Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-07 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Pre-Meeting June 18, 2007 – 12:15pm Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blockley, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish Absent: Commissioners Johnson, Tkac 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for regular Planning Commission meeting of June 7, 2007. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Referral of General Plan Amendment 06-1662 Back to Staff (Mark Davis) 4.2b Referral of Zone Change 06-1662 Back to Staff (Mark Davis) 4.3a Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-2246 (San Joaquin Engineering) 4.3b Approval of Zone Change 06-2246 (San Joaquin Engineering) 4.3c Approval of Planned Unit Development 07-0145 -- Preliminary Development Plans (San Joaquin Engineering) 4.4a Approval of General Plan Amendment 06-2275 (Marino & Associates) 4.4b Approval of Zone Change 06-2275 (Marino & Associates) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – EIR/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Kern River Plan Elements Amendment /Land Use Element Amendments / Zone Changes 5.1a West Ming Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA/ZC 03-1544 (Castle & Cooke) (Ward 4 & 5) 5.1b General Plan Amendment 03-1544 (Castle & Cooke) 5.1c Adoption of the West Ming Specific Plan (Castle & Cooke) 5.1d Zone Change 03-1544 (Castle & Cooke) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired if most, if not all, of the modifications or revisions to the EIR are in the response to comments under recirculated draft environmental impact report. Staff responded in the affirmation, indicating as well as in the responses to comments on any comments that came in during the review period for the circulated draft. Planning Commission – June 18, 2007 Page 2 Commissioner Tragish inquired if when this project came through before if there was a development agreement, or if this is the first time they are seeing it. Staff responded that it was there last time. Commissioner McGinnis commented that he is personally having a difficult time comprehending and putting together the necessity of a project this size in reference to the nature of the real estate market in Bakersfield currently. He pointed out that he sees the benefit of having something like this on paper and in place in the event there is a point of expansion, however he cannot see any developer making any moves towards implementing a project of this nature because of the nature of the real estate market currently. He commented that Alan Tandy pointed out in a meeting that the funds for Seventh Standard Road are not in place and that they are 22 million dollars short and that would have had a great bearing on some of their decisions as to whether or not to approve the projects that came in in that area. Staff responded that they are seeing a lot of developers right now posturing for what they think the economy will turn around and they want their development entitlements in place. Staff pointed out that this project is unique in that it has a development agreement that extends the life of their approvals for quite some time and they don’t have any maps that are going to expire. Staff stated that this is an area that is somewhat of an in-fill area as far as urban designations, as on the east and north it is either urbanized or in the process of being urbanized and on the south side it is all under construction with McAllister Ranch and a water bank area on the west. Staff also pointed out that this project also provides some opportunities for the City to get some important infrastructure constructed. Staff further stated that the City looks at this project as a logical extension raising the bar for development in Bakersfield because it is one of three smart growth concepts. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the sumps will drain into the existing storage on the project. Staff stated they will respond at Thursday’s meeting. Commissioner Blockley inquired if this project is essentially unchanged from the previous iteration of it. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Blockley asked if the proposed land use designation changes and zoning changes have a life span that expires, to which Staff responded in the negative and pointed out that what the Planning Commission is approving at this time does not. Staff stated that they will answer this further Thursday night as the development agreement does lock the city into these designations where you couldn’t just come and change in the future, which is one of the benefits of the development agreement. Commissioner Blockley stated that his point is that changing these does not impose any real urgency to stick to a development schedule to avoid having something they’ve acted on expire Staff responded that is correct. Commissioner Tragish inquired what the projected build out of this project is. Staff responded that the applicant has estimated a 20 year build out, however it depends on supply and demand in the market. Staff stated there is a phasing plan in the environmental document, but not a specific timeline. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they would be able to get a timeline from Castle & Cooke, to which Staff responded that the Planning Commission could ask the applicant Thursday night. 5.2a General Plan Amendment 06-1662 (Mark Davis) 5.2b Zone Change 06-1662 (Mark Davis) Staff indicated that these items are to be referred back to Staff on Thursday as the developer is still dealing with mineral right issues on the property and it will have to be readvertised for a future meeting. 5.3a Ten Section Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA/ZC 05-1580 (Ten Section LLC by James Manley) Planning Commission – June 18, 2007 Page 3 5.3b General Plan Amendment 05-1580 (Ten Section LLC by James Manley) 5.3c Zone Change 05-1580 (Ten Section LLC by James Manley) Staff report given. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the funds, from the Thomas Roads funds, that may lend to the speeding up of some of these projects is the fact if the City does not specifically allocate these funds to specific projects that the City stands a chance of loosing some of the funds, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if these funds would be supplemented with developer participation, to which Staff again responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish inquired as to what is on the west side of the project, to which Staff responded it is private property out in a developed oilfield to which the City might develop out that way towards Interstate 5 some day. Commissioner Tragish commented that it seems like it is way out there and he is concerned with the leap frogging issue, pointing out that Panama does not seem to be very well developed as you approach this project. Staff commented that it is really isolated and the traffic department does not seem to be concerned by 780 homes in that location with McAllister Ranch across the street. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff knows what the buildout is with McAllister Ranch. Staff responded they don’t know, because they are down to 2000 units currently, and when it was jamming it was 5000 units. He projected that it has to be at least 20 years out for McAllister Ranch and pointed out that they are building east to west. Staff commented that they believe five years is the projected buildout on this current project. Commissioner Blockley inquired as to the vacant land and Staff pointed out that the water bank is not going away. He further inquired if one part of McAllister Ranch is being developed currently, to which Staff responded there is one area to the east about ½ mile from the site. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the street on the west side is Nord Road, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. He further inquired what the reason is for removing the arterial and cutting in a collector. Staff responded that the area to the south shown in blue on the map is all water bank owned by somebody who spread land and owns it for habitat purposes and therefore it will never go to the south and the traffic generation rates for this area only warrant a four lane versus a six lane road. 5.4a General Plan Amendment 06-1689 (Marino & Associates) 5.4b Zone Change 06-1689 (Marino & Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner McGinnis if Carl Pasterisan and Mr. Poncheta decide not to annex and go for urbanization that this may be a recommendation for denial on this project, to which Staff responded in the affirmation. He also inquired what would be wrong with putting three of those together and bringing them, because if they are looking at this as a stand alone project, they are predicating that on these two individuals coming in to support their findings, when in fact they may change their mind. Staff responded that they would not mind if this got referred back to Staff pending the other two coming in. Commissioner McGinnis further pointed out that it is predicated on cancellation of the Williamson Act by the Kern County Planning Department and inquired if that will be a problem. Staff responded that he has been telling the applicant good luck with the County because it is hardly ever done. Staff pointed out the approval is only good if the Williamson Act is cancelled. Commissioner Tragish inquired if it is possible if this were approved to have a condition that it would not be able to get a permit or develop until the adjacent east and west projects that pull permits. Staff responded that could not be done and that it would be better to withhold the entitlements until a future time. He further commented that Taft Highway is extremely congested in this area and putting apartments in this area on Wible Road and West Kern adding to this congestion. He inquired if this has been addressed by Staff, to which Staff responded that they will have to look at the Staff report and respond on Thursday. Planning Commission – June 18, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner Andrews commented that there seems to be some kind of bringing together of those involved before they make a decision as to what needs to go in there. He stated that there needs to be more uniform presentation in terms of where the development is going in that area. Commissioner McGinnis stated that Commissioner Stanley has joined the commission at 1:10pm. Commissioner McGinnis commented that this looks like reverse leap frog since they are counting on things to the west. Staff addressed the new commissioners pointing out that this is the first time they’ve had a general plan amendment where by State law they have to have four votes or it’s denied by law. 5.5a General Plan Amendment 06-2246 (San Joaquin Engineering) 5.5b Zone Change 06-2246 (San Joaquin Engineering) 5.5c Planned Unit Development 07-0145 -- Preliminary Development Plans (San Joaquin Engineering) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired who will build the north part of Rivani Drive. Staff responded that this applicant, if they go first, will build Rivani Drive 32’ wide all the way to the nearest City street. Commissioner Tragish inquired how they get access to this property if Panama Drive is not in and the rest of Rivani Drive is not in. Staff pointed out that if they don’t go to the north and they have to go to Panorama and it’s not built, then they are going to build that out 32’ wide with two lanes of traffic all the way out to the nearest City maintained road, which it is about ¾ of a mile out to Morning Drive on Panorama. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is a condition that says this. Staff responded that Public Works has condition 15. Commissioner Tragish after reviewing condition 15 stated he’s not sure it addresses this concern. Staff responded that it does say that they have to provide access to the site which implies that it is going to connect to a road somewhere. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not think this condition hits it on the nose. Staff responded that it says, “With development of the project area approved improved access to the site must be provided.” Staff pointed out this is the key sentence. Staff said they could dress it up to indicate, “to a city maintained road.” Commissioner Tragish stated that would be appreciated. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if on the east side of the project is Rivani Drive to which Staff responded in the affirmative and on the north side is a public park. On the west side is proposed housing owned by the same developer. Staff stated that they don’t recall what is to the south of this project, but will find out for Thursday’s meeting. Staff further pointed out that the park will be dedicated down to the north side of the road on the north side and stated that there will be a residential area between the road and where the park starts to the north. Staff further clarified to the south there is an approved tentative tract so there will be single family residential lots butting up against this project. Commissioner McGinnis stated that his questions are directed towards the specifics of the project itself and agrees that it is a nice looking project. However, he stated that he does not agree with the overlook in the rear yards on whoever goes in first we don’t have to comply type of thing. He stated that he would like to see some compliance that whoever were to build single family residences either to the west or the south would have the same protection whether they went in first or after this project was developed. Staff responded that there is a diagram attached to the report that does show a cross section and what the overlook would look like. Staff also pointed out that overlook only has to do with the buildings within 150’, so all that site with 19 buildings, only one building is within 150’, and that’s the two-story building. Staff stated that it is a relatively minor issue with this project. Planning Commission – June 18, 2007 Page 5 Commissioner McGinnis stated that he would like the project to comply with City standards regardless of who build first. Staff stated that for Thursday they would like to write a condition that solely focuses on that and a cross section to be approved by the Planning Director to convince Staff that the overlook provisions had been met. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he has no problem leaving the compliance approval up to the Planning Director, but that he would like to see some future protection for the developers around there. Commissioner Blockley asked for an explanation of the site plan process, which Staff did pointing out that the 15’ on the diagram, which represents an 8 or 10 foot ground floor, with a five foot person is eye level looking down across the garage, etc. and the other one with 24’ is the same thing from the third floor. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the buildings referenced as “A” are two story and the “Bs” are three stories. Staff responded that “A” and “B” are three-story and “C” is two-story. 5.6a General Plan Amendment 06-2275 (Marino & Associates) 5.6b Zone Change 06-2275 (Marino & Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired why this project would be acceptable to Staff with the adjacent chicken farm to the north and east, when there have been other ones that weren’t acceptable. Staff responded that in the other project which was approved they took the setbacks, walls and landscaping requirements from that project and applied it to this project, although this project is not as heavily impacted as the project was that was across the street. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there was an odor study, to which Staff replied they used Insight Environmental Consultant’s odor impact analysis on Farmer John Eggs. Staff clarified that the PC denied the previous project and that in between that denial and the hearing before the City Council that applicant made some changes to the design, and City Council ended up approving that project. 6. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Tragish referenced the Sport’s Complex which provided for some commercial development and inquired if that commercial development on the property was owned by the City and what the purpose was of the commercial development. Staff confirmed that it was to provide amenities that would dovetail into the activities that would take place in the Sports Complex, pointing out that there could be some traditional commercial because there were two corners. Staff further responded that it also provided the City with additional money to develop the complex. 8. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was concluded at 1:44 pm. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director October 4, 2007