Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/91MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TH-E PLANNING COMMISSION -OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, December 19, 1991, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JIM MARINO, Chairperson STEVE ANDERSON, Vice Chairperson DAVID COHN STEVE MESSNER DARREN POWERS KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate Absent: TERI BJORN ADVISORY MEMBERS:-Present: STAFF: Present: LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. Carol Miranda stated her concern regarding the prOposed transportation impact 'fee. She felt the city shOuld proceed with the implementation of this fee in order to prepare for future growth.- She asked that the Commission keep in mind they are serving the people. ~ V Minutes, PC, i2/i9/91 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 'MotiOn was made by.Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to approve minutes of the regular meeting held November 7 and Novembei 21, 1991. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITION CHANGE - PARCEL MAP 8096 (JACO HILL COMPANY). Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Chairman Marino stated a letter had been received from ~Mr. Sanders dated December 18, 1991. Larry Eisenhart, traffic engineer was present representing Jaco Oil Company. He stated the opinion that a driveway close to the intersection may or may not cause an unsafe condition or operational problem. He cited other situations with driveways at the curb return or close to it. He said he received a letter from the City traffic engineer saying they observed unsafe exit movements from the driveway. He said he made an observation of this driveway. The only.sign he saw was a "do not enter sign" and did not feel it relates to the maneuvers that motorists are going to make. He felt motorists would not make the maneuver unless it is safe. He said regarding the statement by the traffic engineer that driveWays on arterials cause side friction, he felt it would cause this friction regardless of whether it is a right turn in, out, left turn in or left turn out. He did not feel the argument that this is unsafe or causes capacity problems at the intersection were valid. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated during the initial hearing on this item the applicant's opinion was that the livelihood of this use depended on a driveway at this location. She felt commission and staff wanted to be as accommodating as possible given the obvious traffic conflicts. She voted yes only because staff made the requirement that if it did not work it would have to be removed. She-said she regretted not' supporting a no vote on this issue and would support it being removed now. Commissioner MeSsner felt the agreement made on the original approval was quite clear. He stated he would support staff's request for denial. Minutes,. PC, 12/19/91 Page '3 CommisSioner Anderson recalled the original objective of the .commission of trying to prevent the exit of traffic out of this driveway.. He asked for staff's Opinion of implementing a more positive measure that would prevent the exit of cars from the driveway. Mr. Kloepper said he would have no opposition to considering other measures to make the driveway work as an entrance 0nly, however none have been proposed. Commissioner Anderson invited Mr. Saunders to speak to this issue. He was concerned about keeping traffic from leaving the driveway _and asked if he would be willing to come forward with a submittal that-referenced some type of barrier within the driveway. Mr. Saunders said this is a possibility and currently there is an agreement between his traffic engineer and the city's that c. urrently a problem does not exist from this driveway. He felt 'a more appropriate approach would be to install signage to an appropriate level. Commissioner Anderson said he has witnessed cars leaving this driveway on various occasions and there has been no attempt other than signage to prevent this. He felt the situation is not going to change unless it is made ph~,sically impossible. Mr. Walker, City Traffic Engineer, said he responded to Mr. Saunders letter of the 18th with a memo to Mr. Kloepper, stating he is in agreement with Mr. Eisenhart at this time in that the action and number of cars leaving the driveway . does not pose a direct problem to traffic. However, it was 'agreed at the time of approval this'would probably not be a problem for a number of years. He cited his agreement in 1990, saying he said if no problems developed within a 2 year period the requirement to remove the drive may be dropped. His observance of the site conforms very closely to the data gathered by Mr. Eisenhart showing the conflict of cars. Regarding Mr. Eisenhart's opinion that signage could be improved, he had doubts that additional signage would make any difference in compliance. He-outlined how the standard was arrived at. He said if it can be used as an ingress only he would have no problem with it. Regarding a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Walker felt the Commission could look at other alternatives presented by the applicant. Commissioner Anderson stated he would not be in support of closing the entrance but modifying it so that it functions as originally intended. CommisSioner pOWers said he visited the site on a week night noticing 6 cars exiting'the driveway, With 2 having problems crossing the traffic to get into the left turn lane to continue west of White Lane. He said he did not agree with Mr. Walker's assessment of what is appropriate for a setback of a driveway from a corner. Closing the driveway is a fairly drastic measure and he is willing to work with the applicant a bit longer. MinUtes, PC, 12/19/91 ' Page 4 o Chairman Marino recalled originally there was no design approval. The agreement being ingress only. He agreed with Mr. Walker that signage will not fix the situation. He said he had no problem giving them another chance to make groUnd modifications. Commissioner Frapwell said he agreed with the traffic engineer regarding the setback. He said he has opposed this type of design 'on corners in the past. He said-he would vote in favor of closing this, however would be in favor of the alternative of-allowing for time to correct the problem and take another look at it before the 2-year-period lapses. Commissioner Rosenlieb was convinced that no matter how much signage is erected-and how big the worm is made people will drive through it and across the street. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to modify the conditions of approval for Parcel Map 8096 to prohibit drive access and deny the request by the applicant. Mr. Saunders said ~he was not prepared to provide a redrawn design, however he could provide one shortly and would be in a position to provide it at the next meeting. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Cohn, Messner, Rosenlieb, Frapwell Commissioners Anderson, Powers, Marino ABSENT: Commissioner Bjorn PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5506 VESTING (RICKETT, WARD, DELMARTER AND DEIFEL) Chairman Marino stated a request had been received for a continuance on this item. Public portion of the hearing was open. No one spoke on this item. Mr. Hardisty recommended this item be continued to the next meeting of January 9, 1992. No one was present representing the applicant. Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 5 Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said the City Council took action of the Regional Transportation Impact Fee, however it will not be effective until 60 days after the second reading. Direction has been given to allow the applicant knowledge as to how to proceed. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powersto continue this item to the next meeting of January 9, 1992. Motion carried. CommissiOner Bjorn was absent. AMENDMENT-TO RIVERLAKES RANCH/UNIBELL SPECIFIC PLAN, ZONE CHANGE #5265, TENTATIVE TRACT 5573 Commissioner:Anderson abstained due to a possible conflict of interest in that his company has recently provided services to the applicant. Chairman Marino abstained due to a financial conflict of interest in that he is employed by the-applicant. Motion was made by C6mmissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to appoint Commissioner Cohn as chair of this item. Chairman Marino .abstained. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Steve DeBranch was present representing the applicant. He said they proPosed the subdivision with lots fronting on Meacham Road in an attempt to make it consistent with the subdivision which will be heard at the next meeting to the West at the corner of Meacham and Calloway. Commissioner Rosenlieb Was concerned about eliminating-the wall and landscape requirement at this location. She cited a sketch submitted by the applicant with a proposal-for a landscape median area. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said staff had looked at this sketch and may be in agreement with including it. He said staff is not convinced the median will allOW-traffic to function smoothly because a number of left turns would be desired by the residents fronting on Meacham. He would expect the applicant to prOVide the city with detailed engineering designs to prove that they can work with the requirements ~before he would agree with the median. Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 6 Commissioner Rosenlieb said she is not willing to support this project without a landscape median. Mr. Kloepper said his position is due to the fact that an important part of this submittal is'missing which is the actual layout of the school across the street.: C°mmissioner'Rosenlieb said her concern is that a requirement for -landscaping is being removed when the staff report states that a feature of the plan is the landscaping. She stated her opposition to houses fronting on collector streets. Part-of her reason for being willing to go to the landscape median island is the fact that the property immediately adjacent and to the west of' this location is not part of the specific' plan and would not have the requirement for landscaPing. This would provide some consistency between the two properties~ Commissioner P0wers'stated he shared the concern that a median should be in the road if at all possible. Mr. DeBranch saidff the city engineer will not approve the median there is a specific plan amendment they cannot adhere to. He said they have no opposition to doing this. He felt they needed assurance from Public Works that the. median is allowed. Mr. Kl. oepper said he would not object to the median if it would allow traffic to fUnction properly, however this has not been proved. He felt the median could be .an impediment because of the necessity for U-turns and access to the school, it has not been shown that the street is wide enough for U-turns from a center' median without causing problems. Commissioner Powers said he would support this project, however was in opposition to the lots fronting on Meacham. Regarding the use-at the north side, Mr. DeBranch said the property has been purchased by a church entity. Landscaping is not required on the parcel to the west. He felt they had shown they are trying to propose a plan that enhances the area. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would not be able to support this project. without staff's wholehearted support of the landscape median island. She 'suggested if there is a motion made to support this that the additional condition- language supPlied .by the applicant should say that the subdivider will construct a landscape median island if approved by the city engineer. Regarding recommended'condition #2 under the zone change she asked if this condition could be dropped from the zone change and left on the tract map as it currently exists. Mr. Hardisty said it needs to be a part of the ordinance requirement because it introduces a standard that is not now required which is how it becomes a requirement-on the subdivision map. He suggested it be changed so that it affects any boundary adjacent to a multi-family zone. Minutes, PC, .I2/19/91 Page 7 Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to make findings set forth in the staff report and' approve the Specific Plan Amendment as proposed and advertised and recommend adoption of the same to the City Council, subject to the' following additional Condition: The sUbdivider will construct a landscape median island in Meacham Road in accordance with City'Standards if approved by the City Engineer. Motion carried by the fOllowing r011 call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers NOES: Commissioner Rosenlieb ABSENT: CommissiOners Anderson, Bjorn, Marino Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to make findings set forth in the staff report and approve the Zone Change as proposed and advertised subject to the following conditions and recommend adoption of the same to the City Council: Prior to recordation of any subdivision on the project area, the developer shall provide the City of Bakersfield Planning Department with 50 copies of an up-to-date version of the Riverlakes Ranch/Unibell. Specific Plan document. Prior to - repr°duction of said 50 copies, a draft specific plan document shall be provided to the Planning Director for review. Future subdivision of the property for single family residential uses shall include a wall along the eastern and western boundaries of the project area to separate R-1 from R-2 uses. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:' Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Messner,' Powers NOES: Commissioner Rosenlieb ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Marino Minutes,-PC, 12/19/91 Page 8 Motion Was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5573, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the following changes: Page 7 of 7 of Staff report, condition #8 amended to read as follows: Prior to recordation, the developer shall install a minimum six foot high masonry block wall (from highest adjacent finished grade) along the eastern and western boundaries adjacent to the Rz2 zoned Property. Should the R-2 zoned property be rezoned to R-1 prior to recordation of the tract, the masonry wall will not be required. Motion carried by the' following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, FrapwelL Messner, Powers NOES: Commissioner Rosenlieb ABSENT:' Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn, Marino Regarding a question by Mr. Kloepper, motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to reconsider this item. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by. Commissioner Frapwell to amend his motion to include the the revised conditions of December 18, 1991, from the Public Works Department. Motion carried. Commissioner Rosenlieb voted no. 7.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-91, SEGMENT II AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 2-91, SEGMENT I COmmissioner Anderson abstained from hearing this item due to a .possible conflict of interest in that his company is providing services to the applicant. Staff report was given. Mr. Gauthier asked that finding #5 be changed as follows: the words in the parenthesis be changed to "east of the golf course." Minutes, PC, 12/19/9'1 - Page 9 Regarding a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Hardisty said the timing for -the park will be de,;;el0ped within one year of the time that 25 percent of the residential acreage in this section is recorded as final-maps. '-' Public portion .of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger Mcln'tosh was present representing the applicant. He asked that condition #4 of Exhibit "A" be changed to reflect the east half of the golf course rather than the east half.of Settion 7 because there are two subdivision areas which lie within the east half of' Section 7. In speaking with the water department they agreed the water well would not be needed until they get into the gated Community-area. He also asked that condition #1 of the Circulation Element read as follows: White Oak Drive (through the east half' of Section 7) shall conform to flow-line to flow-line widths as shown on Standard S-26A with the rest of' the condition to remain as is. In referring to this standard it calls for a 90-foot right-of-way, the flow line to flow line width is the recommended .width on the traffic study. They want the option if they go to private streets to reduce the parkway and all°w for houses to front on the street. Mr. Kloepper said he had.no objection to Mr. McIntosh's requests. Regarding Circulation Element Condition #1 he felt appropriate wording should be added so that'the reduced Parkway would only apply in the case of a gated community. Mr. Mclntosh said this would be acceptable. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to make findings set forth in staff report, with the amendment to Finding #5 to read as follows: Dedication of a-site for a water well in the vicinity-of the existing park site (east of the golf course) is necessary to provide required water supply for fire protection and water service. approving the Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 4- 91, Segment II consisting of a change from OS-P to LR on 8 acres and from LR to OS-P on 8 acres for the purposes of relocating a park, subject to the conditions of approval listed in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, and recommend same to the City Council with the following amendments to Exhibit "A": Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 10 Item. #4 amended to read as follows: Prior to or concurrently with the recordation of a final'subdivision map located east of the golf course in the Seven Oaks Development, subdivider/developer shall dedicate to the City a minimum 90' x 90' lot located in' the general vicinity of the current park site (area to be changed from OS-P to LR) for a water well. Specific location and lot configuration shall .be approved by the City Water Resources Director. (Water -Resources) Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES:: None ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn -Motion Was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to make findings set forth in the staff report, approving the Negative~. Declaration and approving Circulation Element Amendment 2-91, Segment I to remove the collector street designation on White Oak Drive between Old River Road and a point approximately 500 feet east of Mountain Vista Drive, subject to the conditions of apprpval-in Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the following changes and recommend same to City Council. - Item # 1 of Circulation Element amended to read as follows: White Oak Drive (thrOUgh the east half of Section 7) shall conform to flow line to flow line width as shown on City Standard S-26A: All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards. Reduce parkway width would only apply in the event the community is gated. Motion .carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino. NOES: ABSENT: None -Commissioners Anderson, Bjorn Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 11 7.2 GPA 4-91, SEGMENT III AND ZONE CHANGE #5243 Commissioner Powers abstained from hearing this item due to a possible conflict of interest in that he represents a property owner in this application. Staff report' was given. public portion of the hearing was opened. L~mar_ Curley requested that this item be withdrawn from the current cycle so that-a separate hearing may be held and those affected may be notified. He felt pressure to approve this was done in a hurried manner without presentation of all options and knowledge of how the cul-de-sacing of the public street wOUld affect the local traffic and circulation. The residents are not opposed to 'commercial development bu~ the deterioration of the residential neighborhood. They are willingto accept the idea of a cul-de-sac feeling it would decrease traffic that should not be in their residential neighborhood. Mr. Powers agreed to fund the Cul-de-sacing of the street which would probably reduce significant problems in the-futUre. He was concerned about the overcrowdedness of Oak and California exacerbating the situation to an unacceptable level. He requested the Commission exercise its Control to promote the preservation of the current infrastructure~ John Moore-spoke saying he agreed with Mr. Curley's comments saying he is opposed to the development of this property to a fast food restaurant. He was also.concerned abOUt a noise problem with having 24-hour drive-up window and trash generated from 'these types of establishments which he felt would flow into their neighborhood. He was concerned about possible traffic problems~ He submitted pictures: of commercial vehicles driving down their street in front of a sign that piohibits them on the basis of weight. He said he would like to see some mitigating measures on this project. He felt if this is approved that the .Commission should seriously look at attaching the cul-de-sac plan to it. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper clarified a cul-de-sac plan could not be approved at this hearing and after speaking with the applicant's engineer it was pointed out conflicts exist across the street with existing commercial' development that would prohibit construction of a cul-de-sac. Everyone affected by it would have to agree with it and it is unlikely there would be agreement from this .oWner. Minutes, PC, i2/19/91 Page 12 Ms. Landers said when she moved to the City she chose to make this area her home because she felt it is one of the few neighborhoods in Bakersfield with character, charm and stability and is opposed to anything that is-going to destabilize' the neighborhood and anything detrimental to the area, which she felt this project would.- She-felt this project has a definite environmental impact and wanted to support the idea of a cul-de-sac. She felt this item should be postponed so that the cul-de-sac can be considered as part of the project. Carol Evans, resident of Park Way, requested that this general plan amendment be removed from this cycle and studied further. She was specifically concerned about the impact of additional traffic, feeling Park Way would become a thoroughfare. She said 'Mr. Powers agreed to provide a cul-de-sac and asked that_ this matter be studied further. Enga Barks, resident on Park Way-stated she and her husband are first time homeowners. She felt this would decrease the value of. her home. Mike Petty Said he is not a resident of this area but is familiar with it. He felt the community Should not overlook the fact that the California bungalows are rare such as those found in this area. Jim Redsto~e was present representing the applicant. He submitted a letter from Mr. Stuhr in favor of the project. He gave a history of their approach to the project being they woUld apply for a conditional use permit and their feeling for the need of the termination of the alley. They conducted a neighborhood meeting on this item in which they received input from the neighbors. He outlined the'issues raised being the location of the speaker, lighting, the alley cut- off, 20-foot wide commercial alley, building height being a maximum of 35 feet,' one access point on Oak Street, one egress only on California Avenue. He said a traffic study was:completed which concluded the project-generated traffic would have little effect on intersection or streets in the project area. He went through the comments regarding environmental analysis made by residents. He felt the developer shOuld be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as others in the area. Regarding a question' by .Chairman Marino, Mr. Redstone said regarding Condition.ltl of Exhibit "A" they would be willing to deed the neighbor next to them '10 feet and landscape it to provide for additional area, however if so they- would like to place the bltck wall along the 10-foot area with landscaping and curbing so that the alley could not be used for access. Regarding Public Works Condition #3 he asked for relief from the payment of 2 percent.of the cost of 'widening. Mr. Kloepper said the traffic study indicates a lesser amount of traffic.. would be generated by previous uses, however there is a situation of an Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 13 intersection operating at less than level of service "C" and a discretionary request in which conditions can be imposed. He recommended that 2 percent of the cost be paid based on estimate prepared by the Public Works Department. Regarding Condition #4, he felt there should be some relationship of the condition to the project. He said they would be willing to place the conduits on their property but not one-quarter mile to the next signal, because they are not causing this to be required-.. Mr. Kloepper stated he agreed with this request, to be installed along the Project frontage. He proposed language for change to Condition #4, which Mr. Redst°ne was agreeable to. Regarding Condition #7, he requested they be allowed 2 access points along Oak Street be permitted, to allow for a total 4 access points. Mr. Kloepper said the applicant has not provided a site plan, 4 .access points may be possible, however without this information it could not be recommended. Chairman Marino proposed language for Condition #7, to which Mr. Redstone was agreeable. Regarding Condition #8, Mr. Redstone gaid it is allowing for egress only which would apply constraints on acommercial site. He requested they be allowed both ingress and egress at this point, saying they will place it as far east as is practical. Mr. Kloepper was concerned about ingress on California Avenue being queuing of cars trying to enter the site which would cause a safety issue and stated he was not prepared to support this request. However he would not object to adding flexibility to the condition. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr."Powers said the corner has been vacant 2'years. If a curb cut were placed on this property on California as far east as physically possible it would be approximately 90 feet from the corner. The project could not survive without a curb cut on California Avenue. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she objected to an egress only curb cut. -Regarding a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Hardisty said a block wall would still be required between the commercial and residential property if the property were zoned C-1.. He described the proposal for the 10-foot corner cut- off and landscaping proposed by the applicant. The block wall on the eastern edge of the alley should be required, the western edge could be addressed if a conditional use permit were applied for. Commissioner Rosenlieb was concerned about the existing problem of commercial abutting residential. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty.said the neighborhood could petition for the installation 'of the cul-de-- sac. Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 14 Commissi0nerFrapwell said he was not opposed to the rezoning of this property; however he had concerns about fumes and traffic on the residential street. He felt staff should take additional time to look at these issues. Chairman Marino said he had received several phone calls and met with the applicant. He said the outstanding issue was the blocking of traffic through the residential streets and he would like to find a way to correct this problem. He proposed an 8-foot wall on the east side of the alley with a barricade on the east side of the wall with landscaping on the west side. He felt the general plan amendment could be held back from the zone change if necessary.. Commissioner Messner said he would have no problem with traffic barriers as long as they do not prohibit bicycle 'and pedestrian traffic stating he shares the concern of whether it will displace traffic to the next street. He felt this needed further study. Mr. Hardisty responded to a question saying he 'felt it appropriate to at least set a solid curbing along the edge to give a physical barrier with a chainlink on top. Responding to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Powers said he would erect either chainlink or concrete block, however he felt block would be nicer for the neighborhood. He felt it would be self-defeating to approve a drive on Oak Street. He asked' that the Commission approve the proposal at this hearing even if it is all C-2, with the stipulation that if the residents want the cul-de-sac he will construct it. Commissioner Cohn had difficulty with planning this property at this hearing. The Zoning recommended by staff is C-1 and in order for'a proposed fast-food restaurant to be placed on the property it would have to go. through a conditional use permit process which will control the specifics of the project. He said he would be agreeable to send this to a committee to try to solve the main issues. Mr. Hardisty said this item could be continued for a month without causing any harm. ReSPonding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Powers said he would consent to a continuance to the next meeting of January 9, 1992. Motion' was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn _to continue this item to the January 9, 1992 meeting and send it to the General Plan Committee with Commissioner Messner as Alternate. She stated she wished to invite 1-2 representatives from the neighborhood. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 15 7.3 GPA 4291, SEGMENT IV AND ZONE CHANGE #5245 CommiSsioner Marino abstained due to a possible conflict of interest in that he is employed by 'the applicant. Chairman Anderson said a request was received by the applicant for continuance. Mn Hardisty said the City Attorney, Mr. Lunardini, would be present on this case -since Ms. Marino has a conflict of interest. Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn to waive the staff report. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Henry Martinez spoke saying he recently purchased a home on northwest corner of "H" Street and Pacheco. He said he would like tosee the OC zoning remain as it is'and not be rezoned to GC because he felt GC zoning would allow for a fast, food restaurant and put an end to the peace and quiet of the.neighborhood. He said he has:no problem with the rest of the project. Responding to a'question by Mr. Martinez, Mr. Hardisty said construction cannot take place under power lines. A block Wall will be required to be constructed between residences and new business to Come into the area. Motion was made by. Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner to continue this item to-the next meeting of January 9, 1992: Motion carried. Commissioners Marino and Bjorn were absent. ~ *A break was taken'at this time. Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 16 .7.4 GPA 4-91, SEGMENT V & ZONE CHANGE #'S 5247, 5244 Staff report was given. Mr. Lunardin~, City-Attorney, stated the-Council has not made.a final decision on transportation impact fees. ResOlution of this issue will probably be in April or _May. Because projects are continuing to come forward staff is recommending to :the Council that this period be treated as an interim period so that individual . applicants will have to prepare regional traffic studies and pay whatever fees are identified in the study. He outlined the calculation of fees, stating the. County suggested they would try to take the same approach. Mr. Kloepper cited and outlined a chart showing unit costs depending on development which was submitted to the Commission. Responding to a question by Chairman Marino regarding an applicant agreeing to the payment of fees, Mr. Lunardini said the fees cited in this chart would be paid by the applicant to the extent they are not duPlicative. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr.'Kloepper said the fee is broken into two components one for local impacts and the second being regional impacts .of the development. Vesting maps will be handled in the same fashion. Mr. Hardisty felt.the reason for phasing the fee on commercial and industrial as opposed to residential is that in their experience they have found the' single and'. multi-family has been accepted as a suitable number being about $1,200. Industrial develoPment isa very price sensitive market, the fee being proposed- would have a devastating effect on the development, therefore they proposed to ' start at 50 percent-to reflect the beneficial economic effects they would have. Commissioner Rosenlieb commented on the legality of only mitigating 20 percent of the effects, asldng City Attorney what is the City'S position on this. Mr. 'Lunardini said since this is the most sensitive issue he did not feel comfortable discusSing this in a public hearing and recommended that an executive session be held because of the possibility of litigation. 'Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 17 Commissioner Powers asked for language for motions to implement the 'recommended changes; asking if some reference would have to be made if it is to be changed. Mr. Hardisty clarified the applicant would have to incorporate payment of the fee schedule into the proposed project for the Commission to proceed with' approval of the Negative Declaration. Discussion continued regarding the percentage of impact funding. .Commissioner Cohn felt the Commission should hold an executive session to discuss the traffic impact fee in relation to this project. Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to .adjourn to executive session under the Potential Litigation Exception of the Brown Act.' Attorney Lunardini stated fOr those present that the reason for going into executive-session is so that legal strategy is not discussed in public with the potential for litigation. Motion for 'executive sessiOn passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Anderson, C0hn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, ROsenlieb ABSTAINED: Commissioner Marino ABSENT: Commissioner Bjorn _ Public portion-of the hearing was Opened following the closed session. Steve Del Papa was present representing Josephine Del Papa owner of the 10- acre parcel on the northweSt corner of South "H" and Hosking Road. He expressed oppositiOn to staff's recommendation on Zone Change #5244 which recommended denial of their application 'for general commercial zoning on the property. He was opposed .to this recommendation because it contradicted with the Planning Commission's request from the September, 1991, subcOmmittee meeting, the recommendation of residential zoning would significantly lower the value of their property, the commercial zoning is not at the corner of 2 arterials, the denial is based On their property being only 1,200. feet from nearest commercial zoning. He felt commercial development would be a benefit to the surrounding area. He felt his mother's request is more consistent with the general plan and down zoning would reduce the value of the property -significantly. Staff's recommendation places the full burden of the general plan -Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 18 amendment on his mother who is a Small property owner. Other commercial uses in the areh do not compete with commercial uses that would be suitable for his mother's property. He submitted letters from surrounding land owners in favor of their request. Darrel Tucker was present representing Josephine Del Papa. Responding to questions Mr. Hardisty said Mr. Tucker can request a continuance to the next cycle. It was their understanding-from meetings with city staff and the commission their property would be designated as a commercial area. The residential areas are conducive to the commercial zoning they are planning. He did not feel this property was too small to support a shopping center type development. Tina Upton spoke saying she is a resident in the area. She said they are n°w in support of this plan because it is exactly what they want. John GUimarra spoke outlining the history of the project. He stated he would accept the fee proposals in order to proceed with the project. He stated he disagreed with the Public Works Department memo of December 12th in that it stated the traffic report-su~bmitted did not adequately address regional impacts and lead to determination-of the inadequacy of the negative declaration. He submitted a letter from the preparer of the traffic report which indicates it did deal with regional impacts. He felt the memo is too broad and is not real evidence that the negative declaration should not be approved. He submitted a p. etition 'from surrounding neighbors supporting the proposal in its entirety. He said he is not in favor of moving his project to the south. He did not feel it would be possible to require two property owners to develop their property together. He requested the commission approve-this project, with the exception that the park requirement be limited to 7 acres on the general plan amendment area and the other 7 acres be found east of South "H" Street. Carl Moreland' spoke saying he is in favor of the staff report and asked for approval. Bob Jackson spoke saying 'he is a land owner adjacent to subject property and is in favor of the project. He said they are in the process of developing a residential subdivision on the northeast corner of South "H" Street and Hosking Road. He felt the commercial site will be an asset to the neighborhood. Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 19 John Diatte spoke saying he is a real estate broker representing possible purchasers of property in the area. They have the intention of using the general commercial area west of Highway 99 in their development plan. He suggested if the Del Papa's wanted to develop a commercial area that it be further down toward Hosking or Union Avenues. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Powers said h{s understanding from the committee meeting on this item was that-the only .questiOn to be answered was which way the commercial would be oriented. He stated he would have no problem supporting 'Mr. Guimarra's project and Mrs. Del Papa's project. Regarding a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty said the buffering for the commercial property. Would be. standard such as separation with a street and .walls and lighting to be focused away from the neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson felt the commission would be better serving.the future occupants of a neighborhood if providing a better buffer than standard. He felt the commission should attempt to' accommodate both applicants if at all possible. Mr. Guimarra responding to discussion said he felt to move commercial off a major intersection would be an economic disaster. If the property was contiguous it would have to be reduced to a smaller amount than 25 acres. Mr. Hardisty respOnded to a question by Commissioner Anderson saying the ' location at Berkshire is preferable. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she was in favor of the location of the commercial piece more on the Del Papa property because she prefers an arterial to arterial location, however there is nothing wrong with an arterial-collector location. She Preferred the size of the Guimarra property and stated she is opposed to two commercial pieces in this project site, however felt it was as close to perfect a solution as it will get. She felt because of the December 12th memo she may not be able to support this project. Chairman Marino agreed with the comment that the Del Papa .site at the intersection is an appropriate site for a commercial shopping center, however the 15-acre site'is more appropriate. He felt the consequences of not approving the Del Papa site would be future trouble, stating he would support both of these requests. -- Responding to a question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Tucker' said he accepted the' proposed traffic impact fees. Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 20 Commissioner Cohn apologized to the applicants saying he is very troubled by the events occurring with respect to .the traffic impact fee and felt he should abstain from voting on any projects until there is clarification as to what direction the city is taking. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to adopt resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration with mitigation listed in Exhibit "B", and approving GPA 4-91, Segment V consisting of an amendment to the Land Use Element from Light Industrial to Low Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, High Medium Density Residential, -and General Commercial, subject to conditions of approval listed in the Exhibit ,,A,,, and recommend same to City Council, with the following amendment: and the 10-acre property belonging to Ms. Del Papa shall be designated as General Commercial. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Messner, Powers, Marino NOES: Commissioner Frapwell ABSENT: Commissioner Bjorn ABSTAINED: Commissioners Cohn, Rosenlieb Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to adopt resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving concurrent zone change request #5244 with the inclusion of the December 13, 1991 memo from the Planning Director, consisting of a zone change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone to a C-2 (Commercial) zone with the deletion of Finding #4 and the deletion of the word "not" in finding #5. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners AnderSon, Messner, Powers, Marino Commissioner Frapwell ABSENT: Commissioner Bjorn 'ABSTAINED: Commissioners Cohn, Rosenlieb Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 21 Motion Was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to adopt [esolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration with mitigation listed in the Exhibit "B", and approving concurrent Zone Change request #5247 consisting of a change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone to 'an R:2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone and C-2 (Commercial) Zone, subject to conditions of. approval listed in the Exhibit "A", and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: 7.5 AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Marino 'ABSENT: Commissioner Bjorn -ABSTAINED: Commissioners Cohn, Rosenlieb SEGMENT VII Staff .report was given. PUblic portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings approving GPA 4-91, Segment VII authorizing staff to amend City 2010 Land Use Map consistent with County changes as indicated in Table 1, and recommend same to City Council. Motion Carried by the following roll call vote: AYEs: Commissioners Anderson, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: 'Commissioner Bjorn Minutes, PC, 12/19/91 Page 22 7.6 8.A CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 2-91, SEGMENT II Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke on this iteni.- Motion was .mhde by' Commissioner Frapwell, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to adopt resolution making findings approving Circulation Element Amendment 2-91, Segment II, consisting of a minor text amendment on Page III- 10, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call.vote: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: '-' ' CommiSSioner Bjorn wRITIEN COMMUNICATIONS Metropolitan Bakersfield Fixed Guideway Passenger System - Phase I Feasibility Study. · Staff report was giv_en. Commissioner Powers requested that a representative of the lead agency on this item give a brief workshop at the next pre-meeting. Mr. Kloepper said it could be done. CommissiOner Anderson asked what will be the cost of the implementation of the systems planning study _of phase II. Mr. Kloepper said the cost is unknown with funds coming from the county, city, GET, Kern COG and perhaps Caltrans. He clarified the intent of the study is to try to identifY a skeletal system and rights-of- way to be protected Or acquired in the future. Mr. Hardisty responded to a question by Commissioner Anderson saying the city has not been directly mandated by the State to provide a light rail system but is indirectly being pushed in this direction. Mr. Kloepper said the report reflects the fact that densities are no Where near enoUgh to justifY a light rail system at this time. Minutes, pC, 12/!9/91 Page 23 10. Motion was made bY Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner, to continue this item to the next meeting of January 9, 1992, with a workshop to be Conducted by a member of the lead agency at the pre-meeting for the January 9th meeting. 'Motion carried. B) Verbal None COMMISSION COMMENTS .Commissioner Ros~nlieb thanked staff for researching the question of the general' plan amendment history in Sections 6 and 7. Commissioner Anderson gave report on the school fee task force saying the school district has not shown a willingness to be flexible in mitigating costs. Regarding year-round schools the districts have responded that it does not work, however the report they submitted cites, examples where it has Worked. The task force asked that they submit a report at the next meeting showing the use'of year- round schools. He said-the task force is looking at a February deadline for report on the school funding issue. Commissioner& Powers and Marino thanked staff for their year-round efforts. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 11:47 p.m. Laurie Davis t~/Planning Director