HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-08 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Meeting – January 3, 2008 - 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, McGinnis, Stanley, Tragish, Tkac
Absent:
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
None.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of December 6, 2007.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to approve the
Consent Calendar, Non-Public Hearing Items.
Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of Continuance of Vesting Tentative Tract 7141 to January 17, 2008
(Stantec Consulting)
4.2b Approval of Continuance of Preliminary Plan Development Review 07-1651 to
January 17, 2008 (McIntosh & Associates)
4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11728 for Condominium Purposes (M.S.
Walker & Associates)
4.2d Approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6503 (BAK Bullfrog, LLC)
4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7135 (Porter & Associates, Inc.)
4.2f Approval of Zone Change 07-1651 (McIntosh & Associates)
4.2g Approval of Zone Change 07-1737 (Nelms Surveying, Inc.)
4.2h Approval of Zone Change 07-1893 (Marino & Associates)
The public hearing is opened. No one from the audience requested removal of any item.
Commissioner Tragish requested removal of regular agenda item 5.2 (4.2d consent
calendar), regular agenda item 6.1 (4.2f consent calendar), and regular agenda item 6.3
(4.h consent calendar).
The public hearing is closed. Items 4.2a and 4.2b remain open, and the public hearing on
the remaining items on the consent calendar are closed.
Minutes of Planning Commission – January 3, 2008 Page 2
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Andrews, to approve the public hearing items as
read, with the exceptions taken off by Commissioner Tragish.
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN:
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS – Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps/ Vesting Tentative Tract Maps/
Revised Tentative Tract Maps/ Administrative Review/ Preliminary Plan Development
Review
5.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11728 for Condominium Purposes (M.S. Walker & Associates)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
5.2 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6503 (BAK Bullfrog, LLC)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one from the audience spoke in opposition to
this item. Kristen Hagen, attorney with the law firm Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann, & Girard,
representing the applicant, Bakersfield Bullfrog, LLC., she commented that the applicant seeks
approval of tentative tract map 6503, indicating that the original tract map was approved in
January 2006, which provided for 104 residential lots, one drill island, one sump lot, and one
designated remainder. She stated that tonight’s approval seeks approval to primarily subdivide
the designated remainder and provide for 49 industrial lots. She indicated that Russ Thompson,
the engineer for the project, as well as Mary Jane Wilson from WZI was present to answer
questions with respect to the mineral report.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Tragish inquired as to the phasing and street improvements on this project. He
asked Staff to start with 4.6.1 and go down to 4.6.11 on the overhead and explain what is in each
phase. Staff identified where the phases were located on the tract map on the overhead. With
respect to Phase 1 conditions, the applicant would construct Planz Road. for the frontage of
Phase 1 for the full extent of the street line within the tract’s boundary. He inquired if this means it
only goes for the improvements to plans which appear in front of that phase, or if it is the entire
stretch of Planz. Staff clarified that it would only be for the particular frontage of that phase.
Commissioner Tragish further inquired as to Phase 2 (which is east of Phase 1), if the applicant
will construct Planz Road. from Phase 1 to Sandmine Road. Staff responded in the affirmative,
clarifying that Sandmine is a north-south street.
Commissioner Tragish asked with regard to Phase 3, (which is to the west), if the applicant will
construct Planz Road. from Cottonwood Rd. to the end of the Phase 3-5 boundary for the full
extent of the street. Staff responded in the affirmative, pointing out that it looks like they missed a
portion in front of Phase 3.
Commissioner Tragish commented that he does not understand why they are phasing from the
middle instead of putting in Cottonwood Road. right away. He stated that he is concerned that the
middle can be completed and the other phases left unfinished, which leaves Cottonwood Road.
unimproved. He stated that he would like to get Cottonwood Road. improved first to handle the
traffic that Phase 1 will generate. Staff explained that they typically phase for the frontage and
since Cottonwood was out in Phase 5 they asked for it to be part of Phase 3 so it wouldn’t be
really, really late in the project.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff has any objection to putting Cottonwood in with part of the
improvements to Phase 1. Staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Tragish asked his
Minutes of Planning Commission – January 3, 2008 Page 3
fellow commissioners to consider this. He asked the applicant if they had any comments to this
suggestion. Russ Thompson, Civil Engineer for the project, stated that with this being an
affordable housing project they are trying to minimize the costs. He stated that they agreed with
Staff’s recommendation for the improvements at Phase 3 and they would hate to see all the
improvement costs front loaded on the first phase as it would make the project that much more
difficult to bring to fruition. Mr. Thompson further pointed out this project is kind of bookended by
the arterial of Cottonwood on one side, as well as the complete development of South
Washington and that it is not a situation where they are just building half a street because of the
alignment of South Washington. They are building the entire street, making the entire dedication
of a major collector on the east side of the project.
Commissioner Tragish commented that his bigger concern is with Cottonwood and not
Washington.
Commissioner Tkac stated he agrees with Commissioner Tragish, and that the entire road gets
built out. He inquired if the giant hole on the property to west that was originally used for
development in another area has been covered up. Staff responded that the hole is still there and
they have dealt with the applicant and their legal counsel to work out a deal that the arterial and
collectors will be at the existing or proposed elevations and there may be a depression on the
tract itself.
Commissioner Tkac inquired as to the zoning and Staff confirmed that the zoning is in place with
a M-2. He further inquired what would typically be found on 49 industrial lots. Staff responded
that the M-2 zone is a pyramid zone so there can be anything from commercial uses up through
service industrial.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if the phasing of Phase 3 constructing Planz Road. from
Cottonwood Road. to the Phase 3-5 boundary should actually be constructed all the way through
the Phase 3-1 boundary. Staff responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Johnson inquired since there was a Negative Declaration on this project and no
traffic analysis was done, if Staff knows what the level of service is at Cottonwood Road and
Planz Road intersection. Staff responded they do not have an analysis specific to that location
area, but based on their observations they would see it being consistent with something above
the level of service C, and probably closer to a level service A at this time.
Mr. Movius recommended that Commissioner Johnson recognize the engineer with regard to a
condition. Commissioner Johnson requested Mr. Thompson’s comments. Mr. Thompson stated
that he spoke with one of the owners, and they are agreeable to include Cottonwood, if that is the
Commission’s preference, although they would prefer to defer it to a later phase.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the
Negative Declaration, and to approve revised vesting tentative tract map 6503 with findings and
conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit A, save and except to the extent that
condition 4.6.3.1 will be revised to read: “Construct Planz Road from Cottonwood Road to the
Phase 3 and Phase 1 boundary for the full extent of the street line within the tract’s boundary.”
Additionally, as to Condition 4.6.1.1 pertaining to Phase 1, that the condition “construct
Cottonwood Road from East Planz Road to the northern boundary of the tract,” which currently
exists as condition 4.6.3.2, will be part of Phase 1.
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac.
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Minutes of Planning Commission – January 3, 2008 Page 4
5.3a Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6950 (Rick Engineering Company)
5.3b Administrative Review 07-1881 -- Master Parks and Trails Plan for Rosedale Ranch (Rick
Engineering Company)
Commissioner Tkac recused himself as he does business with the applicant.
The public hearing is opened, staff report given indicating that the applicant has requested a
continuance until the February 7, 2008 meeting.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish to continue items 5.3a and
5.3b until February 7, 2008, with the understanding that the public hearing remains open.
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish.
NOES:
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Tkac
ABSENT:
5.4 Vesting Tentative Tract 7039 (Porter & Associates, Inc.) located on the west side of Renfro
Road, on the north and south sides of Reina Road. (Negative Declaration on file)
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Christine Boyer representing Crimson Resource
Management, the mineral right owners on this property as well as lessor of minerals to another
operator, stated that they oppose the tract map because it is a two-acre drill site that is zoned R-
1, and they are requesting a 2.5 acre D.I. zone and therefore would protect their right to drill. She
pointed out that because it is zoned residential it would require them to apply for a CUP and will
show up as an R-1 zone on any zoning maps. She also pointed out that prior to the zone change
they were able to drill by right, without any CUP. Ms. Boyer stated that because Bakersfield
ordinances do provide for a drilling island district zone, they request that the tract map provide the
same. She pointed out that the purpose of the DI zone (Chapter 17.46) is to designate single lots
that contain productive or potentially productive petroleum resources to allow mineral access to
explore for and develop such resources. She further pointed out that because there is no oil or
gas production activity occurring on site at the present time does not negate the potential value of
the minerals below. She stated that the proposed surface area is 305X282 feet and that area is
drastically reduced to an area of approximately 130X145 feet, which is less than half an acre, due
to the setback requirements. She said that this half an acre in the two acre drill site would be for
two operators and they would request a larger size. She pointed out that without the ability for
production the market value of their property could be negatively affected.
