Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/99 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Thursday - May 6, 1999 5:30 p.m. JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS 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. m 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 $334 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 $334 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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, May 6, 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. 3.1) 3.2) 3.3) Agenda Item 6- Vesting Rights Extension - Tract 5848 Phase A Agenda Item 7 - EOT Tentative Tract 5362 Agenda Item 10 - Comprehensive Sign Plan No. P99-0296 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held March 1,4, 15 and 18, 1999. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON The Commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson whose terms of office shall continue until April 30, 2000. EXTENSION OF TIME - VESTING RIGHTS TRACT 5848-Phase A Tract 5848~ Phase A - Located on the south side of Campus Park Drive, east of Old River Road. (Exempt from CEQA) [Ward 4] Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME Tentative Tract 5362 (Revised) (Porter Robertson) An extension of time for Tentative Tract 5362 (Revised) consisting of 204 lots on 50.8 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located on the southeast corner of Hosking Avenue and Wible Road. (Negative Declaration on file) [Ward 7] Recommendation: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, ThUrsday - May 6, 1999 Page 3 10. 11. 12. 13. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5928 (Martin-Mclntosh) Vesting Tentative Tract 5928 containing 172 lots on 54.33 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling); including a request for a modification to reduce the lot depth for two lots and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1 located on the northwest corner of Buena Vista Road and White Lane (extended). (Negative Declaration on file) [Ward 4] Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (City of Bakersfield) Ordinance amending and deleting sections of Chapters 17.52 and 17.54 of Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code related to the authority granted the Planning Director to approve modifications to site plans for approved development projects in P;U.D. (Planned Unit Development) and P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) zones. (Categorically exempt) (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 1999) [City-wide] Recommendation: ApprOve Roll call vote PUBLIC HEARING - Comprehensive Si~ln Plan No. P99-0296 (Westrust) A comprehensive sign plan for the Stockdale Village Shopping Center at 5600 Stockdale Highway. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Approve Group vote COMMUNICATIONS A) Written- B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Agenda, PC, Thursday- May 6, 1999 Page 4 14. ADJOURNMENT April 23, 1999 Held Thursday, May 6, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE Absent: TOM MCGINNIS ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) Agenda Item 6- Vesting Rights Extension - Tract 5848 Phase A 3.2) Agenda Item 7 - EOT Tentative Tract 5362 3.3) Agendaltem 10 - Comprehensive Sign Plan No. P99-0296 Minutes, PC, Thursday, May 6, 1999 Page 2 ..Commissioner_SPrague requested that Consent Agenda Item 3.3 (Compreh.ens_iYe.Sign_ .... Plan No. P99-0296) be removed from the Consent Agenda as he had a question about the item. A motion Was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens, to approve the remaining Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held March 1,4, 15 and 18, 1999. Motion carried. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON Commissioner Dhanens nominated Commissioner Tkac to remain as Chairman. Commissioner Sprague seconded the nomination. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague to close the nominations. Motion carried. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague to elect 'Commissioner Tkac by acclamation. Motion carried. Commissioner Tkac was elected Chairman until April 30, 2000, by unanimous vote. Commissioner Brady nominated Commissioner Dhanens as Vice Chairman. Seconded by Commissioner SPrague. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kemper to close nominations. Motion carried. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague to elect Commissioner Dhanens by acclamation. Motion carried. Commissioner Dhanens was elected Vice Chairman until April 30, 2000, by unanimous vote EXTENSION OF TIME - VESTING RIGHTS TRACT 5848-Phase A Approved as a Consent Agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME for TENTATIVE TRACT 5362 (Revised) Approved as a Consent Agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5928 (Martin-Mclntosh) Staff report given. Staff is recommending that the property be rezoned to R-1 prior to recordation as that would be consistent with the LR general plan designation on the proPerty. Staff recommended approval with conditions attached to staff report Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle & Cooke, speaking in favor stated that he had reviewed the staff report and memo from Public Works dated May 3, 1999, and concur with all the conditions and amendments except for three items. Minutes, PC, ThUrsday, May 6, 1999 Page 3 - --Mr.~- Mclntosh-stated that Condition No. 3 from the Public Works Department isrequiring the full construction of Chamber Boulevard full width to Casey Lane. They would like to request that Chamber Boulevard be constructed as originally proposed on the face of the tentative map. The idea is to build the south half of Chamber, the median, and one lane on the north side. The flexibility is necessary as there are tracts on the north side of Chamber Blvd. that may require utility stubs or utility extensions that they do not know where they are going to go. They are requesting that Condition No. 3 be deleted and approve the construction of Chamber in accordance with the detail (Section A) on the tentative map. Ms. Shaw stated that Public Works is in agreement with the change. Mr. Mclntosh wanted to discuss Planning Condition No. 42 asking the developer to change the zone from an R-2 to an R-1. Mr. Mclntosh stated that Castle & Cooke originally had this changed to LR and R-2 so that they could build a small lot subdivision with lots no more that 5,000 square feet but now want to put single family homes on the property with at least 6,000 square foot lots. Mr. Mclntosh representing the applicant stated that they do not wish to go through the expense and the time it would take to change the zoning to R-1. Mr. Mclntosh is asking this condition be removed. Castle & Cooke would be willing to place in the CC&R's that no lots smaller than 6,000 square feet would be built. Mr. Grady, Planning Director, stated that the applicant will be back in front of the Commission with proposals for park sites and the zone change could be done at that 'same time but staff feels that for people who are going to move in the subdivision, it would be better if the property were zoned to fit the kind of development thats being proposed. That would give more control than CC&R's as the city does not enforce the CC&R's. It is a better relationship to have the zoning fit the subdivision. Mr. Mclntosh also had a question about Condition No. 44. He felt that it is in contrast with the ordinance (Bakersfield Municipal Code 16.28.170 L) which addresses the construction of masonry walls adjacent to park sites. It says, "any lot which shares a common property line with a lot designed to serve as a park site shall be separated by a masonry block wall along said property line a minimum of 6 feet but not exceeding 8 feet in height as measured from the highest adjacent finished grade." The way this condition reads is that the subdivider "shall construct an 8 foot high masonry wall as measured from the highest grade." Mr; Mclntosh stated that if you_have an 8 foot high block wall measured from the highest adjacent grade, you may end up with a 9 or 10 foot wall on the other side because the grades may be different. Mr. Mclntosh stated the ordinance was written to require at least a 6 foot but no more than an 8 foot masonry block wall. He asked that the ordinance be adhered to rather than the way staff wrote the condition. Mr. Grady stated that staff had no objections for adhering to the ordinance for condition 4. . Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. MClntosh to demonstrate what the road would look like if Public Works Condition No. 3 were deleted. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the way it would work would be the half width on the south side would be built and would align with the Minutes, PC, Thursday, May 6, 1999 Page 4 = -intersection.at Buena Vista Road and the intersection .across. on Chamber...The.north portion would get a full median plus one lane and the one lane would align with the traffic and the lane on the other side of the roadway at Buena Vista. Thero would be no wavering back and forth. Commissioner Brady said the change would be acceptable if staff agreed. In regard to Condition_42 Commissioner Brady wanted some clarification as to why staff wanted the zone change. How does it affect property owners? Mr. Grady stated that in an R-2 zone you have a smaller front yard setback than you do in an R-1 zone (25 feet versus 15 feet). In an R-2 zone, a developer would have an ability to put up to four units on a lot if you have the parking. Property owners thinking it was all single family would not be aware of that. The City is not bound by CC&R's. The CC&R's are between the property owner and the person who sold them the property. The best protection for the people who are going to live there is to require a zone change. The zoning should fit the subdivision. After much 'discusSion by the commissioners, staff and Mr. Mclntosh concerning R-2 zoning with CC&R's versus R-1 zoning, it was agreed by Mr. Mclntosh, staff and the Commission that staff would initiate a zone change or allow the zone change to be added to a future general plan amendment or zone change at no extra cost. Commissioner Boyle made a motiOn, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5928 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the following modifications: Item 3 would be deleted and instead Chamber Blvd to be constructed as set forth in detail ,AA of the Tentative Map; Item 44 condition to be modified in compliance with the ordinance; Item 42 city staff be instructed to initiate a zone change on either the earlier of information from the applicant that the map is to be recorded in the next 90 days or upon filing of any other maps by the applicant related to the project and park; and incorporate the memorandum from the Public Works Department dated May 3, 1999, with the additional correction of Item No. 2 will eliminate the phrase "is provided" after word vacant. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (City of Bakersfield) Staff report given by Stanley Grady, Planning Director. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke for or against the ordinance. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked staff about item D. There is nothing in there about fees. He thinks a sentence should be added that says "no fee shall be required." Mr. Grady said that his' review of minor changes would be part of the submittal of the Final Development Plan or Preliminary Plan. The way it is proposed now, there is no fee for the Planning Director's review. Minutes, PC, ThurSda , Ma 6, 1999 Pa e 5 ..... commissioner Brady asked if therewould be a fee if it came_to the Planning Commission and they recommend a public hearing? Who would pay for the noticing? Mr. Grady said there should be a fee for that. Carl Hernandez said it is the same as required for other zone changes, conditional use permits, etc. That there are fee provisions provided under Chapter 17.64 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. Commissioner Dhanens stated that based on the changes that have been redrafted since' the last Planning Commission hearing on this ordinance that he would support the language as proposed and he would support the Ordinance as presented. Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, adopting resolution approving the proposed text revisions to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code as contained in Exhibit A. Commissioner Boyle amended his motion to include Exhibit A being the proposed ordinance attached to the Memorandum from Stanley Grady dated April 30, 1999. Motion seconded by Commissioner Brady. Motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Sprague, Tkac NOES: None 10. ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis PUBLIC HEARING - Comprehensive Sign Plan No. P99-0296 (Westrust) Staff report was given recommending approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Scott Lorenz, Westrust, spoke in favor and was available for questions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague stated that it appeared to him there were some traffic hazards for people coming out of the center looking to the left.' He asked how far the setback was from the curb to the sign. Mr. Lorenz said he wasn't sure of the exact setback but that they were within code. Ms. Shaw said she did not know the exact setback either but that city ordinance sets specific traffic sight lines and they would have to conform to those. Commissioner Sprague said that if you look at the site plan and see where the signs are located on the curvature, coming off of Stockdale Highway, it appears that the signs are right on the corner. So, if you are coming out of that shopping center where you have a one way street going west and you look to your left, are you going to look at a sign standard and not be able to see the oncoming traffic? Commissioner Sprague said his Minutes, PC, Thursday, May 6, 1999 Page 6 .concern. is-for the safety of the traffic there and coming out of that center,_with .building. up this sign and putting the facade on it versus putting in a smaller sign With the tenants there that you can see around and setting it back. Mr. Eggert said that the Carl's Jr. curb to property line setback is about 8 feet which means the sign will be at a minimum 8 feet back from the edge of the curb. Based on the standard, that is adequate for sight distance for either direction. commisSioner Sprague was also concerned about pedestrian and bicycle traffic. He felt that the sign would also block their view. Mr. Eggert said that there would be a 5-1/2 foot wide sidewal.k within that 8 feet and an additional 3 feet of landscaping. Commissioner Sprague said he was con~:erned about public safety but if staff is satisfied and it is within code, then 'he is happy. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt the attached resolution approving the Comprehensive Sign Plan as depicted. Motion carried. 11. COMMUNICATIONS. Mr. Grady said that in the future the ward numbers would be placed on the agenda in a less conspicuous place so they do not' have to be read out loud as part of the hearing. 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS. 1¸3, 'There were no Commissioner comments. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF NEXT PRE-MEETING. It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on Tuesday, May 18, 1999. 14. ADJOURNMENT. There' being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at .7:52 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary May ;I 4, 1999