Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 12, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1- 1, 0' ` Pre-Meeting - Monday, September 12, 2005 - 12:15 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Spencer, Tragish, Lomas Absent: Commissioner Tkac Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, 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—None 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS —GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments/Zone Changes / Circulation Element Amendments/Williamson Act Land Use Cancellation, Specific Plan Line Adoption: 5.1a&b) GPA/ZC 04-1765 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 6) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish asked who the owner is of Island A? Staff responded that is privately owned. The private owner has not objected in writing, but their opinion is well known to Staff. Commissioner Tragish inquired why they will be putting M-1 in the middle of what appears to be a residential neighborhood? Staff responded that M-1 is an industrial use which occurs indoors and makes a good neighbor by definition. Commissioner Tragish asked for a printout of all the uses for M-1, M-2 and M-3. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the conditions provide that when a tract map is recorded that at that point in time the improvements to McCutchen and Ashe Rd. have to be put in by the developer prior to construction? Staff responded that at the tentative subdivision stage when they decide to subdivide is when they exact timing of conditions will be made. Commissioner Tragish inquired about Condition 14 (traffic study) and whether the 163,000 sq. ft. of retail is a for a sure thing, or if it is just a model to do the traffic study. Staff responded that trip generation rate and assumptions out of the International Transportation & Engineering Handbook are used. Staff indicated that it will come out about right, and that it will come in for site plan review. Planning Commission — Monday, September 12, 2005 — 12: 15 p.m. Page 2 Commissioner Tragish inquired if an economic decay report is required at site plan review? Staff responded that it would not trip the thresholds discussed on Item 11 of today's agenda, as it would typically fall in a neighborhood commercial, and Staff specifically wants to exclude neighborhood commercial type services from the burden of an economic study. Therefore, they would not have to do one. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there's a limit on neighborhood commercial sq. ft., to which Staff responded that anything 250,000 sq. ft. or greater would require a decay report. Commissioner Tragish inquired about Condition 2(c) and if it has to be elective or discretionary, or if can be made mandatory? Staff responded they are making available the variety of options, but would not want the commission to limit it in 2005 as to what might be coming in the future. Staff responded that they are trying to keep the door open. Staff further commented that the area shown as A comes before the Commission in December. Commissioner Blockley inquired about another item on the agenda that is ag to residential adjacent to heavy industrial. He inquired about having a minimum lot depth on those lots, and if the ag to M-1 is going to impact the adjacent existing R-1 zone in terms of the way the subdivision can be laid out? Staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the annexation situation, if this one property owner holds out, if in essence it could potential create an island? Staff responded that it will create an island, but LAFCO will take in the area around it, knowing that attempts were made to avoid it. Commissioner Lomas confirmed that Ashe and McCutchen were arterials. She inquired about Agenda Item 11, Exhibit A, and requirement for urban decay studies, and the 4th one says, "projects in excess of 20 acres," And if this project would fall under this since this project is 25 acres? Staff responded that the commercial portion is 25 acres and that it would fall within that threshold. Commissioner Lomas indicated that an urban decay study would be expected, and Staff responded that if these were adopted that they would be applying a PCD to this particular piece of property. Staff indicated the these thresholds are not needed to apply a PCD to this piece of property, but a PCD can be applied to the C-1. If it is 250,000 sq.ft. of commercial at the time the PCD comes in, an urban decay study would be requested. Commissioner Lomas asked if all the criteria have to be met to require a study, or just one of them? Staff responded that just one has to be met. Staff clarified that an urban decay study can be required if there is a project level EIR. Commissioner Lomas commented that a safe bet is to request a PCD, which Staff responded in the affirmative if she wants to make sure that they would get a study. Commissioner Lomas indicated that she is leaning towards this due to the little island and the need for communication with the property owner. Staff responded that if the Commission chooses to do this that the Commission apply the C-1/PCD overlay. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the curb/gutter in front of the out parcel and if it is a part of this, to which Staff responded that on Exhibit B-1, Condition 9b, says, "construct improvements along Ashe Rd. adjacent to the out. Staff further indicated that they would like to make a change to Condition 9 because some old wording was used. The preamble says, "Along with submittal of any development plan, tentative subdivision map, or application for a lot line adjustment." Staff generally does not require full drainage or sewer studies with the application for the tentative map. These are deferred to prior to the approval of the improvement plans for the tentative tract. Staff will provide the proper wording for this. Staff further indicated that in Condition B that says, "construct the improvements along Ashe Rd." that would be addressed at the tentative map stage, as just kind of a warning to let them know that they will be required to do that. Staff will provide proper language to change it around. Commissioner Lomas referred to Condition B and said that she sees no road improvements that are typically required where Ashe would have to be built out half width, McCutchen would have to be built out half width. Staff responded that they don't believe that they've ever addressed the timing of improvements with a GPA because there isn't really a map to look at to say how the use is going to be, where the entrances are going to be and how they are going to construct the roadways, and how they should be phased. Staff indicated that the road improvement timing is generally done with the tentative map. Staff will discuss this further. Planning Commission — Monday, September 12, 2005 — 12: 15 p.m. Page 3 Commissioner Johnson inquired about item 9 in the Resolution, page 3, under Demonstrated Project Need, which states, "the project is in accord with Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Housing Element, and is necessary to provide for housing to offset the deficiency in urban housing demand." Staff responded that it does not permit housing, and they will have it stricken by memo. Eminent Domain will be included in a memo. 5.2a&b) GPA/ZC 05-0412 (South Enterprise Zone) (Ward 1) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish confirmed that the memo of September 9, 2005 is information and does not have to be part of any motion, to which Staff said agreed. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the status is of the airpark, and if there is any kind of application pending, or any action or escrow to have this airpark removed, sold or disposed of? Staff indicated that the only thing they are aware of is the City Councilperson for the area would like to see this go away. Staff indicated that it is being explored but is not in the process of having it go away. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the conditions provide for where the sump is going to be located on the property, or if this is something that will be disposed of on the tract/application level? Staff responded that there are guidelines for the sump location and their rule of thumb is that Staff does not want to see anymore than one sump serving 80 acres. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is any prohibition in any ordinances about putting a sump on an arterial (Cottonwood)? Staff responded that there are no restrictions on having a sump on an arterial, however there has to be access to the sump for the Water Dept. to maintain it. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the power lines and the rule in terms of spacing if a lot is there. Staff responded that a house cannot be built on the powerline easement. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is an overall map of this area showing all the parcels that are proposed to be changed, in the process of changing, applications to be changing, and what is left? Staff responded that the map currently up shows other projects that the City is doing, and that there are about 100. Commissioner Lomas inquired if the parcel immediately contiguous to the north will be left M-3, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Lomas indicated that she did meet with the applicant, and the applicant indicated that they were looking for pricing between $200 and 225,000. Commissioner Lomas indicated that she did not see multi-family, townhomes, or where it was going to be anything but $200- $225,000, and she would like to have the M-3 usages. Commissioner Lomas further commented that she would like to know how much industrial land there is, because the project immediately before this they are asking for industrial. Staff responded that they can provide all the zoning ordinances for the zoning, but the web site is also available for viewing uses by zone classification. Staff indicated that the land use map has 12 or 15 sq. miles of vacant industrial in the metropolitan area. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the GPA Map indicating a public facility at the southwest corner of White and Cottonwood. Staff responded that they don't know what it is, and there are four or five of them throughout southeast Bakersfield. Staff will attempt to find out for Thursday's meeting. Planning Commission — Monday, September 12, 2005 — 12: 15 p.m. Page 4 5.3a&b) GPA/ZC 05-0414 (Alfredo Hernandez) (Ward 1) Staff report given. There is a memo adding two conditions which should be included in the motion. Commissioner Lomas confirmed that the September 12th memo needs to be attached to both portions of the motion, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Spencer inquired if they are going overboard by increasing densities? Staff responded that it appears that it is the desire of the applicant to have the option to come in with a small lot subdivision, and the vehicle for that is R-2/LMR. Commissioner Spencer commented that he is aware of neighbors who are concerned with apartments and industrial uses. Commissioner Tragish commented that if developers have the guts to go out in this area with the zoning and general plan elements that exist, then they need a push in this area as there is a ton of land. Commercial Blockley commented about the two memos, and the air pollution control district and some kind of draft conditions, and whether those draft conditions are already incorporated in the existing conditions? Staff indicated that there are no changes to be made. Those conditions show up for this project. 5.4a&b) GPA/ZC 05-0417 (Marino Associates) (Ward 1) Staff report given. No Commissioner comments. 5.5a&b) GPA/ZC 05-0420 (SmithTech, USA Inc.) (Ward 4) Staff report given. Commissioner Blockley stated the reason for the project is to rearrange things so that the current resident can continue to reside in that location. Commissioner Lomas inquired as to the size of the parcel, to which Staff responded that it was one acre. She further inquired if the project to the north was responsible for the actual buildout of Verdugo. Staff responded that it was to their knowledge. Commissioner Lomas requested that Staff double check this. 5.6a,b&c) GPA/ZC/Williamson Act Contract 05-0476 (The Lusich Company) (Ward 5) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish asked what the County has in place? Staff responded that the County does not have the money that the City does, because the County has to do the hospital, the D.A. Office, Welfare, the library system, and the City does not pay a cent. Staff indicated that the entire reason there are cities in the State of California is for the purpose of providing urban services including police, fire, water, sewer, and the City has money, and can build interchanges and bridges that aren't related to making some developer do it. The County cannot provide this. Commissioner Tragish commented that it is his understanding that out in some of the areas referred to water is only available by water companies and wells. Staff responded that this is correct. Commissioner Tragish inquired about some of the areas not having sewer services available, and instead have septic tanks and drive lines. Staff indicated that they go nowhere, and have never been hooked up ever. Commissioner Blockley inquired about circulation in relation to this project, and that generally speaking they seem to have done a fairly decent job of providing expanded roadways and so forth when things are constructed. He stated that in the vicinity of this particular project Old River Rd. extends to the railroad tracks and is interrupted at the railroad tracks, and the road formerly known as Pacheco that doesn't exist in that location anymore, and inquired if there is a crossing of Old River across the railroad tracks. Staff responded that there is. Staff further pointed out that this is an example of something the County wouldn't do in a 100 years. Commissioner Blockley Planning Commission — Monday, September 12, 2005 — 12: 15 p.m. Page 5 further inquired if there is anything to persuade LAFCO to not derail the expansion of the SOI? Staff indicated they would not respond to this. Staff indicated that state law has changed in the last few weeks to put the City on LAFCO because they are not getting a fair shake. Commissioner Lomas inquired when Bakersfield will get its seat, to which Staff responded that they do not know the date, indicating that Dean Florez won this in the last few weeks. Commissioner Lomas further inquired about the County using dry lines and septic tanks, and stated it was her belief that there was policy not allowing this. Staff responded that in NW Bakersfield, when the City of Shafter went together and moved the sewer treatment plant south of Shafter on Enos Ln. they are going to be able to hook up this new development to that, and that's why Lee Jamieson, Soper and Brian Beatty have 1000 lots approved in the County on Nord Rd. and he believes they are all headed for that other sewer treatment plant. 5.7a&b) GPA/ZC 05-0743 (Marino Associates) (Ward 5) Staff report given. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the "whereas" on page 1 for the Resolution which state, "Whereas the applicant has indicated the purpose for the request is to develop residential and commercial and maintain onsite agriculture within the City limits." He inquired where the commercial is located. Staff stated that it was a mistake and they will have it stricken by memo. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the four sections, to which Staff responded that either the school is buying it, or Mrs. Grimway is going to keep her house on 40 acres. Staff indicated that the rest of it is headed for schools and parks in all four sections. Commissioner Lomas stated that she never saw ground water addressed, and it is being addressed in this application. (page 3 of Staff report, last paragraph) Staff indicating that it is making the finding for policy 14 of the Conservation Element. 5.8a&b) GPA/ZC 05-0942 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 5) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the sharp 90 degree turn on McCutchen and then cuts back again, to which Staff responded that it cannot be built that way. Commissioner Tragish inquired that if this is approved if they are setting themselves up to which Staff responded that it is a good question, and is a problem. Staff responded they will try to get an answer from Public Works for the Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Blockley indicated that there is a house on the east of McCutchen which may be what precipitated this change in the alignment of the arterial. Staff indicated that it is out in the County, and that it is a problem. Commissioner Johnson stated the road it does have a 90-degree because it has homes there, but does not recall seeing it on Buena Vista Rd. He indicated that he will drive by it again. Commissioner Johnson inquired about Exhibit A-1, item number 14 regarding transportation and traffic, and the restripe and widening of the westbound approach near Stockdale Highway at Old River, and that his recollection is that Old River does not go all the way through. Staff responded that it does seem weird and that they can't wait to hear the answer. Ms. Shaw indicated that the traffic study probably showed an effect on Old River and Stockdale. Ms. Shaw further indicated that Old River will go through across the railroad. Ms. Shaw indicated that she will confer with Traffic Engineer about whether or not Old River and Stockdale is the intersection they were talking about in the traffic study. Ms. Shaw further indicated that there will not be 90-degree turns in McCutchen, and this will be addressed for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Lomas commented about Staff report, page 5, and buffer zones and where the language came from. Staff responded that there is no need for buffers when the ag will be converted to more residential. Commissioner Lomas inquired what they can do to better look at this issue to not hinder the farmer and still have Planning Commission — Monday, September 12, 2005 — 12: 15 p.m. Page 6 the buffer. Staff indicated that there has to be very specific concerns as to what the commissioner is talking about, because there are set backs, there are lot depth requirements, City Council has stated that within their sphere of influence when developing under the GP, there will be a significant impact to ag uses, and, in fact, we are giving it consideration because there is a need for housing and urbanization without extensive buffers is better planning than planning buffers that last a little while and then go away because they have to be so big. Right now there are 50' set back on homes, and 140 lot depth. Staff indicated he does not see how to create an effective buffer without really decreasing the density of development, which is exactly the opposite of what everybody is telling the City to do. Half the people can't stand small lots, and the other half say we should be building a denser city. Staff indicate that this provides the best utilization of land for urbanization, is consistent with the GP policies with regard to how ag land is going to be treated within the urban area. Commissioner Lomas reiterated that she is not talking about urban limits, but about phasing subdivisions. She inquired where she could get the information on spray limits, etc. Staff indicated that information can be provided from the Ag Commissioner's Office. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the bus turnout situation. Staff indicated that they have required bus turnouts in the past, and that the recollection is that G.E.T. doesn't want bus turnouts because drivers won't let them back in. Staff will look into this. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the buffers and ag and discussions with the County. Staff responded that in order for it to be addressed it would have to be both City and County, and the County is never going to approve an urban limit line. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is a conflict by having McIntosh or the applicant prepare its own farm land conversion study. Staff indicated that it is the same as if they did their own traffic study, and that it is the same problem because they require all the studies by the applicant to hire their own professionals to do it. Commissioner Lomas reiterated that she is not looking for urban growth boundaries. She indicated that she is talking about phasing a subdivision map. Staff indicated that it would take this entire project area away, as they would be approving nothing if there was a phase which did not affect the pesticide usage in the adjacent farming. Staff indicated that it is 1320 ft. from the farm, and he has farms on three sides, there is approval of nothing until something else takes place. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that she would like to see co-existence between the two and having orderly development. Commissioner Lomas inquired about page 6 and the map not matching the surrounding land uses. Staff indicated that they will check on this and have clarification for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the Resolution and if Russ Johnson is the same person as the new commissioner. Staff indicated there is no conflict. 5.9a&b) GPA/ZC Amendment 05-0943 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 5) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas inquired about Conditions 12 and 13 and the proportionate share of canal crossings at Panama, and a major bridge, and if they are the same thing, and what determines the proportionate share? Staff responded that the proportionate share is generally based on the usage of the property. Staff indicated they don't know why the crossing and the bridge are in there twice as they are both talking about the same crossings. Staff will consolidate these. Commissioner Spencer inquired if they need to incorporate the September 9th memo from the Planning Director? Staff responded in the affirmative, that it will be part of the public record. Planning Commission — Monday, September 12, 2005 — 12: 15 p.m. Page 7 5.10) General Plan Amendment 05-0976 (City of Bakersfield) Staff report given. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the scarcity of the information provided, and wondered what the likelihood of there being something popping out of the woodwork on Thursday night. Staff responded that there is a moderate chance mostly because they are out of town. 5.11) General Plan Amendment 05-1135 (City of Bakersfield) located city-wide. (Exempt from CEQA) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the reason for the exception, to which Staff responded that those types of stores don't typically compete with local grocery type outlets. Commissioner Tragish requested the rational for this, to which Staff indicated that it's attached to the Staff report. Commissioner Tragish inquired if on Thursday night they have discretion to submit other language or delete some language. Staff responded that the Commission has full discretion. Commissioner Blockley indicated that he would want the city to protect itself by having the study when appropriate, and that the limits be set low enough so that they don't become a "target", and just slide under the limit. Staff responded that this has always been a concern when the City adopts any type of a threshold. Staff indicated that they don't really know of a specific case where it's become a specific "target" because there are so many other market features in place that dictate the size of the center in order to make it viable, and the tenants you have to have. Staff further pointed out that Wal-Mart now, evidently, according to the literature, has developed a grocery store (about 50,000 sq. ft) that competes directly with other grocery stores, which typically the neighborhood market is 50,000 sq. ft. Staff indicated that the committee talked about this extensively and stated that because of the union/non-union issue, at some point if they want to start regulating it that closely where you just catch all the Wal-Marts because you're worried about that type of competition the legislature is going to have to step in and say this is the way to deal with it; that local government cannot try to catch every specific case where somebody could try to get around this in a certain way. Staff indicated that if Walmart is a real problem, it's got to go beyond local government to try to fix every piece of that puzzle. Commissioner Blockley indicated that his concern is that they have a threshold of 90,000 sq. ft. and a typical big box retail is 70-80,000 sq. ft. Staff indicated that it is 90,000 gross sq. ft. and 20% or more of the gross floor area is devoted to the sale of non-taxable merchandise. The two other definitions from the other agencies is that 20% is what kicks it into a super store. Commissioner Tragish stated that the recommendations for this item are based on what Sacramento and L.A. have developed, and inquired if it is based on any other studies other than the ADK&A. Staff responded that the ADK&A is not a study with regard to anything other than justifying why such an ordinance should not apply to a membership store, and is specific to that issue and has nothing to do with anything else. Staff indicated that the only part borrowed from other ordinances, other than some basic ideas about thresholds, is that definition of a super store. Every bullet is tailored made to our local environment to avoid the necessity for neighborhood centers to do it. Commissioner Lomas inquired about "require urban decay studies with project level EIR", and if this wouldn't require that the other project previously discussed should have an EIR as well. Staff responded in the negative. Staff stated that it is not saying that you have to prepare a project level EIR, but is saying if you have a project level EIR you shall include with that an urban decay study. Staff will take a look at the wording. 6. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7. (COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. Planning Commission — Monday, September 12, 2005 — 12: 15 p.m. Page 8 8. ADJOURNMEMT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2:59 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director November 8, 2005