Fred Porter, with Porter & Associates representing the applicant, stated they are in favor of Staff’s
recommendations. He pointed out that they do meet all of the requirements necessary and the
two-acre drill site is the result of an ordinance formulated by committee, which was attended by
private sector, including members of the oil industry. He pointed out that the developer is in favor
of the condition requiring notifying the property owners within 500 feet of the reserve drill site by
recording a covenant. He also indicated that the property owner is not in favor of increasing the
drill site size, or changing the zoning of the drill site, pointing out that drilling by right requires a
CUP, as well as a permit from the Fire Prevention Department, which are both discretionary
approvals. Mr. Porter also pointed out that the surface owners are required to get discretionary
approval in order to develop the property and the mineral owner should also have that same
privilege. He concluded by stating that you can get more than one well on half an acre site.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac inquired what the difference is between what
Crimson wants and what the owner has the right to keep. Staff responded that Crimson is
requesting a half acre more of land and a DI zone. Staff also clarified that the mineral developer
in a DI zone does not need a CUP, even if there are houses next door. Commissioner Tkac
inquired how long Crimson has owned these rights. Staff responded they did not know.
Commissioner Tkac inquired of Mr. Porter if the owner’s reluctance to provide more drilling
Minutes of Planning Commission – January 3, 2008 Page 5
acreage is because it messes up his plan, and/or he doesn’t get to develop as many houses. Mr.
Porter responded that it is true and in addition if you do a DI it’s going to be a DI in perpetuity.
Staff confirmed that it would be a DI in perpetuity. Therefore, Mr. Porter stated that it could be a
piece of dirt “until the cows come home,” and they don’t think that is appropriate for the
community.
Commissioner Tkac stated that based on the technology that’s in place, compared to what was
once there, sometimes the drill islands spoken of doesn’t make that big of a difference. Therefore,
he’s not clear on why Crimson needs so much more room. He stated based on what he knows
he would not approve the additional acreage.
Commissioner Tragish stated that his request for the DI appears to be motivated, not for more
space, but more for the by right use to drill at that particular site. He inquired of Ms. Boyer if
Crimson has ever explored for minerals on that property in the last 10 years. Ms. Boyer
responded that she did not know and their petroleum geologist or engineer was not present.
Commissioner Tragish stated that it is hard for him to buy into Crimson’s argument without some
type of testimony indicating why it is viable to explore mineral rights on this property and why they
should have a DI zone.
Commissioner Tragish also inquired if there is any intent to explore for minerals on the property
within the next year or two. Ms. Boyer stated that Crimson did buy a lot of mineral ownership and
they are unable to access the minerals and drill on every single property they have, because they
are still a small company. She stated that they do lease this property out to another operator, and
there are two operators that have the rights to the minerals on this portion of land, and they have
not had an opportunity to access his drill rig, and she does not have the geologist report with her.
She stated it is their property right, and it has a market value as they paid to access the minerals.
She indicated that before they are able to drill by right they are going to have to do a CUP
because the zone is R-1 and she does not believe that it adequately protects Crimson’s right.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if her answer was yes or no. He pointed out that there are
provisions in the ordinances that embrace Crimson’s concerns. He commented that if Crimson
has a viable asset, whether it has 10, 15, 20, or 50, you are going to go for the one that brings
you money. He again inquired if Crimson has any plans to drill for any kind of minerals on that
property within the next 12, 24, 36 months. She stated that Crimson does not have any plans
because they lease the property, and she is unsure what the current lessee will do.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if this is approved, then Crimson has 10 years to do something,
and if they don’t they lose their rights, including the drill island. Staff responded that it doesn’t
automatically go away, because they can apply for an amending map and re-notice the mineral
right owners.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff has any knowledge or recollection as to applications made
in the past for CUPs for oil drilling and whether they’ve been approved routinely. Staff responded
that they haven’t had one for several years. Staff responded that in this instant they would
probably be talking about conditions of approval, and not a denial, because they are reserving the
drill site for Crimson. Staff further added, that the reason Crimson is asking for two and-a-half
acres is because that is the minimum site size under the DI zone.
Commissioner Tragish commented that there has been no drilling in this area and no evidence
presented to show that this is a viable mineral resource and he does not think Crimson is
irreparably harmed by it, as there are many years ahead to do something. If there is application
for a CUP and a showing that there is a viable mineral he cannot see the request being denied.
Commissioner Tragish inquired how long a CUP lasts. Staff responded that it goes on in
perpetuity unless they cease the use for a period of one year. Commissioner Tragish inquired as
to the phasing conditions and building out of Reinaand Renfro Road. Staff indicated they would
construct the south side of Reina Road half-width from Renfro Road to the Phase 5 boundary
(Imperator). Staff responded that Reina Road was the north-west, and phase 5 boundary was
pointed out, indicating that the applicant would build half of Reina Road up to phase 1. In addition,
Minutes of Planning Commission – January 3, 2008 Page 6
phase 1 will put in Reina Road from Renfro to Imperator and Phase 2 goes from Renfro up to
Dominator, on the other side of the street (the north side). Discussion concluded that the entirety
of Renfro Road is constructed with phase 2.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not support the DI, and he does support the project.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired when referring to the drill island, if they are actually talking
about the drill site itself, or any equipment that may be related to it, but not actually the drilling
itself. Staff responded that the drill site would have to contain all the equipment associated with
drilling the well. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there would be external storage areas within
that buffer zone. Staff responded that within the two acre site they could have equipment within
that area, but the set backs apply to the actual drilling.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Ms. Boyer why Crimson needs to go from two acres to two
and-a-half acres. Ms. Boyer responded it was because they are requesting a DI zone and the
minimum requirement is two and-a-half acres, as well as they lease to operators. Commissioner
McGinnis inquired how many square feet is needed for a drill island. Ms. Boyer responded that to
drill one well they would need at a minimum 205X250 feet, or an acre and-a-half for one well.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired if Crimson will always come in and ask for a DI designation and
a two and-a-half acres rather than two. Ms. Boyer responded that it will depend on how much
mineral acreage they do own. Commissioner McGinnis commented that there was an Ad Hoc
Committee, which Crimson was a part of, that discussed these type of issues and the committee
did not support this issue. Ms. Boyer responded that each site is taken individually and with this
situation they want the DI zone.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that his sympathies lie with the engineer, and he cannot see
granting a situation in perpetuity, pointing out that there is no history that there is any oil
underneath. He stated that he does not see reason to hold up the developer on this project and
Staff has reviewed this application, therefore he agrees with Staff’s recommendation.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if they were to grant a DI zoning it would have to be re-noticed
for a DI zone. Staff responded that the PC can condition this tract obtain a zone change, and
then the zone change would be advertised as a separate application, and therefore the tract
would be conditionally approved.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he sympathies with mineral right owners because they do
have a right to specific minerals, however, the way the ordinance is written they are still
guaranteed those rights. He also commented that when the zone change was requested,
Crimson should have come in and requested the DI zone at that time, because that would have
been the more appropriate time.
Commissioner Andrews commented that his concerns have been answered. He inquired if an
additional half acre were granted what the effect would be on the development process. Mr.
Porter responded that if they were to grant an additional half acre they would have to redesign
their map to comply, thereby creating a hardship on their client.
Commissioner Andrews stated that he has not heard any additional compelling information that
would convince him that they need to approve additional acreage and the DI.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he is support of Staff’s recommendation and he thinks the DI
is not as well supported.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve vesting tentative
tract map 7039 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, referencing the
th
memo dated December 27 from Marian Shaw, and the Fire Department memo.
