Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-07 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting – October 4, 2007 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac Absent: None 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Commissioner Tkac joined the forum at 5:32pm. Roger McIntosh stated he was present to speak on 5.2(a) and 5.2(b) and stated that he can provide additional information on right-of-ways that were previously raised. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Public Hearing Items 4.1aApproval of Extension of Time Tract 6353 (Porter-Robertson) 4.1b Receive and File Planning Director’s Report Regarding Modification to a PCD Plan (Admin #07-1762) 4.1c Approval of Continuance of Zone Change 06-1698 to October 18, 2007 (Adavco, Inc.) 4.1d Approval of Zone Change 07-1077 (Marino & Associates) 4.1e Approval of Zone Change 07-0691 (John F. May) 4.1f Approval of Zone Change 07-1370 (McIntosh & Associates) 4.1g Approval of Zone Change 07-1371 (McIntosh & Associates) 4.1h Approval of Planned Development Review 07-1517 (Regal Development) 4.1i Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6748 (McIntosh & Associates 4.1j Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6865 (East Panama, LLC) 4.1k Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7029 (East Panama, LLC) The public hearing is opened. Janet Barnechi stated she submitted a letter on zone change 07-1077. Mr. Eggert confirmed that they do have her letter and Mrs. Barnechi requested removal of this item from the Consent Calendar. Martha Keysaw stated she has concerns about the construction of a development with regard to 07-1517. She provided her name and phone number so staff can call her to discuss her concerns. Commissioner Tragish stated that his vote on the Consent Calendar with regard to items 4.1(j) and 4.1(k) will be a “no” vote and at the conclusion of the vote he will indicate why he is voting against these items. Planning Commission – October 4, 2007 Page 2 The public hearing is closed. Item 4.1(d) has been pulled from the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of 4.1(d), which will be heard on the regular agenda and reflecting the comments of Commissioner Tragish. Motion carried by roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish with exclusions as previously indicated, Tkac. NOES: None. Commissioner Tragish stated the reason he voted no on the two items is because they were previously before the Commission to the extent that there was a motion to reduce the B zone from a 10,000 ft. to 7,000 ft. pursuant to the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the purposes of creating these projects that he voted against to be in a C-zone and allow them to do residential. He pointed out that at the time he voted against it he felt that there was not enough open space and that there was a health and safety issue given the traffic at the airport and the fact that he felt that the 10,000 ft. was imperitive to allow for safe landings for any aircraft in distress. He stated to remain consistent with that prior vote he voted no against these two projects which pertain to and are involved with the B-2 zone being reduced from 10,000 ft. to 7,000 ft. and now they are in a 3,000 ft. area that’s been released to build R-1. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – EIR/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS /Land Use Element Amendments / Circulation Element / Zone Changes/ Preliminary Development Plan Approval 5.1a Bakersfield-Taft Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for GPA/ZC 05-1420 (Marino & Associates) 5.1b General Plan Amendment 05-1420 (Bakersfield-Taft LLC) 5.1c Zone Change 05-1420 (Bakersfield-Taft LLC) Staff report given, Ken Koch with Impact Sciences, went over the EIR. The public hearing is opened. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Jim Marino, representing Montecito Communities, stated the project is in the path of development. He pointed out that CalTrans is looking to widen Taft Highway to Old River Road and then Old River Ranch will carry it for the next mile and Montecito Ranch will come back in and do the south side of the road and this is included as a condition. Mr. Marino pointed out that they are about two years behind the other development going on and he further pointed out that Montecito is a land developer and does not actually build the houses. Mr. Marino explained that Montecito is proposing four different types of housing and that starting at Old River Road they are proposing standard 6,000 sq. ft. lots and then 4500 sq. ft. lots, then there would be a little bit larger and then move up home types. He pointed out the lots will range from 4,500 sq. ft. to over 15,000 sq. ft. Mr. Marino also stated that the park will actually be 8 acres and that a trail system will be adopted that is very similar to the Old River Ranch trail system. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that he did meet with Mr. Marino and Kristen Hagen, as well as Joe Gwerder and Matthew Wade. He stated that he liked the trail system and mitigation for air quality, as well as the agriculture program provisions. He stated that he is also concerned with the traffic. He stated that he does not see where the need is for this particular housing and that he does not think the market is up to this project. He concluded by stating that he does not think that the EIR is adequate and he does not support this project. Planning Commission – October 4, 2007 Page 3 Commissioner Johnson stated that there is no tentative tract map and suggested that there be a condition on the general plan that an odor analysis be prepared at the time that the tract map is submitted so it can be addressed. Mr. Marino stated the project is on top of Taft Highway and that there is a fee that is going to go towards filling the shortfall on the freeway construction. Mr. Marino further pointed out that this small size project will be contributing 3.2 million for making the freeway a reality. Commissioner Johnson inquired if there is a condition for an odor analysis, to which Staff responded in the negative. Mr. Koch stated that the EIR did look at odors from the dairies and pointed out that the Air District has not received any complaints regarding odors from the dairies and further stated that there is one sensitive land use downwind of the Wildenberg are, which is the Lakeside Elementary, which is within one mile. Commissioner Johnson asked Ms. Mary Jane Wilson, with WZI, about the proximity of the Wildenberg Dairy #1 to the southern boundary of the Montecito development. Ms. Wilson showed an overhead to show the proximity. She pointed out that Exhibit 2 shows the sources of odors that are surrounding the property and that the Wildenberg Dairy is within the one mile radius and the position of the dairy is a little over ¾ of a mile. She pointed out that there are other odor sources including the sewer farm and some industrial facilities. She stated the closest source of odor is the Structure Cast Concrete facility. Commissioner Johnson inquired which facility generates the most odor, to which Ms. Wilson stated that there are different kinds of odors from different kinds of facilities and referenced Table 2 on page 3 which analyzes each of the odiferous compounds that were modeled, which shows that none of them exceed the odor threshold. She pointed out that the H2S does exceed the detection limits, so you can smell it, which is from the dairies and the other surrounding facilities, but the explanation points out that there was a study to determine when an odor becomes annoying versus just being able to be detected. She clarified that although 50% of the people could smell the odor at this location, it was not considered to be an objectionable way. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the odor issues were less than significant enough that it wouldn’t impact residential development at the site. Ms. Wilson responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Stanley acknowledged that he did meet with the applicant on this issue and commented that he shares concerns with road infrastructure. He stated that he believes through proper mitigation and impact fees that developments such as this can be part of the solution. Commissioner Tkac inquired if they will buy property outside the area and/or have they named the property under the guise of saving farm land or buying farm land that will go out of service. Staff referenced October 4, 2007 memo from Planning staff, page 2, item #5 expands the discussion of the condition giving an option of one to one along with other options. Commissioner Tkac commented that no farmer sells any farmland unless it was equitable to farm. He also commented that if people don’t think they’re going to smell those dairies they are dead wrong. Commissioner Tkac further commented that he is a proponent of infill and that this project is way out there, however he likes the amenities. He inquired what minimum amount of park space is required for this project. Staff responded that the minimum amount is either 3 to 5 acres per 1,000 in population, however pointed out that the developer will be meeting the minimum required under the General Plan. Commissioner Tkac further inquired about the trail program and if it has to go through the property. Staff responded that Old River Ranch had a trail system that linked to the Sport’s Village. Staff stated that with the outlying areas they have been connecting trails to those new developing areas and either including connections to the Sport’s Village, but also additionally connecting to the other neighborhoods because some of the trails will go a different direction and ultimately they are looking at linking all of the trails together back to the Kern River and other large parks. Commissioner Tkac inquired if it can be stated with fact that there will be a south beltway. Staff responded that both the west beltway and south beltway already have an established specific plan line. Planning Commission – October 4, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner Tkac stated that there should be CC&R’s which identify the dairy odors. Commissioner McGinnis recognized Melton Archer. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if Mr. Archer lives in the area currently, to which Mr. Archer responded that his mother lives in the only house that is going to be demolished to make this development happen. Mr. Archer stated that the smell of dairy does not bother him. He stated that the odor has increased, as well as the flies. He stated that he feels people who would buy in this area will not be able to adapt to the odor. Commissioner Andrews stated that Commissioner McGinnis followed up on his concerns. He further stated that the traffic impacts are something that the Planning Commission needs to continue to look at. Commissioner Blockley stated that he did meet with the applicant and Mr. Moreno prior to the last meeting and discussed the project with them. Commissioner Tragish commented that growth needs to be done in a responsible fashion. He stated that with respect to the odor issues his focus is on how it will be mitigated. He further pointed out that he does not think the odor analysis is adequate and does not think that it is very clear in addressing mitigation. Commissioner Tragish stated that, with respect to Mr. Marino’s comments, that Taft Highway will be an express lane and there’s going to be a South Beltway and they are going to be putting in $3.2 Million misses the point, he is concerned with approving projects just because roads will be put in. He stated that there is not enough money and the interest keeps going up and there is never enough to get started. He also pointed out that he thinks it is a poor reason to approve a project just because you’re going to get money out of it. He further commented that the people they are supposed to be looking out for are the potential residents and the people of Bakersfield. He stated he sees the Taft expressway as a problem because he does not know when the south beltway will be built. He also commented that the only thing he has heard about the west beltway is that Castle & Cooke is going to build a sliver of it as part of its Ming development. Commissioner Tragish further stated that with regard to Mr. Marino’s comments that some of the development is 20 years away and that his applicant will be ready to build in two years proves his point that there is a humongous amount of projects that have been approved with both tract maps, general plan uses, and zonings, and that even by KernCog’s calculations we are almost reaching the amount we need for the next 20-25 years. He stated that he does not believe the responses from the applicant addresses his concerns about the orderly development of this project given all of the other concerns. He pointed out that he still sees it as a free-for-all for builders to come in and build whatever they want and he has not seen anything about a strong CC&R to control how these homes are built. He lastly commented that he does not see the urgency for this project. Commissioner Johnson stated that he did meet with a representative of the applicant prior to the hearing. He also stated that Commissioner Tkac brought up a good point that the people that are moving in realize what they are moving into and it would be their decision if they want to move in near a dairy within a ¾ mile radius. He inquired if it would be appropriate to put a condition requiring a covenant notifying the neighbors of their proximity to agricultural use. Staff responded that it would be more appropriate at the tract map stage which could be keyed in on each individual home site. Commissioner Johnson stated that he acknowledges Commissioner Tragish’s concerns with pre- maturity of development in this area and pointed out that the Planning Commission already approved some maps south of Taft Highway on item 6.1. He therefore believes that it is not premature to be looking at projects south of Taft Highway. Commissioner Johnson stated that there will be some additional widening on Taft Highway on Hwy 119 with this development. He commented that it is important to widen Taft Highway because of the increased traffic and the more that they can widen it out for traffic that travels from Hwy 99 out to Taft the better off the regional traffic will be. Planning Commission – October 4, 2007 Page 5 Commissioner McGinnis stated that he has talked to Mr. Marino with regard to the project and commented that he is conflicted with the project in general because the applicant has gone through all the hoops and he does not see a legitimate reason to deny the application. As a realtor for 30+ years he concurs with Commissioner Tragish in that the educated real estate professionals say that we are anywhere from 12-18 months before this market catches back up to itself again. He also commented that he does think that there should be CC&Rs. He stated that he is leaning to support this project. Commissioner Blockley stated that with other projects that have been approved, this project does not seem out of place and that looking at the proximity to major transportation going south of the project and making a right turn you end up on I-5. He stated that he will probably be supporting this project. Commissioner Tragish commented that with respect to the comment that agenda item 6.1 was approved, it is not being approved as far as a General Plan or a zone change, but rather it is a tentative tract map and that the project was approved a while ago and it is not in this area that they are currently talking about. Commissioner Tkac inquired what the potential build out time is. Mr. Marino responded that it would probably be a 10-year build out and that four different product types would move it a little bit quicker. Mr. Marino pointed out that it is going to take a year to annex, a year to get some plans approved and there are some problems in the area with regard to maps and grading plans. Mr. Marino commented that in a meeting regarding the three tracts that have already been approved they wanted to stop the construction on those subdivisions so that Montecito can put CC&Rs on those subdivisions, so that Montecito can provide more open space in the area. He clarified that the entire area will have CC&Rs. Commissioner Tkac inquired if it is cast in stone how the developer will attempt to market this project with four different styles. He inquired how much of a free rein will the developer have if this project is approved. Staff responded that the map is conceptual because there is no tract map for approval. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt Resolution making CEQA findings approving mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring programs and recommending certification of the Final EIR for GPA zone change 05-1420, incorporating the October 4, 2007 memo from Jim Movius, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tkac. NOES: Commissioner: Tragish Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt Resolution making findings approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use map designation from Resource Intensive Agriculture to Low-Density Residential on approximately 235 acres and from R-IA (Resource Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential) on approximately 78 acres, incorporating the October 4, 2007 memo from Jim Movius, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tkac. NOES: Commissioner: Tragish Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to adopt Resolution making findings approving the requested zone change from agriculture to single-family dwelling on approximately 235 acres, and from A (Agriculture) to R-2 (limited multi-family dwellings) on approximately 78 acres, incorporating the October 4, 2007 memo from Jim Movius, and recommend the same to City Council. Planning Commission – October 4, 2007 Page 6 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tkac. NOES: Commissioner: Tragish Commissioner Tragish stated that his no vote is based on his previous comments, which were essentially that he does not believe that this is orderly development and the project is pre-mature and will create substantial traffic problems which are not being addressed. He further stated that he does not think the EIR has adequately discussed or processed the odor and the mitigation. 5.2a General Plan Amendment 07-1193 (McIntosh & Associates) 5.2b Zone Change 07-1193 (McIntosh & Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. McIntosh about the dedications on the south side of Wilson so they would have an idea of the separation between the properties from the south verses the ones to the north and further inquired about a traffic light off of Hwy 99. Mr. McIntosh stated that they agreed to put a traffic signal at the off-ramp on Hwy 58 and their research on the right-of-way found that there is a 30’ access easement all along the south half of east Wilson Road and there is also a 15’ dedication, to put a total of 45’ all along this area, except for one parcel. He also pointed out that the required setback is 50’ and they are at a 81’ setback. Mr. McIntosh also stated that if east Wilson Road got built out there would be another 15’ separation. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the separation would be around 100 ft. Mr. McIntosh responded that if east Wilson Road were to be built out with new fence lines there would be 90’ + 3’ + 5’ which would be 98 ‘ total. Commissioner Tragish stated that he did speak with Mr. McIntosh earlier in the week, and he asked what the proposed size of the lots will be that currently front Wilson. Mr. McIntosh responded that the current plan is to fit into the area and the area to the north is approved at 7,000 sq. ft. lots. Mr. McIntosh also stated that they do not plan to have any lots that front east Wilson Road, but will rather back up to Wilson. Commissioner Tragish stated that he struggles with this kind of project because the area to the south is still pretty rural for quite a distance and he was interested in seeing if there could be some kind of separation. He stated that the 100’ is a significant amount and putting a light out on Hwy 58 is a real plus to slow down the traffic. Commissioner Johnson stated the final issue to be resolved was the amount of transitional space and is prepared to make a motion. Commissioner Andrews stated that he did speak with some of the residents who were present at the previous meeting and their real concern was addressed by the construction of the fence and facing the properties away from Wilson. He commented that he is comfortable with the resolutions and is ready to move forward. Commissioner Johnson 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 Estate Residential, Suburban Residential and Rural Residential to Low Density Residential on approximately 80 acres as shown on the attached Exhibit A-2, incorporating the memo dated October 1, 2007 from Jim Movius, and recommending the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac. NOES: Commissioner: None Planning Commission – October 4, 2007 Page 7 Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from A-1 (Agriculture Zone) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 80+ acres as shown on the attached Exhibit A-2, incorporating the memo dated October 1, 2007 from Jim Movius, and recommending the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac. NOES: Commissioner: None 5.3 Zone Change 06-1698 (Adavco, Inc.) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.4 Zone Change 07-1077 (Marino & Associates) Staff report given, the public hearing is opened. Richard Toland stated he lives adjacent to this property and that his front and back yard will be affected by this. He stated that he is not opposed to growth, but he is concerned with his horses and farm animals. He stated on the other side of the tracks is industrial and there is noise, along with the train noise, as well as lighting and intercom noise. He questions the rezoning pointing out that he doesn’t think they need it right now as there is enough growth and that there is enough traffic in this area already. He stated he really hopes this project is denied. Jack Sheehan stated he owns the property that runs along the length of Piedmont and fronts onto Paddock Place. He stated that his property will probably be the most impacted by this zone change. He stated it appears that there is going to be limited access on Hageman and a lot of traffic will be going down Piedmont and a lot of the industrial traffic will be going down Paddock. He reiterated the traffic concerns and any mitigation measures. He further stated that he has concerns with odor, dust and noise. He also stated that four of those parcels have livestock and putting homes in the back will draw complaints of odor, noise, flies, etc. Mr. Sheehan stated that he wants to make sure that anything the developer/owner does comes with some guarantees because he has not had any guarantees from him in the past, pointing out that everything the owner has previously said he would do, he has not done. He also stated that there is trash and huge tumbleweed on the property and it is never picked up. Mr. Sheehan also stated that there is a Kit Fox den along the railroad tracks. He said that he has written the owner a letter about this, as well as Brian Bland. Mr. Sheehan further expressed concern that he will be forced to be annexed into the city or become a county pocket. He stated he is also concerned that they will lose their A-1 zoning. He concluded by stating that this project’s impact will not be good for the existing neighborhood. Lou Fermano stated he lives on the corner of Hageman and Himalayas and this project is right behind him. He stated that anything that is put there that is a larger complex that would have employees or equipment would pose traffic concerns. Fall Turp stated he lives in the residential area right behind Piedmont Avenue and he has to access Paddock and Hageman everyday. He stated the traffic issues raised are foremost in their minds because there are so many problems with all the new developments that have gone to the north of them. He stated another problem they see with light industrial being put into the area to the north is that if there are any type of large vehicles going to be brought into an industrial area, they don’t see how they will be able to access it. He pointed out that Paddock is already a 110 –120 degree turn for a light vehicle and currently very hazardous. Jim Marino, representing the property owner, stated that this is an in-fill project and the request is to bring the zoning consistent with the general plan so that they can move on with an annexation of the property. He pointed out that the General Plan is light industrial along Hageman Road and SR (Suburban Residential) which is consistent with LI (Light Industrial) on Hageman on the southern portion of the property. He also pointed out that utilities are all in place on the Planning Commission – October 4, 2007 Page 8 perimeter of the property and the sewer lines cross the property; both the North of the River Sewer Line and City of Bakersfield. Mr. Marino stated that the city limit they propose to connect to is on the north side of Hageman Road and the Estate zoning is consistent with what is developed in the County for the use of the property. He commented that the M-1 is a transition. Mr. Marino stated that what is shown as an A zone directly west of the property is actually an existing M-1 and M-2 zone in the County. Mr. Marino stated that with regard to traffic, the city is working on a future grade separation at Hageman and the railroad tracks. He stated that they are concerned with Condition 11, but considering it is only advisory at this point it is acceptable and he believes this property owner will work with the City when they start working out the details on the overpass. Mr. Marino stated that they believe that the Estate zoning and the M-1 zoning are both appropriate. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac stated that the complaint about traffic is warranted and that this particular property has been landlocked for a good long time. He inquired if Old Farm Road will ever connect into Piedmont. Staff responded that it will not. Commissioner Tkac stated his concern is that the length of that street will take away from Piedmont and inquired if there is any plan to access Hageman better in the future from both proposed properties. Staff responded that they don’t have an answer for the residential but for the industrial there are options with the manufacturing and how they decide to divide the property, it could have its own street off of Hageman going into a series of lots like a cul-d-sac. Commissioner Tkac inquired if the M-1 zoning would ever permit a railroad depot for loading/unloading. Staff responded that it is possible to add a railroad spur and there are uses in a M-1 zone that would be permissible. Commissioner Tkac inquired about the only piece up for M-1 being the northern piece, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. He also asked what the Estate zoning size would be. Staff responded the minimum is 10,000 sq. ft for an estate zone and the applicant has noted that they may be bringing in more like ¼ acre lots. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there is any indication how the applicant would dedicate any park land on these two parcels. Staff responded that at this time there has not been any dedication as it would be a little premature as they have not seen a tract design. Commissioner Tkac concluded by stating that traffic has to be fixed in this area. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the intent of this application is to make the zone be comparable with the existing general plan use, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. He inquired if the purpose of the grade separation is so that the traffic coming down Hageman Road will not be slowed down by trains and delaying traffic, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish stated he does not know what to do about traffic at this point because the less intrusive development will minimize the impacts of traffic. He commented that trying to get four houses per acre is not a real high density and the fewer homes you have the less traffic there will be in and out of the project. Commissioner Tragish inquired what some of the uses are under light industrial, to which staff responded that typical uses are small warehouses, office warehouse with a small office in front and an office in the back. Staff responded they really don’t do manufacturing. Commissioner Tragish stated that the applicant already had the general plan use and passed the tests to put in the kind of development that he wants and he just wants to match it up so it will conform to the general plan. Commissioner Tragish also inquired if the traffic impact of changing the zoning on this property has been looked at. Staff responded that there is no requirement for a traffic study because there is no change in the uses. The traffic analysis and model that is used for the City and County is based on the general plan and since there is no change to the general plan and it is already industrial and residential so there is no change to the traffic impacts. Staff also indicated that the developer will pay traffic impact fees and those fees go to the County’s development of the separation of grade, which they are in the process of investigating in working the separation of grade districts for the railroad crossing and Santa Fe Way connection and they also go to the improvements for the part of Hageman Road that are in the County and in the City, and the City cooperates with the County for the improvements that would occur through there. Staff responded that if this does annex into the City the portion that abuts Hageman Road would be improved by the development and that Hageman Road is an arterial with three lanes in each direction with a median and a median down the middle of the road restricts access, left turns and improves the safety of the traffic on the streets and the flow of traffic. Planning Commission – October 4, 2007 Page 9 Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees that the traffic is horrendous in this area, but that this is one of those situations where he is limited as to his discretion. He commented that the zoning is not incompatible with the neighborhood and the health and safety issues is borderline because he has not heard of any kind of traffic analysis indicating that this project will be creating a substantial heath and safety situation. He stated that the testimony of the neighbors is credible and something that is taken into consideration. Commissioner Johnson thanked the residents for expressing their opinions. He stated that with regard to the Kit Fox he thinks there are more than adequate requirements to deal with the Kit Fox. He stated that with regard to the trash on the property, the development of this property will improve that situation because it won’t be a vacant lot. He stated that his recommendation for between now and the time the lot is developed that they residents contact code compliance and get them out there. Commissioner Johnson stated that with respect to the zoning, the property owner to the west will retain their zoning. Staff confirmed that the zoning will remain the same for the adjacent residents unless an application is submitted to change the zoning. Staff also commented that this particular resident is not part of the potential annexation that would take place, so he would stay as a resident of the County. Commissioner Johnson stated that with regard to traffic he thinks Allen and Hageman is a nightmare and because there is no traffic analysis it makes it real hard to see what that intersection is going to look like. He asked what all these impact fees are going to do for the residents in this area. Staff responded that Hageman Road is part of the list and the County Separation of Grade and Santa Fe Way Interchange is also on the list. Staff reiterated that the County is working the Separation of Grade District for designs and concepts and submittals to get funding for that project. Staff stated that the City would be participating overall in the project and any fees that they collect. Staff also pointed out that they are confident that the interchange will be taken care of, but it will take some time. Staff further pointed out that the portion that is in the influence of what is being proposed by this project, whether in the City of the County, will be improving Hageman Road to its arterial standard. Commissioner Johnson inquired what facilities are on the regional traffic impact fee list in this area. Ms. Shaw responded that she would have to get her book to look it up as there are about 500 items on the list. Commissioner Johnson stated that his concern with the separation of grade is that they are working with the County, but it’s not going to be done in the next six months and he would like to know when they are going to see the separation of grade complete because that is really what is going to solve this issue in terms of this intersection. He also inquired what the status is of a light going in at Santa Fe, Allen Road and Hageman Road. Staff responded that they could not answer that tonight. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the regional impact fees collected by the City go to fund the City’s transportation impact fee program, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the fees collected from this project will go specifically to the impacted intersection, to which Staff responded they can not say if they would or not. Commissioner Johnson stated that he thinks there are a lot of unanswered questions that need to be addressed in order to alleviate the concerns of the public, as well as his concerns. He requested a continuance until the next meeting. Commissioner Tkac stated he is okay with a continuance as they don’t have enough information to make an informed decision. . Commissioner McGinnis concurred witha continuanceHe stated that he could see this project if the A zone, or supposed to be M-1 zone, is an E zone and reversing that to the one next to Santa Fe tracks. He stated that his friends whom live in Lone Oak Estates, which butt up to the tracks, all hate the tracks and everything across the tracks is zoned M. He stated that he thinks it makes more sense to put the M zone up next to the tracks and the Estate on Hageman. Planning Commission – October 4, 2007 Page 10 Commissioner Blockley stated he thought the zoning is backwards as well, although he sees where they are keeping similar things next to similar things. He inquired how the separation of grade is actually going to functionally work since Allen Road is an arterial and Hageman Road and the Railroad all coming together. Staff responded that she has not seen any preliminary designs for this so she cannot say. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the project was to be approved and move forward, if a noise study would be required for the projects that back up against the BNSF main line. Staff responded that when a tract is brought in there would need to be a noise assessment and a noise study would accompany the tract map application. Staff pointed out that there are greater setbacks required for homes that would abut up next to the railroad, but most likely there would be some kind of a wall requirement to mitigate noise. Commissioner Blockley stated that he would be in favor of a postponement and inquired if it can be done and still fall in the general plan cycle. Staff responded that this does not include a general plan amendment so there is no timing that it needs to fit within. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the applicant would have to change the general plan designation on the two properties if he had to flip the proposed zoning. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the frontage property where the applicant wants to change from A to M-1, has been improved to City standards for Hageman, to which Staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Tragish also stated that they visited this area because there were a lot of projects that were coming in on the east and west side of the map, and he inquired what they were going to do to straighten out Allen Road. Staff responded that they haven’t seen any formal proposal on this. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to have Staff take a look at this pursuant to the inquiries by Commissioner Johnson regarding the grade separation pertaining to Hageman over the tracts. He stated that he would also like Staff, if possible, to advise them of what traffic mitigating things can be used to alleviate this particular problem along Hageman. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to continue this matter for two weeks until October 18, 2007. Mr. Moreno stated that they would agree to a continuance. He stated that with regard to switching the uses, if you look at the map and the buildings that are on the west side of Allen Road there is an airstrip and the M-1 zone is there because it’s the approach zone for the mosquito abatement. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac. NOES: Commissioner: None 5.5 Zone Change 07-0691 (John F. May) Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.6 Zone Change 07-1370 (McIntosh & Associates) at he northwest corner of Ashe Road and Engle Road. (Environmental Impact Review on file). Heard on Consent Calendar. 5.7 Zone Change 07-1371 (McIntosh & Associates) Heard on Consent Calendar. Planning Commission – October 4, 2007 Page 11 5.8 Planned Development Review 07-1517 (Regal Development) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS – Vesting Tentative Tract Maps/Tract Maps 6.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6748 (McIntosh & Associates) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6865 (East Panama, LLC) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.3 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7029 (East Panama, LLC) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. 9. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director October 30, 2007