Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/99 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday - January 21, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TA VORN ALTERNATE: RON SPRAGUE 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, c/o 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, Thursday - January 21, 1999 Page 2 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. NOTE: The agenda has not been amended to include consent items because of the holiday. A motion is needed to move these items to the Consent Calendar. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTED RIGHTS ON A RECORDED MAP 4.1.a) b) 4.2) 4.3) Tract 5426 Phase C (Martin-Mclntosh) A proposed one-year extension of rights vested upon recordation of Tract 5426 Phase C, located south of Stockdale Highway, west of Old River Road. (Categorically Exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote Tract 5426 Phase D (Martin-Mclntosh) A proposed one-year extension of rights vested upon recordation of Tract 5426 Phase D, located south of Stockdale Highway, west of Old River Road. (Categorically Exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote Tract 6489 R Phase D (Martin-Mclntosh) A proposed one-year extension of rights vested upon recordation of Tract 5489 (Revised) Phase D, located east of Old Farm Road, north of Brimhall Road. (Categorically Exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote Tract 5835 Phase B (Martin-Mclntosh) A proposed one-year extension of rights vested upon recordation of Tract 5835 Phase B, located north of Harris Road, east of Spring Creek Loop. (Categorically Exempt) Agenda, PC, Thumday - January21, 1999 Page 3 4.4) 4.5.a) b) c) d) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote Tract 5845 Phase C (Martin-Mclntosh) A proposed one-year extension of rights vested upon recordation of Tract 5845 Phase C, located north of Panama Lane, east of Reliance Drive. (Categorically Exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote Tract 5863 Phase A (Martin-Mclntosh) A proposed one-year extension of rights vested upon recordation of Tract 5863 Phase A, located east of Buena Vista Road, south of Ming Avenue. (Categorically Exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote Tract 5863 Phase B (Martin-Mclntosh) A proposed one-year extension of rights vested upon recordation of Tract 5863 Phase B, located east of Buena Vista Road, south of Ming Avenue. (Categorically Exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote Tract 5863 Phase E (Martin-Mclntosh) A proposed one-year extension of rights vested upon recordation of Tract 5863 Phase E, located east of Buena Vista Road, south of Ming Avenue. (Categorically Exempt). Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote Tract 5863 Phase F (Martin-Mclntosh) A proposed one-year extension of rights vested upon recordation of Tract 5863 Phase F, located east of Buena Vista Road, south of Ming Avenue. (Categorically Exempt). Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday- January21,1999 Page 4 4.6.a) Tract 5876 Phase A (Martin-Mclntosh) A proposed one-year extension of rights vested upon recordation of Tract 5876 Phase A, located west of Old River Road, approximately 1/4 mile north of Ming Avenue. (Categorically Exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote b) Tract 5876 Phase B (Martin-Mclntosh) A proposed one-year extension of rights vested upon recordation of Tract 5876 Phase B, located west of Old River Road, approximately 1/4 mile north of Ming Avenue. (Categorically Exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 5.1) Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10260 (Martin-Mclntosh) Located on the north side of Panama Lane, on both sides of the Ashe Road alignment, west of the Arvin-Edison Canal, consisting of 3 parcels on 62.71 acres, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) and C-2 (Regional Commercial). (Categorically Exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Groupvote 5.2) Tentative Tract 5535 (Porter-Robertson) Located on the west side of State Route 99 on both sides of Berkshire Road, consisting of 216 lots on 57.67 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling). (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS 6.1 .) Tentative Parcel Map 10581 (Porter-Robertson) Located on the east side of State Route 184 (aka Kern Canyon Road) between State Route 178 and Mesa Marin Drive, consisting of 5 parcels on 21.27 acres for purposes of commercial development, zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial); and a 65.37 acre designated remainder zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); and a request to waive mineral right owner's signatures in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 1. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from January 7, 1999) Agenda, PC, Thursday - January 21, 1999 Page 5 Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote. 6.2) Tentative Parcel Map 10584 (Lars Andersen & Associates) Located on the southeast corner of District Boulevard and Gosford Road, consisting of 3 lots on 12.54 acres on property zoned M-2-D(General Manufacturing) and a waiver of mineral rights owners' signature in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 B.I. (Categorically Exempt) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARINGS- VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 7.1) Vestin~l Tentative Tract Map 5934 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Located on the west side of Buena Vista Road, north of the Kern River Canal, consisting of 116 lots of 36.42 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) for single family purposes and a request a waiver of mineral rights owners' signature in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 B.I. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote 7.2) Vestin~l Tentative Tract Map 5932 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Located on the south side of Noriega Road, west of Calloway Drive, consisting of 15 lots for single family residential purposes and 2 lots for two churches on 20.16 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), and a waiver of mineral rights owners' signature in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 B.I. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARING FOR Zone Chan.qe P98-0891 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Located on the south side of Noriega Road, west of Calloway Drive, requesting a change from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone to an R-1 Ch (One Family Dwelling- Church) zone on Lot 1 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5932 containing 5.99 acres, and Lot 17 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5932 containing 7.92 acres. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote Agenda, PC, Thursday- January21,1999 Page 6 10. 11.. 12. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (City of Bakersfield) Amendments to the text of the Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 regarding appeal filings for subdivision maps and extensions of time for subdivisions. (Categorically exempt) (Continued from January 7, 1999) Staff Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE 13. NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT Apjt pril 5, 1999 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director Held Thursday, January 21, 1999 - City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN Alternate: RON SPRAGUE ADVISORY MEMBERS: STAFF: Present: PUBLIC STATEMENTS CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary None Commissioners Boyle, Ortiz and Tavorn stated they listened to the tape of Tuesday's pre-meeting and will be participating in tonight's meeting. Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 21, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 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. Commissioner Brady moved to place the following Agenda Items on the Consent Agenda. * Agenda * Agenda * Agenda * Agenda * Agenda * Agenda * Agenda * Agenda * Agenda Items 4. la and 4. lb (Tract 5426 Phases C & D) Item 4.2 (Tract 5489 Phase D) Item 4.3 (Tract 5835 Phase B) Item 4.4 (Tract 5845 Phase C) Items 4.5a, 4.5b, 4.5c, and 4.5d (Tra~t 5863 Phases A, B, E & F) Item 4.6a and 4.6b (Tract 5876 Phases A & B) Item 5.1 (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10260) Item 5.2 (Tentative Tract 5535) Item 8 (Zone Change P98-0891) Commissioner Boyle stated that Agenda Item 5.2 has a memorandum that requires additional findings, and asked if could still be on the Consent Calendar or would they have to take it off Consent Calendar to add that additional memorandum of January 19th. . 'Staff responded that it is not a new motion. Dhanens declared that if Agenda Item 8 is submitted for consent he will abstain from that, as he has a conflict of interest. CommisSioner Brady moved to put the item regarding fencing on the canal on the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. Commissioner Brady moved to approve Consent Agenda Items. Seconded by Commissioner Boyle. Motion carried. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTED RIGHTS ON A RECORDED MAP 4.1 .a) b) 4.2) 4.3) Tract 5426 Phase C (Martin-Mclntosh) See Consent Agenda Tract 5426 Phase D (Martin-Mclntosh) See Consent Agenda Tract 5489 R Phase D (Martin-Mclntosh) See Consent Agenda Tract 5835 Phase B (Martin-Mclntosh)- See Consent Agenda Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 21, 1999 Page 3 4.4) Tract 5845 Phase C (Martin-Mclntosh) See Consent Agenda 4~5.a) Tract 5863 Phase A (Martin-MClntosh) See Consent Agenda b) Tract 5863 Phase B (Martin-Mclntosh) See Consent Agenda c) Tract 5863 Phase E (Martin-Mclntosh) See Consent Agenda d) Tract 5863 Phase F (Martin-Mclntosh) See Consent Agenda 4.'6.a) Tract 5876 Phase A (Martin-Mclntosh) See Consent Agenda b) Tract 5876 Phase B (Martin-Mclntosh) See 'Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 5.1) Vestinq Tentative Parcel Map 10260 (Martin-Mclntosh) See Consent Agenda 5.2) Tentative Tract 5535 (Porter-Robertson) See COnsent Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPR 6.1 Tentative Parcel Map 10581 (Porter-Robertson) · Staff report given recommending approval with conditions as amended by the Public Works Department. Public Portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Randy Bergquist with Porter-Robertson Engineering stated the purpose of the parcel map primarily is to split the commercial property away from the rest of the property within that section, and also to create a ten acre parcel Of which there would be a proposed mini-warehouse. Mr. Bergquist stated they worked out most of their problems with staff, with the exception of item number 2 on the memorandum from the Public Works Department regarding improvements required with the phasing and that he is requesting item #2 be deleted. Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 21, 1999 Page 4 Commissioner Dhanens requested staff to explain what the applicant is asking for or what the significance of that language is to this application. Mr. Shaw responded that that section should have been struck because it no longer applies. Commissioner Dhanens asked if Mr. Bergquist knew what phases were being proposed. Mr. 'Bergquist responded that the first phase would be parcel 1 which would be the initial development of the mini-warehouses, and second phase would be parcels 2 and 3 and the third phase, 4 and 5. Ms. Shaw commented that the reason that we have this condition for balancing phases is basically for consideration for orderly development and the concern that the most expensive improvements will be left to the last and smallest phase and therefor will not get done. Commissioner Dhanens questioned what the requirements were for the land division across the street. Ms. ShaTM responded that the development across the street is the Mesa Marin Raceway and they have been required to improve the frontage in a phased manner as well, including curbs and gutters. Commissioner Boyle questioned that if phase 1 was equal to 10 acres, and phase 2 was equal to 4 acres, and phase 3 was equal to 6-7 acres~ then half of the project is phase 1, to which Ms. Shaw responded that she did not know for sure. Commissioner Boyle acknowledged that if the applicant has to pay his proportionate share, which in this case is about half, the project won't go forward. Commissioner Ortiz questioned if a wall will be required along 184 for the storage area, to which staff responded they don't have a plan for a storage area, but the property would develop under the current zoning requirements, and they don't believe the storage facility, itself, requires a block wall. Commissioner Ortiz expressed his concern that people could be driving by and seeing cars, bOats and storage in that area. Staff responded that Commissioner Ortiz's concerns was actually a site design standards issue that would be looked at during the site plan review process. Commissioner Boyle asked what the standards will be for the fence or wall between whatever commercial development is eventually built and the subdivision. Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 21, 1999 Page 5 6.2 Mr. Bergquist respOnded that there will be a six foot high block wall in compliance with ordinance requirements. Commissioner Boyle commented that the developer should paY the proportional share for each phase of the development, and does not feel requirement number 2 should be deleted. Commissioner Dhanens concurred that if phase 1 was not able to inCur half of the improvements, thenit would not appear that phase 2 or 3 would be able to, and therefore, he would not be inclined to delete that particular condition. Mr. Bergquist made a final appeal stating that with so many improvement -requirements, development is not taking place, and that they are asking for the improvements to be deferred, not deleted. Commissioner Boyle asked if Mr. Bergquist would like a continuance so he can meet with staff to work out a solution, to which Mr. Bergquist said yes. Commissioner Boyle moved to continue this matter to the next meeting, whether it be a pre-meeting, or a regular meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Kemper. Motion carried. Tentative Parcel Map 10584 (Lars Andersen & AssOciates) Staff report given, recommending approval with conditions as shown in the resolution. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Scott Mommer, of Lam Anderson and Associates, the representative for the Home Depot Corporation, stated they we're in support of the staff conditions. Commissioner Boyle inquired if the entrance to the project adjacent to the railroad tracks is being deleted. Mr. Mommer stated that the intent is that the driveway that is nearest to the railroad track is to remain provided that we can provide the appropriate deceleration lane and right-of-way to gain access for that driveway. Commissioner Boyle inquired how you obtain a deceleration lane across a railroad track, to which Mr. Mommer responded that it is no different that widening the road across the railroad track, and their task is to acquire the right-of-way if needed. Page 6 · Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 21, 1999 Commissioner Boyle asked how long a deceleration lane is, to which Mr. Walker, of Public Works Traffic Engineer, stated that typically an arterial street requires a 200 foot right turn lane to get the cars out of the traffic, plus a lane change taper. Commissioner Brady commented that they have about four trains a day, which are slow and traffic backs up, because they do switching right in that area. He expressed concern about the school buses that come up there, pull off, stop and check traffic, and would be a problem because it would be right in the decel lane, therefore would be inappropriate to have that entrance there. Concern was further expressed over there being no traffic signals, and the speed limit and merging of the traffic with the lane Situation there. Staff responded that the site plan has already been approved, So there would be no changes relating to that issue. The access points that are on the site plan could be affected bY your decision on the parcel map, because you can deal with access waiver to the public road. Through this parcel map approval, you could address what the point along the arterials and along District Boulevard the access points Would be. Commissioner Dhanens inquired what the definition of the term "main entrance'' was, to which Mr. Walker responded that the main entrance is at the south portion of the property. Commissioner Dhanens inquired if it was customary for tentative parcel amps to indicate where their access is, to which Mr. Shaw responded that they often require a waiver of access along arterials and by that, the entrance will be pin pointed.' Commissioner Dhanens questioned whether they were locked into these 'locations, or not, to which Mr. Walker stated that District Boulevard is a collector street, and is designed to have access points, and has fewer restrictions than there is on an arterial street, such as Gosford. There are standards on the spacing and circulation operation which is looked at during the Site plan review time. There's not the restriction you would see on Gosford Road, and they have more room to move around and make changes as needed. Commissioner Brady inquired if it is typical for us to have traffic accessing right turns into deceleration lanes, to which Mr. Walker responded that it has been used successfully in other shopping centers. Commissioner Brady inquired if the applicant was required to construct a raised median on Gosford, to which Mr. Walker replied yes. · Commissioner Brady further inquired if it would allow traffic exiting the main entrance on -Gosford to make a left turn out of the parking lot area and turn south on .Gosford, to which Mr. Walker replied no. Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 21, 1999 Page 7 Commissioner Brady stated that he would not support this unless a changeto Public Works condition 5 was made eliminating the south entrance into the site from Gosford Road. Commissioner Sprague expressed his concern with the south entrance and the problem that could be created with the three pad sites that are out front. Mr. Mommer stated that the two most northerly pads are going to be merged together to become a tire store and an anticipated restaurant. He expreseed his desire to meet the guidelines and traffic concerns and requested they be permitted the opportunity to develop that south driveway and meet the intent and the guidelines, of the various traffic regulations. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague expressed his concern for potential traffic bottleneck and hazard potential. Commissioner Kemper expressed that she has confidence that the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer can come up with a reasonable setup that would work, and thinks they should go ahead with the applicant's request. Commissioner Brady inquired if they were intending to have semi-truck traffic exit that southern entrance and make a right turn onto Gosford, to which Mr. Mommer responded yes. Commissioner Brady further inquired if they were going to have slow moving big rigs making a right-hand turn into the deceleration lane, to which Mr. Mommer replied yes. Commissioner Brady expressed that he thought thiS was asking for trouble, because if you're going to have slow moving traffic exiting there, you are going to eliminate the ability of traffic trying to slow down into the decel lane, you have the added problem that drivers are also having to deal with the railroad crossing, and he thinks it presents a problem. He inquired if the Site Plan Review could come before the commission, after these problems are worked out. Staff responded that the commission could only address access issues throUgh this map. Assistant City Attorney Hernandez commented that they do not want to recommend that we require the applicant to provide right-of-way because if that happens,- and we have to get into a battle with the railroad company, it could be a sticky battle, including condemnation. Minutes, PC, ThurSday, January 21, 1999 Page 8 7.0 Commissioner Dhanens stated that he could not support it. Planning Director Stanley Grady stated that he didn't have an answer as to whether there had already been recorded a waiver of access for Gosford On this parcel. ' Commissioner Boyle inquired if the applicant could build the restaurant and tire store without dividing the map into separate parcels, to which staff replied yes. CommissiOner Boyle inquired if it was possible to require him to construct an entrance only and not an exit~ to which staff responded that would be a site design question which is not before them. Commissioner Boyle stated that he still thinks it creates a problem. RECESS TAKEN Mr. Hernandez stated that there is not a recorded waiver of access, and that the access is to be determined at the time of development. Commissioner Boyle again expressed his concerns of the potential hazards. Commissioner Ortiz questioned the time of deliveries, to which Mr. Mommer responded are done during business hours only. Commissioner Brady moved to approve Tentative Parcel Map 10584 with conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit A with the following change to Public Works Condition #5 t° now read "eliminate the south entrance into the site from Gosford Road." Eliminate the rest of the sentence. Seconded by Commissioner Boyle. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPR 7.1 Vesting Tentative Tract map 5934 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Staff report given, indicating applicant is requesting a continuanCe. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Bob Smith with SmithTech USA, asked for a continuance, because they are still trying to work some things out with Public Works. Chairman Tkac inquired how much time Mr. Smith needed, to which Mr, Smith replied a few weeks (the first meeting in February). Commissioner Brady moved to keep the public portion of this hearing open, and continue the item until the next regular scheduled Planning Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz..Motion carried. Minutes, PC, ThUrsday, January 21, 1999 Page 9 7.2 Vestin~l Tentative Tract Map 5932 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Staff report given, indicating applicant's request for a continuance.- Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Bob Smith with SmithTech USA asked for a continuance to the first meeting in February, because they are working with Public Works. Commissioner Brady moved to keep the public portion of the meeting open, and continue the item until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Boyle. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING FOR Zone Chan~le P98-0891 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARING '- ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (City of Bakersfield) Staff report given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. Roger Mclntosh of Martin-Mclntosh Engineering spoke in opposition. He reiterated the lack of need for the ordinance, because the provisions are already covered in State law and this is just another level of rules and regulations that really isn't required~ Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague expressed his concerns with the appeal rights hindering due process, and does not support the ordinance amendment because he thinks it hinders due process. Commissioner Dhanens commented that if there is nothing preventing submission of an appeal then the decision appealed from could be changed by City Council, to which staff affirmed. Commissioner Dhanens acknowledged that if they want to keep those non-discretionary issues from reaching the City Council staff would need to have this ordinance in place, to which staff affirmed. CommissiOner BoYle stated that he would be in support of this ordinance. Mr. Hernandez confirmed that the Planning Commission would not have the authority to change an ordinance or resolution because that's a legislative act, and the only way to do that is to get the Council who acts as a legislative body for the City to change_ the Minutes, PC, Thursday, Januar~ 21, 1999 Page 10 ordinance or the resolution. The process for an individual is to go to the Councilmember who perhaps is the individual ward Councilmember and request the change. Other than that, there is no process where you go through staff, because ordinances are initiated either by request from the City Council to staff or directly from the City Attorney to the City Council. Mr. Hernandez further stated that the appeal is to not have the ordinance aPply to the development that's in question. There was a debate over the appeal process. Commissioner Brady prefaced his support for the ordinance as amended bY the memorandum of January 19, 1999 by concluding that this matter was directed from the City Council, and they are the policy making body for the City, and they are the ones that have the ability to determine how the ordinance process will work, and because the language has been sufficiently tightened to eliminate the real non-discretionary matters. Commissioner Dhanens questioned if a member of the public can direct the Planning Commission to initiate an ordinance change, to which Mr. Grady replied that yes, they can appeal to the Council or the Commission. Commissioner Dhanens concluded that the appal is not the only way that an individual or an appliCant can try to initiate an ordinance change in the City, to which Mr. Grady affirmed. CommissiOner Boyle inquired if the $375.00 appeal fee was refunded if the appeal was determined to be non-appealable, to which Mr. Grady responded that it is not in the ordinance, but that was standard practice. Commissioner Sprague.expressed that this denies due process. Mr. Hardisty commented on the current appeal situation. Mr: Grady confirmed Mr. Brady's question that staff does tell applicants that they may have to appeal an ordinance to meet their specific needs. Commissioner Boyle moved to adopt the Resolution Exhibit A, approving the prOposed text amendment to Bakersfield Municipal Code, Chapter 16.52, and including the changes contained in the January 19 memorandum from Stan Grady, Planning Director. Seconded by Commissioner Dhanens. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. 10. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady requested the names of the those who wanted to attend the Planning Commissioner's Institute.' He further mentioned that there would be no meeting on the 18th, but they would convene a meeting and do a workshop so they could make 'a presentation on the South Beltway and-possibly on the General Plan Update. Minutes, PC, Thursday, January 21, 1999 Page 11 12. 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Kemper stated that they had their first Park Committee meeting, and will meet again in a couple of weeks. Commissioner Boyle requested a presentation from staff on deceleration lanes to Which' Mr. Grady replied that they could do that on the same night as the Beltway. cOmmissioner Tavorn requested another copy of the information on the cost of a house to the City of Bakersfield versus the cost of building a house in the County. Mr. Fidler stated he would Provide a copy of that information. Commissioner Sprague thanked staff for bringing the site plan for Home Depot. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEE.____TING It Was decided to have'a pre-meeting on February 1, 1999. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Director. ~ 1 March 4, 1999