Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-07 MINUTES + 1tr6 _ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October Council Chambers, City Hall; 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present; Commissioners: Bloche r, Johnson, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish Absent: Commissioner: T ac 2. PLEDGE of ALLEGIANCE. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS. Mr. Moreno stated that he will wait to speak until item 5.2 is heard. Mr. Franzen stated that he will wait until the item he wishes to speak on is heard. Olivia Franzen stated that she will also wait until the item she wishes to speak on is heard. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: .1 Non-Public Hearing Items Approval l of minutes for Planning Commission regular meetings of September 6, 2007 and September 20, 200T Commissioner Tragish referenced the September 20, 2007 minutes at the 6th paragraph down, seventh sentence starting with "Commissioner Tra ish asked Staff to respond...", and requested that it be corrected to read as follows: "Commissioner Tra ish asked Staff to respond to the notation that the E Il , General Plan and Zoning are not tied together for approval- Commissioner Johnson referenced the September lox 2007, page 3, second paragraph, first line, in between the last two words on the last line, `the, public," and 'requested the insertion of the acronym "SJ PC " for San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution control District. Commissioner Johnson further referenced page 4, the second to last paragraph, second line, first word,, stating ER should be crossed out of"commisioner and should read: "He was not on the Commission." He also referenced page 9, sixth paragraph ph down, with the sentence that reads; "in addition, it provides special permits that are under their tern called Tape Permits " which should read Take Permits. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to approve the amended consent: non-public Dearing items. Motion carried by group vote. Public Hearing Items 4.2a Agjgroval of Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Ma 6347 (Porter-Robertson) 4.2b rova of Zone Change 06-1698(Adavco, Inc.) 4.2c AoDroval of Vesting Tentative Far a Ma 11 758,(JP/CP Development, Inc. 4.2d Aoproval of Tentative Parcel MaI2 11614(Wiley D. Hughes, Surveying) 4.2e A2Rroval of Vesting Tentative Tract Ma Smit T oh1 SA, Inc.) Planning Commission October 4.2f ARRro vaI of'i e t r Tentative Tract Ma 1 (Pinnacle civil Engineering, Inc.) The public hearing is opened, no one from the public or the Commission requested removal of any consent agenda item. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Andrews moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the Consent agenda items. Motion ar�irr�o sly carried by the following roll call vote; AYES: Commissioners:ers: lockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tra ish DOES: lone ,ABSENT: Commissioner:issioner: Tkac 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS—Zone chap a flannel Development Review 5.1 Zone change -114,9 Can no n &Associates) 5.1 b Planned DeveloRment Review 07-1658 (cannon &Associates) The public hearing is opened, staff report giver. Blain Franzen stated he lives directly east of this planned development on Via Rosa. He stated he does not know of a development like this across from a high school. He stated that the development does not seen to take into account the kids that will be using this center and kids are bound to congregate in the alley by the walls. He suggested redesigning the alley so that the delivery trucks could deliver in between the buildings and installing electronic gates so that only delivery vehicles are alleged in the back. Mr. Franzen stated that the other problem is employees taking heir breaks in the parking lot and playing music loudly from their cars. Maria Lourdes Niggle stated that she lives at 11409 Westerharn court, which is caddy corner to the project. She explains that she has a daughter that attends Stockdale High School and is concerned about the traffic and what she feels is unnecessary commercial use. Phillip Niggle stated the previous speaker was his wife and he also lives at 11409 Westerha Court and feels that if anything should be eliminated in this project it should be the drive thru's as they are not required and it will help eliminate additional traffic. He also stated that there is not another high school anywhere in the city that has such a project directly across the street from it. Olivia Franzen stated that she lives with her father and states that pollution is her focus and that this project will increase it. Jason Monroe stated that he lives at 3500 Via Eglicia and is one street over from the center and started that this project would provide young people j Planning Commission October additional landscape buffering, planting trees as barriers and providing a sound wall and at deoibals is well below the limits that the City requires at the property line. The developer has located the drive-thru's at the perimeter of the project, by the street side, as far array from residents as possible and where the general traffic would be driving. Mr. Smith pointed out that over the last several years the city has seen extensive residential development and yet hasn't had the influx of commercial centers to support that past growth of residential. Commissioner Blockley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson thanked all the neighbors that came out to speak and stated that he is a Stokdale High graduate and this issue has hit close to home. Commissioner Johnson asked staff if the current zoning is C-1, staff responded affirmatively. He asked what types of use C-1 allows, to which staff responded that a lot of the uses that are in the proposed center would be allowed in a C-1 with the exception of the drive-thru's and onsite sale of alcohol. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that the C-1 designation is described as neighborhood commercial, where C-2 zoning is described as regional commercial and the uses under C-1 would be a good fit for the area. Commissioner Johnson stated that on site sales of alcohol is not in the best interest of the high school students across the street and stated he cannot support a C-2 zoning. Commissioner Traish stated as he understands this project there are 5 buildings, 2 fast food restaurants with drive-thru's, a Starbucks with drive-thr , a Walgreens with drive-thru, a grocery store and possibly a restaurant. When looking at zoning he looks at the accelerated uses of going from C-'l to C-2 and usually looks at the impact on the circulation, traffic, its compatibility and generally things that have to do with the health, welfare and safety of the area. Commissioner Tra ish stated that the proximity of this shopping center to the high school given all the ingress and egress going on with the drive-thru's does somewhat give hire pause for concern, regarding the accelerated traffic going on at the corner and the -turns out of the school to get into the center and the recently approved shopping center on the southwest corner which will provide services as well. He also has concerns about the hours of the Wal-Mart and that the loading and unloading is proposed from Sam to 10prn and in reading comments and hearing the applicants representative he still feels there will be problems with noise and will not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Tra ish stated that the city has paced itself with these regional shopping centers and has been successful at it however he doesn't feel it belongs with what is already present in the area and is inappropriate. Commissioner Tra ish asked staff if a shopping center has more than 90,000 s .ft. do they have to do an economic decay study or is it if one of the buildings exceeds 90,000 s . ft. Staff responded that it Is 90,000 s .ft. for a single building that has non-taxable items up to 20% Commissioner Traish stated that he doesn't feel it is appropriate because it is a very intense use and will create a significant impact on the circulation and traffic in the area and feels it will be an attractive nuisance for the school and he agrees with Comm issioner Johnson about the onsite liquor sales and will not be able to support the project at this point. Commissioner McGinnis asked the representative for Cannon & Associates, Mr. Smith, if the vacuum area would be on the southwest corner of the project. Mr. Smith pointed to the area on the overhead and Commissioner McGinnis also asked what the flow of traffic through that was. Mark Russel, the architect for the project, stated that, for the car wash, the traffic coming onto the site would make a right and the traffic goes counter clockwise, the landscape area is adjacent to Buena vista, the fire lane width would be 20 feet but the applicant has made the fire lane 30 feet with an 11 foot ,mechanical room buffer and the car wash tunnel is where there are no houses. The entrance of the carwash is where the cars stop and is under a canopy so there will be no night lighting disturbing the neighbors, this point is 20 feet across a landscape buffer away from the closest house and there is a double lane to prevent any stacking of cars. The sound study recom mended, unlike any of the other five carwashes in town, includes a 10 foot tall, 30 foot lend sound gall so that blower noise would be deflected out as the cars exit the tunnel} there is a foot structure that runs the entire width serving as a buffer from the closest houses. Commissioner McGinnis asked how far array the area being described is from the nearest house. Mr. Kassel responded that the parking stalls under the covered canopy are 100 feet away from the property line and the car wash building has no windows and no doors out toward the houses. Commissioner McGinnis voiced concerns about the proximity of the highs school to this project and asked if there would be an attendant on duty to which Mr. Smith responded ..................................................................................................._......................................._..,..........I............................I..........I..................,...,................................................................................................_....................................................................................................................... Planning s affirmatively. Commissioner McGinnis asked staff if there was another project similar to this close to a highs school or in a residential neighborhood, staff responded that there is a car wash next to a neighborhood at the southwest corner of Brimhall and Calloway with no complaints thus far. Commissioner McGinnis stated that staff has explained that there is not another regional shopping center within 1 mile of this project and ghat concerns him is that the structure is going in at the intersection of two arterials and with 5 different business operating with drive-thru's it could prove to be a traffic nightmare. Where the drive thru's are there is going to be a traffic signal to help smooth the flow of the traffic and maintain the traffic circulation. Commissioner r McGinnis asked where the 2 fast food restaurants are proposed to be and Torn Carslla, the co-owner, co-developer of the project, stated that the 2 fast food restaurants will be n either side of the signal. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he doesn't see the need for a drive-thru Starbuc s and would like to see a limitation on the number of accesses to the project as far as the drive in drive out situation. Mr. Carr solla stated that Starb c s is currently only putting in new sites with drive thru#s and Walgreens is the same way. Mr. Caroslla wanted to respond to one of Commissioner Tra ish's comments about this being a strip center, he stated that he doesn't see this project as such but a center that is diversified with no plans for on-site alcohol and the main businesses all need their drive thr 's. Commissioner Mc ainnis asked Mr. ar s lla where the alcohol will be coring from, to which Mr. Caros lia responded that there could be no on site consumption but the grocery store would be selling alcohol for off site consumption. Commissioner McGinnis expressed his concerns about the loading hours as far as the trucks go for deliveries and would like to see it be a little more restricted particularly at the yarn hour. Commissioner Andrews asked staff if there were any additional environmental reviews regarding p ollution, staff responded that since this was not a study that created a significant enough additional traffic over the existing C-1 designation the amount of traffic and pollution is considered in our General plan modeling overall so because there is not a significant increase in the traffic over the existing designation they didn't do a traffic study which would man that it mould not expect to be a significant increase in the air pollution. Commissioner Andrews asked staff if there was any additional information with respect to what is being proposed on the vacant land across to the vest, part of the west hying project. Staff replied that the environmental impact report for the west Ming project considered build out of this area including this particular project as far as traffic and all types of impacts and it will be a Castle & Cooke smart gro wth type of development that was represented in the General Plan. Commissioner Blockley commented that these concerns will not go away and appreciates the time and effort into mitigating the noise around the perimeter of the project} He stated that the big concern is traffic, not only vehicle traffic but pedestrian as Drell, from the high school to the site and it seems life a strain on the credibility to make this whole thing Friable= Commissioner Johnson asked staff when the zoning is considered if the property owner establishes a right with it, to which staff responded once the General Elan designations and the zoning are on site, yes they have the ability to develop the project under those uses. Commissioner Johnson asked that in the future if the owner sells the property and some tenants lave the center do they still have the right to do on site alcohol salts, staff responded under the C-2 in connection with the food service they can do on site sale of alcohol, it is an incidental to the food service use of the property. Commissioner sioner Johnson stated he cannot support alcohol sales across from a high school. Commissioner Traish stated he heard another Commissioner ask about the environmental impact report and for this particular project it is stated that we look to the vest Min environmental report for this area and it anticipates traffic that will be generated and the one thing he grants to distinguish is that the environmental impact report, be it this one or any others, in the area is based on supposition and available information and he doesn't feel that this report took into consideration the configuration of this particular shopping center which is what's in front of the Commission today in regards to it#s ingress, it's egress and it's pass through shopping and it's drive thru's. He also commented that staff stated that there was one other car wash located in a residential neighborhood and there is a flurry of oar washes in this city and he doesn't know of any of theca that are in a residential neighborhood which indicates it is not something advisable. i ion - October 18, 2007 Page 5 Commissioner Stanley inquired if there is a way if they change the zone to C-2 to limit the on- site alcohol sales, to which staff responded they would not encourage the Planning Commission to put such a condition on this project because typically in C-2 it could be considered as the treating of this developer differently with this C-2 zone than other developers. staff recommended that the applicant make such a proposal. Commissioner Stanley started he has a concern with the loading hours and would support this project if they looked at moving it to a m leading tire. He stated that he believes in mined uses in our community and believes that some of these things can be protected even with the high school in the area. Staff added that there was an air quality study done for this by WZI, who determined that existing requ irements from the APCD were already less than significant. Staff also painted out that the C-I zone that underlies this does net have a PCD overlay se the Planning Commission gill not see the design under a C-1. Commissioner Andrews asked if there was a discussion of how students were gathered on amps and was something that was taken into consideration in terms of students migrating across the intersection during the day and school hears, staff responded that it was net considered and was not aware of any other information regarding this. Commissioner Blockley asked staff to vhawt extent would this project come back before a future Commission under the PCD over ley provisions, staff responded that the applicant is asking for C-2 with a PCD over lay and is asking for approval of the preliminary development plan tonight and if it is changed significantly in the future then they would have to return to the Commission. It does allow staff to approve some miner changes to the design or the location of buildings then it comes back as a report to the Commission and those are the one"s that are received and flied or they core back through with a new CD plan, Commissioner to kley asked if a business ceases operation after it's built and it attempts at a later date to add a restaurant with on site liquor would that matter be handled as a building department ratter to which staff responded affirmatively it would be a tenant infillt Commissioner Blockley asked Mr. Caroseli r if he had anything to add to the presentation already given and Mr. Carros lla responded no and offered deed restricting the project from on site alcohol and offered eliminating one of the fast food pads. Commissioner McGinnis asked staff ff they could give an example of the different uses that are proposed in this parcel that are not allowed under C- , staff responded that the drive thru lanes for the restaurant, grocery stores and large retail centers. Commissioner McGinnis confirmed that this project will have 2 drive-thr #s, a drive thru Starbuoks and a car wash, staff replied in the affirmative. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Carosella ff a continuance right help to which he said yes and a two creek continuance was requested. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he would look to a two week continuance. staff responded that a two week continuance would be good, and inquired what the Planning Commission would direct staff` to do during that two week continuance. Commissioner McGinnis replied that he thinks the major concerns are 1 the alcohol, 2 traffic flow; and 3 noise and/or pollution. Staff inquired if the applicant was suggesting to limit the number of fast food restaurants, car the number of fast food restaurants with drive-thru's, to which Commissioner McGinnis replied that was his understanding. Commissioner Johnson stated that he is prepared to make a motion for continuance with the caveat that the applicant should keep the name"Mustang Square." Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to continue zone change 06-1149 and planned development review -1 558 for two weeks. Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES} Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson,son, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tra ish NOES: None SENTO Commissioner:er: Tka ..................... Planning Commission October 5.2 Zone change 7-1 (Marino&Associates) Staff report given. Commissioner Blockley pointed out that the hearing on this item is closed and acknowledged that Mr. Moreno had filled out a speaker card, Commissioner Johnson stated that he would like to give Mr. Moreno a few minutes to express his concerns. Mr. Moreno reminded the Commission that this is a request to bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan, which the property owner relied on when he purchased the property. He explained that the zone change is a necessary prelude to annexation of the property. Mr. Moreno pointed out that the October 17, 2007 memo that he was given this evening is not acceptable in that the cost of doing the things outlined is prohibitive, is patently unfair, and financially kills the project. Mr. Moreno questioned whether the Commissioner would have to find that the General Plan is inconsistent with orderly development. He requested, as an alternative, to accept a condition that no building permits on the light industrial only may be issued for a year prior to November 1,200 8. Commissioner Tragish commented that he had hoped to address the traffic concerns in this area. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Moreno as to the appropriateness of having the property zoned from A to M-1 and instead why it isn't hieing zoned M-1 along the tract's and asked about correspondence received from Carrol Bender. hart Moreno responded that the M-1 zone along hlageman is 700 to Soo ft.from the end of the runway where the mosquito abatement is pointing out that staff would not support their proposal of a mobile home park and wanted to keep in non-residential. Cdr. Moreno went on to say that with respect to the residential which should probably be industrial, may take care of itself because there is a condition that with the tract reap submittal the applicant also has to submit a noise study and based on his past experience it may not be possible to buffer the noise even with a 10' wall. He pointed out that they just want to start the process of annexation, which requires a zone change. commissioner Tragish further asked about the traffic impacts along Hagernan. Mr. Moreno responded there is no dedication on the south side of Flageman the project would widen it and there may be a traffic signal at Allen load. There are 3 alternative designs for the over crossing one of which will swing Allen load to the west, north of Hagernan load and the thought was there would be some kind of upgrade to the transportation element. Commissioner Tragish commented that Allen Road and Santa Fe load, going north, has always been a problem and does not want to see it get worse. Commissioner Tragish asked staff if the condition added through the October 1 Ith memo was added because they thought it would alleviate the traffic situation before any more developments are built, staff responded affirmatively. Commissioner Stanley asked staff when the original General Plan use designations were set for these two pieces, staff responded that they were established in the county. Commissioner Johnson stated that he feels the condition on the memo from October 17, 2007 is adequate because if they are annexed into the city the traffic impact fees are going to go to the city side of the line that being the ease it's premature to approve this without making sure that the light and separation of grade are in place to ensure that the traffic is mitigated. leading this condition it's not requiring the applicant to pay for the whole project it is saying if you want to do your project before the grade of separation and before the light is in you have to put then in. Commissioner Johnson stated he will support this project and feels it addresses the traffic issues specifically and is in the hest interest of citizens of Bakersfield. Commissioner McGinnis agreed with Commissioner Johnson in regards to the traffic mitigations and asked the applicant if he would prefer to pass it with that mitigation measure with the idea in mind that it would be annexed into the city or would you prefer to leave it as is. Mr. Moreno replied that the condition Dills the project and gives the option of stopping the project now and continue developing in the county or exhausting his administrative remedies and appeal to the city council, staff responded that the county has advised that this project is under design and the do expect to have it start construction within 2 years, and it noted that it will be an impact fee project. ss er 18, 2007 Page 7 Commissioner Andrews inquired of Mr. Moreno if he would be amenable to the idea of not being able to pull permits until the grade crossing is under construction, as opposed to waiting a year. Mr. Moreno clarified that one issue is the separation of grade and the bridge of the railroad tracks, and the traffic signal at Santa Fe, of which the traffic signal is the shorter term. He explained that the separation of grade is dealing with eight roads and is an engineering puzzle. Mr. Moreno stated that he could extend the time to January 009 however he would like to have a time certain. Commissioner Blockley inquired ghat the relative time frame is for a zone change, annexation, residential tract map} subdivisions and lots. staff responded that annexation probably takes a year and the tentative tract reap in the single-family residential could be approved while it is in the process of annexation, which would take another year before anyone moves into the home and therefore it would be two years before you get to the residential portion. staff stated that with regard to the industrial portion, a site plan review for use could be tentatively approved and therefore in a year when it is annexed the applicant could move fairly quickly in getting permits to start construction on the industrial portion. Therefore the industrial portion would take a year and three months before there was any serious construction on the industrial portion. Commissioner Blockley pointed out that the earliest the applicant could get started is 5 months, and therefore them is a difference of a year between the condition in the October 17t h memo and the applicant's proposal. Commissioner Tragish commented that the memo is pretty open ended and somewhat over the top. He further pointed out that there}s not much activity in the real estate market today and building 68 homes could be a problem. commissioner Tragish stated that his inclination is that maybe if they could put a restriction that no building permits coId be issued on the property for a period of two years. staff commented that with today's market and the amount of time it will take to annex and subdivide and actually get property owners on the residential part} Staff isn't tee concerned about that. However, staffs concern is the industrial part and inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to putting it off until prior to occupancy so that they could get their permits, they just couldn't occupy a structure within the industrial portion until that signal is in. Mr. Moreno stated that he thinks this is a fair compromise, although he would file a time limit. Staff responded that they were originally dealing with two years and if it took eight months to construct they are dealing with 32 months as an outside date} which wou Id put it at June 2010. Commissioner Johnson commented that the project is premature until the infrastructure that is needed in the County goes into place and therefore without that needed infrastructure this project is premature. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews to wept a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration changing the zone from A(Agriculture) to (Estate Dwelling) on approximately 17 acres, and A(Agriculture)to I -1 (Light Manufacturing) on approximately 10 acres as shorn on Exhibit A-2, and incorporating the revised condition described in staff's memo dated October 12, 200 7, and incorporating a Memo by Marian Shaw dated October 17, 2007 that states, "No certificate of occupancy can be issued on the industrial property before either the grade separation or complete of the traffic signal at Hagern an Road and Santa Fe Way is constructed and operational} or two yeas and eight months from the date of approval, whichever is earlier, The developer may either contract to construct the signal himself, or gait until the County of Kern completes the construction with a signal or the grade separation district completes construction of the grade separation construction of a signal that is estimated to begin within two }rears. Construction of the grade separation is not expected to occur until 2011 at the earliest. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews NOES: Commissioners: Johnson, Tragish ABSENT: Commissioner: Tl ac Planning Commission - October 18, 2007 Page 8 Commissioner Johnson commented that his no vote is due to the fact that he believes this development is premature without the Infrastructure in place. He stated that he does not think it would have been in the best Interest of the citizens of Bakersfield to put more traffic at an intersection that is already at capacity and an unsafe situation. He commented that he didn't think the compromise was enough. Commissioner Tragish commented that he agrees with Commissioner Johnson,nson, although he is sympathetic to Mr. Moreno. He stated that he thinks you need to have the infrastructure and he wishes the compromise was a little more of a compromise. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — Vesting Tentative Parcel MaR Tentative Parcel MaRs., V s � Tentative Tract 6.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel M a p 1 1758(J P/CP Development, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 6.2 Tentgtive,Parcel Map 11614(Wiley D. Hughes, Surveying) Heard on consent calendar. 6.3 e g Tentative Tract M S 1t T ch/USA, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 6.4 Vesting Tentative Tract MaQ 7113(Pinnacle Civil Engineering, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff indicated they provided a set of rolled maps which include the latest General Plan as well as the latest cumulative project reap. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Johnson commented that Auburn and 0swell. is looping better. 9. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further com ment , the meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. #ry {{"{JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director November 26,2007