Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/97 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber,-City Hall Thursday, May 15, 1997 5:30 p.m. MATHEW BRADY, Chairperson JEFFREY TKAC, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MICHAEL DHANENS MARTI KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN ALTERNATE: BETSY TEETER NOTE: Agendas may be 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. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 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 APPEAL 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 non-refundable 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. Agenda, PC, 5/15/97 Page 2 If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. 3.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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held April 3, and April 17, 1997. o CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET- DETERMI~IATIOJ'~B_V,~T~E PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE FILE P96-0978 -- Time set to consider rezoning from a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zone on 2.27 +/- acres and an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone on .98 +/- acre to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone on a total of 3.25 +/- acres for development of a 2,758 square foot fast food restaurant on the easterly portion of the project site. The project is generally located north of Panama Lane, on both sides of Fortune Street. The applicant is requesting a reduction of 35 parking spaces required for the overall project site. (Negative Declaration' on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions. Roll call vote 7. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS A. Committees Agenda, PC, 5/15/97 9. Page 3 DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF_J~IF_~ May 12= 1997 Planning Director '0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held May 15, 1997 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MATHEW BRADY, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MARTI KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN BETSY TEETER ADVISORY MEMBERS: Absent: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS JEFFREY TKAC, Vice-Chairperson LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director STAFF: Present: PUBLIC STATEMENTg STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary No one made any public statements at this time. Chairman read the'notice of right to apPeal as set forth on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Kemper to approve minutes of the regular meetings held April 3, and April 17, 1997. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET - DETERMINATION BY THr- PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS Presentation was given by Public Works staff. Minutes, PC, 5./15/97 Page 2 Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. LaRochelle what mechanism there is for letting the Commission or the Council know if other funding sources (such as sales tax or government programs) don't develop? How does the Commission and Council know that new development is paying for itself? Mr. LaRochelle responded by saying that he could get a past performance record against what is projected and what is received. That information could be reported back if the Commission wanted it. Since he has been working with the CIP, there never has been much deviation from the funds that are projected and funds that were collected. Projection of funds are done very conservatively~- - _ Commissioner Tavorn asked if the report was in regards to the new convention center or the old one. Mr. Wright responded by stating that it is one convention center just an expansion on what is there. Commissioner Tavom also asked about Public Works projects and resurface and whether or not these projects are for emergencies. Mr. Wriqht said that there were specific streets that were proposed for resurfacing and that ~ublic Works could provide a list of them at their next meeting. Mr. LaRochelle said that they have a worksheet summary by fund that shows which streets will be resurfaced. Mr. Tavorn said that he was looking for a particular street, Fairfax, and discovered that nothing was proposed for it. Mr. Tavorn said they might want to look at it, it was full of potholes. Commissioner Tavorn wanted to clarify the sewer enterprise fund, $30,000,000. Does a certain amount of money from new homes go into that fund? There is an estimate of 2,400 to 3,000 of either housing or buildings a year and the hookup fee is $1,200. Where does the other money.come from? Basically, Mr. LaRochelle said the sewer enterprise fund does very well and part of the money is to collect money to do expansions. Most of the money will be spent on the treatment plant expansions. It has been building up for a number of years. Commissioner Tavorn asked that if anyone in the city is looking at expansion costs vs. the cost to maintain expansion. Is the cost equal to or greater than? Are we O.K.? Is expansion benefiting the city or expansion costing the city? Mr. LaRochelle said he can't answer that question. He didn't know if any detailed study had been done. Commissioner Tavorn said that he would look into It some more and give Mr. LaRochelle a call. Commissioner Ortiz asked where the expansions of the sewer plant were at and where are they located? Mr. LaRochelle stated that we have two sewer plants, No. 2 and No. 3, and that the $25,000,000 expansion is planned for the one located off of Mt. Vernon. He wasn't sure if the plans had been approved by the state at this time. Plant 3 located off of Ashe south of Hoskings is undergoing a 4 mgd expansion. This is due to new homes and development going into the area. Commissioner Teeter asked if there were statistics available comparing expenditures with the same size and types of cities nation-wide as Bakersfield and, if so, how are we doing percentage wise with expenditures? Are we spending in similar types of areas? Mr. LaRochelle stated that our Public Works Director has been here for three years from the Los Angeles area and he feels that Bakersfield does very well, as well or better than Minutes, PC, 5/15/97 Page 3 most cities. Our fiscal policies are very conservative. He was not aware of any formal comparison but it was. something that could be done. Chairman Brady asked Mr. LaRochelle how the city chooses which roads get worked on and which do not. Mr. LaRochelle stated that the Public Works Department sent out an RFP to do a "one time snapshot" about where our road system is, where we are and come up with strategies that utilizes what funds we do have. Until that project is implemented fully during the next fiscal year, they have a pretty good idea of what is out there because they drive the~streets every day~---Public-Works is attacking the roads-that they feel are salvageable as far as resurfacing. Some of them need reconstruction which is more difficult and expensive to do with limited funds. In responding to another question by Mr. Brady concerning sewer trunk lines, Mr. LaRochelle said that they are going back and surveying every single One of the trunk lines. They are starting with the worse ones first. There is $5 million dollars set aside in the next five years for rebuilding a major trunk on Chester and Planz down to Plant 2. They are all concrete pipes that have deteriorated away. Commissioner Boyle asked why this years budget was 39 million dollars and by the year 2000 it was down to 9 million dollars and whether or not that the budget was really based on a 2 to 3 year time frame as it was decreased each year. Mr. LaRochelle stated that the average Public Works budget has always been around 12 to 15 million dollars. It has gone up this year because of the treatment plant expansion and the trunk line expansion. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to find the fiscal year 1997-98 proposed Capital Improvement Plan budget consistent with the general and specific plans. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONE CHANGE FILE P96-097~ - TIME SET TO CONSIDER REZONING FROM A C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONE ON 2.27 + ACRES AND AN R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE ON .98 + ACRE TO A PCD (PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) ZONE ON A TOTAl OF 3.25 + ACRES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 2,758 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT ON THE EASTERLY PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE. THF PROJECT IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF PANAMA LANE, ON BOTH SIDES OF FORTUNE STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF 35 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT SITE. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff report recommending approval of the project with conditions was given. Mr. Movius stated that the applicant no longer needed the modification of parking since they now meet the parking requirements. A memorandum from Jacques LaRochelle of the Public Works Department was distributed to the Planning Commissioners regarding addition of one condition to the project. He stated if the project is approved the motion should make reference to this memorandum. Public portion of the hearing was opened, no one spoke in opposition of the project. Gary Olson representing the owner of project spoke about two concerns they have with Minutes, PC,. 5/15/97 Page 4 the project. He referred to Discretionary Condition No. 2 and the fact that staff has asked the owner to plant nine additional trees. He said the two planters staff has . requested in front of the building and the redesign of the building to achieve the additional parking would cause the building to be set back further from the street and the planters would hide the front elevation of the building. Therefore, they would like to relocate them. Mr. Olson stated that the second concern regarded Public Works Condition No. 2 to provide an offer of dedication for a right turn on Panama Lane at Wible Road. Mr. Olson stated that one of the Problems with the existing site particularly at that corner is how Howard's mini-market is located. All of the existing gas tanks within the ground are located right on the corner just south of the pumps. In order for the gas trucks to deliver their gas to the property the only way to maneuver their trucks to the property is down Panama Lane west and then turn into the drive that is closest to the intersection and then they pull up so that they are adjacent to the west side of the pumps at this point the back of the truck and the front of the truck are very close to the existing curb and gutter of the property. The concern is that the dedication requested by the city results in taking 10 feet of the property no longer making it safe for the gas trucks to deliver gas because they would perhaps have to stick out into the street. Also, the movement of the existing traffic light at the corner 10 feet would further encroach upon the movement of the gas trucks. The owner is willing to provide the dedication but with the understanding that we've got to work out a safe way to access that corner so that gas could be delivered to the property. Staff was concerned about elimination of the trees, however, would agree to a condition that would state that the trees may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning Director. Mr. Olson agreed to the change in condition. Mr. LaRochelle stated typically on a project like this the city not only asks for dedication but also construction of the right-turn lane. The city chose not to require that right turn lane at this time but however does not want to have to purchase the right-of-way at a later date. The city would be willing to work with the owner at a later date to make his operation as safe as possible. Mr. Brady asked about the time frame for the right turn lane and Mr. LaRochelle stated there is no way of knowing that. The level of service at this time is not bad at all. It could be years down the road. Mr. Brady asked if a condition could be added that when the tanks were moved, as they are periodically, if we could put a condition on that they be moved to another location so that the hazard could be eliminated at that time. Mr. Olson said the tanks are all right for the next two years and after that Jaco Oil Co. will realign them which would give the tanks another 10 years life before they would have to be relocated. He also asked that if the tanks were to be relocated for some environmental problem later that a condition be put on that the tanks could be relocated at that time. Mr. Leonard, Assistant Building Director, said that the project could be flagged so that if the tanks were to be worked on that Public Works would be notified. Minutes, PC, 5/15/97 Page 5 Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle and seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to make a motion to adopt a resolution approving and adopting the Negative Declaration and approving zone change P96-0978 with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution (see the attached Exhibit "F") with the following changes: 1) Subject to the May 15 memorandum to the Planning Commission from Mr. LaRochelle 2) on Exhibit "D" on the zone changes Discretionary Condition No. 2 that there will be added to that paragraph that two of the trees may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning Director and 3) on Public Works Condition No. 2 adding a sentence "that at the time the City can perform construction that every effort will be made to coordinate construction with the owner of the property." and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, Ortiz, Tavorn, Teeter, Brady None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Verbal None 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no committee reports. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Marino about the DEIR that was given him for the Cardiac Care Hospital and he wanted specific direction from the City Attorney's office as to whether the Commission can consider economic impacts and if so what manner may they consider them? Ms. Marino stated that under CEQA economic impacts are only considered an environmental impact if they cause a physical change. If buildings will be abandoned and there will be blight, things like that. The fact that someone may have a loss of prOfit is not considered an environmental impact. Therefore, there must be substantial evidence on the record of a physical change, not just a loss of profit. Commissioner Boyle asked if a memorandum to that effect could be prepared. Ms. Marino said she would prepare one. 9. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Mr. Grady said that we had not scheduled a pre-meeting because the room was booked but that he would go back to the office and see if there were any noticing problems to notice a Tuesday pre-meeting. Also, there is no meeting on July 3 so any items that were continued from June 19 would have to be continued until July 17. Minutes, PC, 5/15/97 Page 6 Commissioner Brady stated that since there was a lot on the agenda for June 5, he would like a pre-meeting scheduled but that he would not be at the June 5 meeting. Commissioner Tkac would be chairing that meeting. It was a consensus among the Planning Commission that a pre-meeting be scheduled. Commissioner Boyle made a motion that a special meeting for Tuesday, June 3 at 12:15 p.m. be held. Commissioner Ortiz seconded and motion was carried. -10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Pam Townsend Recording Secretary p:m5-15