Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - 5;30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Tragish, Ellison, Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac Absent: None Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of July 1 and 15, 2004. This item was approved on September 16, 2004 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a General Plan Amendment 04-0821 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) 4.2b General Plan Amendment 04-0998 (SmithTech Inc.) (Ward 6) 4.2c&d General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-0879 (Delmarter& Deifel) (Ward 6) Public hearing opened. Commissioner Gay requested that items 4.2c and 4.2d be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Blockley indicated that while he was not at the pre-meeting, he did review Minutes, PC, September 23, 2004 Page 2 the tapes. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Ellison to approve the Consent Item for public hearing items, including appropriate memos. Motion carried by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes: The above items were heard on Thursday, September 16, 2004 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes/Circulation Element Amendments: 6.1) General Plan Amendment 04-0821 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda 6.2) General Plan Amendment 03-0368 (Castle and Cooke CA, Inc) (Ward 4) Public hearing opened. Staff report given. A third condition modifies a condition regarding removing pavement. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Roger McIntosh representing Castle & Cooke gave a presentation. Public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay stated that he will accept Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Blockley inquired what the impact of bike paths will be by the proposed changes, to which Staff stated there is no impact. Commissioner Blockley stated that he will support Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to amend the comprehensive circulation map and bikeway master plan of the circulation element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as shown on Exhibits 1 and 2, and incorporating memorandum from Marian Shaw dated September 23, and the memo from Stan Grady dated September 23, 2004, and recommend the same to City Council. Minutes, PC, September 23, 2004 Page 3 Motion carried by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.3) General Plan Amendment 04-0878 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given commenting on memoranda from staff. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Matt VoVilla with Pinnacle Engineering gave a presentation. He stated there is a huge improvement in circulation. J. R. Mosier and Roger McIntosh, stated they are in agreement with Staff's recommendation. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Ellison stated he recognizes the improvement and will support the project. Commissioner Blockley stated his concern is with the bike path and their class designation. Staff stated that Class II are always put on arterials. Commissioner Tragish asked what the reason is to put bike lanes on arterials versus collectors, to which Staff responded that bike lanes are for commuter traffic, and therefore traffic that goes along with the regular roadway traffic is designated in the California Traffic Manual, and the Highway Design Manual, as being the appropriate location, and is not intended for recreational use. Staff indicated that they make them a little bit wider than the minimum required. Commissioner Spencer stated that with incorporation of Staffs memos he will support this project. Staff confirmed that the motion in the last sentence between the words "General Plan" and "by" the words, "as shown in Exhibits 1-4" should be added to the motion. Commissioner Gay stated his questions about the signal lights have been answered. Commissioner Ellison moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to amend the comprehensive circulation map and bikeway master plan of the circulation element and specific parks and trails plan for the Northeast Bakersfield of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as shown on Exhibits 1 - 4, by 1) deleting the collector designation in the north half of Section 17 Township 29 S, Range 29 E, MDB&M between Paladino Drive and Panorama Drive; 2) extending the arterial designation for Vineland Road from Highway 178 to Panorama Drive; 3) changing the alignment of the collector designation in the south half of Section 17, Township 29 S, Range 29 E, MDB&M; 4) deleting the Class II bike lane designation in the north half of Section 17, Township 29 S, Range 29 E, MDB&M between Paladino Drive and Minutes, PC, September 23, 2004 Page 4 Panorama Drive; 5) designating a Class II bike lane along the alignment of Vineland from Highway 178 to Paladino Drive; and 6) changing the alignment of the Class II bike lane in the south half of Section 17, Township 29 S, Range 29 E, MDB&M to follow the alignment of the amended collector as shown in Exhibits 1 & 2, including the September 10, 2004 memorandum from Marian Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.4a&b) General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Line Amendment 04-1037 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 3) Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Scott Beldman, 5107 Lyrae Court, stated his concern that there does not appear to be any detail as to the grading of the realignment in recognition of the terrain. He stated that the proposed Auburn alignment would take that road and drop it down to a level that is actually higher, or as high as the top of the back fences of the houses along the back side on Auburn. He stated that it appears that the road will be right above their fence lines. Sam Hawapanh owns vacant commercial property on the corner of Auburn and Morning Drive, stated that this project will effect his property and could become obsolete with this project. He would like to be compensated fairly. Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac inquired about Mr. Beldman's concerns. Mr. Wright stated that he did talk with Mr. Beldman, and indicated that they do not have a design at this point, or a profile for the roadway. He indicated that the initial thought is that Auburn would tie into Morning, and the new Morning Drive would be roughly along the same profile as the current Morning Drive, and Auburn would tie in at that location. Mr. Wright indicated that they might be able to lower Morning Drive down going south from its northerly line where the specific plan line begins. Mr. Wright indicated that the Canyon Hills Church owns property on either side of Auburn, and they have been in discussion with them with regard to grading. Canyon Hills Church is required to construct a wall along the north line between their property and the residential property to the north upon their development as it is zoned C-2. Commissioner Tkac asked when this interchange/realignment might physically take place. Mr. Wright responded that the interchange from start to finish (ready and going to bid) in a best-case scenario with CalTrans is a four year process, and the process is just beginning. Mr. Wright indicated that if they had the plans ready today, they could bid it as they have enough impact fee money. Minutes, PC, September 23, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Tkac inquired about Mr. Hawapanh's concerns, and Mr. Wright indicated that they would do an appraisal and purchase the property from him. Mr. Wright indicated that when the specific plan line is approved they will approach Mr. Hawapanh if he wanted to sell right now. Commissioner Tkac advised Mr. Beldman that tonight's decision by the Planning Commission is only final after it goes through the City Council. Staff indicated that there will be other opportunities to comment on the project, and that tonight's decision is just to set the alignment, and does not set the elevation. Therefore, Mr. Beldman's issues regarding elevation would still have to be addressed. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Mr. Beldman would have an opportunity during a public hearing to make comments in the future, to which Staff responded that Auburn Drive will probably be built with the Church properties project, and since it's commercial it will go through site plan review which is a public hearing, just not before this body. It was indicated that at that time concerns regarding the alignment of Auburn could be addressed, and at that time they would know what the vertical alignment of Auburn and Morning would be, because they would have to have that to put together their plan. Staff indicated that it would be the standard 300 notification of any project. Commissioner Gay inquired about Morning Drive being an arterial and any sound study for a future arterial, to which Staff indicated that they would have to make the same assumption. Commissioner Gay inquired if another sound study would be done due to any modification of Morning Drive, to which Mr. Wright responded that if Morning Drive was elevated from its current grade then noise and impact studies would have to be done, and mitigated. If Morning Drive is lowered there would be no need to raise it near the homes. Commissioner Gay stated that he would support this project. Commissioner Blockley asked Mr. Wright if Fairfax Road is an interchange to which Mr. Wright responded that the interchange has been delayed, and funding will be available for that interchange in the fall of 2005, and they anticipate to be able to bid in the fall of 2005. Commissioner Spencer asked about Condition 3 of the Resolution, where it states as to Specific Plan Line Number 031171, if this can be clarified or deleted? Staff responded that this is just a typo and should say 041037. Commissioner Tragish asked if the northeast corner property has come before the Planning Commission previously, and whether it cuts into an existing approved tract at this time, to which Staff responded that the developer of that tract was very kind and worked with the City closely so that his layout matches Staff's proposal tonight. The other development will only be on the north side of 178 and on the east side of the realigned Morning, and the rest of it will be part of Ted's (Ted Wright) project. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the approval does not take into consideration the concerns if they have any type of recourse to which Staff responded that site plan review is an appealable process before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tragish stated that Mr. Beldman has some remedies which satisfies him, and therefore he will support the project. Minutes, PC, September 23, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to amend the Comprehensive Circulation Map and Bikeway Master Pan of the circulation element and specific parks and trails plan for the Northeast Bakersfield of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan to realign Morning Drive at Highway 178 and Auburn Street at Morning Drive, as shown on Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving a specific plan alignment pursuant to Chapter 17.55 of the Ordinance Code for Morning Drive and Auburn Street, an additional right-of-way on the north and south sides of Highway 178 at Morning Drive as shown on Exhibit 3 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.5) General Plan Amendment 04-0998 (SmithTech Inc.) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda 6.6a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-0876 (GVA Development Corp) (Ward 7) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Recess taken Bill Seque, the applicant, spoke in favor of Staff's recommendation. He stated apartments are needed in this area. Mike Walker, the principal of M.S. Walker & Associates indicated they will be the architect engineer, and contractor for this project. Mr. Walker gave a presentation. Minutes, PC, September 23, 2004 Page 7 Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Gay indicated that he had some concerns with Arkwood and the signal going into Golden Valley High School, and he has received clarification from Staff. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the level of service would be with all the traffic coming in and out, to which Staff responded that there was a projected level service B for Hosking Avenue, and does not appear to affect anything from the standpoint of traffic from family residential or multi-family. Staff indicated that the biggest impact is the school itself, and that has been worked out during that development. Staff indicated that they feel this current project will be doing well also. Staff indicated that eventually Monitor Street will be coming down to Hosking and continuing south to the High School. Staff indicated this keeps the level of service at a very good level. Commissioner Tkac indicated that he likes the set backs, and would agree that it is much needed in the area. Commissioner Tkac inquired of Michael Walker about the landscaping, to which Mr. Walker responded that the open space does not count parking lots, but solely the new revised open space standards of landscaping, which is the set backs from the street, space between the trees. Mr. Walker commented that the new rules have increased landscaping tremendously in new apartment complexes. Staff indicated that there is a condition requiring a final landscape plan to be submitted. Commissioner Tkac stated he supports the project. Commissioner Tragish added that the Planning Commission does have the discretion to add requirements regarding the landscaping. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the number of interruptions an the arterial, to which Staff responded that this segment of Hosking Road is anticipated to have no other traffic signals except at the intersections of Monitor and Hosking. Commissioner Gay inquired if the signal at the high school or the apartment is an "on demand", to which Staff responded in the affirmative, and that it will be a traffic actuated-type signal and coordinated with Hosking. Commissioner Tragish inquired what type of landscaping plan Mr. Michael Walker envisioned for this project, to which Mr. Walker stated that at this time they have chosen the fastest growing allowable trees that the City likes to see in their landscape plans. He said on the perimeter of the property on Hosking and Arkwood there will be 24" box trees to shield the project from the street, and the interior and front landscape areas will have 15 gallon trees. Mr. Walker indicated that the landscape coverage requires 20% for this project, and they have 37%. Commissioner Tkac inquired further about landscaping, and Staff responded that they could require that the applicant submit a landscape plan before building permits are issued. Commissioner Tkac stated that he is leaning towards setting a condition as recommended by Staff. Commissioner Lomas inquired if at the time the landscape plan is submitted if they Minutes, PC, September 23, 2004 Page 8 would have the authority to require more than the adopted standards, to which Staff responded in the affirmative stating that would be the whole function of the condition. Marian Shaw stated that she would like to amend language that is referenced in the last page of Mr. Grady's memo, dated September 13, 2004, pg 12, where it says "Condition #2 - "Access to the arterial street will be limited making reference to the signal at Golden Valley High School," so that the following language is added to the very end of the paragraph: "The developer shall modify this traffic signal with the construction of this full access opening." Commissioner Ellison moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LR to HMR on approximately 20 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, adding the condition that prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission, changing the site plan condition number on page 12, adding the sentence: "The developer shall modify this traffic signal with the construction of this full access opening.", and including Stan Grady's memorandum dated September 13, 2004, and Steven Walker's memorandum dated September 23, 2004, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Ellison moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from R-1 to PUD on approximately 20 acres as shown on Exhibit B-2 more fully described on Exhibit B-3, adding the condition that prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission, changing the site plan condition number on page 12, adding the sentence: "The developer shall modify this traffic signal with the construction of this full access opening.", and including Stan Grady's memorandum dated September 13, 2004, and Steven Walker's memorandum dated September 23, 2004, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.7a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-0879 (Delmarter& Deifel) (Ward 6) Public hearing is opened. Minutes, PC, September 23, 2004 Page 9 Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Wayne Deifel spoke in favor of the project. Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Gay stated his concerns of being so close to the schools and having a PCD for an overlay, and possibly with the first buildout to get the full curb and gutter and street improvements on the 15 acre site. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the Chevron Mini Market, to which Mr. Deifel responded that they have met with both school districts and have come up with mitigation measures. Commissioner Gay stated that getting any part of Stine Road or McKee Road further improved would help with the safety of the high school students, which is what Ridgeview is concerned about. Commissioner Gay stated that he would make a motion modifying it to a PCD instead of a C-2 and adding the curb gutter with the pulling of the first building permit. Commissioner Ellison stated that there is undeveloped land around the area, and the PCD overlay allows them to look at the site and development plan. He stated that he would support the PCD overlay and the full curb and gutter improvement. Commissioner Tkac stated that he would support the PCD for good orderly development. Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from SR to GC on 15 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 to the attached draft resolution, also adding the condition that prior to obtaining the first building permit for this parcel or any subsequent subparcel the developer shall install curb, gutter and related street improvements for the entire 15 acre parcel and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Gay moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from A to C-2 PCD zone on approximately 15 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 attached to the draft resolution, and incorporating the condition that obtaining the first building permit for this parcel or any subsequent subparcel the developer shall install curb, gutter and related street improvements for the entire 15 acre parcel and recommend the same to City Council. Minutes, PC, September 23, 2004 Page 10 Motion carried by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.8 a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 04-0885 (Castle & Cooke CA, Inc,) (Ward 4) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Roger McIntosh gave a presentation. He spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation to deny the requested general plan amendment. The following spoke in opposition to the pedestrian bridge: Darlene Mulkey, Lucas Debranski and Basil Zuniga. Their stated concerns regarding safety, no connectivity or walkable. A stated concern also was vandalism. Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac stated that this has been made to be such a bad idea that he wonders how it could with any variations ever have been a good idea. He inquired where the signal would go, and/or a crosswalk, to which Staff responded that there will be a signalized access point that would have a crosswalk just to the east of the opening in the wall, but did not know the distance. Commissioner Tkac indicated that he liked this idea, but the concerns raised do cause him to question the project now. Commissioner Blockley stated that he did meet with representatives from Castle & Cooke and Mr. McIntosh, and indicated that to a certain extent he agrees with the elimination of this bridge. He indicated that the drainage sump interferes with direct access and direct view, but the drainage sump perhaps planned in concert with the zone change, which he voted against deleting the residential which was the purpose of the wall. Commissioner Blockley stated that he does not like what he sees on either side of this issue. Commissioner Gay stated that he spoke with representatives from Castle & Cooke, and stated he is really concerned with the wall, the lanes, the turns, and the safety. He indicated that he feels that Castle & Cooke created this problem. He stated that he does not support putting the bridge in. Commissioner Tragish concurred with the previous commissioners, although he sees it as a spectacular project, and perhaps Castle & Cooke can make some modifications. He stated that he understands the safety concerns expressed, but feels that the project plays into what will be developed across the street. Minutes, PC, September 23, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Lomas inquired about the timeline of this project. Staff indicated that the jogging in the wall is to access the driveway that is the sump's access, and the assumption was that it would continue straight across to Stockdale Hwy. Commissioner Lomas inquired that the sump, the access and everything combined they're looking at a drawing with a jog in it, and since Castle & Cooke designed it they can redesign it to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Staff indicated that back in 1990 Water Resources was to approve the design by the way the condition was written. Staff indicated that the City of Bakersfield, the Public Works Dept., the Building Dept. the Planning Dept. and the Water Resource Dept. would need to approve the redesign. Commissioner Lomas indicated that with all those departments reviewing a redesign all of the concerns would be addressed. Commissioner Lomas indicated that she is in favor of a walkable community, and would like to support Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Gay stated that in his opinion what Castle & Cooke is presenting is not a workable alternative. He inquired about continuing this matter. Staff indicated that they would entertain any discussion the applicant would want to have on this issue. Commissioner Tragish inquired if this project is denied if the applicant still has an opportunity to come back with another plan to which staff responded yes. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. McIntosh if the applicant would agree to a continuance, and if Castle & Cooke would entertain coming up with a different design during the interim period. Mr. McIntosh responded that the applicant is not interested in continuing the item as they would like to have it dealt with now in this current cycle. Commissioner Blockley stated that he does not support the current design as proposed by the applicant, and given the location of the existing sump, the existing wall, and comments by the neighbors he does not see this bridge as a public amenity at this point. He indicated that he would support the proposed continuance. Commissioner Spencer commented that he thinks this is a lousy project and does not see where it suits any purpose at this time. He further indicated that the initial intent of the crossing no longer exists, and therefore the bridge should just go away. Commissioner Lomas stated that the current design was drawn by Castle & Cooke and Staff had nothing to do with where the crossing is in its current configuration, and therefore this bad design presented by Castle & Cooke will most likely not be approved by all the City entities that need to approve. She further pointed out that they are not voting on whether or not they accept this particular configuration, but rather are voting on whether there will be a crossing or not. She indicated that there can be a good designed crossing that would be a benefit to the community. Commissioner Tragish concurred with Commissioner Lomas' comments. Commissioner Gay stated that now after hearing other Commissioners that he would go with a denial. Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and denying the requested General Plan Amendment to eliminate condition numbers B1 and B2 of Exhibit B in Resolution No. 207-03 as shown in Exhibit 1 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote. Minutes, PC, September 23, 2004 Page 12 AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and denying the requested Ordinance Change to eliminate condition numbers B1 and B2 of Exhibit C in Ordinance No. 4165 as shown in Exhibit 2 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: None 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 8. (COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Gay commended Commissioner Ellison on his motion, and referred Commissioner Tragish to an author on landscaping. 9. ADJOURNMEMT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director November 8, 2004