Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-07 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Pre-Meeting – April 2, 2007 - 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer Absent: Commissioner Tragish, Tkac 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of March 1, 2007 . Deferred until Thursday’s meeting. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a General Plan Amendment 06-1681 (Porter Robertson Engineering) continued to June 21, 2007 4.2b Zone Change 06-1681 (Porter Robertson Engineering) continued to June 21, 2007 Deferred until Thursday’s meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – Vesting Tentative Tract Maps/Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps 5.1Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6816 (PB4 Ventures LLC c/o G. Petrini, Premier Land) continued to April 19, 2007 th Staff references a memo dated March 26 requesting a continuance because of a drill island th issue and will need to re-advertise this item for the April 19 meeting. Commissioner McGinnis arrived at 12:33 pm. 5.2 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11691 (McIntosh & Asscoiates, Inc.) Staff report given. Staff states that this property has prior zoning in place and there is a parcel map being requested with a mixed use development with some commercial and interior office buildings, it is merely a parcel map to subdivide to allow the existing uses. Staff recommends approval of the project. Commissioner Blockley asked if the mixed use would be incompatible as it seems to have a layer of uses from C-2 downward toward residential and would it still have the same gradation? Staff responded in the affirmative and that the property is zoned straight C-2 and is general commercial in the general plan. It has offices and retail commercial and there is no residential involved so it is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning. Mr. Blockey confirmed that it is intensifying the use to the edges. Staff responded that they have an approved site plan on file. Planning Commission – April 2, 2007 Page 2 The City Attorney made mention of the Addendum on this item stating that it should say Categorically Exempt rather than Negative Declaration on File. Staff displayed the parcel map on the overhead and explained that the site plan has approved an office complex with retail around the perimeter. Mr. Blockley confirmed that there would not be a supermarket with pads on the site and Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson asked if the C-2 to the east was going to be required to tie in as well. Staff responded in the affirmative that the C-2 to the west has a driveway that provides a connection and there is a condition from staff on this project. Commissioner Lomas asks if the condition with access and parking is reciprocal parking, staff responded in the negative saying that we are not requiring a reciprocal park just access and this will stand on its own. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS/Land Use Element Amendments/ Safety Element/Circulation Element Amendments/Zone Changes/PCD Preliminary Development Plans 6.1a General Plan Amendment 06-0494 (McIntosh & Associates) continued to June 21, 2007 6.1b Zone Change 06-0494 (McIntosh & Associates) continued to June 21, 2007 Staff report given. Commissioner Spencer states he can find no remarks, comments or justification for the open space requirement that presently exists including the drainage area and zone. Somehow in the staff reports we need to address, to the public, our concerns not only with the noise but the features that currently exists on the land and that we are changing the zones not including flood plane. Commissioner Johnson asked for a copy of the Traffic Study and asked where the condition is that required the Parks and Trails plan. Staff stated that condition 17 references his question. Commission Lomas asked what the 3 parcels that are labeled “P” are and why are they there. Staff responded that they are there because they are potential drainage basins for the Breckenridge area. Commissioner Lomas asked if we could find out who owns them and staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Lomas asked for a copy of the evaluation referenced in the staff report in regards to the oil potential. Commissioner Lomas also stated she could not find the parcel easily and asked where the closest paved road was. Staff responded that it was Breckenridge to the south ½ mile south of Pioneer drive. Commissioner Lomas asked how that ½ mile was going to get paved including curb and gutter, staff responded by condition 15 by Public Works. Commissioner Lomas was confused as to why we are considering a project so far away from the City and staff responded that the development was to be done in conjunction with the Watermark project but has stopped because of a problem with it’s development. Commissioner Lomas asked that the relation between Watermark and this project being finished be clearly stated at Thursday night’s meeting. 6.2a General Plan Amendment 06-1662 (Mark Davis) continued to June 21, 2007 6.2b Zone Change 06-1662 (Mark Davis) continued to June 21, 2007 Commissioner Spencer made mention about traffic in this area. Commissioner Lomas made reference to her notes for Thursday nights meeting including an oil report regarding the oil and 24 active wells being insufficient and has a great deal of conflicting information in it. She will be asking questions about it at Thursday’s meeting. Planning Commission – April 2, 2007 Page 3 6.3a General Plan Amendment 06-1689 (Marino Associates) continued to June 21, 2007 6.3b Zone Change 06-1689 (Marino Associates) continued to June 21, 2007 6.4a General Plan Amendment 06-1698 (Adavco Inc.) 6.4b Zone Change 06-1698 (Adavco Inc.) nd Staff report given. Staff referenced the April 2 memo that adds a cultural and archeological th resources condition to the general plan and a March 29 memo that adds a condition to the general plan regarding future zoning to include a DI zone. These two conditions would be referenced in the motion to adopt the general plan when the motion is made for the zoning a new th motion is provided for you on a March 29 memo and it gives you the revised motion to refer back to staff. Commissioner Blockley references a memo for the Air Pollution Control that does not have a date on it. th Commissioner Lomas asked the status of 7 Standard Road and where are we on the thth improvement of 7 Standard Road and Hwy 58. Is 7 Standard Road being described as an arterial or express way, how do these projects, and the next, correlate with what changes Shafter has done across the street. With this project and the next one how is our policy on the ½ mile th separation on the commercial. Commissioner Lomas stated that condition 10 talks about 7 Standard Road being constructed as a 120 foot wide, 6 lane express way but doesn’t say who paying for it, who will be funding that, is there a canal crossing improvement fund that will help fund this project, staff referred Commissioner Lomas to condition 9. 6.5a General Plan Amendment 06-1699 (Adavco Inc.) 6.5b Zone Change 06-1699 (Adavco Inc.) Staff report given. Commissioner Johnson asked for a copy of the traffic study and asked how th 16a, the local road on the western boundary, is going to go through all the way to 7 Standard Road. Staff responded that we have asked for two local roads so that the neighborhoods adjoining this would be interfaced we haven’t said definitively the entire west line but it might turn out that they share one road across the street, but they would be mostly public roads that the public can access directly from the west. Commissioner Johnson reaffirmed that we will not th have several residential roads popping out onto 7 Standard Road turning it into another Rosedale Hwy, staff referred him to condition no. 8 which states the minimum half mile spacing th is in place which would put it at Verdugo so this local street will not be allowed to connect to 7 Standard Road. Commissioner Lomas asked about two commercial projects directly across from this and when we talk about the ½ mile separation, I am wanting to clarify those two parcels directly, staff states that Verdugo Lane and Calloway are ½ mile apart. Commissioner Lomas also asked if we have anything on the possibility of a re-zoning request of the commercial parcel to the west, staff confirmed we have had no inquiries to that effect. 6.6a General Plan Amendment 06-2198 (Danco Development) 6.6b Zone Change 06-2198 (Danco Development) Staff report given. Commissioner Blockley asked what exactly is Southern Cal Edison’s easement issue, staff explained that there is a power line easement going through there and they want to review and see what kind of access easement goes across it. Staff said there are a couple of easements out there, there is one on the east line which is why Brentwood is offset in this area onto this property, that is why they are having to improve the whole street whereas Planning Commission – April 2, 2007 Page 4 usually the developer would only have to develop half the street because the power line pushed it over. Then on the west side it’s just off the parcel and the easement comes through just off site. Commissioner Spencer in trying to find justification to remove the PUD overlay classification but it doesn’t come up in the staff report and he feels it should be there as an addemdum to the staff report. Staff responded that the senior facility that was previously approved was a denser project than you typically see in a low density residential area, it had a lot of senior housing in it and at that time we did not have a PUD overlay, it was a stand alone zone with a specific design approved for it and it would have actually had to get a general plan amendment change to put that type of density in there because they wouldn’t allow it in a LR zone. This is a change from a much more dense senior project to a small lot single family we know what the developer has planned for it and they are showing smaller lots so staff would not see the need to put an PUD overlay on the R-2 zone. Commissioner Lomas asked about secondary access in the middle of nothing. There is a street that goes from this tract over to the east that has already been approved staff will check into it. 6.7 General Plan Amendment 06-2290 (City of Bakersfield) Metro – Wide area. th Staff report given. Commissioner Lomas asked about 7 Standard Road. Commissioner Spencer asked about the south belt way and expressed that he doesn’t see where it serves any purpose at all. Staff explained that the city will grow out around the belt ways. 6.8 General Plan Amendment 07-0246 (City of Bakersfield) Metro – Wide area. Staff report given. No commissioner comments or questions. 6. COMMUNICATIONS: th Jim Movius referenced the Joint City/County Meeting on Monday April 9 at 5:30. Commissioner Lomas asked staff to refer back to Agenda Item 6.1 and add a secondary access also. 7. COMMISSION COMMENTS: 8. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the pre-meeting was adjourned at 1:17 p.m. JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director May 7, 2007