Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 15, 2002 Pre-MeetingCouncil 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 Eggert, Louise Palmer, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PRESENTATIONS 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 side of Stockdale Highway between Allen Road and Buena Vista Road. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) Minutes, PC, Monday, April 15, 2002 Page 2 5.2 No staff reports were given. Commissioner Sprague and Commissioner Tragish asked if there is a condition on the project to keep the weeds cleaned up on the property to the west on Item No. 5.1c? Mr. Grady said that he didn't know but would look into it and contact the property owner through our Code Enforcement Division. Public Hearing Items 5.2a Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan No. 02-0178 (Valley Plaza - General Growth Properties, Inc.) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 7) Staff report given showing drawings of the proposed new signs. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Sprague asked about Item B on the left side of Exhibit A. He wanted to know if the sign would be set back substantially so it is not blocking the view of traffic? Mr. Eggert said that the sign would be 8 to 10 feet and meet the city's "clear view distance" as far as the triangular area from the back of the curb and looking both directions down the street. The City will monitor that when they come in for the permits for each sign. PUBLIC HEARING -Vestinq Tentative Parcel Map No. 10854 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions as shown in the staff report. Commissioner Sprague asked if the reason for the postponement by bond or security is that this developer doesn't want to install the concrete wall fence at this time? Mr. Grady said that the reason they are asking for that option is because they haven't set the grades on the subdivision. If they put the wall in now, when they grade it, they could end up with a five foot wall instead of a six foot wall on the subdivision side. Commissioner Gay asked if when the Commission approved the industrial next to the Kyle Carter development if the Commission requested a 6 foot or an 8 foot block wall? Mr. Grady said he would look it up. Commissioner Tkac asked if there are plans for Patton Way to go through the subdivision? He feels that it is encroaching just a little bit. Ms. Shaw said Patton is a collector and the general plan shows it going through. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is an ordinance requiring a masonry block wall along canals and is it required to be a minimum of six feet? Mr. Grady said not on the canal. This is a public health, safety and welfare condition so there is some discretion available to the Commission. There is a requirement for six foot block walls on arterial and collector streets, where they serve for double fronted lots. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment No. 01-1025 (City of Bakersfield) (Continued from April 4, 2002) (Wards 1 & 2) Minutes, PC, Monday, April 15, 2002 Page 3 Mr. Grady said that this item would have to be continued as the meeting scheduled with the County will not be held until Friday. Commissioner Brady suggested that the new Commissioners review a copy of the tape from the last meeting and this meeting so that they will be up-to-date with what has been discussed. Commissioner Tragish requested a copy of the Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan. Mr. Grady said he would get one for him. Commissioner Tragish asked for a document that details all of the Levels of Service. Ms. Shaw said she would supply all of the Commissioners with a copy of what she uses. Commissioner Sprague asked Ms. Shaw to explain to the Commission why this project has come up. Ms. Shaw said there have been a number of Industrial users along East Brundage Lane that have substantial frontage and that have been unwilling to upgrade their facilities or move the facilities in because they could not face the cost of putting arterial standards in. The discussion was that perhaps with a collector standard it would be easier to get the industrial users to construct there. As a result of some discussions with the Manager's office, Public Works agreed to take a look at what would happen if they did go to collector standards along Brundage Lane. Since they have found the level of service is acceptable, they have made this recommendation. Commissioner Sprague asked if this wouldn't be setting a precedent for other people to do it in other parts of town? Ms. Shaw said that the only reason this works is because it is only 400 feet from a freeway. Commissioner McGinnis asked Ms. Shaw if there are any existing areas in the county that are presently built out to arterial standards and is it because of the Breckenridge subdivision that the county objects to changing the status? Ms. Shaw said "yes" there are and that the county said in their letter that they are concerned that the traffic study that was done to justify going to collector did not take that into account. Ms. Shaw said their concern in that particular area is that since so much of it had already been developed to arterial, they would prefer for that portion to remain arterial. Commissioner McGinnis asked if it is the City's position that if we were to remove the arterial status that we may be able to attract more businesses to locate in that location? Ms. Shaw said the primary area is more towards the center of town between Union and Mt. Vernon. Commissioner McGinnis asked if the city were to be built out would the collector status be enough to handle the traffic? Ms. Shaw said "yes." 8. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING EXPANDED PUBLIC NOTICE This will be discussed on Thursday night. 9. COMMUNICATIONS None 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS None Minutes, PC, Monday, April 15, 2002 Page 4 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 12:58 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary May 7, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director