Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 3, 2006 Pre-Mtg PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes Pre-Meeting —April 3, 2006 — 12:15 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: BARBARA LOMAS, Chairperson MURRAY TRAGISH, Vice Chairperson TED BLOCKLEY RUSSELL JOHNSON TOM McGINNIS Absent: JOHN S. SPENCER JEFFREY TKAC Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Staff: Marc Gauthier, Dana Cornelius 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of March 2, 2006. Commissioner Tragish stated that he has a revision to the Minutes on page 8, last paragraph, which states, "Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with Commissioner Tragish." This should read, "Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with Commissioner McGinnis." 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendment/ Zone Change 5.1a General Plan Amendment 05-0423 (SmithTech\USA) 5.1 b Zone Change 05-0423 (SmithTech\USA) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired about condition 30 and reference to the "berm". Staff responded that they will get back with the Commission at Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Tragish further inquired about condition 20 and the language indicating that "access to the arterial and collector streets will be limited and determined at the time of division or development." He indicated that in view of the proactive comments made by Chairwoman Lomas in the past, and inquired if it would be logical in this particular project that there be a decel lane on the front of the project on the corner of McCutchen and Gosford. Staff responded that the standard expanded intersection is covered in Condition 17a, which includes the right turn lane Planning Commission —April 3, 2006 — 12:15 p.m. Page 2 from McCutchen/Gosford. Commissioner Tragish inquired which street is the north boundary for this property. Staff responded that the northern boundary street should be Berkshire. Commissioner Tragish further inquired about the money the City gets for the traffic impact program, and if it can find its way into the general account for the city. Staff responded that the traffic impact fees are locked into a separate account and is audited annually per State law. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the sewer plant and how the '/ mile radius was mitigated as sufficient to eliminate odors. Staff responded that it was arrived at by Wastewater Division. It was noted that Commissioner McGinnis entered the meeting. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the noise from Golden Empire Concrete, and the hours of operation. Staff responded that according to the noise study from 10 p.m. at night to 6 a.m., and the wall takes into account the 24 hour day, and that at night time it's a much bigger problem then during the day time. Commissioner Blockley inquired if there is any concern that the City of Bakersfield designated day time hours or night time hours would construe this facility as a construction related activity. Staff responded that the conditions will not affect the facilities' activities. Commissioner Johnson inquired about Condition 18 regarding the City's waster water facility being expanded, and asked for verification that the 1/ buffer would not be expanded. Staff responded that it will not be expanded. Commissioner Johnson inquired about Condition 11, and the language, "Future development projects shall be reviewed by the City and County of Bakersfield Fire Departments." and inquired if it should read, "This development should be reviewed by the City and County of Bakersfield Fire Departments." Staff responded that there are a few conditions that they will fix, and this is one of them that will be changed. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about Condition 31 regarding the $20,000 contribution by the developer towards Golden Empire Concrete if they elect to install sound muffling of any kind. Staff responded that the parties signed a legal document before this was put back on the agenda. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he would feel more comfortable with a time frame. Staff indicated they are going to talk with the parties and see if they can add some limit. Commissioner Tragish commented that the agreement appears to "run with the land," which means whoever is the owner will have to do it. 5.2 General Plan Amendment 05-1135 (City of Bakersfield) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired for clarification about the square footage numbers, to which Staff responded that the numbers did not come from the Fifth Appellate Court decision, but rather by a City committee that oversees these issues. Commissioner Tragish inquire what type of company this issue addresses, to which Staff responded that the wholesale stores like Costco were exempt. Staff pointed out that this item is actually more reaching then the original Staff proposal, and is more reaching then what other cities have typically done, and this is a narrowing down to address a specific use. 5.3a General Plan Amendment 05-1361 (McIntosh &Associates) 5.3b Zone Change 05-1361 (McIntosh &Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner Johnson inquired what will exist along the boundary of R1 and R2, and if it is going to be a fence or stone wall. Staff responded that there was a street separation from the north to the south, and the street curved northerly. The Exhibit to the Staff's Planning Commission —April 3, 2006 — 12:15 p.m. Page 3 report indicates something different. Staff indicated they will provide a clearer indication at Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the single family build out in the R1 which surrounds the applicant's property, to which Staff responded that there is no existing single family residence in the area currently. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the northwest parcel which is R1 with GC, as well as the zone change. Staff will provide clarification for Thursday's meeting. 5.3 General Plan Amendment 05-1421 (Cal-Kern II, LLC) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff could provide the Commissioner with a better map to the limited extent of showing where the road is going to hook up to Vineland? Staff indicated that it would just be conceptual as they are just talking about a local road. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the timing of the road improvement, and if the property to the east is developed sooner if they will still need to adhere to the condition, or if the property to the east is getting a "freebie" from this development. Staff responded that the purpose of the Condition is to provide access to the property, and if the area between Vineland and this property develops and there is a road that connects the pieces, then this development would not be required to do it when they come in for development as it will already be there. However, if this development does it first, and the other developer wants to use it then it's good for them. Staff indicated that if the developer cannot obtain the right-of-way on their own, then it will go through eminent domain. Staff indicated that they do need it for access. Commissioner Lomas, in follow up to Commissioner Tragish's comment, inquired if the road could go anywhere. Staff responded in the affirmative, and that it depended on the way the subdivision is laid out. Staff will provide revised wording. Commissioner Tragish stated the map is not clear where the roads are. Staff indicated they know exactly where Panorama and Vineland streets are, and this will be indicated in an Exhibit for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Blockley commented about the 200 lots requiring two accesses, and if they tie into an existing subdivision that is 112 plus another 90, then they are at the 200. 5.5a General Plan Amendment 05-1442 (Marino and Associates) 5.5b Zone Change 05-1442 (Marino and Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the Zone Change and putting commercial next to residential and along the bottom where it abuts the Darrell Mini Storage and if there will be a block wall required. Staff responded that the block wall is already required with Darrell's. Staff further indicated that Mr. Moreno wanted to tweak Condition 9 so that he just provides turn around capability, stating that Staff does not have a problem with the wording as long as Mr. Moreno does show Staff that turn around will be provided for the trash trucks. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the saturation of commercial in this area, to which Staff responded that all the commercial, except for this, is getting built on. Commissioner Blockley commented on the commercial issues in this area. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if they should be concerned with lighting at this point. Staff responded that if they go down that road it should go to a PCD so that it can be looked at later by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission —April 3, 2006 — 12:15 p.m. Page 4 5.6a General Plan Amendment 05-1445 (McIntosh &Associates) 5.6b Zone Change 05-1445 (McIntosh &Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner Blockley commented on getting this project approved before there is any occupancy to the north. He inquired where the residents in this area go for a quick trip to the store. 5.7a General Plan Amendment 05-1448 (James C. Lundy) 5.7b Zone Change 05-1448 (James C. Lundy) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired what conditions were applied to the applicant at the Mesa Marin example, to which Staff responded that each home had a fee towards the upgrading lighting. Staff clarified that this is not in lieu of the park requirements. Commissioner Tragish commented that he thought the park fees were to furnish and maintain the parks, and it sounds like this developer is paying for this twice. Staff responded that the developer does not get any credit at all; indicating that fixing the lights has nothing to do with providing a neighborhood park. Staff pointed out that the developer is putting people close to this lighting system, which are incredibly poorly done, and so the developer can fix it, indicating that it cost nothing ($700/house). Staff indicated that the $700 figure came from the best builder of these lights in the United States, indicating that a detailed breakdown will be provided for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the park fees would be for this type of project to which Staff responded that it depends on the area, and the specific amount will be provided for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Tragish further inquired about El Toro Vejo being built from Rosedale to the tracks, or just where it borders their property. Staff responded that the off site stuff is 32', and on site is the usual 'h width requirements. Staff responded that from Rosedale Highway to the north line it is going to be 32' of paved way. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if this will lead to building a "bridge" over the tracts, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Staff clarified that El Toro Vejo extends about 600` south of Rosedale, and it will connect to this piece, and not actually all the way to Rosedale. Commissioner Lomas expressed some concern about any traffic issues with the school parking lot. Commissioner Blockley expressed his concern about access. 5.8a General Plan Amendment 05-1450 (SmithTech\USA) 5.8b Zone Change 05-1450 (SmithTech\USA) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired if any determination has been made as to the viability of the oilfield and if it may be in violation of the General Plan policy. Staff responded they will do a mineral resource analysis if it's designated RMP. Division of Oil & Gas has indicated that it can be dealt with by using the typical Municipal Codes. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the previous controversy to the west to which Staff responded that the request to LR was denied, and changed the zone to E. Staff indicated that the previous smaller area has gone away. Commissioner Lomas inquired where this came from and how big of an area it encompasses on what the City is intending to service under Parks. Staff responded that the City is maintaining all the streets, and NOR says they are going to do the parks and not the streets, and the City does not see that as very efficient. The 13 sq. miles overtime will not be accurate as it will be a much larger area. Planning Commission —April 3, 2006 — 12:15 p.m. Page 5 Commissioner Lomas inquired who is going to pay the larger fee or who pays the larger fee depending on if it's maintained by Parks or the City. She further inquired what the program encompasses, and how the City is going to service the kids, the school, and the recreation programs. Staff responded that they will have the Parks Director write something up and respond to this, but it won't be available for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Lomas indicated that she will have difficulty supporting this without a well thought out plan. Commissioner Tragish inquired where the North of River Park District begins and what area it encompasses. Tom Jones, City Parks and Recreation, indicated that he will try to get some information. He indicated that as a City they are trying to take care of this area in Parks. He stated that the fees referred to by Commissioner Lomas is an established fee which is done whether you are a City resident or within NOR boundaries. Commissioner Lomas reiterated that her neighborhood is north of the river, but is serviced by the City, and so their school programs are NOR programs and they had to pay a higher fee because her neighborhood is one small little subdivision that the City decided to service NOR. She pointed out that the City offers no programs in the schools NOR, and therefore, they have to participate in NOR programs and have to pay a higher fee. Mr. Jones stated that it is a good question and he did not have an answer to it. He indicated that he will try to get an answer for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Tragish reiterated that he would like to see a map of the NOR area to see how this all lays out. Commissioner Lomas further inquired if all access is going to come off of Jewetta. Staff responded that Etchart will be a collector. 