Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/04/90MINUTES OF-THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE-'CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday~ October-4, 1990,-5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. t. ROLL CALL - COMMISSIONERS: Present: ADVISORY MEMBERSi 'KATE ROSENLIEB, Chairperson JIM MARINO, Vice'Chairperson STEVE ANDERSON *OSCAR ANTHONY ' TERI BJORN DAVID COHN C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate STAFF: 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Absent: Present: .Present: DARREN POWERS LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JENNIE ENG, Park Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording-Secretary e Several.~peakers card: were received, however they were in reference to items on the agenda. C-hairperson Rosenlieb clarified for those filling out speakers.car, ds that~ they would be able to speak when' their item of interes.t came up for hearing. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO-APPEAL Chairperson Rosenlieb read the notice of right to appeal' as set forth on the agenda. .Minutes, PL/C, 10/4/90 Page 2 4. PUBLIG HEARING'- COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR VALLEY VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER (CENTER PROPERTIES)~ This request was for the removal of a comprehensive sign plan currently i~n effect for a shopping center loc'ated on the northeast corner of Real -Road and Ming AYenue, zoned C-2. Staff report-.was given. Publ.ic portion of.the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. David Harman represented the applicant. He stated he was in agreement ~with staff recommendation. MotiOn was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by commissioner Mar'ino to find removal of Comprehensive Sign Plan.5-89 is consistent with Section 17.60.010'of the MUnicipal Code and to approve said .removal'of the_comprehensive sign plan. Motion carried. PUBLIC ~HEARING~-~TENTATIVE PARCEL 'MAP 9463 (PORTER-ROBERTSON) This item was continued from the meeting of September 21, 1990.. _Subject parcel map is located on the northeast corner of Coffee Road and ~Brimha-ll Road, containing one parcel on .87 acres, zoned M-2. Commissioner Bjorn abstained due to a conflict of interest in that the property owner is a Client of her law firm. Staff Report was given. P'ublic portion of the hearing was opened; no one spok~ i'n opposition. Randy Bergquis. t represented the applicant. He asked for changes to conditions as follows: Page 7 of 7, Planning Department Condition #6 to add the statement "'or easement" after "agreement" in the-first line. Mr. Kloepper stated staff was agreeable to this addition. Condition #8 of traffic conditions which was submitted in the form of a memo dated September 27, 1990 'be deleted. He stated the owner has recently .installed the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk and does not Want-to tear it out, because the additional 5 feet is not necessary at this time. In response to a question by Chairperson Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper _.said this_property was previously reviewed for use as a nursery and at the time they were not required to expand the intersection, however it could have been required at the time. He felt it may be unfair to require the expansion, but strongly suggested that easement'be obtained. Mr. Ber.gquist stated they have no problem with the dedica- tion of an easement. He stated he was agreeable to the staff recommen- dation for'access.as-outlined in Memo from the Planning Department dated October 4, 1990. ~Minutes, PL/~¢, 10/4-/90 Tentative Parcel Map 9463 (continued) Page 3 Regarding Cond~.tion~ #3Al-of Public Works Conditions he asked that the "Not a Part-"-at the end of the condition be deleted because they would like to pay for-it at a future time when the area is developed. Mr Kloepper-said this condition was recommended because when the ~median is deemed necessary it will have to extend past the small'parcel being created iD'the )arcel maD. He recommended it remain as is. Public ~f the § was closed. In res)onse to a uestion by Commissioner Anderson, )erson Rosenlieb clarified the cost of the median island as previ- ously-discussed'. Mr~ Kloepper-clarffied.when the median becomes neces- sary it will.have to exceed the boundary of the small parcel in order to be an effective median. Chairperson Rosenlieb stated she supports staff's recommendation on thi-s item. Regardiwg the-driveway locations Chairperson RoSeniieb asked for dis- cussion from Mr Walker, Traffic Engineer, regarding'discussion at the committee meeting that the 150.foot-recommendation was. not applicable to gas station uses. Mr. Walker said the idea of separation of drive approaches from major intersections came about because of the increase in the ~number of shopping centers with major drive' aisles intersecting into major streets. He felt the broad interpretation of this may not completely c'over the intent of the original st'andard. He felt there was op)ortunity for adjustment dependent.upon the specific location., type of ess and ex traffic generation. He stated they would like to ~kee driveways as far away from corners as practical, however for some ~uses ~is_ not~ feasible. Discretion can be applied in this situation. Commissioner Anderson asked_for the clarification of 'the change of rec- ommendation for the se on, as discussed previously. Mr. Walker stated this corner is~-already developed with access points. Each loca- tion is based"on ~its own situation. Commiss.ioner Anderson asked how many cars could be stacked, to which Mr. Walker responded three. In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr.'