Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/90-MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, September 20, 1990, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: Absen't: KATE ROSENLIEB, Chairperson JIM MARINO, Vice Chairperson *STEVE ANDERSON TERI BJORN DAVID COHN DARREN POWERS *C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate OSCAR ANTHONY 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 Vice Chairperson Marino chaired the meeting due to the~fact that Chairperson Rosenlieb had laryngitis. Planning Director Hardisty informed Commission that Commissioner Anthony had to attend a public hearing in another location, and would not be Present at tonight's meeting. PUBLIC S ATEMENTs Mr. Bill Wonder'y, 2301 East Hills Drive submitted a speakers card prior to the meeting, and asked that the Commission make a commitment on a~precise development plan called East Hills Village. He indicated they are not maintaining the landscaping which was a condition of approval for this development. He submitted pictures of the poorly maintained trees. Mr. Hardisty indicated that in the approval there was discussion on the need for landscaping along East Hills as it led down towards Bernard at the turn. He also said that staff would pull the records and take whatever enforcement action is necessary to have the landscaping in as required and would.report back to Commission and Mr. Wonderly as to whatever action is taken. *COmmissioner AndersOn was seated. Minutes, PI/C 9/20/90 Page 2 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 20, 1990. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 20, 1990 as written. Motion was sec- onded by Commissioner Rosenlieb, and carried. 4. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN .PLAN 11-90 (JOHN HOWENSTINE) Applicant requested approval' of CSP 11-90 for. a neighborhood retail shopping center located on the southwest corner of Ming Avenue and Ashe Road, zoned C-2. Applicant proposes five additional monument signs which will be designed to match the one existing monument sign (3 additional along Ming Avenue, 1 on Ashe Road and 1 on Barrington Street). *Alternate Commissioner Frapwell was seated. Ms. Marie Johnson.represented Mr. Howenstine and indicated she'made the corrections on the written criteria which were requested. She asked for clarification of the type of site plan that was requested. Mr. Hardisty ciarified that the plot plan would include dimensions to show'the exact locations of the monument signs. -Commissi0ner-~Cohn asked Building Director'Bidwell for the number of monument signs .in the center. Mr. Bidwell replied that the existing sign on the corner is not a monu- ment sign by definition of the ordinance, it is a freestanding identi- fication sign which prevents them from installing monument signs without coming to Commission with a comprehensive sign plan. Commissioner Rosenlieb indicated there may be deed restrictions on this property restricting the amount of signage on this particular parcel, and believed that it was the express intent of the original developer to preserve the integrity'of the neighborhood on the west side of Barrington Street. Commissioner Powers stated he was not opposed to seeing the monument signs on Ming and on Ashe, but could not support the sign on Barrington. Ms~ Johnson did-~not feel that her clients would object to not having a sign on Barrington, they only want the situation resolved. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Commissioners Rosenlieb and Powers as tO not allowing-signage on. Barrington, and suggested sending this to Committee. -. Minutes, Pi/C, 9/20/90 4. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 11-90 - JOHN HOWENSTINE) (continued) Page 3 Ms. Johnson commented that a continuance would cause great hardship on her clients since they were unable to be on the prior agenda. She further reiterated they would not have a problem in giving up the Barrington sign. ~Mr. Hardisty commented that if the only issue is whether or ~not a sign on Barrington should be approved, a decision could be made on that fairly. If it has to do with the enforcement of the C.C.&R's, then those would have to be found and made available. Commissi-oner Bjorn commented that the C.C.&R's are a matter between the private property owners and she would hate to defer a decision on a suspicion that there might be C.C.&R's that govern the property. Commissioner Cohn asked Commissioner Rosenlieb if it was her concern that the C.C.&R's would have allowed this signage. Commissioner Rosenlieb'replied that it is her belief that typically the C.C.&R's would not have allowed this amount of signage, but did not have first hand knowledge of what the requirements were on this partic- ular property. Commissioner Bjorn commented that in typical Tenneco C.C.&R's that she has seen there probably is a provision in them that any changes to the site or the center requires some sort of architectural control commit- tee review. She stated her concern about some suspicion as to C.C.&R's and hesitant to defter a decision in light of the applicant's timing. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to find Comprehensive Sign Plan 11-90 (as conditioned) provides signage that is consistent with Section 17.60.010 of the Municipal Code and approved said comprehensive sign plan subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with dele- tion o'f the sign on Barrington. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9463 (PORTER-ROBERTSON) Commissioner Bjorn declared a conflict of interest. The applicant is a client of her lawfirm. CommisSioner Powers declared a financial conflict of interest. Tentative parcel map is located on the northeast corner of Coffee Road and Brimhall Road, and contains one parcel on .87 acres, zoned M-2. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Randy Bergquist with.PorterrRobertson Engineering was present~ He questioned Planning Department Condition 6, and asked if a common access easement would be acceptable as opposed to an agreement since they.do not-know how the .other property will be developed, and where those access points may be. Mr. Hardisty replied that an easement would be suitable. Minutes, P1/C, 9/20/'90 5. -PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL M~P 9463 (PORTER-ROBERTSON) Page 4- (continued) There being no-others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification regarding the driveways. Mr. Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer indicated that the drive approach is suppose to be 42-foot wide replacing a smaller drive approach. Commissioner Anderson asked if the 40-foot wide driveway going to be abandoned in its entirety. Mr. Walker commented that in reviewing the plans, the applicant had originally requested a 36-foot drive approach further to the south which"was rejected and asked them to widen it to 42 feet and shift it up to the north a few feet. Commissioner Anderson read Public Works Condition 8 indicating that further clarification is needed as to where the drive approach is going to be. Commissioner Cohn stated his concern that this development will be in a critical ~place based on the development around it which will continue to develop in the future, and in looking at the parcel map, they have access around to theleastern portion of the project that will basically encircle the project and will allow them to have access onto the parcel to the north that .has apparently been parceled off of this. He further stated it would be his intent to try to restrict ingress and egress as much as possible so that there will not be a lot of conflicts occurring as traffic continues to build up around the parcel, and was not in favor of allowing the current number of driveways that is shown on the parcel_map. Commissioner Rosenlieb concurred with Commissioner 'Cohn's comments and further stated her concern with the distance from the intersection. It was her understanding that there are existing driveway cuts and without this reqUest, those driveways could continue to be used. She did not believe it was in the interest of the community to be creating this kind of obvious traffic conflict of this size. ~She then asked Mr. Hardisty for recommendations on ingress and egress. Mr. Ha~disty replied that the solution could be a common access at the north property ti~e along Coffee which would limit it to the one drive apprOach for both the subsequently created parcels. Commissioner Anderson commented he would like to see this go to the Subdivision Committee for further study and review. Vice Chairman Marino stated his concern with the access on Coffee Road because as people slow down to turn in there will be people backing up behind them~ into th~ intersection. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson to continue this matter to the October'~3rd meeting and send it to the Subdivision Committee. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Cohn, and carried. MinUtes, P1/C, 9/20/-90 6. Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5355 (JOHN SARAD) Applicant withdrew this item. PUBLIC HEARING'- TENTATIVE TRACT 5001 REVISED (TELSTAR ENGINEEING, INC. ) Tentative tract is located on the north side of Hosking Road, 100 feet east of South "H" Street, and contains 136 lots on 40 acres, zoned R-1. Applicant propose a phased development. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Oscar Cordova was present and amenable to the conditions listed 'in the staff repor't. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report and to approve proposed Tentative Tract 5001 Revised, subjec't to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A". Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson, and carried. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5327 (TELSTAR ENGINEERING, INC.) Tentative tract is located on the north side of Hosking Road, approxi- mately 1,~00 feet east of South H Street, and contains 76 lots on 20 acres, zoned R-1. Applicant proposes to phase the development. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Oscar Cordova was present and amenable to the conditions listed in the staff report. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. MOtion'was made by Commissioner Powers to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to-make all findings set forth'in the staff report' and approved proposed Tentative Tract 5327 subject to the condi- tions-outlined in Exhibit A. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson, and carried. Minutes, p1/c, 9/20/90 Page 6 9.PUBLIC HEARING - INITIATED ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ZONE UPON ANNEXATION TO R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) AND C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) OR MORE~RESTRICTIVE ZONE; OF SAID PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OE KERN LOCATED SOUTH'OF PANAMA LANE TO APPROXIMATELY 260 FEET SOUTH OF THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAL, EAST OF WIBLE ROAD; AND INITIAED ACTION TO ANNEX 17.26 +/- ACRES OF THOSE CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE. COUNTY OF KERN LOCATED SOUTH OF PANAMA LANE TO APPROXIMATELY 260 FEET SOUTH OF THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAL, EAST OF WIBLE ROAD, KNOWN AS WIBLE NO. 7 ANNEXATION Commissioner Powers abstained due to financial conflict of interest. Mr. Hardi. sty apprised Commission of the reason for continuance on this hearing, indicating that during public hearing, Mr. Boozer who is-a property owner in the area stated that during the 2010 General Plan 'hearing.s he'was told that his property would be zoned R-2. Since then, Mr. Hardisty had iistened~to the tape recording of the hearing referred to by Mr. Boozer. City Council discussion during the hearing indicates their _interest to approve development of his property up to 10 units per acres. Therefore, the case will be readvertised and staff will recommend adoPtiOn of R-2 zoning of Mr. Boozer's property. ~ In addition, Mr. Boozer and his son own 2 1/2 acres each as well as a cou- Ple of other 2 1/2 acre pieces sandwiched between two commercial prop- erties and backing up to a cemetery, and with that in mind the. entire block of land between the two commercial pieces should be zoned R-2. Public hearing was opened. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb to continue this hearing to the October 18, 1990 meeting. ~ Motion was seconded by Commissioner · Bjofn, and carried. 10. PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE zoNING BOUNDARIES FROM AN R-3 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE AND A C-2-D (COMMERCIAL-DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE TO A C-2 (COMMERCIAL) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE; FROM AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE AND AN R-2-D (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING-DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE TO AN R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE; FROM AN R-2-D (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING-DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE AFFECTING THOSE CERTAIN PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COLLEGE AVENUE BETWEEN MORNING DRIVE AND SHERRELL WAY. (FILE 5064 - H.E. AARON) The purpose of this zone change is to match the zoning district bound- ary lines with the corresponding property lines. Public hearing was opened. ,- There being no one wishing to-speak, public hearing was closed. Minutes, P1/C, 9/20/90- Page 7 10. FILE 5064 - H.E. AARON (continued) Motion was made by Commissioner Bjorn to'approve-the zone change as proposed and advertised. Find the proposed zoning consistent with the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, and recommended~adoption of same 'to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Cohn, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Bjorn, Cohn, ~Powers, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anthony 11. PUBLIC ~HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE (3-90) SEGMENT I & ZONE CHANGE 5063 - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION Subject site is a 5 +/- acre parcel located on the south side of Harris Road approximately 1,606 feet east of Ashe Road and approximately 3,000 feet west of Stine Road. This amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan would change the land use designation from GC (General Commercial) to LR (Low Density Residential, and would change the zoning district from C-1 (Limited Commercial) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling, minimum lot area 6,000 square feet per dwelling unit). Public hearing was opened. There being no one present wishing to speak either in favor or opposition, public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to adopt Resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, and approving General Plan Amendment 3-90 Segment I cOnsisting of an amendment to the Land Use Element~as shown on the general plan map, subject to conditions of approval listed in Exhibit "A", and recommended same to the City ~Council. Mo~ion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson, and carried by .the following roll call. vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Anderson, Bjorn, COhn, Powers, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOES' None- ABSENT: Commissioner Anthony Minutes, P1/C, 9/20/90 11. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE 3-90 Page SEGMENT I & ZONE CHANGE 5063 - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION (continued) Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to adopt Resolution making find- ings approving the Negative Declaration, and approving concurrent Zone Change request #5063 consisting of the change as shown on the zoning map, subject to conditions of approval listed in Exhibit "A", and rec- ommended same to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Anderson, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, AnderSon, Bjorn, Cohn, Powers, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Anthony 12. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING (Section 65402 of the Government Code) The City Community Development Division requested vacation of the Easterly portion of 5th Street in Block E of Lowell Park Tract. The vacation will provide for a renovation project at 600 5th Street for.the Bakersfield Senior Citizens Center. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers pursuant ~to Government Code Section 65402 to find the vacation of the Easterly portion of 5th Street in Block E of Lowell Park Tract consistent with the General Plan of the City of Bakersfield and report the same to the City Council with the ~recommendation that an easement be reserved for all public utili- ties located within the vacating area. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Frapwell, and carried. ~. 13. ADOPTION OF THE REVISED PARKING SPACE DIMENSION Traffic Engineer, Steve Walker referred to his memorandum dated September 11, 1990, and the plan Showing the proposed new standard indicating this is in response to the Commission's direction for recon- sideration of the aisle width requirements for 9.0 feet wide stalls at a 90 degree angle when the new parking standard was adopted. The stan- dard requires a 26.5 foot wide aisle which was based on parking stan- dard data and research available at the time. He further stated that a -module width of 61.0 feet can be used for "large" vehicle parking at 90 degreep and 9.0 feet wide or wider. With the standard 9.0 feet by 18.0 foot stall, this would allow a 25.0 foot wide aisle. Former Planning Commissioner Milazzo apprised Commission of the circumstances they went through and encouraged the development commu- nity to agree to the new parking ordinance approach, and the approach was to not end Up with a greater amount of land being dedicated to the same nUmber of parking stalls, and to accomplish that by reducing the ength'and increasing'the width to the 9 by 18 there still would have· een a net gain·of 1Rnd coverage. ' Minutes~.' P1/C, 9/20/90 Page 9 13. ADoPTIoN'OF THE REVISED PARKING SPACE DIMENSION (continued) £ Former_Planning Commissioner Milazzo apprised Commission of the circumstances they went through and encouraged the development commu- nity to agree to the new parking ordinance approach,.and the approach was to'not end up with a greater amount of land being dedicated to the same number 6f parking stalls, and to accomplish that by reducing the length and increasing the width to the 9 by 18, there still would have been'a net gain of' land coverage. He further stated that if compacts could be done away with and maintain a parking ratio that still has the same amount of coverage per acre with cars, then there will be a rea- sonably good balance, and the benefit is that it reduces car door damage. Discussion took place as to the pros and cons of the proposed isle width versus the present. Alternate Commissioner Frapw~ll recommended that this be approved. Commissioner Cohn commented that if this is going to be an error he would rather error on the side of an extra foot and a half to maneuver ~around a lot and to restrict it down to 25 feet. Mr.' Milazzo commented that when the existing'ordinance was a 25-foot drive aisle with a 8 1/2 by 20-foot stall, and if the drive aisle is left just as it is and widen the stall even though the length was taken off of it to off-set the compact, the ease of getting in and out of that stall has been increased even by just leaving it at 25. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson to adopt Revised parking space 'dimension standard as shown on Sheet T-10, dated 12/23/87 with the 9/4/90 with the following exception that Note #4 the reference to the 26.5 aisle width as a recommendation be deleted. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Frapwell. Commissioner Cohn voted no. 14.~ REPORT FROM THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE REGARDING ACQUISITION OF FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY Vice Chairman Marino read the report into the record for Chairperson Rosenlieb. "The committee has had several meetings on the subject of funding for acquisition of freeway rights-of-way. In our meetings we have been discussing the formation of a task force comprised of~this~committee and representatives from the BIA, Kern COG, City staff~, City Council, Kern County, Cat Trans, and Board of Realtors. It is felt that the committee should meet bi-weekly to accomplish the drafting of an ordinance to provide funding for the acquisition of freeway right-of-way. This effort is intended to preserve corridors for future freeways as identified in the Circulation Element of the 2010 General Plan. Minutes, P1/C, 9/20/~90 Page 10 14. REPORT FROM THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE REGARDING ACQUISITION OF FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY (continued) In an effort to facilitate the formulation of the task force, a letter from the Chairperson of the Planning Commission was delivered to the' City Clerk. The letter requested Council to refer the matter to a com- mittee and assign a Council person to spear head the effort. The let- ter will be on the Council Agenda for September 19, 1990. The committee expects to be very involved in the process and will con- tinue to report our. progress." Vice Chairman Marino asked Mr. Hardisty for a report as to the outcome of the Council meeting. Mr. Hardisty informed Commission that the Council appointed' Councilman McDermott to work with the task force as representative of the Council. Vice Chairman Marino asked if a meeting was going to be scheduled. Mr. Hardisty replied that a meeting can be coordinated for either the first or second week in October. Vice Chairman Marino informed the rest of the Commission as to what their intentions are. Chairperson Rosenlieb asked Mr. Hardisty if he felt it necessary to meet with the Council appointee in the meantime. Mr. Hardisty replied that he could arrange that. 15. VERBAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Milazzo gave a Habitat Committee Report. Commissioner Marino asked Mr. Milazzo if there is any intent to estab- lish any significant habitat area within the 2010 boundaries. Mr. Milazzo replied that if that is done, the price of the property may start to rise. In general, any property that has been cataloged as potential is available, however the trick is how to make the dollars go as far as they can go. Commissioner Marino asked about the state's water bank. Mr. Hardisty replied that less of a 1/4 of that land is even planned to be subject to inundation on a recharge activity. 16. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Anderson asked staff if the Commission had left any type of a loop hole by simply deleting the sign on Barrington Street and not amending the number of signs totally that could be allowed on the site. Minutes, P1/C, 9/20/90 Page 11 16. COMMISSION COMMENTS (continued) Mr. HardistY informed Commissioner Anderson there was no problem. Vice Chairman Marino commented that when the 2010 Plan was adopted, it was understood that those specific areas, would not be touched by the 201OPlanf The McIntosh General Plan was not a specific plan area, that area then fell under the 2010 EIR. He then asked what governs as they review different pieces of property. ,Ms. Marino replied that the consistency finding would have been with the 2010 Plan. Vice Chairman Marino commented that he would like to see three new zon- -lng designations; an M-3 Zone, HC designation; NC Land Use designation for neighborhood commercial, and something between the SR and ER that would carry with it a half acre zoning designation. Commissioner Powers stated that he had a conflict on the property that restricted it to medical, however they do have the authority to impose conditions and be site specific on the relationships with commercial with residential and how they relate to the property surrounding, bu~ indicated that he has a problem in recognizing the McIntosh Plan due to the fact that it is noti specifically referenced in the 2010 Plan. Mr. Hardisty did not feel the Commission is shackled to every word and letter in the McIntosh General Plan either, but if your going to change from those understanding that were reached in the public hearings as to development densities and .traffic impacts and distribution of land uses and you feel as though you can change those then you should also feel as though you could change some of the requirements on the developer to balance out those changes. Vice Chairman Marino asked Mr. Kloepper if they would provide the Joint City Council/Planning Commission committee with criteria that they have in mind for hardscape and landscape for discussion. Mr. Hardisty reviewed various items that went before the City Council on September 19th.~ Chairperson Rosenlieb informed Commission that the Subdivision Committee met to discuss the .undergrounding of power lines and really not makin~ any headway. They have asked for more information to be provided. It may be cost prohibitive to look at new development to pick that cost' up but are still exploring the possibility. Commissioner Powers asked Mr. Hardisty as to the outcome of the Tevis Ranch park. Mr. HardiSty replied there was no discusSion, it was offered for dedi- cation and was not accepted, and staff is working with the developer to come. back,with an accePtable plan. ~ Minutes, P1/C, 9/20/90 Page 12 17.-ADJOURiqMENT There being no other business to come before the Commission, meeting was~adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Isabel Williams y~anning Dire~