Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/99 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, citY Hall 1. ROLL CALL ALTERNATE: ~- April 1, 1999 5:30 p.m. JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TA VORN RON SPRAGUE NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $330 non-refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $330 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, Thursday -April 1, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to condition, s of approval and requested to be placed on .the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 3.1) Agenda 3.2) Agenda 3.3) Agenda 3.4) Agenda 3,5) Agenda 3.6) Agenda 3.7) Agenda 3.8) Agenda 3.9) Agenda Item 5.1 - Extension of Time for Vesting TT 5738 (Telstar Engineering) Item 5.2 - Extension of Time for Vesting TT 5758 (Revised) (Delmarter & Deifel) Item 5.3 - Extension of Time for Vestinq TT 5478 (Porter-Robertson) Item 8.1 - P.C.D. 5646 Buccaneer Bay Water Park Status Report Item 8.2 - P.C.D. 5666 Fairways Senior Residential Development Status Report Item 9.1 - General Plan Consistencv Findinc~ Item 9.2 - General Plan Consistency Finding Item 9.3 - General Plan Consistency Findinq Item 9.4 - General Plan Consistency Finding APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held February 1, February 4 and February 18, 1999. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 5.1) 5.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 5738 (Telstar Engineering) An extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5738 consisting of 504 residential lots and one park lot on 120 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development), located on both sides of Berkshire Road between South "H" Street and State Route 99. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote Vesting Tentative Tract 5758 (Revised) (Delmarter & Deifel) An extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5758 (Revised) consisting of 221 residential lots on 56 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located on the southwest corner of Noriega Road and Old Farm Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday -April 1, 1999 Page 3 5.3) Vesting Tentative Tract 5478 (Porter-Robertson) An extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5478 consisting of 131 residential lots on 34 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located west of Coffee Road, north of Hageman Road, at the eastern extension of Southshore Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARING - Grand Canal Shopping Center Project - Modification of Approved Preliminary Plan (#P98-0490) (Martin-Mclntosh) requesting changes to site plan and other design parameters, generally located between SR-99, the Arvin-Edison Canal, South "H" Street and Berkshire Road. (Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: To be determined by Planning Commission Group vote PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment P98-0968 - Castle and Cooke, CA, Inc. is requesting an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan deleting a "collector" street alignment along the south side of Ming Avenue (extended) approximately 3,500 feet west of Buena Vista Road at the intersection of Ming Avenue and the Kern River Canal. The segment to be deleted extends southwestward from Ming Avenue (extended)/Kern River Canal intersection, a distance of approximately one-half mile. (Negative Declaration on file). '(Continued from meeting of March 18, 1999) Staff Recommendation: Denial Roll call vote. STATUS REPORTS 8.1) P.C.D. 5646 Buccaneer Bay Water Park -Status report provided by City staff on Planned Commercial Development project located south of Brimhall Road, approximately 700 feet west of Coffee Road. Recommendation: Receive and file report 8.2) P.C.D. 5666 Fairways Senior Residential Development - Status report provided by City staff on Planned Unit Development located west of Calloway Drive, north of the Cross Valley Canal. Recommendation: Receive and file report Agenda, PC, Thursday -April 1, 1999 Page 4 10. 11. 12. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 9.1) General Plan Consistency Finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for vacation of pedestrian easements in the cul de sacs on Pembroke and Hooper Avenues in Tract No. 3807. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Make finding Group vote 9.2) General Plan Consistency Finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for vacation of "G" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 17th Street and also the abutting alley in Block 282. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Make finding Group vote 9.3) General Plan Consistency Finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for the vacation of a 50-foot portion of the dedicated vehicular access rights on White Lane west of Ashe Road at the northwest corner of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 9290. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Make finding Group vote 9.4 General Plan Consistency Finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for sale of surplus street right-of-way along Coffee Road approximately 1/4 mile south of Rosedale Highway. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Make finding Group vote COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE 13. NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT March 29, 1999 Held = = Thursday April 1, 1999 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN RON SPRAGUE, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STEVE WALKER, Traffic Engineer Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MIKELEE, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Tkac read the Notice of Right to Appeal Commissioners Tavorn and Ortiz stated that they did not attend the Monday pre-meeting but that they had listened to the tape and would be taking part in tonight's meeting. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) 3.2) Agenda Item 5.1 - Extension of Time for Vesting TT 5738 (Telstar Engineering) Agenda Item 5.2 - Extension of Time for Vesting TT 5758 (Revised) (Delmar(er & Deifel) Minutes, PC, Thursday, APril 1, 1999 Page 2 o 6: 3.3) 3.4) 3.5) 3.6) 3.?) 3.8) 3.9) Agenda Agenda Agenda Repo~ Agenda Agenda Agenda Agenda Item 5.3 - Extension of Time for Vesting TT 5478 (Porter, Robertson) Item 8.1 - P.C.D. 5646 Buccaneer Bay Water Park Status Report Item 8.2 - P.C.D. 6666 Fairways Senior Residential Development Status Item 9.1 - General Plan Consistency Finding Item 9.2 - General Plan Consistency Finding Item 9.3 - General Plan Consistency Finding Item 9.4 - General Plan Consistency Finding Commissioner Boyle has some questions about Agenda Item 9.2 and would like it removed from the Consent Agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve the Consent Agenda. items with the. exception of 3.7. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Kemper to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held February 1, February 4 and February 18, 1999. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 5,1) Vesting Tentative Tract 5738 (TelStar Engineering) Approved as a consent agenda item. 5.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 5758 (Revised) (Delmarter & Deifel) Approved.as a consent agenda item. 5.3) Vesting Tentative Tract 5478 (Porter-Robertson) Approved as a consent agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING - Grand Canal Shopping Center Project - Modification of Approved Preliminary Plan (#P98-0490) Stanley Grady passed out a memorandum which is a part of the presentation to them as a follow-up to the Monday's pre-meeting. Mr. Grady said there has been some discussion about the authority that the Planning Commission has with respect to approving the P.C.D.'s. He broke down the authority that was granted under change into two parts. Part 1 would be that he would first look at the project and determine whether it is a minor project or not. If a minor decision could be reached, then Mr. Grady could do that on his own. Part 2 is after he has made the determination that it requires Planning Commission approval, that it had the potential to affect one or more design parameters or it was that didn't affect them at all. Mr. Grady also stated that staff felt Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 1, 1999 Page 3 that it was important to have elevations submitted for review. Mr. Mclntosh said that they had-brought them with them tonight. Mr. Grady said that in that Case the condition placed in his memorandum requiring elevations be submitted could be disregarded. Mr. Grady added that the second part of this is the discussion of gross floor area. From staff's perspective it is not an issue. The issue is that the applicant wants to add additional square footage. The project is approved for 555,000 square feet total which includes both exclusive tenant space and public or common space. After looking at the project staff determined that it did not exceed what is considered an industry standard of 5 percent tolerance for traffic studies as its applied to any other shopping center in town. There is less than 2 percent increase in gross floor area, therefore, it does not require a new traffic study. The previous traffic study was based on a 555,000 square foot shopping center. The general plan is based on that number as well. That was the land use density of building bulk and size that was approved for the project as part of the general plan and the PCD. Because the traffic analysis evaluated the project at 555,000 square feet and the applicant is adding common areas to that which would increase the amount of building square footage from Planning's standpoint but would not increase the amount of square footage that was the subject of the traffic analysis. The changes he is requesting are insignificant with respect to the 5% tolerance allowed to commercial centers. - - Mr. Grady had an updated table that needs to be included in staff's recommendation. The condition in the staff report would have to read "the 568,389 square foot destination shopping center" which includes the following uses: factory outlet - 150,000 sq.ft. retail - 273,000 sq.ft. theater - 75,000 sq.ft. restaurants - 57,000 sq.ft. administration - 16,504 sq.ft The minimum parking spaces still exceeds the required number of 3,484. Staff is recommending thePlanning Commission approve the increase of building square footage and adopt a motion with the provision that the building square footage for the purposes of determining excedences of any tolerances shall be 555,000 sq.ft. Staff is recommending approval of the project using the motion in the' memorandum and referencing the two conditions. The public hearing portion of the meeting was opened. Commissioner Brady asked the Chairman to have the applicant give his presentation before people were asked to comment. Mr. Grady said to leave the public portion of the meeting opened, let the applicant speak and then askfor comments. Mr. Green of the Bakersfield Californian thought it would be inappropriate to hear the item tonight as he felt proper notification was not made concerning the elevations. Mr. ~? Hernandez said the item had been properly agendized and noticed so, therefore, all that Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 1, 1999 Page 4 is being presented and entered into the record is evidence of the approval that is before the Commission. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Hernandez if it would be in the purvieTM of the Planning Commission to cOntinue the item because there was so much additional information. Mr. Hernandez said yes that would be appropriate. .Roger Mclntosh, representing Daystar Development, presented staff with a summary of numbers so that everyone could understand how they got where they are. Mr. Mclntosh gave a presentation to the Planning Commission concerning the changes to the PCD plan to meet the needs of tenants. In general, they are asking for changes in locations of buildings, taking a major retail at one location and moving it into one location and taking another major retail at one location and moving it into small shops. The canal is the same and St. Marc's tower is the same but some of the floor plans are different. The administration office is larger so that the running of the shopping center may go smoothly. There are many minor changes to the plan and the summary provided to the Commission explains them. Mr. Mclntosh also mentioned that all of Buildings A & B have no non-usable areas. All of Buildings A & B will be gross lease able. Building C has a service corridor and an electrical closet. Buildings D & E are made up of smaller shops with service corridors. Buildings F & H have no non-lease able area. Building G is a separate building near the canal with no service areas. Buildings I, J, K, & L are all major retail with no service' areas. Buildings M & N are the most significant non-lease able areas with a 1,250 square foot restroom, storage, electrical closet, food court and a 2,900 sq.ft, service - corridor. In the back of Building Q the office area is a total of 3,605 sq.ft, and a 1,760 sq.ft, service corridor around the office and a restroom of 1,680 sq.ft. Building U did not change and in Building B a restroom was added at 1,138 sq.ft. The total square footage of thegross lease able area is 555,000. The non-lease able areas did increase by 16,500 sq.ft. This is where the numbers came from in Mr. Grady's recommended conditions. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Mclntosh why the proposed site plan says the total building area adds up to 568,389 feet and when he adds it up, he gets 571,504 square feet? Mr. Mclntosh said he would check through that while the architect makes his presentat on. Mr. Grady told the Commissioners that if the elevation plans are submitted tonight they are a matter of public record and cannot be returned to the applicant. Mr. Natele of Daystar Development said they would be willing to submit the plans tonight. Commissioner Brady asked about the architectural buildout presented and if that was to be part of the record also. Mr. Natele said the large scale site plan is consistent with the cosmetics submitted tonight. Mr. Grady said the applicant must leave the drawings with the Planning Department if the drawings are going to be used for the Commission to make their decision. Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 1, 1999 Page $ Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Mclntosh if the drawings were going to be left as part of the record. He responded in the affirmative. Mark Tweed, the director of design for MCG Architects, gave a presentation about the various drawings that were posted on the walls along the room. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the figures were simply added wrong and the proper number for the total square footage is 571,504. A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt the resolution making findings and approving the proposed modification to the preliminary plans for PCD P98-0490 for the Grand Canal project with the changes to the conditions of approval Contained in memorandum stating the applicant must modify Planning Condition No. 24 of PCD P98-0490 to read as follows: change the first number to 571,504 and the other numbers mentioned by Mr. Grady. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment P98-0968 - Castle and Cooke, CA, Inc.. (Continued from meeting of March 18, 1999) Stanley Grady gave the staff report. This project was continued to allow the Traffic Engineer and the project engineer to get together and discuss the traffic study. The Traffic Engineer met with the applicant and has prepared a memo which was given to the Commission today with respect to relocation or removal of this collector and is now in support of moving the collector. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh stated that he reviewed the April 1 memorandum from the Planning Department and agrees with the conditions of approval recommended by the Traffic Engineer and asked for theCommission's approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked staff if the collector were deleted and then the project sold to a different developer who decides not to build a gated community,.how should the project be conditioned to make sure the interior streets are gated or does the existing conditions already do that? Mr. Grady stated that a condition of approval requiring the project be gated at both ends could be added. Mr. Mclntosh was asked if he would agree to this. Mr. Mclnt°sh stated that he didn't see the need to add another condition. The collector is not needed beCause of the density in the area, whether its gated or not, so it would work either way. He would not be willing to add another condition. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady that if the project were sold to a different developer and they wanted to increase the density would staff automatically bring back up the re-creation of the collector. Mr. Grady said that if a general plan amendment to change the density were submitted in the future that that would be looked at. Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 1, 1999 Page 6 A motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to adopt a resolution making findings recommending the adoption of the Negative - Declaration-and recommending approval of GPA P98-0968 amending the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan with the findings and conditions of approval contained in the memorandum dated April 1, 1999 from Stanley Grady to the Planning Commission. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac NOEs: None STATUS REPORTS 8.1) P.C.D. 5646 Buccaneer Bay Water Park - Approved as a conSent agenda item. 8.2) P.C.D. 5666 Fairways senior Residential Develo_Dment .- Approved as a consent agenda item. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 9.1) General Plan Consistency Findinq\ Approved as a consent agenda item. 9.2) General Plan Consistency Finding Stanley Grady mentioned that there wasn't anything to add since the Monday pre-meeting and that it was taken off consent calendar as Commissioner Boyle had some questions regarding the item. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Bob Klassen with Klassen Corporation, the architects representing the church in their master plan studies, stated that the church has acquired the block adjacent to them west of "G" Street and would like to attempt to grow their church and wish to make it one whole complete campus and ask for the Commission's approval. Commissioner Boyle was concerned about the asset the city was giving up in the way of revenue by closing the street. He was also concerned about the traffic issues and asked Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer, about the one way streets being proposed and the impact closing this street would have when that came to pass. Mr. Walker stated that there is no plans to make "H" and "F" Streets one way and the volume of traffic using this street is only 26 vehicles during rush hour which is Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 1, 1999 Page 7 10. 11. 9.3) an insignificant number in the scope of things. He also stated that the Council will make the decision about the appropriateness of vacating land back to a non- taxable entity. From a traffic standpoint, there should be no adverse conditions to the general public. A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to make a finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 that the proposed vacation of "G" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 17th Street and also the abutting alley of Block 282 is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Motion carried. General Plan Consistency Finding Approved as a consent agenda item. 9.4 General Plan Consistency Findin~l ApprOved as a consent agenda item. COMMUNICATIONS None COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Tavorn thanked Mr. Walker for providing the Commission with the book about traffic but had a question about intersections. Mr. Walker said this book is one that is given to the general public about street segments. He explained to Commissioner Tavorn that the Public Works Department keeps in their files the combined volumes and what you can do is take the different segments of road that come into the intersection, divide that number in half and then add up those half numbers and that is the approximate number of vehicles that enter into the intersection. Commissioner Tavorn asked Mr. Walker how does the general public know by "volume" whether or not it is a danger zone or about to be one. Mr. Walker stated that the "volume" figure is simply a census count on the volume of traffic using the street basically for real estate purposes. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Mr. Grady mentioned that there were four extensions of time and four vesting extensions which would probably be on consent and an ordinance amendment regarding an amendment to the PUD/PCD zoning ordinance to give the Planning Director more authority. It was decided to have a pre-meeting on April 12, 1999. MinUtes, PC, Thursday, April 1, 1999 Page 8 13. ADJOURNMENT There being.no fudher businesS to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Director ~ April 30, 1999