.Walk'er stated the possible obstruction of the flow of traffic from those wishing to enter the development is more a factor of the internal design of the parking and aisle layout, which was consid- ered in the"site- -review Mr. Walker responded to ques- tions by Commissioner Anderson that the backup of traffic would be a concern if the flow-of internal traffic were backed up, and he felt the location of the gas ~slands which was the point of greatest possible congestion would present the least problem. He a-lso felt 61 feet would be adecuate for this s ific situation. Min~t6S., 'BZA, 9/4/90- e .. Page 4 Tentative Parcel Map 9463 (continued) Chairperson-Rosenlieb commented on'conversation during.committee meet- .ing-saYing. in efforts to find a compromise that would allow the appli- cant to' develop the'site as he would like and leave the commission with the.feelin~ of not creating a traffic hazard it was felt by her- self and Commissioner Marino that 120 feet would be sufficient on C'offee Road in effect putting-the driveway half way on the small parcel .being created .and halfway on the parcel shown as not a part. Concerning the Brimhal. 1 'driveways Commissioner Marino was supportive of Staff's recommendation, however she did not want to see the second- drivewaY as close to the corner, with only one'driveway access on Brimhall,. half: on the small parcel and half on thenot-a-part~ which was-not staff's 'opinion. It is very difficult dealing with a piece meal basis in deciding curb cuts on corners. Commiss~ioher Cohn~ stated his concern being the amount-of traffic at this~intersection. He stated-for the record that he had received a phone Call by the applicant who felt he had a conflict of interest in -.that he~.had ~iJed a 1-awsuit against the applicant ~n an unrelated ~matter', hawever after checking with the City Attorney's office it was determined that no conflict of interest existed. The issue being ~debated .is'one of Creat-ion of traffic problems 'in the future, because of the fact'there will be significant development in the area, and the addition'of a lightS_where none exists. It is a situation where the 'commission. must.took i-nto the future to determine what type of traffic 'impact will evolve'based on the curb cuts. The proposal is a signifi- cant deviation'from the standard.. If an error is to be made it should be a more restricti.ve error so t-hat no undue traffic hazards are caused. Hestated he is comfortable with the standard, and did not necessarily.-share Mr. Walker's feeling that it may be adequate. He -felt the commission must'be-prudent about this and follow the standard, setting the Curb cu't on the north at 150 feet. 'He was .not in agreement that the 15-feet off the radius at B~imhall Would not create'a traffic problem~and felt it must'be moved further to the east. Mr. Kloepper stated he could appreciate the frustration expressed by the CommisSi6n regQrding the standard and proposed that the traffic department proceed with-initiation of a review and perhaPs a revision of the standard, at the same time building in some-flexibility. Regarding movingtbe driveway on Coffee 120-150 f~et on the north he stated in looking-at the plot plan submitted he suggested it would be very damaging'to the internal flow of traffic to the extent of being 'unworkable. He recalled the applicant stating previous.to this hearing it coul~ be-moved an additional 14 feet without being detrimental to the on-site flow. The way the internal flow is laid out it appears to provide for smooth traffic lines. There does not-appear to be.any obstructions coming off Coffee Road. Based on these circumstances he and Mr. Walker can recommend this location in this situation. Mfnutes,-PL/C, 10/4/9 Page 5 Tentative Parcel_Map 9463 (continued) Chairman Rosenlieb recognized~Mr. Saunders. Mr. Saunders stated they are in agreement with staff's comments. However he dited the issue of a major shopping center situation where this would be the major access point for-several businesses the 150-foot rule should apply. In this situation wheWe the property is not being overdeveloped he felt the traffic-engineer has adequately recognized the problem. Their goal is not to create a problem. The design of this. parking lot will acc~m~date 8 cars off the street in addition to the islands before reaching the street. Commissioner.And'erson stated he had an appreciation for the expense of the applicant in 'installing the curb, gutter and sidewalk at the 55'-foot location. He 2sked for clarification of what is being accom- )lished by asking for. the dedication. ~Mr. Kloepper said ~he dedication w~ll ben-for the possible widening of the street to 60 feet. When the area-is-completely built out there will be a definite need for the ex -intersection. He asked if the setback of the proposed struc- ture and gas isl~ands was such that it would, accommodate the loss of an additional 5 feet from the property. Chairperson Rosenlieb said it appeared it could be accomplished by cutting the landscape area down from 7 to 2feet. bMr. Anderson-felt it would make more 'sense to make this improvement at .this time. Mr. Kloepper-felt ~since the concrete has already been' poured it would make sense to utilize it until a true need exists. Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on what traffic count would necessitate this need. Mr. W~lker,.-Traffic-Engineer stated the 'traffic count at the present e is approximately-10-12,000. -With the location as it exists 2' lanes would be adequate for 20-30,000 vehicles per day after exceeding this 'figure ~a third lane is considered. In response to.questions bxMr. Anderson, Mr. Kloepper said' there was no easement from. Darrell's Mini Storage. Mr. Kloepper clarified the alignment of curb, gutter and-sidewalk. Commissioner Anthony questioned~the use of traffic signals. Mr. Walker stated the traffic Signals. have-been approved in the ~budget and are under design, with bids being taken about April or May of next year. Commissioner Marino stated for the record ~hat he had also had a phone -conversation with 'the applicant~and representatives. He-stated he agreed with Mr.~Kloepper in obtaining the additional 5-foot dedication rather than providing the improvement-at this time, because_he did not see. any development-in the near future._ He questioned Traffic Engineer regarding-the high traffic volume. Mr. Walker stated this is a high volume use, which .is why it is critical to review the interior circulation. Minutes, C, 10/4-/90 5~. Tentat'i~e-Pafcel'- Map 9463 (continued) Page 6 _ Mr. Marino-stated .he-is concerned with inside stacking from traffic on -Coffe~PRoad..~ Mr..~Walker stated the parkin§ lot-is designed currently - with a free .drive-aisle.- Mr. Marino questioned the pr'obability of 75 feet'. Mr..Walker stated 75 feet would increase the flexibility and maneuverabi-lity on.Coffee.Road not ]changing the internal flow or cause 'any'c-h'ange. to the StOrage on site.. He stated he felt this would be the - · best comproml~se~ Regarding ~he tWo. drive approaches'on Brimhall Mr. Ma~iho'stated he was agreeabte~to-it either way. . Commissioner Anderson recalled the original approval for-a nursery'at this site, asking Mr. Kloepper if there was any discussion with the applicant ~t the time as toT the width-of the intersection and if spe-' cific inst'ruction was given to the applicant as to where to locate -~ curb,.gutter, and sidewal, k. Mr. Kloepper recalled the nursery consider- ation being und~r-~site plan review, with the nursery being considered as not'a high traffic, generator and no change in the traffic load on the-intersection. However~ staff did not discuss expanded intersection or wider spacing'for curb 'and gutter. There was some'confusion on staff whether or not on the site plan review the city had the authority and ability to .~equire it. At this ti'me after reviewing it, it is felt that it Should have been asked.for at the time being it was an opportunity to ~pgrade an arterial. ~n response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Kloepper said -the location of the curb line to provide for a 55 foot intersection was approved. MrL Anderson said he is still confused about the postpone- ment of the installation Of the curb, gutter, and-sidewa-lk because of the requirement for a Wider width on this project. Mr. Kloepper gave opinion that the existing road.width is adequate to carry traffic for a good number of years, at which time the enlargement of the inter- section would he'-considered if the various factors indicate a need for Mr. Anderson stated he had no problem with two driveways on Brimhall, howe~er-he did have a problem with the assumption that-Brimhall would not someday-become very busy at its easterly continuation. I~n~response to a question by Chairperson Rosen~ieb, Mr. Anderson felt if staff gave direction to the applicant as to where to locate curb, gutter and sidewalk, then the city should not send the-signal that they w~ 1 reverse themselves frequently even though~they are looking at a different use. He stated he would accept Mr. Kloepper's projection as to ~he location of curb, gutter and sidewalk. Minutes, PL/C, 10/4790 - 5. Tent'ative Parcel Map 9463 (continued) Page 7 Chairperson Rosenlieb stated with some-apprehension she would agree to the two driveways on Brimhall. Member'Anderson said his main concern is the provision of proper in§resslegress to the site without providing a. hazard to the intersection, 'and felt~if this can be-accomplished the amount of dis- tance from the-'termination of the radius to the centerline of the driveway~is not the~issue. Mr. Saunders ~said their feeling is staff's recommendation is the best alternative because it will divide the store and gas islands down the middle allowing stacking of a minimum of 8 cars, having 2 stacked at each aisle. He stated, they~ could live with 75 feet but he was more concerned wi'th the pOtential problems of this than their proposed design. Mr,' Anderson felt the applicant should want to make it as easy to get into the site as possible. Mr. Saunders said the theory of the driweway as they have Placed it is to allow free flow-to the gas pumps so cars can' get off the street and to the pumps and at the same time allow access to the store without the two infringing on each other. 'Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Anthony to make all findings set forth in the staff report and to approve proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9463 subject to the condi- tions outli.ned in the Exhibit "A" on file with the following changes: Change to Public Works Condition #5, Sheet 2 of 7 add tO the beginning "five foot-additional dedication on Coffee Road shall be provided for a standard expanded intersection"; Condition #8, Page 2 of 7 place period after'Brimhall. Road,_with the last sentence remaining. Condition #9 under Traffic add 'the following to the end: but in no case shall be within 75 feet of the north curb return at the intersection of Coffee and'Brimhall Roads; Condition #6 of Planning on sheet 7 of 7 add the following: "or easement" to the end of the first tine. Chairperson Rosenlieb clarified the first part of Item #8, Page 2 of-7 to read as follows: The subdivider shall remove the existing drive approaches on Coffee Road and-Brimhall Road. In response to request by Chairperson Rosenlieb, Mr. Marino added the following: The drive approaches shown on the site plan are-acceptable. Mr. Kloepper responded to Mr. Anderson's question regarding the driveway dimension being 42 feet from centerline. Motion carried. Commissioner Cohn voted no. Commissioner Bjorn abstained. Minutes, PL/C, .!0/4t90 Page 8 6 PUBLIC HEARING.- TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9482 (MARTIN-MCINTOSH) Tentative Parcel map is located on the sou~h side of Schirra. Court, approxi, mately 2100 feet west of Ashe Road.' It contains '11 parcels on 13.72 acres, zoned~M-2-D. - Commissioner Ander-son abstained due to a possible Conflict of interest on this ~item-in that his firm~has provided services to the applicant in the last year.. .' _ Staff report was given.' Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roge~ McInt'osh-represented-'the owner of the property~TM He stated they concur with-the conditions'of approval. In response-to a question by Commis~ioner'Marino Mr.-M¢Intosh s~ated-he would object to the railroad easement being'abandoned. A lot line.adjustment'could be accomplished at a later date. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made-by.~Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to approve and adopt~the Negative Declaration, to make all findings, set forth in~-the staff_.report and to approve the proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9482, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" on fil.e. Motion c2rri.ed. Commissioner~ Anderson abstained. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACTs5396 (TELSTAR ENGINEERING) Tentative Tract. is located on the'south side of Hosking Avenue, ~approximately.474 feet-east of So~th "H" Street, containing 167 lots on 40 acres, Zoned A (Exclusive Agriculture), proposed-as R-1. The appli- cant is also requesting modification to allow the reduction of minimum lot widths from 60 feet to_55-feet. Staff report was given. Mr. Kloepper st'ated public works had submitted a memo-dated October 4, ~ecommending~modifications'of Condition #2 regarding the' sewers which allows the same options on this tract which were granted on the tract to the north of-Hosking Road and Item #9 which is specific_about reser- vati'on of a 210 foOt wide strip for a possible freeway corridor and ~modification of Item #11-B to clarify the wordingto say "A redesign of the subdivision may be necessary because of the reservation for possi- ble future east/west freeway corridor option." Mr. Kloepper clarified for~C'hairperson Rosenlieb that the revision to sewer conditi'on allows for the option of using-a forced main in the event the.gravity main is not installed ~n Hosking Road. Mr. Kloepper clarified the revisions to the staff ~eport for Chairperson Rosenlieb. Public porte_on of the hearing, was opened. Minutes~ BZA, !0/4/90' " Page 9 7. Tentative Tract'539'6 (Telstar Engineering)- (continued) 'Ernest .Carmona, res. ident of Aster Avenue, stated his main objection was to.the revision of-the.size of the lots. Greenfield has always been a -rural community ~ith large lots which is their reason for residing there~ He_felt the smaller lots would-be detrimental to his property -values. He stated he was just~informed about the reservation-of the freeway, which is'something that none'of the residents in the neighbor- .~hood were informed of. He asked that the Commission postpone any deci- sions'regarding this tract until the residents are informed. Chairperson Rosenlieb asked if he were aware of the 10,000 square foot lots proposed on. the.other side of Aster. Mr. Carmon'a stated he was- not aware of this~ proposal. He questioned the addition of a block wall along-Aster. It was clarified the homes would front on Aster rather than include the block 'wall. - Chairperson Rose~lieb .asked staff to respond to Mr. Carmona's-concerns. Mr. Hardisty. stated during .the 2'010 hearings when the loop system pro- posal for freeways around the city it_was explained the various free- way~ depicted had different degrees of certainty as to their location, the'southern alignment being %he most variable of them and could move anywhere betWeen.1 to 5 miles, however they try to keep 'the spacing. between the f~eewaysbetween 5-6 miles and this falls within that -range~ As this su§divi.sion brought to the city's attention the rapid - - developmeht of this area it was evaluated which open spaces were left and found that this is one of 2 potential locations the city would be interested-in preserving for future alignment. The opt-ions need to be .preserved for the placement of the freeway while a-precise plan line is .. prepared which will also be subject to a public hearing. At that time it wil-1 be decided whether the' freeway needs to be constructed on this .property. However-the option needs to be held open. In response to a question by Chairperson Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said' the plan on the fr~eeway ~outes would be adopted during the next budget year.- If_'a subdivider were to come in with a subdivision on a viable route a 210 foot_reservation would be recommended on their property as well. Mr. Hardisty stated a public hearing was conducted in the 2010 General plan hearing in which an .area south of Panama Lane was designated for a freeway and in the discussion the wide variation which could occur was discussed. It was-also commented on that where alignments_are shown -they should be protected .through reservations and where precise plan lines are adopted their dedication should be required. Mr.-Carmona asked what consideration would be given to Taft-Highway as a major east/west corridor. Mr. Hardisty said it ~as considered, how- ever the problem~with using it is that it does have development front- ing it similar to Rosedale Highway. It is also necessary to serve local transportation even with an additional freeway. M'inutes.,.PL/C,. 10/4/90 7 Tentative Tract-5396.(Telstar Engineering) (continued) Page 10 Frank Rodri~uez was present to speak. In regard to-a question by Mr. Rodriguez,-Mr. Hardisty clarified a previous map submitted by the applicant showing a wall-along the north side of Aster With small lots .behind it. However as a result of concerns about it creating a problem_ wi.th preservation of lot sizes in the area the applicant has. agreed-to a redesign of-the subdivision with a front yard to front yard lot size relationship being more consistent. In response to a question by Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Hardisty stated Purfish Way will connect the street inside-the subdivision .to Aster. Mr. Rodriguez was concerned about cars_using this_street ~o speed through Aster. He was also concerned about ~he value-of, his.~propertY with the smal) lots being developed. Mr. Kloepper responded to a question by Mr. Rodriguez saying t~he devel- oper will.be required to install sewers which the city will operate. The sewer system going into Hosking Road will probably be unable to serve the area which is already developed. Tejunga DeJelay, ~tated he lives on the-corner-of Monique and 'Cherry. He_ stated his'concern being the proposed freeway alignment which would make it difficult fOr him to'sell his property and the lowered property -values. Michael Tobin was present to speak in opposition. Ms. Marino clarified .for. him. his-option of appeal to the City Council should this applica- ti.on be approved. Cynthia DeJelay-spoke saying she objects to this PrOPosed tract. She objected to the number of lots being developed which she felt would be 'overcrowded for safety .reasons, school district overcrowding, and the established neighborhood. She was concerned about there only being 2 exits from this'proposed development. She also stated her objection to "the reservation-of-the Tr.eeway because the decli.ne of property values. Tammy smith stated her .property would be facing the proposed subdivi- sion. She-was-pleased with the enlarged lots shewill be {acing rather than the masonry 'wall. However she was-concerned about the zoning, and -the problems the R-l. zoning may create for her area which-is zoned for animalts, such as their possible rezoning. She stated her opposition to . . thel possible freeway. TQrry Kiner, Sequoia Engineering, .cited the freeway alignment moving .south 1 mile. from the original 2010 Plan saying a lot of property pur- chases were made based on the freeway .alignment location of the 20t0 - Plan. He asked what would be done by the developer with the additional 210 feet if it'is not used for the-alignment. Minu'tes, PL/£, 10}4790 Page 11 '7. ~Tentat'ive Tract 5396 (Telstar En§ineerin9) (continued) Douglas .Smith felt the information they received was incorrect because of the additions he has become aware of since arriving at this hearing. He felt th~ resi'dents were being rushed into making a snap.decision abou~t whether they want what is being proposed. He felt the size of the smaller, lots'would have-to be cut because of the enlargement of the larger size lots. He fe]lt th~rewould be an immediate ascension to smaller lots in the area. BrUce'NybO stated he represents the-Fugats which are processing an ~annexation on the west. side-of Freeway 99 and' south of HOsking Road. He stated, his problem with the movement of the alignment in that ~it is impossible to try to Plan development with a freeway in the area ~that can move i to 5 miles. He cited the 2010 General Plan which talks of .freeways saying'it describes where it should be just south of Panama Lane.. Referning to the policies of the Circulation Element Map he stated the alignment-is shown clear where it is and is described Clearly in the 2010 it is just south of Panama Lane. He stated the freewas alignment would affect his Client's property.' Gary Hill, developer of Tract 5446 on the south si-de of Hosking, stated he was alarmed upon receiving a call regarding the realignment, that it would be 1 to 3 to.5 miles further than proposed. He stated he is con- cerned and confused at having invested in this area because there has been no-contact concerning the freeway. He asked that the Commission continue this item-for consideration.-. He was concerned about develop- ers:in the area"having to provide a corridor on their property. Joe Garone sPOke saying his family owns a substantial amount of prop- erty which wou.ld be severely impacted by. this proposal. He also repre- sents clients who would be impacted. He stated he concurred with the remarks of the 2 previous_speakers. He felt this is a very dangerous precedent to deviate from what is accepted as a general plan because when rights-ofZways are reserved footprints are made making them diffi- cult to change. ~Bob Jackson was present stating he represents Bojak Development and they'concur With staff recommendation and conditions attached to the staff report. Public portion of the~hearing was closed. Minutes, PL/C, 10/4/90 Page.12 Tentativ6 Tract' 5396 (continued) Chai-rPerson Rosen-lieb stated she was not particularly anxiOus to act on this item at t.his hearing because of the large amount of information which she has not had'time to read. She stated she-would be in favor of sending this to committee instead of acting upon it at this hearing. Shecommented Qn the-concern of the residents of the rural country atmosphere being lost..-She stated they are in the path of urban development~ She applauded the applicant for making the effort to make the lots-north of'Aster co.mpatible with the neighborhood. She stated the Planning-Commission is as surprised by the proposed freeway reser- vation being moved a mile as the area residents. There..is a need for an east/west corridor, however no matter where it goes there will be -someone .that willlbe opposed to it. Mr. Kloepper pointed out the changes to conditions-in the staff-report, Page 2 of 5,_item 5F-being a new condition, with letter G formerly being ~'F". Page 3, Item 9F the first word Peregrine was formerly Aster. The memo dated'October 4 was also an addition. Mr. Hardisty clarified the reason for working up to'the last minute to bring _the information regarding the freeway reservation is that the city i-s under a'statu~ory limitation.to act on this tract by October 16, ~hiCh is before the next ~egular meeting. In response to a question by Commissioner Marino,' Mr. Jackson'stated-he agreed with al. 1 the conditions. He stated regarding Mr. Rodriquez's concer'ns regarding property Values that these houses should compare to the value of-the houses in the area. Mr.-Marin° was' concerned about the fact that too-many'issues have been -raised since the-beginning of this hearing.'- He stated his inclination to continu~ .this. hearing and send it to committee, for further.study on .the freeway alignment. Mr. Ha~disty clarified staff's recommendation for Commissioner Bjorn being the approval of 55-foot lot'widt~s internal to the subdivision and. approving the larger lots on the southern edge. Mr. Hardisty c~arified the' freeway reservation is not-a reservation which is set, however is a reservation agreement which provides an open Slot ~thr~ugh future development where it may go if.approved. It is felt this must be'done rather than continuing to approve subdivi- sions without making a provi~sion for this. Part of the agreement in discus'sions with Mr. Jackson is that if the land is-not needed it will be bought back. Commissioner Anthony stated-he would like to. see this item continued. *He ]eft at this time. Chairperson Rosen!ieb did not understand why-the commission would con- .sider..~a .continuance if the~applicant is agreeing to alt conditions as- .is the case..' ' _ . -. Minutes, PL/C, 10/~/90 7. Tentative Tract 5396' (continued Page 13 Kenneth B~num was present'representing Bojak Development. He stated t'hey agree with all conditions. There are 2 separate and distinct items in thi-s case Which. he felt the solution has been reached. He felt the ~ubdivisi'on could be approved as originally submitted with the reservation-issue to be dealt with at the appropriate time. In'resp~nse'to_a questi~n~-by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty clari- fied the freeway-al'ignment reservation for' other potential tracts in _this area.- In response to a question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Hardisty said until the precise~plan line is adopted the freeway can move all over. The adopt'ion of a specific plan line will be environmentally reviewed and go through a public hearing process. Which will be the time to discuss which-f.reeway alignment is correct. Commis.sioner Marino asked regarding Condition #5D. of Public Works con- ditions' if the' 52-fOot_wide street requirement has been abandoned. Mr. Hardisty responded when the 2010 General Plan was adopted the ques- tion of size of rights-of-way was not addressed for short or cul-de-sac streets. Mr. Ktoepper said i'n drawing this condition staff apparently interpreted the General. Plan as not allowing the 52-foot Standard on cul-dersac streets. He felt what Mr. Hardisty is saying is that a pos- sible minor amendment could take care of the problem before this tract is developed. In--response to ia question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Hardisty said 52-foot rights-of-way are alright for cul-de-sacs on this tract. ~Mr. Marino recinded his preference to continue .this'item. Commissioner Bjorn stated she hoped the adoption of a specific plan line could be pursued-as s:oon as possible. She stated the approval of the reservation as a Condition on this tract is not a precedent in her opinqon of placing that reservation on future project. She will vote for approval-because the applicant is agreeing to it, however she would not otherwise'feel comfOrtable with it. Mr. Hardisty stated .he agreed with Commissioner Bjorn in terms of being .uncomfortable with this. He asked that it be carefully considered that this area be a 1. ogical candidate for freeway. The City cannot 'keep approving subdivisions without reservations for the freeway. Commissioner Bjorn.stated her concern is that the General Plan language in text as well as map is very misleading to those purchasing property in, the area. Commissioner Cohn stated his concern is with the alignment, however because the applicant has agreed to all conditions he did not feel the commission should delay acting on this item. He clarified for thosein the audience that the Commission is not approving a freeway alignment at this time and they will have~ an opportunity to voice their opinion on that alignment at the time it is considered. Minutes, Pi/C, 10}4'/90 7. 'Tentative Tract 5396 (continued) Page 14 Chairperson Rosenlieb a~ked Mr. Hardis~y if the reservation is effec~ tive fOr 2 years and the applicant cannot pull permits for this area until that time .has-elapsed. Mr. Hardisty ~responded that the city will be pursuing this Within the next budget year. The city cannot commit to this.until the specific plan line is adopted and the land is purch~ased. Chairperson Rosenlieb asked~that the statement that the proposed align- ~ment i.s.~compatible with what is shown in the 2010 Plan not be referred to in the .future. Regarding Item #5D the wording "In accordance with- the 2010 General Ptan!~~ she stated the general plan says these are stan- 'dards which should be adopted in the future, therefore she felt it should say "in accordance with an 'adopted standard",.also Item #8A this condition should-not'be .tied to the 2010 General Plan, but should be tied to ordinances and standards. ~. Mot-i~n was-made by Commissioner Marino, Seconded by Com~issi~ner-'Anderson .to-approve and adopt'the Negative Declaration, to make all findings Set forth in-the staff report, and~to approve Tentative-Tract 5396, subject to :the conditions outlined in"the Exhibit 'iA",' withthe~folloWing c~hanges to conditions: addition of conditions .of Memo 'dated October 4 from P~blic Works Department, whi.ch affects' Condi%ion # 2 regarding sewers, Condition #9H,' Traffic, Condition #11-B Mi~cellaneous;~Conditi'on #5D of Public Works ~conditions shall read as follows: The minimum r.ight-Of-way for local streets shall be sixty feet,.excep~ for.the cul-de-sacs where 52 feet will be allowed-; 8-A shall read: Minimum flow-Ii:ne to flow-line widths of the local streets .shall be as per City standards; Item 9F Peregrine Avenue shall replace Aster;-the~addition of Condition #5F under streets and~dedications. C'hairperson~Rosenlieb asked that the deletion of Finding #13 be struck from the approval, Mr.'Marino was amenable to this~ In response to a question by. Chairperson Rosenlieb,-Ms. Marino stated a finding should be~made on the'r.educed lot widths that it is compatible with the exi'st- ing developmeht-in the area. Commissioner Marino modified Finding #13 to read as follows:~ -The reques~ for modification to reduce minimum lot Width will not be detr'imental to the area. Motion carried. Commissioner ~nthony was. absent. *A lO~minute break was taken at this time. _Mi-nutes, PL/C,~iO~IO/90 8A.wWRIT~EN COMMUNICATIONS ~- Staff response to 'Planning Commission regarding public statement .by. Bill Wonderly on ~landscaping for East Hills Village shopping ~center. Chairperson Rosenlieb stated she had read'the staff report and '-'~ '~iu~der~t~od.'it had'been sent to Mr. Wonderly. In--response to a_question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Hardisty stated a motion could.not be made because it had not been indi- cated on the agenda that action would be taken. 2. Correspondence from the City of Los Banos, hosts 'of the annual Bi-County Planning COmmissioners Workshop. Mr"Hardisty~-stated some commissioners had' expressed an interest in-attending.this and .if so the City will be_glad to .make the arrangements. B.-VERBAL .... '~ ~. 1. Report on comparison of development fees between the City of Bakersfield and other jurisdictions. -Mr. Hardisty s.t'ated at the request of the Planning Commission the 'Building~Department conducted a survey of other-cities to deter- mine what fees they charged for a 2,000 square foot house with garage. Copies of the results were submitted to the Planning Commission.. The city Council at their request will also be sup- p~ied with copies. A projection has been added of fees that may -.be ~adopted.. Discussion continued regarding the fees 'in this survey. Mr'.~Hardisty responded to Chairperson Rosenlieb stating a community facilities fee will be looked at fn the future, with the fceeway right-of'way acquisition fee assessed on residential as a part of-it. This does not include a fee for air pollution mitigation.' In'response to a question by Chairperson Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper-~said the City is fairly certain of the sewer connec- t.ion fee increase from 900 to 1,720 which is based on the added cost that will have to be absorbed for the plant #2 upgrade which- wilq'-need to be aCcomplished in order to comply with the waste discharge requirements. Bafbana"Don. Carlos, representing the Building Industry Association 'of Kern County, offered a comparison of median sales prices in the areas in which the fees have been quoted; for Kern County the Median Price was '$103,000. Escondido a median price would be $225,000, Fresno'would be $110,000, Modesto - $123-,000, Riverside $158,0000, Santa Barbara - $169,500, Stockton $148,000; she felt this would-give a better perspective 'of how the fees reflect' in the Cost of-housing. Page 15 ~ ~.Minutes, PL~C, 10/4/90 8B. Verbal Communications .(continued) Page 16 Roger M~Intosh stated he saw a discrepancy in fees for other areas for water service. He did not understand why 'an engineering fee would be charged by the building department. There are additional fees that would be_paid to other departments which would not show up on the survey. Chairperson Rosenlieb thanked staff for responding so.quickly on t'his item.- 2. Pr'ogress'rePort on Park Fee Ordinance Mr. Hardisty stated_ he met~ with Building Industry Association. Representatives and Board of Realtors to provide them with a copy -of a draft~report which will be included in the hearing on the fees. The BIA 'feels it is an unfair imposition of a fee for the development of a park in that they already contribute to the acquisition of the lands of the park pursuant to the Quimby Act. -He indicated a city/county wide service district to take care of the needs would be a more equitable way to deal with the problem.' He stated he was directed to proceed with the drafting 'of the ordinance for the Council's consideration. As the ordinance is ~reworked the requirement for providing the land is split from the _requirement of-developing the land so they can be considered as two separate issues. The Council is scheduled to hear this item on October 17, 1990~ Planning Director Hardisty also informed the ~Planning Commission of the Council'.s action on the Billboard Ordinance of' the October 3, 1990 Council meeting.~' 9.. RIVERLAKES WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN Commissioner Anderson stated for the record he has. a conflict of inter- est On this item.' 'Motion by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to refer .this to the subdivision committee. Motion carried. Commissioners Marino and Anderson_abstained. In response to a question by Chairperson Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty stated this item was scheduled for 'the next meeting,s.agenda and the applicant felt more comfortable being able to discuss it with the Commission previous to that. Commissioner Marino explained hi~ abstention on this item as a perceived conflic~ of interest and stated he preferred not to be on a committee to review these plans. - Minutes, PL/C, 10/4/90 Page 17 9. Riverlakes Wall and Landscape .Plan (continued) Commi~ssioner'Anderson questioned Mr. Kloepper regarding the concrete curb Iat the development on the southeast corner of White Lane and Gosfo~d Road to]be erected to ~isuade people from leaving the site out of th~ driveway t]h~t-~s ~approximately 90 feet off o~ the radius. He asked!if someone had .reviewed the site to see if it met with the origi- .nat i'~tent of the approval. Mr. Kloepper stated he did not personally. revie~ it, however the'traffic engineer did.- He determined the con- crete~ facilities as 'existing are in general conformance with the miti- gation required by the Planning Commission. Mr. Anderson asked Mr..Ktloeppe?-to pe~sonalqy look_at it, stating he feZt ~t.would not discograge anyone from-l~aving the site through that driveway. Mr~ KIloeppe~ agreed to review the matter. Chairperson Rosenlieb stated regarding the Mystery X building coming through for approval of a development agreement she had ~ad a conversa- tion ,~ith_Mike Ammann at the KEDC. She felt it. might be beneficial for the-G~neral Plan Committee to meet with Mr. Ammann which he has reque;ted, for an information exchange. Mr. Hardisty Stated she could refer the matter of arranging a meeting. Mr. Anderson felt addressing the e~tire commission might be more interesting because this is a very important item. Ms' Rosenlieb felt what might be_appropriate would be to ha~e-the first meeting with the committee, thus asking the EDC to make a regular report on perhaps a quarterly basis as to observations and'p~rceptions. Ms.-R~senlieb made the commission aware of a me~o from Mr. Hardisty regarding ~dlscussion of standards of median islands to be heard before the Council/Commission subcommittee. Mr. ~Hird~sty ~iarified additional agenda items as being progress on freewfy right-of-way acquisition, discussion of indirect source, pollu- tion fee program, and the appointment of an advisory committee' for hou~ihg element development. Regarding a question by Commissioner Marino', Mr. Kloepper stated ~he Was not a~are if .the bond was in effect to remove the drive approach at Gosfo~d-and White Lane. Mr. Kloepper stated he would make the commis- sion aware of this. 10.~ ADJOU~ ~There was a~ ~NMENT being no fur.ther business to come before the Commission, meeting journed at 8:45 p.~m. Laurie Davis R ec or,~t-Yl~D S~e~t ary .