Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 18, 2006 Pre-Mtg PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 0 ` Pre-Meeting — December 18, 2006 - 12:15 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, McGinnis, Tragish Absent: Commissioners Johnson, Spencer, Tkac. Advisory Members: Staff: Jim Eggert, Marc Gauthier, Dana Cornelius, Robin Gessner, Jennie Eng 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: Deferred until December21st meeting. 4.2 Public Hearing Items: Deferred until December 21st meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — EIR/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS/ Land Use Circulation and Kern River Plan Elements Amendment/Zone Change/Tentative Parcel Map 5.1a West Ming Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA/ZC 03-1544 (Castle & Cooke) 5.1 b General Plan Amendment 03-1544 (Castle & Cooke) 5.1c Adoption of the West Ming Specific Plan (Castle & Cooke) 5.1 d Zone Change 03-1544 (Castle & Cooke) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff could indicate in the last 18 months how many projects we have approved of the Specific Plan or otherwise, where more than 1500 homes were to be built in this project and how many homes have they approved since January 1St. He pointed out that there are two EIR's and two large projects. Commissioner Tragish further inquired as to the location of the urban decay study. Staff responded it is in the Responses to Comments packet. Commissioner Tragish further inquired as to which roads will be operating below the level of service C, requiring a statement of overriding consideration, and when it is anticipated to occur. Staff responded that they will have the Traffic Engineer provide a summary of these concerns at the December 21, 2006 meeting. Commissioner McGinnis stated he had similar concerns as Commissioner Tragish with regard to the traffic circulation. Planning Commission — December 18, 2006 Page 2 Commissioner Lomas stated that she would like more detail on the status of the Westside Parkway and the West Beltway. She further stated that she would like the status on the Allen Road Bridge. Commissioner Lomas also stated she would like supporting information to support the traffic study's referenced civil engineer report dated June 2005, and specifically as to the validity of the story, the basis used, and the validity of the numbers used. 5.2a General Plan Amendment 06-0535 (Dave Dmohowski) 5.21b Zone Change 06-0535 (Dave Dmohowski) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to what is going on in the corner, and if there are any other tract maps. Staff responded that on the south side of Taft Highway, east of Buena Vista Road, is a large project called Montecito, shown as GPA 05-1420. Staff pointed out on the other side of the street there is residential and no commercial because this project was in first and they told the developer from Las Vegas that they would recommend denial if it came in across the street from this project so they changed their project. Staff stated they have no knowledge about the southwest corner. Commissioner Tragish inquired about GPA 05-0743, to which Staff responded that it is already on the map. Staff also stated that the little R-1A property to the east is a different ownership. Commissioner Tragish again inquired how many square foot of commercial space has been approved in the last 18 months, if possible. Commissioner Blockley inquired as to a possible condition regarding limits on the number of privately funded traffic signals that might be along Buena Vista so that they don't end up with a multitude on the arterial coming right up on the expressway. Staff responded that there is a no courtesy lights within a half mile of the expressway. Staff further stated they will have a recommendation at the December 21, 2006 meeting. Commissioner Tragish stated he is concerned about that little piece to the east, and inquired if Staff could prepare some kind of language in case it comes up at the hearing on the December 21, 2006 meeting so that they can have some input and discussion from the developer on it in the event the PC wishes to have the applicant be responsible for improving the frontage of that particular property. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that it is already included in Condition 8. Commissioner Lomas inquired as to Condition 8, and if there are any more hoops that have to be jumped through since it is a state controlled highway. Staff responded that it would be the standard hoops with respect to a state facility, and they don't need to be referenced in the condition. Commissioner Tragish inquired what condition was referenced under traffic regarding the improvement of the frontage of that small piece. Staff responded that it is Exhibit A-1 on page 4 of 6, condition number 8, and states, "Construct full improvement on the north side of Taft Highway." 5.3a General Plan Amendment 06-0925 (McIntosh & Associates) 5.31b Zone Change 06-0925 (McIntosh & Associates) Staff report given. Staff also pointed out that the Allen Road Bridge starts construction in March, being well underway by June with completion within a year from June. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the funding for the canal crossing. Staff responded they will have an answer at the December 21, 2006 meeting. Commissioner Lomas further inquired if the western boundary of South Allen Road will have improvements, specifically half width on the western boundary. Staff responded that the .36 is the local mitigation for Panama Lane from Allen to Windemere. Staff responded that they don't actually say that you have to do the improvements on the frontage of the actual GPA area, but it is implied in Condition 6a where it is stated to provide dedication of everything that is within the tentative subdivision map. Staff pointed out that these are standard Planning Commission — December 18, 2006 Page 3 conditions. Staff further pointed out that Condition 8 is Barbara's condition: "Construct full improvements on the north side of Panama Lane along the frontage of 40 acre parcel east of the G PA." 5.4a General Plan Amendment 06-0938 (Centex Homes by McIntosh & Associates) 5.4b Zone Change 06-0938 (Centex Homes by McIntosh & Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas inquired if they are getting full improvements as requested by Cal Trans. Staff responded that there will be full improvements for Taft Highway across the frontage of the GPA, commenting that they are not allowing right in or right out. 5.5a General Plan Amendment 06-1014 (Lusich Company) 5.5b Zone Change 06-1014 (Lusich Company) Staff report given. Commissioner Blockley inquired if this is the pilot project for this type of mitigation, if there is a reason why it is being applied to this particular project as opposed to all those in the cycle. Staff responded that it is also on the West Ming project, as it was the EIR and identified agricultural land conversion and this project because the Sierra Club has challenged it and it is a large project. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the Berkshire alignment. Staff responded that they will have a map exhibit for the December 21st meeting. He further inquired about Progress Road and where it ends. Staff responded that Progress is no longer a collector and will not go through as a four lane road. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is only one way in and out of the project through Old River Road. Staff responded that if the other project does not go in first then they need to add the standard off site condition to this project. Staff stated they will take it out Berkshire to Old River. 5.6a Riverview Development Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA/ZC 06-0961 (Sky 21, LLC; North East 21 Ventures, LLC 5.6b General Plan Amendment 06-0961 (Sky 21, LLC; North East 21 Ventures, LLC) 5.6c Zone Change 06-0961 (Sky 21, LLC; North East 21 Ventures, LLC) 5.6d Tentative Parcel Map 11618 (Sikand Engineering) Staff report given. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the fire threat and why this project qualifies. Staff responded that the fire department can now look to the Hillside Ordinance and apply it to these projects. Staff responded they can provide the language from the ordinance. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is any benefit for this project to come in as a specific plan, or the way that it is in 24 parcels. Staff responded that it is their opinion that this project does not have enough deviations to warrant a specific plan. Staff pointed out that this project complies with all of the zoning requirements, except there may be some deviation for smart growth type of design which deals primarily with setbacks and landscaping corridors. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the deletion of the arterial. Staff explained the existing and deleted arterials. Commissioner Blockley commented about the number of acres in a private gated community and the benefit of such a large area that is off limits to the public. Staff responded that there are no official policies regarding public or private gated communities and therefore there is nothing to apply in this case. Staff stated they look at the area that may be blocking off a public trail system, etc. Staff pointed out that they did not see any specific amenity that they may want to travel to. Planning Commission — December 18, 2006 Page 4 Break Taken. 5.7a General Plan Amendment 06-0544 (Third Day Investments Group, LLC) 5.7b Zone Change 06-0544 (Third Day Investments Group, LLC) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the placement of this project at an intersection which appears to be surrounded by R-1. Staff responded it is a good spot because it has great access and will be efficient to move people in the higher density area right onto the roads that move them onto 178 and out to Paladino Drive, as well as east/west on Panorama Drive. Staff commented that most of NE Bakersfield is just R1. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the property to the west is zoned R1, to which staff responded that it is. Commissioner Tragish also inquired if the applicant would be building units on both sides of Panorama Drive, staff responded that Panorama is a collector at this location and there will be one tier of lots on the north side, and he can build on the other side of Panorama. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the Land Use Designation's reference to the densities and if they correspond to the R4, R3, R2 zoning district designations. Staff responded it is a rough corollary between LR and R1, LMR could be R2, and HMR could be R2, pointing out that the dividing line is 10 DU per net acre. Commissioner Blockley clarified that there is some overlap and not a one-to-one correspondence. Commissioner Lomas commented that since the Circulation Map shows Panorama going through it would be helpful if their maps showed the road going through on the projects. She inquired how tract 6645 will tie to this current project. Staff responded that the lots back up to it, and that the multiple family would typically be required to put up a block wall so there would be no access. Staff stated that they could hand deliver the street and lot designs for tract 6545. Commissioner Lomas stated that they would like to know that there will be sufficient driveways for access. Staff responded that it is very common to have frontages along a collector and Panorama is a collector in this case so there may be triplexes or four-plexes with access off the collector. Commissioner Lomas stated that she is having issues with the 100 feet and multiple family residences. Staff responded that it limits the number of units that can be built. Staff stated that they might want to consider a PUD overlay. 