Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/91 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING~ '-- OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held ThursdaY, F. ebru~ry 7~ 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 STEVE ANDERSON OSCAR ANTHONY TERI BJORN DAVID COHN DARREN POWERS C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director STAFF: Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JENNIE ENG, Park Planner ISABEL WILLIAMS, Recording Secretary Mr. Bill McDivitt submitted a speakers card and was asked by Chairperson Rosenlieb to come forward and state his request. Mr. McDivitt with AdArt Sign Company stated he was representing Texaco -who owns property in the White Lane and Gosford Shopping Center. He'voiced his concern that the ordinance that allows a 48 square foot sign and Texaco has a standard monument sign that is approximately 54 square foot2 Mr. ~Hardisty informed Mr..McDivitt that the item before the Commission is a requested revision for an already .adopted Comprehensive Sign Plan and the item that has been requested is that menu boards and-direc- tional signs be addressed in the comprehensive sign'plan. If he is interested in changing the size of the monument signs then he would have to file an application to amend the comprehensive sign plan, notice all the tenants and it could be considered after that. Mr. Ladd also submitted a speakers card, and was informed that the item he wished to speak on was a public hearing and he should speak at that time. MinUtes; P1-/C, 2/7/91 3. -APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 6, 1990 MEETING Page 2 Commissioner Marino referring to page 10, item 11, noted that Commissioner Marino voted "no" instead of Commissioner Powers. Chairperson Rosenlieb referring to the bottom 'of page 12, last para- graph noted the motion was seconded by Commissioner Marino. Motion was made~byc0mmissioner Powers to approve the December 6, 1990 minutes as amended. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Cohn, and carried. BECAUSE OF~THE A NUMBER OF REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA REGARDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN LINE AND THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SEGMENT IV, MR. HARDISTY ASKED COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA. Chairperson R6senlieb stated that she also had a number of people request that it be changed, and also a number'of people ask'that it not be changed it Was on the.agenda appearing so late, they intended on showing up a'little later in the meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino to move Agenda Item 12 forward 'to appear before six and .after five. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anthony, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marnio, Anderson, Anthony, Bjorn, Cohn, P_owers NOES: Chairperson Rosenlieb WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS - SIMPSON-VANCUREN, INC./RALPH ADAME, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Subject property is generaIly located on the east side of Fairfax Road approximately 1/4 mile~north of College Avenue. To meet the conditions of Tentative Tract 5288, the developer proposes to construct a masonry wall along the double frontage lots on the east side of Fairfax. Applicant was not present, therefore a motion was made by Commissioner Marino to continue this item to be heard after the freeway issue and before item 6. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anthony, and carried. 5. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 12-90 REVISED (BAKERSFIELD NEON SIGN COMPANY) Commissioner Powers declared a conflict of interest. He has an owner- ship interest in_ property directly to the north of subject property. -This item was'continued from the January 24th meeting. Applicant requested'consideration of a revision to al-comprehensive sign ~plan for~ a retail shopping center to add provisions which will allow monument, reader board and directional signs. ' · _:- 'Mindtes, P1/C, .2/7/91 ._ 5'. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN-PLAN 12-90 REVISED (BAKERSFIELD NEON SIGN COMPANY) Page 3' (continued from the' 1/24/91 meeting) The project is located on the northeast corner of White Lane and Gosford Road' - Mr.--Bill Thdrst-on.with. Pacific Summit Development represented the developers of.the shopping center. At the Sign Committee meeting held January 29th, the applicant agreed to revise the wording regarding reader type signs as follows: A maxi- mum. of one sign for each satellite pad for the purpose of indicating prices, merchandise, and/or services offered shall be permitted. Said sign may be' a-monument sign or reader board. The sign shall not exceed 32 Square feet in ~rea and a maximum of 7 feet in height ~in the discre- tion of the planning staff taking into consideration the factors set forth in the staff report. Such signs shall be located-., positioned or screened to minimize visual impact on the street frontage. The back side of' such sign shall be lef~ blank and shall be colored and/or textured in such a manner that' it blends into the surrounding background. .The size, color, texture, location, positioning and screening of:sUch sign-must-be approved by the Planning Director prior to i'ssuance of sign permit. Building Director Bidwell commented that in the committee meeting, the height of-six feet was discussed and was recommended in the report. However, if the signs were such that they were visible-from the street itself, then staff could-increase them to seven foot in height, and in'sert the following verbiage'on page 2 of the staff report after 6 feet in height. '"The sign height may be increased to 7 feet when in the opfnion-of the Planning staff, such signs are located where there is.mihimaI, if any, visual impact from the street". Commissioner Anderson commented that the applicant did-agree to several mitigating meas.ures,-bne of which is lowering the sign, the other was potentially, screening the sign with landscaping. Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn finding Comprehensive Sign Plan 12-90 revised .providCs-signage that is consistent with Section 17.60.010 of the Municipal Code and to approve said comprehensive sign plan subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with the following_ addition to the wording on page 2 of the staff report, "Sign ~height may be-i~creased to 7 feet when in the opinion of Planning Staff, such sign is located where ~here is minimal or no impact from ~he street." Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anthony, and carried. Minutes,.~P1/C, 2/7/~1 Page 4 6.' 'PUBLIC HEARING '-'KERN R~VER FREEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN LINE AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES -' C6mmissioner Powers declared a conflict of interest He represents Property'owners who own ~property in the path of~the proposed freeway. This is a joint planning project between the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern for' adoption of a Specific Plan Line for a 210-foot-wide alignment for the Kern River Freeway and (City only) adoption of implementing ordinances. The Specific Plan Line under consideration begins at a point east of Mohawk Street, north of the Kern River. The alignment travels westerly, paralleling the'Kern River, to Renfro Road, where it contin- ues southwest, t~hrough a reverse curve, to a point south of Stockdale Highway. The proposed Specific Plan Line then continues west to a point 1/2 mile west of Enos Lane. It is ultimately planned that the alignment will continue west to Interstate 5. -Public hearinglwas opened. Mr. Norm Kuche represented Max Oil Incorporated operator and successor. ~to Superior Oil of-the West Belvue Oilfield which is impacted by the proposed alignment stated he was not in opposition to the proposed alignment because of the excellent job staff did in mitigating the loss of oil production and oil facilities. He asked if an easement for pro- duction oil-lines, gas-and water disposal lines been taken into consid- eration so their properties are not separated from operations. Mr. Kloepper replied that those kind of details should be considered and would propose that there would be a provision for crossing the freeway-alignment with those kind of operating facilities. ~r. Scott ~Ladd represented Tenneco West as not in opposition but requested-an interchange at-the extension of Nord Road and an overcrossing at a point a mile west. Mr. Dave LeClaire, 308 Ensenada spoke in opposition t.o the proposed freeway alignment because of the endangered species that make their home in the Gooselake Slough as well as the effect upon existing housing. He proposed that the alignment head south of the river and south of Stockdal'e Highway at Buena Vista Road which would tie-in with two other planned freeways which could continue on to serve traffic to Taft. Mr. Kloepper replied that the freeway is intended to serve as a regional transportation corridor and anticipated that it will be con- structed by Cal Trans as a regional freeway and would become the Highway 58 corridor replacing the 'current Highway 58 corridor. Mr' LeClaire.expressed opposition indicating that this plan doe~s not identif~ any.~traffic hazards south of StOckdale Highway,. east of ~G0sford-and-west -of-Stine Road. Mr..Brad Lafleur~resident_on Appaloosa Street spoke in opposition to the r~ou~ting of the ~fre.~way~. ~ Minutes., P1/C, 2/7/91 Page 5 6. PUBLIC HEARING - KERN RIVER FREEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN LINE AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES (continued) Mr. Kerby Brewer~with U.S. Homes indicated they do not oppose the over- all plan but-the'impact would affect some 40 future homeowner's, and asked that'-the city look at pulling the plan back closer to the canal and away from the homes that will be constructed there. Mr.~.Arthur Unger~, Conservation Chair for the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club spoke in opposition to the freeway because it would cause more air pollution. Mr, Virgil Lee spoke in opposition to the freeway alignment. Ms. Cleo Hugie, 13404 San Simeon spoke in opposition indicating the freeway would be in her back yard. Mr.-Gerard Franey resident on Appaloosa Street spoke in opposition and suggested am alternate alignment. Mr. Rich o'Neal spoke on behalf of the Kern River Committee and asked that the~freeway not'be constructed on primary and secondary floodplain and sufficient buffer be placed between the secondary floodplain and the freeway, also that floodway-replacement be established when and if it does cross the river in a mitigation ratio of 3 to 1, also a visual mitigation and a noise~mitigation, and that mitigations be adopted to allow walking, .jogging, bicycling and equestrian access under or over the freeway alignment. Mr. Kevin Moore SPoke in opposition indicating that he did not see a need for a freeway. Ms. Barbara/Don Carlos represented the Building Industry Association of Kern County indicating they are supportive of the adoption of specific lines for freeways, and requested that Commission direct staff to make some appropriate amendments to the 2010 General Plan particularly the Circulation Element in which those policies and implementation measures do indicate a requirement for dedication rather than a reservation of land. She addressed the implementing ordinance that refers to a two year limitation reservation and also referred to Section 17.55.030 construction restrictions. Mr. Hardisty informed Ms. Don Carlos that the policy she referred to is subject to hearing on March 21 in which a recommendation will be made to reflec~ the Ordinance recommended tonight. Ms. Marino referred to 17.55.030A, page 2 of the Ordinance giving the following language, "except as otherwise allowed by this Chapter and Chapter 16.41," indicating that should take care of Ms. Don Carlos's concerns. Ms. Connie Bainbridge resident on Appaloosa spoke in opposition to the ortion of the~ freeway that would run between Appaloosa Street and the tockdale Ranchos because it would cause noise and~pol, lution. 6. ~ PUBLIC HEARING---KERN RIVER FREEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN LINE AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES (contin~@d)' Mr.-Dennis Fox felt that Seventh 'Standard Road would be a better place for the'freeway as it would facilitate commercial traffic around the core of Bakersfield and alleviate 'smog in the core area. Mr~ Barry· Goldner spoke in opposition indicating the alignment as it is proposed-impacts negatively on his personal situation as far as his house being in proximity to the alignment. Mr. Harry starkey ~spoke on behalf of the Kern County Water Agency and the Cross Valley Canal participants were supportive of the proposed alignment, however they would like to have input as to the height of the crossing over the Cross Valley Canal so they would be able to maintain access of heavy equipment used in repair and maintenance of the canal. Mr. R0ge~ McIntosh of Martin-McIntosh Engineering stated he was not in opposition to the specific plan alignment but on behalf of Castle and Cooke 'Development asked CommissiOn to take a look at the~Calloway -interchange, they feel there is an alternative to the alignment and asked that the Commission approve the specific plan line for the Westside FreewaY only and come back at .a later date and approve a spe- cific plan line for that interchange.. On behalf of Mr. Ruben Bartell, he asked that a sharper curve as the freeway travels just west of _·Coffee Road be considered. There are some physical constraints in ·there Ms~. Barbara Murphy-resident Of Stockdale Ranchos spoke in opposition. Mr. Tom Fast, Rosedale resident asked if Seventh Standard Road was one 'of the three choices-looked at. Mr. Ted James replied no, but there was an extensive Kern Council of Governments study that was done on various alignments on this area but none to the norlh because most of the growth is occurring in the south- ern portion of the area. Mr. Dave Merritt, 340 Renfro Road spoke in opposition. Ms. Rebecca Ullman with Castle and Cooke Development Corporation spoke in favor of th'e proposed freeway and would look forward to working with staff ~to find a resolution to'the excessive land requirements of the intersection of Qallowa-y and the Westside Freeway. Mr. Mark Press, Rosedale resident spoke in opposition. Mr.-Lawt6n .Powe~s spoke in favor of the specific plan line. ~Ms. Wendy St-evens spoke in 0ppositidn. Mr-.·-Mike MasOn spoke 'in favor. .~ Mr. Ron Garness did not feel the freeway was needed. Minutes,-p1/c, ~2/7/91 _6. Page 7 PUBLIC ~HEARING A KERN RIVER FREEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN LINE~ AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES (continued) 'Ms~ Elaine Hart; Rosedale resident was concerned with the freeway pro- posed to run'through the Goose Lake Slough area. She asked that consideration be given for the freeway to run south of th~ river-where it cr~sses ~Jewetta. MS. Maria Campero resident in the Stockdale Ranchos spoke in opposition. Mr. Dennis Palla stated he did not understand why a government contin- ues to encroach upon people that have resided in a area where they will be impacted upon, and felt there are viable alternatives south of the river and to the south of Stockdale Highway. Mr. Dan Dawson, Rosedale resident spoke in opposition, and suggested that 'the freeway ~be run between Seventh Standard Road and Rosedale Highway. Mr-~ Ruben Bartell spoke infavor. Mr. Bill Bartle~ Rosedale resident spoke in opposition. Mr. Wayne-Vaughn~ Jr.,. spoke in favor of the freeway. _There being no'others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Commissioner MarinO asked about the difficulty.of making minor modifi- ~cations-to the specific plan line if adopted. Mr. Kloepper replied that the request was made by Castle and Cooke Development for ramp configuration for Calloway at a later date, and it can be done at a later date and be considered with the adoption of the Calloway Road Specific Plan line. Commissioner Ma'rino-asked if the ramps could be remoPed at a later date. Mr. Hardisty replied that the ramps could be removed at a later date if the area were found to be superfluous and reverted to the adjacent property owners. If in the same design process they found that they had 'to move one Way or the other they would have to negotiate for the purchase of a right-of-way. '_Commissioner'Marino recognized Mr. McIntosh indicating they are cur- rently working~on tentative tracts directly east of Calloway, and would like the o.ppor~t~nit~to work with staff and come up with a more spe- .cific al-ignment.. -Minutes, PI/C'; 2/7/91 Page 8 6.PUBLIC HEARING ' KERN RIVER FREEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN LINE AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES (continued) Commissioner Marino commented that Seventh Standard Road was considered. The proposed alignment is in the center of population ~which is the most vulnerable. Commissioner Bjorn stated that her major concern is alternative alignments] She was particularly interested in the segment between Caltoway on the east side and Nord on the west in terms of an alignment that would go southerly of Stockdale Highway and swinging north in the vicinity of Buena VistatRoad. Mr. Kloepper replied that the Kern COG study of the Westside Corridor ~which was completed~in June of 1988. In the study, the ~onsultant con- sidered six different alignments, one alignment was the southern align- ment which would have-run south of Stockdale almost to the river and then crossed up and went to the north. The alignment being proposed tonight is the recommended alignment with one exception where the free- way actually started south right at Allen Road and go'through the mid-- dle of a t-ract of homes. Commissioner Anthony' commented that this is a great plan, and it needs to be supported. Chairperson Rosenlieb commented that a freeway has been needed in this area, and the City. is faced with tremendous groWth. By turning our backs'on it will not stop it, and by not having a freeway will not stop it. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino to certify the Environmental Impact Report, adopt Section 15091 Findings and Section 15093 Statement of Overriding COnsiderations; adopt Specific Plan Line as recommended by staff, and adopt the implementing ordinance with'the addition of Section 17-.~55.030A which shall begin, "Except as otherwise allowed by this C~aPter and Chapter 16.41", and with the change to the Specific Plan Alignment with the removal of the off-ramps at Calloway Drive. Motion was~ seconded by Commissioner Anthony, and carried by the follow- ing roll-call vote: AyEs: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Anthony, Bjorn, Cohn, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Powers A 25-MINUTE .RECESS WAS TAKEN. Minutes., P1/C, 2/7/91.. Page 9 ~7.WALL'& LANDSCAPE PLANS~ FOR TRACT 5288 - SIMPSON-VANCUREN, INC./RALPH ADAME, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Applicant was not present, therefore a motion was made by Commissioner Powers to continue this matter to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Motion'-was seconded by Commissioner Anderson, and carried. Commissioner Cohn voted no. PUBLICIHEARING - CHANGE OF CONDITION - TENTATIVE TRACT 5186 (CUESTA ENGINEERING) Tedtative tract is generally located on the east side of Buena ~Vista Road, approximately 3/4 mile south of White Lane, and contains 251 lots on 61.53 acres, zoned R~i-. Public. hearing-was-opened. M~urice Etchechury-with Cuesta Engineering represented R. L. Barnett. He referred 'to Page 2, 1st Paragraph and commented that this original tract was-approved for 270 lots of which 269 were buildable. In the original design the Parks Department asked that 8 lots be reserved for a park site. In looking at the configuration of the subdivision, the developer felt there were probably 7 additional lots that may be unbuildable due to size, frontage, configuration. He also indicated that in this subdivision, no lots are less than 55 feet wide except the cul-de-sac frontages, no cul-de-sac frontages are less than 35 feet wide. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Etchechury about the criteria used for determining house size ratio for lot size. -Mr. Etchechury replied that the ordinance indicates that no more than 45 percent of the hot'can be covered. Commissioner Anderson asked about fire retardent materials to be used on roofs when'the homes are close together. Building Director BidWell commented that building codes allow eaves to -come within. 2 foot of the property on either side so there would be a 4 foot separation that-would still satisfy the building code. Commissioner Marino asked Mr. Etchechury if he would object to an additional condition being placed on the map requiring 35 foot front~ ages on cul-de-sacs. Mr. Etchechury was amenable. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Anthony to make all findings set forth and to approve the modification to allow for the reduction in minimum lot width from 60 feet to 55 feet wide for Tentative Tract 5186 provided that.no lot frontages including cul-de-sac lots would be less than 35 fe~t at the property line. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson.,' and carried. - Minutes,_PI~C,~ 2/7-/91 -' Page 10 PUBLIC HEARIN~ ' TENTATIVE ~RACT 5341 (TELSTAR'ENGiNEERiNG, INC.) Tentattve~.tract'is located generally south of University Avenue and east of~ La Costa 'Street and Contains 82 lots on 23.9 acres, zoned R-1 and wa~ approve~onIJuly 19, 1990-. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Carl MoreIand ~ith Telstar Engineering was present and proposed an alternative drainage plan for the tract. Mr. Kloepper preferred that the Commission adopt Public Works condition -prepared by Public Works' which basically gives the applicant the option of' ~aking out the c~oss drain, putting in inlet boxes and extending the drain _line appCoximate~y 250 feet and connecting into the existing storm drain. It was Commissioner Marino's feelings that Mr. Moreland should be responsible for th~iroads that were improved within his subdivision and .'accept the water f~om there. 'Mr. Kloepper informed' Commission that Public Works would like to reserve the right to review and approve the cost estimate if they should-adopt Mr. Moreland's proposal. Chairperson Rosenlieb was in concurrence with Commissioner. Marino but -.it appears that Mrl Moreland is being asked to bear 100 percent of the burden not because he is creating 100 percent of the burden but because the~Cit'y of Bakersfield doesn't~ have the money to fix the.problem, and could~not-support Public Works request. The~e being no others wCshing to speak, public hearing was closed. Commissioner Powers-.feit that a proportionate share iS.adequate and asked Mr. Ktoeppe~ for some research as far as the shar~e of the area that was developed.by the appliqant. Mr 'Bidwell commented that the City is under no obligation to accept the ru~-off from his property, and if he does not, then he has to construct~ a sump ~or .some way contain it on his property. Mr. Moreland Commented that he could work with the Public Works Dep~rtment_ as to his share of the cost. Motion was made. by Commissioner Marino to make the findings and approve the c~ange Of Public Wor~s Condition 1.A as follows: 1.A. Drainage - In lieu of retaining storm water from this tract on-site, the subdivider s~all be required to pay his proportionate share of the cost to r&move the cross gutter at La Costa Street and Auburn Street and extend the. storm drain in A~burn Street from Loch Fern to the east side "of' La Costa Street~, a'distance of approximately 300 feet. Chairperso~ R0'senlieb. .asked i~-the proportionate share would be ~based ~on this .project to 'the tOtal area or what Mr. Moreland has ~ benefited in other developed property. Minutes P1/C,~ 2/7/91 Page 11 9 ~PUBLIC-HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5341 (TELSTAR ENGINEERING, INC.) (continued) Commissioner Marine altered his motion to include;. "the developer pay t6 the City 27 percent-of the cost of the work required by the city". Commissioner Bjorn was concerned that neither the percentage share nor the total cost had been determined. Commissioner Marine clarified that the 27 percent was the proportionate sh'are of the trfct-map Obligation and not the extended area. Commissioner Marine w~thdrew his motion. Motion~was made by Commissioner Bjorn to continue this hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting for the developer and Mr. Kloepper to Work. on the percentage. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and ~carried. 10. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9548 (LUQUE AND ASSOCIATES) Tentative parcel map iS~16cated on the northwest corner of Pitts Avenue and Masterson Street, fnd contains 2 lots on 4.99 acres, zoned RS (2 1/2 ac) (Resident~ial Suburban - 2 1/2 acre minimum lot). Appiicant also requested a modification to allow reduction of lot size from2.5 acres to 2~49 acres. Public hearing was opened. Mr.~Alex Luque-was present and amenable to the conditions listed in the staf~f re~ort. There being no others w~shing to speak, public hearing was closed. Mo~ion was made'by Commissioner Anderson to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in 'the staff report and to approve proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9548, subject to the c~nditions outli~ed in the attached Exhibit "A" and approve the request for modification to allow a-reduction in minimum lot size and incorporate the-memoranda from Public Works Department dated February Motion was ~sec- 4, 1991, and-Fire .Department dated February 6; 1991 ended by Commissioner Powers, and carried. Minutes, .P1/~,'.2/7/9! Page 12- 1t. POBLIC HEARING -"TENTATIVE~-PARCEL MAP 9569 (ALTA ENGINEERING-HUGHES SURVEYING) Tentat£ve Parcel-map is lOcated generally west of Chester Avenue, east -of "H" Street, and north of 27th Street, and contains 5 parcels on 2.26 acres, zoned C-2~ Applicant requested a commercial subdivision for condominium purposes of an existing four story office structure and parking garage. The applicant also requested to subdivide under optional design standards which allows for deviation from the typical subdivision design. Public hearing was.opened. Mr. Bob Richwood represented Alta/Hughes and San Joaquin Hospital. When asked if he was in agreement with the conditions listed in the staff report, he referred to Planning Department Conditions, Page 5 of 5, Condition 5, and clarified that it should read, Parcels 1, 2 and 4. Mr. Hardisty replied that Mr. Richwood was correct. Mr. Hardisty also requested_that Condition 3 be deleted. Mr. Richwood requested that Public Works Condition VII be deleted because all of the construction is completed. Mr. Kloepper commented that the Public Works Department recognized that this is a change from what Mr. Richwood had on the previous approval, however the alleys on the south side of 28th Street do not have standard handicap facilities, and it is Public Works understanding that when matters like this come in for some kind of approval that is the time to bring those facilities up to current standards. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to make all findings set forth in the staff report and to approve proposed Tentative Parcel Map sub- ject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" of the staff report with the following changes, Planning Department Condition 5, page 5 of 5, to read, Parcels 1, 2 and 4, delete Planning Department Condition 3. 12. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5389 (CUESTA ENGINEERING) Tentative tract is located on the southeast corner of Akers Road and Berkshire Road alignments, and contains 177 10ts on 39.4 acres, zoned R-1. Applicant requested a modification to allow a reduction in minimum lot widths from 60 feet to 55 feet. -Minutes, P1/C, 2/7/91 Page 13 12. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5389 (CUESTA ENGINEERING) (continued) Public heating was opened. Mr. Maurice Etchechury with Cuesta Engineering represented the appli- cant and asked if a letter from the adjacent land owner would be suffi- cient to waive the 50-foot setback. Mr. Hardisty replied no. Mr Etcbechury commented that it was his understandi'ng that the lots on the perimeter of the subdivision could not be built on as long as there was an A zone adjacent to them. Mr. ~Hardisty. repli~d there is a possibility .that a modification might be granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment on the setback. Mr. Etchechury referred to Conditions page 5 of 10, Condition 4 and asked about an acoustical study with'respect to the height of a block .wall~ that would mit'igate the noise from two collectors. Mr. Bidwell replied there was a proposal some time back that addressed typical conditions and there were some standards that were set forth that may or may not address'this situation. He stated that it is the responsibility of the engineer to present that material and justify that it does or does not satisfy the requirements. Mr. Hardisty commented that it is available for his review and use. It was designed for situations such as this. Mr. Etchechury referred to Public Works Condition la, drainage and stated this tract was initially designed and redesigned based on com- ments from the ultimate builder of the homes in the subdivision. It was his understanding that Public Works was asking the engineer to move the drainage-sump for this subdivision to the southeast corner so that it may better serve a larger area and indicated that if that were done it would reconstitute a redesign of the subdivision, and asked for clarification of the condition. Mr. Kloepper replied that it would appear that a sump located in the southeast corner of the tract would easily be expandable to serve another 40 acres to the east which would thereby minimize the number of sumps that the city would have to maintain in perpetuity. A general discussion took place regarding the removal of the sump and a possible redesign of the subdivision. -There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Minutes', P1/C~'.2/7/91 . Page 14 12. PUBLIC- HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5389 (CUESTA ENGINEERING) (continued) Commissioner Marino commented that he would like to increase the prop~ erty iine distance at the cul-de-sac to 35 feet if Commission agrees to 'the_modification." - " Mr. Et'chechury did-not agree with Commissioner Marino's request indi- cating~they would like to maintain the integrity of those cul-de-sacs therefore'lthe connecting street could.vary as long as the proper param- eters were met for intersection distance. Commissioner Marino agreed. Commissioner ~Powers commented that he would also like to see the cul- de-sac- lot~ frontage be 35 feet Mr. Etchechury c0mm&n~ted that if the tract were approved as designed, the 35-foot stipulat-~on would be appropriate on the cul-de-sacs. commisSioner Anderson did not feel that the 35-foot frontage for the cul-de-sacs addressed theconcern expressed, by Staff that the best location for the sump would be in the southeast corner of the tract, a~d. would not support ~ motion that didn't include the reconfiguration - ~r relocation of the sump.. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino to adopt the Negative Declaration,~'to~make all findings set forth and to approve proposed Tentative-Tract 5389 subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit A of the'-staff report, and as modified' by the February 4, 1991 Public Works Department memorandum. Motion was seconded by commissioner Powers, and ~arri~d. Motion was made by Commissione~ Marino to make all findings set forth and~aPprove modification tO-allow a reduction in minimum lot width from 60 feet to 55-feet provided that no lot including cul-de-sac lots may be less 35 feet in frontage at the property line. MOtion was seconded by Commissioner Powers,~ and carried. .-'.Minutes, P1/C, 2/7/91 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARING - .TENTATIVE TRACT 5417 (MARTIN-McINTOSH ENGINEERING) Commissioner AndersOn declared a financial conflict'of interest. firm is providing ~services to the applicant. His Tentative tract.is located on.the north side of Brimhall Road approxi- mately 1/4 mile east of Jewetta Avenue, and contains 21 lo~s on 7.66 acres. Planning Commission previously recommended approval to the City Council for R-l.zone with 10,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Roger McIntosh with M~rtin-McIntosh Engineering represented the applicant, A.M.D. Partners addressed Condition C, Page 3, Traffic referring to an aerial photo of subject area showing traffic flow and asked that a "T" intersection be allowed and extend Margaret Court over to the R-S area to allow for the street to become somewhat of a local collector, and would like Condition C deleted. Mr. K1Oepper made comment regarding the worm in and worm out indicating that in studying the conditions, this will be a future restriction upon the traffic of the tract at such time as-the rest of Brimhall builds ~out and would probably 'agree with Mr. McIntosh that the ultimate devel- opment of Brimhall may be some time away and perhaps it should be a collector which would take a general plan amendment. On the other hand it is an arterial alignment to be consistent with past actions, the Public Works Department'has recommended the worms be there not to~al~low a full access intersection, if it is in fact an arterial and will be carrying arterial type. traffic, they aren't appropriate except at cer- tain spots. At' such time as the street is developed in-the future there wi~ll be ample opportunity for persons coming out to make U turns and worms to the south, and recommend that Commission leave the condi- tion as is. Chairperson agreed withIMr. Kloepper and was opposed to down-grading this status from an arterial to a collector, and supported and congratuiated staff's recommendation for that "T" intersection. Mr. McIntosh asked that Miscellaneous Condition 6 be deleted since the de~eloper is hoping that the full median oPening is approved. He then addressed Planning Department Condition 6, page 8 of 8 indicating they anticipated'~a secondary access there when the lot line adjustment was done and a 'covenant has been recorded for a secondary access through that property which is now owned by a church. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Chairperson Rosenlieb asked about a wall and landscape plan for this t'ract and-commented that it is a grave mistake not to require wall and l~and'scape~ on this tract', and asked Mr. Mclntosh if h~s client, would be wil'lin, g itO provide a .wall and'landscape design for t~is 'tract. Minutes,~IP1/-C, ~-2/7~91 Page 16 13.' PUBLIC HEARING -.TENTATIVE TRACT 5417 (MARTIN-MclNTOSH ENGINEERING)~ (cont-inued) Mr. McInt~sh replied they would be happy to provide Commission with a wall and landscape design. · Chairperson Rosenlieb commented that she would be willing to do what is necessary 'to-allow a Slightly~less than 10,000 square foot lot if the applicant Offers the wall and landscape. Mr. HardistY commented that staff did not recommend wall and landscaping, but considering that Brimhall Road probably would carry a large amount of traffic~, he would rather that the lot be left at the lO,0Qp Square foot and take. at least a 7 1/2 foot edge on the landscap- ing and the wall which would place the wall closer to the sou~rce of noise that would be generated from the arterial. Mr' McInt0sh commented they could reduce the lot widths along DePetro Drive to accommodate that Chairperson Rosenlieb c0mmented there seems to be a need for some sort of clarification that a double frontage lot to some staff members means if the front of ~the-lot and the back of the lot are both fronting on streets and some staff members believe double frontage lot also ~includes if it fronts on the front and on the side that still consti- tutes double frontage, and asked for comment from staff, and indicated she is willing to send the larger issue on that to a committee for study. Mr. Hardisty replied that he could have a workshop with staff and review the definition of the ordinance for consistency. In discussion, it was determined that a modification' to the lot size could not be approved at this time because of the requirement for notification causing this hearing to be continued to. the first meeting in March. Mr. McIntosh suggested that because of the "T" intersection requirement, he did hot feel there would be enough room in Lots 16 through 20, and may have to go less than 6,000 square feet on those, and if possible .approve the tract with a landscape strip requirement and if they do become less than 10,000 then end up with 7 1/2 feet of landscaping versus 10 feet but the~lots with 10,000 square feet can have 10 feet of landscaping which is acceptable, and there would be no need for a modification to lot size. Chairperson Rosenlieb referred to conditions from another project and~ indicated those conditions could be used with a few minor changes, and read them~into the record; -Min'ht-es, P1-/C,-'2~7/91 ~ ~' 13-- TENTATIVE' TRACT 5417~ (MARTiN-McINTOSH ENGINEERING) (continued) Page ' 1~7 ~-'-'The 'sgbdi'vider~shall construct a six foot high masonry wall-along Brimhai1 Road'. The wall height shall be measured from the side of highest grade. -.There shall'be a minimum 7.5 foot wide landscaped area (measured from back of Sidewalk to the back of the wall) on Brimhall Road. ~ Subdivider shall submit conceptual plans for the land- scaping and ~alls, which shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to recordation of the final map'. 4 That any final map within this area is included in a maintenance district and will be responsible for assessments~ The subdivi~'er shall either install all landscaping and automatic irrigation systems prior to recordation 'of any finallmap or enter into a separate agreement with the'City and post approved security to guarantee their installation. 6. Prior to recordation of any final map, subdivider shall submit detailed irrigation, landscape, and wall constructioh plans for review by the City Parks Division Tad approved by the City Engineer. Selection of irrigation and plant materials shall be determined in consultation with the City Parks Division. I 8. At least 48 hours prior to installation of the irrigation sYstem and landscaping, the subdivider shall notify the City Engineer-and City Parks Superintendent. The subdivider shall maintain all irrigation and "landscaping for a period of not less than six (6) ~months after recei9ing written acceptance by the City ~arks Department. The water and electricity will be paid by the sub- divider until the end of'the six (6) month maintenance period and final written acceptance by the City. Aftec' th'e six.(6) months and the final written acceptance, by the City, the subdivider will be respohsible for sending a letter to the utility com- panies transferring the meters to the City of .Bakersf'ield. A copy of the letter shall'be sen~ to the c~ty.Engi.neer~and Parks Divisionf Minutes, P1/C, ~2/7/91 Page 18 13.PUBLIC- HEARING. - TENTATIVE TRACT 5417 (MARTINLMcINTOSH ENGINEERING) (continued) _ "Mr. MCInt0sh was amenable Mr. Hardisty indicated_that the following condition also ne~ds to be added; Subdivider shall provide written verification~that the North Bakersfield Park and Recreation District requirements for ~park land have been met to' the district's satisfaction subject to the Subdivision -Map Act.~ Mr. McIntosh Was a~enable. Commissioner Ma~ino-questioned Planning Department Condition 6, page 8 s£nce t~hey no longer own the property. Mr. Har. disty-replied~the condition could be deleted.. Motion was made by Commissione~ Powers to approve and adopt Negative Declaration to make the findings set forth in the staff report and to approve proposed Tentative Tract 5417 subject to the conditions out- -lined in Exhibit A of the staff report with the following changes; Page 8 of 8, Planning Department delete Condition 6 with the insertion of the following language; Master wall and landscape plan.shall be approved prior to the-rec.ording of the final map. If the 10-foot set- back creates lots less than 10,000 square feet, the setback may be reduced-to allow for the~10,000 square foot lots. Commissioner Bjorn commented that a minimum of 7 1/2 feet should be set. Commissioner Powers proceeded with .his motion; A master wall and land- scape plan shall'be approved prior to recording of the final map with the addition of the conditions read by Chairperson Rosenlieb. Motion was amen'ded by Commissioner Bjorn to add the condition that Parks will be provided in accordance with the North Bakersfield Park and Recreation District standards and the subdivider shall provide written verification that North Bakersfield Park and .Recreation District requirements have been met to the satisfaction of that district. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Frapwell, and carried. Minutes, P1/C, 2/7/91 - Page 19 14. 13001 STOCKDALE HIGHWAY (SOUTH OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY, WEST OF SOUTH ALLEN ROAD) -- AMENDING THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A PCD (PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) ZONE TO A PCD (~P~NED__COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) ZONE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF THREE, ONE-STORY STRUCTURES TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 47,552 GROSS SQUARE FEET. (FILE 5112 -'MILAZZO & ~SSOCIATES) The purpose of this zone change is to restart the 18 month clock for filing~a final development plan. The original 18 month period ends in May 1991. PuBlic hearing was opened. Mr. David Milazzo of Milazzo and Associates represented the applicant, and indicated that since they had to file a new PCD application they redrafted the project to conform to the various conditions that were established for the fist approval. They also have included the provii sions of the new parking ordinance. ~There.~being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Motion was made-by Commissioner Powers to make all findings and approve 'the Negative Declaration and zone change request from PCD to PCD as requested, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" of the staff report, and recommend same to the City Council. Motfon was seconded by Commissioner Anthony, and carried by the~ following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Anthony, Bjorn, Cobh, Powers, Rosenlieb NoEs: None ABSENT: None Minutes, ~P1/C, Page 20 157 THOSE CERTAIN ~PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY 'END OF CORRIENTES STREET -- AMENDING THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN R-i (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE TO AN R-3 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE. (FILE 5111 - BRUCE KEITH) The hearing was continued from the-January 24, 1991 meeting so that the applicant could meet with the Subdivision Committee and work out a more detailed plan. Public hearing was opened.. Mr. Bruce Keith represented Heritage Bible Church and indicated he was in concurrence with the conditions. Mr. Max Steinert with Heritage Bible Church stated they do not want to put a culade-sac in. He felt they could work out some kind of traffic control in that area. He further stated that it would place a finan- Cial hardship on their future plans in the area, but indicated they would abide by the conditions. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Anthony to make findings set forth in the staf~f report, and approve the zone change as proposed and adver- tised and recommend adoption of same by the City Council with the fol- lowing~conditions: . 1. ~Vehicular access for the proposed development shall not' be'allowed from Corrientes Street, other than for emergency purposes. 2. A permit from Kern County Public Works shall be obtained for a cul-de-sac at the end of Corrientes Street'prior to obtaining a building permit. Cul-de-sac design and emergency service access shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer and Fire Department. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Marino, and carried by the follow- ing rolls.call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Anthony, Bjorn, Cohn, Powers, Rosenlieb NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, Pi/C,-2/7/91 16 PROPERTY~ .LOCATED AT 2660 OSWELL STREET -- AMENDING THE ZONING Page 21 BOUNDARIES FROM A P.C.D. (PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELO?ENT) ZONE TO A REVISED P.C.D.~(PLANED~:COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) IN ORDER TO CHANGE A CONDITION ~OF -APPROVAL WHICH LIMITED THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO OSWELL STREET FOR AN EXISTING 31,000 +/- SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER. (FILE 5123 - MARVIN STEINERT) Commissioner Bjorn declared a conflict of interest, the applicant is a client of her lawfi~m. Applicant wishes to-revise a condition of approval for the existing PCD whidh states; "primary access to and from Oswell Street is not desirable. The ~developer should obtain access rights to the East Hills Mail private access road. The access on Oswell Street shall be limited to one d~ive located at the south end of the lot frontage with develop- ment access via_the malL rOad." and allow a direct access drive approach from Oswel-1 Street into the site for ingress/egress. Public hearing, was opened. Mr. Max Steinert _read the following into the record: originally~Mail View Road was aligned immediately north of and nearly adjacent to the promenade property with reasonable access to the property from Mall View Road. An off-set intersection sometimes called a "worm" intersection was planned with Oswel~ Sgreet the Oswell-shopping center which is'East Hills Vi.llage entrance using left turn only median openings, and Oswell Street driveway under this plan was not desirable. East Hills Mall ~epresentatives were successful with assistance from the East Hills promenade owner in realigning Mall View Road to the north for a common and open intersection with the Oswell shopping center. This necessitated a signal which was assessed one half or $60,000 to East Hills promenade property. It was nec- essary to acquire and construct an access road through adjacent property to-gain access to Mall View Road: Mr. Steinert adder that the access road was fully paid for by East Hills Promenade and he is still waiting after one year to get the easement signed .by the property owner next to them who refuses to do that. He continued his formal pr. esentation. Under operating conditions, access to and from East Hills Promenade proves difficult due to congestions of Mall View Road. East bound traffic either by stacking at Oswell intersection or lack of adequate openings at the East Hills Promenade access point causes vehicle delays and loss of a lane for west bound traffic. Conditions will Certainly worsen when the Wells Fargo Bank opens. Minutes,-P1/C, 2/7/91 16 .PROPERTY LOCATED AT' 2660. OSWELL STREET -- AMENDING THE ZONING Page 22 -BOUNDARIES FROM ~A~ P.C.D. ~(PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPENT) ZONE TO A REVISED P.C.D; (PLANED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT)-IN~ORDER TO.CHANGE A CONDITION OF At~PROVAL WHICHILIMITED THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO OSWELL ~STREET FOR AN EXISTING 31,000 +/- SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER. ~(FILE-5123 - MARVIN STEINERT) (continued) Recognize the circulation problem created' by the conditions of the original zone ~change. City staff entertain the concept of a request fo~ driveway access to Oswell-Street provided a traffic study~could show such driveway .would not be Significantl% detri- mental to the signal and intersection operation at Oswell~Street and Mail'View Road. Such a study was commissioned and said study in fact showed no significant detrimental effect atlthe intersection. Such a driveway is common-and prevalent in the Bakersfield area.. The s~udy further recommended the elimination of two parking 'spaces on the north side of the aisle to-accommo- date the immediate refuge of a vehicle entering.the property from Oswell thus fUrther reducing potential delay on Oswell. City staff concurred with the traffic study as submitted, however they asked for supplementary traffic analysis and suggested a driveway design which wo~ld utilize the new driveway as an entrance only to the property.with existing driveway to the south as an exit only. Th'e in'tent was to_preclude existing traffic from blocking the .entrance. Th~ city plan caused elimination of eight parking spaces. A supplementary traffic report was commfssioned providing and analyzing t.he requested information. The supplementary report 'recQgnized and~concurred with the intent of the city's driveway ~ ic0nfiguration and further described inherit problems with such a scheme. An alternate to the city's plan was suggested Which elim- inated three parking spaces and resolve the problems~ Such condi- tions were incIuded in the original zone change, it was necessary for consideration ~of the driveway to file and pay fees of $1,200 for a zone modification. The staff report for the zone change ihcluded Public Works recommendation for the city's driveway scheme. The report additionally recommended that as a result of. the driveway, "the site be subject to existing parking requirements" This means the city would limit building area based on 200 square fee~ per space which was a standard when the zone modification was mad~e. This would have the effect of reduc- ing~the pros 10,000 square foot building area to approximately 4,400 square'feet. Another driveway alternate is proposed to fur- ther~meet the city's concern.. This plan controls access on either side of the~-aisle for a distance of 50 feet from the curb face of 'Oswell Street. .This would comfortably provide refuge for two vehicles entering the property from Oswell with a loss of four parking spaces. The regional space required for the proposed development was 126 although 13% were provided. A loss of four spaces to 133 would still be more than the original requirement. This plan also eliminates the connecting drive along the east side of ~he building. Since the southerly driveway would then be utilv ized for garbage and a fire-lane, the effective result would be one-'driveway to the. property from Oswell Street. Minutes, P1/C, 2/7f91 16 PROPERTY LOCATED AT- 2660 OSWELL STREET -- AMENDING THE ZONING Page 23 BOUNDARIES FROM A P.C.D. (PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPENT) ZONE TO A REVISED P.C.D. _(PLANED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) IN ORDER TO CHANGE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL WHICH LIMITED THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO OSWELL STREET FOR MN EXISTING 31,000 +/- SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER. (FILE 5123 - MARVIN STEINERT) (continued) Mr. Stienert asked Commission that the Promenade be allowed-access onto Oswell Street using the plan submitted and also the requirements to change.the parking from 250 square feet per space to 200 be waived. Mr. Ron Ruettgers, Civil Engineer who prepared the traffic study reviewed the report There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. CommissioJer Merino asked for the City Traffic Engineer's, opinion on -the traff'ic study, made by Mr. Ruettgers. Mr. Walker (City Traffic Engineer) replied that his proposal is similar to the City's suggested alternative and agreed that the elimination of the connecting_ aisle between the service road and the main parking area w6uld be appropriate, and could basically go along with their modified proposal~ they.have submitted. Commissioner Marino felt that this is a no-lose-lose situation. He further stated that the most dangerous situation in the entire site is exiting oswell Street from the existing drive approach, and if approved in any form he Would-insist on closing off the exit. He also ques- tioned the curb median and agreed with Mr. Walker's analysis but no matter what is done, it is not going to be a total solution. Commisgi'oner Cohn commented that as far as traffic is concerned, this is the most poorly designed commercial area in Bakersfield, and he was not sure what to-dO about it. He then proposed that the city hire an outside traffic consultant and find out what solutions an outside con- sultant would come up wi.th. Commissioner Powers suggested sending this to committee for further .review. Mr. Kloepper commented that studying the intersection again is not going to do much as far as alleviating the problems that already exist there _which may get worst as additional buildout occurs lin the East Hills Mall. 'He' did not feel that a further study would accomplish anything. Commissioner Anderson commented that he did not see how in good con- science this could be approved with a cut in the driveway and felt it needed additional study. Chairpersoh Rosenlieb was in concurrence and could not support any of the recommendations made by staff nor the applicant. Commissioner Marino suggested sending this to the Subdivision Committee -f'or'further review.- Minutes, P1/C, 2/7/91 16. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2660 OSWEL£ STREET -- AMENDING THE-ZONING Page~24 BOUNDARIES FROM~A'P.C.D. (PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPENT) ZONE TO A REVISED P.C.D.~ (PLANED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) !N ORDER .TO CHANGE A ~' CONDI%.ION OF APPROVAL WHICH LIMITED THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO OSWELL STREET FOR AN.EXISTING 31,00'0 +/- SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER. (FILE' 5123 - MARVIN STEtNERT) (continued) Commissioner Coh~ indicated that he would try to get traffic refocused ~back onto Bernard Street and off of Oswell. CoMmissioner M~rino commented _that the committee ~should look at a few a~lternatives and get some site plans and in the long run take a look at the East Hills Mall and the entire traffic situation. Motion was made-by Commissioner Anderson to send this to the Subdivision C6mmittee and asked that part of their consideration would be that the overa-ll traffic of the center be looked at and come back with a specifiC recommendation as to whether a further traffic study of the.area .should be made, and bring this back at the February 21st meeting. Motion.was seconded by Commissioner Cohn,' ahd carried. 17 ZONING-UPON ANNEXATION AND ANNEXATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO R~i (ONE~ FAMILY DWELLING), R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING), C-1 (LIMITED COMMERCIAL),~ A (AGRICULTURE), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE, TO A-20A (AGRICULTURE - 20 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE; OF SAID PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF KERN LOCATED SOUTH OF THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAL, EAS~ OF WIBLE ROAD AND WEST OF FREEWAY.~ 99 KNOWN AS WIBLE NO. 9 ANNEXATION Chairperson Ros~nlieb waived the reading of the staff report, and -opened-the publ%c hearing. Motion was made-by Commissioner Marino to continue this hearing to the March 7t~ meet-ing an'd directed~staff to readvertise only regarding the small A=Zone Property at the southeast corner of Berkshire and Wible - Roa~ to Residential zoning to be consistent with surrounding property. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Powers and carried. Minutes, P1/C, 2/7/9t. 18. JTM~COMPANY ~REQUEsTED AMENDMENT TO THE' LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE Page 25 '' METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD' 2010 GENERAL PLAN' CHANGING THE .LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM-R-lA-(RESOURCE-INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE, MINIMUM 20 ACRE PARCEL SIZE) TO LR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 7.26 DWELLING UNITS]pER NET.ACRE) ON 51.5 +/- ACRES FROM R-IA TO HR (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, GREATER THAN 17.42 AND LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 72.6 DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE) ON 14.5 +/- ACRES FOR THAT AREA GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RENFRO ROAD AND JOHNSON ROAD; ZONING UPONANNEXATION FROM COUNTY A (EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURE, 20 GROSS ACRES MINIMUM 'LOT SIZE)ZONING DISTRICT TO CITY R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING MINIMUM LOT AREA 67000 SQUARE FEET) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT ON 51.5-+/- ACRES; FROM COUNTY A ~TO CITY C-1 (LIMITED COMMERCIAL) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT on 14.5 +/- ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ~ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF RENFRO ROAD; INITIATED ACTION BY-THE PLANNING' COMMISSION TO ANNEX 100-ACRES OF THOSE CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY OF KERN LOCATED GENERALLY ON-THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JOHNSON ROAD AND REFRO ROAD AND KNOWN AS RENFRO NO. 2 ANNEXATION;~ ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC FACILITY CONSISTENT WITH rTHE GENERAL PLAN:' (JTM COMPANY - GPA 4-90 SEGMENT IV - ZONE CHANGE 5093 & RENFRO NO. 2 ANNEXATION) Commissioner~ Powers declared a conflict of interest as he represents property owners of property within the annexation. Subject' property is' located at the southwest corner of Renfro Road and Johnson Road. The proj~q~involves many issues including: the freeway alignment and acquisition, lot size differences between those in the existing resi-' dentiat area north of Johnson Road and those proposed, school impacts', and propbsing commercial designations in a fashion which is inconsis- · tent_with the general plan policy. 'Public hearing was opened. Mr. Dave Merritt, 340 Renfro Road spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Dave Oreolt, 1921 Moon Ranch addressed comments made by staff at the~January 24, 1991-meefing., Ms. Wendy 'Stevens, 1901' Kathryn Ct., referenced the Negative Declaration and the initial study and asked about an archaeological study. - In response, Chairperson Rosenlieb indicated that the survey will be done and a report will be submitted to the California. Archaeological 'Inventory atICal State Bakersfield for review. Mr. Barr~ Goldner commented that a number of significant environmental issues have been raised and considerable public' opposition, and is ~if- ficult .to underst'and the reluctance by the Commission to require 'that the developer prepare an' EI.R. -Mr..-John'Sarad of_JTM Company spoke in favor of his project. MinUtes, P1/C,.2/7/91 18 JTM coMpaNY - GPA 4-90 SEGMENT IV - ZONE CHANGE 5093 & RENFRO NO. 2 Page 26 ANNEXATION) (continued) ~There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Kloepper about sewer capacity for this area. Mr. Kl~epper replied that the current plant has more than adequate capacity to take this development and others in the planning. Commissioner Marino informed those tn opposition that under the 2010 _Genera% Plan there is an EIR less than one year old since it has been adopted and it identified development covering some 70 square miles around'the City of Bakersfield. -Chairperson Rosenliebcommented she could not support the neighboring residents' request but was impressed with their professionalism. Commissioner Marino made the following changes to the General Plan Committee report dated January 24~ 1991; change the easterly five acres to the easterly 10 acres; under Item II. B. change "LR" (Low Density Residential) ~to "LMR" (Low Medium Density Residential greater than 4 tess than = 10 du/net acre) on that property south of the proposed freeway west of and adjacent to the GC designation; Item II. B., Zoning '-change R-i to R-2, add the requirement that a block wall and landscap- ihg along-'the south side of Johnson Road be constructed with the first development. Motion was ~made by Commissioner Marino to adopt Resolution making rec- ommended findings, approving the Negative Declaration with the addi- tional-mitigation measure recommended by staff in the February 7, 1991 memo, and approving General Plan Amendment 4-90, Segment IV as modified by the committee recommendations as amended above, consisting of an amendment to the Land Use Element from Resource Intensive Agriculture to LR (Low Density Residential) on that property north of the pro.posed freeway, LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) on property south of the proposed~freeway and west of and adjacent to the GC designation, and GC (General Commercial) asrequested subject to the conditions of approval listed in EXhibit "A" of the staff report with the committee's addi- tional conditions as modified previously and recommend same to the Cit.y Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson, and carried by the following r611 call vote: AYES~ Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Anthony, Bjorn, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOES: Commissioner Cohn ABSTAINED: Commissioner Powers Minutes, P1/C, 2/7/91 Page 27 18. GPA 4-90,_SEGMENT IV - ZONE CHANGE 5093 & RENFRO NO. 2 ANNEXATION - JTM COMPANY (continued) Motion was made by Commissioner Marino to adopt resolution making rec- ommended_findings, approving the concurrent Zoning Upon Annexation request #5093 as modified by the committee recommendations with the additions inserted-previously of a change from an A (Agricultural) Zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling 8,500 square foot minimum lot size) R-iCH (one Family Dwelling, 8,500 square foot minimum lot size with the ~R-1-CH on ten acres-a~ the southwest corner of Renfro and Johnson Roads), and R-2 (Limited Multi Family Dwelling with a maximum of 10 units per-net acre on the property south of the freeway and west of and adjacent to the commercial site) and C-1 (Limited Commercial) Zones consistent with the general plan designations described above and sub- ject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A" of the~staff report, 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, Anthony, Bjorn, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOES: Commissioner Cohn ABSTAINED: Commissioner Powers Motion was made by Commissioner Marino to adopt resolution making rec- ommended findings, and-approving the Negative Declaration with the additional mitigation measure recommended by staff in the February 7th memo, and approving Renfro No. 2 Annexation application, 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, Anthony, Bjorn, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOEs: Commissioner Cohn ABSTAINED: Commissioner Powers Motion Was made by Commissioner Marino to find the acquisition of that property shown on the. site as freeway consistent with the general plan. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson, and carried by the fol- lowing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Anthony, Bjorn, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOES: Commissioner Cohn ABSTAINED: Commissioner Powers Minutes, P1/C, 2/7/91 Page 28 19. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Mr. Hardisty called to Commission's attention the flyer regarding the' League of California Cities Convention to be held in March and encour- aged them to attend. 20. VERBAL COMMUNICTION Mr. Hardisty apprised Commission that the City Council referred commu- nication from Supervisor Mary K. Shell that the area bounded by 24th Street on the north, Oak Street on the west, F Street on the east and 16th Street on the south be renamed so as to coincide with the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Hardisty recommeded that the naming of the area be a part of the process where the neigbborbood might pursue the historic designation and t'bat it would be more appropriately presented to the Historic Preservation commission for their hearing, and recommended that it be communicated back to City Council. Motion was made by-Commissioner Marino to direct Planning Director to inform the City Council of Commission's recommendation. Motion was seconded'by Commissioner Bjorn, and carried, Minimum Lot Sizes for Subdivisions Motion was made by Commissioner Marino to refer this item to the Subdivisions Committee for review and recommendation of a lot width standard-. Motion-was seconded by Commissioner Powers, and carried. 21. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairperson Rosenlieb commented that she was not particularly in favor of moving agenda items and. Chairperson Rosenlieb asked that staff work on Changing requirements fQr side yards and incorporating wall and landscaping requirements. Chairperson Bjorn asked that staff consider doing a study for exten- sions of. PCD's as tract extensions are done. Mr. Hardisty replied that a PCD/PUD Ordinance is in a state of consid- eration where-some of-these quirks are being cleaned up. Commissioner Powers agreed with Chairperson Rosenlieb's comments on rearranging .the agenda. Commissioner Powers gave a brief report on the Bike/Pedestrian Ways and 'Trails committee. Minutes', ~PI/C, 2/7/91 22.' ADJOURNMENT Page 29 Therebeing no fur'ther business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 1'2:50 p.m. Isabel Williams ecreta. ry ' .