Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2004- 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Tragish, Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac Absent: Commissioner Gay Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS - None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items - None 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a&b) Approval of continuance to March 17, 2005 of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1345 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 5) 4.2c&d) Approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-1345 (Max P Bacerra and Associates) (Ward 4) 4.2e&f)) Approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0815 (Porter-Robertson Eng.) (Ward 4) 4.2g&h) Approval of General Plan Amendment 04-0867 (Porter-Robertson Eng.) (Ward 7) 4.2i,j&k) Approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1334 (Lusich) (Ward 5) Commissioner Tragish recused himself from Consent Calendar Agenda Item 4.2g and 4.2h. Public hearing is opened. Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 2 Commissioner Tkac stated that he was not at the Monday pre-meeting, but that he had listened to the tapes of the meeting. Commissioner Lomas requested removal of 4.2e and 4.2f, Agenda items 5.2a and 5.2b. Commissioner Blockley stated that he was not present at the Monday pre-meeting, but has listened to the tapes. Commissioner Tragish requested removal of 4.2i, 4.2j, and 4.2k, Agenda items 5.8a, 5.8b and 5.8c. Commissioner Tkac stated that the remaining items on consent calendar would be 4.2a, 4.2b, 4.2c, 4.2d, 4.2g and 4.2h. Public hearing was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gay 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments /Zone Changes: 5.1 a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 03-1345 (Max P Bacerra and Associates) (Ward 4) See Consent Calendar. 5.2a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0815 (Porter-Robertson Eng.) (Ward 4) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Those in opposition spoke. Barbara May, 11544 Snow Road, voiced her concerns, including privacy, and requested a larger buffer, and would like to maintain their reasonable access. She also expressed concern of safety issues with their livestock and requested block wall on the back of their property with an access gate. David Becky, who lives on Shane Street, echoed the same concerns with a request for a buffer, as well as asking the Commission that for future development that they consider the concerns of other residents that have lived there a long time. He stated that he is concerned about the increased traffic. Brandi Williams, 11730 Snow Road, stated the properties on the southern border of the project are proposed as quarter acre lots, and she would like to see them at 1/3 or 1/2 Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 3 acre lots on that border so that the people who want larger lots for RV parking, etc. will have access, and the small 18 acre parcel that has been discussed will be with animal people. She also requested having buffers with the riding trails. Dennis McClain, resident on Snow Rd. for 26 years, stated his concern with the lot sizes on the north side. He requested buffer zone with a multi-use trail. He stated he is concerned with the Traffic Impact Report. Darlene Mata, representing McMillan Homes, spoke in favor of the project and presented a map with changes and accommodations after meeting with the neighbors. Commissioner Lomas stated she wished these projects were flipped. She stated she is concerned with mixing up and planning properly, and allowing for large lots with animals. She stated that she does not think that '/ acre lots are not going to establish much of a buffer. She stated that she would prefer to see 'h acre lots allowing animals. She stated that there will need to be some clarification on the proposed riding trails. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Ms. Mata about the riding trails, and Ms. Mata explained that they have allowed for an equestrian trail along the canal, where there would be a bulb at the end of the cul-de-sac, and some kind of access to the canal. She stated they envisioned it off of the street so there would be curb to curb street and off of the street perhaps a parkway and then a gravel path. They also discussed the possibility of a split rail fence between the curb and the gravel pathway, and then in some areas a block wall. She stated that there was not consensus that this multi use was what the neighbors wanted. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff about the multi-use trail described and how it would come about and who would take care of it. Staff stated that they have nothing in front of them to answer that question, and that they would need a Condition that would require it, and there could be a review of the cross section to show what the trail would look like as it goes across the lots. Staff indicated they have multi-use trails in the Polo Grounds project and there are some standards that could be applied to this project. Ms. Matta commented that a property owner has just indicated that he has the prescriptive right to get along the back of the properties and over to his property. Commissioner Ellison stated he agrees with Commissioner Lomas and the 'h acre buffer size and the multi-use trail. He stated he is concerned about access to the property. Commissioner Ellison inquired of Mr. Walker about access and the designation of Old Farm Road, to which Staff responded that Old Farm Rd. is a collector, and should be a standard layout. Commissioner Ellison inquired as to the level of service, to which Staff responded the current level of service is A, and the current development could allow up to 239 dwelling units for vehicle trips of 2,292 under the proposed scenario and that with buffered lots it would be much smaller; it would be approximately 320 dwelling units for 3,062, for a net change of 771. Staff indicated the net change in the peak hour trips for what is significant would be 81, and would be approximately 50 trips in, and 30 trips out. The volume of traffic for peak hour is less than 100 which is the threshold for requiring an intense traffic study under CEQA and CalTrans law. Staff indicated that based on the modeling for the area they do not see any significant change in the development for the traffic that would be potentially developed under its current scenario. Commissioner Ellison inquired about the level of service at the intersection of Jewetta and Snow Road, to which Staff indicated they have not done a study at that location. Commissioner Ellison conferred with Ms. Matta who indicated that the applicant has agreed with some of the property owners that would like to have a block wall that it would be on the property owner's property adjacent to the proposed multi-use trail. Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Ellison further conferred with Ms. Matta as to whether the black dots were oil wells to which Ms. Matta replied in the affirmative, and indicated that the applicant is currently working with the oil company and will be negotiating with them as to their needs. Commissioner Ellison inquired of Staff if the mineral rights owners need to be notified of the General Plan Amendment and zone changes, to which Staff responded in the negative. Staff confirmed that no additional conditions of approval are needed because this project exists in an oilfield, and would be addressed at the time of subdivision. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the street/alley on the south border of the project with a multi-use trail that is off-site, and access to the trail, and if the City's required fencing along the canal be extended to the bulb of the cul-de-sac at the end of the street/alley. Staff replied that it appears that it would have to be because you have to sever the ability of access to the canal from the residential subdivision. Commissioner Blockley further inquired if there is a condition requiring block walls on other people's property as a condition of this project, and one of those other properties sells, and the new owners is not agreeable to that condition, then what happens? Staff responded that the language of the condition would provide an option that if that situation occurs they are no longer required to put the block wall up. Commissioner Blockley indicated that he is supportive of this with larger than '/ acre lots. Commissioner Tragish stated that the traffic issues are cumulative and not necessarily just Snow Rd. as presented. He stated that with regard to the multi-use trail he would like some definitive information as to what can and cannot be done. He further indicated that with regard to the buffer zone, he agrees that '/ acre lots is not going to be sufficient due to odor and visual aesthetics. He stated that he feels there is sufficient access for all the properties at this point. He further indicated that if not all the property owners want a block wall he thinks it defeats the purpose of putting a block wall up as far as visibility, and takes away from the consistency in the idea of a block wall. He also commented that he does not like the idea of this area being developed as he thinks it is basically an agricultural area. He indicated that continuing this to the next available meeting in January would be helpful. Commissioner Lomas stated that she is hesitant in creating conditions for somebody else's property, and since there is no consensus, she does not want to proceed with creating a condition. She amended her previous comment and indicated that she would like to see a 1 acre buffer zone. She inquired about the proper zoning for 1 acre development, to which Staff responded that if animals are going to be allowed you would need RS zoning, and cannot be done under this current application. Commissioner Blockley inquired if Mr. McClain would inform the Commission on what he knows about that canal. Mr. McClain indicated that he owns the two properties west of the Calloway at Snow and Jewetta, and one of the properties gate is on the canal bank, and his property extends through the canal on the other side of the canal, and is now on his property. He indicated that there are four properties that have their property line extending on the other side of the canal, as well as the canal. He indicated there is an easement with the canal owners that they can access the canal. He indicated that he is going to see who has jurisdiction over the canal. He indicated that perhaps the Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 5 homeowners need to take another look at this project so that something isn't passed without them doing their research. Commissioner Tragish inquired if it would be appropriate/permissible to continue until next Thursday night so it can be heard at the same time as the property to the south. Staff indicated that this agenda item could be continued to next Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Lomas stated she would be in agreement to continuing to next Thursday, but she would like to see a minimum of 'h acre and discussion how '/2 acre and 1 acre RS could work. She would like to see discussion and an explanation as to the guaranteed access, block wall, canal access, etc. and a definitive answer on access to the canal as she has never seen access from a subdivision. She indicated that she would only be comfortable with a block wall if every single property owner that is affected agreed. Commissioner Tragish stated that it is his understanding that with regard to a prescriptive right it is only good until a judge adjudicates that right, and until then, it's something that is asserting to your neighbor. He indicated that if this matter is continued the public hearing will be re-opened, and requested that this agenda item be heard after the agenda item pertaining to the property to the south. Commissioner Spencer stated this proposal is premature in its whole physical makeup, and until such time as the Commissioners determine how they would vote on the project to the south which borders on this current item, the Commission would be making an unwise decision. He indicated that he thinks it is going to take more than a week to get this worked out. He stated that he is definitely opposed to this project as it is presented. Commissioner Blockley indicated that the property owners are in the county and any action the Commission takes will not affect their rights of access or asserted rights of access. He further commented that the maps in their books look like the county and city is reversed. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Ms. Matta if they could redraw the maps to reflect 1 acre lots, to which Ms. Matta responded they would. Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, that this agenda item 5.2a and 5.2b be continued to next week, December 16th, and request that this item be heard after the property to the south. Moved carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Tkac, Tragish NOES: Commissioner Spencer ABSENT: Commissioner Gay Commissioner Spencer indicated his no vote is because he believes it is premature at this time and before the other project is heard, and that there is not sufficient time to resolve the issues involved. Public hearing remained opened. Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 6 5.3a&b) General Plan AmendmentZone Change 04-0847 (Porter-Robertson Eng.) (Ward 4) Public hearing opened. Staff report given. Howard and Debbie Smith, 1401 Calloway Dr., requested a continuance because of lack of research of their options. He stated they feel a zone change would create many negative impacts as follows: 1) decrease in value of property, 2) high risk of traffic collisions, 3) increased noise pollution (car alarms, deep bass radios, screeching tires) within 10 feet of their sleeping quarters, 4) vehicle exhaust within 10 feet of the windows of their home, with an entrance/exit next to their bedroom windows, and 5) Neon lights shining into the backyard. Mr. Smith indicated that there are 3 corners already zoned commercial. Debbie Smith indicated they would really like a continuance because they just received these letters and plans for construction last Friday night. She indicated they are concerned with vandalism. She would like to know if there are any options other than just commercial or apartments. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the zoning options being limited to commercial and R-2, to which Staff responded that for rezoning they have options. Sharon Well, 9713 Harvey Court, stated she opposes this project for several reasons, stating that a medical facility is going to bring biohazards into the neighborhood, and is concerned about the dumpster indicated to be located along her adjacent property line. She indicated she is concerned about mental patients being in the area, the increased smog, the increased traffic, and the schools. She disagrees with the Air Resources Board's finding that it wouldn't affect the air quality. Fred Porter, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He submitted an architectural rendering of a proposed site plan architectural elevation. Mr. Porter indicated that the developer would like to do a nice commercial development. Mr. Porter indicated that the other commercial properties on the corner of Calloway and Brimhall are retail commercial C-2 zoning. Mr. Porter indicated that there is some light industrial, and they have tried to be compatible with those types of uses, and Staff indicated that because of the residential zoning designation that they would not support light industrial, but that an office commercial would probably be a better use for the site. Mr. Porter indicated that office commercial has limited use and the people are generally there during working hours and after hours the site is quiet and vacant, and on weekends the office commercial use is very quiet. The applicant felt the office commercial would be a better use of the property than multi-family residential where there would be people at all times, and be more difficult to control the noises and uses. Mr. Porter indicated that this is an in-fill project and is surrounded by development, and there is no office commercial in this general area. Mr. Porter indicated that there will be a requirement to have a block wall separating this office commercial from the existing residential. He further indicated that the City regulations require that lighting has to be directed away from the residential development and will be implemented in this project. Additionally, if there are medical offices they have to follow very strict regulations regarding disposal of biohazards. Mr. Porter indicated that the applicant would upgrade Calloway Road fronting the project, as well as Brimhall Road to City street standards. Public portion of the hearing closed. Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 7 Commissioner Blockley inquired about the City policy regarding the number of commercial properties at an intersection, to which Staff responded that there is a 'h mile separation for new commercial, and a five acre minimum. Commissioner Spencer inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to a planned commercial development to which Mr. Porter responded that the applicant would prefer not to go through PCD as there will be a site plan review that will address the architectural layout of the site and the building heights.. Commissioner Tragish commented on the ability to change zoning, and acknowledged the traffic issues at this intersection. He inquired of the applicant about the uses of the facility, to which Mr. Porter indicated that medical is one potential use, but it could be a number of different office type uses. Commissioner Tragish commented that if C-O is allowed there could be a second story which could be invasive on the neighborhood. He commented about the commercial along Stockdale not too far from this location. He further commented that if this current application is denied and it is brought back for apartment zoning it will definitely be more invasive. Mr. Walker, Public Works Traffic Engineer, indicated that the proposed development would generate approximately 1,400 trips per day during the peak hour - 194 trips per day. He indicated that the current level of service for Brimhall and Calloway Dr. is level of service B, the model projection for the year 2030 is level of service B, and the model projection for the year 2030 with the project as proposed is a level of service B. Based on that there are no conditions other than the required condition of the traffic impact fees required. He indicated that the future Calloway is estimated in 2030 with the project to have a volume of approximately 44,500 trips per day, which is similar to what is on Gosford Road, and the volume on Brimhall Road is a little less at 22,500 with full build out at six lanes; three lanes each direction. Commissioner Blockley pointed out that if there are offices with a parking lot there will be a sweeping service that will come and clean when the parking lot is empty and it raises a ruckus. Commissioner Tkac stated he agrees with Commissioner Spencer that there could be a PCD to ensure some logical flow with the neighborhood and the area. He stated that he doesn't think this project would overly impact the area. Commissioner Tragish inquired if a PCD was applied on this application, if it would mean that when the applicant comes back with their map that the Commission can reject a two-story office, or just mitigate the appearance, etc? Staff responded that the Commission has choices with PCD, and that there is a zoned district that could be placed on the property where the Commission wouldn't actually zone tonight, but the applicant would come back with a zone change in which that zone change is the site plan so the Commission can approve the look and fit of the building restricting the height. Staff indicated, in the alternative the Commission would put an overlay on it and they would just look at the site plan and not do a zone change. Staff indicated that it appears that Commissioner Tragish is looking for a PCD which could not be placed on the project tonight, but would have to come back before the Commission with a site design and a zone change application, and tonight would be to change the General Plan to change the use to C-O with a condition that the property be brought back as a PCD, so the zone would stay as it currently is, and the site plan would subsequently have to be approved. Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 8 Commissioner Lomas inquired as to the indicated level of service C in the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Mr. Porter and why there is this discrepancy with the City's indicated level of service, to which Staff responded that the section 5, Traffic Mitigation Criteria for Mitigation, states that if a street segments degrades the below level of service C, and concerns the intersection of Brimhall and Calloway which remains at a B level. Staff indicated there are intersections further away that are influenced by this project that go below level of service C with projected traffic and the addition of the project traffic does not change the designation, so there is no further degradation. Commissioner Lomas asked for some ballpark numbers for traffic trip generations for R- 1 and R-2 zonings. Staff indicated that the existing zoning only allows for one dwelling unit, so it would produce approximately 10 trips per day. If there were just 30 units there would be approximately 300 trips per day from a single family home development. If the site was LMR, allowing for up to 10 units per acre, and there are 7.5 acres, there would be 75 units, generating 560 to 600 trips per day, and the currently proposed project would generate about 1,400 trips per day. Commissioner Lomas stated that she is uncomfortable granting a blanket C-O zoning at this point given the neighborhood concerns. Commissioner Ellison indicated that having an entrance near the residences may be too much. He stated that he thinks that it would only be fair to everyone to have a PCD zoning, and not an overlay so the Commission could make sure that entrances are not located right next door to the residences. He indicated he would be prepared to make a motion approving the General Plan Amendment and recommending a PCD zone. Commissioner Blockley stated he would support Commissioner Ellison's recommendation as long as it conforms with Mr. Grady's comments that they not grant the zoning at this time. He commented that he would really like to see there be no access from Calloway given the nature of the road design. Commissioner Tkac stated his concern for only one single access. He commented that this property will eventually be rezoned to something. He inquired on the specifics of requesting a PCD as opposed to a PCD overlay. Staff responded that with an overlay the Planning Commission would be the site plan review board and they could modify what they wanted as far as ingress and egress. Commissioner Ellison moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a resolution approving the negative declaration and approving the requested General Plan amendment to change the land use map designation from SR (Suburban Residential) to OC (Office Commercial) on 7.5 acres and recommend the same to City Council. Moved carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gay Commissioner Ellison moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a resolution approving the negative declaration and disapproving the requested zone change from R-S-10A (Residential Suburban 10 acres minimum) to CO (Professional Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 9 Administrative Office on) on 7.5 acres with the Planning Commissions' recommendation for the zone change to come back as a PCD and recommend the same to City Council. Moved carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gay 5.4a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-0867 (Porter-Robertson Eng.) (Ward 7) See Consent Calendar 5.5a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1322 (Susan & George Lucas) (Ward 7) Public hearing opened. Staff report given. No one spoke for or against the project. Public hearing closed. No Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the requested General Plan amendment to change the land use map designation from LMR and LR to C-2 on 14.95 acres as shown on Exhibit "A2" and recommend the same to City Council, and incorporating the December 8, 2004 memo from Marian Shaw. Commissioner Lomas amended her motion to delete Condition 5, seconded by Commissioner Spencer. Moved carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gay Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the requested zone change from A to C-2 on 14.95 acres as shown on Exhibit "A2", and recommend the same to City Council, and incorporating the December 8, 2004 memo from Marian Shaw, and deleting Condition 5. Moved carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 10 AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gay 5.6a&b) General Plan AmendmentZone Changeu 04-1326 (Porter-Robertson Eng.) (Ward 7) Commissioner Tragish recused himself from this item. Commissioner Ellison opened the public hearing. Staff report was given. Sylvia Miranda, resident on Berkshire Rd., stated she is concerned with the traffic in the area and there being apartments in this location. She stated there are a slue of apartments on South H, as well as on Monitor, and near Cottonwood. She mentioned that a lot of the homeowners are Spanish speaking and did not understand the notice sent out. Michelle Bishop, 1210 Hadar Rd., inquired if an EIR has been prepared? She stated she is concerned with a decrease in property values, and has traffic/road concerns. She mentioned that a lot of the homeowners are Spanish speaking and did not understand the notice sent out. Steve Miranda, Berkshire Rd., stated his concern in decreased property values, and is concerned with the quality of apartments. He stated he is concerned with the traffic issues. Roland Van de Balch, works for Porter-Robertson Engineering who represents the property owners, stated they agree with the staff report and recommendation, except for a couple of issues raised. Mr. VanDeVaulk indicated that they would mitigate any traffic impacts, including widening the road, etc. He just became aware of the recommended park site, and inquired about the purchase portion and how the value is set. He indicated that the remains were not found on the project site before the Commission, but were found on an adjacent 20 acre property site on which a subdivision has been approved, and is currently being constructed. Mr. VanDeVaulk indicated an aerial photograph depicts the area, and that he spoke to a Mr. Richard Rudnick, who is associated with this project, and he spoke to Eric Hoar, manager of Three Brands Cattle Co.. Mr. VanDeVaulk indicated that the practice of burying cattle on this site was not a common occurrence. He indicated that slaughtering ceased in the 70's. Mr. Hoar indicated to Mr. VanDeVaulk that if cattle went down and it could not be dealt with quickly enough, due to over 100 degree temperatures, etc., something had to be done and then they would open a hole and put the animals in and dispose of it. This practice was not, and is not, illegal, and poses no health problems. Mr. VanDeVaulk commented that if the discovered burial site was a part of this activity, it is as far away as it can be, and possibly the amount of area that would have to be searched for remains for any future development can be reduced. He reiterated that the downed cattle were not commonly buried as all parts of the cattle would be sold for other uses. Mr. VanDeVaulk submitted an aerial of the site. He indicated that they believe that sampling Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 11 is not necessary on the west half because of the structures and the parking lots that was part of the operations. On the north and east side, the rectangular areas are the holding and feeding pins, and they do not believe anything would have been buried in those areas because that's where they had other cattle. The other corner is where the remains were found, and it is as far away from everything as it could get. The only other area that they are not positively sure that nothing was buried was indicated on the aerial by Mr. VanDeVaulk, and he requested that if at all possible that sampling occur in this area. Rick Rudnick, stated he has been associated with the property since 1975, and indicated that the Kern Valley Packing Company originally encompassed about 160 acres, of which most of the acreage has already been developed. He indicated that the practice of burying dead cattle was not common as they had a rendering plan where dead cattle were rendered and made into meat and bone meal for animal food. He indicated that he spoke with Mr. R.W. Little who was the manager for 50 years, and worked there as a kid, and he and Mr. Little were on the site today and Mr. Little stated that he does not know of any place that cattle or livestock of any kind were buried. Therefore, the need to test the entire area is going overboard. Mr. Rudnick indicated that it was never their intent to have apartments, and likes the idea of a park. He indicated that cattle, hogs and sheep have not been slaughtered on the property since 1961. He indicated that the plant started in 1918 and that perhaps the remains came from before that time. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac inquired of Staff as to the requirement for an EIR and if so what it would reveal. Staff responded that there is no requirement for EIR, and no significant, unavoidable impacts were identified that would require an EIR. Commissioner Tkac further inquired as to the extent of the remains found, and Staff responded that the adjacent site discovered remains while trenching for sewer lines. Commissioner Tkac inquired if the zoning was not changed it would stay as M-2 (manufacturing) what could be built on that zoning? Staff responded that M-2 is heavy industrial, and M-1 would allow anything from commercial office up to pipe manufacturing. Commissioner Tkac indicated that he is not real clear on the R-2. Staff responded that they do not know what the applicant plans on doing other than they are asking for R-2 LMR, so they have an opportunity to do a small lot subdivision or some type of multi- family project, and it was estimated that they could put in approximately 100 units. Staff indicated that if the applicant does not intend to build multi-family there is no need for the R-2 LMR. Commissioner Tkac inquired of Mr. VanDeVaulk if he would be able to disclose the applicant's intention at this time regarding the multi-family. Mr. VanDeVaulk indicated that their intent was to get the General Plan designation and zoning exactly the way it is presented. He indicated that his client has never asked them to do something for apartment buildings, and it was his recommendation to give the applicant as much flexibility as possible with the property. Commissioner Tkac indicated that he does not see where there is a lot of other multi- family in the surrounding area, and believes there are a lot of other possibilities that could be put in the area that would be more harmful. Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 12 Commissioner Ellison inquired about how the value of the park was set. Staff responded that there would be an appraisal that would set the land value, and that appraisal would be submitted to Staff prior to recordation of the first map, and is part of the subdivision process. Commissioner Ellison inquired about the legal notice for these projects and the requirement for printing in Spanish, to which Staff responded that it is not required to be printed in Spanish. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the buried remains and if a series of borings will be made for a soils report with recommendations, as well as deep trenches for the sewer lines to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Blockley commented that these things support Porter-Robertson's claim that there should be some amended recommendation for discovering these remains if there are any. He further commented that the soils report would provide for mitigation, and that if anything was found just two feet below, the project would be severely impacted. Commissioner Blockley further commented that in the soil reports there are disclaimers about the locations of the borings and warning that the borings may not be indicative of general conditions throughout the site. Commissioner Spencer commented that he leans towards residential at this site, and eliminate the need for R-2 zoning, with the single family dwellings to the south, and that the R-2 zoning would not be a very good adjacent use, and that apartments are further north of the property along H Street. Commissioner Lomas commented that the applicant is asking for R-2/1-MR, and the apartments to the north of the property on South H are probably R-2, R-3 and probably HR, and that the difference is that LMR puts a maximum of no more then 10 units per acre, and at HR there can be as much as 72.6 units per acre. Given the zoning restrictions already in place and the applicant's indication that there is no intention of building an apartment complex, and there being a huge popularity for patio homes with zero lot lines, the only way you can build a patio home is on R-2 zoning. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff if there is a way to condition the R-2/LMR that it be patio homes with zero lot line and not an apartment complex, to which Staff responded in the affirmative, if it is required that it be built as a PUD with the condition that it be a patio home zero lot line product. It would then come back at the site plan review and become the zoning ordinance for the property and built according to the Commissions' standards and requirements. Commissioner Lomas indicated that since it does not appear that anybody knows where the cow remains came from, then nobody knows if there's anymore, and therefore, stated that she would not support limiting the sampling area. Commissioner Lomas stated that she would support this application providing that there is a PUD to clarify the intent of the patio homes and incorporating the memos. Commissioner Ellison indicated that this is an area that needs to be remediated and converted, indicating that the applicant is agreeable to a six acre park. He stated that they need to address the sampling and the park location. He indicated that the sampling verbiage needs to be correct, and feels that there is no need to sample under the existing buildings. He stated that he does not agree with the applicant's areas of elimination, including the pins. He stated that 10X10 foot borings across this large of a project site is a bit much, but needs to be studied further. Commissioner Tkac stated that they have really found no harm or health and safety Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 13 violation of any found parts, and believes they may be making much a due about nothing on the sampling issue in that if they do it should be consider for every project south of Stockdale Hwy as there were many dairies, feedlots, etc south of Stockdale. He indicated that this current site does not appear to him to have been an actual feed lot as much as it was and is a packing house where they received slaughtered animals that was to be cut up, packed and sold on a different market. He stated that he likes Commissioner Lomas' comparison with the LMR and that he would be in favor of her recommendation, and that if the applicant is in favor of the LMR, low, low density comparatively speaking, and then applying a PUD, he would be okay with the project. Commissioner Blockley indicated that he would support with a PUD. There were no more Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from SI and LI to LR on 32.7 acres, and LMR on 10 acres as shown on Exhibit "A2" and recommend the same to City Council, incorporating the memo dated December 9, 2004 from Stan Grady, and excluding samplings under the buildings, and including an additional memo dated December 9, 2004 from Stan Grady regarding the parks. Also, require a PUD with the intent of the R-2 being developed as patio homes. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gay ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Lomas moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the zone change from M-1 and M-2 to R-1 zone on 32.7 acres as shown on Exhibit A2 and recommend the same to City Council, incorporating the memo dated December 9, 2004 from Stan Grady, and excluding samplings under the buildings, and including an additional memo dated December 9, 2004 from Stan Grady regarding the parks. Also, require a PUD with the intent of the R-2 being developed as patio homes. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gay ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tragish 5 minute break taken Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 14 5.7a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-1328 (Jim Childress) (Ward 1) Public portion of the hearing opened. Staff reported that they are recommending an R-2 zone because R-1 zoning is not consistent with LMR designation. Staff is recommending approval of the R-2 zone with conditions. Pastor Jordon representing Mr. W.C. Novel, whose property is southeast of the proposed project, which is zoned M-3, asked if the zone change will affect the owner of the industrial property to the south to use his property as industrial or as correctly zoned? He understands that the proposal includes a block wall and also will use Planz as a buffer. If that is true, will anything going on on the proposed zone change affect his livelihood as originally zoned M-3? Commissioner Tragish asked for Mr. Jordon to tell him where the property is located. Mr. Jordon said it is southeast of the original project. Jim Marino, representing Tabitha House, spoke in favor of the project. He said they are in agreement with staff's recommendation and conditions. They are available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Lomas asked if there is any affect to the M-3 property to the south by granting this application? Mr. Grady said this would not affect his property because it is on the other side of East Planz Road and there will be a block wall separating the homes from the street along with landscaping. Commissioner Spencer asked if a response from staff was given to Ms. Novell who had written three letters in opposition to the project? Mr. Grady said that usually we respond to letters that have information that we need to provide a response. The letters referred to did not identify an issue that needed a response. They simply do not like the project. There is nothing to respond to. There were no more Commission comments. Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to change the land use map designation from SI (Service Industrial) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on 55 acres and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley , Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gay Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the requested zone change from M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) to R-2 (Limited Multiple Family) on 55 acres and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley , Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 15 NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Gay 5.8a) General Plan Amendment/Zone Change/Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract 04-1334 (Ward 5) Public portion of the hearing opened. Staff report given recommending approval. Applicant requested to be placed on the Consent Agenda. It has been removed for Commission discussion. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. Robert Lusich, representing the property owners, stated at the pre-meeting Commissioner Lomas recommended they amend conditions 3 and 7 to include both Panama Lane and Old River Road. They have drafted a condition which Public Works and Planning have agreed to and in addition they received a request from the City Parks Department to include provision for a six acre park site within the general plan amendment area which they have reviewed and support. They have reviewed the staff report and are in agreement with the conditions of approval including the two amendments that were included from Marian Shaw and from the Parks Department. They are available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Brian Haupt said that he is available to answer questions and is in support of the project. Public portion of the hearing closed. Commissioner Tragish said he has opposed projects that are going south of Panama in this area. Although the City Council has reversed the decisions, he felt he needed to be consistent with his prior decision in which he feels that this project is premature. He said the staff report said that canceling the Williamson Act Contract is in the public interest. He does not agree with that because you are taking out land from agriculture and you are setting a precedent in this area by taking out substantial agriculture property. He feels these are cumulative projects and will make substantial in-roads in taking out prime farm land. There are still areas north of Panama to be developed and he feels we need to develop what we have before leapfrogging into these new agricultural areas. Commissioner Tragish said the staff report talked about "need." He is not sure there is a need for this many houses. He would like to see an analysis of the lots and tracts that are available now and the ones that are on board. He is not convinced that approving this particular tract somehow supports this need — which in his mind is unsubstantiated. He does not support the project and will not be voting in support. Commissioner Lomas said that several months ago she was beating the same drum but the City Council chose to allow the R-1 parcel to the west and another one to east — so the City Council has decided this is infill —so the way she sees it— it is infill. Commissioner Tkac said he would like to keep all the ground and farmland as they can but he doesn't see how we can force somebody to continue to farm on something where they can't spray, they can't use chemicals, they've got unbelievable worker's comp costs and the rate of return on the product they attempt to grow in there is not great. He does not feel like denying somebody their ability to go to the highest and best use for ground they have earned and worked and tilled and toiled over for so long. Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 16 Commissioner Lomas said her biggest concern when they are dealing with farmland and conversion of farmland is development encroaching on a farmer's ability to farm. By the parcel to the east being R-1 and the parcel to the west being R-1, it has limited the farmer's ability to farm land. That now creates infill for her. Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to change the land use map designation from R-IA (Resource-Intensive Agriculture) to LDR (Low Density Residential) on 95.94 acres and recommend the same to City Council and incorporate the December 7 memorandum from Marian Shaw and the December 9 memo from Stanley Grady. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Tragish ABSENT: Commissioner Gay Commissioner Tragish said his earlier comments reflect why he voted no (premature conversion). Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the requested zone change from A (Agriculture) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 95.94 acres and recommend the same to City Council and incorporate the December 7 memorandum from Marian Shaw and the December 9 memo from Stanley Grady. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Tragish ABSENT: Commissioner Gay Commissioner Tragish said his earlier comments reflect why he voted no (premature conversion). Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the requested cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract for 80.11 gross acres and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Tragish ABSENT: Commissioner Gay Commissioner Tragish said his earlier comments reflect why he voted no (premature conversion). 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Minutes, PC, December 9, 2004 Page 17 Zone Changes: These items will be heard on Thursday, December 16, 2004 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None 8. (COMMISSION COMMENTS: None 9. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Development Services Director January 25, 2005