Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/02/00 AGENDA REGULAR PRE-MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Monday, October 2, 2000 12:'15 p.m. MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice-Chairman MA THEW BRADY 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. Items listed on this agenda will be continued to 5:30 p.m. on the Thursday following the dated listed on this agenda. 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand.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, Monday, October 2, 2000 Page 2 If no appeal is received within the specified time perio.d or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission Shall become final.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. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - Mountain View Bravo, LLC (Ward 3) 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. (Continued from September 21, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: CERTIFY Roll call vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ASSOCIATED RF?ONING. ORDINANCE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS' 5.1.a) General Plan Amendment File No. P99-0647 - Mountain View Bravo, LLC (Wa~ 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 and LR to HR on 65.50 acres, and amend the Circulation Element 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) (Continued from September 21, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call Vote. Agenda, PC, Monday, October 2, 2000 Page 3 5.1.b) (Ward 3) 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) (Continued from September 211~ 2000) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vote. Declaration on (ward 4) RECOMMEN[ PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Parcel Map 10726 (Lee Jamieson, Hopper Properties L.P.) Containing 20 parcels on 53 acres, zoned C-2 (Regional Commercial) to be zoned PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for development of a 440,306 square foot commercial shopping Center, commonly known as "Northwest Promenade Phase 2"; lOcated on the northwest cornier of Rosedale Highway (SR 58) and Main Plaza Drive. (Negative file) (Ward Group vote. (Ward 4) ATION: . APPROVE PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Map-~ / 7.1) Vestin_~ Tentative Tract 6006 (Porter-Robertson) Contaid~ng 309 lots for single family residential purposes, one drill site lot and one sump I(~t on 80.49 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow a reverse corner lot and to reduce lot width; and a waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.3 by reserving a drill island for mineral access; generally located west of Highway 99 and north of McKee Road (Negative l ' .Declaration on file) (continued from August 17, 2000 and September 9, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group yote Vest~n/- 7.2) ' g/entative Tract 6003 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 207 buildable lots and one sump lot on 53.9 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling); located east of Fruitval~ Avenue on the south side of Krebs Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE GrOup i°te Agenda, PC, Monday October 2, 2000 Page 4 7.3) (Ward 4) 7.4) (Ward 10. Vestin~ Tentative Tract 6013 (Porter-Robertson) Contaiding 187 buildable lots, two sump lots, and one lot for a water well on 84.75 gross acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); located on the north side of Hageman Road and the west side of Knudsen Drive, about mile east of Fruitvale Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOI~IMENDATION: Continue until October 19, 2000 Group vote Vestin~l Tentative Tract 6015 (The Lusich Company, Inc.) Contair~ing 112 lots for single family residential purposes and one sump lot on 38.83 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); located on the north side of Hosking Avenu ~ and east side of Akers Road. (Negative DeclaratiOn on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vote REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ORDINANCES AND POLICIES GOVERNING LANDSCAPE STANDARDS: COMMUNIC.~TIONS A) Written A) Commiffees 11. ADJOURNMENT September 22, 2000 Held October 2, 2000 12:15 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: ANDREW THOMSON, Deputy City Attorney JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner JAKE SWEENY, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal '3, CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS There were no consent agenda items. Minutes, PC, October 2, 2000 Pag® 2 PUBLIC HEARING- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - Mountain View Bravo. LLC (Continued from September 21, 2000) (Ward Staff report given recommending approval. The consultant will be giving an overview of the project on Thursday night. Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Shaw whether she could give him a list of what traffic lanes have to be added, when they have to be added or whether the applicant just makes a contribution based on a formula? Commissioner Brady said he is concerned about funding for State Highway 178 and if the funding doesn't happen he wonders what roadways will exist at some point in time to handle the new housing tracts? Commissioner Brady said that under the configuration for Valley Lane, it would appear Valley Lane would become the main route for rush hour traffic. If that is the case, why is it only a collector and not an arterial? Commissioner Brady asked what ;traffic is anticipated on that road and how were the numbers arrived at? · Ms. Shaw said that with regards to the proposed collector lining up with Valley Lane, this roadway will not ever pick up enough residential traffic to get to where a six lane facility would be needed. The developer has proposed that the intersection with 178, the first 1,000 feet would be a fixed lane, and that type of expansion will take care of .any intersection problems that are foreseeable. Ms. Shaw said that she will get the numbers from the Traffic Study of what they anticipate the traffic to be on that roadway. Commissioner Kemper asked staff if the public could be addressed prior 'to the hearing as to what is and is not part of the hearing? Mr. Grady said yes he could do that. Commissioner Boyle asked why the proposed collector south of Panorama is not on the section line and why the Masterson intersection is not going to line up with the 178 intersection? Commissioner Boyle asked the attorney's office what right, if any, the Commission might have to require larger than ordinance lot sizes for property north of Panorama that is not part of th® general plan amendment and already zoned residential? Commissioner McGinnis asked Public Works to clarify what is to becomeof the existing 178 if the proposed 178 is completed and also where it presently exists With 1847 Ms. Shaw said that usually when a state route is superceded by a freeway on a different alignment, unless they have a specific reason to retain that alignment, they will give it to the agency who has jurisdiction in the area. In this case, to the City. ThiS alignment is already shown on the general plan as an arterial. Ms. Shaw stated the city is making requirements in the proposed developments as if in the future it will be a six lane arterial. We do not have funding for construction of the new 178 alignment and Ms. Shaw stated she doesn't know when the funding will be there. Our main funding source for new freeways is tapped out until 2014 and she does not anticipate there being a need for it until 2014. In the meantime city staff is planning on doing the first step towards getting funding, which is to put together a project study report. Until such time as the freeway is constructed, 178 as it exists will remain a state facility under their Minutes, PC, October 2, 2000' Page 3 control and we will comply with whatever CalTrans has for developing adjacent to it. Commissioner McGinnis asked if the intersection of 178 and 184 will be simplified eventually? Ms. Shaw said the long range plans for that intersection is moving it to {he east so that the service station that is there will have a frontage road on the west side. The intersection will be more of a right-angle intersection with better sight lines. Commissioner Sprague asked Public Works if it isn't correct that the proposed Panorama collector where it stops at section line 18 is presumed to go further to the west to connect into Morning Drive which will give another outlet for major traffic coming out of that area? Ms. Shaw said yes that is correct. Commissioner Sprague also said that at a previous meeting he asked if staff could contact Councilman Maggard regarding his discussion with CalTrans regarding the improvements on 178 and by Thursday night tell them what the basis of that meeting was? Commissioner Sprague asked Ms. Shaw what traffic fees will the developer/applicant be paying for improvements to 178 and the collectors? Ms. Shaw said that we do not have a figure yet for that. One of the conditions of the general plan amendment is the preparation of that based on an engineer's estimate. ~ Commissioner Sprague asked if the applicant, or staff could explain Thursday night the width of the rOad, proposed median, landscaping, maintenance district and the size of the block wall that would separate Paladino Drive from the north properties and properties within the subject project (from Masterson Street over to Section 18)? Ms. Shaw asked if he was talking about anything that is in addition to what is required? Commissioner Sprague said he was talking about the area required with this applicant for the development of this project on the northern border of Section 17 along Paladino. Mr. Gauthier said that on Thursday night for the benefit of the public they'could have a cross section showing the total 110 feet with block wall, landscaping, median so they would hav® an idea of what we require for every developer. Commissioner Sprague Said that would helpful to the public as well as to the Commission. ~ The public hearing was continued until Thursday night. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ASSOCIATED REZONING, ORDINANCE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: 5.t.a) General Plan Amendment File No. P99-0647 - Mountain View Bravo, LLC 5.1.b) (Continued from September 21, 2000) (Ward 3) Combined with Agenda Items 4 and 5.1 .b. Zone Change P99-0647 - Mountain View Bravo, LLC (Continued from September 21, 2000) (Ward 3) Combined with Agenda Items 4 and 5.1 .a. Minutes,. PC, October 2, 2000 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING -Tentative Parcel Map 10726 (Lee Jamieson, Hopper Properties (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to Exhibit A. There were no Commission comments or questions. Item was continued until ThUrsday night. L.P.) PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 7.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6006 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) (continued from August 17, 2000 and September 9, 2000) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions shown in the September 22 memorandum from the Planning Director and in the exhibit attached to the memo and include Public Works condition changes that the Commission received this afternoon in a memo dated September 25. The memo dated September 22 from Stanley Grady supercedes all previous memos. All changes from previous memos have been incorporated into this memorandum. There were no Commission comments or questions. Item was continued until Thursday night. 7.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6003 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Staff reported that an indemnification agreement has not been filed for this subdivision. Planning Department policy requires the property owner to sign the indemnification agreement as part of the application process. Staff recommends the hearing for this item be continued until October 19, 2000, unless the indemnification agreement has been submitted by Thursday, October 5, 2000. Commissioner Dhanens asked if the staff report will be given on Thursday if the indemnification agreement is received and the project heard? Mr. Grady said they will give them all the information on Thursday and that this is a straight forward vesting tentative tract map with standard conditions. Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Grady if he has had any conversations with Mr. Champness the adjoining property owner? Mr. Grady said that he can check to see if there has been any direct conversation with him. As an adjacent property owner he would have received a copy of the notice of public hearing. Commissioner Kemper said they could wait 'to see what happens on Thursday. There were no other Commission comments or questions. Minutes, PC, October 2, 2000 Page 5 Item was continued until Thursday night. 7.3) 7.4) Vesting Tentative Tract 6013 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Applicant requested a continuance until October 19, 2000. There were no Commission comments. The request for continuance will be voted on the Consent Agenda on Thursday, October 5, 2000. Vesting Tentative Tract 6015 (The Lusich Company, Inc.) (Ward 7) Staff report recommending approval was given with the conditions in Exhibit A and the memorandum from the Public Works Department. Applicant has requested to be placed on the Consent Agenda for Thursday night. Commissioner McGinnis said he has no problem with this being m°ved to the consent calendar but asked if staff had a time frame for the new park closer to the tract that was referenced in the staff report? In the meantime the residents have to cross a major arterial to get to the park that already exists. Mr. Grady said he can't because it depends on how much money they collect and whether or not they can assemble all.of the land together as development occurs. The timing is really a development driven.time frame. Commissioner Sprague asked about the dotted line running north on the east line of the open designated remainder. He asked if the dotted line will move to the solid line with a parcel map waiver? Ms. Shaw said yes they are currently doing a lot line adjustment to move the east boundary line and the north boundary line of the existing lot on the east side. Commissioner Sprague asked if the line would adjust to the east? Ms. Shaw said that what they are showing is the existing legal lot line that they are modifying with the lot line adjustment. Commissioner Sprague asked if there was any way this property could be conditioned in the sale of the high school property so that a satisfactory wall could be put up to separate the residential from the proposed high school site? Mr. Grady said this is a subdivision so unless the Commission were to make a health/ safety/welfare finding, you cannot make a condition that is not already addressed in an ordinance. There isn't an ordinance that currently requires block wall fencing between residential and school sites. Mr. Grady said that because of the issue that he is talking about, when one is going in and there is an existing school there, the Commission has made that finding and if they are prepared to put the evidence in the record today, they could make the finding to require some kind of fencing around there. Commissioner Sprague asked if it was a junior high or high school? Mr. Grady said it was a junior high and Commissioner Sprague said in that case it is probably alright. Minutes, PC, October 2, 2000 Page 6 There were no other Commission comments. Item will be voted on the Consent Agenda on Thursday, October 5,' 2000. 10. 11. REVIEW, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ORDINANCES AND POLICIES GOVERNING LANDSCAPE STANDARDS: Mr. Grady said that the committee met last week and is scheduled for another one on October 11. At the Thursday night meeting, the committee chairman can bring the rest of the Commission up to speed. COMMUNICATIONS None COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Them being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:12 p.m. October 10, 2000