Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/00Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Thursday, September 21, 2000 5:30 p.m. MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 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. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAl 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, c/o Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 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 $334 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand.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, Thursday - September 21, 2000 Page 2 4. (Ward 3) If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. 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. 3.1) 3.2) Agenda Item 4) - Minutes of August 17, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. Agenda Item 7) - Consistency Finding for the vacation of 6,144 square feet of surplus property. APPROVAL OF MINUTES · Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 17, 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - Mountain View Bravo, LLC Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P99-0647 which has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures. RECOMMENDATION: Continue until October 5, 2000 Roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED RI=ZONINGS, ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: 6.1.a) General Plan Amendment/Circulation Element Amendment File No. P99- 0647 - Mountain View Bravo, LLC has proposed to amend the land use designations from MUC (Mixed Use Commercial), LR (Low Density Residential) and HR (High Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 96.90 acres and from MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) and LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) to HR (High Density Residential) on 65.50 acres, an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan establishing new arterial and collector street alignments within the development site, located between Paladino Drive, State Route 178, Masterson Street and Vineland Road. (EIR on file) Agenda, PC, Thursday - September 21, 2000 Page 3 (Ward 3) (Ward 3) RECOMMENDATION: Continue until October $, 2000 Roll call vote. Zone Change P99-0647 - Mountain View Bravo, LLC has requested a change in zoning from an A (Agriculture) and R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zones to a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone on 96.9 acres; from an.A to R-1 zone on 500 acres; and from an A and R-1 to R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zones on 65.5 acres, located between Paladino Drive, State Route 178, Masterson Street and Vineland Road. (EIR on file) RECOMMENDATION: Continue until October 5, 2000 Roll call vote. 6.2.a) (Ward 6.2.b) (Ward 6) General Plan Amendment P00-0234 - Castle & Cooke CA, Inc. has proposed to change the land use designation from HMR (High Medium DenSity Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 25.41 acres, located at the northwest corner of Ashe Road and Panama Lane. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Application withdrawn Roll call vote. Zone Change P00-0234 - Castle & Cooke CA, Inc. has requested a change in zoning from an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 25.41 acres, located at the northwest corner of Ashe Road and .Panama Lane. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Application withdrawn Roll call vote. (Ward 6.3) General Plan Amendment P00-0468 - Castle & Cooke CA, Inc. has proposed to change the land use designation from HMR (High Medium Density Residential) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on 27.91acres, generally located on the north side of Ming Avenue (extended), west side of Buena Vista Road and on the south side of the Kern River Canal. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday - September 21, 2000 Page 4 6.4.a) (Wa~ General Plan Amendment P00-0474 - Lone Pine Farms and Richard Froehlich has proposed to change the land use designation from LMR (Low Medium Density Residential), SR (Suburban Residential), GC (General Commercial) and R-MP (Resource-Mineral Petroleum) to GC and SR on 33 acres, located along the north side of Brimhall Road, generally south of Rosedale Highway, between Allen Road and Jenkins Road (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 6.4. b) (Ward#) Zone Change No. P00-0474 - Lone Pine Farms and Richard Froehlich has proposed a change in zoning from a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zones to an E (Estate) zone on approximately 10 acres, and from an E (Estate) zone to a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone on 12.5 acres, located along the north side of Brimhall Road, generally south of Rosedale Highway, between Allen Road and Jenkins Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 6.5.a) (Wa~ ~ General Plan Amendment P00-0477 - Castle and Cooke CA, Inc. has proposed to change the land use designation from LR (Low Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 1.29 acres; HMR (High Medium Density Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential) on 10.63 acres; GC to LR on 0.58 acres; GC to HMR on 2.66 acres; LR to HMR on 6.14 acres and OS-P (Open Space-Parks) to LR on 81.11 acres; Circulation Element Amendment to delete Vermillion Drive and Old Farm Road (extended) as collectors, extend Jewetta Avenue as a collector from Brimhall Road to Stockdale Highway, located