Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 14 pre-meeting PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2004 — 12: 15 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gay, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Absent: Commissioner Blockley, Tkac Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Marc Gauthier, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Wayne Clausen, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS - None 4. CONSENT CALENDER: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of May 6, 2004. This item will be voted on Thursday evening. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Continue General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-1169 until September 16, 2004 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 6) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes/Circulation Element Amendments: The following items will be heard on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5.1a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0410 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Staff report given. Commissioner Gay asked if the M-1 zoning across from the school will cause a conflict? Staff said there are arterial or collector roads that divide the school from the site. Minutes, PC, June 14, 2004 Page 2 Commissioner Spencer said he is confused as to what is being recommended. Staff responded that they will add to the overhead the location of Landco. Staff's recommendation will be M-1 zoning and a LI general plan designation across the whole site. Commissioner Lomas asked where the Hageman Flyover will be and if it can be included in the overhead, to which staff responded that it can be included. Commissioner Tragish asked if part of Landco is in both the City and the County to which staff responded that all of this is within the City of Bakersfield, and that the east line is Landco's alignment. 5.2a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-1169 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 6) See Consent Agenda. 5.3a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0422 (SmithTech, USA Inc) (Ward 6) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish asked if anyone wants this pulled from the Consent Agenda, to which Commissioner Gay stated that he did not want to pull it from the Consent Agenda, but asked staff if Hosking is planned to run the road alignment along the north boundary of the sewer plant? Staff responded that it is shown that way on the circulation element so it will continue. Commissioner Spencer stated that he fails to find the relationship of this proposed development to the City sewer plant which is just to the west. He stated that although it is shown on the General Plan they are getting ready to invade a major source of expansion of future residential uses, and there's going to be vectors, odors and problems. He stated that he did not find where it is really sufficiently addressed. Staff responded that Public Works can provide additional information, and further added that the City is currently upgrading sewer treatment plant 3 and it will have a higher capacity. Commissioner Tragish asked if Public Works has any studies regarding the evasiveness of the sewer treatment plant with oncoming urban development? Staff responded that he has been speaking with Derrill Whittan who runs that plant, and Mr. Whittan has been telling some pretty scary stories, but not at this distance. When Mr. Whittan puts it in writing as to what the distance is then it will change staff's opinion as to how close you can get to the plant. Commissioner Tragish asked if Mr. Whitton will be present for Thursday's meeting to which staff responded that they will attempt to secure his attendance. Staff stated that this project is 700 feet out from the sewer treatment plant. 5.4a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0423 (SmithTech, USA Inc) (Ward 1) Staff report given. Staff is recommending approval if there is mention in the motion to the June 1, 2004 memo by Marian P. Shaw where she adds five additional conditions. Minutes, PC, June 14, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Gay asked for clarification on the acreage numbers; APN 51803001 is 48.78 acres and the ownership next door is 19.9 acres. He further inquired because of the possibility of the commercial out on the frontage not developing, if they have ever looked at requiring the developer to put in the street and tie it in to Union Avenue so there is not an inconsistent area of 200+ feet from Union Avenue over to the project. Staff responded that his concern is usually looked at in the next stage when the applicant comes in with a tract map, and there is a more specific idea of exactly what it is the applicant is doing to be sure there is orderly development with regard to the improvements. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission has the power to add a condition to the approval of the application that there be a tie in to South Union Avenue? Staff said yes if it was tied to the nexus between the traffic generation, and the need to have a street a particular width connecting it to South Union Avenue. Commissioner Tragish asked if there are any Commissioner objections to leaving the item on Consent Agenda? Commissioner Gay stated he would like to pull it off the Consent Agenda. 5.5 General Plan Amendment 04-0457 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 3) Staff report given. Commissioner Spencer stated there has been concern with circulation and inquired if this item should be on consent? Commissioner Tragish commented that Ms. Shaw has not completed the alignment and therefore this should probably be off consent so they can have the actual alignment before them to make a knowing and intelligent decision. Commissioner Ellison asked if Ant Hill Oilfield is adequately addressed with this alignment and existing oil wells and producing facilities. He inquired if the Division of Oil and Gas has commented on this alignment, to which staff responded that the operators and the Dept. of Oil and Gas were notified of the project, but he has not received any response from them as of this meeting. Commissioner Ellison stated that this item should stay off consent so the alignment can be further evaluated. Commissioner Gay inquired if Mr. Lucas has been involved, to which staff stated they have been involved to some degree discussing the idea of a connection to the south, which this provides. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes/Circulation Element Amendments continued: The following items will be heard on Thursday, June 17, 2004 6.1) General Plan Amendment 04-0468 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 3) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is a reason why this item is not on consent to which staff responded that it is probably because they didn't receive a request for consent from the applicant. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the neighborhood park and not allowing by policy to be on an arterial, as there is a park on South Oswell in Agenda Item 6.2, to which staff responded that Minutes, PC, June 14, 2004 Page 4 to be consistent with the Park Plan it couldn't be on Oswell. Staff stated that the park would be in the interior of the tract to the north in the LR area. Commissioner Lomas stated that she has an Exhibit "A-3" that shows the other park on an arterial. Staff responded that it would be inconsistent with Park Policy. 