HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 6, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
Meeting —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 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
JEFFREY TKAC
Absent: JOHN S. SPENCER
Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Janice Horcasita
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 Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the Non-Public
Hearing Items on the Consent Calendar.
It was noted that Commissioner Tkac joined the commission.
Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-0423 (SmithTech\USA)
4.2b Approval of Zone Change 05-0423 (SmithTech\USA)
4.2c Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1361 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2d Approval of Zone Change 05-1361 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2e Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1421 (Cal-Kern II, LLC)
4.2f Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1445 (McIntosh &Associates)
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 2
4.2g Approval of Zone Change 05-1445 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2h Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1451 (SmithTech\USA)
4.2i Approval of Zone Change 05-1451 (SmithTech\USA)
4.2j Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1452 (SmithTech\USA)
4.2k Approval of Zone Change 05-1452 (SmithTech\USA)
4.21 Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1455 (Lynx Realty& Management)
4.2m Approval of Zone Change 05-1455 (Lynx Realty& Management)
The public hearing is opened. Mayes Marie Davis stated that she would like to speak on 5.11 a GPA05-
1453, which is not on consent, as well as 5.11 b which is not on consent. Commissioner Lomas advised
that they will be heard in their regular order.
Terry Russell requested that 4.21 and 4.2m (agenda items 5.12a and 5.12b) be removed from consent
calendar.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve all matters on the consent
calendar as read by Chair Lomas, except for removing 4.21 and 4.2m.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
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)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.2 General Plan Amendment 05-1135 (City of Bakersfield)
The public hearing is opened. Commissioner Tkac stated that he listened to the pre-meeting
tape and will be participating in the proceedings this evening.
Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of Staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he has given this item a lot of thought, and has read the
appellate decision on this. He stated that he will not support this as put forth by the
subcommittee and by the Planning Department because he thinks it is arbitrary and goes too far,
and seems to be zeroing in on one specific segment of the business community.
Commissioner McGinnis responded to Commissioner Tragish by stating that it does appear the
figure is arbitrary, but disagrees that the intent was "big box stores," and he does not
characterize a 10,000 sq ft. "mom and pop" store as a big box store, and would not leave the
same impact on vacating as Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, etc. He commented that the line has to
be drawn somewhere and this seems to be an appropriate place to draw it.
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 3
Commissioner Johnson stated that he initially shared the same concerns as Commissioner
Tragish, however, given the appellate decision; it is evident that the court stipulated that in the
CEQA process there must be a trigger to establish this system where an urban decay study can
be done as commercial developments come in, and how they will impact local community. He
stated that he saw the need for this based upon the court decision, and what could be done to
the community if there isn't an ordinance such as this in place. He stated that he will be
supporting this.
Commissioner Lomas thanked Commissioners McGinnis, Johnson and Blockley who served on
this committee.
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the General
Plan Amendment No. 05-1135 and findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution,
Exhibit"A", and recommend the same to City Council.
Commissioner Blockley thanked everyone in the community who contributed to this committee.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: Commissioner Tragish
Commissioner Tragish summarized his no vote by stating that he does not disagree with
Commissioner Johnson that the court opinion required a study of urban decay, but he disagrees
with the proposed standards as they are overbroad and constitute social engineering.
5.3a General Plan Amendment 05-1361 (McIntosh &Associates)
5.3b Zone Change 05-1361 (McIntosh &Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.4 General Plan Amendment 05-1421 (Cal-Kern II, LLC)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.5a General Plan Amendment 05-1442 (Marino and Associates)
5.5b Zone Change 05-1442 (Marino and Associates)
Staff report given. Commissioner Tkac recused himself from this item. No one spoke in
opposition to Staff's recommendation. Jim Marino, representing Arrendondo Ventures, stated
they are in agreement with Staff's recommendation, and the conditions of approval with one
exception of condition number 12, which requires that they enter into an agreement with the
adjoining property owner. He stated that his objection is based on the fact that they are unable
to enter into an agreement, as his client, the property owner, nor the City, has sufficient interest
in the adjoining property to ensure that the condition can be complied with. He stated that the
condition is onerous and he would like to have it deleted. He further stated it could be changed
to a proposal with the adjoining owner.
The public hearing is closed.
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 4
Commissioner Johnson inquired what Staff's justification is for maintaining condition 12, while
condition 9 was modified. Staff commented that there was an approved tract for R1, and
indicated that there are other potential uses. Staff responded that with respect to condition 12,
and without a reciprocal access which would allow free flow from this commercial enterprise into
the other one, there would be a monstrous curb that goes down between the two properties and
you would have to get back on the major arterial street to enter the other parking lot. Staff
indicated that it seems onerous to add traffic back onto an arterial. Commissioner Johnson
inquired what would happen if the owner could not get the adjacent owner to sign an agreement
for parking, to which Staff responded that the project could not go forward, and it would have to
come back and be amended back to residential zoning, and subsequently the tract that was built
couldn't be built in here.
Commissioner Blockley commented that there are numerous instances when these conditions
were not enforced, and they can be a nuisance. He stated that it is conceivable that access from
the WalGreen through Windflower, a residential street to the west, could be a short cut, and
could be extended to Wible as one way of mitigating the trash truck issue. He stated that this is
a community issue as well and effects the general public. He indicated that he is inclined to
agree with Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Blockley inquire if to the south there is going
to be a mini ware house, so there wouldn't be any access, to which Staff responded in the
affirmative.
Commissioner Tragish stated that this is massive commercial here and the whole section is
commercial from a neighborhood commercial to a type of regional type situation. He further
pointed out that there is R2 behind the entire project. He stated that he does not have a problem
with condition 12 to improve the circulation, and stated that he would prefer access from the
east. Staff responded that there currently is no condition that they cannot get access from
Panama.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of the applicant what the intended use of the parcel is, to which
Mr. Marino responded that the intent is to do an integrated use with the property to the east,
however, they have been unable to discuss anything with the current zoning. He indicated that
to his knowledge there are no anchors yet, and for the most part the shopping center has not
been designed. Mr. Marino further pointed out that the applicant does have the intent to have
compatible architectural and design uses. Mr. Marino indicated that they would have no problem
with a condition that they don't place a curb along the common property line.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired that if the property owner does not agree to condition 12 that
that project is dead, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. He inquired if a similar offer was
made to the owner of the easterly parcel when they were zoned. Staff responded that when the
parcel maps come in typically it's divided into large parcels for future commercial tenants, and at
that time there is always a condition that within that property they have reciprocal parking and
access agreements so they can't divide out pieces of property. Staff pointed out that this is an
unusual circumstance as there is an established owner on one side, and then someone brand
new wanting to add more commercial on. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he would hate for
Mr. Marino's project to be killed because he was not able to get approval from the adjacent land
owner, as he believes the project merits approval. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr.
Marino if there has been any discussion between his client and the neighbor to the east about
this type of agreement. Mr. Marino responded that to his knowledge, there has been no
discussion regarding this. Mr. Marino indicated that he thinks it is possible to attempt to get
common access with the eastern property owner.
Commissioner Lomas inquired of Mr. Marino stated that typically these reciprocal easements are
handled as indicated by Mr. Movius previously. She inquired if the easement would typically be
paid for, to which Mr. Marino responded in the negative, indicating that it is mutually beneficial.
He further pointed out that he believes it is illegal to set conditions that neither the city nor the
property owner has sufficient interest in the property to comply with. He pointed out that if the
City would agree to condemn the access easement, then he would agree to it. Commissioner
Lomas inquired of Staff's response to this. Staff disagreed with Mr. Marino that the city could not
require this condition, and indicated that Mr. Marino has put enough evidence on the record that
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 5
this is likely to occur because it would be mutually beneficial to both property owners; therefore it
is a reasonable condition. Staff indicated that if for some reason Mr. Marino could not comply
with the condition due to the other property owner, then perhaps there may be some vehicle to
revisit the issue. Staff indicated that the city wouldn't be involved in any eminent domain in this
situation. Staff further pointed out that there is general plan policy that directs the commission to
minimize access to arterial streets, including commercial development, and encourages
consolidation of access points to commercial.
Commissioner Lomas commented that if the project is denied it would stay residential, and it
appears the applicant would like to proceed with commercial. She pointed out that there is no
justification to disregard condition 12. She inquired what the footage is on the frontage to Wible,
and how many access points there would be. Staff responded that including the GP area the
frontage is approximately '/ mile, and there would probably be three driveways, one of which
would be a full access, and there will be a signal light. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the
number of access points on the eastern property, to which Staff responded that there are at least
two, and possibly three.
Commissioner Blockley commented that there appears to be sufficient access, and therefore
there is no reason to change condition number 12.
Commissioner Tragish commented that the reciprocal access makes a lot of sense, and would
take some pressure off of the apparent access onto this parcel if it can be accessed from
adjoining parcels.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving a General Plan Amendment
to change the land use designation from LR to GC on 5.50 acres, as shown on Exhibit "A-2",
attached to the Draft Resolution, including the memorandum from Ms. Shaw, dated April 4, 2006,
and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tragish, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from R1 to
C2 on 5.50 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2", attached to the Draft Resolution, including the
memorandum from Ms. Shaw, dated April 4, 2006, and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tragish, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
Commissioner Tkac rejoined the commission.
5.6a General Plan Amendment 05-1445 (McIntosh &Associates)
5.6b Zone Change 05-1445 (McIntosh &Associates)
Heard on consent calendar.
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 6
5.7a General Plan Amendment 05-1448 (James C. Lundy)
5.7b Zone Change 05-1448 (James C. Lundy)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Fred Rappleye, with West Coast Land Service,
representing Gordon Dole Enterprise who has the four active wells on the property, stated this
project limits their ability to produce their wells that they've been producing for years. He stated
that they have an active oil and gas lease on the property, as well as adjacent thereto. He
pointed out that they have numerous pipelines running through this project. He indicated that
they did not know about this meeting until the other day. He stated they are not opposed to the
project, but they want to have their rights to produce their wells. He requested some time where
they can have discussions with the developer and the city to work out their concerns.
James Lundy, the property owner and mineral holder of the subject property, stated there are a
couple of conditions, item 12, that he would like to address. He stated that in regards to the
mineral issues he is more than happy to meet the standards set out by the City of Bakersfield.
He pointed out that item 12, in regards to the lighting issue on the adjacent ball field, Colon
Bywater and himself, have come up with language that is acceptable to both of them, and he
presented it to the commission.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Lundy who he agreed with
on this language. Mr. Lundy indicated that he came to the agreement with Colon Bywater from
North of the River. Mr. Bywater indicated that he is the Planning and Construction Director for
North of the River Recreation and Park District.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Bywater about the condition for the park, and inquired if
the developer can be responsible for repositioning the existing lights. Mr. Bywater responded
that they definitely prefer Staff's recommendation, and they do not want to have to change and/or
move lights in the future, but would rather have the developer do this upfront. Mr. Bywater
indicated that modification of condition 13 would guarantee them the opportunity that if NOR in
the further decides to upgrade the lighting they will be able to do it.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff has seen the proposed conditions submitted, to which
Staff responded in the affirmative. Staff indicated that they are satisfied with the proposal as
written. Staff indicated that it is their understanding that Mr. Bywater didn't mind repositioning the
lights as long as they didn't sacrifice safety of play on the field.
