Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/98 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held May 7, 1998, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson ROBERT ORTIZ, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MICHAEL DHANENS MARTI-MUNIS KEMPER WADE TAVORN BETSY TEETER ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV STAFF: PUBLIC STATEMENTS Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JII91 MOVIUS, Principal Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary ~r None CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 1) Agenda Item #7.1 - Extension of Time - Vesting Tentativ~ Tract 5669 2) Agenda Item #7.2 - Extension of Time - Revising Vesting Tentative Tract 5362. Item #7.2 was removed from Consent and will be addressed during the regular agenda: A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to approve Consent Agenda Item 3.1. Motion carried. Minutes, PC,5/7/98 Page 2 -4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutesof regular meetings held February 19, March 16, March 19, and April 2, 1998. Minutes of March 19, Page 7, Item 7: Commissioner Boyle requested that "fifteen peicent per year" be changed to "fifteen hundred units per year." A motion Was made by Commission Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of February 19, March 16, March 19, and APril 2, 1998. Motion carried. 5. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON '6, For the office of Chairperson, .Commissioner Brady nominated Jeffrey Tkac, Commissioner Boyle nominated Robert Ortiz. Mr. Tkac was elected by a vote of 4-3. For the office of Vice-Chairperson, Commissioner Boyle nominated Michael Dhanens, :Commissioner Kemper nominated Matthew Brady; Mr. Brady declined to accept the nomination. A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, that the nominations be closed and Commissioner Dhanens be appointed Vice-Chairperson. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A staff report was given. The public hearing portion of this item was opened; no one spoke in opposition. -Mr. Roger Mclntosh, representing Daystar Development, indicated that the applicant had received a copy of a letter from Mr. Moreland and had some discussion with him as well regarding his client's concern about the location of a sump. Mr! Mclntosh indicated that Daystar would be willing to work with the owner of the adjacent property and Public Works to either relocate the sump or have the Water pumped into the Kern Island Canal. 'He also stated that the landsCaping in the'front of the project had been deleted in error and would be reinstated as originally designed. Mr. Yehuda Natanel of Daystar Development explained certain changes that have been made to the site plan, including a larger tenant space at the north end and a slight increase in parking.. Mr. Natanel referred to a rendering that reflected how the project would appear from the freeway. Minutes, PC,'5/7/98 Page 3 Ms. Jill SaYer of Jill Sayer Galleries expressed her support of this project. Mr. Carl Moreland, Telstar Engineering, indicated his acceptance and approval of the applicant's efforts .to reconcile the sump issue to the satisfaction of both property owners. The public hearing portion of this item was closed. -.CommissiOner Boyle asked if the Venetian facade would be continued so that it would face the freeway rather than the flat concrete sides of the buildings. Mr. Natanel stated that this was correct, that the only difference would be the elimination of the covered walkway. Mr. Boyle asked if this intent was reflected in the final development plan; staff recommended the Commission make it a condition of approval Since the maps and other material submitted by the applicant reflected elevations from the public side of the building only. Commissioner Brady asked if a condition should be added regarding the restoration of the original landscaping design. Staff replied that the Commission could state it as a condition of approval if they wished. Mr. Brady asked Mr. Moreland if he felt a condition should be added to reflect his client's negotiations with Daystar; Mr. Moreland indicated he was willing to accept official documentation at a later date if necessary. Vice-Chairman Dhanens referred to the 3% increase/decrease in the gross leasable floor area, stating that the conditions of approval as written did not indicate that this item was not applicable to the overall ratio of retail and office. Staff referred Mr. Dhanens to the staff report; Mr. Dhanens replied that inclusion in' the staff report was insufficient, that this issue should be addressed in the conditions of approval as well. Staff replied that internal tables of square footage reflected this change and that a specific condition of approval would not be necessary. Commissioner Tavorn also expressed some concern about approving the proposed changes in square footage (an increase from four to seven buildings) without any material submitted by the applicant indicating what impact would result from such changes. Staff replied that while some types of footage were increased and others decreased, the overall amount of square footage remained basically the same, less than the 5% threshold established by the Traffic Department. Mr. Natanel gave a more detailed clarification of the breakdown of square footage Use in the project, including office, retail, and storage. Commissioner Brady referred to the monument signs indicated on the plan and asked if a comprehensive sign plan would be required; staff replied that it would. Minutes, PC, 5/7/98 Page Mr. Brady asked if the plan as submitted were approved would that prohibit the Commission from making adjustments. Staff replied that signs were not part of the site plan approval. Mr. Brady indicated his support for approval of the site plan as submitted. 