Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/00 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Monday, July 31, 2000 12:15 p.m. Thursday, August 3, 2000 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice-Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC 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. Items listed on this agenda will be continued to 5:30 p.m. on the Thursday following the date listed on this agenda. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAl Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. Agenda, PC, Monday - July 31, 2000 and Thursday, August 3, 2000 Page 2 4. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. 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) 3.4) Agenda Item 4) - Approval of minutes for June 12 and Jun 15, 2000. Agenda Item 8.1) - Consistency finding for vacation of Camino Grande Agenda Item 8.2) - Summary abandonment of Public Utility Easement Agenda Item 8.3) - Summary abandonment of Public Utility Easement APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held June 12 and June 15, 2000. (Ward 4) PUBLIC HEARING - Public Scoping Meeting for Preparation of Draft Environmental ImPact Report for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P00-0291 - A General Plan Amendment from OC (Office Commercial) to GC (General Commercial), Kern River Plan Element Amendment from 6.25 (Office Commercial) to 6.2 (General Commercial), and change of zone from C-O (Professional and Administrative Office) to C-2 (Regional Commercial) on 40.52 acres generally located west of Calloway Drive, between Stockdale Highway and the Kern River. RECOMMENDATION: Receive Comments and Refer to Staff (Ward 4) PUBLIC HEARING - Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 5993 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 421 lots on 123.33 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-1 Ch (One Family Dwelling-Church); and a request for modifications to street improvements, located on the southwest corner of Calloway Drive and Snow Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from July 6, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, Monday - July 31, 2000 and Thursday, August 3, 2000 Page 3 (Ward 7) 6.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 5809 UNIT D (Delmarter and Deifel Engineers) Consisting of 31 lots for single family residential dwelling purposes and one sump lot on 6.36 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone; and a request to allow reduction of the minimum lot area, lot width, frontage and depth; and a request for a density bonus, located on the northwest corner of the Arvin-Edison Canal and South Union Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote (Ward 6) 6.3) Vesting Tentative Tract 5999 (Porter-R°bertson) Containing 148 lots on 40.32 acres for single family residential purposes zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and a modification to exceed the maximum block length (Bakersfield Municipal Code 16.28.160 A), a modification to allow non- radial and non-perpendicular lot lines (Bakersfield Municipal Code 16.28.170 F), and a modification to allow reverse corner lots (Bakersfield Municipal Code 16.28.170 P), located approximately 1/3 mile west of Buena Vista Road, % mile south of Stockdale Highway. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote 7. PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Changes (Ward 5 ) 7.1) Zone Change P00-0410 (Crown Rosedale Associates, LLC) Zone Change to prezone the site from M-3 (Heavy Industrial) to M-2 (General Manufacturing) on approximately 20 acres, located along the north side of Rosedale Highway, west of State Route 99. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote 7.2) (Ward 2 ) Zone Change P00-0430 (Joyce Evenson and Gloria Cory) Zone Change from an R-4 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone to a C-O (Professional Office) zone on 0.74 acres, located on the half block of the east side of E Street, between 21st and 22nd Streets. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote Agenda, PC, Monday - July 31, 2000 and Thursday, August 3, 2000 Page 4 8. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS (Ward 3) (Ward (Ward 2) 10, 11. August 1, 2000 8.1) General Plan Consistency Finding for the vacation of the eastern portion of Camino Grande Drive, located north of Paladino Drive and east of Fairfax Road, in Northeast Bakersfield. RECOMMENDATION: Group Vote. (Exempt from CEQA) Make Finding 8.2) General Plan Consistency Finding for the abandonment of a 5-foot public utility easement on a residential lot, located just northwest of the Panama Lane and Stine Road intersection, in Southwest Bakersfield. (Exempt frOm CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding Group Vote.. 8.3) General Plan Consistency Finding for the abandonment of a reserved public utility easement in the vacated alley just south of 21`t Street, between "K" Street and "L" Street in Downtown Bakersfield. (Exempt frOm CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Make Finding Group Vote. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees ADJOURNMENT ANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director Held August 3, 2000 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to nominate Commissioner Tkac as acting chairman of tonight's Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: Absent: JEFFREY TKAC, Acting Chairman MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Assistant City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS The following people filled out speaker's cards but when asked by the Chairman if they wanted to speak now or when the agenda item came up, they chose to wait until the agenda item was called: Ryan Oliver, Kenneth Hammer and Mike Feldman. Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal Minutes, PC, Au~lust 3, 2000 Parle 2 Commissioners Brady and Kemper stated they were not present at Monday's pre- meeting but had read the minutes of that meeting and were prepared to participate in tonight's meeting. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Motion was' made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to place the following items on the Consent Agenda: Agenda item 6.2 - Vesting Tentative Tract 5809 Unit D and Agenda Item 7.2 - Zone Change P00-0430. Motion carried. 3.1) 3.2) 3.3) 3.4) Agenda Item 4) - Approval of minutes for June 12 and June 15, 2000. Agenda Item 8.1) - Consistency finding for vacation of Camino Grande Agenda Item 8.2) - Summary abandonment of Public Utility Easement Agenda Item 8.3) - Summary abandonment of Public Utility Easement A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held June 12 and June 15, 2000. See Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING - Public ScoDin~ Meeting for Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendment/Zone Change P00-0291 (Ward4) Staff report was given explaining the project and process. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to receive comments and refer them to staff for consideration and preparation of the Draft EIR. Public portion of the meeting was opened. Mike Feldman spoke against the project. He stated that they purchased their property in what they thought'was going to be an upscale neighborhood. They checked the zoning prior to purchase of their property and were happy to see the Office zoning on this piece of property. They do not want a shopping center built there because of the noise and traffic it would attract. Commissioner Brady reiterated with Mr. Grady the purpose of tonight's meeting. Members of the audience who speak tonight should tell the Commission what the problems could be if the project went in such as noise, smells and/or any other environmental concerns they might have. Ryan Oliver stated that he lives in the area and has collected 250 names on petitions of people who oppose the re-zoning of this area. Mr. Oliver stated that one .of the issues they have discussed is the noise. There is already a lot of traffic noise in the area. Minutes, PC, Au~lust 3, 2000 Page 3 Another issue they are concerned about is litter from drive-through restaurants and the extra traffic a shopping center would bring. Light would be a problem and signs would be another. They feel that a shopping center would bring down their property value. Ken Hammer stated that the back of his property faces the area that is being considered for re-zoning. They built their house there because they were told that that piece of property was zoned Office Commercial. They were happy with the area because no one could build behind them and they were told a wall would be built which has not been done. Mr. Hammer feels that another strip mall is unnecessary. They are closing strip malls all over town. The residents assumed that because of the proximity of the hospital that Doctors offices would go in there and therefore no extra traffic in the evenings would be created. Tom Goldsmith, a resident of Seven Oaks, stated that he is concerned about not only the traffic and lights that could occur into the property owner's homes, but the attractiveness of whatever goes on that piece of land. He wasn't happy with the office complex on the northeast corner of Stockdale and Old River Road. A decent looking building was put in there with a huge parking lot in front which looks quite ugly. It discourages him to think that anything that is put in there will not be attractive. This is a beautiful spot and he would like to see the entire area be thought about and be built in in a way that it is going to be visually non-disturbing to the people who drive by there or who live in the subdivision across the street. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague said that he reviewed this project and he has a few questions that need to be reviewed. It is his belief that the project needs to be looked at as a ' PCD as it is a major development along the west entrance to the city. With this type of zoning the Planning Commission could review the development proposals submitted by the applicant for Commercial, Office, Retail, Fast Food, Mini-Market with gas uses and other types of development. Also, the Planning Commission can review the landscape plans for the corridor along Stockdale Highway to bring continuity to the area. Commissioner Sprague said that he would propose that they look at the greenbelt type landscaping of evergreen type bushes and trees along the roadway being at least 48" box trees on 20' centers with staggered planting to achieve natural noise and light barriers to the residences to the south. The EIR should address the concerns of the residents' as to the types and locations of certain food and mini-market locations and drive-up speaker box locations. Lighting for the center should be directed north and onto the center away from the residences to the south. Signage should be addressed in the EIR as to light contamination to the residential area with smaller monument signs along the location. Stockdale Highway median should be landscaped with evergreen trees and big box plantings which would separate the west and eastbound lanes with traffic stacking and decel lanes which accommodate the center taking into account the vacant HR zoned land located to the south along Stockdale Highway. The exterior