Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 4, 2002ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish Commissioner Tkac Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Dennis Fidler Staff: Jim Mavius, Jim Eggert, Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of September 30 and October 3, 2002. 4.1b Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the acquisition of two parcels generally south of Snow Road, between Norris Road and Callaway Drive. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) 4.1c Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the acquisition of two parcels located at 1020 and 1030 King Street consisting of 10,000 sq.ft, area for the purpose of Baker Street Redevelopment Project. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) 4.1d 4.1e Approval of Extension of Vesting Rights on Tract 5430 (Revised) Phases C & D (Mclntosh & Associates) located west of Old River Road, north and south of White Oak Drive. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) Approval of Extension of Vesting Rights on 3rd Revised Tract 5882 Phases 1C, 1D, 7A & 7B located on the south side of Brimhall Road, east of Allen Road. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) 4.1f Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the acquisition of property on the south side of Hauser Street at Williams Street adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad tract. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 1) Minutes, PC, November 4, 2002 Page 2 There were no Commission comments. Items will be voted on Thursday night. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6006 (Phased) (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval. Commissioner Tragish declared a Conflict of Interest on this project. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. Site Plan Review 02-0484 (Jim Ward Architecture) (Continued from September 5, 2002) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending the Planning Commission approve the appeal. Commissioner Sprague asked if this is going to be a gated community from Northshore with the only access off of Coffee Road being into the complex and from the complex onto Northshore? Mr. Eggert said yes. Commissioner Sprague asked if the four way stop sign on Olive and Seaward is currently under construction? Mr. Eggert said yes that is a requirement of the Albertson's center. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Tract Maps 6.1) Vestin,q Tentative Tract Map 6141 (Phased) (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions. Commissioner Tragish asked where Barry Street will be moved to? Mr. Movius said Barry Street will be moved 120 feet east so that there will be fewer lots tucked into the northeast corner and an emergency gated access would be punched through on E Street. Commissioner Tragish asked what concerns Ms. McKay had? Mr. Movius said she has two concerns: One is the widening of Stine Road to arterial standard and the other is requesting the developer preserve her access to her rear yard which the city does not have the legal right to request this of the applicant. Commissioner Tragish asked if there will be a masonry wall separating her house from the development? Mr. Movius said it would be a wood fence. There is no requirement for a masonry wall. Commissioner Gay asked about the median requirement. Ms. Shaw said her staff has been discussing this with the applicant and have agreed that the applicant be allowed to install a turn restrictor instead. This option is given to an applicant frequently. It will be inside the development and will keep people from turning left out of the development. Minutes, PC, November 4, 2002 Page 3 Commissioner Tragish asked what triggers the requirement of an adjoining landowner to participate in the cost of bringing a street up to arterial or collector? Ms. Shaw said if there is an existing use on the property and they are not getting any additional entitlements, there is no tie unless they are doing some extensive work on the house. There is a section in the ordinance that requires that all off-sites be brought up to city standards but only if they pull a building permit that increases the valuation of the property 25 percent of its current value. Commissioner Blockley asked if Stine Road would be widened? It goes from two lanes to four lanes and back to two lanes? It doesn't seem safe or useful. Ms. Shaw said that to her knowledge there is no project for the city to work on Stine Road. Portions of Stine Road are on the impact fee so as it develops, the developers can get credit. Since it is on the impact fee, it is conceivable that the city could do a project on Stine Road using that as a funding source. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. 6.2) Vestinq Tentative Tract 6139 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions. Applicant is requesting this be put on the consent agenda for Thursday. There were no Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. 7. TRANSIT PLANNING PRESENTATION BY CHESTER MOLAND FROM GOLDEN EMPIRE TRANSIT. (Presented at Monday's pre-meeting) Chester Moland, from Golden Empire Transit, gave an update on how some of the City's planning activities impact what the district does and how the district's activities impact the city. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Grady asked the Commission if they still wanted a presentation on the traffic issue prior to the general plan hearings in December since a presentation was made by both Jacques LaRochelle and Craig Pope during the hearing for the update of the general plan. The Commission agreed that they did want another one. Mr. Grady said he would try to place it on the next pre-meeting agenda. Commissioner Tragish asked Ms. Gennaro if it would be a problem if they had a presentation about traffic and it touched on the Walmart issue to which Ms. Gennaro said that her understanding is that the presentation will simply be on the traffic model and some upcoming concepts that Public Works has in mind. She said she would prefer the Commission did not bring up specific questions relating to the Walmart issue because of the Brown Act concern. Ms. Shaw asked the Commission what they would like to see in a presentation? Commissioner Gay said he is interested because the Walmart conversation keeps coming up on the Panama site. For his own knowledge he would like to know if the 36 acres were developed as residential what the traffic generation would be and the difference if it were multi-family and Minutes, PC, November 4, 2002 Page 4 commercial. Mr. Grady said his original question was whether there were still some broad range traffic issues the Commission feels that they need a presentation for and that staff is already preparing for the general plan pre-meeting detailed discussions on the environmental impact reports prepared for those projects and specifically on traffic as it relates to those projects. If they want to deal with a project-specific traffic discussion, then the appropriate time to have that discussion would be at the Monday pre-meeting prior to the general plan cycle. Commissioner Gay said that at some time he would like to see traffic generation on that specific site when that issue comes up. Commissioner Sprague requested that Pacheco be also included in that discussion. Commissioner Ellison said that some of the things he would like to see is a brief description of Alternative 15 of the Bakersfield System Study, possible phasing of each element (which will come first), reconcile population estimates in the Kern Cog Traffic Model (the model that is being used and what is actually being projected), and off of the Kern Cog Model he would like a brief description of the Transportation Impact Fee Program. How a developer is assessed his fair share? Commissioner Tragish said he is concerned about what we are doing to relieve congestion within the immediate future? Not in 25 years but in the next five years? 9. ~COMMISSION COMMENTS: 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: This will be decided on Thursday night. 11. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:39 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary November 26, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director