5.8a General Plan Amendment 06-0668 (Joseph Gergen) 5.81b Zone Change 06-0668 (Joseph Gergen) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas inquired if all of the improvements are in along Bernard, to which staff responded that there are no sidewalks. Commissioner Lomas stated that she wants to make sure the improvements are there as best as they can, and is concerned about the parcel to the east (the church parcel). Staff stated they will look at this concern. 5.9a General Plan Amendment 06-0940 (McIntosh & Associates) 5.91b Zone Change 06-0940 (McIntosh & Associates) Staff report given. No Commissioner comments. 5.10a General Plan Amendment 06-1018 (Cal-Kern Development III, LLC) 5.101b Zone Change 06-1018 (Cal-Kern Development III, LLC) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is a street that cuts through the middle. Staff responded the lines are zone lines, and stated the line that Commissioner Tragish pointed to is a local street and does not go through. Planning Commission — December 18, 2006 Page 5 Commissioner Lomas asked about the triangular tract to the south to which Staff responded it has not come before the PC yet. Commissioner Lomas stated that her concern was that the triangular piece would be responsible for putting in Morning Drive, and inquired how they will get a roadway if they are not contributing to Morning Drive. Staff responded that Condition 14 requires 32 feet of paving for shoulders along the Morning Drive alignment; staff responded it should actually say access to the project area from Paladino. Commissioner Blockley inquired if Condition 11 a makes sense with respect to this given that Morning Drive is realigned. Staff responded that Morning Drive hits the corner, but they will double check this issue. Commissioner Tragish commented that in the past he recalled having a condition that a permit could not be pulled until there was access from a certain street or collector or arterial. He inquired if the same could be applied here where a permit cannot be pulled until Morning Drive is completed to a certain extent. Staff responded that they will take care of this with their condition upon further review. Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is any trade-off for loss of the open space. Staff responded that they are not losing open space. 5.11 a General Plan Amendment 06-1037 (Cornerstone Engineering) 5.11 b Zone Change 06-1037 (Cornerstone Engineering) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas inquired about Phairfield Street to see if it will go through and just stop. Staff responded that it just isn't going to stop at that location. Staff stated they will get the proposed street and lot design. Ms. Shaw added that there is an easement on the property and that since Phairfield is a local street they did not want a straight shot from Rosedale to Meacham through this residential neighborhood on a local street. Staff indicated they will look at the fire access issues on Phairfield. Commissioner Lomas inquired if the applicant owns the property to the east for the road access, to which Staff responded that he is in the process of acquiring that property. Commissioner Lomas inquired about Condition 7a which talks about, "provide fully executed dedication for Allen," and if that encompasses the land he is going to be acquiring. Staff responded they will provide some pictures to explain this. Commissioner Lomas inquired as to the opposition received by Staff and their responses. Staff stated they will provide responses to the PC. Commissioner Blockley inquired if they saw a GPA application that did not pass for the land west of this project. Staff responded that is correct. 5.12a General Plan Amendment 06-1692 (Adavco, Inc.) 5.121b Zone Change 06-1692 (Adavco, Inc.) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas inquired if they have improvements to the west and the east. Staff responded there are projects on both sides of this current project. Commissioner Lomas stated she was concerned about the area to the west of this project. Staff stated they will have more specifics for the December 21, 2006 meeting. 5.13a General Plan Amendment 06-2022 (Mel Heinemann) 5.131b Zone Change 06-2022 (Mel Heinemann) Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Moreno to provide maps/pictures to address her concerns about the setbacks. Planning Commission — December 18, 2006 Page 6 Commissioner Blockley inquired if the length of the longest east-west street is within the limits. Staff responded the typical width is 1000 feet intersection to intersection, and that they will find out what the width is on the street in question for December 21, 2006 meeting. 6. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. 8. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2:36pm. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director January 9, 2007