plaster and brick cap fencing on the south side of Stockdale should be completed to the west end of the subdivision along the north side of the canal abutting the existing chain-link fence running along a portion of the HR zoned land. Commissioner Sprague Minutes, PC, Au~lust 3, 2000 Page 4 said that he realizes this parcel is not included with the parcel they are speaking about tonight but he has asked staff to check out the request from the audience on Monday to ascertain whether or not that fence was to be completed to the west end of that subdivision adjacent to the school and report back to us. He thinks they need to i.d. the future intended use of the HR zoned land on the southeast corner of Buena Vista and Stockdale which is a triangle parcel. It is zoned for condos or apartments. Commissioner Sprague said the EIR should address the bike path location as it pertains to development and landscape on the rear of the site. It should run in conformity with the river trees and flora existing such as Cottonwood trees, etc. The EIR should address the issue of General Commercial and C-2 zoned site adjacent to the west owned by the applicant and the retail shopping center approved as a PCD on the southwest corner of Buena Vista and Stockdale Highway. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if there is a % mile separation issue to deal with in accordance with existing ordinance? Commissioner Sprague said that he would like the consultants doing the EIR to consider his comments and keep in mind the residences to the south so that they are not contaminated with noise and lights. Commissioner Kemper said that Commissioner Sprague mentioned most of her concerns but that she would like to reiterate her most pressing concerns which are the impact of the site upon the bike path and the proposed 20 acre park to the west. Commissioner Kemper asked staff if it is appropriate to ask for a concept plan along with this? Mr. Grady said that is something the Commission would deal with when they are making their decision whether to zone the property C-2 or not. He said that they could relay that request to the applicant but it is not something they can require at this time. The applicant could present the concept plan in December when the general plan amendment and zone change comes before the Commission. The Commission could then make their decision based on the concept plan. Commissioner Kemper said that she would like to request that they see a concept plan at that time. It is a sensitive area and it is important that it is not only zoned correctly but that it looks right as it is a main entrance into the City from I-5. Commissioner McGinnis said that his concerns are two-fold. One of them is the ~'mile proximity of Coleman's shopping center project that has been approved. The Commission needs to see how that will be mitigated and also whether or not the traffic that will be created if a shopping center were to go in along with the fact that Stockdale Highway is a major corridor with I-5 and how that would be affected? Commissioner Brady asked staff why aesthetics was not indicated in the environmental evaluation as being a potential environmental effect? It was noted as being "less than significant." Is that based on the change from the property's present condition or based on the change from the property under its zoning and what can be built under the current zoning? Mr. Grady said that under Section 4 in the environmental evaluation where it talks about aesthetics it is relating that there is existing ordinances and policies in the Kern River Element that would have to be represented in the plan when submitted and that requires that they comply with any aesthetic, visual or scenic policies that are in that plan. Commissioner Brady asked if there are many requirements for trees and landscaping that apply to the property along the Kern River? Mr. Grady said that is correct. Commissioner Brady asked if all those conditions have Minutes, PC, August 3, 2000 Page 5 to be met for whatever project goes on and that forms the basis for many of the areas that have been listed for why there is not a higher level of impact noted? Mr. Grady said that is correct for several of them. If there are some other specific ones, they could look at them. Commissioner Brady asked if there is some reason why liquefaction has not been considered here? Has there been some soil studies based on development that has occurred in the area or are we not concerned about that? Mr. Grady said that that is looked at the time of development. A soils study has to be provided to the Building Director.. If there are design considerations that have to be applied to the project based on that soils report, then the Building Director would require them as part of the development. Commissioner Brady said the environmental evaluation says that there is less than a significant impact under rupture of an earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking. He was wondering if an evaluation had already been done? If it is on the list, shouldn't it be considered at this time? Mr. Grady said that an evaluation has not been done but if he wants something done further, they can have that as part of the scoping session and can convey that information to the applicant that the Commission wants something done further. Commissioner Brady asked about the statement saying that the project would use less than three percent of the existing waste water treatment plant capacity. How much less? Three percent seems like a lot for one project. Mr. Grady said that they can have that evaluated further and provide more information on that subject in the Draft