Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/16/01AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 12:15 p.m. and Thursday, January 18, 2001- 5:30 p.m. 1.- ROLL CALL NOTE: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice-Chairman 'MA THEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC Agendas maybe 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. ItemS listed on this agenda will be continued to 5:30 p.m. on the Thursday following the date listed on this agenda. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON-WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA ORWlSHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HE/~RING 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 subjectto appeal by any interested person adversely affected by. the decision of the Commission. No permit shall:be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal The.appeal shall include the appellant's interest in or relationship to the subject property, the decision or action-appealed ahd-shall state specific facts and reasons why the appellant believes the decision or acti'on of the Commission should not be upheld. Such appeal must be filed in Writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed-to the C!ty Council, cio Office Of the City ,Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 non- refundable filing feemustbe included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any persoh outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $334 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to theCity Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the dec~sion of the Planning Commission will stand. Agenda, PC,-Tuesday;' January 16 and Thursday - January 18, 2001 page 2 If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning.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. 3. 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 conditions 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 Item 4) -'Approval of minutes for December 4 & 7, 2000. 3.2) Agenda Item 8). Cohtinuance of Tentative Tract 6017 (Porter-Robertson) APPROVAL OF MINUTESi Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held December 4 and 7, 2000. CERTIFICATION. OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR GATEWAY (Ward 7) PROJECT (City of Bakersfield) Resolution making findingsland recommending that the City Council certify that the Final EIR for proposed Zon'e Change.P00-0419 has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures.. ZoneChange.P00-0419 consists of a request to re-zone the 64 +/- acre site from a PCD (Planned Commercial Development)zone,.known as the "Grand Canal Shopping Center" to a C-2 .(Regional Commercial) zone for purposes of mixed use commercial shopping center containing 555,000 square feet of leasable area; located between State Route (SR) 99~ the Arvin-Edison Canal, South "H" Street, and Berkshire .Road alignment. (Applicant: MGC Architecture representing Paul Owhadi, Sierra Pacific Development) ., RECOMMENDATION: Certify Final EIR Roll Call Vote Agenda; PC; 'Tuesday, January 16 and Thursday -January 18, 2001 Page 3 = PUBEIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE P00-0419 (MGC Architecture representing Paul Owhadi, Sierra Pacific Development) Consisting-of a request to re-zone the 64 +/- acre site from a PCD (Planned Commercial Development)!zone, known as the "Grand Canal Shopping Center" to a C-2.(Regional Commercial). zone for purposes of mixed use commercial shopping center containing 555,000 Square feet of leasable area; located between State Route -(SR) .99, the Arvin-Edison Canal, South "H" Street, and Berkshire Road alignment. (EIR) (Ward 7). RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Parcel Maps (ward Tentative Parcel Map 10715 (Alta/Hughes) Containing one parcel on 4.28 acres to be developed as a church, zoned M-2 '(General Manufacturing) and C-2 (Regional Commercial). As part of the parcel map, the applicant also proposes to vacate Hayes Street south of Brundage .Lane; located on the west side of the Southern Pacific Railroad between East Brundage Lane and Highway 58. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Approve (Ward 4) 7.2) Group vote Tentative Parcel Map 10751 (Porter-Robertson) Containing nine parcels on 373.42 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), and a request to waive certain improvements until further subdiviSion; located on the southeast corner of Snow.Road and Jewetta Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote --7.3)' (Ward 4) TentatiVe parcel Map 10764 (Porter-Robertson) containing six parcels on 12.75 acres for development of a commercial shopping center, zoned PCD (Planned Commercial Development); located on the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road. (Negative' Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote Agenda, Pc,-Tuesday; January 16 and Thursday'-January 18, 2001 Page 4 8. (Ward 4) PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Tract Map 6017 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 47 lots on 7.56 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling); including a request for reduced lot area, non- radial and non-perpendicular lot lines, approval of vehicular access, double frontage lots separated from a Iocal.;street with a masonry wall, and-private gated streets with alternate street design improvements; generally located betWeen Northshore Drive and Coffee Road, approximately 500 feet south of Olive Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from-November 16 and December 7, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: Continue to February 15, 2001 GrOup vote 9. WORKSHOP REGARDING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND 10. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS (Ralph Huey, Director of Environmental Services) :DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS 11. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal 12. COMMISSION COMMENT'S 'A) .Committees 13. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION 'OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. 14. ADJOURNMENT January 5. 2001 STANL retary t Planning Director -. Held January 16, 2001 12:15 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: Absent: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC ADVlSORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNAN DEZ Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) Agenda Item 4) - Approval of minutes for December 4 & 7, 2000. 3.2) .. Agenda Item 8) - Continuance of Tentative Tract 6017 (Porter-Robertson) Minutes, PC, January 16, 2001 Page 2 These items were continued until Thursday, January 18, 2001. APPROVAL:OF MI'NUTES~ Approval of minutes of the regular, meetings held December 4 and 7, 2000.. These items Will be voted (~n the Consent Agenda on. Thursday, January 18, 2001. 5. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR GATEWAY PROJECT (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending the Planning Commission certify the Gateway EIR. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if the EIR is certified for the proposed C-2 zone change if they are required~to change the zoning to C-27 Mr. Grady said "no." Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Grady to explain, to the Commission a "no project alternative" in relation to the EIR. Mr. Grady said there are several project alternatives. The no project would be to :leave this property as a PCD zone change with the Grand Canal as the project that still stands as approved, To answer Commissioner Sprague's question the "no project alternative" would leave this as a Grand Canal PCD. Commissioner Sprague as.ked what guarantee do we have that this 64 acres would be developed into a shopping Center and not divided or parceled into smaller C-2 parcels after we change the zone from a PCD to a C-2 which in his opinion would affect the EIR? Mr. Grady said that if the Commission approves this as a C-2, the property owner would be able to build individual projects and bring them' through site plan review as tenants were identified. It would be on a project-by-project basis. The developer would have as his option to develoP an overall plan for the project and then develop it in pieces. Mr. Grady said tha! if the project was approved as a C-2 and the applicant came in with a parcel map, all the conditions and mitigations that are in the EIR would beapplied to that map as Well. The timing of those improvements could be addresSed based on the'plotting of the site but the subdivision of this property into individual parcels would not delete aqy of the mitigation that would be assigned to it. Commissioner Sprague asked if the Commission approved the C-2 zone, if they could ' attach conditions to the C-2 in addition to what is in the ordinance similar to a PCD on projects that are this large? Mr. Grady said there are such conditions in the project mitigation noWand the Commission would have the ability to do that as well. Commissioner SPrague said that because it is such a large piece of property that would go to a shopping center, he thinks it falls within the requisite of looking at it as a PCD and from that standpoint he will listen to the other Commissioner's comments and then make that decision. Commissioner Brady-asked about the issue of smells coming from. garbage and wanted to know if smell had been addressed in the comments? Mr. Grady said he would have an answer by ThurSday night. Minutes, PC, January 16,- 2001 Page 3 Commissioner Sprague asked if there is a recorded easement that goes from the end of the pavement on Colony~Street across the canal and through the sump? Mr. Grady said that was one of the items that was suppose to be submitted to us prior to hearing and he.would check to see=if it has been recorded and staff will verify this by Thureday. There were no other Commissioner comments or questions. Item was continued until Thursday, January 18, 2001. PUBLIC HEARING -ZONE CHANGE P00-0419 (MGC Architecture representing Paul Owhadi, Sierra Pacific Development) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval of the C-2 zone subject to the mitigation measures and conditions shown in the attached resolution. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if it were left as a PCD zone if the applicant needs to bring back to the Commission a new site plan every time he got a newtenant or Changed the 'configuration after we addressed the first site plan submitted? Mr. Grady said that if the project was left PCD it would be left in the Grand Canal cOnfiguration and the applicant would be'able to build that and if he made minor modifications to the site plan, then staff could bring .them to the Commission to consider as an Administrative Review to determine that it is minor and agree with staff and then the applicant could proceed with it. Commissioner Sprague asked if there is a way they could structure it under PCD (leaving it the same zone) so that it would flow through the Planning Department after {he first change to the existing Grand Canal site plan is submitted so that the develbper or the owner of the property would not have to come back to the Commission on a weekly basis? Mr. Grady said there is no way to allow for the kinds of change to an a'pproved PCD that he is talking about that would happen at the staff level. It has to come back to the Commission for any change that refers to the site plan under an Administ'rative Review. The only way to give the applicant the flexibility that heis seeking ;is to approve the property as C-2 which means that when he acquires tenants, he comes in for a site plan review for that tenant. Commissioner Boyle asked if the PCD could be done in phases? Mr. Grady said that there is no way.to do a phased PCD. If he develops the project in. phases, you have to have the whole to start with which means you will have had an apprOved PCD. Commissioner BoYle asked if he could come in bits and pieces for a zone change as he had each new tenant or section of tenants? Mr. Grady said that each one of them would be different. They would be a stand alone zone change. They could all be different. Commissioner BOyle asked if they could require consistent architecture and Mr. Grady said if they did it,on the first one. Commissioner Dhanens asked if typically when a zone change is done on a piece of property and being changed to a C-2 from some other zone, the'Commission generally does not have any latitude such as changing setbacks or landscaping requirements, etc? '.The project would have to meet whatever city ordinances that are in affect at the time?' Mr. Grady said that is correct. It Would be out of the ordinances or would flow Minutes, PC, January 16, 2001 Page4 out of the environmental review process that identified some impact that had to have special conditions'applied to it. There is also a memo from him that identifies for the Commission what conditions that have .been applied to this project that are beyond ordinance requirements. Commissioner Brady asked if when the Commission looks at the EIR they don't typically look at. aesthetics as an environmental issue? Mr. Grady said that aesthetics is an issue that is evaluated as part of the EIR review, however, most times it is not dealing with the architecture but dealing with the setting wherein the project is going to .go. Commissioner Brady asked if in this case, they change the zoning to a C-2, there is no ability on the part of tl~e city, pursuant to the ordinances,*to have any input into the architecture or other aesthetic points of this particular project? Mr. Grady said that is c0rcect. Commissioner Brady said the only way they have some comment or input on what the 64 acres will look like and what kind of face we will be presenting to people entering our city from the.south,' is through the PCD process. By agr. eeing to the zone change, the Commission Would be giving that up? Mr. Grady said that is correct. Commissioner Brady asked if the applicant has provided any documents indicating why the city should give that up? Mr. Grady said "yes, the applicant says that the market that the Grand Canal was intended for is gone and he does not have the ability to build someone else's dream andlin order for the property to develop he needs the flexibility that is granted to a commercial property designated a C-2 to go out and attract tenants. and place them on the site as he acquires them." Commissioner Brady asked if in the last five years had other projects that were PCD of a large scale developed in the city and been built out with'tenants under the PCD format? Mr. Grady said "yes, we have." Therewere no other Commissioner comments or questions. Item was continued until Thursday, January 18, 2001. PUBLIC HEARINGS -Tentative Parcel Maps 7.1) 7.2) Tentative Parcel Map 10715 (Alta/Hughes) (Ward