5.9a General Plan Amendment 05-1451 (SmithTech\USA) 5.9b Zone Change 05-1451 (SmithTech\USA) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired about a previous R1, to which Staff responded that it may have been to the west of this project. He further inquired about surrounding zoning. He commented that he recalls the desire to maintain this area with a rural atmosphere in conjunction with the trails, and this appears to bring in higher density. He further stated that he does not know if it is consistent with the plan for this particular area. Staff stated that there are no actual trails in this particular area, but there was a trails plan for Western Rosedale Trails Plan where the county was collecting money and not building the trails and the City was making the developers put in the trails consistent with the plan, and therefore there were some disjointed things in those particular areas. Staff indicated that the City's policy in these areas is to recognize a Trails Plan, if one exists, however, allow for densification because overall when you have services to a site it's the City's policy that you should allow densification within those areas. Staff pointed out that the City is adhering to the densities on the west side of the project, creating the potential for multi family homes in the center of the project, and on the east side going to low density residential. Staff stated that the ordinances have compatibility standards when you allow low density residential adjacent to equestrian uses. Staff further indicated that this area does not preclude any trail system that exists for access down to the park. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff would advise at Thursday's meeting the area south of this project (South of Snow Road) that is zoned for animals. Staff responded that they will provide this information. Commissioner Blockley inquired what the zoning is between this project and what is immediately adjacent to the west of it which was approved last year. Staff responded that there have been tracts south of Etchart Road that are RS 2.5 acres, and then on the east side of the canal there was another project brought in. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is anyway they can step up the Coffee Road improvements, and get them done first, to which Staff responded they will see what can be done. Break taken. Planning Commission —April 3, 2006 — 12:15 p.m. Page 6 5.10a General Plan Amendment 05-1452 (SmithTech\USA) 5.10b Zone Change 05-1452 (SmithTech\USA) Staff report given. Commissioner Blockley inquired about consistency of mitigation. Staff indicated that this has been looked into, and the wall in previous areas was industrial mitigation. Mr. Movius indicated that there will be a wall at the tract level. Commissioner Lomas commented that they have no control over the railway tracks only be used twice a week. Staff responded that they can use it for analysis purposes. Staff pointed out that for security purposes you need a wall, but not just for noise purpose. She further commented that she would like to get the Gosford and Taft Highway improvements in immediately instead of waiting. Commissioner Tragish commented that the commercial could bump up against he railway tracks. He inquired about that little piece of property that appears to include as part of condition 6.1 which states, "Provide fully executed dedication for Gosford Rd. to arterial standard, and Taft Highway as a State Highway for the full frontage of the area within the GPA request." He commented that it is somewhat confusing when reading it. He requested that there be clearer language that the frontage that will be put in does not include an area like the small piece. Staff responded that in this case, there is a statement in condition 6.1 which states, "Dedications are to include that parcel in the Northeast corner of Taft Highway and Progress Road" which is the Southwest corner of the development. Staff further pointed out that Condition 7 states that Taft Highway will include that piece of property. End of Side B, Tape 1 5.11a General Plan Amendment 05-1453 (SmithTech\USA) 5.11b Zone Change 05-1453 (SmithTech\USA) (Beginning of Side A, Tape 2) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas commented that this property is affected by the Parks and Recreation boundaries' dispute. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is a Williamson Act on this property, to which Staff responded in the negative. 5.12a General Plan Amendment 05-1455 (Lynx Realty& Management) 5.12b Zone Change 05-1455 (Lynx Realty& Management) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish recused himself from this item. Commissioner Blockley stated his concern with the existing Eucalyptus trees along the north and east edge, and inquired if the trees will remain. Staff responded that they are not sure if they are remaining. He further inquired about his concern with overlook, and if the developer has had any discussion with the neighbors. Staff responded that they are not sure if there has been any communication, but Staff has not received any communication from the neighbors. Staff further indicated that they have a concern with the overlook as well, and indicated that if at Thursday's meeting the Planning Commission feels the screening is going to effect the architecture, they could rely on an overlay. Planning Commission —April 3, 2006 — 12:15 p.m. Page 7 5.13a General Plan Amendment 05-1930 (Quad Knopf) 5.13b Zone Change 05-1930 (Quad Knopf) Staff report given. Commissioner McGinnis stated he likes the project, and commented about his concern of policing the removing inoperable cars. Commissioner Lomas stated she likes this project. She stated that she does not want to set precedent with the no parking issues. Staff responded by stating that they are very rigid when it comes to parking, and this concept would not work in other places such as the Market Place. Commissioner Blockley stated that it looks like a great project. He stated his concern is how the very local demographics and what is being proposed are going to mix, and how successful it is going to be as a commercial venture. He inquired if there have been market studies that show that this is a viable commercial project. Staff responded the applicant can respond to this at Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Lomas thanked Donna Kuntz for finding money for the City. 6. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. 8. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2:29p.m. Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director April 25,2006