Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/97Council Chamber, CitYHall AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Thursday, February 20, 1997 5:30 p.m. KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN JEFFREY TKAC ALTERNATE: MICHAEL DHANENS NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 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. A 2. PUBLIC STATI=MENT,.~ ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPFAL Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council,' cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $330 nomrefundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $330 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. Agenda, PC, 2/20/97 Page 2 If no appeal is-received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. 3.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. 4. A P P R_ O3/AL~)_FJ~ll N UTES Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held on December 19, 1996. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Certificate of Correction for Parcel Map 7744 to allow two vehicular access openings along south Mt. Vernon Avenue for Parcel 1 for property lOcated on the west side of South Mt. Vernon Avenue, between Highway 58 and Gateway Avenue. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 6. PUBLIC HEARING -.COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FILE NO.-P97-0014 Comprehensive sign plan for the commercial retail/office center located on the east side of Oswell Street south of State Highway 178 known as 2631 through 2671 Oswell Street. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny. Group vote Agenda, PC, 2/20/97 Page 3 10. 11. 12. PUJ3LIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5859 PHASED (Telstar Engineering for Carriage Homes) Located on' the northwest corner of South Union Avenue and Panama Lane. Consisting of 97 residential lots and one park Iot'on property zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential) and a waiver of mineral rights owners' signatures in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 B.2. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from the regular meeting of February 6, 1997) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions. Group vote DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS IN SOUTHWEST COMMUNICATIONS_ A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS' A.' Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBI E CANCELLATION OF T~ -BP, E~MEF_~NG. February. 7~ 1997 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, February.20, 1997, 5:30 p.m., p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue; Bakersfield, California. COMMISSIONERS: Present: KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN JEFFREY TKAC MICHAEL DHANENS ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV STAFF: Present: PUBLIC STATEMENTS STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary Jill Kleiss representing the Southwest Community Action Committee spoke on site plan review and directing a program EIR. Ms. Kleiss expressed disappointment that after a year the City had not complied with a judge's ruling that there was a need to develop a site plan review process, noting that the City came up with a Site Plan Review Ordinance heard at the Urban Development Committee at a meeting held at a time where few people could attend. She stated that if the plan went through, the Commission would not have the opportunity to review it since it had already been approved to go to City Council. Ms. Kleiss expressed concern that the Planning Commission may be bypassed in future projects such as the Market Place, that such projects may go to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Ms. Kleiss stated that she feels a conflict of interest exists since Judy Skousen, City Attorney, is a member of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Ms. Kleiss quoted statistics from the Air Quality Control Board and expressed concern with noise levels and traffic congestion. Minutes, PC, 2~20~97 Page 2 The Chairman asked if site plan review was now going on with the recommendation that it is going to be handled by the B.Z.A. Laura Marino, AsSistant City Attorney replied that the ordinance considered bythe Urban Development Committee does have the Class A Review by the Board of Zoning Adjustment, and that that ordinance will go to the City Council on March 12th. Chairman Hersh stated that it was his understanding that the Market Place site plan review would be brought before the Planning Commission for input, and asked why this had not occurred. Commissioner Brady stated that the Commission serves the Council and that the Council is not required to present matters to the Planning Commission. Mr. Brady aisc stated that the matter will have a full review before the City Council and that all concerned parties will have an opportunity to attend and comment. The chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. Commissioner Boyle was seated. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None. APPROVAL OF MINU~F_S Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve minutes of December 19, 1996. Motion carried. P~JBLL~ARI.NG - PARCEL MAP 7744 - CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTJOJ~ COmmissioner Dhanens declared a conflict of interest on this item since his firm is providing design services for the subject property. Staff reported that the Certificate of Correction is amended, stating that the applicant is asking to eliminate a waiver of access that was recorded on the original map with two driveway points along Mt. Vernon Avenue. Staff stated that present access points follow the standards of the City Engineering Department for access and ingress and egress. Staff recommends approval. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Bob Lusich represented the applicant. He stated that two vehicular access points are necessary because the view from State Route 58 determined the only feasible location and orientation of the building. He stated that the area is also served by the Adult School for Training, who have expressed some concern about the need for additional services. Minutes, PC, 2~20~97 Public portion of the hearing was closed. Page 3 Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt the resolution with findings, approving the request for two vehicular access drives along South Mt. Vernon as shown on Exhibit C of the resolution, and direct the City Engineer to record the Certificate of Correction as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinance. Motion carried. 6. PUI~LI_C HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE~~-0014. Staff report recommending denial of request was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. David Milazzo represented the new owners of the East Hills Village Shopping Center. He stated this comprehensive sign plan is part of the new owners plan for revitalizing the center. He stated that because of the overpass for southbound traffic on Oswell, the center is excluded from view in most directions. The most practical and workable place to put visible signage is at the entrance to the facility. The present pylon sign is'facing the on-ramp, visible only when traffic is exiting Oswell traveling east, that westbound traffic does not see the sign until past the off-ramp. Mr. Milazzo stated that the pylon sign at the intersection was designed to tie with surrounding commercial centers. He stated that the owners wanted to avoid individual tenants erecting a variety of different signs that didn't follow a specific criteria, that the owners wanted to 'maintain a fairly strict criteria to maintain both the quality of tenants and quality of signage, preventing deterioration of the center. Mr. Milazzo stated that currently individual tenants follow C-1 standards for wall signs, and that continuation of C-1 guidelines for wall signs would be an acceptable term in the proposed comprehensive sign plan. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked Staff if any other shopping centers in the immediate vicinity had Comprehensive Sign Plans or if they operated under existing ordinances, citing an adjoining center with various businesses. Staff replied this center has a comprehensive sign plan. Commissioner Boyle asked if the amount of signage for that center is greater than what would have been allowed in a C-1 zone. Staff replied the signage is less than what would be allowed under a comprehensive sign plan. Commissioner Boyle asked if the import shop directly across the street had a comprehensive sign plan. Staff replied that it has signage allowed by ordinance. Commissioner Boyle cited two shopping centers on Mt. Vernon, and asked if either had sign plans. Staff replied that both had signage according to ordinance. Minutes, PC, 2~20~97 Page 4 Commissioner Boyle stated that there is a sign plan for the East Hills Mall; staff confirmed. Commissioner Boyle asked if it allowed for signage in excess of zoning. Staff replied that it is less. Commissioner Boyle stated that it seemed inappropriate to give one shopping center special treatment over other shopping centers, that approval of such changes for one would encourage others to do the same, thus increasing the amount of overall signage in the area. He cited other centers on Mt. Vernon that also did not have good freeway frontage visibility. He noted that the prior owner made the decision to provide building pads for additional tenants despite the decreased visibility, and did not see that as justification for granting additional signage at this time. Commissioner Boyle stated that his present inclination was to support Staff's recommendation to deny. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Milazzo if the property owner had one pylon sign at present which would be coming down and a new sign erected in a different location. Mr. Milazzo confirmed. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Milazzo if the new signed was to be 35 feet high instead of 25 as per ordinance. Mr. Milazzo confirmed. Commissioner Brady asked why the new signed needed to be that high. Mr. Milazzo replied that.other surrounding centers did not have similar major tenants, and that the present visibility is extremely restricted. Mr. Milazzo stated that the purpose for enlarging the sign was to give every tenant space on the sign as well as conform in appearance to the center across the street. He also cited a rule in the ordinance regarding the distance between pylon and monument signs that made the owner's special request necessary. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Milazzo if the proposed size of the pylon surface for signage were increased, could the height be kept under 25 feet. Mr. Milazzo replied that the underside of the sign would be fairly close to the ground, that it would be a matter of proportions and aesthetics. Mr. Milazzo stated that he would be open to reducing the height of the sign slightly, but preferred to submit sketches that reflected the suggested proportions first. Commissioner Brady stated that he would not be opposed to allow some variance in a pylon sign if it was placed in the entrance, but did not feel that he could support all of the increases suggested to the interior signs. He stated that he would support a continuance to allow the owner to submit alternative suggestions for the pylon, and asked Mr. Milazzo if he would be amenable to that suggestion. Mr. Milazzo replied that he would. Commissioner Delgado cited considerable traffic in the area and his understanding that the East Hills Village property owner would want to capture some of that traffic. However stated that he shared Commissioner Boyle's concern that making one exception would prompt other business to seek identical treatment. He stated that like Commissioner Brady, he would also consider alternative suggestions from the owner, but indicated that a significant size reduction would have to be incorporated into any such alternative design. Minutes, PC, 2/20/97 Page 5 Commissioner Boyle said that while he appreciated that a comprehensive sign plan allowed a property owner to enlarge in some areas and scale down in others, he could not see where the owners were scaling down. Mr. Milazzo cited examples where scaling down did occur, and stressed that the owners main concern was with the pylon sign. Commissioner Boyle supported Mr. Brady's suggestion that the 'matter be continued to give the owner an opportunity to offer alternative suggestions on the pylon sign. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion carried. 7. ~~NTATIVE TRACT 5859, P~IASED. Staff report recommending approval was given. Pubic portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Carl Moreland, Telstar Engineering, distributed a written handout. He directed the Commission's attention to a photograph of the corner of Panama Lane and South Union Avenue showing a gap of 200 feet that was not required to be improved by the people across the street, and noted that the Assessor's Map shows the first phase of that tract being done by itself without the dedication of Panama Lane, even though they own the property. He stated that in order to be treated equally as the people across the street, he had deleted four subconditions on the third page of the conditions. Mr. Moreland stated that adoption of recommendations as written by Staff would render unequal treatment. Public portion of the hearing was closed. The chairman asked Mr. Moreland if he had discussed the modifications presented with Mr. LaRochelle. Mr. Moreland stated that he had. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Moreland if the property in the photograph was within the City. Mr. Moreland replied that it was. Commissioner Brady asked how large the undeveloped parcel was adjacent to the developed portion. Mr. Moreland estimated that it was approximately 24 acres, and that Phase I was about 15 acres. Commissioner Brady stated that it was his belief that the property adjacent was too small for development, and that Panama would have to be put in for orderly development. Commissioner Brady stated that he would not support the project unless that was made a requirement. Mr. LaRochelle stated that he reviewed the strikeout provided by Mr. Moreland and that they were consistent with what has been asked. Mr. LaRochelle acknowledged that the Commission is making a requirement that Panama be put in at the designated segment, that Mr. Moreland disagrees, and that they have not been able to come to terms on this issue. Minutes, PC, 2~20~97 Page 6 Commissioner Boyle asked if there was a particular reason why the street was not widened all the way down to Union at the time the homes were constructed. Mr. LaRochelle replied that it was not required at the time, that it was felt that the amount of improvements that were done with the first phase exceeded the cost per lot with all the other homes in the tract. Mr. LaRochelle expressed concern that phasing is being done in such a way that large portions of the development that are being left over for major arterials are being left until the very end. Commissioner Boyle asked if the property that was on the south side of Panama that was not widened was a C-2 parcel. Mr. LaRochelle stated that it was. Commissioner Boyle stated that despite Mr. Moreland's feelings of unequal treatment, there was a radical difference between development of C-2 or commercial parcel, which would require certain frontage, gutters, etc., and that an R-1 parcel does not share that kind of development potential. Commissioner Delgado asked Staff if the requirement of a number set-asides in an escrow account and funding in phases was a common practice of the Planning Commission. Staff replied that it was not, that normally road construction is done with the first phase, and that set-asides gives some relief to the developer. It was a fair way of distributing high-dollar costs evenly through all the lots. Commissioner Delgado asked if the City was therefore exposed to any risk due to incompletion of a particular phase. Staff explained set-aside funds are available in the event another developer is called upon to finish a phase. Commissioner Delgado stated that he agreed with Commissioners Boyle and Brady. Commissioner Brady asked if the February 14, 1997 memorandum incorporates the conditions proposed by Public Works. Staff replied that the conditions reflected how the City would like to see it improved. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt the resolution approving and adopting the negative declaration, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5859 with the findings of the conditions as presented in said resolution with the amended Exhibit A dated February 14, 1997. Motion carried. DISCUSSION OF ENVJRO~IMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS IN SOUTH~,~/E_S_'[ BAKERSFIELD. Continued from the last meeting. The chairman opened the item for discussion and asked for comments. Chairman Hersh expressed a concern that impact reports are building blocks for the community, far-reaching enough to discuss agricultural phasing, impact on surrounding streets, arteries, collectors, etcetera, with projected effects of up to twenty years. Minutes, PC, 2~20~97 Page 7 Mr. Bruce Freeman of Castle and Cooke remarked on certain deed restrictions his firm had imposed on agricultural properties of twelve years, and asked why these would concern Mr. Hersh. Chairman Hersh replied that at end of twelve years those parcels could be subject to development before the twenty-year span covered by EIR's which could impact air, water, and traffic. He also stated that the current development now existing south of 99 Highway was at one time thought never to occur, or projected to develop at a much slower rate than it did. Chairman Hersh also stated that current streets are overtaxed because of inadequate impact fees. Mr. Freeman asked how far should assumptions be made, and pointed out that properties chosen by such firms as Von's are selected for existing development, not what might be present in twenty years. Commissioner Boyle pointed out the two major tax bases of oil and agricultural, and that oil was a finite resource. He expressed concern with conversion of ag land, that once done, it is difficult ifnot impossible to do the reverse. He noted that while impact projections on ten or twenty acres of development is relatively simple, such projections for thousands of acres present insurmountable problems. He cited three examples: Rosedale Ranch, 6,500+ acres approved on a 50-year development; 600 acres on Brimhall; 600 acres in Buena Vista. Commissioner Boyle expressed concern that no one had looked at the totality of what is being done. With no specific geographical boundary west of Bakersfield, he felt it incumbent on the City and the County to carefully consider where they wish to curb development, and when development takes place, that it be done with care and thought. Commissioner Boyle referred to the 2010 Plan and its phasing principles, stating he felt that a certain blurring of that phasing was taking place. Commissioner Boyle stated that he had no problem with the .present process of developing EIR's, that it provided ample opportunity for public input; however, he felt the City and County are not coordinated between themselves on the 2010 Plan. Commissioner Delgado stated that he shared Commissioner Boyle's concern about development of agricultural property. He asked whether or not a Program EIR would solve that particular aspect, or is there another method to be considered, or no method at all. Staff replied that those concerns can be addressed in cumulative impacts, that if they were not addressed satisfactorily at the time of the draft or the hearing on the final, objections could be raised. Commissioner Delgado asked what the difference was between a program EIR and a regular EIR. Staff replied that a project EIR would address more imminent impacts, and would provide an understanding of what those impacts would be. In a program EIR, there would be projections of impacts regarding projects within the program EIR because information would not be available for proper evaluation to the fullest extent. Minutes, PC, 2i20/97 Page 8 Commission Tavorn asked Mrl LaRochelle if traffic impact numbers are taken from one EIR without knowing what impact numbers exist in another development, are true numbers being provided for the overall area in terms of total impact. Mr. LaRochelle responded that cumulative impacts from other developments are always taken into account, that the base line impact is always increased when a new development is added. Chairman Hersh commented to Mr. Freeman of Castle and Cooke that he had yet to see a single document that connects with another document that gives a basis from . which development impacts can be recognized in terms of water, traffic, overall environment. Mr. Freeman stated that Castle and Cooke shared those concerns, that they work with the various City and County agencies so that urban growth can be planned. He stated that he shared Mr. Hersh's frustration and concerns in this matter since the County does not have any apparent guideline or limit on what they will approve, and suggested that the EIR consultant address those concerns in much greater detail. Barbara Lomas, representing Del Rio Concern Citizens, asked if there was a mechanism by which development and freeways could be considered as a whole, to come up with a general plan. Commissioner Brady commented that the general plan is a big project, and there are EIR's for areas that develop within that. The overall picture is looked at in a long-term fashion, but no one can project how things are going to occur, and that is why by design the general plan can be modified four times a year by public hearing. Ms. Lomas asked how these changes would impact numbers on air, traffic and water. Commissioner Brady replied that the numbers were recalculated each time a change occurred. Ms. Lomas asked if the school issue was policed as well. Staff replied that it was. Lynn Mahalyo asked why implement a program such as the 2010 Plan every twenty years if it is subject to change four times a year. Staff replied that regular comprehensive review is required by State law. 9. COMMUNICATIONS Staff referred to a memo on ordinance update, and stated a press release had been prepared and given to the Commission that the Clerk is now accepting applications for appointment or reappointment to the Planning Commission. Applications are due March 7, 1997; interviews are scheduled for March 26, 1997. The Commission was also given a land use map as requested. Minutes, PC, 2/20/97 10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Page 9 Subdivision and Public Service Committee Stanley Grady reported that he informed the Urban Development Committee that this Committee would be reassembled to discuss clarifications. The Planning Commission would be informed when a firm date for the next meeting had been decided. Qr_dina n ce~:~eview Committee Commissioner Dhanens reported that the Committee had continued to meet on a monthly basis to review issues regarding the proposed Hillside ordinance, in particular the Fire Department and vehicular access to subdivisions within the Hillside area. Next meeting set for March; a specific date has not been determined at this time. Commissioner Tavorn reported that Barbara Martin presented the Committee with recommendations from the B.I.A. The Committee reviewed those recommendations, and is currently waiting for further information from the Fire Department and Public Works. Site Plan Review_Committee Commissioner Delgado reported that the Committee requested Staff to provide site plan review ordinances from other communities. Copies were distributed to Committee members; however, the Committee has yet to meet and review the material. Chairman Hersh expressed concern about the site plan review going to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Mr. Grady said that this item could be put on the Commission agenda for April 6th as a discussion item. Chairman Hersh agreed, and requested copies of the sample site plan review ordinances be provided to the Commission. P_._G~an_~.mrn ittee Commissioner Tkac reported that the Committee met with P.G.&E. on January 29, 1997. He stated that the ultimate goal of the Committee was to find out what other communities have done to beautify and make feasible the use of areas under power lines. Next meeting scheduled for February 26, 1997. Commissioner Brady suggested the Committee obtain material on Northwest Promenade to use as an example of what can be done. Minutes, PC, 2~20~97 Page 10 Chairman Hersh expressed concern that ordinances originated with the Planning Commission should be reviewed by the Council prior to submission to the Urban Development Committee. Mr. Grady replied that all proposed ordinances are placed before the Council with recommendations for referral to~ the Urban Development Committee. Chairman Hersh indicated that after such ordinances have gone to the Council and/or other committees for review that the Commission be informed of what changes have been made. Commissioner Tavorn noted that the application for PI; nning Commissioners states that their duties include conducting hearings on items as re(~uired and on appeals of site plan reviews, and pointed out that this cannot be accomplis[~ed if such reviews are not presented to the Commissioners. He stated that at present appeals of site plan review are required to be presented to the Planning Commission; however, the proposed change would send them to the City Council. 11. DISCUSS_IO_N AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE_CANCELLATION OF PRE- MEETJNG~ Mr. Grady indicated that the Commission had been pro~vided with a future agenda. Referring to March 6, 1997, he pointed out a consistency finding, a parcel map, and a zoning upon annexation, and stated that the comprehensiVe sign plan had been continued. . Motion was made by Commissioner Brady and second d by Commissioner Ortiz to cancel the next pre-meeting. Motion carried. 12. ADJQURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretiry Planning Director