Commissioner Tragish inquired how monitoring of any potential repositioning of lights would take
place, to which Staff responded that it has measurable levels of foot candles that a monitor can
determine.
Commissioner Tkac inquired whose rights take precedent; the driller or the mineral right owner
when the mineral right owner is the subdivider/owner. Staff responded that it is their
understanding that Mr. Lundy owns the mineral rights, and that Mr. Rappleye is representing the
leaseholder, but does not know the wording of the lease. Commissioner Tkac inquired if they
need to see the lease language to make a decision on this project, to which Staff responded that
the Planning Commission can question the leaseholder and mineral right holder to see how they
view this particular situation. Staff further indicated that ordinance indicates that when they map
the property it has to accommodate existing operations, and the Planning Commission would at
that time see how they are incorporating those operations into the project. Staff further pointed
out that the PE zone referenced is not a remedy with the zoning being asked for because you
cannot apply this overlay zone in an R1 district. Staff reiterated that tract would have to
incorporate it in. Staff indicated that the County plans show this area as estate residential, and
therefore there will be homes there.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he likes the project. He inquired of Mr. Rappleye to explain what
rights he has over the mineral holder. Mr. Rappleye stated that they have an oil gas lease on the
property by the previous mineral owner who was also the surface holder. He indicated that Mr.
Lundy has picked up those mineral rights subsequent to that fact. He stated that the oil and gas
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 7
lease gives them the right to enter the property, drill and produce the wells. Mr. Rappleye stated
that they want to continue to maintain the rights to enter the property, and drill and produce the
wells. He further indicated that they want some buffer between their wells and the residents. He
reiterated that he never got a notice and Mr. Dole has never received a notice. Commissioner
Tkac inquired how many producing wells there are, and how much they produce. Mr. Rappleye
responded that Mr. Dole might be able to address these issues. Gordon Dole stated they are
making about 15 barrels a day at about $55.00 barrel. He indicated that there are lines running
everywhere. He indicated that they want to do their operations, and if the applicant wants to
move their line that's fine.
Commissioner Tkac further inquired about what kind of buffer Mr. Dole is requesting, to which
Mr. Dole responded that usually they get 100, 150 feet all around their area. Mr. Dole indicated
that they have two active wells and two islands. Mr. Dole indicated that if they built a block wall
at a distance of 150 feet around their location they would be happy.
Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Lundy to respond. Mr. Lundy stated that he would be happy
to meet the standards set out by the City of Bakersfield upon annexation for the existing oil wells.
He stated that he has a lease in place, and is ready to uphold the commitment of the lease as
well. He stated that he believes this is something that can be worked out, and understands that
they will have to move lines to accommodate their future development.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if Staff has a copy of the ordinance to provide to Mr. Rappleye.
Staff indicated they will provide more City standards regarding walls.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if a tank farm would be under the drill island size or if it would
have to be a large lot as well. Staff responded that there is no minimum lot size, but there are
set back requirements.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about guaranteed access as stipulated in the ordinance and is
dictated at the tract stage as to where the access will be. Staff responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Blockley stated that with respect to the lighting the Staff report mentions glare,
and the proposed conditions reference illumination levels, indicated there needs to be a
distinction between the two. He pointed out the glare might be objectionable even though the
illumination level is low. He stated that he is concerned with the conditions regarding this.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if Commissioner Blockley has language that would address his
glare concerns, to which Commissioner Blockley responded that he doesn't have a solution, but
is suggesting that the added conditions may not be a permanent solution to the problem.
Commissioner Blockley inquired of Mr. Bywater if their engineer has measured the existing light
levels on the fields, to which Mr. Bywater responded in the negative. Mr. Bywater indicated the
original design was for 25 ft. candles infield, 15 ft. candles out. He stated that Mr. Lundy's
engineer study seems to show that they are basically at those light levels.
Commissioner Blockley inquired as to the height of the poles or the fixtures, to which Mr.
Bywater stated that the poles at the backstop are 40' tall, and 50' out in the outfield area. Mr.
Bywater confirmed that he is proposing that the residents be notified that new taller lights will
double the light level. This proposal would put the lights in conformance with current standards
for safe play. Commissioner Blockley stated that he does not think the glare issue has been
addressed. Mr. Rappleye suggested including the glare language to the condition.
Commissioner Lomas inquired how the roads will work, and what is being required with the
development of this property to assure that the traffic will flow smoothly. Staff explained that El
Toro Viejo, a collector, would be brought down and has access at the light and into the future
subdivision. Staff further indicated that there would be access down the Calloway frontage road.
Staff stated that El Toro Viejo will be improved 3/ of its total width and the expansion and the
paving is done along the Sonic Burger, and there is another approximate 12' of pavement on the
other side which will be improved when that commercial parcel has completed development.
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 8
Mr. Movius stated that City ordinances require "where a developer proposes to subdivide,
rezone, or otherwise develop property which contains existing drill and production operations,
including disposal wells, that the developer shall provide a plan showing how all existing
petroleum related facilities will be protected and integrated into the proposed development, so
that said facilities will satisfy the development standards pursuant to this Chapter, including, but
not limited to set backs." He further indicated that there is another clause that the developer has
to disclose the existence and location of the petroleum facilities with a covenant for anybody who
has property within 500 ft. of those facilities. The setbacks very generally are 75 ft. to a
dedicated public street, highway, railroad or private street, or adopted specific plan line. 100 ft. of
any building including dwellings, except buildings incidental to operations of the well. And, 300
ft. of any public assembly, building. And, 25 ft. of any storage tank or boilers. These are under
Section 1566 of the City's ordinances.
Commissioner Tragish stated that it is his understanding that the mineral right owner owns the
mineral rights and the land above it, if there are no leases, and when the owner of the property
buys the property he has an opportunity to check it to see what leases are on the property. He
further indicated that the leaseholder of the mineral rights has the rights to go get the minerals
and to the minerals, and the parties have previously agreed who owns what and how they are
going to extract it, if there are any easements how much they're going to pay for it. He said, he
presumes that the current applicant who owns the property did all of these things prior to buying
the property, has read the agreement, and understands it.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the subdivision to the immediate west on the other side of
Calloway is fenced and bermed similar to what they are asking be done on this project. Staff
responded that it is a recent grade separation project where Calloway goes under the railroad,
and there's like a frontage road to the west of that, and there is just side yards abutting it.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired for an example in the City where these requirements have
been met. Staff indicated that the only recent one they've dealt with is when Mesa Marin
Raceway went away and there's a residential subdivision that abuts that, but they required a fee
for them to assist in the upgrading of the lights, however, nothing directly correlates to this
project. Commissioner McGinnis indicated that he was speaking about buffering the railroad
tracks. Staff stated that the acoustical study indicates that there is sufficient buffering of the
railroad tracks.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the guy sitting in the observation car above grade level
looking into the backyards. Staff responded that this issue is being addressed as other issues
with this similar situation are addressed. Staff stated that it does adequately address the issues
when adjacent to a railroad track.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Rappleye if the 100 ft. stipulated in the ordinance
between structures and oil activities would be amenable to him. Mr. Rappleye indicated that
would be okay if it's 100 ft all the way around the well. He added that there are four wells which
are spread out and it would take up a lot of land, and there needs to be some continuity between
the four wells, and therefore, it may require more things.
End of Side B, Tape 1
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 9
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a Resolution
making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation from ER to LR on approximately 51 acres, as
shown on Exhibit "A-2", incorporating the amended conditions, condition 12, and the
amendments to condition 13 as stipulated in the document presented to the Commissioner.
Mr. Lundy stated that with regard to the glare issue, he did have a photometric study done on the
property which addresses the bleed-over into the neighborhood, and it is his understanding that
the .5 candle addressed the bleed-over onto the property, and glare is a non-scientific situation,
and the way that it was addressed is through the .5 candle lights onto the adjacent properties.
He indicated that it is their understanding that no additional language would be required.
Amendments: to amend condition 12 to read: "Prior to the recordation of any tract map within
the GPA zone change area the subdivider, at no cost to NOR, shall reposition the existing lights
to decrease the foot candles projected onto the future development to no more than .5 ft. candles
at the residential development property line. The repositioning of the existing lights shall not
decrease the light foot candle level, or uniformity presently projected on the fields. In the event
the existing lighting levels or uniformity cannot be maintained, the subdivider shall pay for the
cost to increase light level and uniformity to the present condition." Amendment to Condition 13
by adding to the last sentence which is ending in "Greenacres Park", would say: "Additionally, the
covenant shall include property notice to allow NOR to upgrade the existing ball field to 50 ft
candle infield, 30 ft. candle outfield, readings on 60 ft. poles. Reference to upgraded lighting shall
not increase the subdivision property line readings above .5 ft. candles." And recommend the
same to Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt a Resolution
making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from A to
R1 on approximately 51 acres, as shown on Exhibit "B" attached to the draft Resolution,
incorporating the amended conditions, stating condition 12 to read: "Prior to the recordation of
any tract map within the GPA zone change area the subdivider, at no cost to NOR, shall
reposition the existing lights to decrease the foot candles projected onto the future development
to no more than .5 ft. candles at the residential development property line. The repositioning of
the existing lights shall not decrease the light foot candle level, or uniformity presently projected
on the fields. In the event the existing lighting levels or uniformity cannot be maintained, the
subdivider shall pay for the cost to increase light level and uniformity to the present condition."
Amendment to Condition 13 by adding to the last sentence which is ending in "Greenacres Park",
would say: "Additionally, the covenant shall include property notice to allow NOR to upgrade the
existing ball field to 50 ft candle infield, 30 ft. candle outfield, readings on 60 ft. poles. Reference
to upgraded lighting shall not increase the subdivision property line readings above .5 ft.
candles." And recommend the same to Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 10
Break Taken
5.8a General Plan Amendment 05-1450 (SmithTech\USA)
5.8b Zone Change 05-1450 (SmithTech\USA)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Terri Bjorn, attorney with Clifford & Brown,
representing Crimson Resource Management, the owner of the minerals on the project site,
spoke. Crimson stated for the record that it does not like residential development in oilfields for a
number of reasons, including visual and noise incompatibility, and increased danger and liability
associated with homes near oil wells. Ms. Bjorn stated that given the path of development, and if
the Planning Commission approves this project, that they would request that certain information in
the Negative Declaration be corrected so that the Planning Commission is making its decision
based on accurate information, including a support by the DOGGR's letter dated February 27,
2006. She gave two corrections which included page 16 of the Negative Declaration, Section X,
subparagraph (a) and (b), and requested that the impact designation be changed from "no impact"
in the two places, to "less than significant with mitigation incorporation." The second requested
correction to the Negative Declaration is on page 28, Section X, subparagraph (a), and requested
that the language be revised to read as follows: "The project is located within the administrative
boundaries of the Rosedale Ranch Oilfield, which is an area of important mineral resources, and
they are producing oil and gas wells within the project boundaries. The impact on mineral
resources will be mitigated at the tentative map stage through application of the City's ordinances
that require accommodation of existing facilities referencing Bakersfield Municipal Code Section
15.66.080, or the designation of drill site referencing Bakersfield Municipal Code Section
16.020.060(b) 3."
Ms. Bjorn indicated that Crimson has been in communication with the developer, who has
demonstrated a willingness to accommodate Crimson's needs, and they are confident that both
parties will be able to reach agreement in connection with the tentative map processing.
Dennis McClean, a homeowner on Snow Road and Jewetta, stated he would like to see the
southern end of the development stay at SR so it can be more compatible with the surrounding
properties. He further inquired about what can be done with the Calloway Canal. He further
inquired if Jewetta will be continued north.
Vic Supertino stated he is a neighbor of McClean, and they would like to see the southern end of
the development stay larger residents and be compatible with what's there today.
Bob Smith, with SmithTech, stated they are in agreement with Staff's recommendation, as well as
the conditions. Mr. Smith stated they appreciate Crimson's comments and are optimistic they can
work things out at the tentative map stage with regard to the mineral interests. He further
indicated that with respect to the southerly neighbors, the Calloway Canal is a 300 ft. wide canal
and creates quite a buffer to the south. He indicated that Jewetta Ave. will extend per the
transportation general plan and would also create a buffer. Mr. Smith stated that they have
responded in writing to letters received by Staff regarding traffic and air, and they do have traffic
and air studies.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the memos that need to be incorporated in, including the
April 4, 2006 memo from Public Works, and the April 5, 2006 memo from Public Works. He
further inquired about amending a Negative Declaration and if it can be done, to which Staff
replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if the 300 ft. wide canal will be relocated in the future, and if it is
relocated at the subdivision stage, if a condition would be applied at that point to ensure that there
is an adequate buffer between the RR zoning to the south of this project. Staff responded that if
the subdivision brought forth showed the canal in a different position, and the Planning
Commission felt it to be incompatible lot sizes adjacent to the RR designation, the Planning
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 11
Commission could require the lot sizes to be larger, however, there would have to be evidence on
the record as to why the use was incompatible. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the denial of a
previous application to the west of this project would be sufficient evidence to require something
in addition to what might otherwise be required as far as compatibility. Staff responded in the
negative.
Commissioner Tragish inquired of Ms. Bjorn about her suggested corrected language, and Ms.
Bjorn stated that she submitted the language to staff, and in discussion with staff, she indicated
that in order for this language to be consistent with the DOGGR letter, to use a more technical
term, in the third line where she said, "and there are producing oil and gas wells," that should
read, "there are four active oil and gas wells within the project boundaries."
Commissioner Tragish inquired where Ms. Bjorn wanted to insert this language. Ms. Bjorn
indicated that it would be page 28, and Commissioner Tragish stated that his document starts with
page 10. Ms. Bjorn explained the insertion site.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff is agreeable with Ms. Bjorn's suggested corrected
language, to which Staff replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Blockley inquired about the April 6, 2006 memo, item 2, referencing a letter of
opposition from Mr. McClean and the sufficient buffer issue, and if that response should be written
in as a condition since there is no guarantee that the Calloway Canal will continue to exist in its
current location. Staff responded that it would be written in to show a buffer to the RR zone to the
south of the project. Staff stated that the language could be added since it is a General Plan
Amendment, because the City has standards for lots which back up to areas which could have
livestock. Commissioner Blockley stated that he would be comfortable with Staff's
recommendation of a 100 to 120 ft. buffer.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is already a requirement for a buffer for any lots that back
up to animals, if there is a difference in the SR or the LR in the buffer or setback. Staff responded
it is the same.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if Staff has any information on the potential move of the Calloway
Canal, to which Staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Lomas further inquired about the
parcel to the west requesting a change to LR being denied, to which Staff responded it was
denied at Council and went to State zoning.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if Jewetta is going straight on the eastern boundary of this project,
to which Staff responded in the affirmative.
Mr. McClean pointed out that several property owners own property that goes beyond the canal,
and therefore they are talking about a buffer zone that is on land of property owners.
Staff indicated that it is their understanding that if the canal is moved, that means that property of
theirs becomes usable, and then if the canal disappears as a buffer altogether that wording is still
appropriate because it says "or equivalent". Staff indicated that the wording works as proposed.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment
to change the land use designation from SR to LR on 66.25 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2"
attached to the draft Resolution, including the April 4, 2006 memo from Ken Trone to the
Bakersfield Planning Commission, the April 5, 2006 memo from Marian Shaw to the Planning
Commission, and the April 4, 2006 memo from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commissioner, and
also to modify the Negative Declaration paragraph for mineral resources wherein it states "no
impact" and that both boxes under A & B be put "less than significant impact," and in the
annotation portion of the Negative Declaration that the following would be inserted under the
mineral resource section to read: "The project is located within the administrative boundaries of
the Rosedale Ranch Oilfield, which is in an area of important mineral resources, and there are
four active oil and gas wells within the project boundaries." The impact on the mineral resources
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 12
will be mitigated at the tentative map stage to application of the City's ordinances that require
accommodation of existing facilities, citing BMC Section 15.66.080, and a designation of drill
site(s) as citing BMC Section 16.020.060(b)(3) and the existing prior gas under that section will be
deleted. An additional condition will further be added as follows: "If the Calloway Canal is
relocated, a sufficient buffer must be maintained between the RR to the south and this project.
The buffer to be determined by the Planning Commission. Recommend the same to City Council.
Motion was put in remission as discussion was held. Ms. Bjorn stated that she checked the letter
from DOGGR and it accurately states, that "there are four active wells," so she is requesting that
her language be corrected from "producing"to "four active".