4 CommissiOner Sprague referred to the changes in parking, and asked staff if the project had .more parking than required by code; staff replied that it had. CommissiOner Boyle asked for clarification regarding the impact of traffic patterns by the change from smaller shops to a major tenant. Staff replied that to reopen !an environmental impact, it must be shown that a substantial change has taken place which incurs an adverse impact to'the environment. Mr. Boyle indicated such was not his intent, that he only wished clarification. Mr. Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, indicated that the changes proposed would only alter internal traffic patterns; that city streets and roads would see no change. Mr. Boyle asked if square footage or the types of tenants (single as oppoSed to satellite shops) was the criteria upon which analysis of impact was based. Mr. Walker replied that location as well as size would be taken into account for purposes of analysis. Commissi°ner Dhanens asked that if the Commission were to disapprove the site plan as submitted, what criteria would be required to support their decision, such aslayout of buildings, traffic impact, etcetera. Staff replied that finding the plan in substantial Compliance is different from a substantial change resulting in adverse impact on the environment, and that the threshold for the latter is higher than that for compliance with respect to the difference in the preliminary development plan as opposed to the final. Commissioner Boyle stated that while approval was at the discretion of the Commission, he encouraged a liberal interpretation of that right, that developers should not 1%el that in order to get approval they had to get everything exactly right the first time. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt a resolutiOn making findings and determining that the proposed final development plan is in substantial compliance with the approved PCP #P98- 0133 for the Grand Canal project with the conditions set forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit C, with the addition that the developer shall provide landscaping adjacent to structures consistent with the original PCP preliminary development plan in areas depicted in yellow on Exhibit A dated March 11, 1998, and that the architecture be continued on the west side of the buildings on Units A and B.~Motion carried. ' ~ Minutes, PC, 5/7/98 Page 7.1 ' PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME -- VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5669 7,2 Approved as consent agenda' item. PUBLIC HEARING -- REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 536? A Staff repOrt was given recommending approval with conditions. The public hearing portion of this item was opened; no one spoke in opposition. The public hearing portion of this item was closed. Commissioner Boyle referred to the proposed South Beltway Freeway that could possibly go through a portion of this project. The staff reported that it did not have concerns regarding this issue because the South Beltway is in the environmental phase of investigation, and no specific plan line has been provided. Without a specific plan line, no conditions can be placed on a tract to reflect the South Beltway. CommissiOner Ortiz commented that requests for extensions of time had been requested on a substantial number of tentative tracts, and asked if all would come into existence within the same time period. Staff replied that extensions of time were within the rights of property owners, and that the Commission could very well be reviewing a considerable number of revised tentative tracts over the next year to eighteen months. A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, a second by Commissioner Ortiz, to approve a one-year extension of time for Revised Tract 5362 to expire March 31, 1999 With. findings and conditions as set forth in the resolution, attached as Exhibit A. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5895 A staff repOrt was given recommending approval with conditions. The public, hearing portion of this item was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Mr. Harold Robertson, representing the applicant, stated that they have reviewed and are in agreement with the conditions of approval including the May 5, 1998 addendum revising the wording of Conditions 2 and 9. The public hearing portion of this item was closed. Minutes, PCi, 5/7/98 Page 6 Commissioner Dhanens referred to the wording of Ms. Shaw's memo, "majority of the subdivision" related to drainage in the existing basin, and asked where the balance .of the subdivision would drain to if not to the existing basin. Ms. Shaw replied that there were two basins, and indicated the location of each on the map. A motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Kemper,, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract 5895 with the findings and conditions set forth in the Resolution marked Exhibit A, with the addition of the memorandum to the Planning Commission from Jack LaRochelle dated May 5, 1998. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE -- FILE P98-0215 - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD REQUESTS A CHANGE IN THE ZONE FROM A PCD (PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) ZONE TO PCD (PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) ZONE ON 14.52 ACRES AND A C-? (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONE ON 1.6 ACRES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY AND CALIFORNIA AVENUE Commissioner Boyle declared a conflict of interest on this item. A staff report was given recommending approval with conditions. The public hearing portion of this item was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Mr. Tom Falgatter indicated that even though the proposed zone change was at the City's :.request, as one of the persons interested in purchasing the property he wished to express concerns regarding Condition 5. He stated that he was having discussion with City staff in an attempt to quantify what Condition 5 would mean in terms of cost. In the original PCD, the property in question was combined with a much larger piece (referred to as the Smith parcel), the owner of which agreed to pay for some of the street improvements. The owner of the property in question did not agree to pay for street improvements, but went along with the PCD as an accommodation. The Smith parcel was going from CO to retail, and it seemed appropriate to the Commission to require street improvements as a condition of approval. Mr. Falgatter stated that this zone change would place the corner property back to the same zone it had before the PCD occurred, with the condition that this corner now pick up a portion of costs for street improvements. He stated that he did not think this fair on principle even though no definite dollar amount had been quoted. While he conceded that it might not be a significant amount, Mr. Falgatter wanted his concerns on record. Minutes, PC,5/7/98~ Page 7 The public hearing portion of this item was closed. Commissioner Brady asked staff if they could give a rough estimate of the costs Mr. Falgatter referred to. Staff replied that a preliminary estimate for the prorata share woUld be approximately $20,000; however, the right-of-way acquisition is a point of contention at present, which is why the prorata share is higher than Mr. Falgatter'deems appropriate. Staff replied that they would continue to work on this issue; adding that the estimated total cost for the work was $124,000. Mr. Brady stated that there was an existing building on the property, and asked if a tenant was put into said building would the condition apply. Staff replied that the way the condition was worded, if a building permit were not required the condition :would not apply. Mr. Falgatter indicated that though technically staff was correct, any tenant improvements would still require a building permit. Commissioner Brady expressed concerns regarding available parking. Mr. Falgatter Stated that while no specific project has been decided for this site, the property is a free-standing corner with some reciprocal parking rights with the adjacent property. . CommissiOner Dhanens asked staff to give a short history of the development of the intersection in question; Ms. Shaw replied that neither she nor Mr. Walker had been iinvolved With the work in question. He also referred to Condition 6 which Sta[ed that the developer may be required to obtain a right-of-way and construct right-turn storage lanes, indicating that such improvements already exist. Staff replied that the condition in question applied to proposed driveway 'locations, and depending on what ultimately goes on the site, the Traffic Division has certain criteria as to when a deceleration lane is required. Mr. Walker, Traffic Engineer, added that since no one as yet knew what would be built on the site, the condition was intended for a broad interpretation covering as many scenarios :as possible, to alert the developer that with changes of access points, there mayineed to be changes in the deceleration lanes. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Walker what the current level of service was for this intersection; Mr.' Walker replied that it was Service Level C. A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve Zone Change #P98-0215 with findings and conditions set forth in the resolution, marked Exhibit A, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 5/7/98 Pacje 10.WORKSHOP FOR NORTHEAST BIKE PATH AND WATER FACILITIES 11, 12. 13. PROJECT Mr. Gene Bogart, Manager of the Water Resources Department, and Florn Core, Director of Water Resources, conducted the workshop on behalf of the City of Bakersfield. COMMUNICATIONS Memo from_ Mr. Stanley Grady: 1) 2)' commission meetings between July 16 and August 6 will be canceled due remodeling- of the City chambers. Meetings will reconvene on August 20, 1998 if improvements are completed.. . BeCause of scheduled budget hearings, the premeetings of May 18 and June 1, will need to be canceled because the Council will have the chambers those two days. 3) May 21, 1998: Agenda to include discussion orientation for Commissioners as requested by Commissioner Kemper. COMMISSION COMMENTS CommissiOner Tavorn referred to a number of articles written about his fellow CommissiOners, and requested a discussion of the by-laws to be put on a future agenda. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF 14. THE NEXT PRE-MEETING Pre-meetings of May 18, and June 1, 1998 were canceled. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Planning DirectOr