and 4.2b, which are regular agenda items 5.1a and 5.1b, respectively. In addition, he requested removal of item 4.2e from the consent calendar, which is regular agenda item 5.4. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley to approve the consent calendar, with the exception of removed items 4.2c, 4.2d, and 4.2e. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Tragish, Andrews ABSENT: Tkac RECUSE: Tragish (4.2 a& b only) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use and Circulation Element Amendments/Zone Changes 5.1a General Plan Amendment 07-1806(Scott A. Underhill/Mark J. Smith) 5.1b Zone Change 07-1806(Scott A. Underhill/Mark J. Smith) Heard on consent calendar. 5.2a General Plan Amendment 08-1036(Jim Marino, Marino& Associates) 5.2b Zone Change 08-1036 (Jim Marino, Marino &Associates) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. Jim Marino, representing City Gate Christian Center International, stated he pulled this item off consent due to the 14' dedication to CalTrans. He pointed out that there are two access points to the property. He pointed out that the project will not interfere with the Conditional Use Permit in the County. Mr. Marino stated that with regard to the Public Works memo, which includes the letter from the Department of Transportation, they do not necessarily have a problem with it, however, he explained that he does not see where it requested that 14' of the easterly property be dedicated to CalTrans. He explained that the reference to the 14' is more of a statement and not a request, although it does mention a 14' setback. Mr. Marino further explained that the only street that this property fronts is the one on the west. He pointed out that in the R-1 zone there is a 25' rear yard setback, which the site plan meets. He stated that there is no intent to reduce the rear yard setback. Mr. Marino further explained that CalTrans concludes that, "Thus, the impact to the State facility during the peak hour is insignificant, mitigation measures as described in the Traffic Study appear adequate." Mr. Marino pointed out that there is no nexus between the requirement to dedicate that 14' and the action the City is requiring. He also explained that it's more of a condition than a mitigation and is not really been tied to the impacts of this project, but is being required under the "orderly development policy" that the City has embraced. Mr. Marino stated that in the past, he has never objected to orderly development, however in this case the City is asking this property owner to dedicate a '/4 acre of his 6.25 acre parcel for an interstate transportation system, without any compensation and this is excessive. He stated that the church wants to stand on their Fifth Amendment Rights on this issue. Mr. Marino stated that they are willing to work with the City on setbacks without any dedication. He further stated that they would like to retain the property until the McKee overpass is constructed. Minutes of Planning Commission-September 18, 2008 Page 3 The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the 14' setback dedication is mandatory for the approval of this project. Staff responded that it does not have to be a condition. Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with Mr. Marino, with regard to the dedication, and that he does not see the rational for the condition just because the State "feels" like it needs it without any kind of compensation or any communication with this applicant. Commissioner Stanley inquired if the property north of McKee would have been a similar situation where they owned property right up to 99 that required a right-of-way designation. Staff responded that it would have been a similar situation, however, this is the first time that they have seen a request from CalTrans for a dedication to expand the freeway. Commissioner Blockley commented that with regard to McKee Road, it is his recollection that there were some dedications with an adjacent project that were previously heard by the Planning Commission regarding the overpass. Staff confirmed that this did occur and Commissioner Blockley explained that the difference is that in the previous case the developer was willing to go along with whatever was required to accommodate the interchange or overpass, and in this case the applicant is unwilling to do so. Staff further explained that in the previous situation there was a local City of Bakersfield road coming up and crossing a State Highway and in order to be consistent with the GPA they needed the additional dedication. In this current case there is no specific General Plan policy regarding the freeway alignment and the increased width of the freeway for a state facility. Staff went on to explain that this is a GPA so the Planning Commission has complete discretion and orderly development is justified because this project will infringe on the enlargement of a facility needed for future transportation within the Metropolitan area. Since it is a GPA it could be denied with no reasons given, or it can be approved with agreement to the condition. Commissioner Blockley referenced the beltway dedications that were obtained in vast chunks with successful negotiations with the developers and landowners. Commissioner Andrews inquired of Mr. Marino if the property to the north was available if the church would be in position to modify how they lay out the project and if that would take some of the pressure off the 14' dedication. Mr. Marino responded that the north parcel probably wont become available for a very long time when CalTrans and the City get together and start working on the McKee overpass. Mr. Marino stated that it would become totally useless because it will still have access to the street to the west but with the slopes it won't have access to McKee