Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSept 21, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 0`, September 21, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis Spencer, Tkac, Tragish Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Jim Movius, Marian Shaw, Jack Highfill Staff: Marc Gauthier, Dana Cornelius 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Marty Whitten will wait to speak on item 5.7(a) and (b). Luis Vega would like to pull 5.1 from consent. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of August 17, 2006. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the Non- Public Hearing Items Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1271 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2b Approval of Zone Change 05-1271 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2c Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-0349 (Cornerstone Engineering, Inc.) 4.2d Approval of Zone Change 06-0349 (Cornerstone Engineering, Inc.) 4.2e Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1428 (Pinnacle Engineering) 4.2f Approval of Zone Change 05-1428 (Pinnacle Engineering) 4.2g Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-0377 (Hendricks Engineering) • Items on this Agenda will be heard at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, but not necessarily in the same order. Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 2 4.2h Approval of Zone Change 06-0377 (Hendricks Engineering) 4.2i Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1933 (ADAVCO) 4.2j Approval of Zone Change 05-1933 (ADAVCO) 4.2k Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-0435 (Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying) 4.21 Approval of Zone Change 06-0435 (Porter-Robertson Engineering &Surveying) 4.2m Approval of P.C.D. 06-0435 Plan Review (Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying) 4.2n Approval of P.C.D. 05-1227 Modification (Porter-Robertson Engineering & Surveying) 4.2o Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-0456 (Maurice Etchechury) 4.2p Approval of Zone Change 06-0456 (Maurice Etchechury) 4.2q Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-0463 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) 4.2r Approval of Zone Change 06-0463 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) 4.2s Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-0465 (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) 4.2t Approval of Zone Change 06-0465 (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) The public hearing is opened. Matt Volvella, Pinnacle Engineering, requested removal of 4.2e and 4.2f from the Consent Calendar. Staff indicated that 4.2a and 4.2b need to be removed per Mr. Vega's request. Commissioner Tkac stated that he did listen to Monday's pre-meeting and he will be participating in this evening's meeting. He also stated that due to a conflict of interest, he will be conflicting out on 4.2e (5.3a) 4.2f(5.3b), 4.2i (5.5a), 4.2j (5.5b, 4.20 (5.8a) and 4.2p (5.8b) Commissioner Johnson stated that he did listen to Monday's pre-meeting and he will be participating in this evening's meeting. Mike Petrini requested removal of Items 5.9a & b. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of the items that have been removed, which include 4.2a, 4.2b, 4.2e, 4.2f, 4.2q and 4.2r. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: none 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendment/ Zone Change/P.C.D Plan Review/P.C.D. Modification Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 3 5.1a General Plan Amendment 05-1271 (McIntosh &Associates) 5.1 b Zone Change 05-1271 (McIntosh &Associates) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Roger McIntosh, representing S&J Alfalfa, stated this could go back on consent agenda. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley, moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from HR to LR (low density residential) on 7.35 acres, HR to LMR (low-medium density residential) on 16.12 acres, and LR to LMR on 3.16 acres, as shown on Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES:none Commissioner Blockley, moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from R-3 (multiple family dwellings) to R-1 (one family dwelling) on 7.35 acres, R-3 to R-2 (limited multi-family dwelling) on 16.12 acres, and R-1 to R-2 on 3.16 acres, as shown on Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES:none 5.2a General Plan Amendment 06-0349 (Cornerstone Engineering, Inc.) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.2b Zone Change 06-0349 (Cornerstone Engineering, Inc.) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.3a General Plan Amendment 05-1428 (Pinnacle Engineering) 5.3b Zone Change 05-1428 (Pinnacle Engineering) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Matt Volvella, from Pinnacle Engineering, stated he would like to request reconsideration of the condition from Public Works requiring one-half of the improvements of Panama Lane on the south half to full width from the west project boundary to Cottonwood Road. He stated it is an arterial and is approximately '/mile which is a substantial improvement. Mr. Volvella pointed out that he is not aware of any other project where this type of improvement was conditioned without some reimbursement such as a traffic impact fee reimbursement, etc. He stated that perhaps the improvement could be to add one lane on south half, or if full improvement is required that the segment be added to the traffic impact fee list. Mr. Volvella also commented that the condition could probably be added at the tentative map stage. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that his concern is with the traffic in that this is an intense development, and there is a similar development to the south of this one that is intense as well. Commissioner Tragish inquired if a traffic impact fee reimbursement is available to the applicant. Staff responded that currently this portion of Panama Lane is not on a transportation impact fee list, and for it to be added requires Council action. Staff stated they could look into it, but cannot guarantee that it would get on the list. Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Tragish further commented that when these issues come up at the tentative tract map stage, the Planning Commission's discretion is substantially narrowed at that point, and more findings have to be made to support it. He stated that given the rate of growth in this area he will support the conditioned improvements. Commissioner Johnson inquired what is going on with the property directly to the west. Staff responded that they have nothing on the property to the west. Commissioner Johnson further inquired what the potential is for the property on the west coming in to do something before the build out occurs in this subject tract. Staff responded that there is no way to tell. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Council could put the addition to the traffic impact fee as an added condition, at the meeting when this is reviewed. Staff responded that when the General Plan Amendment goes before the Council, Council could direct Staff to look into adding it to the list; however they would not be able to add it to the list that same night. Commissioner McGinnis concurred with Commissioner Tragish's concerns with regard to the unsafe situation with the increased density at the intersection in question. Commissioner Blockley concurred with Commissioners Tragish and McGinnis, and added that one of mitigating circumstances that overcomes the objections he has with burdening a single project is that this is a project which is currently in the County being annexed to the City, and when viewing the map, you can see the erratic nature of the City-County boundary in this vicinity. He stated that he will support the motion as is. Commissioner Lomas, reiterated the need for orderly development, and needing to have the improvements. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, 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 100 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, and to include the memorandum from Ms. Shaw dated September 19, 2006, memorandum dated September 19, 2006 from Public Works, and memorandum dated September 14, 2006 from Planning, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES:none Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from RS-28 to R-1 on 100 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, and to include the memorandum from Ms. Shaw dated September 19, 2006, memorandum dated September 19, 2006 from Public Works, and memorandum dated September 14, 2006 from Planning, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES:none 5.4a General Plan Amendment 06-0377 (Hendricks Engineering) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.4b Zone Change 06-0377 (Hendricks Engineering) Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 5 Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.5a General Plan Amendment 05-1933 (ADAVCO) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.5b Zone Change 05-1933 (ADAVCO) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.6a General Plan Amendment 06-0435 (Porter-Robertson Engineering &Surveying) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.6b Zone Change 06-0435 (Porter-Robertson Engineering &Surveying) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.6c P.C.D. 06-0435 Plan Review(Porter-Robertson Engineering &Surveying) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.6d P.C.D. 05-1227 Modification (Porter-Robertson Engineering &Surveying) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.7a General Plan Amendment 06-0443 (Marino and Associates) 5.7b Zone Change 06-0443 (Marino and Associates) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish recused himself from this item. Christine Boyer, representing Crimson Resource Management, stated they own and operate six oil production wells in the vicinity of the proposed zone change. She stated that Crimson would prefer that the zoning not change to residential as it is not compatible, and poses safety issue. Ms. Boyer further requested that their ingress and egress to their oilfield not be compromised. Marty Whitten, TD Whitton Construction, stated they are located to the east of this proposed project. He stated that they have large equipment in their business, and maintain a construction materials recycle facility on site. He stated that they are concerned that a high density apartment complex is inconsistent with the use, which currently has been heavy industrial for over 30 years. Mr. Marino stated they listened to the comments at Monday's pre-meeting and he agrees that it's a little more complicated then it first appeared. He stated that this is an in-fill project, however there is one 62-acre parcel currently, and the General Plan Amendment is only covering a part of the property. Mr. Marino pointed out that Crimson's oil wells are on the applicant's property of which they own the surface. He stated the applicant has no intentions of interfering with the oil production. Mr. Marino further stated on the south side of Pacheco the vacant land is already at its highest and best use with approximately six water wells on that site, and is California Water Service's most productive water "farming area." Mr. Marino stated that before the Planning Commission