Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1, 2002 Pre-MeetingCouncil Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish Commissioners Boyle, Tkac Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jim Movius, Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC STATEMENTS None CONSENT CALENDER 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: 4.1a Approval of minutes from Planning Commission meetings of February 21 and March 7, 2002. 4.1b General Plan Consistency finding for the summary vacation of the superseded portions of County Road No. 912 (Morning Drive) between the north line of Parcel Map No. 2583 and Alfred Harrell Highway. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 3) 4.1c General Plan Consistency finding for Acquisition of 5,277 sq. ft. for additional right-of-way turn lane on the northwest corner of south bound lane of New Stine Road at Ming Avenue. (Ward 5) Staff reports recommending approval were given. Items will be voted on Thursday night. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Extension of Time for Parcel Map 10587 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) 4.2b Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 5964 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Staff reports recommending approval were given. Items will be voted on Thursday night. Minutes, PC, Monday, April 1, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6089 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4 ) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions as shown in the attached resolution. There has been a request by the applicant to place this on the consent agenda for Thursday night. Commissioner Gay asked if they meet the new requirements: i.e. staggering of the lots, elevations and color changes? Mr. Movius said it is not a condition of the Parcel Map because they have to follow existing city ordinances when they develop. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is anything in the general plan that addresses equestrian development in Bakersfield and what our policy is towards it? Mr. Movius said this particular project is consistent with current zoning and consistent with the general plan. In the general area, there has been a transition from some of the equestrian uses. The city does not have policies with regard to preservation of equestrian uses. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Kern River Plan Element addresses all the trails and equestrian paths? Mr. Movius said it addresses all of the trails along the Kern River Corridor. Commissioner Brady referring to the memorandum dated March 28, 2002, from Marian Shaw asked for an explanation of the difference between requiring the developer to "construct" a roadway versus "provide dedication for widening?" Ms. Shaw said that in this particular case since it is all one property owner, they are asking for the additional dedication with this action. Tract Map 6057 to the south has a requirement with its Phase B to construct both its frontage on Brimhall and Jewetta including the piece that they are trying to get the dedication for. Once a development comes in on the remainder, they can ask for the construction of the remainder of Jewetta Commissioner Brady asked if this property can develop without the construction of Jewetta and, if so, why should we allow that? Ms. Shaw said "yes" but she would provide an answer on the second part of the question on Thursday night. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night and will be placed on the Consent Agenda. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO TITLES 15, 16 AND 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO OIL AND MINERAL DRILLING AND PRODUCTION REGULATIONS. (City-wide) Staff report given recommending approval. Commissioner Brady asked for an itemization of the changes that the Urban Development Committee made. Commissioner Brady also asked if this addresses the concern by Steam Energy for the waiver of service access? Commissioner Brady feels that this significant issue has not been addressed and feels that it will eventually lead to litigation. Minutes, PC, Monday, April 1, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 3 Commissioner Sprague asked about the DOG memo to Marc Gauthier dated September 5, 2001 that stated they would like to put into our hearings a clause prohibiting the incompatible development on oil and gas producing properties unless zones have been established for drilling production and the developer agrees to implement mitigation measures that minimize the potential for harm to public health, safety and welfare. Commissioner Sprague stated that the addition of the words "by right" should be added in the area between gas producing and properties in the first line saying: "Prohibit incompatible development on oil and gas producing by right properties." Commissioner Sprague asked for someone to research this and see when it got into the ordinance and see if "by right" could be inserted in the paragraph. Commissioner Sprague requested a copy of the September 5 memo to Marc Gauthier given to all of the Commissioners on Thursday night. Commissioner Sprague quote Item 3c of the application and asked if staff could give a definition of "reasonable distance" or should they consider setting a reasonable distance? Commissioner Sprague asked for an overture on how we protect oil fields from encroachment and how we buffer them from development. Commissioner Sprague asked that on Page 7 Item C if we can add an addition to that paragraph that says "and/or copy of notice in local newspaper of circulation as to the intent of the development and to any operator including the section, township and range the APN number of the property and the APN number of the mineral right holder and the name of the oil lease." He says that many of the oil operators recognize leases by the name of the oil lease and many of them will recognize it by township and range and the section number. If we don't identify it fully, possibly some of those people will not be notified if DOG doesn't have it on file in record to give to the applicant. He asked that staff research that as a possible addendum. Commissioner Sprague mentioned that Item 22 regarding fencing makes reference to permanent chainlink fencing of 6 feet but not to exceed 8 feet in height with solid screening. That particular paragraph makes no reference to block wall with inverted barbed wire but later in the ordinance he found that it did. He wondered why it wasn't put in section 22 also. Commissioner Sprague also had a question on Page 2 of Exhibit 2 16.20.060 Statements of Parties having Record Title Interest. Item B says the signatures of each party owning a recorded interest in or right to minerals including but not limited to oil, gas or other hydrocarbon substances not including lessees of such rights shall be required unless his name and the nature of his respective interest are stated on the final map and an advisory agency determines or on appeal the City Council finds at least one of the following... Is item 3 that follows that notification to a lessee? Commissioner Sprague asked if they are not included but noticed as you get further he assumes they could be included? Commissioner Sprague would like to see the addition of some colored tape that goes in the hole for the pipeline where a housing development or subdivision is adjacent to high pressure gas lines or oil pipelines. He would also like to have it recorded on a grant deed or trust deed to the property owner. Other cities have put this in their ordinance and he would like it a recommendation of the Planning Director to these particular areas of subdivision. Commissioner Tragish suggested because there are a lot of issues being raised on this item that this item be continued until the next Planning Commission meeting in order to get responses from staff so that the Commission can all have a full opportunity to see how everything comes together. Minutes, PC, Monday, April 1, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 4 Chairman Sprague said it was the consensus of the Commission to go ahead and hear this on Thursday night. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT: 7.1 General Plan Amendment No. 02-0006 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 3) Staff report recommending approval was given. Commissioner Gay asked if there was a suitable amount of parking? Mr. Grady said they would have to meet parking ordinance standards or request a modification. Mr. Grady said he would find out the status by Thursday. Commissioner McGinnis asked if parking is allowed on Oswell? Ms. Shaw said she did not know but would find out. Item was continued until Thursday night. 7.2 General Plan Amendment No. 01-1025 (City of Bakersfield) (Wards 1 & 2) Staff report recommending approval was given. Commissioner Tragish asked what ramifications there are from taking it down to a collector? Ms. Shaw said the proposal is to eliminate an additional 24 feet of paving that would have to be taken care of over the next 50 years. They have gotten some proposals for development in the vicinity of Cottonwood and Mt. Vernon and the question has arisen as to why we should put in arterial improvements if they are not needed. From traffic analysis they have found that arterial improvements are not necessary to support the land use that we have today and what we predict to develop within the next 20 years. Commissioner Brady asked if building the extra 24 feet is impeding the development of the area by developers? Ms. Shaw said that is part of the reason. Item was continued until Thursday night. 7.3a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 01-0822 (Floyd Hinesley) (Ward 4) Commissioner Tragish declared a conflict of interest on this project. Staff report given recommending approval. There were no Commissioner comments or questions. There is a request by the applicant to place this on the consent agenda for Thursday. Item was continued until Thursday night. Minutes, PC, Monday, April 1, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 5 7.4a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 01-0916 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval. Mr. Grady stated that this case and the next three cases all have requests to be placed on the consent agenda for Thursday. Commissioner Brady asked if there could be an overlay zone on this project. Mr. Gauthier said "yes, it would be more restrictive." Commissioner Brady asked if that has been discussed with the owner? Mr. Gauthier said no but that since he is representing the applicant, he would consider it. Commissioner Sprague agreed that this project should have a PD overlay. Mr. Gauthier explained the difference between a PD overlay zone and site plan review. Item was continued until Thursday night. 7.5a&b General Plan AmendmentZone Chanqe No. 01-1018 (Castle & Cooke) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval. Commissioner Brady asked how is this consistent with the general plan in eliminating the neighborhood park? Mr. Gauthier said the Director for the Parks Department would be here on Thursday night and will be able to answer those types of questions. Commissioner Brady asked if this is the edge of the city? Mr. Gauthier said as of today yes but ultimately the water bank will be the ultimate limits of the City of Bakersfield. Commissioner Brady asked staff to show the Commissioners where all the neighborhood parks are located on Thursday night. Item was continued until Thursday night. 7.6a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 01-1014 (Lusich Co.) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval. Commissioner Sprague asked on Page 3 of the staff report what it implies when it says "...impacts to agricultural land 'could presently occur?'" Mr. Gauthier said it is implying that there is still agricultural activity and as it begins to get built out, if the agricultural uses still continue, you could have some conflicts in land use. Commissioner Tragish asked if Hosking will be widened as it is a pretty narrow road? Ms. Shaw said that Hosking is an arterial and will eventually be six lanes. Commissioner Tragish asked if it will be widened in conjunction with the projected project on the 100 acres? Ms. Shaw said the projected project is actually down zoning - less dense - so with the general plan amendment, there is no requirement to widen Hosking. However, when the tract maps come in, it will be revisited as Hosking does need to be widened. Minutes, PC, Monday, April 1, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 6 Item was continued until Thursday night. 7.7ab&c General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 01-1019 (Castle & Cooke) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approving the land use request but denying the request to delete the equestrian trail and the parking lot that is associated with it. Commissioner Sprague asked why we would delete the horse trail and leave the parking area? Mr. Gauthier said it would be used to access the county horse trails across the river. Commissioner Sprague asked who would maintain the horse trail? Mr. Gauthier said the City would be maintaining it. Commissioner Tragish asked staff to provide the Commission with a map that the Bakersfield Californian published locating all the trails. Item was continued until Thursday night. 7.8a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 01-1022 (Michael Dhanens Architect) (Ward #) Staff report given recommending approval. Commissioner Sprague said he supports this project. Item was continued until Thursday night. 7.9a&b General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe No. 02-0106 (City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval. There were no Commissioner comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady asked the Commission to go over with him the items that would be placed on the Consent Calendar on Thursday night. The items and requests for consent are: 7.4a&b - no; 7.5a&b - no; 7.3a&b - yes; 7.6a&b - yes; 7.Ta,b&c - no. It was decided to wait until Thursday night to make a final decision on the consent items. COMMISSION COMMENTS Ms. Gennaro asked the Commission to defer item number 6 to the end of the meeting on Thursday as there is going to be a lot of discussion. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to move this item to the bottom of the agenda. Motion Minutes, PC, Monday, April 1, 2002 - Council Chamber, City Hall Page 7 carried. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING. This will be discussed on Thursday night. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:41 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary May 7, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director