Staff report given recommending approval subject to the conditions. CommisSioner Sprague asked how Parcel 13 is separated from the Church development? Mr. Grady said it is zoned C-2 so it is not required to have a fence or a wall. There were no other Commission comments or questions. Item was continued,until Thursday, January 18, 2001. Tentative Parcel Map 10751 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward4) Staff report given recommending approval with the Conditions attached to the staff report. Minutes, PC, january 16, 2001 Page 5 7.3) There were no Commission comments °r questions.. Item was continued:until Thursday, January 18, 2001. Tentative Parcel Map 10764 (Porter-Robertson) (Wsrd4) Staff report given recommending approval with the conditions attached to the Staff report. Therewere no Commission comments or questions. Item was continued,until ThUrsday, January 18, 2001. PUBLIC HEARING - Tentat,ve Tract Map 6017 (porter-R°bertson) (Ward4) Commissioner Dhanens d~clared a conflict of interest on this project and turned the Chairmanship over to Commissioner Boyle. Staff said that the applicant has requested a continuance until February,15, 2001,. because the applicant is still completing design revisions based on some. pipel!nes that belong to the Chevron Corporation that impact the design of the site. This item will be voted on the Consent Agenda on Thursday, January 18, 2001. WORKSHOP REGARDING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS (Ralph Huey, Director of Environmental Services) Mr. Grady said the presentation will be made Thursday night. 10. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Mr. Grady said that the Corn_mission should have a memorandum in their binders explaining what staff has discovered as far as information that was suppose to be transmitted to them and thiS is on the agenda for the Commission to discuss and give direction Thursday night. Commissioner Sprague said that heread the comparisons and in addition he would like for Thursday .night consideration on decal lanes and possibly on right turn lanes, noise, lighting comparisons and general contamination isSues with commercial developments where the road divides the city and'the county and the relationships between the city and county with different cOdes and ordinances regarding the developments that are · MinUtes, PC~ Januar~ 16, 2001 Page 6 11. 12. 13. across the street from each other where you would have certain conditions, required by the city for a development and then across the street you would have different types of zoning codes and regulations in the county. What he is looking at is different considerations such as dedal lanes and noise that weren't addressed in the comparison. Does the county have the same decimal unit as the city when it comes to a noise ordinance? Could we look at additional issues other than what is in the chart ThursdaY night?.-Mr. Grady, said that to the extent possible we will provide the Commission with that information. If we can't have it for them Thursday, he is sure we can get it for them at a later date. Commissioner Sprague said that he is looking for a source of moreitems for the Planning Commission Chairman to address the City Council and County Planning Commission for discussion in workshops to generate COntinuity in the codes and,ordinances. COMMUNICATIONS There were no written or verbal communications. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Sprague stated that they held another meeting on the landscape Committee and Commissioner McGinnis has asked that they have one more meeting for review before a presentation is made to the Commission. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE January 31.2001 NEXT PRE-MEETING This will be discussed on Thursday evening. ADJOURNMENT : There being no further'business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:13 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secr/~ary '. Held January 18, 2001 5:30 p.m. ' City Council Chamber, City Hall · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California.. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN B~DYLE, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS ' MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE -JEFFREY TKAC ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: JANICE SCANLAN, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal Commissioner Tkac stated that he had missed Monday's pre-meeting but listened to a copy of the tape of the meeting and is prepared to participate in tonight's meeting. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) Agenda Item 4) - Approval of minutes for December 4 & 7, 2000. 3.2) Agenda Item 8) - Continuance of Tentative Tract 6017 (Porter-Robertson) MinUtes, PC, January 18, 2001 Page 2 - Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the consent agenda items. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES See Consent Agenda. Motion was made by Commissioner'Sprague, seconded by CommisSioner Tkac, to move Items 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 to between Item Number 4 and Number 5. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Parcel Maps 7,1) Tentative Parcel Map 10715 (Alta/Hughes) (Ward~) There was nothing to add from Tuesday's pre-meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against this project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commission comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve ~Tentative Map 10715 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit A. Motion carried. 7.2) Tentative. Parcel Map 10751 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward4) Staff reported that there was a memo to add since Tuesday's pre-meeting from Marian Shaw modifying condition 3.2 for this parcel map. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke against the project. Harold Robertson, representing the applicant, said that he has reviewed the staff report and concurs with the conditions of approval including the memorandum from Ms. Shaw and is available to answer any questions the .Commission might have: Public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commission comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner - McGinnis, to approve Tentative Map 10751 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit A including the memorandum dated January 18 from Ms.'ShaW of the Public Works Department. Motion carried. Minutes, PC,-January 18, 2001 Page 3 7.3) Tentative Parcel Map 10764 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward4) There was nothing to add from Tuesday's pre-meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke against this project. Harold Robertson, representing the applicant, said that he has reviewed the staff report and concurs with the conditions of approval and is available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public. portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commission comments or questions. Motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve Tentative Map 10764 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit ^. Motion carried. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR GATEWAY PROJECT (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 7) Mr. Grady said the Commission should have two memorandums responding to questions and comments from the Commission at Tuesday's' pre-meeting. One addresses the question concerning phasing of PCDs and provides some additional information regarding how the PCD.process is applied and speaks to the issue that you. must submit a complete design but you can get approvals in phases. Also, there was a' 'question concerning the canal crossing and the access, and the disposition of the sump. The sump and the canal crossing are required to be submitted prior to the first site plan review. We do have on file evidence that there is a recorded easement to provide that access from Colony Street into the subject project site. The second memorandum responds-to questions regarding odors and relies upon the evidence that was presented in the Grand Canal EIR and other comments concerning how CEQA looks at significance in response to whether or not smells from the cooking of food or how trash receptacles are located on the site would create a significant environmental impact. Mr. Grady said that information is provided to the Commission for their consideration. Commi'ssioner Dhanens asked if the first memorandum needed to be considered during the certification or whether it pertained to just the zone change? Mr. Grady said that the memo did not need to be considered as part of the certification of the EIR but those questions all came up under the same discussion. commissioner Dhanens asked if any Commission members had any questions. Commissioner Brady thanked staff for responding to the issues that he raised and has. satisfied the concerns he had regarding the additional issues that could be raised by developing this property as a C-2 as opposed to the Grand Canal. Commissioner Brady said that it is understanding that the new traffic study that was done as a part of this EIR took as a consideration that this C-2 proposal is not going to be drawing traffic Minutes, PC, January 18, 2001 Page 4 from other communities as had been the basis for the Grand Canal proposal and this 'Project is onlY going to attempt to service the existing community. Ms. Shaw said that is correct. Commissioner Brady asked if we approved the EIR and traffic study, we are changing the whole concePt for this center and he has concerns about the mitigation that is being proposed is less as a C-2 than it would have been under the current PCD zoning? Mr. Grady said that the trip generation volume and the distribution of those trips would be different using a standard C-2 shopping center than using the Grand Canal project. Commissioner Brady asked if it is lower under the present EIR proposal? Mr. Grady said that the trip characteristics would be different and the difference created less of an impact than having the Grand Canal as the basis for the traffic study. :Commissioner BradY asked if the mitigation measures included in the present EIR are less than the mitigation measures that are required under the present PCD zoning? Mr. Grady said "yes." Commissioner Brady asked if the reason they will be less is that they are not going to attract out of town customers to the shopping center? Mr. Grady said "yE~s." Commissioner Brady asked if there is anything in the application that-prevents the.applicant from focusing its marketing and its direction of the shopping center to peoPle coming by on the freeway? Mr. Grady said "no, there isn't." Commissioner Brady'asked the applicant or a representative to address this question. John Shuler, Traffic Engineer, said that in their preparation of the traffic study, they did not neglect trips off of 99. It is the' magnitude to which trips were drawn from 99. The previous project looked at 99 as the primary source for traffic. Mr. Shuler distributed a lot of traffic to ,and from 99 but at the same point they distributed a lot of traffic to other places as well. In terms of impacts of this site with the way the assumptions of a general shopping center that would be built oVer a-larger period of time assumed other development occurring around the project vicinity versus the previous project which assumed it would be built all at one time. Commissioner Brady asked if they .made some assumption as to how long it will take to build out the 64 acres? Mr. Shuler said that for purposes of the study they had it two phases. The second 'being started in 2010 and total buildout in 2020. Commissioner Brady asked if Mr. Shuler took into consideration how this commercial center will present itself to the freeway and attempt to determine how that might impact traffic flow? Mr. Shuler sai~! not from a traffic standpoint. Commissioner Brady asked if~ how the shopping center presents itself to the freeway will affect the traffic study that they prepared for this project? Mr. Shuler said he didn't think so but they used the trip generation rate from the Traffic Engineer's handbook which is based on studies nationwide and'this is an average that occurs for project of this size. There is a VariatiOn ifthe site is developed one way or another but from a traffic standpoint this is the acceptable methodology for doing that. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Scanlan, Deputy City Attorney, if the Commission can rely on an EIR thatsays that they will provide power when we know for a fact that they are not capable of providing power during peak demands and are we now required to analyze that as part of the EIR as opposed to a perfunctory.statement that services will be supplied by PG&E? Ms.. Scanlan said it is safe to assume that they will have power. Commissioner Sprague asked if they approve the EIR, the Commission would not be required to approVe the next agenda item? Mr. Grady said that was correct. Minutes, PC, January 18, 2001 Page 5 Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Boyle; to adopt resolution making findings recommending certification and recommending certification of the final EIR for the Gateway Zone Change P00- 0419 and incorporating the recommendations of the Planning Director's memorandum dated January 18, 2001 and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague,' Tkac, Dhanens ' NOES None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE P00-0419 (MGC Architecture representing Paul Owhadi, Sierra Pacific Development) (Ward 7) The only change since Tuesday's meeting was the memorandum mentioned in the. previous agenda'item concerning the canal and sump site and the phasing of PCDs. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. The following people spoke in favor of the project: John Guimarra, Fred Porter, Steven Carol, Jack Jansen and PauI.Owhadi. They were all speaking for the applicant supporting the application. They were all in agreement that 60 plus acres is a lot of property and it is not too 15ig for a commercial development but it is the kind of location in the kind of city that is going to take time, a lot' of thought, a lot of care and a lot of investment. Mr. Guimarra said that Mr. Owhadi's hands shoUld not; be tied behind his back to go out and try to develop something that would be impossible to develop if he hadto tell the Commission here and now how it is going to look. It was stated that Mr. Owhadi wants to develop this in. a way.that makes the Commission comfortable as a consequence he is willing to have imposed on him many restrictions tb make sure that the kindof development that is established there is the kind of development that the Commission and citizens of the community would be proud~.to have. Mr. Porter said there are.some concerns about PCD zoning because when you have a project that will take years tO develop it is not possible to predict all the perspective users, you won't get'it right~ PCD zoning scares a lot of users away.. Mr. Carol, attOrney for Mr. Owhadi, stated that this C-2 zoning is a necessity for Mr. Owhadi. What was planned before is not practicable for the existing economics that Minutes, PC, Janua~ 18, 2001 Page 6 apply t°this type of project. Flexibility is required to tailor the project to the renters, potential tenants, users that will come to this site. It is impossible to proceed with a PCD type of a commercial project. It will be impossible to secure the financing . necessary to put the seed money into a project like that. Every piece that is necessary for a developer such as Mr'. Owhadi to go forward, is going to be contingent upon being able to adjust to market conditions, who wants a piece of this property and who is willing to develop there. Jack Jansen, with S.C.