Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/23/92MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING oF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, January 23, 1992, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JIM MARINO, Chairperson STEVE ANDERSON, Vice Chairperson TERI BJORN DAVID COHN STEVE MESSNER DARREN POWERS KATE ROSENLIEB 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 JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS No one made any public statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. ~Minutes, PC, '1/23/92 3. APPROVAL OF ~MINUTES Page 2 Chairman Marino asked that December 5 minutes, Page 14 be changed to reflect that the motion made for reconsideration of the item did not carry but was a split vote. On the December 19th minutes, Page 4 he felt the motion was worded inapprOpriately because the motion was to deny the applicant's request for change of conditions. Mr. Kloepper clarified the intent of the motion was to take away the condition allowing the temporary drive approach. Chairman Marino was satisfied the condition read correctly. Motion was'made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to approve minutes of the regular meetings held December 5 and December 19, 1991 with the changes as previously stated. Motion carried. 4.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9723 This item was continued from the January 9, 1992 meeting. Commissioner Anderson disqualified himself from hearing this item due to the fact he has prov_ided services to the applicant within the last year. Commissioner Bjorn abstained from Voting on this matter because she was absent from the December 19th meeting in which public testimony was taken. Commissioner Powers abstained, due to a possible financial conflict of interest in that he represents a property owner in the application. A request was received from the applicant for further continuance on this item. Jim Redstone was present representing the applicant. He stated he agreed with a continuance of this item: Public portion, of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition to this item. Motion was made by COmmissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to continue this item to the regular meeting of February 6, 1992. Motion carried. Commissioner Bjorn abstained. Commissioners Anderson and Powers were absent. c Minutes, PC, 1/23/92 4.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9758 This item was continued from the January 9, 1992 meeting. Page 3 Staff rePort was. given. Public portion was reopened; no one spoke in opposition. Raymond Stene was present stating he is the engineer of the project. He stated he had questions concerning this parcel map and asked for a continuance to April 4th. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to continue this item to the regular meeting of April 4, 1992. Motion. carried. 5.1 PUBLIC HEARING -_TENTATIVE TRACT 5506 VESTING This item was continued fxom the regular meeting of January 9, 1992. Mr. Hardisty clarified on agenda item #4.2 that Mr. Stene asked for a continuance of Apt. il 4, 1992 which he said is not the correct date: The correct date is April 2, 1992. MotiOn was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to reconsider agenda item #4.2. Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to continue agenda item #4.2 to the regular meeting of April 2, 1992. Motion carried. ' Chairman Marino clarified a letter had been received from the applicant dated January 17, 1992 agreeing to mitigation of regional traffic impacts on Tentative Tract 5506 and a memo from the Planning Department with' revised conditions and an amended motion. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Jim Delmarter represented the applicant. He stated he agreed with conditions of -approval. Public portion Of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 1/23/92 ' Page 4 -RespOnding to a question 'by CommiSsioner Rosenlieb, Mr.~ Hardisty clarified condition #1 should specify that no structures for human occupancy should be built within 50 feet of a pipeline. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb regarding the possible' creation of problems resulting from this condition, Mr. Delmarter said they felt they may be able to place the living portion of the home away from~the pipeline · easement With some minor adjustments and redesign of the street on which the gas pipeline is'located. - Mr. Delmarter responded to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, by saying the existing structures located off Taft Highway would be relocated. Regarding a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said landscaping is required regardless of the type of protection around the .sump. He said the Planning Department condition on this issue could be stricken because the Public Works condition would be. more appropriate. Mr: Delmarter felt a clarification needed to be made on Page 11 of 14 to reference no wall being required on the west side of Akers Road in the event the two streets mentioned connect. .Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded.by Commissioner Powers to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to.make all finding set - forth in the staff report, and to approve proposed vested Tentative .Tract 5506 subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report with the changes proposed in the memorandums from the planning Department and Fire Department dated January 22, 1992, and the memorandum from the Public Works Department dated January 23, 1992, with the following changes: Memo from Fire Safety Control dated January 22, 1992, condition #1 under other requirements to read as follows: No structures for human.occupancy may be built within 50 feet of a pipeline. Page 11 of 14, Condition #1 read as follows: Walls and landscaping are required adjacent to double frontage lots pursuant to section 16.28.170, paragraph E, of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. In addition walls and landscaping are required on the west side of Akers Road from McKee Road to Penell Road. In the event that Clarissa Avenue and La Briola Avenue are redesigned to connect with Akers Road no wall will be' required on the west side of Akers Road from McKee Road to.Pennell Road. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, i/23/92 Page 5 5'.2 - PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5581 Commissioners Anderson and Marino abstained from hearing this item due to possible conflicts of interest. *Commissioner Messner was seated. Motion was made by. Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by. Commissioner Powers to appoint Commissioner Rosenlieb as temporary chairpersom Motion carried. Staff repOrt was waived. A request was received from the applicant for continuance of this item to the regular meeting of January23, 1992. 6.a & b) Motion' was made by Commissioner Bjorn, seconded by Commissioner Powers to. continue this item to the next regular meeting of February 6, 1992. Motion. carried. GPA 4-91, SEGMENT III Commissioner Powers abstained from hearing both these items due to a conflict of interest in that he represents the property owners in the application. Commissioner Bjorn'abstained on these items because she was absent from the December 19, 1992 meeting in which public testimony was taken. Staff report was given. Mr. Kloepper outlined the traffic study performed_ by the applicant. He said property owners in the area were notified about the possibility of closing Park Way. Most calls received from their office have been in opposition to this closing. Commissioner Rosenlieb gave a synopsis of the discussions conducted by the committee on this item. She said the traffic study indicated some possible negative impact to Sunset if the street were closed. Public portion of the hea~ing was opened. Minutes, PC, 1/23/92 Page 6 Ray Hammond was present stating he is against the wall for aesthetic reasons because of possible graffiti and the affect on his property values. He was also concerned about those using the proposed fast-food restaurant would access it through Park Way. He felt possibly a landscape barrier could be constructed rather than a wall. Frances Muchmoore stated her residence is at the corner of Elm Street and Sunset Avenue. She felt the possible closing of Park Way would divert traffic onto Elm Street. She was concerned about ~them paying taxes on a portion of the street that they will not be able to utilize. This would eliminate their access to businesses on Oak Street. Venessa Vangel, 3006 Park Way, said she is against this barricade for the following reasons: concern about lifesaving vehicles reaching residences, Park Way residents being forced to exit in an emergency would cause a stampede, police cars chasing people through this area will have to stop at the barricade, liability,, the possible decrease in property values, homeless people sleeping in the alley; the collection of trash, graffiti, diversion of traffic. Nora JenkinSsuggested that this street be designed to look more like a cul-de-sac with landscaping. She was concerned about a u-turn being allowed on the corner of California and Oak Street. She suggested that if Parkway remains Open there should be a'stop sign placed at the end of Elm. Sandy MarCinek, resident of Park Way, was concerned about possible traffic problems with speeding and observation of traffic rules. She was opposed to the wall fr°m an aesthetic point of view and asked who would maintain it. She suggested a landscaping, island be placed at the end of Park W. ay rather than a wall. Richard Armstrong submitted a letter which is on file. He felt the placement of a wall has not been adequately studied. He felt the change in zoning would have a negative impact on the residential neighborhood adjoining it and may cause traffic problems. He felt pe_ople would be encouraged to use the alley as a surface street. He was concerned that the proposed wall at the end of Park Way may create an eyesore and ~egatively affect property values. Attorney Ed Wilson spoke .saying he and his wife own property on the corner of Elm wand Sunset. He said they are concerned with the results of blocking off Park Way, particularly the possibility of increase in traffic on Sunset. He felt the alley's use would increase as a result of this possible closure. He stated he did not Want to close-Sunset as was suggested to him by the applicant. He said he is not opposed to development on Oak Street, however did not feel it was necessary to'close Park way or the alley in .order to effectively develop the property. Minutes,-PC, 1/23/92 Page 7 Darlene Vangel property owner on Park Way, spoke saying she has sold property on this street and the main attraction to the home was conveniences, asking that this street not be closed. John Kennon, Sr., 2519 Park Way, was appreciative of the convenience that Park Way afforded him with regard to access to businesseS and the freeway. He-was' concerned about the safety of access onto California Avenue if Park Way is closed. Tom Merson, property owner of 2516 Park Way said he has lived in this area for over 50 years.. He felt the addition of this proposed fast-food restaurant would increase the traffic and hazards of the intersection immeasurably. He felt to wall off the street would not be a reasonable way around the problem. He asked that the entire project be reconsidered. Doreen Freeman, 3007 San Emidio stated she is in opposition to the wall. She stated others she is aware of are in opposition also. She asked that the wall not be erected. _ . Barbara Thomas was concerned about access if Park Way is closed. Judith Worley said they are opposed to a fast-food restaurant being constructed and asked what the issue at hand is. She was concerned about traffic conditions in the area if the -fast-food restaurant is allowed. She felt a landscape island would be more aesthetically pleasing instead of a wall. Carol Evans clarified the current zoning of the area allows a fast-food restaurant without a drive-through window. Mr. Hardisty clarified the drive-through aspect requires a conditional use permit. Regarding a question by Ms. Evans, Mr. Kloepper said if a wall isconstructed within the right-of-way the maintenance would be the.city's responsibility. Marie Swall, resident in }he 2200 block of Park Way, stated she felt this would not be appropriate_ for the neighborhood. Darlene Vangel'added to her objection the zone change from C-1 to C-2. Kathi Davies stated her opposition to the wall. Alphia B. Tidwell, 30t5 San Emidio, stated her opposition. Minutes, PC, 1/23/92 Page 8 Inga Barks resident Of Park 'Way was concerned about the alley facing their street. Regarding the cul-de-sac she felt they are more desirable for families and felt businesses being in Close proximity would create problems with traffic, noise and litter. She stated she is in opposition to the zone change.. Commissioner Rosenlieb outlined for those present the proposal before the Commission. Vanessa Vangel, Frances Muchmore, Sandy Marcinek, Kurt Hettinger, Richard Armstrong, Ed Wilson, Judith Worley, Kevin Marcinek, Doreen Freeman, Inga Barks, John KennOn, Barbara Thomas, Claudia McNorton, Alphia B. Tidwell stated their opPosition to-the zone change. Michael Myers stated 'he is in favor of the zone change, asking that the request be approved to allow for the construction of a wall. Dawn Carlon, property owner of 3113 and 3115 Sunset Avenue spoke saying she is in favor of the construction of a wall on'Park Way, in order to maintain privacy. Lamar Kerley thanked city staff and Mr. Powers for their cooperation in working With-the-neighbors. He felt the proposed wall needs to be constructed and the blocking of traffic will enhance the neighborhood, while allowing for necessary development. He felt the residents most affected by this development's needs should be most listened to at this hearing. Park Way is becoming the thoroughfare for the commercial properties on Oak, which would increase with the development. . . Marie Swall Stated her opposition to zone changes. She felt adding the fast-food business will not help-the existing traffic problem. John Moore stated he was initially opposed t° the zone change becau se his residence is close .to the proposal. He felt good about the fact that the developer is willing to mitigate the issue of traffic which will be brought about by this development. Carol Evans stated she is in favor of the zone change with the conditions that a wall be constructed to block traffic. Dave Butler, 3030 Park Way, stated he is in favor of the zone change. He felt a blOCkade on Park Way would not cause difficulty for emergency vehicles. Inga Barks stated she is not opposed to the project. Minutes, PC, 1/23/92 Page 9 Janet Card0Za, 3107 Park Way, was concerned about safety issues regarding trafficbecause she has small children and the issuesof privacy-as it relates to people using her .front yard as an eating area. john Lusich, 2901 Park Way, was concerned about trash, traffic, and heavy commercial traffic, and noise. He stated he is in favor of the zone change. Jennifer Butler, 3030-Park'Way, said she is in favor of the zone change because it would be a deterrent-to traffic which is the biggest issue facing Park Way. Laur_a Hettinger, 3025 Pa~k Way, stated-she is' in favor of. the zone change with .the wall as a deterrent. Pat Kerley said the commercial project is going to be constructed and she would be. appreciative if something can be done to mitigate the problem. The comments from people closest to the project needed to be weighed more heavily. Tom -Pounds, 3015 Park Way, said he is in favor of the zone change with the provision of the barrier. Jim Redstone represented Mr. Powers. He clarified the developer is the owner of the property_ and the purpose of the purchase of the lot next door is to provide an area to allow the alley to be relocated. He said the developer would be agreeable to mitigate the neighbors concerns over traffic problems. He requested the general plan amendment be allowed to go forward. If the wall is not approved he asked that the C-2 zoning be granted from the south line of the alley northerly to Chlifornia Avenue. Responding to a request by Mr. Redstone, Mr. Hardisty said he would agree to the removal of the wording "and' offices" from Condition #3. Mr. Redstone said the felt the 2 percent increase in traffic was insignificant and the developer should not be required to mitigate this. Mr. Kloepper said he .supported this recommendation. Responding to a comment by Mr. Redstone, Commissioner R osenlieb said she did not feel the committee had a problem with allowing ingress' and egress from California Avenue. Minutes, PC, 1/23/92 Page 10 Responding to-a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty suggested that the-proposals by the .applicant including the offer of providing 10 feet.of additional property to the neighbor to the east, eXcluding the alley cut-off, be included as condition of approval. It should also be noted that this property would be zoned residential. Public portion ofthe hearing was closed. * 10-minUte recess Was taken at this time. Mr. Kloepper read a .letter in opposition to the closing of Park Way from Mr. - Marc Jordan, Real Estate Manager for Circle K into the record. Commissioner Rosenlieb thanked those who spoke. She outlined for those present the Commission's role in hearing this project. She stated she had no problem with the developer's request for a zone change and general plan amendment. Regarding the applicant's agreement to construct a wall she said she is-not in favor of closing Park Way. She felt the main issue is whether the develOPer's project, at the present time, impacts Park Way in such a way that he should erect a block wall; stating she felt this is not the case. There is no nexus. She stated she. is not in favor of the developer's request to change the corner from C-1 to C-2. She stated for the neighbors if the proposal goes through as is the developer will have to make significant changes to improve the existing System. She said she would support the findings in the original staff report dated December 19, 1991. under the C-1 zoning the developer would have to go to the Board of' Zoning Adjustment for a conditional use permit for a drive-through window. Responding to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Kloepper said he agreed with the suggestion of the neighbors of landscaping as an appropriate separatiOn, however he was not prepared to limit options at this time. Mr. Hardisty said there would be time for review of the project at the time of site plan review if the commission goes to restricted C-2 zoning. Commissioner Messner agreed with 'the comments by those most impacted, that the construction of a wall would be a reasonable compromise. Chairman Marin0 agreed wi:th approval of the general plan amendment. Regarding a question by .him, Mr. Hardisty said the general plan amendment cycle associated with this application will be heard in early March. Mr. Hardisty distinguished that for the general plan amendment to pass four affirmative votes are required, however on the zone Change a majority of those voting is required for it to be approved. of the site~ Chairman Marino said he would support the.consolidation MinUtes, PC, 1/23/92 Page 11 Responding to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Hardisty said the issue of street closure would be more closely related to the zone change than the general plan amendment. He outlined the recommendation to maintain the property C-1. Commissioner Cohn agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Rosenlieb - with respect to rezoning the southern portion to C-2 to give the developer the opportunity to re-route the alley, however the zoning of the northern portion should remain. He said he felt comfortable due to the fact if the developer proposes something notcovered within the C-1 zoning, it would be heard by the BOard of Zoning A-djustment. He stated his difficulty with blocking off Park Way in that-additional traffic would be shifted to other streets. Responding to a question .by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said if this issue is not decided by .the Planning Commission, the general plan would go to the Council with-no recommendation from the Commission. The zone change would have tO be appealed by the applicant due to failure. Chairman. Marino-recognized Mr. Curly asked in the-event of no wall being constrUcted, could they request no cut-out in the sidewalk on Park Way. Chairman Mafino said a condition of approval is that access of Park Way shall be limited to one-point to. be constructed with 20 foot curb returns. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration 'with mitigation measure listed in Exhibit "B" and approving the requested GC (General Commercial) land use designations subject .to the conditions of ~approval shown on the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report and recommended same to City Council, with the following changes: Conditions of Exhibit "A", the deletion of Conditions 3, 4 and 5 Item # 1 of Planning .Department conditions the following sentence shall be added: The applicant shall offer approximately 10 feet of additional property to the adjoining residential property with the Understanding that the additional 10 feet of side yard will remain residential. Minutes, PC, 1/23/92' Item #11 to be changed to read as follows: Page 12 The one point' of access on California Avenue shall be ingress and egress. Motion failed to carry by the following tie roll call vote: AYES: Cohn, Rosenlieb '.NOES: -Messner, Marino ABSTAINED: Commissioner, Bjorn ABSENT: cOmmissioners Powers, Anderson, Frapwell Chairman Marino outlined the oPtions for the Commission being a possible adjournment of the meeting, motion to reconsider the previous motion; or moving onto considering only the-zone change. Commissioner Roseniieb suggested an adjournment stating she would not support a Zone change in which the general plan designation is residential. Mr. Hardisty outlined two options being a motion to deal with the disposition of the zoning or motion to adjourn. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb to adjourn. After discussion she withdrew her motion. She felt there was no point in discussing this further since, it was evident the Commission would not agree on a general plan amendment or zone Change. Discussion continued regarding options available for the Commission. Minutes,' PC, 1/23/92 Page 13 Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried by the following roll call 'vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Cohn, Messner, Rosenlieb Commissioner Marino ABSTAINED: ' Commissioner Bjorn ABSENT: Commissioners Powers, Anderson, Frapwell Laurie Davis Recording Secretary