south of Brimhall Road between the Kern River Freeway Specific Plan Line, Cross Valley Canal, Stockdale Highway, Calloway Drive and Allen Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday - September 21, 2000 Page 6.5.b) (Ward Zone Change No. P00-0477-'Castle and Cooke CA, Inc. has proposed a change in zoning from a R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone on 1.29 acres; an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone on 10.63 acres; a C-2 to an R-2 zone on 2.66 acres; a C-2 to an R-1 zone on 0.58 acres; an R-1 to an R-2 zone on 6.14 acres; and a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) zone to an R-1 zone on 224.15 acres, located south of Brimhall Road between the Kern RiVer Freeway Specific Plan Line, Cross Valley Canal, Stockdale Highway, Calloway Drive and Allen Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 7. (Ward 1) GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING for the vacation of 6,144 square feet of surplus property owned by the City of Bakersfield. Said property is located along Hayes Street, between East Brundage Lane and State Route 58 RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding Group Vote. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF NEXT PRE-MEETING. 11. ADJOURNMENT September 18, 2000 STANL Secretary Planning Director Held ; September 21, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC AD VlSORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Assistant City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER,' Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal Commissioner Boyle stated that he had missed Monday's pre-meeting but had listened to a tape of the meeting and was prepared to participate in tonight's agenda. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) 3.2) A.qenda Item 4) - Minutes of August 17, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. Agenda Item-7) - Consistency Finding for the vacation of 6,144 square feet of surplus property. Minutes, PC, September 21, 2000 Page 2 Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the Consent Agenda Items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 17, 2000. See Consent Agenda ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - Mountain View Bravo,' LLC Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P99-0647 which has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures. (ward3) Staff is requesting this item be continued until October 5, 2000. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Tom Queen, a resident in the area, asked the Commission why the project was continued and why he was notified there was going to be hearing on this tonight but was not notified that it was going to be continued? Commissioner Dhanens said the consultant working on the EIR has not finished his material yet and that is the reason for the continuance. Commissioner Dhanens said they weren't aware in time to notify the residents that the consultant would not have the material ready for tonight's hearing. Mr. Queen asked if the property on the north side of Paladino is ag? Mr. Grady said the zoning is agriculture. On a motion by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle this item was continued until October 5, 2000. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: 6.1.a) General Plan Amendment/Circulation Element Amendment File No. P99- 6.1.b) 0647 - Mountain View Bravo, LLC (Ward 3) Combined with items 5 and 6.1 .b. Zone Change P99-0647 - Mountain View Bravo, LLC (Ward 3) Combined with items 5 and 6.1 .a Minutes, PC, September 21, 2000 Page 3 6.2.a) General Plan Amendment P00-0234 - Castle & Cooke CA, 'Inc. (Ward The applicant is requesting that this item be withdrawn. Public portion of the hearing had been opened in the June 15, 2000 meeting. No one spoke either for or against the project. Project was withdrawn. 6.2.b) Zone Change P00-0234 - Castle & Cooke CA, Inc.. (Ward Combined with item and 6.2.a 6.3) General Plan Amendment P00-0468 - Castle & Cooke CA, Inc. (Ward 6) Applicant is requesting a continuance until December 21, 2000. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against the project. On a motion from Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague; this item was continued until the December 2!, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. 6.4.a) 6.4. b) General Plan Amendment P00-0474 - Lone Pine Farms and Richard Froehlich (ward 4) Combined with 6.4.b below. Zone Change No. P00-0474 - Lone Pine Farms and Richard FrOehlich (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval for the general plan amendment and zone change project and answering the questions from Monday's pre-meeting. Public portion of the meeting was opened. The following residents spoke in opposition of the project: Robert HartSock, a resident of the area, stated' his concerns about the project. He said that staff's analysis was insufficient under CEQA and that a negative declaration for this project is improper. Mr. Hartsock listed the types of businesses that could be located in this large of a shopping center in a C-2 zone and said that staff said by issuing a negative declaration for this project, that it Minutes, PC, September 21, 2000 Page 4 "could not have a significant effect on the environment." Mr. Hartsock said he had problems with the traffic study one of which was it didn't look at morning traffic. Mr. Hartsock suggested that the city "slow down and look at the project