anymore and the structures will be wiped out. Commissioner McGinnis concurred with the recommendation of Commissioner Tragish in regard to the 14' dedication. He stated that if the State feels they need the property they need to go about it with the proper legal methods rather than through the Planning Commission and the owner of the property should receive some compensation for it. He further stated that he would support a motion to pass a recommendation excluding memorandum from Marion Shaw dated September 15, 2008. Staff commented that rather than excluding the memo, the sentence that starts with "to accommodate this widening, dedicate an irrevocable offer for an additional 14' of freeway right-of- way..." should be stricken, so that the remainder can stand saying, "building should be set back at least 15'from the future property line." Commissioner Johnson stated that he thinks Commissioners Tragish and McGinnis's comments have merit, except he looks at this as when a project comes in and there's a little out piece, they require the applicant to build the road for the full frontage of the out piece and they have required this many, many times. Commissioner Johnson referred to Rosedale Highway as an example of a facility that cannot be widened because they did not get the dedication. He stated that given the fact that this is a General Plan Cycle and looking at the fact that they have done things like this in the past as a Commission, it is not unprecedented. Although it is a State facility, it's been dedicated to be a six lane facility and they need to provide for the 14' of dedication. He stated that he will support Staff's recommendation. Minutes of Planning Commission-September 18, 2008 Page 4 Commissioner Tragish commented, in response to Commissioner Johnson, that he compares apples and oranges when he is talking about streets inside the City where you are trying to get dedications so that the flow of the traffic is consistent with the previous street. He continued to point out that the request for dedication in this situation is in connection for a State thoroughfare highway which is not attached to the city and has its own support to the highway on each side. He stated that it is not in a residential area but rather is a pure commercial highway and therefore it is a unique situation and not similar to what has been done within the City. Commissioner Tragish further pointed out that Rosedale Highway goes through Bakersfield, and is a major arterial, and Highway 99 is not an arterial in the City of Bakersfield, but rather is a State Highway. He also explained that the process of acquiring dedications for the beltway was bought by the City in advance when there was nothing being developed out there and when there was negotiations for mitigation. He explained that in this current situation, the State has "feelings" that it would like to take someone's property without paying for it and has no relation to residential use or development in the City of Bakersfield. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving a Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 6.36 acres as shown in Exhibit 2 and to make the Planning Department's September 17, 2008 memorandum as part of that motion, and as to the memorandum from Marion Shaw dated September 15, 2008, to strike everything that is in that particular memorandum save and except for the language, "building should be set back at least 15'from the property line." Staff suggested the language, "adopt the finding striking the 3rd and 5th sentences." As well as adding the word"future"to the property line." The condition should read: "According to the Transportation Concept Report (TCR) for State Route 99, the ultimate facility for State Route 99 will be an eight lane freeway with a 218 foot width. Currently State Route 99 at this location exists as a six lane facility at 190 feet. Buildings should be set back at least 15 feet from the future property line." The 14' dedication was not read into the condition. Commissioner Tragish agreed to this amended part of the motion. Commissioner Andrews inquired if the applicant can accommodate this recommendation. Mr. Marino responded if this will create a 40' setback from the existing freeway right-of-way line, but they don't dedicate any land, he is in agreement. Commissioner Johnson inquired if all of the land would be dedicated but would still remain in ownership of the applicant. Staff responded that Mr. Marino probably meant that the land will be available in the future for the freeway, and not that he would dedicate it now. Commissioner Johnson stated that he can live with that condition. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley, Andrews ABSENT: Tkac Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from A (Agriculture) to R-1-CH (One Family Dwelling with Church Overlay) on 6.36 acres as shown in Exhibit A-2, and to make part of the motion the Planning Department's memorandum of September 17, 2008 and the other condition as read into the record in the previous motion by Ms. Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley, Andrews ABSENT: Tkac Minutes of Planning Commission-September 18, 2008 Page 5 5.3a General Plan Amendment 08-1168(Cannon Associates,Todd Smith) 5.3b Zone Change 08-1168(Cannon Associates,Todd Smith) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Todd Smith, representing the applicant, stated that goals 2, 3 and 6 in the Land Use Element are helpful to the City of Bakersfield and consistent with the General Plan. He further pointed out that there will be enhanced services and opportunities for businesses. Mr. Smith referred to the wells on the property and pointed out that M-1 is the use that's probably most compatible with having some active well sites on the property and allows a certain from of development that is most compatible with that type of operation going on. Dave Dmohowski, with Premier Planning Group, referred to discussions with Ms. Shaw regarding the possibility of allowing the applicant to be eligible for some reimbursement agreement. He referred to the Circulation Element exhibit in the Staff Report (Exhibit A-3), pointing out that Morning Drive is aligned because of topography rather than along section lines and the major road improvements have the effect of chopping the property up into three separate parcels and result in a very large commitment under the Conditions of Approval to the applicant for the improvement of the full width of Morning Drive. He explained that this amounts to about $1.5 million dollars in improvements. Therefore, the applicant requests some vehicle for some form of reimbursement agreement to allow the applicant to recoup a portion of the total improvements made that would also benefit other developments in the future, such as the Canyons and other properties in the general area. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Stanley stated that he met with the applicant on this project. He inquired what the language would be for future reimbursement. The language reads as follows: "The developer may request the formation of a bridge in major thoroughfare areas to help in the reimbursement in a portion of his costs to construct Morning Drive." Commissioner Stanley inquired of the applicant if the language read is what they were looking for. Mr. Dmohowski responded that it seems consistent with the spirit of what they were requesting. Commissioner Andrews noted that he did get a phone call from the developer and they had a brief discussion on this project. Commissioner Johnson stated that he met with the applicant on this project. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-MP (Resource-Minerals & Petroleum) to Ll (Light Industrial) on 47 acres and to R-MP to HMR (High-Medium Density Residential) on 14 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, and the Specific Plan Line amendment for Morning Drive as shown on Exhibit A-3, incorporating the condition number 7 as written in the Planning Director's memo date September 18, 2008, and to interject into Public Works item number 10e, between sentences three and four, to include the developer may request the formation of a bridge in major thoroughfare area to help in the reimbursement and a portion of his costs to construct Morning Drive, and recommend same to City Council. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the add on language gives the applicant the right to request the formation of this particular development for the purpose of being reimbursed for some of the monies that he may pay for the improvements of Morning Drive. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish inquired who makes the decision, to which Staff responded it would be the Public Works Director. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley, Andrews ABSENT: Tkac Minutes of Planning Commission-September 18, 2008 Page 6 Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from A (Agriculture) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing) on 47 acres and A to R-2 (limited Multifamily Dwelling) approximately 14 acres as shown in Exhibit A-2, and incorporating condition number 7 as written in the Planning Director's Memo date September 18, 2008, and including the verbiage as recommended in the first part of the motion, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley, Andrews ABSENT: Tkac 5.4 General Plan Amendment 08-1033(City of Bakersfield) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one from the audience spoke for or against staff's recommendation. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired if this gives the Planning Department the authority to amend the GPA to be consistent with what the County of Kern has already approved, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the items have to do with parks and adjusting roads, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Stanley, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Notice of Exemption approving the General Plan Amendment to incorporate land use, circulation changes approved by the County of Kern as shown in Exhibit A and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Tragish, Stanley, Andrews ABSENT: Tkac 5.5 General Plan Amendment 08-1128(Summit Engineering, Maurice Etchechury) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.6 General Plan Amendment 08-1045(City of Bakersfield) Heard on Consent Calendar. Break Taken 5.7 Zone Change 08-1044 (Troy & Wilma Chastain, Trustees of Kern Co. Builders Money Purchase Plan) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Kathleen Quinby stated she lives in the neighborhood and this impacts her personally. She pointed out that they are already surrounded by apartment dwellers and additional apartments will greatly increase the density. She stated she is against the rezoning because she will be adversely affected. She pointed out that there are anywhere from 6 to 15 vehicles per evening that park on the quiet residential street. She states that she finds trash in the street, gutters and her yard from the apartment dwellers and visitors. She also stated that there are noise disturbances at three o'clock in the morning. She further pointed out that she's called the CHP on three different occasions for vehicles being deserted and left in her front yard. She stated that she is not against building on this lot and improving the site, but she is against a multifamily dwelling and increasing the density. Cindy Thompson stated that she lives adjacent to the property, and the overflow traffic causes overflow into her driveway. She explained that Section 8 and gang activity already are going on in this area and that she is opposed to the duplex. Minutes of Planning Commission-September 18, 2008 Page 7 Harry Hankins presented photos of the area and the vehicle problems. He stated he has no objection to a single family house, but building anything with density is going to create more problems. He pointed out one situation where one unit has six cars. Jim Delmarter, representing Tory and Wilma Chastain, stated that the applicant felt their best choice to build on this property would be a duplex and not apartments. He pointed out that in the plot plant there will be a four-car covered parking and four additional parking spaces. Mr. Delmarter further pointed out that anyone in this area could put a second unit on their property, therefore, the fact that they are going to have two units on one parcel and adequate off-street parking for the duplex residents will not aggravate any of the existing conditions. Mr. Delmarter explained that initially this was going to be processed through the County, but the County requires connection to sewer since it is less than six acres and you cannot be connected to sewer unless you are in the City. Therefore, they have had to initiate annexation procedures and zone change. He also stated that he thinks this will be a valuable asset to the City since a vacant piece of property will be improved, increasing the tax base of the property, as well as the City will receive traffic impact fees. Ken Brewer stated he has property adjoining the proposed site and the site is kind of a blithe on the community as you travel down Belle Terrace. He stated he is in favor of the proposal. He further pointed out that he has previously asked for annexation of his property. He commented that if curb and gutters were put in, it would probably add additional parking spots on the street. The public: hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis asked Ms. Quinby to go into more details about the restriction of parking to just residents only. Ms. Quinby responded that the owner felt that there were people that shouldn't be parking in the parking lot of 5000 Belle Terrace, which is Pine Brook Apartment Complex, so they put in a rod iron security gate which requires a code to enter. She further pointed out that there is only one designated parking spot per unit and therefore the overflow goes to the streets. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the north side of Belle Terrace is County, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. He further inquired if it is typical for some of those lots to have Bloomquis.t address and run all the way back to Belle Terrace, to which Staff responded in the affirmative as it pertains to those west of McDonald, commenting that he is not as familiar with those east of McDonald. The assessor's map was shown, which indicates that most are double lots. Commissioner McGinnis referred to the parking issues on Princeton from the kids from Bakersfield College and if a "Resident Only" parking could be used in this current area to resolve some of the parking issues. Staff responded that the area around the college was a residential parking permit requirement which is policed. Staff pointed out that in this current situation it is not City streets and everything north of Belle Terrace, except for a few annexed lots, are in the County and to Staff's knowledge the County does not have a similar program. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the Pine Brook Apartments are in the County, to which Staff responded that the apartment complex to the west is in the City. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if there is any kind of zoning violation with regard to the parking, to which Staff responded they will have to look into it. Commissioner McGinnis commented that he thinks it is an improvement for this area, but he does not know ,Nhich way to go. He inquired if it is the applicant's intent to put a duplex on these units then why is a R-3 zoning needed. Staff responded that the applicant is going to R-2, but the PC could put a condition to limit it to just a duplex. Commissioner McGinnis commented that the applicant appears to have made revisions on the property and it seems like the whole area should be annexed. Commissioner Blockley inquired what the parking requirements are for a second unit, to which Staff responded that one additional space is needed for the second unit, which equates to a total of three. The applicant is proposing a total of eight for the duplex. Mr. Delmarter indicated that his original plan was for a four-plex which would have had a total of eight spaces, however you still have to have a driveway and a parking lot to get to the four covered spaces and therefore if there is Minutes of Planning Commission-September 18, 2008 Page 8 a requirement for additional parking over and above the required four, the applicant would entertain the request. Staff commented that the project is on a corner and the R-2 does require a certain amount of open space, if additional parking is required it may result in a shrinkage of the units. Staff confirmed that the minimum requirement is four parking spaces for a duplex. Commissioner Blockley pointed out that they are getting more parking than they would if it was a single family dwelling. Commissioner Blockley stated that he is in favor of a duplex. He stated that he does not think the applicant should be burdened with fixing the problems that may be occurring on the other side of Belle Terrace. Commissioner Stanley inquired what the difference is between the R-2 and the R-S. Staff explained that the R-2 zoning allows one unit for every 2500 sq. ft. of lot area so theoretically on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot you could have four units. R-S allows a second unit, with a maximum of two units with three parking spaces. Therefore, the R-2 allows density based on square footage, whereas the RS and R-1 zonings are strictly under State law allowing a second unit. Commissioner Stanley stated that he thinks this project would be an improvement for the area and is similar to what would be allowed by right currently. He further stated that the on-site parking will address a lot of the concerns expressed. He advised the concerned residents to communicate with the County and City to try to step up parking enforcement. Commissioner Tragish inquired that since this is a zone change if his concerns should be consistent with health, welfare and safety. Staff responded in the affirmative. He commented that this idea of in-fill and density has the opposite effect to what many of the new planners want to do today and one of them is congestion and to cut down on the carbon footprints. He pointed out that as far as the issue of it being an in-fill and is being looked at favorably, is not really a factor. Commissioner Tragish stated that what he sees as a factor is the barrier or separation between Belle Terrace and this particular neighborhood and what the barrier means. He stated that to him it means that when you get rental property put into a residential neighborhood, you still have a significant impact with parking on the residential neighborhood, as opposed to just a single family residence. Commissioner Tragish stated that he is concerned with putting a duplex in this area, or increasing the density in this area because one of the things he sees over and over again is the domino effect, because it opens up the door for other similar developments to come in and show that it is consistent in the neighborhood. He stated that he would tend to support the consistency of the neighborhood currently. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the comment that the applicant, by right, has the standing to put the project in as it is right now, and if this is so, why is there a request for a zone change. Staff responded that the applicant does not have the ability, by right, to build a duplex on the property. Commissioner Tragish stated that he will not support this project because he does not think it is an orderly development and because he has substantial concerns about the consistency of the project in conjunction with the existing neighborhood and the various traffic patterns that will change, as well as some of the ramifications it may have to a long-standing residential neighborhood. Staff commented that the community does have concerns and with the deep lots there is a dilemma because if the owners wants to put a second unit on they have to be connected to sewer which requires annexation to the City. Staff stated that it seems unfortunate that as local jurisdictions under the General Plan, the City and County are telling these people that the City General Plan looks at this area as a transition zone and in fact have provided a couple of multiple family units primarily in the County. Therefore, it may be a possibility that this neighborhood could go as a group to the County and get the General Plan changed to be low density residential if they don't want any other apartments in the area. If the neighborhood is against this "transition zone" they need to take the designation off and don't send a dual signal to the people in the neighborhood that we are saying you can do it, yet when you come before the City they are not going to approve it. Staff pointed out that the people would have to go before the County and as for the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Andrews commented that Staff elaborated on some of his thoughts. He inquired if there is anything in City guidelines that limits the size of a second unit. Staff responded there is a sq. ft. requirement. Staff further clarified that the second unit requirement is if it is a detached unit and then the maximum size is 1200 sq. ft., or smaller than what the main house is. He clarified Minutes of Planning Commission-September 18, 2008 Page 9 that if it's an attached unit, it is limited to 30% of the size of the main unit. Furthermore, it has to have an architectural compatibility component with it. Commissioner Andrews stated that he did canvas the area and spoke with one of the neighbors who seemed indifferent to the development and his sense was that it would improve the neighborhood if something was developed. Commissioner Andrews commented that he is torn in terms of his inclination. If the developer were willing to put some additional parking spaces that would be a more reasonable approach to get additional off-street parking spaces on the parcel. Commissioner Johnson stated that he is hearing that the greatest concern from the neighbors is the parking. He suggested that a PUD be put on this project. He inquired of Staff if there could be a PUD, to which Staff responded in the negative because the minimum size for a PUD is 1 acre and this property is only 10,000 sq. ft. Therefore, the parking concerns would have to be addressed with conditions of approval. Commissioner Johnson inquired if they would have Site Plan Review approval, to which Staff responded in the affirmative, explaining that as long as it complies with the ordinances in effect, it would be approved. Commissioner Johnson stated that mitigating the traffic issue by requiring more than the minimum of four parking spaces is something that would mitigate some of the residents concerns and accomplish the goals of in-fill development. Commissioner Blockley stated that as a transition from apartments, which are across Belle Terrace and the single family dwellings, conditioning this to a duplex would be a good thing. He stated he would support it under those conditions, along with four parking spaces, which is more than would be required for a single family dwelling, or a single family with an attached accessory second unit. He stated that he cannot support it as a four-plex. Commissioner McGinnis commented that he does not think there is a person who would feel safe walking down Valhalla on a warm afternoon with some of the people that hang out there. He stated that he thinks there are too many complex issues and he cannot fully support this project and would strongly appeal to City Staff to look into the parking situation at the apartment complex to the west. Commissioner Stanley inquired of the applicant's representative what the square footage is for the duplex. Mr. Delmarter responded that based on the plot plan for the four plex, the total square footage of the building would be 2236 sq. ft. Mr. Delmarter offered, on his client's behalf, to put in six parking spaces if that would make the Planning Commission more comfortable. Commissioner Stanley inquired if it is possible under R-S to have two detached 1100 sq. ft. rentals. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Stanley stated that with the size and increasing the parking spots to six, he would be in support of the project. Commissioner Johnson asked Staff for assistance in making a condition for the duplex and six parking spots conditions. Staff responded that they can add a condition that there be a limitation of no more than two units on the property and six parking spaces be provided. This would be removing condition 10 and referencing the September 17`h Planning Department memo. Commissioner Johnson discussed access for vehicles, stating that vehicle access should be limited to Fiorito Street because Belle Terrace is a busy street. Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change to change the pre-zoning of the site from RS to R-2 on .238 acres as shown on the attached Exhibit, referencing the September 17, 2008 memo and adding the conditions as read by the Planning Department, as well as allowing access from Fiorito, and removing the condition 10, and recommend the same to City Council, Minutes of Planning Commission-September 18, 2008 Page 10 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Johnson, Blockley, Stanley, Andrews NOES: McGinnis, Tragish ABSENT: Tkac Commissioner Tragish stated that his no vote was founded on the fact that the zoning is inconsistent with the neighborhood and the six parking spaces on this project only aggravates the situation and allowing access off of the residential street also compounds the problems. He further stated that he believes it invades the separation of this neighborhood from the south through Belle Terrace. He further commented that if the zoning is to be changed in this area through the transitional area, it should be done by the neighbors. Commissioner Tragish stated that there is a substantial problem in this area from a safety point of view. Commissioner McGinnis stated that his no vote was based on his previous comments for disapproval of this project. 6. COMMUNICATIONS: No communications. 7. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Tragish stated with regard to the speaker who addressed the width of the streets up in the northwest area by the golf area, pointing out that it is his recollection that the applicant who wanted to build those units was going to go back to the drawing board with the Fire department and redesign the project regarding the requirements of the street. He inquired if that is where the project is currently. Staff responded that they have met with the Fire department and they are not sure if the issues have been resolved. Mr. Weirather commented that they are at an impasse currently. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they have made any effort to redesign the project, to which Mr. Weirather responded that there are discussions about redesigning and that is going to Chief Fraze for review by the applicant. Commissioner Tragish inquired when it will come back to the Planning Commission, to which Staff responded they do not know. Commissioner Johnson asked Staff to elaborate to Ms. Quinby and Ms. Thompson what occurred on the zone change. Staff responded that they will meet with them after the meeting. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the project which was approved can be appealed to the City Council. Staff responded in the affirmative stating that they will explain the process now. Staff explained that the neighbors have the right to appeal and need to do so if they desire a public hearing at the City Council, otherwise it just goes on the first reading. This needs to be done within 10 days with the City Clerk. Staff indicated that if you live within 300 feet there is no fee for the appeal. Staff stated that this will go to City Council in about four to six weeks. Commissioner Johnson asked Staff to advise the residents that if it does pass, Site Plan Review is another hearing that they can go to. Staff responded that there probably wouldn't be a hearing for Site Plan Review, because it's not a big enough project. Commissioner Blockley stated that the previous project is subject to annexation and he doesn't know what LAFCOs procedure is and perhaps Staff could explain that procedure. Staff explained that since this requires annexation, the LAFCO process takes anywhere from eight months to possibly even a year to be approved to be annexed into the City. They explained that it is 100% landowner consent, so therefore there are no hearings at LAFCO held. Once it is approved through LAFCO then the City can issue a permit for the project. Minutes of Planning Commission-September 18, 2008 Page 11 8. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary i JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director October 3, 2008