Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAug 17, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 0 ` Meeting — August 17, 2006 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Lomas, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish Absent: Commissioner Blockley 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Rev. Rose Schmall, 1112 San Creek Drive, referenced the statute on the wall of Brimhall and Windsong, and stated that her ultimate request is just to table this until more study is done, and specifically the apartments and business buildings that are going up on the corner of Brimhall and White Rock. She indicated that a traffic study has not been done, and a tally of the number of children in the neighborhood should be done. She stated they would be glad to do the tallying of the children. She further stated that they don't have a problem with the zone change from C-2 to CO. She indicated that they would like to see the traffic be routed out of the business complex onto Brimhall instead of through the neighborhood. Furthermore, they would like to see the apartments be routed away from the neighborhood as well. She also inquired where the statistics came that the zone change decreases the intents of the uses. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Hillside Development (HD) Combining Zone Amendment (Negative Declaration on file) (Item previously continued from July 6, 2006 to August 14, 2006 and then from August 14, 2006 to September 5& 7, 2006). (Note: The public hearing for this item was closed on July 6, 2006). The public is informed that this item has been continued to September 5 & 7, 2006. 4.1 b Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of July 20, 2006. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the Minutes of the July 20, 2006 meeting. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10606 (San Joaquin Engineering) 4.2b Approval of Amendment to the Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 17.60 (Signs) of the Zoning Ordinance (City of Bakersfield) 4.2c Approve continuance until September 7, 2006 Vesting Tentative Tract 6517 (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) Planning Commission —August 17, 2006 Page 2 4.2d Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan (Revised) No. 06-1166 (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11476 (Porter— Robertson) 4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11508 (Porter— Robertson) 4.2g Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6859 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) 4.2h Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6844 (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) 4.2i Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6872 (Dunmore Communities) 4.2j Approval of Zone Change 06-0368 (Olsen Design Studio) The public hearing is opened. No one from the public requested removal of any item from the consent calendar. Commissioner Tragish requested removal of consent item 4.2h (6.4) from the consent agenda. The public hearing on the consent items was closed except for 4.2c and 4.2h. Commissioner Tkac stated that he listened to the tape from Monday's meeting. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the consent calendar, except for consent items 4.2c and 4.2h. Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - Comprehensive Sign Plan (Revised) No. 06-1166 (McIntosh & Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — Tentative Parcel Maps / Tentative Tract Maps 6.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11476 (Porter—Robertson) Heard on consent calendar. 6.2 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11508 (Porter—Robertson) Heard on consent calendar. 6.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6859 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 6.4 Vesting Tentative Tract 6844 (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Brett Dawson with San Joaquin Engineering, representing the developer, stated that this is the last of six subdivisions that they have proposed for north half of section 23, which resides on the south side of the Rio Bravo Country Club. He stated that they agree with Staff's recommendation. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated he wanted to inquire and clarify that there is sufficient access to the park given the other tracts in the area. Staff provided an explanation. Commissioner Tragish further inquired what the circulation is to get the people in and out of the open spaces. Staff further clarified. Planning Commission —August 17, 2006 Page 3 Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6844 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution and including the memo from the Parks Department dated August 15, 2006. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES:None 6.5 Vesting Tentative Tract 6853 (Porter- Robertson Engineering) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Ms. Shaw noted the following correction in her memo with regard to condition 4.2.3 that places within phase 4 improvement requirements, should actually be numbered 4.1.4 which places it in the phase 1 requirements. She also confirmed that 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 will be cleaned up as well. Staff further indicated that there is an August 15, 2006 memo from the Planning Department, but it does not need to be mentioned in a motion. Staff continued with their report. Fred Rappleye with West Coast Land Service, representing Dole Enterprises, the lessee of the oil and gas lease, stated that all they want as the lessee is for the Planning Commission to implement the ordinance that is in place with regard to the 100 ft. setback, the 75, and give them their area around their wells. He pointed out that he does not know why 2 of the 4 wells are not being recognized as producing wells, as they are pumping. Gordon Dole stated the 2 wells were taken off the forfeit well list about 7 months ago, and they are back on production about three months ago. He pointed out that they produce part time and he would like his space around them. He suggested that this be continued until they figure out the map and give him his space in accordance with the ordinance. James Lundy, the property owner as well as the mineral right holder, stated he hopes the Planning Commission will find in his favor. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the drilling islands under the code for wells that are already producing, or if they are for future production. Staff responded that the ordinance indicates for future production. Commissioner Tragish further inquired if Staff knows if these two other wells are actually producing, to which Staff indicated they do not know. He further inquired that if there are producing wells, other than the two identified on the map, whose responsibility it is to provide and set aside for those wells. Staff responded that if it is a producing well, and it is legally in production under the terms of the lease, it would be the responsibility of the subdivider to accommodate the wells. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they have any responsibility to identify it and require the developer to provide for that. Staff responded that the Planning Commission has a judgment call as to if they are legally producing wells if they want the developer to accommodate them. Staff pointed out that a map cannot be recorded until the wells are legally abandoned. Staff clarified that if the wells were to be recognized, a condition would have to be placed for the developer to redesign that portion of the map. Commissioner Tragish inquired if ordinance requires 6'walls around drill islands. Staff responded that the ordinance does require 6'walls, and in this particular case they are asking for 8'walls. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Rappleye if the wells are producing oil, to which Mr. Rappleye stated they are. Mr. Rappleye stated that this is brought up in a July 25th letter from the Division of Oil & Gas stating four wells are operating and active. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they are legally producing oil, to which Mr. Rappleye responded they are. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Lundy why the legally producing wells were not provided for on the map. Mr. Lundy stated that the wells are not legally producing, and that they have a civil matter involving a default of the lease, been served notice, and did not respond to the cure period. He stated that Mr. Rappleye was subsequently notified to terminate per the lease and abandon the lease per the Division of Oil Gas. Planning Commission —August 17, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Tkac stated as he sees this, he is not sure how they can move forward with the pending legal issues. Staff responded that they don't think there will ever be enough facts until the judge makes a decision as to which party is right in this particular case. Staff indicated that the Planning Commission has to make a judgment if what they have before them as conditions on the map, and the map design whether or not it accommodates to the Planning Commission's satisfaction the drilling. Staff further pointed out that these are not shown as actual sites, but there is a condition that they have to be properly abandoned before recordation of a map. Commissioner Tkac inquired about a previous mineral right owner case involving Mr. Rudnick in comparison to this current agenda item. Staff provided an explanation. Commissioner Johnson stated that he does not think they can decide what is producing legally or not, and does not see how they can address a civil matter at the planning level. Commissioner McGinnis inquired as to the dark marks in the center of the section and if they are abandoned wells. Mr. Lundy stated they are not, and that there is a water well on site in that vicinity. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he does not think the Planning Commission can decide a matter that goes beyond what is an abandoned well and what is not. He inquired if they were to take this item at face value and not consider the testimony given for or against it, if it was approved it would continue on until the civil dispute was litigated and resolved. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if they have been continuously producing wells, to which Mr. Rappleye responded that they have not. Mr. Rappleye stated that they may not have been producing for the last year or two. Mr. Rappleye responded that Mr. Lundy is receiving royalties from all four wells, and pointed out that allegations open up a lot of ears, and the facts fall down to the bottom. Commissioner McGinnis stated that the Planning Commission has one or two decisions. They can continue this until the civil matter is resolved, or to proceed and either approve or disapprove of the map provided. (end of side A, beginning of side B) Commissioner Lomas requested a copy of the letter indicating the production of the two subject wells, and have Mr. Sherfy confirm the documentation therein. Break Taken Mr. Sherfy stated that letter of July 25 from the Division of Oil & Gas addressed to the City Planning Department, does use terminology that says that there are four active production wells. He pointed out that at this time all that is an opinion from the Division of Oil & Gas, and they don't know because they are not a party to what's happened with regard to the lease. Mr. Sherfy indicated that this letter does not resolve the underlying legal problems and should not guide the Planning Commission in their decision with regard to what should happen. Staff pointed out that the Planning Commission could put a condition that the applicant recognize the subject two wells in the design of the tract. Commissioner Tragish stated they need to look to the recorded mineral owner. He stated that he agrees with Staff's approach to this. Commissioner Tkac indicated that he counted five potential wells. Mr. Lundy responded that he is not aware of five wells, but pointed out that there is a water well. He further inquired if the Division of Oil & Gas is constantly updating their information as to the maps. Mr. Lundy responded that they surveyed the property, and the wells in question have not produced since 1999. Commissioner Tkac inquired if this item is approved where the project goes from here. Staff responded that it would go to the City Council who would have to determine whether it's appropriate to set aside drill Planning Commission —August 17, 2006 Page 5 sites for those wells or to allow them to be acted as if they were abandoned. When it came back to Staff, staff would look for recordation if those issues have been resolved. If the map had to be redesigned it could come back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tkac commented that he does not think Staff would recommend going forward with this if they thought a lot of these issues out. He stated his thought is to push it to council and move on blind of the rest of the detail and go forward with the map they're asking for. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the Division of Oil & Gas letter addressed to the Planning Dept. was in the Planning Commission file, to which Staff responded in the negative. Staff commented that theoretically, a condition could be constructed that would indicate if the lessee prevailed in litigation they shall redesign the map. However, he pointed out that it would put Staff in an awkward position of deciding what's big enough, and would prefer that it come back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Spencer stated he is more concerned about the subdivision having additional access that is not specifically shown on the map that they have. He stated that he would go along with a motion with conditions of approval with an amendment as indicated by Staff as long as they have the secondary access going up to Rosedale Highway. He inquired if secondary access is provided with phase 1 of development. Staff responded that the phase 1 boundary includes the access out to Calloway frontage road, but that a letter requires another access out to Rosedale Highway, and therefore with phase 1 there will be two points of access. Commissioner Lomas stated that the motion should reflect Ms. Shaw's memo of August 15th indicating that 4.2.3 will now be known as 4.1.4, which will take care of moving the road construction into phase 1. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve vesting tentative tract map 6853 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution incorporating Ms. Shaw's August 15th memo with the amendment of changing the numbering from 4.2.3 to be now known as 4.1.4. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES:None 6.6 Vesting Tentative Tract 6872 (Dunmore Communities) Heard on consent calendar. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Zone Changes 7.1 Zone Change 06-0368 (Olsen Design Studio) Heard on consent calendar. 7.2 Zone Change 06-0737 (Porter-Robertson) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Rev. Rose Schmall, from Sand Creek Drive, stated they have no problem with the zone change. They are concerned about the traffic circulation from the business site into the neighborhood. She stated that it is her understanding that when a zone change is done another traffic impact report is suppose to be done. She requested that the traffic be routed out of the proposed business offices on the corner of Brimhall and River Ranch onto Brimhall only instead of through the residential area, which means there would need to be a right turn only. Roland Van de Vack, with Porter Robertson Engineering and Surveying, representing the developer and property owner, stated they have had to make some adjustments and because those adjustments came across the zoning boundaries, they were asked to submit an application for the zone change. He stated that it has nothing to do with the previously approved zone change General Plan amendment that dictated how the site was to be accessed or designed or utilized, or anything to do with the site, but had to do with making sure the zoning districts were in proper place with the property lines. He stated that Planning Commission —August 17, 2006 Page 6 traffic will not be racing through a residential area. He stated the development has an exit onto River Ranch, but it would be going back in the wrong direction to get back into the neighborhood in order to be traveling through the neighborhood. He indicated they would be making a right turn on River Ranch and going out to Brimhall, and thus going whatever direction off of Brimhall to make their way home, unless they actually live in this same neighborhood. Mr. Van de Vack indicated that Brimhall is a collector street, which does not have a median island, and there is no restrictions as to a right or left turn off of that collector. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish confirmed from Ms. Schmall that she does not want an access from this property from it's west side onto Brimhall because of her concern that it is so close to River Ranch that it's going to pull a lot of traffic into her project. Ms. Schmall responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that he does not see why cars would want to go into the neighborhood. Ms., Schmall said that she thinks people would go through the neighborhood to avoid the congestion that would be turning right on White Rock to get to Brimhall. She confirmed that there is a stop light at Harvest Creek and Brimhall, and that is where cars would want to go to make a left onto Brimhall. Commissioner Lomas stated the area is built, and they can't tear down buildings. She inquired if Staff can explain the traffic flow. Staff indicated that they do not dispute what Rev. Schmall has stated. He further indicated that they don't have a way of going back and retrofitting what had been approved a couple of years ago. He stated that a traffic study was not required for this action since it's a small amount, and because it's a reduction in the intensity of use. He stated that because it is changing from C-2 (General Commercial Retail) to Office, there is actually a reduction of 25 trips per day off of the area because that part of the commercial retail will not be built as commercial retail. Staff further pointed out that the previous traffic study 2 years ago determined that a traffic signal is warranted at River Ranch and Brimhall, and is on their project list. Commissioner Lomas suggested that Rev. Schmall call her councilperson to urge them to move River Ranch signal onto the next budget. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the driveway on the west side of the project access from the property to Brimhall directly onto Brimhall, or if it access from the property directly onto River Ranch. Staff responded that it accesses directly onto River Ranch. Commissioner Tkac inquired if the situation is going to be improved with the change, to which Commissioner Lomas responded that it is providing an easterly access. He stated that he is willing to make a motion. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is a problem putting the driveway access onto Brimhall rather than River Ranch and what the significance is of having it go onto River Ranch. Staff responded that the access to that property is not before the Planning Commission in that the applicant already has an approved site plan and an approved subdivision with regard to how that whole CO portion is going to be accessed, and therefore, it's not within the Planning Commission's authority to change that. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the zone change 06-0737 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A" and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES:None 8. COMMUNICATIONS: None. Planning Commission —August 17, 2006 Page 7 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Lomas commented that in her review of drill island standards she found that they make no sense, and inquired how they can get clarification. Staff responded that will take a look at it and see how much resources they would have to expend on it. 10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director September 27, 2006