Minutes of Planning Commission – January 3, 2008 Page 7
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
(five minute recess taken)
5.5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7135 (Porter & Associates, Inc.)
Heard on consent calendar.
6. PUBLIC HEARING – Zone Changes
6.3 Zone Change 07-1893 (Marino & Associates)
This was pulled from consent because the application was pulled.
The public hearing is opened, staff report was bypassed in the interest of time. No one from the
audience spoke in opposition or in favor of Staff’s recommendation. The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve and adopt the
Negative Declaration to approve the zone change 07-1893, with findings and conditions set forth
in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A, and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tragish, Tkac
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Zone Change 07-1651 (McIntosh & Associates)
6.1
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff’s
recommendation. Roger McIntosh with McIntosh & Associates, representing the developer
Karpe Real Estate, provided a history of this project, pointing out that it was initially zoned for
multi-family and the residents in the area objected to this, so the developer obtained a C-1
zoning. He pointed out that 23 acres is really not a C-1 neighborhood commercial site and there
were a number of uses that would be on site that did not fit in the C-1 zone. He indicated that
Staff recommended that they come back with a C-2 zoning and they elected to come back with a
request for a C-2/PCD zone. Mr. McIntosh stated that they had developed and submitted a site
plan to be heard at the same time and unfortunately that was developed before the new large
retail ordinance went into effect and Staff has now requested that they go back and redesign the
site plan previously submitted. Mr. McIntosh stated that they agreed to do this knowing that it
would come back before the Planning Commission in two weeks and therefore that was the
continuance previously approved. Mr. McIntosh stated that they would like to get the C-2/PCD
zone approved, which would allow for drive-thru restaurants and other uses on the site that make
it a neighborhood shopping center and not just a smaller C-1 shopping center. He stated that
they agree to the mitigation measures and have prepared the appropriate traffic studies and
synchronization studies. He said they just need to refine the site plan to allow for more
pedestrian isles going up to the larger users, as well as accommodate the set backs and
additional landscaping, as well as the architectural features required under the new large retail
development ordinance.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated he pulled this off consent calendar
because he was concerned with the by rights investment that comes with the C-2 and that there
are a significant amount of drive-thrus in the site plan. He commented that because it is a zone
Minutes of Planning Commission – January 3, 2008 Page 8
change, the issue in his mind is really one of health, safety and welfare to the extent the change
in zonings and drive-thrus will work on this particular corner. He stated that he was also
concerned with approving a zoning without a site plan because once they come back with the
site plan they are limited with what they can do because the zoning has already been approved.
Commissioner Tragish stated that given this situation and given the fact that the location is going
to be right on the corner of two prominent streets with a lot of traffic, he would like to have an
opportunity to look at the site plan at the same time that he looks at the C-2 zone request, so that
he can have a more knowledgeable review of the impacts, and specifically how the drive-thrus
will work. Commissioner Tragish stated he would like to continue this until the next hearing date
when they will have the site plan and they can look at them concurrently.
Commissioner Tkac stated he thinks the developers have a good past history and that the
project will be very nice. He stated he was concerned with the drive-thrus as well, and he
inquired when the site plan comes back through what the Planning Commission will do as far as
making any statement or judgment on the site plan. Staff responded that the Planning
Commission will look at the layout of the structures as they related to the surroundings and the
constraints of the site. Staff clarified that the Planning Commission will look at setbacks,
landscaping, additional public space, or the structure layouts, as well as how well it complies with
the new commercial retail standards for design.
Commissioner Tkac stated that based on his experience, the people who live in the area really
want to design the center, and he thinks the subject developer will be sensitive to the needs of
the area. He continued that given that it will have a zone change and the sign is out there, and
people think this is going to be a retail space and now it is being changed, he inquired if the
noticing will be enough for the general public. He clarified by asking if the sign on the property
says that the developer is asking for a zone change. Staff responded that the property is posted
notifying the public of a zone change to go from C-1 to C-2, and the residents within 300 feet
received written notice from the City of both the C-2 zone change and the site plan review. Staff
confirmed that there has been adequate notice by both posting on the property and through the
mail.
Commissioner Tkac stated that part of his concern is that he does not want to have a parking lot
like White Lane and Gosford.
Commissioner Johnson commented that if the concern is with drive-thrus then the C-2 zoning
should not be approved, which will limit the number of drive-thrus, and leave the application
required to apply for CUPs. He stated that he does not see the need to continue this.
Commissioner Blockley inquired if this project will come back before the PC many times for
changes, and specifically if a supermarket changed to an office supply store, to a drive thru car
wash. Staff responded that if there are changes to the plot plan that are significant it would come
back before the Planning Commission as a changed development plan and would have a public
hearing. If there are minor changes, the Planning Commission receives a report which indicates
that it is a minor change and does not necessitate a hearing. In either case, the PC gets to have
the final say on whether or not the Planning Commission gets to see the whole thing again.
Commissioner Blockley commented that there appears to be five potential restaurant locations,
however not all of those appear on the site plan to have drive-thrus. He inquired if the proposed
revised site plan contains the same features. Mr. McIntosh responded that of the five
restaurants that are on the site plan, four have drive-thrus, and are the same as what will come
back to the PC in two weeks. He indicated that the only thing they are changing from this
conceptual site plan is the ability to have pedestrian ways, and some additional setbacks along
Olive Drive and Calloway. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that they lost 30 parking spaces because of
this, however they still meet the parking requirements. He clarified that essentially what is
currently shown conceptually is the same as what they are back with in two weeks. He pointed
out that the five restaurant pads are I, J, K, L and M, and only K does not have the drive-thru. He
indicated that the drive-up window/speakers will be on the side opposite the residential. Mr.
McIntosh also pointed out that the PC has the final say on the site plan, and that the City Council
does not even have the final say on the site plan.
Minutes of Planning Commission – January 3, 2008 Page 9
Commissioner Blockley commented that regardless of what happens tonight and at the next
meeting, this project will come back more than once as it builds out. He stated that he will go
along with Staff’s recommendation to approve the zone change and defer approval of the PCD
site plan until later.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not see the fire, or understand why it has to be
approved tonight without having a completed site plan. He pointed out that it seems to him that it
would be more judicious to hear this at the same time as the final site plan. He commented that
the other commissioners may find that if they bifurcate the approval of this, they are going to be
very limited in their comments as to the site plan that will come before them in two weeks.
Commissioner Tragish also stated that every time it comes back before the Planning
Commission there are substantial limitations and restrictions as to what comments can be made
given the nature of the request. He stated that it seems to him that there are issues regarding
the drive-ways. He also stated that he does not have a problem with the project, but before
approving the C-2 there is the issue of the CUP, and an issue of by right, and it is an important
element in the approval and planning process and should not just be given away without seeing
the final site plan. He commented that each time a step is taken they will be narrowing the
Planning Commission’s view on this, and now is the time to look at it, as well as the site plan.
Commissioner Tragish inquired if when the site plan comes back before the PC if they will
provide the elevations and design for the project. Staff responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Tragish stated that it seems to him in conjunction with the site plan, they will also
be looking at the PCD elements regarding the project, in addition to zoning. He concluded by
stating that he thinks it would be more prudent to hear them together as he does not see the
urgency, or the harm to the applicant.
Commissioner Tragish moved to continue zone change 07-1651 to the next meeting on January
17, 2008. No second was made. Motion fails.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to approve zone change
07-1651 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A, and
recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, McGinnis, Andrews, Tkac
NOES: Commissioner: Tragish
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Tragish stated that his no vote is because he thinks it is imprudent to vote for this
motion tonight as it should be heard on the next calendar with the site plan and the PCD review.
6.2 Zone Change 07-1737 (Nelms Surveying, Inc.)
Heard on consent calendar.
7. COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff stated that in the packet of information is information regarding the Planner’s Institute that the
League of California Cities puts on, and the dates will be March 26-28 in Sacramento.
8. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
None.
Minutes of Planning Commission – January 3, 2008 Page 10
9. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
January 24, 2008