6.2a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-1539 (McIntosh & Associates) (Ward 1) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish asked if the park has already been sited on the plan that was presented in this application, to which staff responded in the negative. It can only be sited if it was in the land use map, which it is not, or in a tract site, and it is not. Commissioner Gay inquired of Mr. Clausen if he could get a copy of the June 14th memo. 6.3a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0266 (Ralph Abrishami) (Ward 7) Staff report given. Commissioner Spencer stated that he completely agrees with the reduction in the amount of retail development. He asked if Monitor Street is to be extended southerly to Hosking? If so, it would make the development of that site even more narrower in depth. Staff responded that Commissioner Spencer's observation is correct. Commissioner Gay stated that he concurs with the evaluation that this is not the place to put a commercial between all of the schools. Commissioner Tragish asked what other possible uses does the property have? Staff responded that it could be used for single family dwellings, which is what it is zoned for currently. 6.4a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0313 (M.S. Walker & Associates) (Ward 4) Staff report given. Commissioner Gay commented there are existing block walls and neighbors and inquired if they are going to double up on the block wall, to which staff responded that it isn't really a wall by this person, but is the building itself (the mini-storage unit). The applicant would build right up against their block wall with a 9' building. Commissioner Gay said, given the pitch design, it should be designed so there is no water run off on the residences, to which staff responded that the applicant will be present at Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Gay stated that the lights on the building should not be mounted higher than the 9' building, to which staff responded that he will make sure that this is the case. Commissioner Lomas said the staff report was confusing as it talked about a 6' high block wall but went on to say it was part of the northern storage unit, and Condition 14 says a minimum 6' high masonry wall should be constructed along the entire length of the northern project boundary line. She said it needs to be clarified to be consistent with the staff report, to which staff responded that it will be clarified for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Tragish said that the hours of operation were from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Minutes, PC, June 14, 2004 Page 5 that perhaps a 9-5 operating hour would be compatible with the presentation made on the staff report, and if there are any foreseeable problems to which staff responded that they would need to approach the applicant for this clarification. 6.5a,b&c) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change/Williamson Acv Contract 04-0429 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 5) Staff report given. Commissioner Spencer asked if the sphere of influence is along the County/City line, to which staff responded in the affirmative. He stated his concerns to consider both subdivisions together. (Agenda items 6.5 and 6.8.) Staff stated that they see Commissioner Spencer's concerns, but staff implements policy. Commissioner Tragish commented that the Commission has the authority to implement a policy, or not implement a policy. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is a way to put up a map that shows a larger section picture so they can see how this fits in with the land substantially to the west of it, to which staff responded that they could do that. Commissioner Lomas commented that she would like to know more about the Stockdale Highway and Old River Road memo regarding 10 lanes. She also inquired why this project's mitigation for traffic is different from Agenda Item 6.8's long list of mitigation measures. Staff responded that it is part of the Traffic Engineer's review of the Traffic Study that is presented for the site. Commissioner Lomas inquired if this applicant had a better traffic study than the study done in Agenda Item 6.8, to which staff responded that they could not address that. Commissioner Lomas further inquired who the enforcing agency is on air mitigation, to which staff responded that the Southern San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Office is the enforcing agency. Commissioner Tragish noted a correction to ensure that Agenda Item 6.5(c) will be included and heard. 6.6a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0431 (Castle & Cooke CA, Inc.) (Ward 4) Staff report given. Commissioner Gay asked if this location is changed to C-O if there would be discretion to require that multi-family be relocated to someplace within a mile, to which staff responded that there would not be a problem with that kind of condition. Commissioner Gay asked if the Commission would have the right to stipulate that the C-O zone would not allow any conditional use permits so there is no backdoor commercial that comes in, to which staff responded that they would see no legal restriction to the Commission to put that kind of condition on. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission can include an enforceable condition against an applicant telling the applicant that they have to provide so many units of commercial somewhere else, without specifically designating it, to which staff responded that the City attorney will provide a written response. Minutes, PC, June 14, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Gay stated that in the past the Commission was told that they had to implement the housing element requiring a certain mix, and that is why they were going to put the apartments out there. Commissioner Spencer stated he reiterates Commissioner Gay's comments. He stated that the use proposed currently is more appropriate than the high-density residential. Commissioner Tragish asked how many potential square feet of commercial could be put in this particular site at buildout to which staff responded that the Traffic Study would have the number used, and that they would have it for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Gary interjected that he believed it was 433,531 sq. ft. 6.7a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0441 (Lennar Bakersfield - Porter-Robertson Eng) (Ward 4) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the mitigation at Seventh Standard, and what is proposed at the Allen crossing, to which staff said they will have to check with the County. Commissioner Lomas asked what their obligation is if the City doesn't have any control? Staff responded that they could advise what is on the regional facility's list which the County can draw from. Commissioner Tragish stated his concerns about the crossing at Allen Road. Commissioner Gay asked if future homeowners will get notice of the over flight, to which staff responded that he is comfortable with the decision made by those who are educated in this area. 6.8a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0435 (SmithTech, USA Inc) (Ward 5) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish asked if the R-1 is what the Commission previously rejected, but the City Council approved, to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Spencer stated that the City/County plans indicate that this kind of project should be considered an in-fill, and he does not agree, as this project is not in-fill as all of the projects going east from Buena Vista are pursuing farm land. Commissioner Gay stated that he was on the minority side to annex that property. (He voted for it.) Commissioner Lomas inquired about the recommendation which indicates the staff is approving the Negative Declaration, to which staff responded that the recommendation is to "Approve the Negative Dec. and approve the change", blah, blah, blah. Staff will provide Commissioner Lomas the missing language. Commissioner Tragish asked if someone from Smart Growth could be contacted and show up at Thursday's meeting? 7. COMMUNICATIONS: Minutes, PC, June 14, 2004 Page 7 None. 8. (COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. Minutes, PC, June 14, 2004 Page 8 9. ADJOURNMEMT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2:33 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner August 10, 2004