and the effects and the potential effects it will have on the residents." He also requested that the city require a full EIR and that it consider the cumulative effects. Mr. Hartsock said that the city should withdraw this application from LAFCO and not let this property in the city until the area of Brimhall and Allen is rezoned.as residential or made into a park. In conclusion, Mr. Hartsock, said that a Regional Commercial zone does not need to be in the middle of a residential area. Steve Moses, who lives in the area, asked that the Planning Department send out code definitions when they send out the notices for projects. He does not know what the designations stand for and it would be helpful for the people receiving the notice. He said some of the houses face the C-2 and would have their front doors open up to this large commercial site~ Mr. Moses said that out of all the commercial sites, this is the only one that has a feeder road out of the subdivision that goes straight into the commercial site instead of being walled and the exit not being close to the commercial site. This causes commercial traffic, lighting and glare down the residential street and safety issues. Mr. Moses stated that the nearest existing commercial site is ~ mile away and feels that this site is too close to that one. Sandy Hartsock, a resident of Overton Street, spoke against the project. She said that the majority of the property owners in her area, oppose any increase in commercial zoning. They have 171 signatures stating their position and it was given to the Planning DePartment on Septembe¢ 11, 2000. When they purchased their homes they were told that there would be similar Estate size homes on this property. There should be a place in Bakersfield that you could build a home and be guaranteed that the zoning won't be changed across the street. The majority of the neighbors do not want a large commerCial center here and that should be enough for the Commission to decline the zone change. Commissioner Dhanens said that the Commission did receive the petition since the staff report was prepared. Jim Hankinson said that he lives on Overton Street which faces the proposed general plan and zone change site. He feels that it is inappropriate that the general plan be changed so easily just for one person. Mr. Hankinson said that planning seems to be flawed somewhat if we allow C-2 next to R-! with estate size lots and no buffer zones. He feels no compelling reason that the Commission should act on this today. The 'property owners have no idea what is going in there so they do not know what impact on home values this will have on their properties. Mr. Hankinson asked what would stop Mr. Froehlich from adding more acres in a year or so and build even a larger shopping center? The ten acres that is zoned for commercial there now is large enough. The residents will suffer the loss of quality of their lifestyle. Glare and noise needs to be looked at further in Mr. Hankinson's opinion. He urged the Commission to vote against it or defer it for three to five years. ~ Minutes, PC, September 21, 2000 Pa9® 5 Gene Telese, a resident on the southwest corner of Brimhall and Allen Roads, said that as the project is today, they will be facing into the proposed commercial project. He requested that the Planning Commission take into Consideration that-their homes will be facing the project and asked the Commission to assist them with some type of walling or sound buffering. Dean Adams, a resident on Overton Street, said that if this C-2 project is built it will be a magnet for the students from Liberty High School. The loitering and cruising will have a negative impact on the neighborhood and he thinks that should be taken into consideration. Dick Burritt, a resident of Brimhall Estates, Wanted the Commission to understand that this is a nice arsa and they have all the services they need for daily life. There is no need to have more commercial development in this nice neighborhood. He hopes the Commission will take that into consideration when they make their decision. Richard Hill, a resident on Branch Creek Street, feels that a commercial site is not needed in a residential area. There are other commercial sites'nearby. Kelly Gilreath said that her home faces this site and she would like the Commission to know that she can't get another home like this and she knew it was commercial across the street but feels that it should remain a small site and requested the Commission to deny the larger commercial zoning. ~ Ron Froehlich; representing the applicant, Lone Pine Farms, said that in 1984 before anY of the homes, but one, were there, he rezoned this site to Commercial. Ten acres was the average size at the time. Recently he spoke to the City about annexing and said that he would like to increase the commercial to the going size for commercial at this time. They have retained the same architect as the Marketplace and they want to make a nice looking commercial site. They are going to retain ownership in a build to suit situation. They have lived their for four generations and have never opposed development in the area. Mr. Froehlich stated that city staff approved the added commercial. The site met every criteria for city standards. All the ground they have around the commercial site will be estate size homes. The shopping center will be a Iow profile beautiful project. They would like to have the expansion and would be willing to give and take options. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle stated that the general plan says there will be commercial sites every mile so that thers will be neighborhood shopping. He supports the general plan. Commissioner Boyle asked staff if the general plan Contemplates regional shopping centers every mile or does it contemplate neighborhood shopping centers every mile? Mr. Grady said the general plan policy addresses the location of general commercial designations. It doesn't speak specifically to whether its regional or neighborhood. The % separation is for new,commercial Minutes, PC, September 21, 2000 Page 6 designations. Commissioner Boyle asked if there is a definition for-regional shopping centers and neighborhood shopping centers? Mr. Grady said the zoning ordinance divides the commercial designations into C-O for Commercial Office, C-1 for Neighborhood Commercial, C-2 for Regional and then CC and CB which is primarily for the business district and downtown. The C-2 commercial zone has the most intensive uses for commercial activity. That is the zone that is usually located at the intersection of two arterials such as this one. Some C-1 zones are located closer to.residential with homes adjoining them. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Hernandez his opinion about the lengthy letter from Mr. Hartsock indicating there is a CEQA issue? Mr. Hernandez said the city is required to conduct an initial study to ascertain whether the proposed action will constitute a significant imp. act to the environment. Staff found their were no significant impacts under CEQA. There is a difference between policy and planning issues and CEQA. What may be objectionable under planning issues may not be objectionable under CEQA. From staff's perspective upon conducting the initial study, it was found there would be no negative impacts created by what is being proposed by the applicant. The Commission needs to step back and look at the record and see if the evidence creates a significant impact. The evidence they look at needs to be substantial evidence. Not opinion or personal opinion or anything that lacks foundation. In this case, from staff's perspective, there has been no substantial evidence provided to the staff that they could say that it was in fact a significant impact created based on the . evidence presented in the record. In responding to the letter from Mr. Hartsock and some of the issues, Commissioner Boyle said that regarding the issue of aesthetics, the current zoning already provides for residential and commercial uses and allows for the trees to be removed. He has not seen any evidence that having a ten acre center or a larger center would have a difference in air quality and biological resources. Hazardous materials is speculativeland if there is a significant issue it will be addressed at site plan. Commissioner'Boyle said nOise, hydrology and water quality will not be affected because it is already zoned for residential and commercial development. Commissioner Boyle said that he does support:the neighborhood's: concern that they have an opportunity to have input on how their neighborhood is developed. The developer is .asking for a significant increase in commercial zoning and he understands that also. Smaller commercial sites are no longer viable and are not an asset to the community. Commissioner Boyle said he would support increasing the size of the commercial but would not support the zone designation that the applicant is requesting. He thinks a PCD would be appropriate. The city could reserve the rights to making discretionary' acts by using a PCD designation. That way the city and the citizens in the community could have their say in what the development Should look like. Minutes, PC, September 21, 2000 Page 7 Commissioner Kemper asked staff what the net is for the proposed C-2 parcel after the streets are widened? Mr. Grady said the estimate is slightly larger than 17 acres.' Without a precise site plan, staff does not know the exact number. Commissioner Kemper said that she is in agreement in recommending a PCD zone. It would address security, lighting and glare, landscaping, ingress/egress and require some heavy landscaping along Allen and Brimhall and perhaps add some additional landscaping to protect the homes along the south side of Brimhall. Commissioner Kemper said that growth is inevitable and the Commission just wants to manage it the best they can. With a PCD they have Public input and they can come to some compromises with some satisfactory conclusions for all concerned. Commissioner McGinnis said that in reviewing the information no one is opposing the zone change along Jenkins Road. He thinks the estate size lots are a good idea. He supports the increase in commercial but does. agree that it should be a PCD instead of C-2. Commissioner Brady said that he appreciates the concern of the neighbors and understands that most of them have probably never been involved :in anything like this but the Commission sees it all the time. ^ lot of the issues that they have raised is also what the Commission is concerned about. The question is how to deal with those issues. Also, a lot of the issues that the neighbors have raised are already thero since there is already zoning for commercial on that property. If the property comes into the city, the owner of the property doesn't have to do anything. Commissioner Brady said that he has concerns about going from a 10 acre site to a 23 acre Site.- He asked staff how they came to the conclusion that the expanSion of Allen Road and Brimhall Road will take five acres? Mr. Grady said that the meeting he had the previous day with the applicant and his engineer gave him the confidence of the numbers. Between four and five acres will be lost do to the roadway. It is not the street width. It is where the roadway will fit on his site. Once a site plan is done, they will know precisely how much land will be lost. Commissioner Brady said he is concerned that ten acres does not give enough room for the residences that will I~ack up to the existing C-2 property to protect them from glare and the noise from the project and also trash and the trucks that will be in the loading docks. A larger project will allow room for landscaping, berming and other requirements that protect the neighbors. Commissioner Brady said he has no problem with the other portions of the application. He has no problem with converting the five acres of commercial to Estate or the R-2 to Estate. He said he is not:sure he is willing to support an addition of 12 acres for the commercial site. It is a huge increase.. Commissioner Brady said that he would go along with adding five acres to the project with a PCD on the entire 15 acres. He would not support the project without a PCD. Minutes, PC, September 2t, 2000 Parle 8 Commissioner Dhanens said he agrees with Commissioner Brady about not seeing it necessary to almost double the size of the center. He would support reducing the size of the acreage and requiring a PCD zone. Commissioner Dhanens asked if they developed a list of conditions couldn't they place them on the general plan amendment and zone change at this time so that a PCD would not have to be followed but staff at the time of site plan review could check to see if those items had been met in the development of that project? Mr. Grady said that zoning is suppose to be uniformly applied. The process for providing special development standards within a zone district is the PCD process. It would not be appropriate to talk about site development criteria dbring the general plan. At this stage you are not addressing the zoning issue. There has not been any environmental impacts'identified associated with design issues, Commissioner Sprague said that he had reviewed this project and property several times. It needs to be looked at as a PCD so that it can come back before the Commission with a definite site plan so they can review it and make recommendations for changes. He feels that the residents will not be happy if it remains a C-2 zone. Commissioner Sprague said that he would highly support a PCD incorporating the ten acre C-2 for that particular corner. Commissioner Dhanens asked staff about the existing median on the south side of Brimhall Road that separates it from a frontage road which provides access to the residential property to the south if it would be acceptable if the Commission required the applicant to provide the landscaping for that median if the project were to be approved? Ms. Shaw said that the frontage road is in the county and she is not sure what jurisdiction the city would have regarding landscaping~ Mr. Grady said this road is not part of the pending annexation. Ms. Shaw said she doesn't think the county has any requirements to landscape those types of medians. Commissioner Dhanens asked if the property is annexed and the city does control it, can the Commission require the applicant to landscape the existing piece of property. Mr. Grady said he thought the Commission could make a finding and relate it to some environmental concerns because the situtation for that site is not the same as the site on Allen Road in that you have a wall and landscape plan which is our typical sound barrier for homes that back up to arterials. But the issue:of who would be responsible for maintaining the improvement once it is installed if it is still in the county is a question. Commissioner Dhanens asked if there would be a median in Brimhall Road if it were to be built out to its full dimensions? Ms. Shaw said "yes there would be a median in Brimhall Road." Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Hartsock if he wished to make a brief comment at this time. Robert Hartsock said that there is no wall or sound barrier on Overton. Overton empties onto Allen Road. Mr. Hartsock said that Commissioner BOyle stated that there was no specific evidence in his letter with regard to CEQA violations but' that CommissiOner Brady pointed out tonight that there will be Smell, noise, Minutes, PC, September 2t, 2000 Page 9 trucks and garbage. Mr. Hartsock reiterated the fact that the residents in the area do not want the additional acreage for the commercial zone approved. 'Mr. Grady reminded the Commission that if they approved a PCD it would only be for the additional acreage, not the original ten acres that already has the existing C-2 in place. Commissioner Brady said the issue is whether or not the applicant :in asking for a zone change is going to impact the surrounding property in a way that allows us to say no, you can't do that because the impacts will be too great. The general plan may be changed four times a year. Changes occur because the types of development changes and with those changes sometimes the Commission finds it better to allow the property to change. Commissioner Brady said that the complaints he has heard tonight will not go away if the project is denied. This will be a C-2 development and they will have all the problems they talked about. The city has in place codes and ordinances that require this applicant to mitigate those negative impacts to protect the adjoining propertY owners. Commissioner Brady went on to explain a PCD zone and how it would benefit the surrounding property owners. Commissioner Brady asked the applicant to come forward to answer a few questions regarding the PCD issue. Commissioner Brady asked Ron Froehlich if he understands what a PCD is? Mr. Froehlich said "yes" and he has no objections on the PCD tonight for the extra acreage being asked for but not for the piece that has the existing C-2 zone. Commissioner Brady said that he is not comfortable with a C-2 and a PCD. He would want it all integrated and come before the Commission as one unit. He stated that his position at this point is not to support the GPA or the zone change. CommiSsioner Boyle stated that he would not support the project either. He asked staff if in the past we conditioned projects upon the applicant rezoning adjoining property? Mr. Grady said that the Commission could put that condition on there but it wouldn't do any good as the applicant could build the southern part and never build the northern part. Commissioner Boyle said that he is not willing to support an increase in the acreage if the applicant is not willing to make it a PCD. Commissioner Boyle said he would support the project on a net of 15 acres which would require a project of about 19-1/2 acres with PCD zoning. Commissioner Sprague said he would support denying the request for C-2 but would support a PCD for the whole parcel being approximately 15 acres so the Commission would have control. It is not giving up something but enhancing the situation. Minutes, PC, September 21, 2000 Page 10 ~3ommissioner Kemper said She agreed with the other Commissioners regarding the PCD. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if they move forward with the annexation and they don't allow the C-2 zoning, would it remain SR? Mr. Grady said "yes." He asked if the drill islands will remain 7 acres. Mr. Grady said "yeS." Commissioner McGinnis said he would support the applicant's proposal with a PCD overlay on the corner. Without that he could not support the application. Ron Froehlich asked staff that since the annexation was a condition of the project being approved, if it is denied, if the annexation will not go through? Mr. Grady said that when the a,nnexation hearing goes to LAFCO, he could protest it or write a letter at the conclusion of this hearing and the City Council hearing requesting the application for annexation be withdrawn. Commissioner Boyle made a motion to adopt the resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration but denying the requested general plan amendment. ~ Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if there is the ability to approve the rest of the application but deny the requested C-27 Mr. Grady said yes they don't have to deny the entire application. The Commission can act on the individual zone change request and land use request. Commissioner Dhanens asked fora second on the motion and then recognized Richard Froehlich to speak. Mr. Froehlich asked the Commission to act on the request to convert the C-1 'and R-2 to Estate development separately. He is in the process of developing the property between Allen Road and Jenkins into an Estate setting and the conversion is a very popular one by the residents along Jenkins as well as the Commission. Commissioner Sprague said that he would second the motion. Mr. Hernandez said that the motion needs to be restated as it is not clear as to what it is exactly dealing with. There are several different general plan amendment requests as well as several different zone change requests. It needs to be made clear as to what is being approved and what is being denied. There were no other Commissioner comments. Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt the resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and .approving the requested general plan amendment to amend the land use element designation from LMR, SR, GC and R-MP to GC and SRon 33.65 acres located generallyalong the north side of Brimhall ROad south of Rosedale Minutes, PC, september 21, 2000 Page 11 Highway, between Allen Road and Jenkins Road as delineated in Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council with the following exception: that the . property that was being changed from SR to GC in the lower southeast corner would be denied. AYES: NOES Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Spraguel Tkac, Dhanens None ABSENT: None Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt the resolution making findings approving the requested Zone Change to amend the zoning district from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) to E (Estate) on approximately 10.9 acres as delineated in Exhibit "B" and recommend same to the City Council and deny the application for the E (Estate) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on '12.5 acres located generally along the north side of Brimhall Road south of Rosedale Highway, between Allen Road. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES None ABSENT: None A five minute recess was taken. 6.5.a) 6.S.b) General Plan Amendment P00-0477 - Castle and Cooke CA, Inc (Ward 4) Combined with 6.4.b below. Zone Change No. P00-0477- Castle and Cooke CA, Inc (Ward 4) Commissioner Dhanens asked staff if them was anything to add since the Monday pm-meeting? Mr. Gmdy said them is a memo from Ms. Shaw of the Public Works Department modifying some Public Works conditions=- 3.a., 3.b., 5 and 7 and a memorandum from him regarding a requirement for a Master Plan for parks to be provided prior to the approval of any subdivisions within this project area. Both of those should be added to the motion to approve the project as conditions. The public portion Of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Minutes, PC, September 21, 2000 Page t2 Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle & Cooke CA., Inc., said that.they have read through the staff report and met with staff and concur with the two memos dated September 18 from Mr. Grady and Ms. Shaw and would request a clarification of Planning Department condition No. 21. They want to clarify that open space to be mitigated to provide 43 acres of open space within one mile of the PUD to R-1 zone change project boundary prior to the submittal of any tentative tract within that PUD to R-1 zone change area. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Grady said that the intent of the condition is as Mr. Mclntosh stated it. It was to cover the tract submitted within the boundaries of the PUD to R-I. CommissionerBrady asked if there is fencing up along the canals? Mr. Grady said that he does not recall if there is fences there or not. Mr. Mclntosh said that the Cross Valley is one of the main canals that run east/west through there that is fenced with at least a six-foot high chain-link fence. The Rosedale-Rio Bravo intake canal is not fenced. It is a canal that is used for water recharge to transfer water from the river to the district's property and there is a condition on Tract 5882 to the north of that canal and on the old Fairways project to fence that within the pulling of the first building permit within a quarter of mile which is the standard city ordinance. Commissioner Brady asked staff if this was a condition already on the project or do they need to add it as a condition? Mr. Grady said "no." Commissioner Brady requested that a condition be put on the project that the applicant be required to pay for fencing along the canal within 1/4 mile on the side of the canal facing the project. Commissioner Boyle and Commissioner McGinnis said they support the project. Commissioner McGinnis asked what provisions are there for traffic flow through the project in the event the project is developed before the Kern River Freeway is? Ms. Shaw said the Kern River Freeway would have no effect to the development to the north since they have no access to it. What they would have is the collector Old Farm and Jewetta going down into the development to help disburse local traffic up to the arterial at Brimhall so you don't have any development that's more than about 1/4 to 2/4 of a mile away from a collector. Jewetta would cross either over or under the Kern River Alignment and connect up to St0ckdale Highway at the location of Old Farm Road was going to. Verdugo ends where it is shown. It does not connect across. Verdugo goes into the development. It carries traffic in and out of the development. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if there will be access to Stockdale Highway or will they be accessing off of the proposed new Jewetta South going into Stockdale Highway in the high density area? Mr. Grady said that wouldn't be known until a project was actually submitted. Commissioner Sprague said he is concerned about traffic on Stockdale and whether they will make ingress/egress off of the area and still have commercial across from it and with the high school to the west there could be traffic congestion in the high density area. Ms. Shaw Minutes, PC, September 21, 2000 Page 13 said the general plan limits access to arterial. When a development plan comes in at that time there is a condition No. 4 which says that that access is limited and will be determined at the time of division or development. TheY will follow the general plan and the city's standards with regards to access onto Stockdale and Jewetta to maintain separation between intersections. Commissioner Sprague said he is concerned about noise buffering and Mr. Grady said that would be looked at at the site plan review stage. Commissioner Sprague asked if a noise study would be required at that time? Mr: Grady said it would depend on how the project is laid out. Commissioner Sprague said he supports the project. Commissioner Dhanens asked what the designation is of Jewetta south of Brimhall Road to the Kern River Freeway alignment. Ms. Shaw said she believes it is a collector. Commissioner Dhanens said that he supports the project and feels comfortable with the condition regarding open space and parks. There were no other Commissioner comments. Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt resolutions recommending apProval of the land use element amendment, circulation element amendment of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and zone change amendment with findings as presented in resolutions Exhibit "D" to the City Council subject to mitigation measures and conditions shown on Exhibit "A" with the inclusion of the two memos dated September 18 from Mr. Grady and Ms. Shaw and with the condition that the canal be fenced within a quarter of a mile from a residence. AYES: Motion carried by the following roll call vote: CommiSsioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES None ABSENT: None 7. = · GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING for the vacation of 6,144 square feet of surplus property owned by the City of Bakersfield. Said property is located along Hayes Street, between East Brundage Lane and State Route 58. (Ward ~) See Consent Agenda. coMMUNICATIONs None Minutes, PC, September 21, 2000 Page14 = COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Brady asked the Planning Commission to form a committee to address the issue of canal fencing. He would like everyone who has a concern in this issue to begin working on an ordinance that would address the issue so, that everyone would understand the rules and that we would be protecting the citizens uniformly. Commissioner Kemper asked if it was feasible to include code definitions in the notice of public hearings that goes out to the people within 300 feet of a project? Mr. Grady said it would extend the size of a notice considerably. It would impact the size and cost of the notice. Commissioner Kemper asked if perhaps just a brief description could be included. Mr. Grady said that he could try something on the next notice and show it to the Commission to see if that accomplishes what she thinks the people have been asking for. Commissioner Brady suggested that the City's web site address be on the notice and that the web site could have the zoning descriptions on it. The public could go to the location based on the address on the notice and get a complete definition not limited by space. Mr. Grady said that was an excellent idea and we could do that. ~Commissioner Boyle requested that a discussion item on landscaping be added to the next agenda. In particular he would like to look at what the present requirements are for commercial centers as well as landscape medians with attention to the possibility of increasing the size of trees, the percentage of evergreen trees and increasing the size of the wells in the parking lots. Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director, said that he has been at the Urban Development Committee meeting and staff has been directed to work on basically the same thing that the Commission is now discussing. One of the things is al tree foundation proposal to increase the quality, standard, maintenance and care of trees. They have a fairly large scope of concern. If the Planning Commission committee is formed he recommends that the committee meet as soon as possible as Staff only has a month to report back to the Urban Development Committee. Staff has been requested to come back with a draft ordinance suitable for hearings by the Planning Commission as an interim ordinance pending perhaps a years' worth of wOrk on a larger scale. Commissioner Brady said he was aware of the tree foundation and thinks Mr. Hardisty's idea of forming a committee is a good one but he still requests a discussion item at the next meeting. Commissioner Sprague said he would like to try to integrate some of the Commission's requests that they have been talking about and incorporating into the ordinance regarding concrete block fences instead of being 6 feet being 8 feet and lighting be inverted away from adjacent areas, berming, some of the access areas and trying to. beautify the projects with more evergreen instead of deciduous trees. He thinks it falls in line with what Commissioner Boyle is requesting and he wOuld be happy to be a part of the committee and add some comments to that. Minutes, PC, September 21, 2000 Page 15 10. Commissioner Tkac said he would be more than happy to serve on the committee regarding trees. Commissioner Dhanens asked if Title 16 didn't already have a requirement that subdivisions would have to fence a canal if they pulled a permit within a 1/4 mile of that canal? Mr. Grady said there is a requirement for canal fencing but the reference to the distance is not included. There is more discretion granted to the Planning Director in terms of identifying when that has,to occur. Commissioner Dhanens appointed Commissioners Brady, Kemper and Tkac with Commissioner Brady being the chairman to a committee in charge of looking at the fencing issue and putting something in the ordinance that would satisfy the safety considerations of tracts that are adjacent to canals that are not fenced Commissioner Dhanens also appointed a committee to evaluate our current landscape standards in the ordinance in light of the city's Urban Development Committee's work -and in light of the tree foundation's desire to enhance the landscaping in the community and for that Commissioners Boyle, McGinnis and Sprague with Commissioner Boyle. acting as chairman of that committee were appointed. Commissioner Dhanens requested that the committee meet as soon as possible. ~ DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. It was decided to have a pre-meeting on October 2, 2000. Commissioner Sprague asked if the Commission could be provided with a recap summary of Councilman Maggard's meeting with CalTrans regarding transportation issues on Highway 178 and whether it was going to assist the development in the northeast area. Commissioner Sprague thought it would be effective information when making a decision on the City in the Hills project coming before them at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Grady said he would. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Directorr · ~ October 4, 2000