-Anderson, Inc., said his company would certainly support Mr. Owhadi's efforts and the City of Bakersfield will be proud of his project. Paul Owhadi Said that the intent of his company is not to come in buy a piece of property, subdivide it,'sell the pieces, get rich and leave town. He then gave a brief overview of his company. The project that he is proposing to develop in the City of · Bakersfield is not a complicated project. It is not a canal, it is not a Venetian theme but the absence of this should not basically discourage the members of the Planning Commission regarding his project. The proposed project, that they will hopefully develop under C-2 zoning will have architectural submittal to city staff and if they desire to the Planning Commissioh also. He has no objection. The Commission's input and direction in terms of the future development of the parcel would be very important to him and his company. Mr..Owhadi said that the purpose of asking the Commission to provide a C-2 zoning is not;to bypass the Planning Commission or take away their ability to govern. It is not egos or additional money they are after but they just want simplicity and coordination between the city and'the private sector to proceed forward .. with the development. It would be extremely complicated each time that he has a tenant he would have to file an application to the Planning Department, and hearings '~would have to. be held. Mr. Owhadi said that he has no problem with creation of a CC& R that woUld govern that parcel of land. He would like the Commission to give their specific Concerns tonight and give his team the opportunity to address them and try to mitigate those concerns to the Commission's satisfaction. Mr. Owhadi said that no one has opposed the project tonight and everyone that he has spoken to has been positive and supportive of the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady said that he has mixed emotions about this project. If Mr. Owhadi had wanted to come in and! change the R-l'to C-2 before the Grand Canal project, he · would have been vehemently opposed to it. He said the only reason there is a PCD On -this property is because there was a particular project that was focused on bringing in people from outside the community to come inside the community and shop. That is why' that pi'oject is there. This particular area has more than enough commercial property to serve the surroanding residents. The project doesn't make sense unless it is focused upon attracting people off the freeway. The question is how to best use the property for the city. No once is going to come in and put a canal on the property. The zoning should not have anYthing to do with Mr. Owhadi, his company or the people he has working for him. _This is simply a planning issue whether or not this is'the right place for a 64 acre commercial property. Commissioner Brady said he doesn't know if C-2 is an appropriate use there. He has a concern that he doesn't know what is going Minutes, PC,januar7 18, 2001 page 7 to'bebuilt"there. Commissioner Brady asked about the CC&R condition.. Mr. Grady said the reference to the CC&R condition was for common access and common off-site · improvements that would have to be jointly maintained. Mr. Grady said that he has no familiarity with the use of C°nditions, covenants and restrictions by a municipality as a way of regulating ~site development. Private property oWners have CC&Rs to assure that the property deVelOps !n a certain matter. MuniciPalities use zoning to accomplish that. . Commissioner Brady said that one of the problems he feels we have is that the present ordinances that we have that reflect C-2 properties do not reflect the kind of conditions that we are' placing on projects presently for development and that is why the CommissiOn has used the PCD to correct that. Commissioner Brady said he has a Concern about what the project will look like from the freeway. Mr. Owhadi said that if we do a multiple-Phased development a site plan review has to be submitted. 'The site plan addresses all of the trees and landscaping. It will address parking, elevation, traffic circUlation and every!concern the Commission has. If the Commission would like to be involved in that he has no objection. He just wants to avoid all of the unnecessary 'public hearings. 'Mr. Owhadi asked what is he not giving the Commission with the C,2 that they would get with a PCD? Commissioner Brady asked if there was anything that prevented Mr; Owhadi from putting in an outlet mall on the property? Mr. Owhadi said "no" but' he feels the best use for the property would be a nice beautiful mixed use with hotels, office buildings, and a beautiful regional center. Commissioner Kemper Said that she is in supPort of providing a C-2 zoning. This is a. large uniquely situated parcel. Commissioner Kemper feels that residential is really not the highest and best use for the property. It is too near the freeway and would be considered negative in valUe. In her opinion, a long range project such as this one' would be better served with a C-2 zone rather than a restrictive cast in stone PCD. Zone. The conditions on the aesthetic and buffering list addresses the items that the .Commission is usually concerned about. Commissioner Kemper then listed some of the mitigatiOn that is equal to or greater than what they normally require on a PCD and because of th'at in reality the. C-2 zoning is the most common sense approach to this project and allowing the flexibility in the development of this parcel. Commissioner Boyle said that.the issue in his mind is that our existing ordinances is inadequate for large projects. Site plan does not provide for public hearings. Our ordinances do not allow us ,to require them to come to us. They can be appealed to us and that is one of the reasons he feels the ordinances are inadequate in that regard. At site plan the only thing staff can impose are city ordinances. They cannot impose -things above and beyond the conditions that are imposed upon the project at the time based upon the EIR. Commissioner Boyle state(J that his concern that the project will take 20 years to build and the people who will be living in the area by then will not have a say so in the project if it is zoned C-2 because Public hearings will not be required. He has no objection to having theproject zoned C'-2 but What he is objecting to is that he doesn't know of any city ordinances presently in-existence that will allow the people who are then the residents, to have an opportunity to be heard. Minutes, PC, January-18, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner BOyle-said that this is the "Gateway" to our community and in his opinion there ~should be opportunities for public hearing on what that gateway is going to look · like. Commissioner Boyle told Mr. Owhadi that he also has a concern that if Mr. Owhadi's company had to be sold that the heirs may not have a choice but to sell off the subdivided parcels to various developers without any opportunity for public hearings. ' Commissioner Boyle' stated that he thinks it would be possible to include .CC&Rs where the architectural review board would be the City Planning Commission as opposed to the developer. He is not sure the city would want to entangle themselves in that but that would be one creative Suggestion that would address a lot of the issues the Commission has in terms of giving opportunity for public hearing .when we don't have ordinances in place that wOuld allow us to do it. Commissioner BOyle said that in general he has no Problem with this being deVeloped as commercial property and he would like to find a way that Mr. Owhadi's potential applicants and tenants will be able to build there. But what he is opposed to-is approving a Project that he. knows won:t be built for ten to twenty years withOut any future opportunity for publi(~'hearing, therefore, he would oppose the C-2 unless there is some alternative such as changing the ordinances or imposing a condition wherethe CC&Rs say that the City Planning Commission would be the architectural review board. Commissioner BOyle asked Ms. Scanlan if that is legally permissible or whether the city would want to consider? Ms.. Scanlan said that she thinks it wOuld be legally permissible but whether the city would want to undertake that is another question. It could come to the Planning Commission becoming almost a full-time architectural review board: Some other Satisfactory solution to getting the public involved in the design phase without having to actually impose this type of Condition. CommisSioner Boyle asked if she was aware under existing ordinances of any way that the Commission could require things like the footprint, architecture, orientatiOn, etc.'to. come back to the Planning ~Commission for a public hearing as a matter of original jurisdiction for the Planning~ Commission? Ms. Scanlan said that she is not aware of anything of that nature. Commissioner SpragUe told Mr. Owhadi that he is.aware of the reality of putting together a shopping center:under a PCD zone is more difficult than a C,2 but feels that through workshops with the Planning Commission it has been proven in the past that the system WOrks although it maY be a little more difficult to do. Commissioner Sprague feels that CC&Rs would bea difficult purview to put into motion. Commissioner Sprague saidthat the Commission should consider the PCD or review the site plan to the area to be developed prior to the C-2 zoning. The Commission needS to review large types of development~. The health, safety and welfare of the adjacent property owners needs to be protect'ed as well as the looks of the development as its entrance into the citY on the freeway. Commissioner SPrague asked Ms. Scanlan if it is possible to develop a Commercial Holding zone ordinance on :a fast track to the City Council as an urgency meaSure that woUld be an interim ordinance which would give this property a commerCial overlay in Minutes, PC, January 18, 2001. Page 9 accordance with the general plan so that the applicant can acquire the tenants and. develop the site that could be-submitted to the Planning Commission in accordance with. a PCD at a-later date through a site plan committee made up of the Planning Director and Commission members as a workshop so that he does not have to keep coming forward with every little change he makes on the 64 acres? He could' then come up with a conceptual, plan of the shopping center or commercial area and the Commission could have some control over how it would be built. The only alternative is to have a committee such as the Landscaping Committee that is currently meeting wherein these issues'could be addressed. Commissioner Sprague feels the Commercial 'Holding zone would be the quickest way to conquer the p¢oblem. Commissioner Dhanens asked staff if they had some comments to Commissioner Sprague's ideas? Mr. Grady said that they are very familiar with the use of the emergency ordinance but there is no emergency here to invoke the use of that. Mr.' Grady said that they had a ordinance in front of them not long ago that would have - accomplished exactly what,they are asking for. The ordinance would have allowed the Commission to change the property to a C-2 zone with the requirement the site plan come back to the Commission for hearing and review. The Planning Commission did not accept that ordinance but the ordinance may be resurrected and hearings cOuid be held again. It would have Provided the Commission with the option they are seeking tonight, Commissioner Sprague asked how long it would take to resurrect the ordinance? Mr. Grady said that there are no items for February 1 or March 1 but it could also be placed on the February 15 meeting. Commissioner Sprague asked the rest of the Commissioners and the applicant if that is something they want to consider? Mr. Owhadi said that whether the ordinance is in place or not hetold the Commission he would Consent to the Planning Commission's right to review the site plan each time he has a tenant. He'doesn't Want to make it a public hearing which would cause years of delay. The sole reason he wants a C-2 is so that he can proceed with the development. Mr. Owhadi said that he would be willing to come to city staff and the Commission and show them whatever they like just so they can move on. Commissioner Sprague asked staff whether or not we could attach to this project as a condition of approval that the applicant has to bring those plans back t° the Commission not as a public hearing but as a presentation item for the Commission's review and comment? Ms. iScanlan said that if the applicant consented to it. Commissioner McGinnis stated to Mr. Owhadi that he would gladly participate in anything the Commission would be willing to do to help him to see that this is built out to his and the City's best interest. Commissioner McGinnis would support anything along the lines of Commissioner Sprague's suggestions. Commissioner Dhanens asked staff if an applicant could come into the Public Works Department with a subdivision design and have it processed with that Vesting Tentative Map on the property although it has a PCD zone? Mr. Grady said that with the Vesting Map, they would have the right to file a Tentative Map on the property. Minutes, PC, January 18, 2001' PagelO Commissioner Dhanens asked if a condition could be placed on the project at'this time regarding the orientationof, buildings? Mr. Grady said to the extent that you could 'specify what issue is being:resolved by that particular condition, you could apply it to the project. You would have some authority under police powers that you could address what you consider public welfare issues. Commissioner Dhanens asked if this project being the ~tGateway? to the city be adequate enough to come to a conclusion that the building orientation is important, therefore, we could Put a mitigation measure to affect that.- Mr. Grady said "yes." Commissioner Dhanens asked if a Development Agreement could be a tool that the city could enforce during site plan review that would require the developer to provide architectural control over the.entire 65 acres? Mr. Grady said that through a Development Agreement you could achieve a different level of involvement than you would through straight zoning. The CC&Rs would not be necessary at that point because through the Development Agreement process you could require that thearchitectural review occur before whatever body you would want to have it in front of. Commissioner Dhanens said that his intent in bringing that up was to replace the CC&Rs. . Commissioner Dhanens mentioned that the site plan review hearing can be attended by the public. It is just not one the public usually goes to. Commissioner Dhanens said that he thinks that a C-2 could work under the right conditions and with some requirement that the Planning Commission review and comment on subsequent site plan submittals. Additional conditions could be added if other, problems came up with the applicant's approval. COmmissioner Dhanens said that he thinks this could work. Commissioner Dhanens said that perhaps Mr. Owhadi would also agree to building setbacks more in line with what the Grand Canal had done to ensure the buildings are not being constructed right ~next to a property line or up against a landscape setback. Commissioner Dhanens said that the 355,000 leaseable square feet on this property is probably under utilized based on Mr. Owhadi's comment. Under straight'C-2 he could get up to 800,000 square feet on this property. Mr. Grady said he isn't sure of the figure but Mr. Owhadi could build more square footage than what the project is being limited, to. Commissioner Boyle said there have been two ideas presented that he would be willing to consider. The ordinance amendment to allow site plan review to come back to the Planning Commission is one and the other idea is a Development Agreement. Both of which he would want in place before the zoning is approved. It would be 'his suggestion that this matter be continued at least long enough for staff to come back tO the Commission with the ordinance or at least long enough for the applicant to discuss whether he would want to Consider a Development Agreement with the city. . Commissioner Boyle wanted to remind everyone that anyone could speak at any time by filling out speaker's cardS but he thinks that would be putting an unnecessary burden on the public. CommiSsioner Brady asked staff to give a brief overview of what a Development Agreement is and the process by which it would be entered into between the city and this applicant. Mr. Grady said it is a negotiated agreement between a private developer Minutes, PC, January 18, 2001 Page and the city that wouldstipulate performance criteria for a development project and it would deal with all the typical stuff that you would deal with during the site plan review process. It would identify all the rights that they would have to the property in terms of the amount of square footage they could build, the amount of parking and the access points. All of those details that would be known going into the negotiation process including the term of the agreement and the benefits to the city that would be derived from entering into an agreement that would vest those rights for a longer period of time than would be typical and then that document itself would be subject to an environmental review and public hearings that would start at the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brady said that is a great idea but he doesn't think the applicant or the Commission would want to;engage in that at this time. However, Commissioner Brady thinks they can do what they want to do by getting the consent of the applicant. The property can be conditioned to do a lot of what they want to do if the applicant consents' to it. Commissioner Brady said thai his main concern is how the project looks. Commissioner'Brady asked Mr. OWhadi if he would be in agreement to consent (if they are in agreement to go to a C-2 zoning) to present an architectural plan to the Commission.` It would just be an overview of what he envisions the overall look will be? Mr. Owhadi said he has no.problem with that at all. He could have an architectural firm provide an elevation that would be satisfactory to the Planning Commission with the understanding that it isa conceptual elevation that would provide a flavor of what he envisions. Commissioner Brady asked if it is his intent to have an architectural theme or does he envision a widelvariety of structures and architectural type? Mr. Owhadi said the tenants-that he typically deals with are national in nature and they usually have their own design for their own buildings. They can alter an enormoUs amount but they. do like to keep their recognition. If someone were to come to him with gaudy neon s~gns, he would be first to tell them that they do not belong to his project. He will support the Commission's point of view. He is willing to work with a committee along _ with city staff. He is not in agreement with having a Development Agreement. It would prolong the project longer than the PCD. Commissioner Brady asked staff if architectural review is a normal part .of the site plan review process? Mr. Grady said "no, it is not." Commissioner Brady asked if there is any method where architectural review could be included in a site plan review? Mr. Grady said the ordinance would have to be amended and make it part of the site plan review process. Commissioner Brady asked if it could be part of the process if the applicant consented to it? A five minute break was taken. Ms. Scanlan said that the problem with architectural review is how to define it. With architectural review it sounds like it is a little more subjective than site plan review and. she wouldn't know how to ~draft something or to have Mr. Hernandez draft something without some ideas as to what the Commission giving some ideas of What they think the architectural review should be and how these things shall look project, by-project Commissioner Brady said that he thinks there is some sort of consensus among the Commissioners to support some kind of C-2 plus. Working out the details of what that Minutes; PC, January 18, 2001 Page12 is will take some time and he suggests that the Chair create a committee.of three Commissioners to meet wi~h staff and the applicant in one or two meetings to work out the details of what the site plan would be. How the architectural aspects could be included in some form at site plan review and some of the other details. He suggested a continuance of this project so that the committee could meet and work out some details. Mr. Owhadi said that he has no problem with that. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Grady to give an overview of the ordinance that came before the Commission regarding PCDs and PUDs. Mr. Grady said it was a rewsion to_the PCD and PUD ordinance that would have allowed you to change the zone and require the site plan to be brought back to the Planning Commission for review andapproval. Commissioner Sprague said his recommendation would be to resolve this ordinance so that it would help future large projects as well as this one. Commissioner'Kemper reinterated her point of view about approving the project as C-2 With the condition's that are attached. She doesn't feel that a committee is necessary. Commissioner Brady suggested that the committee also look into coming up with a series of conditions that the applicant would be agreeable to to be applied to the project at the site plan review phase. Commissioner Brady made a motion to continue this item until Thursday, February 1, -2001, with a pre-meeting oh January 29 and the Chairman establish an ad hoc committee to :address the additional mitigation measures which might be applied to the project at site plan review. Commissioner Sprague seconded the motion.. Motion carried. Commissioner Dhanens appointed Commissioners Kemper, Brady and.himself to be on the committee with Commissioner Brady the chairman of the committee. Planning staff was directed to set up a time with Mr. Owhadi to have the committee meeting as early. as possible during the week of January 22. PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Tract Map 6017 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda. WORKSHOP REGARDING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS (Ralph Huey, Director of Environmental Services) Ralph Huey, Director of Environmental Services, gave an overview of industrial facilities and the regulations they impose on them regarding hazardous materials and hazardous waste. There were no Commissioner comments or questions. Minutes, PC, January 18, 2001 Parle 13 10. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Staff had nothing_to add from Tuesday's pre-meeting. Commissioner SpragUe said that he had asked for additional comparisons regarding decal lanes, right turn lanes, noise, lighting and the general contamination issues with the commercial developments where roads divide city and county developments and there is a difference in the codes and ordinances. Further, they need to determine - Where they go frOm here or' do they go at all to try to accomplish some communication .with the County Planning Commission and the Planning Department. Commissioner Sprague said that some Council members and others in the community have requested the joint meetings. Some of the Commissioners have made .statements that they don't think it would be of great Use to have a joint meeting to look at these items and are afraid that they might infringe on the quarterly meetings with the City Council and Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Sprague said that perhaps a small group of Commission, ers in a committee could meet to see if there is a benefit in having workshop meetings ..with the County Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Kemper said that when she became a Planning COmmissioner four years ago one of the messages she received was that they serve to "advise". the City Council but also to take their lead. Commissioner Kemper said that she thinks they should draft a letter to the City Council asking for their direction. Commissioner Sprague said that Council member Couch has brought this up twice and -_ reqUested Mrl Hardisty to review this and try to put something together. Commissioner Sprague saidthat he thinks it would be beneficial. Commissioner Brady said that he is not opposed to meeting with the County Planning Commissioners but unless there is some pressing need, he feels it would be a waste of time and resources. Commissioner Boyle said that he reviewed the comparison chart and feels there are a couple of areas where it would be interesting to meet with county planning to see if some conformity could be achieved simply because it affects the appearance of the city. The specific areas he is looking at is landscaping and fencing. Commissioner Boyle said his suggestion is that the Commission draft a letter on the specific items they would like to address and then send the letter to the City Council and ask them if they would like the CommiSsion to go forward with it. Commissioner Tkac said th'at he would like a direction or compass from the City Council. CommiSsi°ner'Sprague said that one issue would be the difference in decel lanes. Commissioner Sprague also said that Councilman Couch has been appointed the- Minutes, PC, January 18, 2001 Page 14 liaison betWeen the City Council and the Planning Commission and Commissioner Sprague would be in favor of the Chairman writing a letter to Mr. Couch and conferring with him regarding a possible joint meeting. Commissioner Dhanens aS'ked what in particular he thinks the joint meeting should cover? Commissioner Sprague said the items set forth by Mr. Grady, Commissioner Boyle and himself. Commissioner Sprague said he believes there are other items if they look further, and the decel lanes should become part of it. Commissioner Dhanens said that if he understands correctly, Commissioner Sprague desires the Chairman write~a letter to Council member Couch requesting direction from the Council as a whole for the Commission to engage in discussion and possible joint meetings? Commissioner Sprague said "yes, that is correct." . A motion was' made by Commissioner Sprague directing the Chairman of the Planning Commission to write a letter to the City Council liaison to the Planning Commission requesting direction for a pOssible joint Planning Commission workshop with the County addressing the items as set forth in their previous discussion .in this Commission and also items set forth by the Planning Director and any other items of concern or direction that they wouldiike us take for such a meeting or if we should have such a meeting. Commissioner Brady asked Commissioner Sprague if he means that the. Chairman of the Planning Commission write a letter in which he seeks direction and makes suggestions as to the items that might be discussed and ask for comments and whether those would be appropriate for discussion at a joint City-County Planning Commission meeting? Commissioner Sprague said yes that is the intent and they might also get some input from Mr. Hardisty with the Planning Commission Chairman. Commissioner Boyle seconded the motion. Motion passed. 11,- 12. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady said that the Commission should have a memorandum that he provided'to them that was requested by Commissioner McGinnis. The memorandum lists the Permitted uses in the C-2 zone and he thought it would be useful for the ' Commissioners to have it in their binder so they may refer to it for reference. It also contains the maximum height of buildings in the C-O, C-1, C-2 and all the through the M zones. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Boyle said that he had discussed the possibility of including on the next agenda the draft ordinance they had looked at several years ago on the issue of site plan. He requested that that ordinance-be on the next agenda just in case the Gateway Committee result is such that they.may want to take a look at the ordinance. 'Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if it could be placed on the February 1 agenda? Mr. Grady said yes. .Minutes, PC,-January 18, '2001 Parle 15 13. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE 14. NEXT pRE-MEETING. Commissioner Boyle said h'e would like there to be a meeting so that the Gateway Committee could give the rest of the Commission a preview of what they are looking at. It was decided to have a pre-meeting on January 29, 2001. Janua~ 31,2001 ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary