Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/99 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday - February 4, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BO YLE 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 -If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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- February 4, 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. 1) 2) 3) Agenda Item 6.1 - Tentative Tract $456 Agenda Item 6.2 - Tentative Tract 5632 Agenda Item 8 - Zone Change P98-0946 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approvalof minutes oftheregular meetings held December14,1998 and December17, 1998. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN P98-0997 (Architectural Design and Signs) for the Grand Canal commercial center located at 7025 South "H" Street. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve in modified form Group vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 6.1) Tentative Tract 5456 (Smithtech/USA) Located on the south side of Harris Road and east of Akers Road, south and east of Challenger Park, consisting of 103 lots on 24 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. 6.2) Tentative Tract 5632 (Wilson & Associates, Inc.) Located on the west side of Wible Road approximately 1/4 mile south of McKee Road consisting of 211 lots on 50 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). (Negative Declaration on file) Agenda, PC, Thursday - February 4, 1999 Page 3 STAFF. RECOMMENDATION: Group vote. Approve PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 7.1) Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5827 (Martin-Mclntosh) Located on the east side of Jewetta Avenue, north of the Kern River Freeway Specific Line; consisting of 179 lots for single family residential purposes on 60.29 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow deviations from standard regarding double frontage lots, maximum block length, and reduction in the special setback from agricultural zones; and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1. (Negative Declaration on file.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. 7.2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5933 (Martin-MClntosh) Located at the north side of Hosking Road, west of Wible Road, consisting of 86 residential lots on 19.87 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), and a modification of lot width and depth adjacent to A (Agriculture) zoned property. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. 7.3) Vesting 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) (Continued from January 21, 1999) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote 7.4) .Vesting 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) (Continued from January 21, 1999) Agenda, PC, Thursday - February 4, 1999 Page 4 · -Staff Recommendation: . Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARING.- ZONE CHANGE P98-0946 (DeWalt Corp) Located on the south side of Ship Rock Drive, between 8413 and 8417 Ship Rock Drive, requesting a change in the zone on 3,500 square feet from OS (Open Space) to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. 10. 11. PUBLIC HEARING -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 21, 1999) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Group vote. Approve COMMUNICATIONS Written Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING 13. ADJOURNMENT ~tebruary 1, 1999 Held Thursday, February 4, 1999 5:30 p.m. 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: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 3. 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. Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 2 Commissioners. Boyle and.Tavorn stated that. theymissed the. Monday.pr.e..-meeting but that they had listened to the tape, and would be participating in tOnight's meeting. Consent Items: 1) Agenda Item 6.1 - Tentative Tract 5456 2) Agenda Item 6.2 - Tentative Tract 5632 3) Agenda Item 8 - Zone Change P98-0946 Commissioner Dhanens declared that he will abstain from voting On Consent Agenda Item 8 for the zone change due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Sprague declared that he will abstain from voting on Item number 9 due to conflict of interest. Commissioner Brady moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. - 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES = Commissioner Kemper moved to approve the Minutes for the regular meetings held December 14, 1998 and-December 17, 1998; seconded by Commissioner Boyle. Motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN P98-0997 (Architectural Design and Signs) Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Lois Chaney objected to eight 32' signs along Highway 99 to attract drivers to the Grand Canal Shopping center. She understands that shopping centers produce a groat tax benefit, commercial property carries high assessment rates, and the City gets a cut on the sales taxes. She invited commissioners to the League of Women Voters to their luncheon on Friday, February 5, 1999, at noon. The Arts Council of Kern is concerned with the aesthetic appearance of metro Bakersfield area, which includes County, and she requests staff to work in collaboration with the County Planning Commission and staff to institute a design review committee for the establishment of thoughtful and uniform standards for commercial ~projects, including signage. Smart Growth Coalition developed a slide presentation as to what people in Bakersfield like, and do nOt like about the visual appearance of their City. Mary Shell with Harper & Shell Governmental Relations Consultant, who has.been . · involved with this project since the planning stages, stated she was pleased to see it come to Bakersfield, because it is going to enhance the entrance from Southern CalifOrnia into the area, and greatly improve it. "Art is in the eye of the beholder". In order for buSinesses to be successful you have to get the people off the freeway who aro passing by. Minutes~ PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 3 .... Renee :lt, lelson, stated.that.if.the.purpose, is.to attract people .to.the .businesses .the. signs need to be before the actual complex, in a position where you can get over into the right lanes to get off the freeway and go into the complex. She questioned what is being done with the Signage for drivers going south. She believes that eight signs 25' apart.is pretty close when you're going 65 miles an hour, and feels that the City should take a concept and develop it as a theme for Bakersfield, but this is not the time for this project.' However, as a community we do need to look at that with the County and City working together and establishing something that says "Bakersfield". Jill Thayer, designer and fine artist, has worked on the project for the last year with concerns that graphically and environmentally it supports the architectural detail of the . project. After reviewing she feels the signage is appropriate. The Iogos establish a corporate identity, and those consumers who are familiar with the service, or product, or store, are familiar with the logo, and so just by glancing at it they will know immediately what it is. As a designer she feels comfortable with the direction and she feels it will be a great addition and bring economic benefits. Signage is a necessary part of generating interest. Phil Rudnick.stated that he has been impressed with what he has seen so far, and the involvement this developer has made with our community. He does not want to second guess the developer who is putting millions of dollars up for the project. We have to be practical: do people want to come to Bakersfield to do business in Bakersfield? Signs don't keep them away, but restrictive bureaucracy that is not sensitive to the · practicalities of surviving in a business world will. This project could have been put in along Highway 99 anywhere. The developer decided to come to Bakersfield, and we should support him, and not second guess where he puts his money. If he is going to put his money in a sign that's his money not ours. We're going to make the money off the people that come and spend the dollars there. I think we ought to encourage him. This is not the time to go back and remedy all the ills, if there are those, that have happened in our community. We need to continue to show this developer that we are a community that can act, and a community that is sensitive and wants to encourage this kind of development. If it has an adverse affect on some other development, that's not a justifiable reason. That's speculation that doesn't really come in to play at all in connection with the decision that we're making here. He encourages the commissiOn to support the developers sign requests. Yehuda Netanel, the President of DayStar Development, stated the Grand Canal is 2¼ years old, and it's not even built. It represents a focused: effort by many people: The. overall visual architecture of the project may be like body language. It is saying something, but we can not quite read it. It is now time to put the words where the body language has done the work so far. The Grand Canal is suppose to be a vibrant, positive, attractive, magnetic, and high energy shopping center, and a cultural platform for everybody. We need to communicate this to the City and to the 10 to 12 million tourists who pass by Bakersfield every year without stopping. A sign should not be viewed as a negative connotation. It is what the sign says, and how it shows it. We Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 4 .... chose to_ use.the' signage.to..be.a logical,extension .of.thearchitecture.of. the. p[Qje~t, and ... therefore our signage system is sculptural, the colors and textures are compatible with the architecture and convey a message. Ten to 12 million people a year passing through Bakersfield comes home, and can not rely on just good architecture. The major tenants have signed leases contemplating that we can give them good representation on the freeway, and without that there is no lease, and no project. Our message is positive, and we should be able to broadcast without much apology. o Thirty-two feet is not that high. Our buildings are much higher than 32' as you all know. The signage is proportionately scaled to be effective to the freeway, not overwhelm the project. The monument sign is Suppose to announce the project as you come from the south. This announcement should be appropriate and it should not be an apology. Considering the size of the project. Mr. Netanel strongly feels what they have is another sculptural element that is very appropriate for the project, and is going to do an effective job, and is only 22'. Regarding the signage behind the wall: behind the parking lot is what 90% of the ~people will see when they come to the project. The project has two fronts. Some of the stores have their openings toward the parking lot, and some of the stores have their opening toward the canal, and some are mixed. The ability to be noticed will be irrelevant to the tenants who are along the canal (it will not be available to them). In order for them to have any recognition, they have to have some presence along that wall. They would like to be provided with the ability to make those kinds of decisions on their own. They are not going to degrade the project by too many signs, or by signs that are not appropriate. The banner Signs are designed to become an extension of the excitement as you arrive to the project; a sense of anticipation; build up of energy, and just to have a parking lot Was not good communication considering the size of the project. The signs create the energy they want, and they do not see a conflict. The signs add an architectural element to something that normally is considered a parking lot. Those signs also have a sculptural quality that is integrated and carried throughout the whole project. Milton Solomon, co-owner and designer for Architectural Design and Sign' stated signage plays a vital and important part in making this entire project successful. He requested that the commissioners look at the signage as more than just signage. It is a graphic statement that absolutely imperatively has to be made. For the major tenants: that are coming in, this is a prime importance when it comes to signing leases. Carol Casteen requested an enlargement of the pylon signs. She questioned whether the TuStin signs were eliminated, to which Mr. Solomon responded yes. Mr. Solomon stated that at the Tustin Market Place the letters are internally illuminated letters and at the base are uplights, which give a very soft light. It's very dramatic and beautiful. Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 5 ._The .developer ..stated. that.as, you ook at. the pylon .signs.you.. will .n.0ti.c.e..~ba.t. they are.~ creating a practical screen of the backside of the two biggest buildings of the Grand Canal. This screening from the freeway is very imPortant. They are not about to deStroy - what they have promised to the City. It was asked Whether there are going to be any signs from the base of the ridge route in that region between I-5 and where it branches off into Highway 99. Mr. Netanel stated the Grand Canal will be utilizing commercially available billboards on various highways throughout the region helping people to come to the Grand Canal. It will be sold 100 miles north of Bakersfield. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Recess taken. Commissioner Boyle questioned staff that the HomeBase sign, and staff reported the square footage is 424 square feet; the letters are 7-1/2 feet tall. Commissioner Boyle further questioned that in terms of the freeway if the pillarS are going to appear to be lower, higher or equal height to the building. Mr. Netanel responded that it is their intent to make it to scale with the building and their impact from the freeway. Commissioner Boyle also stated that there are five signs adjacent to the building, and three that actually extend out into the area of the Grand Canal, and notices there is a large area identified as the "Best Buy" that has no pillar signs on it at all, and he. questioned why the pillar signs are not going from "Best Buy" to the Sports Chalet and not extending at all into the Grand Canal, because that interferes with the look of the project for the people driving south; that's going to screen off their view almost entirely.' Mr. Netanel said that if the signs were placed more north they would be in the "dead zone". The freeway visibility is impacted by the underpass, so there is a certain area where those signs will not do much good to half of the freeway. Commissioner Boyle questioned if going from the southern most pillar if he knew what the distance is going south from there to that south row of buildings, and the developer. said that is approximately 100 feet. Commissioner Boyle stated that at 65 miles an hour You are traveling at 88 feet per second, and you are encumbering 75 feet of your view by putting in those pillar signs; 75 feet is blocking off what people are going to see as they look into the Grand Canal interfering with their view. There is one second of view, and if those three pillar signs aren't there, it could be extended to two seconds of view. MinUtes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 6 ....... M r..Netanel, stated .that they were actually, calculatLng that_q.n.~e.tbe G [aod ...c.a..nal..is_.i Opened there will be massive traffic jams to create a little more opPo~ur~ity t° 'See'~ through the Grand Canal, to which Commissioner Boyle responded that is not what he' told them when they. had the traffic hearing. Commissioner Boyle questioned the "hodgepodge" of lettering colors, to which Mr. Netanel responded that their signs are visual ques to quickly let the traveling public see the name without the name to actually read it. If the tenants are able to use their ' ' nationally recognized colors, textures and visuals, there is no need to read. When you have a collection of white signs you have to read them. Mr. Netanel thinks all the different colors provide for much quicker recognition, which decreases the amount of _ time needed to see what is there. Commissioner Boyle commented to his fellow commissioners that he would support the concept of the pillar signs with modifications: 1) Pillar signs should not extend south of what is shown on the diagram as being Sport's Chalet, because it does interfere with the visual impact of it, and would like to use the signs to screen off the back .building. (Move north). 2) Regarding the height; would be willing to commit to if he had assurances that it's not going to be from the perspective of the freeway, higher than the building. He ' would like one uniform color for the wording. The monument sign at that south entrance at '174 square feet is huge. He is not sure he wants to give the developer total control over which tenants get wall signs and the size. Would not be opposed to having the matter continued; it might be useful to look at two different shopping centers which might' be helpful (i.e., 1) Lyons Ave. off-ramp on I-5 - similar stores there; compare the size, spacing, etc. of those signs; 2) Irvine Spectrum at 405 and 5 intersection. Signage is done as part of center.) Commissioner Brady stated that regarding recommendation number 1, calculation of ~ wall signs is reasonable and he will be supportive. Regarding recommendation number 2, restricting wall signs to major tenants only he is agreeable in principle; not tied to 25,000 square feet or larger, but thinks the recommendation is sound and will support it.' Regarding recommendation number 4 he thinks it is appropriate and will support. 'With respect to other recommendations he has not come to anY conclusions. Questioned staff i¢ this projeCt is unique because of its location and intent to divert "out-of-town" traffic into the City for commerce. Staff responded that initially it was presented as an outlet mall. He stated that architecturally it's unique, but functionally it's the same as Valley Plaza and East Hills Mall. The project is a commercial shopping center with a unique architectural theme with visual element that will be visible from the freeway. The tenants and whom they will' '~ serve will not be any different than those tenants in the Valley Plaza in terms of whom ' they will serve as well. You will have as many local people attracted to the center as the other centers, and it is not known if it will have the service area of an outlet mall. Mr. Eggert stated that the Auto Mall does have slightly different sign criteria than' commercial zones Or indUstrial zones. Minutes, PC,'Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 7 · .Mr. Netanel,reminded.-,that 2.years ago a study, waspresentedJndicating.that,3q% shopping center customers will come from the freeway. In comparing to closed shopping centers in town the Grand Canal does not show any undesirable parts of the center; only visUally appealing parts. There is no viable Grand Canal without the freeway commerce. Commissioner Brady stated that he does not want to junk up a project with a lot of - mismatched or ugly signs. Concerned about putting the signs out where the water is and suggests-moving them back up. Likes the idea of screening, but they need to be moved north or eliminate three. Staff stated the Street where the internal pole/banner signs will go will be part of the project and the city Street would end north of the canal. Commissioner Brady stated that he is not clear on staff's opposition to those pole signs. Staff respOnded that staff is not opposed to the poles, but those which were out of _charaCter fOr the City were not recommended for approval. The commission gets to apply their own objectivity to whether they think this signage is appropriate or not for the center in this community. Commissioner Brady stated that with respect to the pole signs, he did not feel that they. were particularly tied into the scheme. . Ms. Sawyer stated that they are trying to establish a minimal contemporary look to reinforce the tradition of Venice. We didn't want anything real gaudy or really busy. This is very refined, very simple, and just a few little architectural detail says a lot. CommiSsioner Brady responded that it still looks like a sign'on a pole. He thinks it is extra signage. The size of the initial freeway monument is very attractive and fits with the architecture, but he is concerned with how it is going to fit with the sound wall. The location needs to be worked on. Overall does not have a problem with the size as long as it feeds right into the rest of the architecture there, and would support keeping the height suggested. · COmmissioner Kemper stated that this is a unique center and needs to be treated with unique decisions. Likes the banner signs. The signs are a logical extension of the theme of the project, and overall it is very well planned and presented, and he would support the applicant's request, and any future applicants that have a unique project. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Netanel if the buildings Would be allowed to have wall signs that faced the freeway. ' Mr. Netanel responded that Best Buy has in their lease a reasonably proportioned sign along the freeway. The vertical pylon sign that has Best Buy on it is designed to let them have exposure before the building is actually visible. With regarding to building C a proportional sign will be there along the freeway, but it will be distant away enough from Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 8 the monument..sign at..the,corner, and is. higher..The height of. theJetter, s that saYGran,d Canal on the monument is about 15' only. The rest is sculptural quality. Commissioner Dhanens asked if Sport's Chalet will be allowed to have a wall sign facing the freeway, to which Mr. Netanel responded facing the south side, but not along. the wall because that will be useless. Commissioner Dhanens commented that it will be facing ithe canal. ' Commissioner Dhanens questioned What the sign plan would allow for'a future tenant that might be undetermined at this time. Mr. Netanel responded that they have a total of 8 large box tenants 'in the project, and therefore there are 8 pylon signs. It is reasonably anticipated by a major tenant that they will have a step-up in their recognition in the center, and this means the freeway exposure. Commissioner Dhanens inquired 'if the 8 signs along the freeway will be illuminated, to which Mr. Netanel responded they will be illuminated from inside with a faint wash of the - base of the sign to feature the texture of the base. Commissioner DhanenS asked Mr. Eggert if the 174 square feet of the monument signs includes the sunburst logo that extends above the sign to which Mr. Eggert responded yes. CommissiOner Dhanens expressed that he was impressed with the level and quality of the design effort in this with the level of enthusiasm and passion into the thoughtfulness, and in reviewing the color presentation he has concluded the concept of the signs is a good one. He commented that he thinks the staff's rePort was very well done. He recognizes the unique opportunity involved. He thinks the pylon signs are an excellent. idea and are integrated and compatible with this project. He has no objection t° the . size of the signs The location of the signs south of the Sport's Chalet is a concern, but if you're traveling northbound on highway 99 you will have a window of opportunity looking into the project and into the canal, and that window of opportunity will stretch from the sOuthern boundary of the project to the southern most pylon sign. That is a considerable distance to get the motorist a chance to view that project before they get to the first of those pylon signs. He does not see the problem as being major, because he sees the window of opportunity into the project before you get to that point. He has no objection to the pole .mounted illuminated signs inside the project. It's an internal Circulation and not a City Street and does provide a sense of progression as you go into the project and he sees the tie in. He supports staff's recommendations with resPect to the monument signs On H Street and Birchshire. He support's staff's recommendation number 1 with regard to the calculation. Commissioner Dhanensquestion Mr. Netanel if the smaller tenants will be identified °n the pole mounted signs as you come into the project and if they are going to be the tenants that will be internally facing the canal, to which Mr: Netanel responded that those poles are not specifically designed to mention a specific tenant, but are designed to create a certain rhythm and tempo, and they are in a way mood setters. Mr. Netanel stated they are not assigning them to specific tenants and they are not in the lease. Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page9 · Commissioner Dhanens .questioned .if.there. are ..some stores., that.w II_ha.ve .fron. tage to.. the canal and some that will not, and only have frontage to the parking lot, to which'Mr. Netanel responded that this was based on the desire of some of the larger tenants to have direct access to the parking area rather than to the canal. People can park their car, come directly into the shop, buy what they need, without ever really having to exPerience the canal. Commissioner Dhanens commented that there may be a need to have some wall signage for those tenants if they are not going to be accessed by people walking along the canal going from one end to the other. Mr. Netanel stated that there are no backwalls to the project. The signage along the "back wall" is really a front to many of the tenants. Commisioner Dhanens questioned if the width of the pylons along the freeway was 4' or 5', to which Mr. Netanel responded 5'. Commissioner Dhanens commented that there needs to be some restriction on the wall signs on the side of the building facing the parking lot. The 25, 000 square feet recommendation by staff is probably too great, but do recognize a need for wall signage for those tenants facing the parking lot. Commissioner Sprague commented that this is a fine project and will enhance the entrance' along the freeway, and the visibility to Bakersfield, and that the multiple color to the signs will definitely add to the center as traffic comes along that area. He expressed his concern about the visibility coming into the City and the part that it plays in identifying Bakersfield. He commended staff for explaining this to the commissioners, and the developer for being creative in putting this together in the design, color and concept. Commissioner Tavorn questioned whether other malls can compare the signage restrictions to this new signage prOgram and have room to wiggle. Staff commented that the other malls in the area do have comprehensive sign plans also, they would be able to come to the commission and request the same type of . consideration that you are able to give this current development because of the latitude of discretion the commission has within the comprehensive sign ordinance. Commissioner Tavorn questioned if they will be setting a new precedence for signs in the City of Bakersfield. Staff responded that the commission has broadened the field of what they are willing to consider and approve when reviewing comprehensive sign plans. It would not change the rules for the base sign requirements in a C-2 zone, or C-1 zone, but it would be reflected in future reviews of comprehensive sign plans. Mr. Netanel' commented that 'change is good. Commissioner Ortiz commented that he is in favor of the pillar signs. He is concerned with the .appearance. Is in favor of the poles. He further expressed his support of the signs. . Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 10 .......... commissioner._Sprague..questioned why the developer,was not required in the site plan · originally 2 years ago to provide a sign design for the center which we knew was · coming. Staff responded that.the comprehensive sign plan was a condition of approval of the PCD. The developer was required to submit a comp. sign plan, rather than just having approval under the C-1 or C-2 zoning ordinance; so it is part' of the PCD. He had to come back with a sign plan for you to review and approve. · Commissioner Sprague questioned whether it could have occurred earlier When they were doing the site plan to see where the buildings and the siting, and roads were going to be, and where the sign pylons and monument signs are going to be located. Requested a preliminary plan before the building stages. Staff responded that that is really up t° the developer. They can go cOncurrent. If he has his sign plan approved or developed at the time he comes in for his PCD, they could both be reviewed at the same time. The sign plan usually follows, because they are not sure what their tenants are going to want. Commissioner BoYle questioned the size of the Baby's Our Us building, to which Mr. Netanel responded is approximately 27,000 square feet. Commissioner Boyle questioned the square footage of building number 36, to which Mr. Netanel responded was approximatelY 5,000 square feet. " Commissioner Boyle inquired if there were any tenants between 25,000 and 10,000 square-feet, to which Mr. Netanel responded that they have one tenant with 12,000 square feet and another with 10,000 square feet, and that there are eight tenants with 25,000 square feet, of which two are not in this region, but are on the freeway and they are not part of this visual. Mr. Netanel stated that they are willing to restrict it to 1,800 square feet and below, which means approximately half of the tenants in the center will not have signage along the parking lot. The parking lot will only be visible to the customers already in the parking lot, and they intend to control the quality and standard of the sign using their own signage criteria.~ Commissioner Boyle asked for clarification that about half of the tenants will be under 1,800 square feet, to which Mr. Netanel responded approximately. Below 2,000 would probably work. Commissioner Boyle noted that the Resolution in item 2 has subparagraph A, B, C, D, E, etc, and number F where it indicates "eliminate the pole signs along the entry from Colony Drive" it seems to be the will of the commissioners that those be permitted, but he thinks the motion should clarify that those would have t° be nOn-tenant signs. CommisSioner Boyle further questioned staff as to Resolution item 2D "revise the plan to show that the center identification entrance monument signs along South H Street and Berkshire Road not exceed the maximum size depicted in the ordinance", (which is 32 MinuteS, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page ..squar. efeet, _1.6 .square.foot base,.8_.foot.maximum he.ight).and why .the _R,.e_so~!gtio.n._says it ~ has to be changed not to exceed those if it seems that already is the proposal. Staff responded that the sign plan submitted does not make reference to those, and staff. asked the applicant what the sizes were and they said they probably would be within City code, so we were guessing, and we wanted to make sure that the Resolution reflected that that would be changed in the final plan. Applicant's proposal is what they have told staff orally. Commissioner Boyle also commented on Resolution item number 2C he assumes that they would have to change to say the size of the freeway and entrance monuments to be no larger than 100 square feet for the entry and 174 square feet for the freeway. Staff responded that it would just say pursuant to applicant's request. Commissioner BOyle reiterated that he thinks' the 3 poles should be moved north to add an additional 75 meet giving the passing vehicle two seconds. Mr. Netanel responded he will Support that. Commissioner Dhanens also supports moving the signs an additional 75 feet to give a bigger window of opportunity. He commented that there is no precedence given the current comprehensive sign plan. He feels the sense of occasion brings out 'excitement. He further commented on the jobs created at the Marketplace. Whatever good competition this creates is good. This is a new replacement for the Sun Fun Stay Play sign that we use to have. I do support some of the changes made. COmmissioner Brady questioned staff about the conflict between the freeway monument sign and a wall, and if we need to address language in this to adjust the location of the monument sign. Staff responded that there is residential land use and zoning south and at the time of that development there may be a sound wall requirement that would extend on the freeway right-of-Way beyond that sign, and block that sign, therefore Causing a conflict. Commissioner Boyle questioned if that issue should be addressed now, or is that something that would be addressed if the wall gets built that the applicant would then come back to us and say he needs to move the monument sign. Staff stated that it would be appropriate to address it now. Mr. Netanel commented that issue has been approved in the initial application and approval, and he is not sure there is a restriction requiring them to put a sound wall on the property to protect the adjacent property owner next to them. He thinks there is a requirement to put some kind of a wall on the south end of our own property line facing south, but nothing he can recall requires a sound wall along the free right-of-way in order to protect the residential zoning south. . Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 12 ..Commissioner. Boyle. commented that perhaps staff is_being preactive..and stating that there is a potential conflict when you put in residential and you got noise requirements to put the residential in there next to a freeway there is going to have to be some mitigation, and that has typically been a very tall sound wall, and what they are saying is those sound walls go beyond the property and go along the' freeway. They're not built on your property, they are built on the freeway right-of -way. If there's a conflict, they are suggesting we address it now. Roger :Mclntosh with Martin-Mclntosh commented that the wall could also be extended along the boundary lines to the east and accommodate the same mitigation for sound, and would probably be more appropriate to do that at the time that the residential subdivision comes in. To extend it 200 feet north you could probably accomplish the same thing going 200 feet along the residential itself. Commissioner Boyle questioned Mr. Mclntosh that his recommendation on.behal¢of the applicant would be that we leave the monument sign alone and not address that, and if there is a problem later on that the applicant would come back in and try to get the monument sign moved. Mr. Netanel responded that when the professional developer comes in with their project, then they will be required to create a wall going east to west, or west to east, along the northern boundary of their property where it intersects the freeway. Commissioner Boyle confirmed that they will deal with the wall and those applicants .at that time, and want to put the sign where it is now. Mr. Netanel cOmmented that it could be their phase II, if that's where the hotel goes. Staff stated that staff's comment was not suggesting that he build a wall, but was onlY in reference to the sign, and whether or not the sign might eventually be blocked by a wa!l, and your comment that the response would be to come back with a comprehensiVe sign plan is correct. Commissioner Boyle confirmed that if there is a conflict in the future, the applicant could come back at that time and deal with it at that time. He further expressed that he would support the modification to staff's recommendation (Resolution B). With regard to . Resolution item 2B, "restrict wall signs for the exterior facing buildings frontages to major tenants only", and that is defined as tenants with a floor area of more than 2,000 square feet or larger. .. .- With respect to language involving the movement of the freeway pylon signs, he has not heard any suggestions and does not know where that goes. ' Mr. Netanel commented that the southernly most pylon sign along the freeWay will be no more than 25 feet sOuth of the southerly corner of Building B, which in effect Will create the 75 foot northern push that we agreed to. Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 13- ........... CommiSsioner Boyle.qUestioned where that.would go in .the. motion, .or~if.s.taff..could Work that out. Commissioner Boyle moved to adopt the Resolution with all findings and conditions approving in modified form the Comprehensive Sign Plan number P98-0997, with the following changes to the Resolution. In item 2B the wording would be changed to say · "Restrict wall signs for exterior facing building frontage to tenants with a floor area of 2,000 square feet or larger and that the signs be limited to individual letters." On subparagraph 2C, that it be modified to read "Pursuant to applicant's request, as to the freeway and entry monument signs". As to 2E, that it be changed to read "Pursuant to theapplicant's request, with the exception that the southern most pillar sign will be . located no more than 25 feet south of the southwest corner of building B". On subparagraph 2F that it be changed to read that the pole signs be allowed "Pursuant to the applicant's request", with a further provision that they be limited to non-tenant signs. That paragraph 2G, be deleted and renumbered. Mr. Solomon commented that their criteria takes care of the lettering. Commissioner BoYle questioned staff what their definitiOn of individual letters was, to. which staff reported they intended fiat, single letters with no Iogos. Mr. Salmon assUred the cOmmission that there will never be any channel lettering or cabinet signs. Explanation of types of signs was given. Commissioner Boyle clarified that he will delete his motion to delete the reference to individual .letters, but asked staff if they delete the reference to individual letters, is it going to create a problem if they add in that the signs will exclude Iogos. Mr. SOlomon cOmmented that in the criteria, they have prohibited signs and they can put in there "no cabinets" Only a cabinet. No one can just be in a cabinet and say that's. their sign. .He will take care of this concern in the wording of the criteria. Commissioner Boyle requested the wording to put into the motion. Mr. Fidler commented that the signage on the exterior could be individual letters with no more than 25, 40, 50 percent being a cabinet addition That way you limit the size and the businesses will be individual letters. Mr. Solomon confirmed that this is exactly what he proposes to do. Mr. Solomon stated that signs on number 10 "consisting solely of a rectangUlar cabinet that is prohibited." Further, we can say that in the accepted sign treatments they have to have channel letters; theY may have a cabinet as part of the design, but may not constitute more than 50% of the sign area. Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 . Page 14 ..Commissi°ner~BoyJe confirmed .that.on prohibitive.signs,, item number lO. would be modified to say "signs consisting only of rectangular cabinet with channel letters and the cabinet not being more than 50%, to which Mr. Solomon affirmed. CommisSioner Boyle changed his motion accordingly. Seconded by Commissioner Kemper. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 7.1). Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5827 (Martin-Mclntosh) - Staff advised there were no changes for the staff report presented Monday. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Mr. Grady commented that they provided a memorandum that responded to questions by Commissioner Sprague regarding the Water Resources condition which was plaCed on this tract map, and they could not get anyone from Water Resources to be available tonight, so they provided the information, and we put in a memo form. Mr. MclntoSh rePresenting Castle & Cooke California commented that he has no knowledge of the blue memo, but they concur with the staff report and recommendations. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kemper moved to apProve Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5827· with' findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit A. Seconded by Commissioner Brady. Motion carried. 7.2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5933 (Martin-Mclntosh) Staff advised that there were no changes to the staff report presented on Monday. Public'portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Mr. MclntoSh representing Delfino Brothers commented that they concur with staff's reCommended changes, including the recommendations for design changes, extending access to the east of the property. They did ask for some rewording of Public Works condition number 5 regarding on and off-site road improvements required for any Collector arterial' street to provide left turn channelization into each street, or access point within subdivision Or development. Said channelization should be deVeloped to provide .' necessary transitions and deceleration lanes, and would like to change the wording [o meet the approval of the City engineer. The reason for the request is that along Hosking Road, along the southern tract boundary, there is existing asPhalt paving, but that asphalt paving is on the south side of the street right,of-waY only. 'If they are required to construct the north half of Hosking then they would like to utilize that existing paving on the south Side, and make the channelization work in acCordance with CaiTrans . .. Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 15 standards, requires eXtensive.improvements beyo*nd the traC{:boundaries .in. bo.th directions. They WOuld propose working with the Public Works and Traffic Engineer t° provide for a safe transition given .the fact that the improvements that are out there are not the best improvements in the world. In fact, there are' some speed bumps on Hosking Road because of the somewhat old condition of the improvements to the speed* of traffic is not going to be as high as an arterial speed limit would prOvide. They would like to work with staff and come up with improvements that provide for the turn lanes, the channelization. They concur with all the other conditions*for approval. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw if she had any response to the request for changes on item number 5, to which Ms. Shaw responded that she had no objection to revising the wording so that it would meet the approval of the City engineer. Commissioner Boyle questioned the sign on Hosking Road that Says "Private Road", to' which Ms. Shaw responded that that portion of Hosking south of the section line is not a public road. Commissioner Boyle questioned when that private road would get accepted into the City, to whiCh Ms. Shaw responded that this development would have no effect on whether or not the portion woUld be accepted into the City system. Commissioner BoYle questioned if making that portion of the private road a 'public road should be part of this project. Mr. Hernandez stated that if the commission can make a finding that this development. creates a need, or generates an impact, and you can make a nexus and also proportionality finding that that road should be developed as a public road, then you can add that as a conditionto this development. He commented that he does knoW if Public Works has studied that, and provided the necessary information to make that finding: Commissioner Boyle stated that he was not implying that the developer inCur the Costs of developing the private road. Ms. Shaw added that some of the property owners have contacted the City and stated they would like that private road to be put into the City and become a public road. ~ Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw what her recommendation would be with regard to the private road, to which Ms. Shaw stated that thrOugh the normal process for a traCt with the improvement plans, and the work that is going to have to be done. She did not think the commission would have to address that as a condition of this tract. Public Works is already aware of this, and they will make Hosking a safe street. Commissioner Dhanes moved to approve and adopt the Negative DeclaratiOn and to .approve Vesting Tentative Tract 5933 with findings and conditions set forth in the Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 16 attached Resolution Exhibit.A with the modification in' Exhil~it 1, Public Wor;k~ ~ondition number 5, the last sentence shall read "said channelization shall be developed to provide necessary transitions and deceleration lanes to meet the approval of the City engineer." Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw if they need to add the phrase at the end "for the design speed of the roadway in question", to which she responded that She Would suggest that that be in there. Commissioner Dhanens amended his motion accordingly. Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. 7.3) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5934 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Staff reported there is a memo regarding a minor change but that they recommended approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Ms. Shaw stated in her memo dated February 1st which was an update of the previous memo dated January 21~t, she inadvertently left a couple of words out of condition 19.2, and she wants to make sure it gets in there. Condition 19.2 should read "Enter into an agreement and post a proof security with the City to ensure construction of the access to the Class I bike path." .. Roger Mclntosh, with Martin-Mclntosh Engineering, representing Castle & Cooke California, stated that they have been approached to help'coordinate construction and they are concerned about the planning of this area. Three years ago the City went to Castle & Cooke and requested that there be a fire station located in this area. Castle &. Cooke agreed to grant to the City a fire station location one ac~e in size and One of the requirements for that one acre parcel was to create a 60' gap between the fire station site and City Water Department site to the south. That 60' gap would allow for an' access road to be constructed to be used by the fire department and provide safe access on and off Buena Vista Rd., as well as it could jointly be used to provide access to the multi family parcel (Parcel 4). That property was deeded to the City a few years ago, and was subsequently incorporated into this parcel maP. The property has been granted back to Castle & Cooke in exchange for another fire station further down Buena Vista Road, across from the high school, and subsequently on White Lane to the west of Buena Vista Road, which will fall within the west of Buena Vista area. Because of the requirement placed on Castle & Cooke, by the City, they performed the design of Buena. Vista Road improvements. Castle & Cooke paid for the sewer stub to the east, and Mr. Carosella paid for the stub to the left to accommodate that opening. The opening at that location was that would be the opening to the collector Street to the west, which is the subject of your review and approval today. From the west quarter-corner of the section the entrance to the property to the east is 210 feet. Their concern is ttiat the opening as designed on the tract map would prohibit the ability of access into the Castle & Cooke - property to the east, because they would no longer have the left turn lane ability, Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 17 because it.would conflict~with a left turn. northbound [ntq.~the .~cpll~c__tor_.,r.0ad, gP.!!~g .to the .... west. I~ seems that the openings and access roads across the street were not shown on this tentative map, and he thought there was some information they needed to have' to make their decision. Bob Smith with SmithTec USA', representing Coleman Homes, Inc. stated that they initially were concerned about the location of that collector and that is why they did the synchronization study and worked with staff on the location of that collector street. There is no street dedication to the east, or the street had to match. Castle & Cooke owns all of that property, and has access to it. The collector does require signaliZation so whatever they install as medians and left turn lanes will go away when signals are put in. CommissiOner Sprague asked Mr. Smith if in regards to 30.2, page 5, with Rosedale Union School District that SB150 still complies, and Mr. Smith resp°nded yes. Commissioner Brady asked staff to comment on objections raised to the project with respect to whether we are creating a mess here or not. Ms. Shaw reSponded that they have been working with the applicant on the location of the modified collector. The applicant wanted it as far north as possible to get the development and street lotting that he was looking at; the synchronization study was required to see howclose he coUld get it to Stockdale. The condition in the staff report represents the results of that synchronization study. Mr. Mclntosh is correct that it is the minimum. The collector could be further south. Mr. Mclntosh is correct that the synchronization does not pinpoint the location as to the collector; it just says how close you can get it to Stockdale Highway. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Mclntosh if the aPproval of this project would cost CaStle & CoOke t° lose the investment they made in those improvements, to which Mr. Mclntosh responded that partially. Commission Brady further asked Mr. Mclntosh if it would screw up access to the parcel acroSs the way, to which Mr. Mclntosh responded that they designed and Constructed improvements at the request of the City to accommodate a fire station site, and this left turn movement through the median into the site will be precluded. If there is to be a signal, then it would probably be more appropriate since these improvements are already in, to have the developer over here install the appropriate improvements at that intersection for a 4-waY intersection, rather than a 3-way intersection, otherwise they are gong to have to take this curb and gutter out, and it was just 'put in, and replace it with a deceleration lane, and all those things that go with street intersections. They are concerned about their ability to get access in 'and out of the property. Bob Smith stated that a compromise would be moving the collector south, and completely redesigning their map, so they would like it approved as is. Commissioner Brady questioned that a continuance would not do any good because the map is the map, to which Mr. Smith affirmed. Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 18 .Ms. Shaw.stated that. she_did .not believe that therewas ~n~blog.in..the~.co..n.d~itiqp.s.no~V requiring th!s map to actually install a signal at this time, Mr. Smith responded that the GPA Traffic Study referenced the signals so they do pay fees for the signal. Ms. Shaw confirmed that there is no dedicated street there; it is just an access point. Commissioner Dhanens questioned that if they approve the map as presented with modified collector is Mr. Mclntosh correct in saying that the left turn channelization that currently is being constructed could not be utilized to the property owner to the east. Ms. Shaw affirmed that collector arterial intersections are eventually planned to be signalized, and they would not allow a left turn access that close to a signal. Commissioner Boyle questioned Ms. Shaw what it would cost the applicant to redesign the three-way access to a four-way intersection, to which she responded no. Mr. Mclntosh responded that a four-way signal, as opposed to a three-way signals is probably another $20,000.00. In addition to that there would be the reconstruction of this curb and gutter up to that signal, which is probably another $5,000 to $10,000.00. It would probably be in line with what has been spent already for this return, the asphalt, and as of next week, the curb and gutter. Commissioner Boyle asked why they would do the curb and gutter when they know this map is before the commission, to which Mr. Mclntosh responded that they are committed to doing it under an improvement agreement with the City that was entered into about six years ago, and the design was approved three years ago, and they are being asked by Public Works when they are going to get it done. Ms. Shaw stated that the agreement itself would not have to be modified at all; Simply the plans. '- Commissioner Boyle questioned if it needed any kind of General Plan Amendment or public hearing. - Commissioner Boyle stated that there is a cost of approximately $20,000, $25,000.00 to redesign this intersection to be a four-way intersection and if it was done that would to 'some degree compensate Castle and Cooke for the fact that the access they've already put in will have to be modified. He does not think that costs should be totally placed on the applicant. Supports the concept that maybe the application should be conditioned upon the applicant'paying half of the fees necessary to make it a four-way intersection. Ms. Shaw clarified that Mr. Mclntosh was talking about the cost of the cl~ange in construction and questioned whether it would really cost an additional $20,000.00 to design a four-way intersection. Mrl Grady stated that there is a subdivision on the west side of the street with an approved collector that is going to be maybe a signalized intersection at some time in Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 19 .......... the future... You.have a driveway access..on a.multi=fami y.pieceof.pmperty.thathas unlimited opportunities to put a driveway there. This is not a road, and it was never intended to line up with this collector when you approved the General Plan, and it's not lining up with that collector now. Mr. Grady does not see the responsibility of the costs lying with SmithTec. Commissioner Dhanens asked if the collector that SmithTec designed stays where it is where the street improvements that Castle & Cooke has constructed (curb returns stay in as they are now), and the median is modified, and when that site gets signalized it is signalized as a three-way interseCtion and the other access points to that multi-family parcel provided for north of this site. Would there be a conflict between a three-way signalized intersection where this collector is, and a driveway access to the south that is in the ground right now. · Mr. Walker responded the driveway itself is located pretty close to their desirable minimum distance on approach to an intersection, so having an access driveway for right turn in, right turn out at the location they currently have would not be a problem operational for the signal. He agrees that it would be better if it was lined up with the signal location, 'cause .they would have full access. Not just left turn in, but left turn out. It would not be an operational problem. Commissioner Dhanens commented that it seems difficult to place some kind of burden on the property owner to the west with a collector street that was approved in the General Plan Amendment, and'with no dedicated street going there, now that the fire station cite is moved, it now becomes basically just a driveway into another piece of property. The!;e would be a way to salvage those improvements and the only thing that would be lost would be the improvements that are going to be made in the median that will have to be some day changed when this other collector street gets improved. Can't place a condition on the map that would rectify the situation that Castle & Cooke finds itself in. He stated he would be inclined to approve as currently submitted. Commissioner Sprague commented that Castle & Cooke in taking that dedication back in land had knowledge that these improvements were in Buena ViSta Road, and did exist, and when they took that land back, then they took it back with those conditions, and beCause they had the knowledge, he has a problem with them now Saying they shouldbe compensated. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the fire station was deeded to the City. Chief Kelly was working with the County of Kern to negotiate a better location for joint services in that area. He identified a location along Brimhall Road and built or will build a facility out there. Because of that location, Chief Kelly came back to Castle & Cooke and said we really don't need this fire station at this location any more, can we move it somewhere further south to get a larger distance away from the station up on Brimhall Road. Castle & Cooke agreed to that, exchanged title to the sites, so that the new fire station site is down on White Lane. -Even with that the plans for improvements was approved in 1996, and they didn't see a reason to move that location. Construction started on Buena Vista road about six to eight months ago. Before this tract was ever even thought about, and its just unfortunate that .... the curbs and gutter was -- the returns were constructed first to accommodate a detour, so that the City could come in and relocate the Buena Vista Minutes, PC, Thursday, Februar~ 4, 1999 Page 20 ' --trunk. line sewer._So-the curb. and gutter was actually put in nine.months.ago..We put down the first base course, and first course of asphalt to allow for two lanes of traffic on the east side of Buena Vista Road while the City came in and relocated that sewer trunk line is in, and it's been given back to Castle & Cooke, and they are now finishing out the rest of the roadway along the site. So that curb and gutter and improvements were first started many, many, many months ago. We're not here to ask for something unreasonable. We're just pointing out that we can still accommodate access to the property to the east at that location. Commissioner Sprague questioned if the applicant would benefit by meeting with Castle & Cooke and possibly taking that idea of dividing the costs and continue this item for a couple of weeks. Mr. Smith responded that they would not like a continuance. The applicant wants to move forward. If the commission wants to put a condition that they pay half of $20,000.00 I'm certain that they would live with that. Commissioner Sprague asked if Mr. Smith was willing to go back to his employer and request this. He thinks the parties can resolve it if the matter is continued so they can get together and discuss the situation to resolution, Mr. Hernandez commented that the applicant has complied with all requirements and feels that Mr. Mclntosh is asking the commission to mitigate an impact on private property, which is not what the commission is required to look at. The commission is required to look at the impact and mitigate the impact to public services and to meet the General Plan requirements. If the applicant does this, the commission should approve the map. Commissioner Brady moved to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approveVesting Tentative Tract 5934 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, including the February 4th, 1999 memo from the Planning Director, and the January 21, 1999 and February 1, 1999 memo from the Public Works Department, Exhibit A. Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. 7.4) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5932 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Commissioner Dhanens declared a conflict of interest on item numbers 7.4 as it is adjacent to the RiverLakes Ranch project. Staff advised that there are no new memos on this. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Bob Smith advised that they were in agreement with all the staff conditions on this map, Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 21 Sm 10. 11. .............. Public.portiontol. the hear. ing was closed ........................ Commissioner Brady moved to approve the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5932 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit A as modified by the January 21, 1999 memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion Carried. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE P98-0946 (DeWalt Corp.) See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARING -TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10581 (Porter-Robertson) Commissioner Sprague deClared a conflict of interest as he represents a client in this ' transaction. Staff advised applicant requested that this be continued and he will resubmit a map that should be amenable to Public Works and the subdivider. Commissioner Brady moved to continue. Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw if she was aware of Mr. Bergquist's suggestion that he submit a new map, to which she responded yes. Commisioner Dhanens asked if submitting a new map was going to create any time prob!ems with respect to advertising it as a public hearing, to which Mr. Grady responded no that they would re-notice it. Commissioner BradY moved to continue for two weeks to the regular planned meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady questioned the fee schedule. Discussion on fees. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Kemper advised the Parks Committee is going to meet in two weeks and look at some revised verbiage, and that might be the last meeting before the item comes back to the Planning Commission Minutes, PC, Thursday, February 4, 1999 Page 22 13, .... DISCUSSION.AND,ACTION .REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. The Council Chambers will be remodeled on March 15 so there will no pre-meeting. The next-meeting'wili be on February 18 and include a workshop on the general plan update and the south beltway. Motion by commissioner Brady and seconded by Commissioner ' Kemper. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT. There being nO further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.. March 15, 1999 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary