Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/91 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE i PLANNING CObIMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, June 6, 1991, 5;30 p.m., City council Chamber, City Hall, 1501Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ° 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: KATE ROSENLIEB, Chairperson JIM MARINO, Vice Chairperson STE~E ANDERSON TERt BJORN DAVID COHN STEVE MESSNER DARREN POWERS C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Assistant Building Director STAFF: Present: STANELY GRADY, Assistant Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner ISABEL WILLIAMS, Recording Secretary 2. SPEAKER'S'CARD Ms. Carol Miranda, resident of Kern City conveyed her concern for the "growth in Bakersfield". Chairperson Rosenlieb commented that the Commission share Ms. Miranda's concerns-about future growth. 3. APPROVAL ~F THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS HELD MAY 2nd and MAY -16, 1991 Commissioner Powers noted that a new page 5 was inserted into the May 16, 1991 minutes. -Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to approve the May 2nd and amended May 16, 1991 minutes. Motion was seconded by-Commissioner Marino, and carried. Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 4. WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - TRACT 5215 (NORD & ASSOCIATES) Page 2 Tract 5215 is located northeast-of the intersection of Panama Lane and Monitor Street. Applicant proposed 10 feet of landscape width typically along Panama Lane and a proposed median island treatment from the co~ner of Monitor Street/Panama Lane extending easterly to the limit line of development. Mr. Carl Moreland with Telstar Engineering was present and amenable to the conditions listed in Exhibit A of the staff report. Motion was made by.Commissioner Marino to approve wall and landscape plans-for Tentative Tract 5215 subject to fconditions on Exhibit ,A" of the staff report. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and carried. 5. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 1-91 (CENTERCAL PROPERTIES) Commissioner Bjorn declared a conflict of interest. client of her lawfirm. The applicant is a Applicant requested continuance of this matter to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to continue this matter to the June 20, 1991 'meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Messner, and carried. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN REVIEW 50-90A (BoT.A., agent for BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL) Applicant requested continuance to the July 18th meeting. Staff report was waived. Public hearing was opened. Motion was seconded by' Commissioner Anderson to continue this hearing to the July 18, 1991 meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and carried~ Minutes, P1/C~ 6/6/91 7. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5505 (DEWALT CORPORATION) Page 3 Commissi0ner'Marino declared a financial conflict of interest employed by the applicant. He is Tedtat{~e tract is located at the southeast corner of Reina Road and Jewetta Avenue. Tentative tract contains 49 lots on 21.05 acres, zoned R-I. Public hearing was-opened. ,- Mr. Greg Owens with DeWalt Corporation was prmsent and amenable to the conditions listed in the staff report. The~e being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Frapwell to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve proposed Tentative Tract 5505 subject to the Conditions outlined in Exhibit 'iA" of the staff report. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Messner, and carried. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF $TOCKDA~E HIGHWAY AND SOUTH ALLEN ROAD (13001 STOCKDALE HIGHWAY) -- AMENDING THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A'P.C.D. (PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) ZONE TO A P.C.D.. (PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT)~ ZONE FOR ANEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF TWO, ONE-STORY STRUCTURES TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 47,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET. IN-ADDITION, APPLICANT REQUESTED CHANGES IN THE PREVIOUSLY APPLIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW A WIDER RANGE OF COMMERCIAL USES. (FILE 5176 - WHITEMAN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN) Chairp~rson-Rosenlieb referred to Option "B" Exhibit of the Staff report and identified the following issues; Condition 4, hours of oper- ation.in Building "A"; and Condition 5, uses allowed in Building "A". She then referKed to page 3 of Option "B" Exhibit and indicated that items "G", "N" and "T" needed to be reviewed. public hearing was opened. Mr. Gary RobertSon spoke in opposition to the commercial development~. Mr. Duane Keith~ey rePresented the applicant and commented they ~prefer OptiOn B with the Conditional Use Permit process being in place for the .... project as well as extension of the'hours of operation. Mr.'Arian Anderso~ commented that he obtained signatures from the resi- dents endorsing Option A. . ~ Chairperson Rosenlieb clarified for Mr. AnderSon the difference between OptiOns A.and ~B noting that the real issue is restaurants. Minutes, P1/C, 6/6~91 o Page 4 FILE~5176 - WHITMAN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (continued) Commissioner Cohn-asked Mr. Anderson if the hours of operation was discusSed with ~the residents. Mr. Anderson replied that the residents did'not want the hours extended. ~ There being no others Xi~hing to speak, public hearing was closed. Commissioner Powers felt that a donut shop would be a good use for the commercial center. When asked by Commissioner Messner what the residents primary objecti-on to restaurants was, Mr. Anderson replied that it was fear from things Such as hours of 'operation, traffic. Commissioner Messner commented that one of the ways of reducing pollution and traffic is by promoting neighborhood commercial uses. He' indicated he ~supports neighborhood commercial uses. Commissioner Ma~ino commented he was concerned with the hours of deliv- ery and Supported leaving the restaurant issue into a Conditional Use ~Permit situation so that.when it is known.what it is, .how big it is, where it is going to go, when all.of the questions are answered, then it goes to a separate public hearing, and supported Commissioner Powers comment regarding a donut shop in the center. Commissioner Powers indicated his concern when promoting neighborhood~ commercial centers, there wilt be some convenience type uses that would require operating.hours that are longer than 9 p.m. such as a video store. He supported the limitation of hours of delivery and felt that a compromise could be reached as far as hours of operation. Commissioner Cohn commented that when this project first came before the Commission in 1986, the property was originally zoned multi-family and based onlthe amount of opposition from the neighbors at the time, the Commission denied the general plan amendment and the applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council who because of Istrong neighborhood opposition allowed the general plan amendment but placed the restrictions on the shopping center. He also commented that he would not want a shopping center behind his house, and would be willing to drive or walk so that he would not have to live behind one. Two of the neighbors have publicly stated that they don't choose to have a resfaurant in that center and they are willing to go to some other area to use a restaurant. This Commission is trying to help the center become somewhat more viable financially, and ~did not feel that it was good planning to allow the center to be there in the first place, but the original developer chose to make that appeal to the City Council. He did not feel that it was reasonable to allow the CUP process to work and the neighbors still have the option of appear- ihg before the Board of Zoning.Adjustment if the developer chooses to put a restaurant in that particular project which would cause them to have to come-in each time there is a CUP for a restaurant. Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 Page 5 8. FILE 5176 - WHITMAN· ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (continued) Commissioner Messner commented that the neighborhood has indicated there is room for flexibility. He also commented that he would not support any increase in the hours of operation beyond 9 p.m., and would support restricting the hours of delivery, and restated his support for Option .B. Chairperson Rosenlieb commented that this is not good planning. It was a political decision that was made a number of years ago, and didn't seem to have anything to do with planning. If a commercial shopping center, is allowed into an area you have to allow a chance to make it. You can't say yes you can have a commercial shopping center but you can't have all the uses that all the shopping centers in town have, but yet that is what has happened here. She further commented that an apology is due the neighborhood because they were led to belief that this is what would come to pass but she wanted to try and honor the city's commitments and there was indeed a commitment made to this neighborhood. She also commented that this shopping center is condi- tioned so badly ~that it could not survive economically and that the neighborhood would have a blighted, empty center behind it, therefore she wanted to allow as much flexibility as possible without putting the neighborhood into a situation wheKe they have to come down to the Board of Zoning Adjustment on a regular basis. She was in agreement with restriction of the hours of operation but allow them to have the opp- ortuni:t.y to at least go before the Board of Zoning Adjustment and ask for restaurant use-. Motion was made-by commissioner Marino to make the findings set forth in the staff report dated May 16, 1991. Approve the Negative Declaration and zone change request from P.C.D. to P:C.D. subject to the conditions listed in Option-"B" Exhibit and recommend same to the City Council with' the following changes: Condition 4 changed to read; Hours of operation in Building "A" (main building) shall be from 6 a.m. to midnight, seven days per week. Deliveries behind Building "A" shall be from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. only.; Condition 13 add the following: Prior to additional certificates of occupancy being issued.' Under-Uses Permitted, insert donut shops without a Conditional Use Permit. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner to make findings set forth in the staff report dated May '16, 1991. Approve the Negative Declaration and zone change r.equest from P.C.D. to P.C.D. subject to the conditions listed in Option "B" Exhibit and recommend same to the City Council with the following changes: Condition 4 shall read; Hours of operation in Building "A" (main building) shall be from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., seven days per week. 'Deliveries behind Building "A" shall be restricted from the hours of 7 a.m. 'to 6 p.m.; Condition 13 add to read, "and as a precedence to additional applications for certificate of occuPancy." Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson, and carried by the fol- lowing roll call-vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Messner, R0senlieb NOES: Commissioners Cqhn, Powers, Frapwell Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 8. FILE 5i76 - WHITMAN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (continued) Page 6 When the roll was called, Commissioner Bjorn commented she was advised by the City Attorney that she would have to abstained because she was not present for the testimony at the May 16th meeting. Commissioner Anderson indicated he was also absent at the meeting of May 16th, and asked if it is the opinion of the City Attorney that he should abstain. City Attorney Marino indicated that because Commissioner Anderson was also~ absent at the May 16th meeting, he would be unable to vote. Commissioner Anderson withdrew his second to the motion. Commission reopened for discussion. Commissioner Marino deferred to the No votes, and asked what their con-- cerns were with the motion. Commissioner Powers indicated be.had no problem with Commissioner Marino's motion except for the hours of operation in which there should be a little bit more flexibilit-y on the 12 a.m. issue. Chairperson Rosenlieb asked Mr. Keithley if they could live With a closing rime'of 10 p.m. Mr. Keithley replied they could live with 11 p.m., further commenting they have tenants that are interested in the shopping center that have hours that extend to 11 p.m., one of them being a video tenant, and they are normally opened on Friday, Saturday and Sunday night till 11 p.m. He further stated that when the shopping center was conditioned, an 8-foot wall was put up in the rear to help eliminate sound as well as a 22-foot high building that is going to eliminate sound. They also mitigated the negative impacts with regard to lighting, and did not know of any other negative impacts that would effect the neighborhood if they were to stay open until 11 p.m. Commissioner Frapwell commented that he di~ not realize he was going to be able to vote or speak because he is the alternate and therefore abstained during the discussion period. He strongly opposed a res- taurant use because he lived close-to one and knows what the problems are and agreed with the residents. He further commented that regard- less of the type of· restaurant, the discharge of all odors is into the air and it will drift over the 8-foot fence. Because it was restricted under the original acceptance by the City Council and the applicant accePted those rest'fictions, he would go along with maybe some change of hours and with some opportunities to come back to the Board of Zoning Adjustment for some other uses and controlled restrictions, but did not want to give them any opportunity to come back and request a restaurant. Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 Page 7 8. FILE 5176 - WHITMAN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (continued Commissioner Powers commented that in looking at the way the center is laid out, it can safely be assumed that there is going to be some kind of restaurant use in Building "B" with out the same type of concerns that would be there with a restaurant use in Building "A". He further commented that given the size of the cent'er, and the amount of parking in the center, there will probably only be one restaurant in the center in addition to what would be allowed in Building "B", and should sup- port a motion similar to what Commissioner Marino made with a change in hours to 11 p.m. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino to make the findings set forth in the staff report dated May 16, 1991. Approve the Negative Declaration and zone change request from P.C.D. to P.C.D. subject to the conditions listed in Option "B" Exhibit and recommend same to the City Council with the following changes: Condition 4, shall read; Hours of operation in Building "A" shall be from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days per week. Deliveries behind Building "A" shall be from 7 a.m. tO 6 p.m. only. Add the following to end of Condition 13; Prior to addi- tional certificates of occupancy being issued. Under permitted uses, donut shops should be added. ~Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers,.and failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Powers NOES: Commissioners Cohn, Messner, Rosenlieb, Frapwell Chairperson Rosenlieb asked for staff's opinion, Assistant Planning Director Grady replied that if it is appealed it goes to Council. A denial stops here at the Planning Commission. CommCssioner Marino commented that a denial takes an action, and there is no action taken so far. Mr. Grady replied that even though there was no affirmative vote to deny the project, by your vote you did not approve the project, and that decision is appealable to the City Council, therefore you can go onto the next agenda iteml Chairperson Rosenlieb informed the residents that the applicant has the right to appeal'this to the City Council, and if they do so, this will be in the city Council's hands. Commissioner Marino commented clearly for the record after the first moti0n~ failed, the project was denied. Chairperson Rosenlieb commented that the first motion did not count because it was seconded by a Commissioner who was told he had to abstain CommissiOner Cohn c0mmented.that if Commissioner Anderson's vote was _excluded, it was three to three which means the applicant's request· was denied.:- Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 8. FILE 5176 - WHITMAN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (continued) Page 8 Attorney Marino commented that the failure of the Planning Commission to take any action at this meeting is what the action is. It doesn't matter what motion it was that failed, it was the Commission's failure to take action that's appealable. She informed Commission, they have a second action to take on the final development plans for the P.C.D. Commissioner Anderson asked Attorney Marino which motions should he abstain from. Attorney Marino replied that. both actions require public hearing, and not being present at the first portion of the public hearing would mean that you should not be voting, however Commissioner's Anderson and Bjorn should be called on, and vote abstention. Attorney Marino commented that Commissioner Anderson raised the ques- tion to her concerning the action by_those who are abstaining from par- ticipating because they were not present at the original public hearing. _It was her ~consensus that those who are abstaining are not disqualified from acting under conflict of interest ruleS, they are here and ~resent but are not participating because due process requires that they hear all the testimony before they take any action. Their abstention could be considered a vote and that brings into question whether Commissioner Frapwell participates. This problem was not addressed in the rules concerning the alternate Commissioner. Chairperson Rosenlieb asked for Commission's pleasure as to voting or not voting on the final development plans for the P.C.-D. It was Commissioner Powers desire to continue this hearing to the next meeting so that cla~rification could be made by the City Attorney's office on what the proper'procedure should be. Commissioner Cohn commented that this whole project'has been basically thrown in the Commission's laps because of a political decision that was made by the City Council to allow some form of commercial development. It was his feeling .to let the City Council take up this issue, and let the parties go in front of the City Council and let the~ decide. They are the ones that have'created this problem. This Commission did not vote to have that General Plan Amendment approved. What the Commission did was to Say, no, that should remain, multi- family~ He did not feel there was any personal obligation to come up with any consensus. Attorney Marino informed Commission that if they choose to continue this hearing, those Commissioner's that were not present at the meeting of May 16th can listen to those tapes of the hearing, 'and can partici- pate at the'next hearing. Chairperson Rosenlieb concurred with Commissioner Cohn's comments in that hours and hours have been spent on this, it has been'deliberated and Was 'not in a frame of mind to continue it. Minutes, Pi~C, 6/6/91 Page 9 8. FILE 5176 - WHITMAN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (continued) Cdmmissioner Messner recognized Mr. Keithley. Mr. Keithley commented that the restaurant issue was resolved with one maybe two exceptions, and the second motion failed to pass because of the time issue. He indicated that in discussing the issue with his client, he was willing to live with 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and willing to live with the CUP process for the restaurants. Commissioner Marino questioned the tie-vote indicating there is a 3-3 tie on record with 3 out of 8 Commissioner's either abstaining or una- ble to vote. Chairperson Rosenlieb commented that she did not hear a definitive answer on that. Attorney Marino replied she did not give a definitive answer. That was not-addressed in the rules concerning the alternate Commissioner, and was unable to answer. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to make findings set forth in the staff report dated May 16, 1991 and approve the Negative Declarati.on and zone change request from P.C.D. to P.C.D. subject to the conditions listed in Option "B" Exhibit, and recommend same to the City Council with the following changes; Option "B" Exhibit, Condition 4 shall be changed to read, Hours of operation in Building "A" (main building) shall be from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days per week. Deliveries behind Building "A" shall be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.; add the following to Condition 13 to read, prior to additional certificates of occupancy being issued. Under permitted uses, add donut shops without Conditional Use~Permit. Commissioner Marino seconded the motion', and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Marino,'Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb Commissioner Cohn ABSTAIN: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to approve the Final Development Plans for PCD 5176 subject to the Conditions in Option "B" Exhibit. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Marino, and carried by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb NOES: Commissioner Cohn ABSTAIN: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn Minutes, 'P1/C, 6/6/91 .Page 10 A 5-MINUTE BREAK WAS TAKEN. Commissioner Cohn made comment regarding File 5156, He did not believe that a proper motion nor a proper vote was made since neither Commissioners Bjorn or Anderson took any affirmative action one way or the other, and because of that he felt that Commissioner Frapwell had a right to vote on that issue. Attorney Marino informed the Commission that they. may take an action to reconsider the motion. There was a procedural problem in that the names of Commissioners Anderson and Bjorn were not called and they should have been called in order to allow them to abstain. She further commented that Commissioner Frapwell can participate'only where the rules say that he can, and she did not ~believe that the rules address that. Commission did make a motion to take further action"on this matter. The residents were informed that they could file a written appeal on this matter. 9o INITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ZONE UPON ANNEXATION TO A-20A (AGRICULTURE-20 ACRE MINIMUM), M-2 (GENERAL MANUFACTURING) AND C-1 (LIMITED COMMERCIAL), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONES OF SAID PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF KERN LOCATED SOUTH OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY TO PANAMA LANE AND WEST OF THE CITY LIMITS KNOWN AS BUENA VISTA NO. 5 ANNEXATION CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ANNEX 3769 +/- ACRES (5.896 SQ. MI.) OF THOSE CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF KERN LOCATED SOUTH OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY TO PANAMA LANE AND WEST OF THE CITY LIMITS KNOWN AS BUENA VISTA NO. 5 ANNEXATION Commissioner Anderson declared a financial conflict of interest. His' firm is providing services for an adjacent landowner. Proposed annexation consists of approximately 3,769 +/- acres. Zoning Upon Annexation from county zoning of A (Exclusive Agriculture), M-2 PD (Medium Industrial-Precise Development Combining District) to city A-20A (Agricultureq20 acKes), C-1 (Limited Commercial) and M-2 (General Manufacturing), or-more restrictive zones.. Public hearing was opened, ~. Mr. Dennis Fox sp~ke in'opposition indicating there are impacts that should be dealt with and should be dealt with on a policy matter. Mr. Ken Whitney resident on Buena Vista Road commented that this is an agricultural community and was not in favor of annexing prime agricultural land to the city for development. There'being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was ~iosed. Minutes, PI~C, 6/6/91 page 11 BUENA VISTA NO ~ 5 ZONING UPON ANNEXATION AND ANNEXATION (continued) Chairperson Rosenlieb addressed Mr. Whitney's concerns indicating that this is a rapidly growing urban area, and as'We continue to grow into our ag lands, and open lands and all lands on the fring~ of the exist- ing urban area, a lot of people come forward and say they don't want this is their back yard, they don't want any more growth, they don't want any more pollution, they don't want any more traffic, they don't want any more. She further commented that the leaders in BakerSfield and Kern County seem~ to be very pro-growth. This push came after the fall of the oil industry and so many jobs were lost. As a Commission, they work to try to control the growth that is happening. Motion-was. made by Commissioner Messner to adopt resolution making findings as set fOrth in the staff report approving the Negative DeclaratiOn and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was sec- Onded by Commissioner Powers, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOES None Motion was made bY Commissioner Messner to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving Zoning Upon Annexation No. 5150 consisting of a change of zone from the County des- ignation of A (Agriculture), M-2-PD (Medium Industrial-Precise Development Combining District) and M-3PD (Heavy Industrial-Precise Development Combining District) to the city designation of A-20A (Agriculture-20 acre minimum), C-1 (Limited Commercial) and M-2 (General Manufacturing), or more restrictive zones with conditions listed in Exhibit "A" and mitigation as listed in Exhibit "B" and.rec- ommend same to. the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioner Messner to.adopt a resolution with required findings as set forth in the staff report approving the pro- posed Buena Vista No. 5 Annexation and recommend same to the City CounciL. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: commissioners Marino, Bjorn, Cobh, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOES: None Minutes,i P1/C,-6/6/9t Page 12 10. INITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ZONE UPON ANNEXATION TO E (ESTATE).AND RS-2-1/2 (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN 2-1/2 ACRE MINIMUM), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONES; OF SAID PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF KERN LOCATED SOUTH OF PALM AVENUE, NORTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD, EAST OF JEWETTA AVENUE KNOWN AS BRIMHALL NO. 2 ANNEXATION INITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ANNEX 30 +/- ACRES OF THOSE CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF KERN LOCATED SOUTH OF PALM AVENUE, NORTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD, EAST OF JEWETTA AVENUE KNOWN AS BRIMHALL NO. .2 ANNEXATION Project site is located east of Jewetta Avenue, 1,400 feet north of Brimhall Road. This is an~annexation and a zoning upon annexation request on 30 +/- acres. It is the applicants intent to rezone the site residential with an 18,000 square feet minimum per parcel, consistent with the 2010 plan. Staff indicated that _considerable opposition was received on this matter. Two petitions in opposition were received by the Planning Department. Public hearing was opened. Mr. 'Jim Gerber resident on Brimhall Road spoke in opposition to the , size of the proposed lots and the restriction of horses on the adjoin- ing lots. Ms. Janene Flad, resident on Palm Avenue spoke in opposition to annexa- tion because the~ area has a lot of animals and people who move into the area most likely would not like to live next to animals. Mr. Jim Brown, resident in the area spoke in opposition citing the pro- posed project would cause more'traffic congestion, and also objected to any walls that will be built. Ms~ Irene Mc Namara resident on Palm Avenue spoke in opposition because the project would cause more traffic. Also, with the animals In the surrounding area, the new residents would most likely not like the animals, crowding of schools, and a wall that will take away the open space feeling. Mr. Steve Ratty resident on Birchhaven Avenue stated his concern with increased traffic and density. Assistant Public Works Director, Mr. Kloepper informed the residents that a project is budgeted for Brimhall and Coffee Roads, however at this time is it .being delayed while right-of-way on the northwest cor- ner is being acquired so that the installation can be of a permanent nature, Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 Page 13 -10 BRIMHALL NO. 2 ZONING UPON ANNEXATION AND ANNEXATION (continued) Ms. Sharon B~own resident on Birchhaven Avenue spoke in opposition indicating, that both the city and county have to be careful to maintain Bakersfield as the country/city that it is.. It has an individuality about it .that cannot be lost. There is a quality of living out here that cannot be lost. Mr. Charles Thomas stated his concern with the lot sizes of the pro- posed p~oject. Ms. Irene McNamara spoke in opposition to not having animals. She referred to Map No. 5334 which shows 27 lots within the 10 acres and asked if it were obsolete. Mr-. Carl Moreland"with Telstar Engineering addressed Ms. McNamara's question indicating that the bottom portion of the map is 10'acres and the-top portion is 20 acres. There is an approved tentative map of 17, 18.000 square foot lots on the lower portion which is in the county and it was thought that it would be best to have this put into the city to be maintained by city services. Ms. McNamara requested an EIR be done on this project. Ms. Ruby Humphrey owner of property on Palm indicated this proposed project is gqing to be in'her back yard and opposes the annexation, she would like to keep it country. She was also concerned with the traffic problem. Mr. Carl Moreland spoke in favor of the annexation. 'Mr. Wayne Vaughn~ Jr. with Carriage Homes commented they do not want to put anything out there that is going to be a degriment to the area. The design of the subdivision was changed from smaller lots to larger lots to meet the concerns of the people. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Commissioner Powers comment'ed that public concern is not a determining factor in requiring an EIR. A negative declaration in this case in adequate. He further commented that what the applicant is proposing will be compatible' with the neighborhood. Commissioner Marino asked if the residents had any restrictions regard- ing their animals. Mr. Grady replied there are no restrictions on the project site nor have they put any on the existing properties to move their animals a certain distance from these properties. -Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 Page 14 10. BRIMHALL NO. 2 ZONING UPON ANNEXATION AND ANNEXATION (continued) Commissioner reviewed the mitigating measures for t~he residents. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and recommend same to the City council. ~Motion was sec- onded by Commissioner Powers, and carried by the lfollowing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb NOES: None Motion was made by Commissioners Messner to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approy.ing Zoning Upon Annexation No~ 5157 consisting of a change of zone from County zoning of E(10)RS (Est-ate-lO acre Residential Suburban), E(5)RS (Estate-5 acre Residential Suburban) and E (1/2)RS (Estate-i/2 acre Residential Suburban) to the City designation of RS-2.5A (Residential Suburban-2.5 acres minimum)-and E (Estate), or more restrictive zones with condi- ~tions as listed in Exhibit "A", and mitigation as listed in Exhibit "B", and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commi§si0ners Marino, Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb NOES: None Motion was made'by Commissioner Messner to adopt a resolution with required findings as set forth in the staff report approving the pro- posed Brimhall No. 2 Annexation and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and carried by the follow- .lng roll call vot~e: ~ AYESf Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Bjorn/ Cohn, Messner, Powers~ Rosenlieb · NOES: None 1i. INITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND CHAPTER 17.52 (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE OF TITLE 7 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE Staff requested continuation of the hearing on this matter to the regu- larly scheduled'meeting of June 20, 1991. Staff report was waived. Public hearing was opened. Motion Was made by Commissioner Anderson to continue this hearing to the June 20, 1991 meeting. Motion was seconded by CommiSsioner Powers., and carried' Minutes, P1/C,'6/6/9i Page 15 12. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MODIFYING THE TEXT OF THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE (C-O), LIMITED COMMERCIAL (C-i)., CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-3) AND CIVIC CENTER (C-C) ZONE DISTRICTS AND ELIMINATION OF CHAPTER 17.25 (C-3, CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONE) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BAKERSIELD MUNICIPAL CODE Principal Planner, Jim Eggert gave a brief staff report. Public hearing was opened. There being no one present wishing to speak either in favor or opposition, public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to adopt the Negative Declaration indicating that the project will have not have a signifi- cant effect upon the environment, and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino,- Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb NOES:- None Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to adopt the findings contained in the staff report and approve the project as proposed modifying Chapters 17.20. 17.22, 17.24 and 17.26 and eliminating Chapter 17.25 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, Messner, Powers~ Rosenlieb NOES: None 13. VERBAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Grady called Commission's attention to the staff's response to communication received from Garone Farms and Valley Community's letter regarding the Habitat Conservation Plan. 14. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Marino commented that he would like to see the alternate be able to vote whenever a Commissioner is prohibited from voting not by choice but because they missed a meeting or have a conflict, andif it is not covered in the rules it should be changed. Attorney Marino replied that the Planning Commission procedures needs to be amended so that tbis situation will be addressed~ Commissioner Messner commented that the scheduled Parks Committee meet- ing of Rune llth will need to be rescheduled because of conflict with Commissioner Cohn's calendar. Minutes, P1/C, 6/6/91 Page 16 15. ADJOURNMENT -. 'There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Isabel Williams Recording Secretary ~ A~relary Assistant Planning Director