sees the tract map, Akers will be completed, with the crossing, to Pacheco, and then they will come back in as part of the site development and finish off the road. Mr. Marino stated that currently there are only three access points to the 62 acres. He pointed out that along the White Lane corridor there is over 1200 contiguous acres of jobs so that it somewhat functions like a center's plan. He stated that this is not significantly different then development in other areas, and pointed out that two previous projects were approved early tonight that had industrial and residential up against each other. He further pointed out that the residential area in the current project backs on to industrial along the west side of the neighborhood, and along the entire south boundary. He stated that there is another interface with South Woodmere and a Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 6 C-2 mobile home, as well as an existing residential interface with industrial land. Mr. Marino stated that with regard to the railroad crossing, this railroad typically has short trains and moves six to 20 cars around. He said the crossings at Stine Rd., Wible Rd. Gosford Rd., which are all arterials, are also at grade. He further commented that a canal relocation may, or may not, happen, but if it does get relocated it would be very minor. He stated that the M-2 property is their drill site, and will remain on the west side of Akers Rd., and remain part of the residential side, and will not be developed as anything on the M-2 zone list. Mr. Marino stated that Akers Rd. will be a 90' buffer from this property to the easterly property. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis stated that that area was established as industrial for a reason. He stated that he is concerned with what the currently zoned industrial owners will do in the future. He stated that by granting this he feels they are depriving the present property owners and their zoning rights. Commissioner Blockley stated he shares Commissioner McGinnis' concerns. He inquired if the 55 items listed in the M-2 zoning are allowed by right. Staff responded that if they are on the list of allowed uses, they are, and they wouldn't have to have a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Tkac inquired about the applicant's letter referencing Chapter 2 of the Land Use Element of the GP, item 70. Staff responded they don't know how the applicant is making that reference. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there is part of a flood plane that this area is on. Staff responded they have no knowledge of that. Commissioner Tkac inquired who has the surface rights. Staff responded that the owner of the project site has the surface rights to the drilling area as well as to the property on the east side of Akers Road. Commissioner Tkac indicated that he is not sure that the industrial change is warranted. He inquired of Staff as to what the plan time is for Akers to go through to Pacheco. Staff responded that the City of Bakersfield has a project for this, and will construct Akers Road from Pacheco over the canal with an at-grade rail crossing, and two travel lanes on Akers up to where the pavement terminates. Staff indicated that it will start in October, and should be completed by February 2007. Commissioner Tkac inquired what access will be there to those areas along this new road. Staff responded that they are only providing two lanes of paving, and that they are not aware of any driveways, although they have not reviewed the plans. Commissioner Tkac further inquired who the landowner is on the east side of Akers, to which Staff responded it is the project applicant. Commissioner Tkac commented that there is concrete crushing in the area, and is not comfortable with residential in the area. Commissioner Johnson stated that he concurs with the previous comments made by the Commissioners. Commissioner Lomas commented that she saw this as an opportunity to get Akers through. She further commented that she has not been able to read Mr. Whitton's 6-page letter. She further inquired about Christopher Billington's correspondence. Staff indicated that they responded to this correspondence. Commissioner Lomas stated that she would support a continuance as she has questions that cannot be answered this evening. Commissioner Spencer inquired about the hazardous materials that could cause a problem, and cannot justify multi-family homes in a situation like this. He stated that he is not in favor of a continuance. Commissioner McGinnis commented that it seems curious that when they have a development such as this that there is high density residential, and the people who are aware of all of things around there probably are not going to be the same people who are living there. Commissioner Blockley stated that he really doesn't want to discourage this project, and the location is to be commended, especially since the City is proposing to put Akers through, which would make a very needed connection in this area. He stated that no one has offered anything to Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 7 overcome the objections raised. He stated that the M-2 may not be continued, and cannot be justified, and would be more enthusiastic about supporting this project if the M-2 was part of the zone change, and General Plan Amendment, to get it out of M-2 and turn it into M-1. Commissioner Lomas inquired about dealing with the M-2 to the southwest. Staff commented that since the M-2 is not before the Planning Commission they cannot deal with it, or put a condition on the M-2. Staff pointed out that the M-2 may be less restrictive for mineral right purposes then an M-1. Staff confirmed that there could be a DI zone as well. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and denying the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from LI to HMR on 23.68 acres, and SI to HMR on 4.86 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES:none Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and denying the zone change application M1 to R-2 on 10.26 acres, and M-2 to R-2 on 18.26 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES:none Commissioner Lomas stated that she likes parts of this project, and other parts were obstacles that most of the Planning Commission couldn't get past. She commented if the drill island was taken care of, and the M-2 to the east, and maybe a PUD on the project would be helpful in the future. 10 minute break taken. 5.8a General Plan Amendment 06-0456 (Maurice Etchechury) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.8b Zone Change 06-0456 (Maurice Etchechury) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.9a General Plan Amendment 06-0463 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) 5.9b Zone Change 06-0463 (SmithTech/USA, Inc.) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Bob Smith with SmithTech/USA, stated they are in favor of Staff's recommendation. He stated with regard to construction of the '/ mile improvement west of the project to full width on the north side, all of the property in the area is being developed and is not the outskirts. He pointed out that the standards of the city is to have 32 ft. of paving to existing roads. The Staff report indicates that the City is going to install full width on the south side of McCutchen, which would be 48 ft. of paving, which would take what is normally policy in the City. Mr. Smith argued that the 32+ that the city is putting in on the south side is consistent with existing policy, and would be adequate until the property on the corner is developed. He further inquired if there would be credits applied, and pointed out that it is not Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 8 clear when the requirement is asked for of the project phase. He further pointed out that "full improvements" is not specifically defined, as well as the mechanism of eminent domain has become an issue. Mr. Smith stated that they are very concerned about the condition, and think that access and transportation is adequate. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the property to the east. Staff responded they don't have an application to the property to the east between their eastern boundary and Ashe Rd. at this time. Commissioner Lomas reiterated why they started doing these improvements a couple of years ago. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to what Mr. Smith is objecting to. Staff responded the applicant objects to improving McCutchen Rd. on their side of the project to Ashe. He further inquired where this condition is in the Staff report. Staff responded they initially revised Condition 8, and then it was redone to revise Condition 1 and adding a Condition. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is any activity on the property between this applicant and Ashe Rd. Staff responded there have been no applications on that portion. Commissioner Tragish commented that this area appears to be developing rapidly, and it does not appear that the improvements would be premature. He further inquired about a credit on the TIM. Staff responded that a credit is available, but is only for one lane. Commissioner Blockley inquired if there were development on the property directly to the east prior to development on the current project, if the northerly half of McCutchen Rd would be required by that applicant. Staff responded in the affirmative. Staff stated that if the timing of the improvements is correct then the notation of an "unfair burden" would be gone. Commissioner Blockley stated that in light of this he does not think it is unreasonable. Staff suggested that they be allowed to add language that would render the condition moot if a subsequent development comes in that is responsible for the development on McCutchen. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there needs to be a condition providing that the requirement to improve McCutchen from the applicant's property to Ashe Rd. be nullified or superceded if the property to the east came in for any kind of development. Commissioner Blockley 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 R-IA to LI on 41 acres, and LMR on 39 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City Council, incorporating the September 20, 2006 memo modifying Condition 1A, and further modifying that condition to read, "Construct full improvements on the north side of McCutchen Road from the east boundary to the GPA/ZC area to the intersection of Ashe Rd. upon further development of the GPA/ZC parcel, unless this portion of McCutchen Road is required as part of a separate development proposal to the east. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish Lomas NOES:none Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the Zone Change A to M-1 on 41 acres, and R-2 on 39 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, and recommend the same to City Council, incorporating the September 20, 2006 memo modifying Condition 1A, and further modifying that condition to read, "Construct full improvements on the north side of McCutchen Road from the east boundary to the GPA/ZC area to the intersection of Ashe Rd. upon further development of the GPA/ZC parcel, unless this portion of McCutchen Road is required as part of a separate development proposal to the east. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 9 AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish Lomas NOES:none 5.10 General Plan Amendment 06-0464 (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Louie Vega inquired about the impact on traffic that this type of housing development will have. Staff responded that the area itself is about 20 acres in size; however, it is Staff's understanding that it would be developed in concert with an additional property to the west, that already has low-density residential and R-1 entitlements. Mr. Vega also pointed out that there are foxes in the area, and therefore there is an impact on existing wildlife habitant. Iva Kendrick, a resident in the area, stated they lived in a resort area which was lush with huge trees, with fly way for migrating birds. She further stated that there are Kit Foxes in that area, as well as other natural wildlife. She stated that this development will eliminate this habitant. She stated that since the trees have been cut done they notice different types of birds that are coming around. She stated that this development does have an effect on everyone in the area. She further pointed out that there is a water way that drained into a pond (Cherry Lake), and fed into a creek. She also pointed out that the main problem is going to be the roads. She inquired if the City and/or County is planning to do something with the Old Alfred Harrell Highway which is north of this development, where it could go through C.A.L.M. and come out another way so all the residents won't be coming out on Ming Lake Rd. to Alfred Harrell. Ms. Kendrick also stated that she is concerned with preserving the ambiance in the hills. She stated that she would like to see a green belt of some sort between their development and the new development to provide a buffer. Patti Wilson stated she has concerns with the tract map that has been produced over the two pieces of property, and inquired when is the best time to deal with the issues that they have with the actual development on the tract map. Phil Bentley, a resident in the Rio Bravo area, commented that he has met with the developer and the engineering firm, and was impressed with their openness and desire to mitigate any concerns they had. He stated that he believes George Nickel envisioned that area with a Phase Three, which would have access to the property adjacent, be there many years ago. He stated that he believes if they get the envisioned high end homes out in this area it will be an asset to Bakersfield, and how it presents itself for the community in the long run. Brett Dawson, with San Joaquin Engineering, representing the developer, stated the project is a portion of a larger development that will come before this commission once the GPA is approved. He stated that the project in its entirety is 53 acres, and proposes 196 lots. He added that the density with this development is actually less dense then the home owners to the south of this project. He stated that the lots range in size from 7100 sq. ft. to 19,000 sq. ft, and they expect the homes in this project to range from 2500 sq. ft. to 2800 sq ft. with home prices somewhere between $450,000 and $750,000. He stated they have had numerous meetings with the homeowners and have tried to address many of the concerns. He stated that they have dealt with sound issues, views, fencing, landscaping, pedestrian access, and traffic. He pointed out that within the neighbors themselves there are differencing opinions on what they want. Mr. Dawson stated that with respect to traffic it is relatively easy to deal with, in that this project will end up paying around $500 million in traffic impact fees and $1.2 million in traffic impact fees for the total project. He stated that in addition to that, this project will construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Alfred Harrell Highway and Lake Ming Rd., and they will widen Lake Ming Road on the westerly side, as well as expect to develop half of Old Alfred Harrell Highway. Therefore, the traffic impacts are being mitigated. Mr. Dawson further stated that with regard to establishing a green belt there is a natural existing drainage channel that separates the two properties, and that will create a buffer. Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Dawson reminded the Commission that the application seeks a dramatically less intense land use, therefore will have fewer impacts. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he thinks this is a nice development and is more amenable then commercial. He further commented that he does not think there will be traffic issues as there appears that there will be a traffic light at Alfred Harrell and Lake Ming. He also stated that he thinks the developer has made good attempts to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Tkac inquired about the location of the green belt. Staff responded by showing it on a map. Commissioner Tkac inquired what the density was at the time when the hotel and apartments were out there. Staff responded they did not know off hand. He further inquired if they could limit the development to one-story. Staff responded that there are two types of application; one being a GPA. Staff pointed out that theoretically on the perimeter adjacent to the residential there could be a single-story restriction, however when the tract map comes before the Planning Commission they are limited by state law as to what can be required. Commissioner Tkac stated it looks as if the developer will be having large trees in the area. He inquired if some of the trees from the previous development were still remaining. Mr. Dawson responded that many of the interior trees have been removed; however a lot of the trees up against Lake Ming Road have been preserved. Commissioner Tkac stated at this point he is in support of this project. Commissioner Tragish inquired what trails are being talked about, and Staff responded that it is not part of the adopted trail system, but just an informal trail across vacant land. Commissioner Tragish inquired who owns the property to the west and north of the condos. Staff responded it is the same applicant before the Planning Commission tonight. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not want to get between two adjacent homeowners as to who has rights to a trail and whether they are vested, etc. He inquired if the Planning Commission has standing to address this issue. Staff responded that if it was through the project area in the current project item before the Planning Commission it could be addressed, however it is not before the Planning Commission and therefore it would be very difficult to address this evening. Commissioner Tragish commented that the traffic issues raised were good ones. He inquired if the impact of this project to the Lake Ming Road will be able to handle the traffic that will be coming into this area. Staff responded that the project has an estimated peak hour trips of 79, and there will be around an average of 800 daily trips. He pointed out that Lake Ming Road is classified as an arterial, and Masterson will go across Alfred Harrell Hwy and up the hill. He further pointed out that it will be a signalized intersection and is already warranted as such. Staff further stated that it is comparatively an insignificant amount of traffic for the road. Commissioner Tragish also inquired if the access to the condos on the west will be Alfred Harrell Hwy and where the referenced access was through the applicant's property into the condo. Staff responded that it is almost like a frontage road in that there is an entry road into the subdivision that is perpendicular to Lake Ming Road and from that to the left there is a road that parallels Lake Ming Road and goes behind the fire station into the condo project, and therefore is not actually accessed off of Alfred Harrell Hwy. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the maintenance of that access would need to be a condition, and staff responded that they would have to maintain the road within their project boundary. Commissioner Tragish also inquired if old Alfred Harrell Hwy could be re-connected to C.A.L.M. for another access out of the condo project. Staff responded that old Alfred Harrell Hwy is a County road, and currently just before you get to C.A.L.M. there are hammerhead cul-de-sacs face-to-face, and therefore is not really open to vehicular traffic. Staff further indicated that they don't think the traffic numbers for this project provide a nexus for putting old Alfred Harrell Hwy through, however; they could talk to the County. Commissioner Tragish stated that it does not seem fair to require the developer to have to put an access off of old Alfred Harrell Hwy onto the new one. Staff concurred with this. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the grounds are for an acoustical analysis. Staff responded that if it is an environment that is not typical of normal development in the City. Staff pointed out that this project does not have any frontage on Alfred Harrell Hwy. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they can require the applicant to have its own architecturally compatible security Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 11 fencing around the entire perimeter of this project. Staff responded they can address the fencing just around this project, and pointed out that typically the developer puts in a contractor's wood fence. Commissioner Tragish also inquired about the single story issue, and Staff responded that it could be addressed this evening. Commissioner Tragish further inquired about the sewer issues raised, and Staff responded it could be dealt with at the tract stage. Commissioner Tragish further asked Staff to explain what they do for the Kit fox issue raised. Staff responded that they did have a biological study for this site, and the City does have a Habitat Conservation Plan which provides for mitigation. Commissioner Tragish also asked when a noise study should be done, to which Staff responded it should be submitted with the tentative tract map. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would be in favor of some type of fencing separating the condos on the west from the development on the east from Old Alfred Harrell Hwy going south to the end of the project. He stated he thinks a noise study would be worthwhile having done and presented at the time of the tract map. Commissioner Johnson stated he would be interested in seeing how the applicant would propose dealing with the fencing. He stated that he thinks this GPA cleans up some of some the language and allows the R-1 to use the use in this area in the best way for the community. Commissioner Blockley commented that he would like to see a noise study as the boat races are comparable to Mesa Marin. He further commented that if there was enough "leakage" to fill a lake it seems to be a liability, and would recommend that if the condo association wants to maintain the lake they should take that upon themselves rather than rely on other property owners. He further inquired about the consistency between the General Plan and the zoning designations. Staff responded that it could impede other projects and that it is unusual to have this, but it was commercial because of the commercial use of the property. Commissioner Lomas asked Staff to further explain what entitlements this property owner has with a R-1 zoning. Staff provided an explanation. Commissioner Lomas stated the signal light will be put in. She further stated that the Rio Bravo golf course was zoned R-1 as well, and they should have been told that when the homeowners purchased their homes. Commissioner Lomas inquired what the footage is from the south west corner that affects the neighbors, to which Staff responded that it is 284 ft. Mr. Dawson presented some illustrations of the entire subdivision. She inquired of Mr. Dawson if the applicant would consider single story on the 284 ft. which apparently would consist of lots 43 and 44. Mr. Dawson responded they could do that. Commissioner Lomas further inquired what type of fencing would be used, to which Mr. Dawson stated they would like to construct wooden fencing along the 284 feet (lots 43 and 44) to provide privacy, and a block wall along the entrance road, as well as along Lake Ming Road per City requirements, although they would hope that Lake Ming Road, old Alfred Harrell Hwy and the southern perimeter could be view fencing. Patty Wilson stated Cherry Lake had not been addressed yet, and would like fencing around so the new development does not have access to Cherry Lake for security reasons. Commissioner Lomas commented that she would like to ask for a block wall from the southwest corner up through to Cherry Lake. Staff stated they could fashion a condition that states the Planning Commission shall approve fencing plans for the west boundary adjacent to the existing condo project with the tentative map. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that she would like the language to specifically point out that the condo's eastern boundary have a secure wall. Staff stated the language could read, "Planning Commission shall approve fencing/wall plans for the west boundary adjacent to the existing condo project." Commissioner Lomas stated that she would also like language about the two-story prohibited for 290 feet. Mr. Dawson agreed. Commissioner Johnson wanted to give Mr. Bentley an opportunity to approach the Commission. Mr. Bentley stated that he wanted to point out that there is a diverse opinion on fencing and walls. Commissioner Johnson inquired if they resolved the noise study issue. Commissioner Lomas stated they did not. He further inquired if putting a condition about notification of the recreational Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 12 activities at Lake Ming would accomplish the same goals of the noise study. Commissioner Lomas stated that she thinks this would make more sense. Staff responded that if the noise from Lake Ming is the issue their approach is appropriate because the noise study will exempt the boat noises from the noise element because they know it's a nuisance every once in a while, and the General Plan already accommodates for it. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he does think that it should be a covenant, as well as the proposed oil well drillings. Commissioner Lomas inquired where the oil wells are located. Staff pointed out their understanding of their location. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that it is hard to disclose something they are not sure of. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if it can be done at the map stage, to which Staff responded that a condition could be fashioned tonight that says "the conditions on the tentative tract shall include a covenant disclosing potential noise impacts from Lake Ming and adjacent oil drilling uses." Commissioner Tragish stated if the bases for a noise study is when the property is next to an arterial, and in this case it will be next to an expressway, and inquired if it is not necessary in this situation given the current status and condition of the area not being fully built out. Staff responded that existing ordinances deal adequately with subdivisions adjacent to arterial, but don't deal well when you're adjacent to uses like the drag boat races. Staff stated, therefore, they don't think it's necessary to have a noise study for its relationship to Alfred Harrell Hwy. 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 LR on 20.76 acres as shown on Exhibit A-2, and incorporating two memos from Planning dated September 19, 2006, and adding the following four conditions: 1) Development on any lots adjacent to the southern 290 feet of the west property line shall be limited to single story structures. 2) The Planning Commission shall approve fencing/wall plans for the west boundary adjacent to the existing condo project with a tentative map. 3) Require covenants disclosing that there is noise from recreational activities at Lake Ming, and the potential of disruption or intrusions of oil operations as appropriate. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES:none 5.11a General Plan Amendment 06-0465 (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.11 b Zone Change 06-0465 (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 6 COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Highfield from the Building Department responded to the question from the pre-meeting regarding the soils in the north east. He stated that after speaking with the contractor, the contractor in question has hired a third party soils engineer to investigate it. He stated that there appears to be at least some problem having to do with water intrusion, where damming water is standing up against the structure, but will need to be determined by the soils engineer. Mr. Highfield stated that it appears to be something done by the homeowner, and there have been no other complaints in the whole area. 7. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. Planning Commission — September 21, 2006 Page 13 8. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director October 24, 2006