Commissioner Lomas inquired what the road improvements are on Jewetta between the
applicant's property and Snow Rd. Staff responded that she doesn't know off hand, but believes it
is two lanes of paving. Staff indicated that they would use standard language that indicates a
minimum of 32 ft. of paving with graded shoulders to the nearest connecting road. Commissioner
Lomas inquired if there would be a canal crossing to which Staff responded in the affirmative, and
is covered by conditions 6 & 7.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from A to R1
on 66.25 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2" attached to the draft Resolution, including the April 4,
2006 memo from Ken Trone to the Bakersfield Planning Commission, the April 5, 2006 memo
from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission, and the April 4, 2006 memo from Marian Shaw to
the Planning Commissioner, and also to modify the Negative Declaration paragraph for mineral
resources wherein it states "no impact" and that both boxes under A & B be put "less than
significant impact," and in the annotation portion of the Negative Declaration that the following
would be insert under the mineral resource section to read: "The project is located within the
administrative boundaries of the Rosedale Ranch Oilfield, which is in an area of important mineral
resources, and there are four active oil and gas wells within the project boundaries." The impact
on the mineral resources will be mitigated at the tentative map stage to application of the City's
ordinances that require accommodation of existing facilities, citing BMC Section 15.66.080, and a
designation of drill site(s) as citing BMC Section 16.020.060(b)(3) and the existing prior gas under
that section will be deleted. An additional condition will further be added as follows: "If the
Calloway Canal is relocated, a sufficient buffer must be maintained between the RR to the south
and this project. The buffer to be determined by the Planning Commission. Recommend the
same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
5.9a General Plan Amendment 05-1451 (SmithTech\USA)
5.9b Zone Change 05-1451 (SmithTech\USA)
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 13
Heard on consent calendar.
5.10a General Plan Amendment 05-1452 (SmithTech\USA)
5.10b Zone Change 05-1452 (SmithTech\USA)
Heard on consent calendar.
5.11a General Plan Amendment 05-1453 (SmithTech\USA)
5.11 b Zone Change 05-1453 (SmithTech\USA)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Marie Davis stated she opposes this as she
sees no justification in changing SR to low density, because it's in the middle of the SR. She
states it is not compatible. (END OF SIDE A, TAPE 2) She stated that the almond trees are still
productive. She further stated the infrastructure cannot support this project, particularly because
of the cumulative effects of all the housing that's being built down Snow Road. She indicated
that she is not clear on what the developer is doing to mitigate these issues.
Parker Peacock stated he agrees with Mrs. Davis and it should be kept SR.
Robert Lords stated he agrees with Mrs. Davis and Mr. Peacocks concerns, and is against this
proposed change.
Agustine Preato stated he is opposed to this project for the same reasons stated. He stated the
negative changes will deteriorate the value and quality of their neighborhood. He inquired if the
developer has comprehensive unbiased study that proves that such a change will continue to
improve the neighborhood and improve the value and desirability of their houses. He urged the
Planning Commission to keep this area unchanged.
Bob Smith, SmithTech USA, stated they are in agreement with Staff and the conditions of
approval. He indicated they have submitted written responses to the letters received. He
indicated that Snow Rd. and Coffee Road do create considerable buffers between the existing
neighborhood and this project. He indicated that both developments are urban developments,
and that while the estate lots are somewhat larger, it is not an incompatible use. Mr. Smith
stated that they have traffic and air quality studies. He further stated the improvements include
widening Coffee Road and Snow Road along the frontage, and they will be paying considerable
monies to the traffic impact fee program, plus local mitigation for traffic improvements.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Johnson inquired what the standard width of an
arterial is, and how many lanes. Staff responded that the right-of-way width for an arterial is 110
ft. that has six lanes of traffic with a median. Commissioner Johnson stated with regard to the
traffic issues raised, everyone is concerned with this issue. However, with the added conditions
and improvements to the subject roads of arterial standards will improve traffic circulation in the
area. Commissioner Johnson further commented that with added local mitigation in condition 13,
there will be monies paid for improvements to Seventh Standards and other roads, which is also
going to improve circulation in the area.
Commissioner Tragish inquired what the current zoning is of the properties around the project.
Staff indicated that there is a lot of RS, which requires four residents per acre, and estate zoning
is about 10,000 sq. ft. He further inquired as to the zoning on the north side of Snow Road, to
which Staff indicated are mixed with some R1, R2, and estate. Staff indicated that the area is
transitioning to low density residential. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the zoning to the
tract immediately adjacent to the west of this project, to which Staff responded it is commercial
zoning. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that given these existing zonings, and Snow Road
acting as a buffer; it is compatible and consistent with what's going on in this area.
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 14
Commissioner McGinnis inquired how the property to the west and east got zoned commercial.
Five minute break taken.
Staff stated the commercial zoning was inherited from County zoning. Staff further indicated that
it cannot be rectified at this time.
Commissioner Lomas addressed the traffic issues. She inquired about an interchange at Snow
Road, to which Staff responded that the paperwork started with a letter from the Dept. of
Transportation indicating that the Snow Rd. interchange had some issues, and asked for the
traffic study to be redone eliminating an interchange at 99 & Snow Road. Staff indicated that
they are looking into an interchange at Snow Rd.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration, and approving the General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from SR to LR on 90 acres, and deny the requested General
Commercial on 5 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2" and incorporating the memo dated April 5,
2006 from Marina Shaw, and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration, and approving the zone change from agriculture to
R1 on 90 acres, and deny the requested C2 on 5 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2", and
incorporating the memo dated April 5, 2006 from Marina Shaw, and recommend the same to City
Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
5.12a General Plan Amendment 05-1455 (Lynx Realty& Management)
5.12b Zone Change 05-1455 (Lynx Realty& Management)
Commissioner Tragish recused himself.
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Terry Russell stated that he's not opposed to
development on the project, but stated that he opposes any two-story residences, and he does
not want the balconies facing his backyard looking down into his backyard and back windows.
He pointed out that most tracts don't border two-story houses up to one story houses.
Ben Lingo stated he is in agreement with the Staff's report and proposed conditions. He pointed
out that this is an in-fill development, and he feels that their interests are very much aligned with
the neighbors to the east, as they are proposing to construct a luxury senior condominium
development where screening and privacy are a concern. He indicated that they have attempted
to utilize and show extensive landscaping to mitigate any potential overlook, however, they might
have fallen short in their submittal which showed a conceptual landscape plan that does show a
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 15
lot of trees and landscaping along the easterly property line, however, their intentions were not
specified. He reiterated that because of the nature of their proposal, they feel they are very
much aligned. He stated that they propose to plant 36" box trees in locations to help block any
potential overlook, as well as construct a 6' masonry wall. Mr. Lingo indicated that they did meet
with a neighbor who had concerns and they distributed materials in the neighborhood. He
indicated that they didn't really get any feedback, however they did meet with Mrs. Via and
discussed the project with her.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the architectural representative
was available for questions, to which Mr. Lingo stated that he is prepared to discuss the
architectural matters. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the applicant intends to remove the
eucalyptus trees, to which Mr. Lingo stated that a great majority of the trees are diseased or
dead, and they are concerned that if they say they will remain through construction and then they
died they would not want to be misleading. Mr. Lingo stated that their proposed 36" box tree
would be an evergreen tree to create year around coverage, and could be a Maitan tree, which
has the appearance of a Weeping Willow, or a Carolina Cherry which is fast growing. He
indicated that at installation the trees would be about 8-10 feet tall, and at maturity would be
between 20-50 feet tall and about 14 feet wide at the base. Mr. Lingo stated that it would take
approximately 10 years to reach full growth.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired what would provide the privacy in the interim time until the
trees reach maturity, to which Mr. Lingo responded they would have a 6' block wall that would
mitigate this issue.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Russell what they can do for him, to which Mr. Russell
said that the eucalyptus trees aren't dead and are healthy. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if
the applicant brought in a botanist or gardener to treat the eucalyptus trees if it would provide
any screening to his property, to which Mr. Russell responded that his understanding is that the
treatment to cure the trees is approximately $500 to $1000 per tree and it's not guaranteed. Mr.
Russell stated that if they want to have two-story they should face internal, or keep it to single
story levels.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of the applicant of the reference City Code section. Mr. Lingo
stated it is Code 17.08.090 which addresses overlook from adjacent properties. He pointed out
that this section indicates particular screening methods that are most esthetically pleasing,
including landscaping, which is how they propose to adhere to this code section.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of Staff if they have a copy of this code section. Staff
summarized the code section by stating that the intent of this section is to screen overlook, and
that it is to provide reasonable screening of adjacent properties, but that this section does not
intend to provide a total screen of the affected yard area, or the affected residence, building,
walls and windows. Staff further indicated that the code section gives several options for types
of screening including, windows with sills of minimum 5' above the floor, translucent glass, wing
walls, louvers appropriately directed, awnings, other design solutions, and other places does
heavily encourage landscaping as a solution. The section further provides for screening of
balconies. Staff indicated that the Planning Commission could delete the balconies, or over plant
at this time by putting the 36" box closer together, or require an 8'wall, with an interim solution of
screening of windows until the trees get big enough to do appropriate screening, and then
withdraw it. Staff pointed out that the ordinance does say if you use landscaping, it is suppose to
provide the protection within five years, so the large trees closer together may do that.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if a condition would be the most appropriate way to guarantee
that this type of screening would occur on this development, to which Staff responded in the
affirmative.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Lingo about the full growth of the trees, to which Mr.
Lingo stated that at full growth they will be approximately 15-20 ft. wide, and that he would have
to approximate the width to be 6ft at installation.
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 16
Commissioner Johnson stated he would think a separation of approximately 20 ft. between each
tree trunk would be sufficient. Staff indicated that they would put the trees closer at 12 ft.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he is troubled with the PUD on this project which should
entail some trade offs between amenities that make it better and perhaps density and some
other things. He indicated that he does not see how they are accomplishing much by removing
existing mature trees, which may need to be replaced at some point, with the little samples that
come with a 36" box, and use that as justification for putting units within 15 ft of the property line,
when condition number 17 references the Municipal Code 17.08.090. He stated he doesn't quite
agree that what is being proposed is an adequate screen.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if the Planning Commission would be able to require more later,
to which Staff responded they would not, if the condition is stringent or approved based on the
current proposed plan. Commissioner Blockley pointed out that the proposed condition would
require less than the ordinance already provides, and their hands would be tied to make any
modifications later on.
Commissioner Lomas inquired of Mr. Lingo why there are no single story units for the proposed
seniors. Mr. Lingo stated that each upstairs unit has elevator access, and pointed out that they
are not townhouses, but rather stack flat.
Commissioner Lomas commented that she thinks the screening ordinance is applicable to a
window rather than a balcony, and has concern with a 10 year wait for the trees to fully mature
for proper screening. She stated with the balconies she will not be in support of this project.
Commissioner Blockley indicated that he would be in favor of no balconies along the perimeter
adjacent to the existing residents.
Staff indicated that along the north line there would be a 28' setback from what would be a wall,
and on the east property line there is a 15' setback, with a side yard to the south. Staff
commented that the Planning Commission may want to consider a limitation on the balconies, or
even a limiting the balconies to the 28' setback side. Staff also indicated that an 8' wall would
also be helpful.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Lingo if the subject 10 units could be flipped so there is
not the screening issue, to which Mr. Lingo responded that it is laid out this way because of the
garage access off of the private road. Mr. Lingo stated that it was their intention to provide a
more luxurious facility. He stated that he would propose a 6' wall with a lattice feature
constructed on top where vines could grow for aesthetics reasons. He also suggested that if they
could find a quicker growing tree with more screening they are willing to work with the neighbors
on this.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired if Staff has language that would give Staff the authority to
achieve the Planning Commission's screening goals. Staff responded that the Planning
Commission could consider approving the General Plan with a condition that it is zoned PUD and
continue the zoning to allow the applicant to come back with something more satisfactory.
Commissioner Lomas stated that if this zoning PUD comes back to the Planning Commission,
she would like to see the northern boundary provide a sight line showing exactly what the sight
studies are saying to show that an 8' wall is not needed if there is stacked landscaping as
suggested. She further stated that on the eastern boundary she would like to see a redesign of
the balconies to eliminate the eastern boundary problem.
Commissioner Blockley stated he does not have a conflict with the overall project, but does want
the overlook problem solved in a more positive way. He stated that he would be in favor of a
PUD, and given that these are stacked units, there is nothing inherent in the design that says the
garage and balconies have to place opposite directions, and therefore there would be nothing
wrong with having garages and balconies on the same frontage.
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 17
Commissioner Lomas inquired if the motion needs to be reworded to reflect that they are not
approving the site plan submitted. Staff responded that the first motion for the General Plan is
the same, adding a condition that the property be zoned PUD, and in the second motion Staff
would request that it be continued to the May 4, 2006 meeting.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment
to change the land use designation from LR to HR on approximately 5 acres as shown on Exhibit
"A-2", adding a condition that the property be zoned PUD, and recommend the same to City
Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to continue zone change
number 05-1455 to the May 4, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
5.13a General Plan Amendment 05-1930 (Quad Knopf)
5.13b Zone Change 05-1930 (Quad Knopf)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Donna Kuntz gave a presentation. No one
spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Michael Keal stated he was available for
questions. The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired what the size of the residential units will be. Mr. Keal indicated
that the smallest size is around 1,000 sq. ft. going up to the townhouses are closer to 1,700 or
1,800 sq. ft. Ms. Kuntz indicated that there will be a homeowner's association, and there will be
security patrol. Commissioner McGinnis inquired as to the marketing plans, to which Ms. Kuntz
responded they performed an economic development study of the entire area taking a detailed
analysis of their strategy of what kind of retail and various services could be sustained based on
the demographics. She pointed out that this is not a complete affordable project, as they have a
range of mix of incomes from market rate down to a few as low as 60%. She further indicated the
intent is to do a 20,000 box (hopefully a Ranch Market), and there is no indication of a problem
for the smaller retail units. She also stated another possibility would be live work space where it
is sold as a condominiumized unit where you might have front for your retail and live above it.
She pointed out that there has been a huge interest in lofts and flats in the downtown area.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that his concern is a single mother, who can qualify for a flat, and
she and her five kids move into that. Ms. Kuntz stated that they have to meet occupancy
standards, and there is no overcrowding allowed. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about
enforcement of this standard, to which Ms. Kuntz responded that it is a Fair Housing issue and
would be challenged in court, and pointed out that it is not a public housing project.
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 18
Commissioner Lomas confirmed that there will be a homeowner's association, to which Ms.
Kuntz replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he likes the project. He inquired how Kentucky Street should
be handled, with the Post Office on the south side, and existing projects on the north side. He
commented on his concern about the current design of the street, parking and drainage. Mr.
Keal stated that Kentucky and Lake are extra wide streets (about 80 ft.), and they thought they
could create atmosphere along both of the streets to encourage parking, and encourage people
to go there. He indicated there will be a lot of shade trees. He indicated the intent is to get
tenants such as Ace Hardware, Star Bucks, or Trader Joe's, etc. He stated that if for some
reason they can't obtain all of the tenants, they would like the right to come back and do a similar
building to B along the Avenue so you still continue to have the infill, and then in the back do
some form of housing.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the homeowner's association guidelines prevent renting. Ms.
Kuntz responded that it is a prohibition in the development agreement, and that a certification is
done annually. He further inquired if there is certification of the income level, to which Ms. Kuntz
stated they certify the income upon the time that it is purchased, and when the unit is sold there
are resale restrictions on some of the units. Commissioner Johnson inquired about some of the
features added to accommodate the limited parking. Ms. Kuntz responded that they did take the
opportunity to create this as a village, and use the on-street parking, and she indicated that the
Post Office is parking in the City parking lot because the building is not designed with adequate
parking. She indicated that the design of the entire project takes into consideration that many of
the individuals buying the residences will be working in the project. She indicated that the project
is an economic development project and they receive special grant funding for it, and there is a
requirement to create 106 jobs, of which 51% of those have to be for low and moderate persons.
She indicated that these individuals probably won't need a car. She indicated that 20-25% of the
homebuyers will have or no vehicle.
Commissioner Johnson thanked Ms. Kuntz and her team for a doing a good job on this
redevelopment project.
Commissioner Tkac thanked Ms. Kuntz as well. He inquired if the design of the stores will be
designed for people other than those who will be working and living there. Ms. Kuntz stated they
are looking at neighborhood services and not necessarily the high end retailers. Commissioner
Tkac commented that he would encourage water features, park/garden areas within the entire
project. Ms. Kuntz stated there will not be large pockets of green, but rather small pockets of
green.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from GC to MUC on 6.61 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2"
attached, incorporating the April 3, 2006 memo from Mr. Movius, and recommend the same to
City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making
findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from C2 to PCD on
6.61 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2" attached, incorporating the April 3, 2006 memo from Mr.
Movius, and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
Planning Commission —April 6, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 19
ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer
NOES: None.
6. COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
7. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Lomas stated that the April 6, 2006 memo for Agenda Item 5.1 refers to a buffer study,
and she would like to have a copy.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m.
Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
April 25, 2006