EIR. Commissioner Brady asked if this property was included in a project EIR? Mr. Grady said that he does not think so. There is no reference to a project EIR. Commissioner Brady asked if there were project EIR's on property in and around this particular project? Mr. Grady said "yes." Commissioner Brady asked if the cumulative effects of the entire area were studied in the project EIR's. Mr. Grady said that cumulative related project impacts would have been studied. Staff has to make a determination of what items in a cumulative sense could have significant impacts as a result of a new change. Some items, even though they will add impacts, do not add cumulatively significant impacts. Those that have been identified in previous EIR's as things that need to be looked at for cumulative impacts have been identified. Commissioner Brady said that his concern is if this particular piece of land and the effects of its proposed zoning were used and studied for those cumulative impacts in those larger EIR's, do we have to go back and consider the effect on those surrounding properties if we make a change here? Mr. Hernandez said that the cumulative impacts that would be caused by the site specific project would have to be evaluated in the program EIR's for the area. Commissioner Brady asked if what the consultant would have to look at is what the program EIR's considered as cumulative impacts and how this particular change in the zoning would effect those other areas? Mr. Hernandez said that is correct and that would be addressed in the Draft EIR for this project specific EIR. Mr. Goldsmith stated that one of the items that was just talked about by Mr. Brady and Mr. Hernandez is that the difference between cumulative impacts of an Ell:{ or a site specific EIR. Is the program EIR for a larger area than a site specific Ell:{? Mr. Grady Minutes, PC, Au~lust 3, 2000 Parle 6 said that cumulative impacts is just a chapter in an EIR. It could be called a project EIR or a program EIR. There is essentially only one EIR. The process is the same. Its what you can do with it after you finish that is different. One you can tier off from and the other one is saying you are going to be building pretty soon and it is the last document you expect to write for the project. In both you are looking at cumulative impacts. It is just a chapter in either one of those. Mr. Goldsmith asked if they are discussing an EIR for this project because Castle and Cooke has come in and said they would like to change this from Office Commercial to General Commercial? Mr. Grady said staff goes through a process where an initial study is done. In the initial study a checklist is completed and if staff determines there are potentially significant impacts that are unavoidable, an EIR is done to determine whether or not those impacts can be fully mitigated. An EIR is the only process that would allow you, if you can't fully mitigate an impact, to provide a Statement of Overridiing Considerations which essentially says that there are greater benefits from the project than trying to fully mitigate the impact. It is not saying that you won't mitigate it but you may not mitigate it to a point of less than significant but you can make it less than it would be if you did nothing. Mr. Goldsmith asked if the cumulative impact study only goes out 300 feet? Commissioner Brady said that they look at a wider range than 300 feet. The whole area will be studied. Mr. Goldsmith asked if Castle & Cooke went ahead with Office Commercial if there would be anything to prevent them from making an office building anyway they want? Commissioner Brady said that as long as they comply with the Kern River Element they can build it. Commissioner Kemper stated that her main concern is how the project will interact with the bike path. She would like it to be at least the quality or better than the Market Place. Part of her concern is the accessibility to the bike path. She would like to see things like gathering areas, amphitheater, open space walking, walkways, and fountains. Commissioner Kemper said that the Commission is going to have to be convinced that this is going to be equal to or better than the commercial that is allowed there now. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if the project were left Office Commercial and they wanted to develop it, would a site plan come before the Commission to look at landscaping, building location and lights, etc? Mr. Grady said they could build under the existing codes and ordinances. Ken Hammer, a resident in the neighborhood, asked if the park site could be rezoned? Ms. Shaw said the park site belongs to the city and will become a park. Ryan Oliver requested staff show them the park site on the screen. Mr. Grady complied with the request. Minutes, PC, Au~lust 3, 2000 , Page 7 Tom Goldsmith asked the Commission if the Commission could request a Precise Development Plan when the process goes forward and if so can someone explain what that means? Commissioner Brady said that one of the options the Commission as available for a zoning is a Planned Commercial Development (PCD). Under a PCD the applicant would come to the Commission with an actual map and show the Commission where the buildings are and then the Commission can define where the trees, parking and sidewalks, etc. are to go. The developer is not necessarily bound by the traditional zoning rules. There is room for creativity but also there is more control. They haveto build what is on the map. There were no other Commission comments. PUBLIC HEARING - Vesting Tentative Tract Map~ 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 5993 (Porter-Robertson) (Continued