Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/97Council Chamber, City Hall AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Thursday, March 20, 1997 5:30 p.m. KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN JEFFREY TKAC ALTERNATE: MICHAEL DHANENS NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS A ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. I~L(2~CE~J~IGHT TO APPFAL Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $330 non-refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $330 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. · Agenda, PC, 3/20/97 Page 2 If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdraWn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The. applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 4. P~ICJ~EA~,~I_G~~IE ~;HANGE PUD ZONE CHANGE #P96-0963 -- To amend the zoning boundaries from a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone for development of a 430-bed, multi-level medical and recovery care center on 20.33 +/- acres for property generally located northeast of Calloway Drive and the Cross Valley Canal. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions Roll call vote P~JBJ.LC~AJ~_~G_S - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, AS_S_~E CHANGESA~.D_CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS la) _GPA, ZONE CHANGE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT P97-0056 -- MARINO ASSD_C_IA_TES -- Proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by changing the land use designation from HMR (High Medium Density Residential, > 7.26 and _< 17.42 ' dwelling units/net acre) to GC (General Commercial) on a 7.35 acre site for property located on the south side of Columbus Street generally between Wenatchee Avenue and Loyola Street. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Roll call vote b) Zone Change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling - 6,000 sq.ft./dwelling unit) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) on a 7.35 acre site for property located on the south side of Columbus Street generally between Wenatchee Avenue and Loyola Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Roll call vote Agenda, PC, c) 2) 3a) 3/20/97 Page 3 Conditional ~Use Permit for a mini-storage facility on a 7.35 acre site. Sign approval is also being requested with the PCD zoning district for property located on the south side of Columbus Street generally between Wenatchee Avenue and Loyola Street. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny Roll call vote CONCURRENT GENERAL PLAN AMEI~DJ~EbL~/Z~ C_H~. P_96-0521, CONCURRENT GENERA_ ~bLAMEI~:)MENT AND~.ONE CHAI~IGE~IO. P96-0286, AND CONC[ J_EEE~T GENERAL PLANJ~M.~ ANDZ. OJ~IE_CHANGE NO. P96-0287 -- CASTLE AND COOKE CALIEORNIA~ INC. - The overall project involves the development of 759.67 acres; with 702.8 acres of single family residential, 22.4 acres of multiple family residential, 23.4 acres of commercial uses and 9.9 acres of open space. The proposal also includes deletion of 83 acres from the Kern River Plan Element and Circulation Element Amendment to delete two collectors on the Circulation Element Map (one is Old Farm Road). The proposals are for property located generally south of Brimhall Road to the Cross Valley Canal between Calloway Drive and Allen Road. The site is bisected by the City adopted alignment of the Kern River Freeway. (Final Environmental Impact Report on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Certification of FEIR - Deny Request; Approve Staff's alternative with conditions Roll call vote CONCURRENT GENERAL PLAN AME~ID~CHAI~LGF_J~ID C~)_I~IDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO__~ARINO FOL::>,~;ALLO~/~/AY CAPITAL ASSOClA'EE.S -- Proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by changing the land use designation from SR (Suburban Residential - less than or equal to 4 dwelling units/net acre) to GC (General Commercial) on a 17.34 acre site for property located on the west side of Calloway Drive between Meacham Road to the north and Rosedale Highway (State Route 58) to the south. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions Roll call vote Agenda, PC, b) c) 4) 5) 3/20/97 Page 4 Zone Change from E (Estate Residential - 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) on 15.45 acres and from E to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 1.89 acres for property located on the west side of Calloway Drive between Meacham Road to the north and Rosedale Highway (State Route 58) to the south. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions Roll call vote Conditional Use Permit to allow a mini-warehouse storage project on 15.45 acres requested for PCD zoning, proposed to contain 215,000 square feet of storage area within 31 single story buildings, and one 2,370 square foot, two story office/residential structure with attached garage for property located on the west side of Calloway Drive between Meacham Road to the north and Rosedale Highway (State Route 58) to the south. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions Roll call vote C_O~ICURRENT G E N E _I:~ALJ~.AbL~IDM E blZA b~,~[ECi_JAN~ 1'~O_~P~9_6-~]77 -- Proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by changing the land use designation from R-4 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - 600 sq.ft./dwelling unit) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 1.9 + acres for p~operty located on the East side of Pershing Street between California Avenue to the north and the intersection of 10th Street to the south. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions Roll call vote ~_AMENDMENT CASE~0~_I_ -- Proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan by changing the land use designation from LMR (Low Medium Density Residential, > 4 and _< 10 dwelling units/net acre) to LR (Low Density Residential, _< 7.26 dwelling units/net acre) on 18.57 + acres for property located on the South side of White Lane between Mountain Vista Drive on the west and Saddle Drive on ' the east. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions Roll call vote Agenda, PC, 3~20~97 March 17_= 1997 Page 5. C_OM~ A) _Written B) ~ecb_al ~COMMENTS A. _Committees DISC_US_SI_ON AND_ACTION REGARDING POSSl~LAT_I~.E~T_ ~G. ADJOURNMENT Planning Director MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, March 20, 1997, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. COMMISSIONERS: Present: KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN JEFFREY TKAC MICHAEL DHANENS ADVISORY MEMBERS: STAFF: Present: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary No public statements were made. The chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. Commissioner Dhanens stated although he was not present at the Monday pre-meeting he had reviewed the tape and would participate at this hearing. Commissioner Tavorn stated the same applied to him. C O NS_E~GJ~~~_M~S None Minutes, PC, 3/20/97 Page 2 ~!..~G - PUD ZONE CHANGE #P96-0963 -- AMENDMENT TO 70_NING BOUNDARIES FROM A PUD (PLANNED_UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE TO A P~ JD (~UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 430-BED~ MULTI-LEVEL MEDICAL AND RECOVERY CARE CENTER ON 20.33 +/- AC~ PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF CALLOWAY DRIVE AND THE CROSS VALLEY CANAL Staff report recommending approval was updated from the Monday pre-meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Mike Callagy represented the applicant. He requested the following changes to conditions: Condition #1 of discretionar¥_cDJ3~ade_cL,,~ ~Vj~dr~is~,~_.a3 the autl3_ority to set the actual P~SJ~shelter. Mr. LaRochelle stated agreement with this amendment with additional language to read as follows: It shall be located as approved by the City Engineer. Condition #5.e. of discretionary, conditioned that they notJ:)e required to provide maintenance costs for this signal. If it isJ[ound that the_y_must he requested the costs be shared.. Mr. LaRochelle stated agreement with a 50 percent share of the signal cost being allocated to the adjacent property. CoJ3_dition #.4 of "A" condit _ons~he requestedjJ3_e_y be allowed to resolve this with tb_e_Sanitation Division. Mr. LaRochelle was agreeable to this. Condition #2 of "B" coL3ditions, he asked that language_be_added for cladficat on as Jo the number and location of fire hyd~ants~ Mr. Grady suggested since a representative of the Fire Department was not available that the following wording be added to this condition: "or as approved by the Fire Chief." Mr. Callagy stated regarding Condition #5 of "B" conditions, the project is not a retirement community. It is possible young children may be treated at this facility and may not be restricted to persons 62 years or older. Mr. Grady asked Mr. Callagy if this condition was a part of the previous approval. Mr. Callagy replied it was not. Mr. Grady stated it could be stricken. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 3~20~97 Page 3 Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution approving and adopting the Negative Declaration and approved Zone Change No. P96-0963 with findings, conditions and mitigation measures as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "F") and the memorandum from the Planning Director dated March 17, 1997, and recommend same to City Council, with the following amendments to conditions outlined in Exhibit "3": Condition #1: Discretionary conditions - addition of the following wording at the end of condition: "as approved by the City Engineer." Discretionary. Condition~ - amended to read as follows: "Provide a mechanism for payment of 50 percent of the maintenance cost for the traffic signal at the main entrance into the facility." Condition #A-4 of site plan review - Addition of the following to the end of the sentence: "or as approved by the Public Works Director." Co~~, addition of the following wording to the end: "or as approved by the Fire Chief." Deletion of Condition #5-B. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None 5.1 a,b,c PUBLIC_HEARING - GPA.. ZONE CHANGE AND~ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT~97- 0056 Staff report recommending disapproval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Commissioner Hersh cited a letter received from the applicant requesting these items be continued to the June General Plan Amendment cycle. Bob Norwood, 2803 Loyola, felt the construction of this project in their neighborhood would introduce an industrial/business connotation. He stated when purchasing his property he checked on the zoning of subject property and it was R-I. He did not feel mini-warehouse facilities belong in residential neighborhoods. Minutes, PC, 3/20/97 Page 4 John Thompson stated he owns a mini-storage facility in the city. He stated his opposition to this zone change saying he tried unsuccessfully to obtain a change of zone for subject property in 1994. He stated he is constructing such a facility in this proposed area at the corner of Auburn and Columbus Street. It was denied signage and access from Columbus. Mary Ann Buechler, 3013 Roanoke Court spoke in opposition. She gave history of proposals for this property. She stated her opposition to signage for this property. She was concerned that they were required to provide setbacks, however this commercial project could build as close to the street as they would like. She also stated her concern about the scale of the project and the height of walls. She felt there was enough under- utilized commercial construction in the area. She requested this application be denied and that the general plan designation be returned to single family development. Jim Marino represented the applicants. He requested a continuance so that they may improve the project and meet with the neighbors. He stated they are proposing to remove the boat/RV parking, proposing construction of the entire project in one phase rather than multiple phasing and flat neutral colors for roofs. He stated regarding noise levels this is not a noise producing use. Concerning traffic, the traffic study shows this would provide less traffic than an R-1 project. He cited the fact that this property has the freeway below it and there is a 30-foot drop across about 400 feet of the property. A 30-foot wall cannot be constructed to mitigate noise from the freeway for residential uses. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to continue these items to the next General Plan Amendment cycle. Commissioner Boyle stated he felt this would be a difficult project to obtain approval for. Mr. Marino stated this is a difficult propertY to develop, however he stated approximately 500 signatures had been obtained in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Ortiz voted no. 5.2) CONCURRENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. P96- 0521~ CONCURRENT GEN.ERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. P96- ~_ONCUJ:?,I~ENT GENERAL PLAN AM~A~.F_~;EIANGE~J_O.. ~CAS~J_EAND COOKE CALIFORNIA, INC. Commissioner Tkac stated his brother-in-law has a small partnership interest in subject property asking if he should abstain because of a conflict of interest. Ms. Marino said the Political Reform Act only applies to his immediate family, therefore this would present no conflict of interest. He stated regarding the letter from the Del Rio Area Concerned Citizens that statements in it were untrue, stating if they have questions they may contact him directly. Minutes, PC, 3~20~97 Page 5 Michael Houlihan summarized the Analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Roger Mclntosh gave a summary of the traffic report for the project. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Lorna Brumfield stated she is a resident in the area and stated support for staff's recommendation and her feeling that it will resolve many concerns regarding the project. She stated she did not feel the EIR is a program EIR but a project EIR. She stated they are not against growth and stated their strong support for staff's recommendation that no commercial be placed in the area. She was concerned about a third corner being developed as commercial or with apartments saying if this is done it would be very difficult to develop the fourth corner as residential and they feel their neighborhood should remain residential. John Closs, 108 Capistrano Court, stated his concern regarding traffic. He stated his support for staff's conclusions and recommendations and urged the commission to support them. He felt the amount of commercial acreage is sufficient to support this area. Commissioner Brady asked staff for clarification of a commercial policy. Mr. Grady stated the policy is one-half mile separation and there is a policy against stringing commercial out along the arterials. Lynn Mihalyo stated her feeling that Commissioner Tkac has a conflict of interest due to the situation he stated at the beginning of this hearing and felt he should abstain from voting on this item. She gave information concerning meetings they had with the applicants concerning various possible proposals stating they tried very hard to work out a solution with them, however it was not possible. She stated their support for staff's recommendation. Greg Cronk, 109 Cortez Court, was concerned about lot sizes being proposed, stating he felt perhaps there could be a transition of larger lot sizes. '*5-minute break was taken. Carolyn Belli represented Kern Equestrians for the Preservation of Trails, stating they are in favor of the project, however opposed to some of staff's recommendations. With development of this property the trails route currently used along Goose Lake Slough will no longer be available. The applicant has agreed to continue the trail northerly to Brimhall Road and along the south side of Brimhall Road to Jewetta to provide a connection to residences and the river. It would be possible by reducing the landscaping and making the multi-use trail a minimum acceptable width to provide space within the current easement with no additional cost incurred. Staff indicated Brimhall would not be the preferred route for equestrians, however in this case there is .Minutes, PC, 3~20~97 Page 6 no alternative. She expressed deep concerns regarding the change in zoning of the 100-foot buffer from open space to residential. Commissioner Tavorn felt less land would be necessary if an alternate route by the high school were taken. Ms. Belli stated the problem with this is that the routes need to have access at the interchange which is just above Goose Lake Slough. If this route were taken access across the freeway would be impossible once it was constructed. Commissioner Tavorn felt perhaps accommodations could be made when the freeway is constructed. Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Belli if she understood that future property owners would not be allowed to keep horses. She stated she did, however felt those people would benefit because this is a multi-use trail. He asked if she had made contact with the county regarding placement of trails. She stated it is being worked on. Commissioner Brady asked who would pay for the maintenance of this trail. She stated it would be paid for the same way as landscaping and sidewalks are paid for. Commissioner Brady asked if she had obtained any cost estimates for maintaining the trail versus sidewalks. She stated she did not have this information. Commissioner Brady asked staff if the cost of putting in these trails would be more than a normal landscape strip. Rob Cramer, City Parks Division, said the cost would be higher. Bill Cooper, Kern River Parkway Committee, stated they are not opposing the project, however requested that the 8 linear acres remain open space. He stated Castle and Cooke has offered to give buffers and property and felt it would be irresponsible not to take the actions to maintain it as open space. Larry Hogle represented Castle and Cooke. He stated it is very important to keep in mind that this is in an infill project. He stated the majority of the area north of the Kern River Freeway is designated in the general plan as LR and is not being proposed for change. Regarding lot size he stated development will occur as to the market demand. Regarding the question concerning 18,000 square foot lots he stated there is a 5-6 year supply of these lots in this area. Concerning the staff report he stated they had proposed removal of collectors and did not feel they were necessary since as they approach tentative map phases of the project they will provide adequate circulation. Responding to statements made by Mr. Hogle concerning an agreement on collectors, Mr. LaRochelle said a clarification was necessary that the Old Farm Road collector between Stockdale and Brimhall exists. Perhaps when the freeway goes through there will be a grade separation of the collector. It was never the intent to have the freeway bisect that collector and prevent it from traversing north/south. He stated his agreement with this change and agreed with the applicant's assessment that the volumes do not support a four-lane collector. Mr. Hogle recommended the following language be inserted at the end of Condition #3: "or modified collector as approved by the City Engineer." Minutes, pC, 3~20~97 Page 7 Concerning the property south of Stockdale Highway Mr. Hogle stated they recommended it be removed from the Kern River Plan Element in light of the fact that the county stated they had no objection to this removal. This area is separated from the Kern River by the Cross Valley Canal, there is no direct access to the river and is not actually part of the Kern River Element. He stated the applicant feels very strongly that if the staff recommendation is followed allowing no commercial they would like to have the commercial designation left where it exists. Regarding the multi-family designation he did not feel that it will have the problems that some of the residents perceive. He stated their disagreement with staffs recommendation to divide it into 10 acre parcels. A 20-acre parcel is necessary so that it can contain its own recreational facilities. He stated they have agreed to provide a 16-foot right-of-way that would accommodate a multi-use trail and sidewalk. Craig Carver stated he and his partner own the property south of Stockdale Highway and Allen Road and they support this project. He felt there is flexibility in working with the KEPT and Kern River Parkway Committees to relocate the buffer if it is a problem. Mr. Gauthier responded to comment regarding this being a program EIR as opposed to a project EIR, clarifying the difference between the two. Lynn Mihalyo stated regarding the comment by the applicant's representative that they should be allowed commercial designated property because they have it at the present time, that if this logic is used they should continue to have an Estate Residential designation. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle said regarding payment of trails, parks and easement it was his understanding the applicant can be asked to create an assessment district, and that then the homeowners can bring an initiative with 5 percent of the voters and undo the assessment district leaving the burden on the city. Ms. Marino said it was her understanding this was a possible effect of Proposition 218. Commissioner Boyle asked if the collector streets are kept would it make more sense to bring the trails down the collectors rather than taking them south on Allen Road to Stockdale Highway. Mr. LaRochelle said this would be more appropriate. Commissioner Boyle asked if the applicant would be willing to move the trails to the collector streets. Commissioner Hersh asked if the 16 feet proposed for the trail would be adequate. Mr. LaRochelle felt it would be inappropriate to locate the trails on an arterial and he was concerned that the sidewalk and trail were squeezed too close together. He stated he was uncomfortable with the proposed trail from a safety standpoint. Minutes, PC, 3/20/97 Page 8 Mr. Mclntosh answered Commissioner Boyle's previous question stating the collectors are not necessarily designed to have the same type of wall and landscape treatment along them. He outlined conflicts that will arise with placing the trails on collector streets. Commissioner Boyle recalled the existing trail plan adopted by the city uses collector streets. Regarding certifying an EIR, he asked if maintenance of parks should be considered as part of mitigation. Ms. Marino said the city is responsible for park maintenance. Mr. Grady stated this area is within the jurisdiction of the North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District. Commissioner Boyle stated his agreement that this is where development should occur. He stated his concerns about the commercial property asking if the commercial properties around it are owned by the applicant. Bruce Freeman, Castle and Cooke, stated they own one parcel of 11.5 acres. Commissioner Boyle said regarding the transition of larger lots north of Brimhall to smaller lots south of Brimhall, this property was already zoned for Iow density residential under the general plan. He stated he supported the EIR and the project. Commissioner Brady stated he had a problem with people living in the county wanting to continue a recreational activity at city expense and he felt this is a county problem because of their lack of provision of trails. He did not see a benefit to city residents and did not feel they should be responsible for paying for them. He stated he saw no effort of those using the trail to come up with an alternative funding source. He stated he would not be opposed to placement of the apartments at the proposed intersection. He stated he would support some flexibility regarding the location of collectors, however would not agree to elimination of them. Regarding the general commercial issue he felt it appeared to be sufficient for the area; however he may support as an alternative an office building or some other, type site as opposed to a shopping center. He asked if the applicant had met with city residents north of Brimhall concerning this project and if there were issues raised at these meetings which were not resolved. Larry Hogle stated they held community meetings in which the surrounding property owners were invited of which residents of Brimhall Estate attended. He stated the questions of multi-family and commercial arose at these meetings and have not been resolved. Commissioner Tavorn asked about funding in the event future traffic problems arise. Mr. LaRochelle said within the current traffic impact fee program is a requirement for review every 3 years to review such things as growth rate and where development is occurring. It allows for necessary adjustments. Discussion continued regarding traffic issues. Commissioner Tavorn stated his concerns about existing traffic situations. Commissioner Delgado complimented the applicant on completing projects as proposed. He agreed with Commissioner Brady that there must be another funding method for trails. He felt the core of staff's recommendation seems to be acceptable to more people than not. He stated his support for staff's position with regard to the location of the multi-family projects on the interior of this property. He stated his support for staff's recommendation with the exception of deletion of open space along the canal. Minutes, PC, 3/20/97 Page 9 Commissioner Boyle asked what thought has been given to provision of access from the senior citizen development immediately to the east in the event the commercial remains as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Freeman said it would be a great distance for anyone to walk and did not feel that the Rio Bravo canal would give another crossing. Commissioner Boyle agreed that the 100-foot access along the river should remain and stated his support for retaining the collectors or as approved by the city engineer. He also stated he was in agreement with the multi-family housing being on the interior of the area. Regarding commercial area he felt there was an advantage to having it in a location accessible especially to the senior citizen community. He was also in favor of trying to tie commercial property in with the Kern River Parkway. Mr. Hogle said as proposed the commercial area surrounds the staging area which provides a direct access to the Kern River. Chairman Hersh asked if the Buena Vista project was considered within the summary of traffic impacts. Mr. Mclntosh said the transportation impact fee program assumes a growth rate of 2.8 percent per year. Chairman Hersh said this is a general growth rate and does not pinpoint where the concentration of the growth effects are going to come from. He stated his feeling that the traffic impact fees are not adequate, stating he had a problem with projections of impact, remedies and levels of significant improvement after the fact. Regarding open space he agreed with previous comments that it should remain. Concerning trails he felt there is a lack of continuity between developments. He stated he would support the collectors and staff's recommendations'on land use designations. He said he did not see the need for commercial especially with the 11.5 acres that already exist. He was concerned that the Kern River Plan Element is being chipped away. He stated he would support staff's recommendation with the exception that he thought the open space should be maintained. He said although he would support the EIR, however he was concerned that an all-comprehensive evaluation was not prepared. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Grady cited the developments which could occur on the proposed commercial property. He felt allowing the commercial as proposed may allow for river access as suggested by Commissioner Boyle. He asked for further comment from commissioners on placement of a trail north to Brimhall and along Brimhall. He stated he had significant concerns about it with respect to potentially burdening city residents for maintenance of a trail and the fact that it may not lead anywhere because the county is not involved. Carolyn Belli said the trail goes south to the river and connects with the existing trail provided by this applicant. She stated at this time they are working with the county on a trail that goes up Jewetta. Commissioner Boyle asked if the trails could be approved with language that provides that some type of funding mechanism be put in place for their maintenance. Minutes, PC, 3~20~97 Page 10 Commissioner Delgado asked if a PCD zoning could be placed on the commercial property so that some of Commissioner Boyle's suggestions could be placed on the property. Mr. Grady said this could be done. Commissioner Delgado felt if this were to be done it needed to be done to the same standards as other trails and in the same traffic pattern area. Chairman Hersh asked if there would be a problem with the curve of the road with respect to commercial zoning being placed there. Mr. LaRochelle said the radius of the curve is over 3,000 feet which is twice as fiat as required therefore there should be no problem. Larry Hogle gave an alternative to the PCD zoning such that upon approval of the commercial zoning a condition be placed so that prior to construction a conditional use permit would be necessary. Mr. Grady felt if the commission is looking to exercise control of design of the project the PCD zoning would be the appropriate method. Commissioner Brady stated he would support a PCD. Chairman Hersh recognized Ms. Brumfield. She asked about the size of the PCD zoning. She stated her opposition to anything other than a PCD. Mr. Grady cited page 4 of the staff report which shows the commercial property to be a total of 23.46 gross acres. Ms. Brumfield raised the question of whether any commercial is necessary and stated she did not feel. simply moving it resolves the issue. She recommended that perhaps it should be down-sized. Commissioner Brady cited an alternative description which showed reduction in acreage to 17 acres. He felt almost any kind of commercial center could be developed on this size parcel. Roger Mclntosh said there is a requirement with the mineral right holder to provide drilling islands within this area. One idea was to make the commercial area large enough to include a drilling island. Commissioner Brady stated he could accept the larger size commercial lot based on this requirement. Discussion continued regarding the trail issue. Mr. Grady said it is up to the commission to decide where the trail will be placed and whether the developer will be required to install the additional right-of-way that will accommodate both pedestrians and equestrians. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to make CEQA findings (Section 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines) and certify the Environmental Impact Report. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None Minutes, PC, 3~20~97 Page 11 Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution making findings denying the requested General Plan Amendment No. P96- 0521 to the Circulation Element to delete two collectors and approving the requested General Plan Amendment No. P96-0521 to the Land Use Element to LR as shown on attached Exhibit "A." Located south of Brimhall Road to the alignment of the Kern River Freeway between Allen Road and Calloway Drive. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution making findings denying the requested General Plan Amendment No. P96- 0287 to the Land Use Element to GC and the deletion of Old Farm Road as a collector and approving to HMR, OS-P and LR, as shown on attached Exhibit "A." Located east of Allen Road between Stockdale Highway and the alignment of the Kern River Freeway. Further motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution making findings denying the requested General Plan Amendment No. P96-0286 to delete 83.61 acres from the Kern River Plan Element, and approving Kern River Plan Element designation Map Code 5.3 on 83.61 acres and add 8 acres of open space as requested by the applicant and direct staff to change resolutions to be consistent with this motion. In addition make the following amendment to Exhibit "B" - general plan amendment and zone changes P96-0521 mitigation measures and conditions of approval #3 as follows: Last sentence which states "That portion of the collecto_r_or modified collector as approved by the City~ngineer from Old_Farm Road East" should remair~as should "Old Farm Road." Addition of the memo_r_andumJ[rom the Planning Director dated Mar_ch~?.O~99~_. Addition of the memorandum from Public Works dated March 17.. 199_7_. After discussion, Commissioner Brady modified his motion as follows: In se_c_o_nd paragraph of general plan amendment motions after the phrase "as shown on attached Exhibit "D" add_the wo[_ds "with the exception of approving~geQera commercial as reouested" Modified motion was seconded by Commissioner Boyle. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None Minutes, PC, 3~20~97 Page 12 Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to adopt resolution making findings approving the requested Zone Change No. P96-0521 to R-1 and R-l-CH zones, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" located south of Brimhall Road to the alignment of the Kern River Freeway between Allen Road and Calloway Drive. Adopt resolution making findings approving to R-l, R-2 and OS-P zones as shown on attached Exhibit "A" with the exception that the C-2 is approved as requested and no development is permitted without an approved PCD zone. Property is located east of · Allen Road between Stockdale Highway and the alignment of the Kern River Freeway. Adopt resolution making findings approving the R-1 zone on 83.61 acres and approving the 8 acre open space as requested by the applicant and direct staff to modify the resolution to be consistent with this motion. Property is located east of Allen Road between Stockdale Highway and the Cross Valley Canal. Amendment is made to the Exhibit "B" - mitigation measures and conditions of approval Condition #3 - last sentence of the paragraph to read as follows: Last sentence which states "That p_ortion of the collector or modified_co_ll_ector as approved by the City Engineer from Old Farm Road East" should remain as should "Old Farm Road." Addition of the memorandum from the PlanningJ)Jrecto_r dated March 20, 1997. Addition of the memorandum from Public Works dated March 17: t9_9Z. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tka¢, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None *5-minute break was taken at this time. 5.3 a,b,c _C_ONCU~~ PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE AND CONDITIONAL LIS_E~EI~M.IT CASE NO. P97-0052 -- MARINO ASSOCIATES_FOJ?~S~LL~)/YA~ CAPITAL ASSOCIATES Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Jim Marino stated concurrence with the additional memos submitted by staff with the inclusion of a provision that the retention basin fencing not be 8 feet high but would conform to city standards. Regarding Condition #A-18 concerning relocation of the power poles he stated after speaking with staff he would like a revision such that sidewalks shall have the clearance as approved by the city engineer. Minutes, PC, 3/20/97 Page 13 · Paul Andre cited the last paragraph of the March 19th memo from Mr. Grady, stating in flip-flopping the entry way would more easily facilitate the construction of the sewer extension. He requested the option to flip-flop the entrance way and mirror it to the southerly portion of the project aea. The structures, size, entrance way, ingress, egress and elevations would remain the same. He pointed out these requests on the map and stated it would be subject to coming before the commission as a PCD. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to questions from commission concerning language for proposed changes to conditions, Mr. LaRochelle stated condition #18 can be eliminated. Mr. Grady proposed that a conditionbe added to allow for the flip-flopping of the entry way and switching of phase 3 to the north with the condition that it be presented as a PCD. Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution approving and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approving the requested General Plan Amendment with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "H"), and recommend same to City Council, with the option of juxtaposing phase 3 with development in the entry way, with the deletion of Condition #18 from Exhibit "F," and inclusion of the March 19, 1997 memorandum from Stanley Grady with the addition of the following sentence to the end of Condition #2: The roofs of all storage buildings located adjacent to property lines shall slope towards the interior of the mini-warehouse storage complex, away from the abutting residential properties. With the provision that the retention basin fencing would not be 8 feet high but shall conform to city standards. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution approving and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approving the requested zone change with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "H") and recommend same to City Council, with the option of juxtaposing phase 3 with development in the entry way, with the deletion of Condition #18 from Exhibit "F,;" and inclusion of the March 19, 1997 memorandum from Stanley Grady with the addition of the following sentence to the end of Condition #2: Minutes, PC, 3/20/97 Page 14 The roofs of all storage buildings located adjacent to property lines shall slope towards the interior of the mini-warehouse storage complex, away from the abutting residential properties. With the provision that the retention basin fencing'would not be 8 feet high but shall conform to city standards. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution approving and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approving the Conditional Use Permit to allow a mini-warehouse storage project, with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "H"), and recommend same to City Council with the option of juxtaposing phase 3 with development in the entry way, with the deletion of Condition #18 from Exhibit "F,:" and inclusion of the March 19, 1997 memorandum from Stanley Grady with the addition of the following sentence to the end of Condition #2: The roofs of all storage buildings located adjacent to property lines shall slope towards the interior of the mini-warehouse storage complex, away from the abutting residential properties. With the provision that the retention basin fencing would not be 8 feet high but shall conform to city standards. Motion AYES: carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None 5.4 CONCUI~J~N_T GENEB, AL PLAN AMENDMENT AND 7ONE CHANGE CASE N_O__P_9_~ 0777 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Minutes, PC, 3/20/97 Page 15 Jason VanCuren, Simpson-Lusich, VanCuren represented the applicant. He gave an overview of the project and stated he is interested in a landscape easement and block wall as a buffer between the C-2 and existing neighborhood. Commissioner Hersh asked if they agreed with conditions placed on the approval. Mr. VanCuren stated his agreement. Vernon Strong stated he lives in the area and it was his understanding the applicant was going to agree to a PCD zoning, stating they would like to have some input into this project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady stated his support for this project if a PCD is required. He requested staff draft language to this effect. Commissioner Ortiz asked if the access for the Turning Point company's access would be cut off by this development. Mr. VanCuren said he is not aware of any incumbrances on access. He also stated his agreement to obtain PCD zoning on this property. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approving the requested General Plan Amendment with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "E"), and recommend same to City Council. Commissioner Brady amended his motion to include the following wording: with the addition of the requirement that no development is permitted without an approved PCD. Commissioner Ortiz seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh None Mbtion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution approving and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approving the requested Zone Change with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "E"), with the addition of the requirement that no development is permitted without an approved PCD and recommending same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None Minutes, PC, 3~20~97 5.5 GENERAL PLAN A~ENT CASE NO. P97-0061 Page 16 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one in opposition. Jerry Marquis spoke in favor of this application stating he lives in the Tevis Ranch development and recommended the Commission approve this proposal. Mike Soper stated he is the property owner. He stated his agreement with staff's recommendation. Regarding school fees he agreed with school representatives on an agreement such that the fees would be paid concurrent with the close of escrow. Mr. Fidler stated a letter would be necessary from Mr. Hartsell, the school's legal representative. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Tkac to adopt resolution approving and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approving the requested General Plan Amendment with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "E"), and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None 6. C~TIO~ A) Written Mr. Grady drew attention to an ordinance submitted to the Commission at the request of Commissioner Boyle stating it was material gathered at the Planning Commissioner's institute. It is an ordinance from the City of Davis regarding right to farm and farmland preservation requirements and discussion and possible action on it has been placed on the following agenda. B) ~_erbal None 7. COMMISSIQN C~MME~IZS Commissioner Boyle said the purpose of the ordinance previously cited by Mr. Grady is to promote farmland even though at the same time it allows conversion of farmland to residential use. Commissioner Hersh cited a news program on the demise of farmland in which Bakersfield was featured. Minutes, PC, 3/20/97 Page 17 A. C_o_ro. crJitte e s DISC_U~S~ilD~C3'I_OJ~LBEGABDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE N.EX~Z P~,E~- EE~J.L'CG. Mr. Grady gave information concerning items on the next agenda. He stated his feeling that nothing was on this agenda that would warrant preview. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to cancel the following pre- meeting. There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, S~cretary Planning Director