Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 18, 2002Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish None Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Dennis Fidler Staff: Jim Movius, Jim Eggert, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENTATIONS The presentations were put off until later in the agenda under Commission Comments. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None CONSENT CALENDER 5.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: 5.1a 5.1b Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the acquisition of a burned out building and a portion of Lot Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of Block 57 consisting of 3,375 square feet located along the southeast corner of Baker Street and Lake Street in Old Town Kern. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tract 5430 (2nd Revision) Phases H and I (Mclntosh & Associates) located west of Old River Road, north and south of White Oak Drive (extended). (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 6) 5.1c Receive and file Status Report for PCD Zone Change No. P98-0746 (Commercial Center) pursuant to BMC Section 17.54.080 A..1. located on the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Allen Road. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) 5.1d Receive and file Status Report for PCD Zone Change No. P98-0506 (Derrel's Mini-Storage) pursuant to BMC Section 17.54.080 A..1. located on the south Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 18, 2002 Page 2 side of Stockdale Highway between Allen Road and Buena Vista Road. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the non-public hearing items portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. 5.2 Public Hearing Items 5.2a Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan No. 02-0178 (Valley Plaza - General Growth Properties, Inc.) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 7) Commissioner Gay requested this item be removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No staff reports were given and no one spoke for or against the item. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay had a concern about the monument signs that are being requested. Commissioner Gay wanted to know if the Commission has any flexibility in approving this as the applicant has doubled the square footage of the monument signs and have added 11 new signs at just about every entrance. He would like to limit the number of signs because they are oversized and thinks it would be a distraction from the street. Mr. Grady said yes, the Commission has the flexibility to make a change as that is the whole intent of the program. It is to provide for a more flexible application of the standards rather than strict adherence for shopping centers or similar developments. Commissioner Gay said he is questioning the need for sign numbers 8, 10, & 11. Signs 10 and 11 are located on Hughes Lane and he feels that the residents of the area already know where the mall is and the signs are unnecessary. He would like to include sign numbers 3, 5, 6, 7 & 9. Commissioner Brady said that he thinks it is a good idea to indicate to the passing motorist where the entrances are to the mall. Also, a lot of people travel on Hughes Lane from Wal Mart to Valley Plaza and he feels that the signs on Hughes Lane are a reminder to people they don't have to go to the front of the mall to park. Commissioner Brady said that overall he feels that what is being proposed is balanced and reasonable in light of the size of the mall. He said he would support the application as presented. Commissioner Gay asked if there would be any interest from the Commission limiting the size of the signs to 32 feet if there are going to be signs at every entrance? It would cut down the visual impact. Since there are no monument signs at these locations now, Commissioner Gay asked if it wouldn't be reasonable to ask them to conform to the sign ordinance? Commissioner Tragish said he liked the idea of the monument signs to let people know where they can turn into the mall. He said one of his feelings of the plaza for many years is their lack of sizeable signs to let you know where to park or where to find the stores. He likes the format and the way they are laid out. He said he supports the application. Commissioner Brady said he doesn't think the size of the signs would be a problem in light of the size of Valley Plaza. Commissioner Boyle stated that he could see where it would get distracting if you had 22 Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 18, 2002 Page 3 entrances along a street and had a monument sign at every entrance, but he feels that given the length and size of the shopping center he thinks there is sufficient reason to deviate from the standard ordinance requirement of 32 feet. Commissioner Gay said he would withdraw his concern for the signs and would support the motion. Commissioner Sprague said that he was out there this morning and noticed a group of palm trees that may have to be removed in order to place the sign where they want or they will have to move the sign. He would like to see the sign labeled item B between sign 3 and 5 removed. Commissioner Boyle asked staff if they had any concerns about the palm trees having to be removed in order to get the sign where they want? Mr. Grady said the location of the sign would have to adhere to the setback requirements in the ordinance. Removal of the trees would require that they be replaced because there is a landscape planning requirement for the Valley Plaza Shopping Center. If it is necessary to relocate the palm trees or replace them with a like size tree or similar tree somewhere else on site and not in the exact spot where the sign was going to be located, they would be allowed to do that. Commissioner Brady asked staff what would happen if they approved the sign plan but there turned out to be a problem in placing the sign or find that trees would have to be removed? Mr. Grady said they would have to replace the landscape material. It would be observed on the plan that is submitted for sign location and if they indicated the trees would have to be removed, as part of the permit process, they would have to replace those before a permit would be issued. Mr. Grady said the Commission ought to ask the applicant to answer their questions about the trees and whether or not any will be removed. Alan Clark, General Manager of Valley Plaza, said that they are in the process of a number of things at the Plaza one of which is a comprehensive landscape review but it is not their intent to remove any of the large trees in this area. If there is something they need to do, as far as adjusting the sign program, to compensate for that sort of thing, they would certainly be interested in doing so. Commissioner Boyle said their immediate concern was the monument sign on Wible Road and the fact they couldn't get the sign in there with the existing landscaping. Mr. Clark said he knows which one they are referring to and would be willing to consider removing or relocating it. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Clark if he would agree to the Commission approving the comprehensive sign plan with the condition that the monument sign could not be built at that location unless it could be done without removing the trees? Mr. Clark said he doesn't know if they would have a particular problem with that but he would like to consider the option of perhaps presenting for consideration an alternative if it turned out they felt that for traffic control purposes, particularly at that entrance, that they would like to see a sign there. Commissioner Sprague said he could be happy with a review at site plan by the Planning Director and the Traffic Engineer in combination regarding that particular street sign as to the safety of where it could be located and also with the statement that they should look at the cluster of palm trees that are there that should not be removed and try to find an alternative spot for the sign as they present their site plan and possibly work it into their landscape plan. Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 18, 2002 Page 4 Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt the attached resolution with all findings and conditions approving Comprehensive Sign Plan No. 02-0178 with the items just mentioned above by Commissioner Sprague. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle None None PUBLIC HEARING -Vestinq Tentative Parcel Map No. 10854 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 4) Commissioner Sprague declared a conflict of interest on this project. Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady to explain what it means to make a wall "bonded or secured" as stated in the April 15 memorandum from him. Mr. Grady said it allows an individual to put a bond up which serves as the security in the event the applicant doesn't put the wall up, the City can cash the bond and use the proceeds to build the wall. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Matt Vovilla, representing Pinnacle Engineering, stated that during the last few days they have been in discussion with staff regarding a few of the conditions and would like to make sure they were all in agreement. He then discussed the conditions and changes that Public Works submitted to the Commission by memorandum. Ms. Shaw stated Public Works is in agreement with the changes to the conditions as discussed by Mr. Vovilla.. Mr. Vovilla had one more question regarding the shared driveways that Public Works has indicated they prefer to minimize the number of driveways. He said that they have agreed to that but that there is one common lot line that they had requested a commercial size driveway at Parcels 6 and 7 which fronts Meany Avenue. Ms. Shaw said they agreed with that. Commissioner Boyle asked for clarification that 4, 5 & 6 fronting on Patton will have a common commercial driveway and there would be an additional driveway between six and seven off of Meany Avenue? Ms. Shaw said it is her understanding there is a joint driveway between 4 and 5 and a joint driveway between 6 & 7. Mr. Vovilla said they desire a common driveway between 5 and 6 fronting Patton and since that was an odd number of drives, lot 4 would have to have a drive dedicated for itself and then a joint driveway for lots 6 & 7. Ms. Shaw referred to Steve Walker, the Traffic Engineer, who said that they agreed to this. It meets their standards for separation and distance away from the corner. The additional driveway on Meany Avenue would be a shared driveway and acceptable to them. The others are fine. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner McGinnis asked why if lot 6 is sharing a driveway with lot 7 are they sharing a driveway with lot 5 also? Mr. Vovilla said that at this time he doesn't know if there is an intended Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 18, 2002 Page 5 user for that site and that it just gives that lot a little more latitude for access. It is possible that one may not be used. Commissioner Brady asked if they needed to add a statement that the shared driveway approaches shall be placed with the approval of the Traffic Engineer? Mr. Walker said the intent is to give them as much flexibility as possible but also to comply with Public Works' desire in planning the streets and traffic that they have as few driveways as needed. Mr. Walker feels that it does not need to be put in writing but from the hearing they can be assured that that location has an option as it exceeds the minimum standards for separation. Commissioner Brady asked if it shouldn't read "parcels fronting on both Patton Way and Meany Avenue shall have shared drive approaches? Ms. Shaw said that neither she nor the Traffic Engineer have any objection to the language being added to the condition. Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 10854 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" in addition to the modifications made to items 3 and 5 in the staff memo dated April 16.2002. Also, make note that there were modifications in conditions 26 and 28 that all masonry block walls shall be 6 feet in height and that condition number 28 refers to lots 1,2 & 3 in the industrial track. And that the approval of driveways meet the approval of the Traffic Engineer. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Boyle NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sprague PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment No. 01-1025 (City of Bakersfield) (Continued from April 4, 2002) (Wards 1 & 2) Ms. Shaw said that she has been unable to schedule a meeting with the county to discuss their comments until the following day and that they are requesting this item be continued until May 16, 2002. Ms. Shaw also told the Commission she has provided the Commissioners with her Level of Service "cheat sheet" per their request during the pre-meeting on Monday. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against the item. On a motion by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, this item was continued until May 16, 2002. Motion carried. Public hearing was reopened. 8. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING EXPANDED PUBLIC NOTICE Mr. Grady said that the Commission was provided with a memorandum from him that provides Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 18, 2002 Page 6 the Commission with an overview of pubic notice requirements for land use approvals and regulations. It is intended to provide the Commission with a little background of what some of the requirements are that the department adheres to when they are providing public hearing notices. Mr. Grady suggested that the Commission go over this information and then hold this matter over until the new Commissioners are seated and then form a committee so that some time could be spent discussing the potential implications of expanding the notice, what it would do to the cost of providing that service and what the practical ability for the Department to identify tenants in projects is unless we do some other kind of broadcast notice that doesn't identify the individuals. Commissioner Brady said perhaps the applicant could be required to post a sign on the property saying "public hearing" in letters big enough to be seen. He also said that he hopes the Web site could be further enhanced to provide the public with a lot more information to the public on issues. Commissioner Tragish asked staff if these are minimum requirements if we couldn't say 500 feet or 1,000 feet instead of 300 feet? Mr. Grady said yes. On a motion by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, a motion was made to continue this item until May 16, 2002. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS None 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS Mr. Grady presented Commissioner Stephen Boyle and Commissioner Mathew Brady a plaque in recognition of their service as Planning Commissioners. 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING. The Commission decided to have a pre-meeting on May 13, 2002. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary May 7, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director