from July 6, 2000) (Ward4) Staff report given recommending approval with findings and conditions attached to reSolution along with the memorandum from the Public Works Department dated July 17, 2000. Public portion of the meeting was opened. Tom Penel had a concern about where Norris Road dead ends to Snow Road. His residence is located right at the end of Norris. There is only about 12 feet from his mother's fence line and the edge of the road. They have concerns about traffic and safety on Snow Road. He has talked to Randy Bergquist and he thinks they have now resolved the issue. Randy Bergquist, representing Porter-Robertson, stated that he had talked with Mr. Penel and stated to him that there would be lane transitions and a left turn pocket so that the westerly bound traffic on Snow Road would not be disturbed. He stated that they have reviewed the conditions and do not have a problem with them. Public portion of the meeting was closed. There were no Commissioner comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5993 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the inclusion of the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated July 17, 2000. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, August 3, 2000 Page 8 6.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 5809 UNIT D (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda (Delmarter and Deifel Engineers) 6.3) Vesting Tentative Tract 5999 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 6) Staff report given recommending approval with findings and conditions attached to resolution and incorporating a memorandum from the Fire Marshal dated August 3, 2000. Applicant is requesting approval of some modifications. One to allow non-radial and non-perpendicular lots that staff is. recommending denial of, one to allow reverse corner lots which staff is recommending approval of and an additional request to allow block length in excess of 1,000 feet which staff is recommending denial of. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Randy Bergquist, representing Porter-Robertson Engineering, addressed two items on the proposal. The first one was Planning Department condition No. 15, Mr. Steve Hartsel, an attorney representing the Panama-Buena Vista School District and the Kern High School District, commented on the mitigation measure which was routinely carried over from the general plan amendment and/or annexation in 1998. At that time the law was that this kind of'condition or mitigation measure could be imposed as a condition of approval of a planning project. Later in 1998 Proposition lA put into effect Senate Bill 50 which basically provided for a phase out of these conditions and as of January 1, 2000, conditions such as this are no longer enforceable. There was an agreement entered into by the owners of the property and Panama School District which provided for payment of more than the statutory fee but that agreement has been terminated. That was adopted by the Panama School District giving the owners of property the option of either terminating the existing agreement and living with the statutory fee or sticking with the agreement. The owner of the property has elected to terminate the agreement and the termination agreement has been entered into. Mr. Hartsel stated at this point it appears unnecessary to have this condition because it is unenforceable and deferred to city staff to what the best way to handle it is. Mr. Hernandez stated that it would be staff's recommendation the mitigation measure be eliminated from Exhibit 1. Mr. Bergquist said that the issue of block length could be mitigated by taking the cul-de-sac and turning it southerly reducing the length of the street that was an issue and the other issue had to do with radial lots. They will lose two lots by adding an additional north/south street. They will lose three more lots because the footprint that is proposed is 50 foot wide and they want to keep the lots 60 foot. If they go radial they will have pie shape lots. Even though it is a minor Minutes, PC, Au~lust 3, 2000 Parle 9 deflection, it is enough to cause them to lose three lots. A 7.5 degree deflection isn't a whole lot but they request the Commission to overrule staff's recommendation for denial of this issue. Mr. Bergquist hung a map on the wall showing a redesign of the tract. One of the exhibits showed a redesign of the knuckle and the non-radial lots and the other one shows the three lots they would lose if they go with radial on those lots. Chairman Tkac asked Ms. Shaw to address those issues. Ms. Shaw stated that she has discussed some of the changes with Coleman and Porter- Robertson. She stated that she has no objection with the block length now. Using a knuckle instead of a cul-de-sac answers Public Work's concerns about the length of the street. Ms. Shaw stated that the ordinance reads that non-perpendicular lot lines have to be provided as much as is practicable. What is shown with the perpendicular lot lines and the loss of lots that would result from that, she has no objection to the non-perpendicular lot lines as the deflection is so small. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague thanked the Fire Marshal, Mr. Shapazian, for coming up with the recommendation for secondary access. Commissioner Sprague mentioned that staff.should talk to Mr. Hartsel regarding the other contracts so that those are disbanded so the Commission does not have to deal with the issue as a standard format. Mr. Grady said that the school district gets these maps and zone change requests and roUtinely respond to staff if there is a change. If there is no change, they do not respond. The situation here was after the staff report was prepared they continued to address' this issue with the school district. So with this particular case, they came to a different resolution. Staff can send the school districts correspondence with each zone change and ask them if those conditions are still applicable and if they are not, to advise us. There were no other Commission comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract 5999, with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution and with the August 3, 2000, memorandum from the Fire Department with the following changes: With regard to finding No. 8, in the first sentence eliminate the word Denied and replace it with the word Approve; strike the last sentence of that paragraph; and also eliminate conditions 1.b and 15. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, August 3, 2000 Page 10 m PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Chanqes 7.1) Zone Change P00-0410 (Crown rosedale Associates, LLC) (Ward5) Staff report given recommending approval attached to resolution. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Dennis Seaton asked if the current zone could be reverted back if this project did not go through? Mr. Grady said it would require an application for another zone change. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked what the reason would be to go from the "greatest" industrial use which umbrellas over commercial use to come from M-3 to M-27 Mr. Grady said that M-3 does not pyramid the commercial uses through it. Commercial uses are allowed in M-1 and M-2. Commissioner Sprague asked that if changing it to an M-2 would allow any commercial use and that development would not come before the Planning Commission? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Sprague said that his concern is if that site is developed to retail and general shopping center uses, couldn't there be some problems with the neighbors to the west, the restaurant to the east and the refinery to the north if the applicant doesn't do some kind of shelter or greenbelt there? He asked if staff had these concerns. Mr. Grady said staff does not have those concerns. Commissioner Sprague asked where the Bryant Fuel Systems Refinery is located and if it could be pointed out on the map? Mr. Grady said he does not know where the site is. Commissioner Sprague said that his concern is a health, safety issue of explosive materials being adjacent to a property that could be developed commercially. Concentrations of the public attending events and have an explosion occur and deaths is a concern to him. He is especially concerned with the property to the north and west. Commissioner Kemper stated that she thinks the Commission should remain on focus and on target. They are not considering this for commercial. They are considering this for M-2 and they need to treat it as such. Commissioner Sprague said that under an M-2 they have the right to develop any general commercial they want without coming before the Planning Commission to ascertain what will happen to the adjacent neighbors. This is an overlay over any commercial activity or development that can be done there. He has concerns about that and what it will do to the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Kemper said that she understands his concern. Minutes, PC, August 3, 2000 Parle 11 Commissioner Brady asked the Fire Marshal if the Fire Department had considered Commissioner Sprague's concerns about placing the public at risk? Mr. Shapazian said that the M-3 zone is the most dangerous type of zoning and the M-2 is a lot safer and he did not understand the concern. Commissioner Brady asked if there is M-3 zoning adjacent to this project. Mr. Grady said yes there is. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Shapazian if the Fire Department had a concern about commercial businesses going in (i.e. movie theater or shopping center) next to an M-3 that could have a dangerous business? Mr. Shapazian said that anytime you put assembly occupancies adjacent to industrial, there is a concern by the Fire Department but that is not taken care of in the codes. It is mitigated through zoning and they do not have anything in place to deal with that. Commissioner Brady asked if the Fire Department would have a significant problem with a zone on this project which allowed a large gathering place fOr people when there is a significant portion of the adjacent property being M-37 Mr. Shapazian said they would certainly have a concern if there was any kind of a leak of a hazardous substance. It just depends on what it is and where it is. Commissioner Brady asked if Planning had any kind of response to the Fire Department's concern about putting a zone on this particular project which will allow general commercial next to M-3 zoning? Mr. Grady said if that is a concern the Commission has, staff could do some kind of risk assessment for the Commission and/or some kind of environmental evaluation of what is adjacent to the site. Mr. Grady said that he is not aware of the chemical facility that Commissioner Sprague is talking about. Additional environmental review would also be done during the Site Plan Review process which would look at site-specific development. This type of zoning allows C-O, C-1 and C-2 as well as all of the Light Industrial uses. Staff did not focus in on one over the other in our review of the proposed zone change. Commissioner Brady said that he is not comfortable based on what he has heard so far in supporting the zone change. If staff can give the Commission further information regarding his concerns, he is willing to support a continuance to allow time for that. Bob Drury, representing the applicant, told the Commission that he would like to give the Commission a little background about how they got here and why they are requesting the zone change. The property is currently in the county. They have started the annexation process at a request from the city and the property is currently zoned M-3 in the county which allows for the uses they are proposing under the current zoning. If the property remains in the county, they can process their application over the counter for the retail uses they are proposing. Annexing the property into the city is the right thing to do but if the property remains in the county, you can still end up with the same uses that are being proposed there adjacent to other M-3 zones. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Grady if there is anything he can mention that would give the Commission some assurances as far as a further study on this? On the surface it appears that going from an M-3 zone to an M-2 zone Minutes, PC, August 3, 2000 Page 12 would be more conforming that the present uses as zoned. Commissioner McGinnis said he does have the same concerns about a public meeting place being close to a potentially dangerous site. Mr. Grady said there isn't any additional information that he can provide him with that speak directly to his concerns. Our ordinance allows this type of zoning so, therefore, the decision to permit this is already in existence. The concern about the proximity to the M- 3 property is a concern the Fire Department would have if it was an M-1 piece of property. They are generally concerned about assembly uses in an industrial zone regardless of whether its an M-l, M-2 or M-3. This is not a new concern. There are ordinances already in place for these uses. As far as the chemical plant or facility that Commissioner Sprague is talking about, this is new information to staff and they can certainly go out and look at it and find out if that operation which is in existence as opposed to trying to predict what is going on in the future in an M-3 zone, staff could look at that operation that is in existence and see whether or not there is any critical issues with respect to potential assembly uses going into the M-2 zone. Staff can provide the Commission with that information at a future meeting. Commissioner McGinnis said he would feel more comfortable if they had that information before they made a decision on this. Commissioner Brady said that the county is the one who raised the issue about there being some kind of potential problem and asked Mr. Grady when staff could have some additional information available on this issue? Mr. Grady said that the next meeting is August 17 and staff could have something available by then. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Drury if it would be a problem to him for this item to be continued until August 177 Mr. Drury said no. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Drury if he would be willing to look at this development as a PCD in-lieu of going to an M-2 zone? Commissioner Sprague asked if the Commission zoned it M-2 if there is a provision so that a 6 foot wall would be built around it? Mr. Grady said there is no requirement to buffer this industrial from the adjoining property. Mr. Drury said that he did not want to make a commitment to a PCD plan right now. At this time he does not know what that would entail.' There were no other Commission comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to continue this item until August 17, 2000. Motion carried. 7.2) Zone Change P00-0430 (Joyce Evenson and Gloria Cory) (Ward2) See Consent Agenda Minutes, PC, Au~lust 3, 2000 Page 13 10. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 8.1) General Plan Consistency Finding for the vacation of the eastern portion of Camino Grande Drive, located north of Paladino Drive. and east of Fairfax Road, in Northeast Bakersfield. (Ward3) See Consent Agenda 8.2) General Plan Consistency Finding for the abandonment of a 5-foot public utility easement on a residential lot, located just northwest of the Panama Lane and Stine Road intersection, in Southwest Bakersfield. (Ward 6) See Consent Agenda 8.3) General Plan Consistency Finding for the abandonment of a reserved public utility easement in the vacated alley just south of 21st Street, between "K" Street and "L" Street in Downtown Bakersfield. (Ward2) See Consent Agenda COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady asked the Commission if they wanted to have a pre-meeting on August 14, 2000. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to not have a pre-meeting on that date. Motion carried. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Sprague gave a report on the committee meeting regarding fences in the front yards. The committee feels the ordinance applied the way it is today is appropriate. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Grady if any progress has been made on the joint City/County Planning Commission meeting? Staff is suppose to come up with some differences between the county and city zoning and then Commissioner Dhanens was going to write a letter requesting the Council to agree the joint meeting. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Hernandez if it was necessary to have a second on a motion? He noticed that the City Council does not use that format and wondered if the Planning Commission has to? Mr. Hernandez said that this body operates under Roberts Rules of Order and it does require a second on a motion. Minutes, PC, Au~lust 3, 2000 Pa~e 14 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary