Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/91 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, December 5, 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 TERI BJORN DAVID COHN STEVE MESSNER DARREN POWERS KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate 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 PUBLIC STATEMENTS 3.1 No one made any public-statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. WALL AND' LANDSCAPE PLAN - TENTATIVE TRACT 5446 This item was .continued from the November 21, 1991-meeting, Commissioner Rosenlieb stated for the record she was not at the November' 21, 1991 meeting, however she listened to the tape, read the staff report and will be participating on this item. Minutes, PC, 12/5/91 Page 2 Staff rePort was given. Bruce Nybo was present. Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, he said he had received the-December 4, 1991 memorandum and agreed with conditions contained in it. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to approve wall and landscaping plans for Tentative Tract 5446 subject to the corner entrance and wall cap diagrams dated December 3, 1991 and subject to conditions listed in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report. Motion carried. 3.2 WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - TRACT 5018 C AND-D Staff report was given.- Darci Douglas represented the applicant. She stated she agreed with the conditions of approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to approve wall and .landscape plans for Tentative Tract 5018 C & D, subject to 'conditions on Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report. Motion carried. o COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 3-91 This item was continued from the regular meeting of November 21, 1991. A letter was received requesting an additional continuance to the December 19, 1991 meeting. Commissioner ~Anderson gave a report on the committee meeting held on this item. The applicant will be coming back with a revision for the pylon signs to be reduced in height to probably 30 feet and to contain 2-3 signs. Commissioner Powers asked if this item could possibly be continued to the first meeting in January since December 19th is a General Plan cycle meeting. The applicant was not present at this hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to continue-this item to th'e first regular scheduled meeting in January which is January 9, 1992. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 12/5/91 5.1 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS - P:C.D. #5123 Page 3 Commissioner Bjorn.abstained from hearing this item due to a possible conflict of' interest in that the applicant is a client of her law firm. Chairman Marino abstained from hearing this item due to a possible conflict of interest in that he has provided services to the applicant in the past year. Commissioner Anderson chaired this item. . Staff report was: given. Pat Fogerty was present representing the applicant. He stated he agreed with the conditions of:approval. -Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said final development plans do not. require a public hearing. Responding to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Mr. Movius said this does not vary. from what was approved on the other building regarding'Style, however it is a change frOm the original submittal on this P.U.D. in that it is a down-size in square footage. ' Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said his estimate is that the drive approaCh Would be approximately 60 feet south of Mall View Road. ~ Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to find Final Development Plans for P.C.D. #5123 substantially consistent With the preliminary plans and approve said plans subject to conditions in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report. Motion carried. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS - P.C.D. 5261 Chairman Marino said this item cannot be acted upon until the relative P.C.D. is acted upon. ~ Commissioner R6senlieb abstained from hearing this item due to a pOssible Conflict of ia'terest in that her employer is the applicant. Commissioner Anderson abstained from hearing this item due'to a possible conflict of-interest in that his company has provided services for an adjoining land owner Within the last 12 months. .Minutes, PC, 12/5/91 page 4 e Motionwas made by Commissioner Messner~ 'seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to continue this item to be renumbered agenda item. #9.2b to be heard along with the accompanying P.C.D. and to change agenda item #9.2 to agenda item #9.2a. Motion carried. PUBLIC'HEARING - CONDITION CHANGE - PARCEL MAP 8096 This item was continued from the regular meeting of November 7, 1991. Commissio~ner Bjorn abstained from hearing this item due to a possible conflict of interest in that the applicant isa client of her law firm. .Regarding Chairman Marino's question concerning a traffic study, Mr. Kloepper said he had not seen one. staff report was 'waived. Public portion of the hearing was .opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roy Saunders was present to speak on this item. Regarding a question by Mr. Saunders about a possible conflict of interest on the part Of Mr. Cohn, Ms. Marino said under the Fair Political Practices Act a conflict would Only exist if Jaco Oil Company were a source of income for Mr. Cohn. Mr. Saunders submitted copies of a traffic study to staff and the Commission. Mr. Kloepper said he did not feel it was appropriate to try to review the traffic study at this hearing; Chairman Marino agreed. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding. to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Kloepper said a continuance to the regular meeting of December 19, 1991 would allow for adequate time- for staff to respond 'to the traffic study. Ms. Marino clarified there are no time constraints on this item. Motion was made _by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb-to continue this item to the next regular meeting of December 19, 1991. Motion carried. Commissioner Bjorn was absent. Minutes, PC, 12/5/91 7. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9299 Page 5 Commissioner Anderson abstained from hearing this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Maurice Etchechury, being present to 'represent the developer asked that this item be continued to December 19, 1991' because they posed a question to Public Works, which has not had sufficient time to be answered. He said they would not want this item continued beyond th~ 19th meeting. Commissioner Powers said he would like to see this item continued to the first' meeting in January. Mr. Etchechury said in this case he would be willing to discuss this item this evening. Staff. report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Maurice Etchechury represented the developer. He asked for modification of the last Building Department condition, by adding the following wording to the end of condition: "for those areas designated for human occupancy." Mr. Bidwell said he had no objection to this. Mr. Etchechury asked for change to condition #6 of Fire Department conditions, of memo dated December 5, 1991, to be changed to allow for an 8-foot high chainlink fence. He said in'discussing it with the fire department it was indicated that would be acceptable. Mark. Turk, representing the Fire Department, agreed with this change, if slats -. are placed in the fence. A block wall would be required for buffering to residential area. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said he recalled an instance where a block wail was required' in this neighborho0d~for protection when it was evaluated at time of development. If there is a greater distance factor, then possibly chainlink could be Used. Regarding Public Works Condition #V.C., of memorandum dated'December 2, 1991, Mr. Etchechury asked that they not have to extend'Commerce Drive to the north property line as it is owned by Santa Fe Railroad and they have not responded, or requested a requirement of access. Mr. Kloepper said the basis of this requirement is to provide for orderly development of the property abutting this development. It would not benefit the overall development of the community to delete this requirement. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 12/5/91 Page 6 Regarding a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said if there were another access to this prOperty he would still ask for this access because most parcels need more than one means of access. Regarding question from Commissioner Frapwell, concerning dedication of a public right-of-way, Mr. Kloepper said this would be adequate. Mr. Kl0epper clarified for Mr. Etchechury if dedication were approved with a vacated .public easement the street frontage would not have to' be 'improved from the end of the cul-de-sac 'to the north property line. This would be consistent with Condition V:A. of the December 2nd memo. Mr. EtchechurY said this would be acceptable. Motion was made bY Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the _staff report, and to approve proposed Tentative parcel Map 9299 .subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report with the addition, of the memo from the Public Works Department dated December 2, 1991, with the substitution of Fire Safety conditions dated December 4, 1991, with the following changesi Page 4 of 7 of staff report, last condition be amended to read as follows: An Acoustical Consultant shall design the structures within the project.to mitigate noise exposures of 60db or greater in accordance with the CNEL Contours and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code only for those areas designated for human occupancy. The addition of the memo from Fire Safe _ty Control dated December 4, 1991 with .the following amendment to Condition #6 toread as follows: Perimeter of well site shall have a minimum 8' foot chainlink fence with slats with at least three strands of barbed-wire mounted at a 45-degree angle from the top of the fence. A minimum of two gates, as nearly opposite to each other as is practical, shall be installed. Minutes; PC, 12/5/91 Page 7 Condition #8, of amended Fire Safety_ Conditions amended to read as follows: The' three strands of barbed wire required on top of the wall in condition"7 may instead, at the option of the developer, be installed on-top of a six-foot chainlink fence located within the block wall area. . Condition v-C of memo from Public Works Department dated December ~2, 1991, amended to read as follows: Commerce Drive shall be extended, by Offer of dedication,' northeasterly to the north line of Parcel 2. Motion carried. Motion was made Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to direct staff to examine the area between Mohawk Street and the A.T.&S.F. Railroad, south of-Truxtun Avenue to the Carrier Canal, determine the appropriateness of amending the land use element map of the 2010 Plan; the Kern River 'Plan Element and the zoning maps for the area and initiate · amendment actions as deemed appropriate, to be brought back before the Commission at or prior to the first general plan amendment cycle in 1992. Motion carried. 8.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5506 VESTING 'A request for a two-week continuance was received from the~applicant. Commissioner Anderson abstained from hearing this item-due to a possible conflict of interest. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to continue this item to the next regular scheduled meeting of December 19, 1991. Motion carried. C°mmissioner Powers voted no. 8.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5559 Maurice Etchechury was present representing the applicant. He stated the options given to him by the Planning Department. Mr. Etchechury said regarding a possible withdrawal if it would mean the forfeiture of fees they ask that it be continUed to a hearing in January in order to give them an opportunity to resolve :the request for traffic study.. Minutes, PC,-12/5/91 Page 8 Mk. Hardisty recommended this matter be continued to February 6th to be renoticed to that meeting-or any meeting prior if the information required is submitted. Mr.. Etchechury was agreeable to this. Public portion:, of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Motion was made by .Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by-Commissioner Powers to continue this item to the.regularly scheduled meeting of February 6, 1992. Motion carried. &3 PUBLIC HEARING---TENTATIVE TRACT 5563 Commissioner Bjorn abstained from hearing this item due to a possible conflict of interest in that the applicant is a client of her law firm. Staff rePort was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Cindy Eggert, 1113 Sand Creek Drive, spoke representing the homeowners in the area. She submitted, a letter outlining their concerns, which was signed by several -homeowners in the area. She said they are not in opposition to aPartments being constructed on subject site, however they have concerns about the design of the project. She outlined their concerns being lot configurations and design, inadequate on-site parking, buffering between apartments and existing houses, overcrowdedness and lack of open space. She asked the Commission to look at requiring a P:U.D. on this project. Linda Powers spoke saying she hoped the Commission would see that all of the undeveloped area will develop into something attractive. Bob Smith was present representing the applicant. He questioned item VIII.B of Public Works conditions saying they are proposing a private street with roll top curbs, his understanding being-that sidewalks were acceptable on one side of the street not both sides. Mr. Kloepper said in the past the-standard has required sidewalk- on one side only. Roll top curb is not acceptable-but has been alloWed in the past. He outlined the problems with roll top curbs, stating it is not a desirable situation. Regarding item IX.A. Mr. Kloepper clarified this condition is an effort to add some flexibility to the requirement for a traffic study. Mr. Hardisty felt this condition should be specified that a traffic study is required unless waived by the Traffic Engineer. MinUtes, PC, 12/5/91 Page 9 Regarding a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said roll toP curbs have been allbwed in the past, however it seems that private streets have a way of not remaining that. way and under these circumstances lesser standards should not be applied. The existing situation does not allow the city to take a position of objecting to roll top curb and sidewalk on one side. Regarding Item XI.A. Mr. Smith said this project will be phased and therefore requested that all required improvements be constructed with each 'phase. Mr. Kloepper said public improvements will be accepted, however not private ones. Mr. Smith explained their project and the process of approval for the homeowners. He said they are proposing two-car garages for the project to alleviate parking. ~Regard~ng the open space, he said it is a trade-off because they will be-providing single-story as opposed to a smaller footprint with more open space and more two-stories. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding tO qUestions by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said modifications t0 the deVelopment standards may or may not be required, which will be determined when ~the site plan review process is completed. At this point, however it does not appear necessary. Mr. Hardisty said regarding the assurance that an association, be formed, Condition #XI.B. covered this. Regarding the issue outlined in the. letter as to the R-3 zone not being consistent with the LR designation, Mr. Hardisty said the property was identified in a general plan amendment using a unit'yield allotment when it was approved. It would be a good idea to change the general plan to more accurately reflect ~ zoning. CommissiOner Rosenlieb commented she shared some concerns of the adjoining property owners and felt some of these concerns would be satisfied during the site plan review process along with the C.C.&R.'s and changing the landuse designation. Mr. Hardisty responded to questions by CommisSioner Cohn saying the map complies with the rules and regulations for submission of it. A P.U.D. could not be adopted because there is not a design to adopt. He recommended the Commission commence with approval of the map. Commissioner Powers said property owners bought their homes with the knowledge that~multi-family residences would be constructed adjacent. He said C.C.&R.'s and property owners by-laws must be submitted and approved by the City to be recorded concurrently, with the final, and felt staff would be taking h very close look at this to ensure consistency with surrounding development. Minutes, PC, 1'2/5/91 ' Page 10 . Commissioner Marino agreed with Commissioner Powers comments, saying he would be inclined tO support staff on their recommendation, with the inclusion of changes to conditions. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded 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 5563, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff repOrt, subject to the following changes: Page 2 of 11 of staff report, Item VIII.B shall read as follows: The sUbdivider Shall construct street paving, curb and gutters, to City standards on Fox Glen Place, including minimum 4.5' wide sidewalks on one side of the street with standard handicap ramps to all curb returns. Item VIII.C shall read as follows: - Fox Glen place shall be posted as a private street and as such shall have rolMop curbs. Item IX.A of traffic conditions shall be amended to read as follows: A regional traffic impact study is required unless waived by the Traffic Engineer. Item xI.A, Page 3 of 11 amended to read as follows: No occupancy on any lot will be permitted until all-required improvements for each phase have been completed by/, the Subdivider and accepted or approved, by the City. ,~ Motion Carried. Commissioners Anderson and Bjorn were absent due to a possible conflict of interest. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seqonded by Commissioner Powers to direct staff to examine this particular..pie~e- of property along with the other properties within the Mclntosh Specific Plan for c6nsis~ency between zoning and general plan. amendments to be returned to the Planning Commission no later than the first general plan cycle in 1992. Motion carried.)~Commissioners Anderson and Bjorn abstained due to'a possible conflict of interest. Minutes, PC, 12/5/91 9.1 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE #5260 -- TIME SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION BY DEWALT CORPORATION TO 9.2 AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MEACHAM ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 890 FEET EAST OF CALLOWAY DRIVE (Negative Declaration on file) This item was withdrawn by the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE #5261 -- TIME SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION BY SIMPSON-VANCUREN TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN R-l-CH (ONE FAMILY DWELLING-CHURCH) ZONE TO A P.U.D. (PLANNED UNIT' DEVELOPMENT), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THeE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WHITE LANE AND MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. (Negative Declaration On file) Commissioner Rosenlieb abstained from hearing this item due to a possible Conflict of interest'in that' her employer is the applicant. 'Commissioner Anderson abstained from hearing this item due to a possible conflict of interest. - Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hardisty said the hearing on the zoning and final development plans can be heard concurrently. Staff report was given. Public-portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition.. Jim Redstone represented the applicant. He stated they are in agreement with conditions of approval, however he asked that Condition #4 be amended to read as follows: "All fencing materials (except doorways and/or gates) facing the internal subdivision street shall be of stucco construction." Mr. Hardisty said this would be consistent.' Regarding Condition #6, he asked that it be changed to read as follows: "All uses, height restrictions, and setbacks with the exception of the 15-foot front yard setback requested by the applicant for cul-de-sac lots, shall be those ]dentified in code Chapter 17.10 (R-1 zone) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code." He asked-that all-lots be allowed to conform to Chapter 17.10 requirements except the two lots on either side of the cul-de-sacs as shown on the map. Mr. Hardisty said staff would recommend the approval of this, because it is found to be a workable.arrangement. Minutes, PC~ 12/5)91 . Page 12 Public portion of the hearing was closed. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hardisty felt condition #1 could be deleted, because what will be approved is what is .proposed and he felt it need not be-specified. Minor changes to square footage can be dealt with administratively. Commissioner Messner asked if typically P.U.D.'s are associated with a common areal Mr. Hardisty-responded saying typically they are developed with an amenity that is the focal point of the development. Commissioner Messner felt the amenities being provided on this project are a bare minimum. He said it was with reluctance and no enthusiasm that he would support this project, stating he would pay particular attention to its development. Commissioner FraPWell stated he had a conflict with this, stating he does not apprOve of the footprint of the buildings, specifically the width of the buildings. He said he would agree with the P.U.D. zoning but not what has been submitted. He stated his disagreement with the second motion of this application. Responding to a quest, ion by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Frapwell clarified his disagreement with the footprints of the units relating to the setback, which he felt was minimal. He was also opposed to the placement of the windows, .and. felt a plan could be developed which would be much more applicable to this type of situation. Responding to Commissioner Frapwell's concerns, Commissioner Powers cited examples of spacing between homes being 10 feet, and the locations of windows. Commissioner Frapwell felt the P.U.D. zoning allows the Commission to look at this development more closely and address issues which would not normally be addressed. He objected to the 5-foot side yard setback on other development, however he felt the P.U.D. affords the Commission the opportunity to address that issue,, and try to gain something in return for the request for the P.U.D. Commissioner Cohn felt there was nothing unique about this parcel that would have allowed the down-size in lot size. He asked what is being achieved with the P.U.D. other than fitting as much as can be put on these lots. They are not designed to provide for a uniqueness. Minutes, PC, 12~5/91 -- Page 13 CommissionerPowers..~aid it was his understanding the requirement of the P.U.D. would be 'to' allow for control of the project, so.that the Commission would have assurance of what would be constructed. Commissioner Cohn reiterated the idea behind the P.U.D. was not simply control but an opportunity to obtain additional amenities to justify the smaller lot size. Commissioner Powers felt this~was substantially better than other tracts within the same price :range. Responding to a question bY Commissioner Bjorn, Mr. Hardisty outlined the findings that must be made on this issue. ' Chairman Marino felt very little is being given to the applicant on this subdivision with very little being given back in return. The applicant has complied with all requirements placed on them after the committee reviewed this project. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to approve and adoPt the Negative Declaration to make all findings set forth in the staff report and tq approve Zone Change #5261 subject to the conditions in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the following changes: Condition #1 shall be deleted condition #4 shall be amended to read as follows: - All fencing materials (except doorways and/or gates facing the internal subdivision streets shall be of stucco construction: Condition #6 amended to read as follows: All uses, height restrictions, and setbacks with the exception of the 15 foot front yard setback on cul-de-sac lots as requested by the applicant shall be those identified in code Chapter 17.10 (R-1 zone) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. ' Motion carried by the' following roll call vote: AYES: .Commissioners Bjorn, Messner, Powers; Marino .. NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Commissioners Anderson, Rosenlieb Minutes, PC, 12/5/91- Page 14 9.2 ' b) - FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS - P.C.D. #5261 Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to find Final Development Plans'for PUD Zone Change #5261 substantially consistent with preliminary plans and approve. Motion failed to carry by the folloWing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Powers, Marino NOES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Messner ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Rosenlieb In discussing options for the applicant, Mr. Hardisty felt the Commission should reconsider this project because the preliminary plans and final development plans were drawn the same. He felt the Commission would have a difficult time finding that what was looked-at under the P.C.D. is not the same as this final -development plan. Mr. Hardisty ~stated there must be a motion for reconsideration from a member voting no. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to. reconsider this item. The motion resulted in a split vote. Commissioners Cohn; · Frapwell and Messner voted no. Due to a request by Commissioner Bjorn, Ms. Marino outlined the Commission's discretion on this item, being only that the final development plans are substantially similar to those looked at under the P.U.D. process. Commissioner Messner stated he voted no because he agrees that this project is inadequate. He said he did not know his voting yes on the P.U.D. was creating situation he could not back out of. He said he would not want to reconsider his vote on the final development plans. Attorney Marino said prior to any discussion'there must be a vote to reconsider since the earlier vote resulted in a tie vote. Re~sp°nding tO questions by Commissioners Bjorn and Cohn, Ms. Marino oUtlined the rules ~regardi. ng rehearing items. There was no motion made to rehear this item. Minutes, PC, 1275/91 Page 15 9.3 9.2 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE #5262 -- TIME SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION BY SEQUOIA .ENGINEERING TO AMEND THE ZONING.BOUNDARIES FROM AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE TO A C-1 (LIMITED COMMERCIAL) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CALLOWAY DRIVE AND OLIVE DRIVE. (Negative Declaration on file) Staff report was given. Public portion of the. hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Bob Smith was present representing the applicant. make. Public portion 0f ~he hearing was closed. He had no comments to Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to make findings set forth in the staff report and approve the zone change as proposed and advertised and recommend adoption of same to the City Council.- Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Cohn * A 10-minute break was taken at this time. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS - P.C.D. #5261 Chairman Marin0 stated a commissioner requested this item be reheard. Motion was made by' Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to reconsider this item. Motion carried. Commissioners Cohn and Frapwell voted no. Commissioner Rbsenlieb abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. -Minutes, PC, 12/5~91 Page 16 Responding to a request by Commissioner Messner, Jim Redstone, representing the applicant came forward. He stated they submitted more than what was required so that they could-give a larger overview 'of what was submitted for the · final development plans. Commissioner Messner said based on information he received he would make a motion. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to find Final Development Plans for PUD Zone Change #5261 substantially consistent with.preliminary plans and approve. Motion carried by the following roll Call vote: AYES:. Commissioners Bjorn, Messner, Powers, Marino NOES..; Commissioners. Cohn, Frapwell ABSENT: ' Commissioners Anderson, Rosenlieb 10.1 a&b' 'PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING UPON ANNEXATION AND PANAMA # 11 ANNEXATION Staff report was giVen. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in oppositiOn or in favor to this item. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she intended to support the motion for annexation on this.property, however she did not intend to support the prezoning because she could not make the finding that it is C°nsistent. The commercial piece designated HC is 1.96 acres. The general plan requires parcels to be no less than-5 acres and that there not be any strip commercial. This designation, however, creates a block of strip commercial. She felt the attitude toward this strip of land has. seemed to be that there has never been good development and that it should be left this way. She stated she does not share this attitude and cannot support this prezoning. Chairman Marino-said, regarding the 2010 Plan commercial poliCies cover new commercial designation which this is not. He felt because of this he could find it consistent with the general plan. Minutes, .PC, 12/5/91 Page 17 Regarding a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Hardisty answered parcels across the street from 'one another are not contiguous for zoning. C°mmissioner Messner addressed the half mile separation between new commercial designations saying it is not the ideal situation to have 4 smaller parcels around a street corner designated general commercial. He stated ultimately he would like to see a general plan amendment as more property develops in the future. Responding to a .qUestion by Commissioner Bjorn, Mr. Hardisty said an annexation cannot be applied for without prezoning which is a requirement of LAFCO. Chairman Marino Said he is reluctant to send an annexation to the Council that involves down zoning. Responding to discussion, Mr. Hardisty said the options of the Commission for the zoning of the corner currently HC in the general plan would be ~C-1 or C-2 zones. Regarding a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty clarified a less intense zone could be approved without readvertising. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded bY Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings, presented in the staff report, apProving the Negative Declaration and approving Zoning Upon Annexation No. 5253 to the City designation of A-20A (Agriculture-20 acre minimum), E (Estate), R21 (One Family Dwelling), R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling); R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) and C-2 (Commercial) Zone with mitigation as attached in'Exhibit "A" and recommended same to the.City Council, with. clarification that the southeast corner of Panama and South Union shall be changed to an R-3 Zone. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: ABSENT: None .Commissioner Anderson Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to adopt resolution making findings, presented in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving Annexation of Panama No. 11 Annexation and iecommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, 12/5/91 Page 18 AYES: NOES: Commissioners Bjorn, Cohn, Fra Rosenlieb None ~well, Messner, Powers, ABSENT: 'Commissioner Anderson ABSTAINED: Commissioner Marino Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to direct staff to initiate a general plan amendment on the southeast intersection' of-Panama Lane and South Union Avenue to be' in conformance with an R-3 ZOne, to be brought back before the Commission at the earliest available cycle. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners' Bjorn, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb Commissioner Marino ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson 11. CONSIDERATION TO REQUIRE PARCEL MAP FOR KERN VALLEY PACKING COMPANY/KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF SOUTH "H" STREET, SOUTH OF BERKSHIRE 'ROAD. -- Staff report was given. Chairman Marin0 cited a speaker's card was received from Roger McIntosh on this item. Mr. McIntosh gave a history of the development of this property. He said they studied additional canal crossings. There are several areas to the north which have no off-site improvements. They have looked into other options for this property. He felt it is apparent there is no policy for South "H" Street. He felt the policy for South "H" Street should be stated, along with who will provide the _ parcel map and how the action would be enforced.' Minutes, PC, 12/5/91 Page I9 Mr. Kloepper said it is correct that various approachesto South "H" Street have been taken, however a recent subdivision near the southeast corner of Panama Lane and. South "H" Street required the developer to provide improvements. He said if any other applicants come before the Commission in a similar situation the City will be asking for the same consideration. Responding to a comment by Chairman Matin0,' Mr. 'Kloepper suggested that Mr. McIntosh's client would have the most interest in filing the map. Regarding a question by Chairman Marino, Ms. Marino said if the Commission finds that a parcel map is necessitated, provisions are contained in the code for a lot line-adjustment instead of a parcel map. The applicant has the ability to file a lot line adjustment rather than a parcel map. ~ Mr. McIntosh cited S~ction 66412 under Map Act exclusions saying a parcel map or final map cannot be required as a condition of approval of a lot line adjustment. Chairman Marino felt a'parcel created by deed was perhaps inappropriate, however he was not Comfortable with specifying how it is remedied. Mr. KloepPer felt the Map Act is specific that if public policy necessitates a parcel map that is what the advisory agency should find. Ms. Mafino outlined the options for the Commission. Commissioner Bjorn was concerned that something be required under the Subdivision' Map Act. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Bjorn to find that public policy necessitates a parcel map for the subject subdivision, and to require that a parcel map be filed. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bjorn, Messner, Rosenlieb, Frapwell NOES: Commissioners C0hn, Marino ABSTAINED: Commissioner Powers ABSENT: Commissioner Anderson Minutes, PC,. 12/5/91 Page 20 12. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written Mr.-Hardisty distributed an excerpt from the Subdivision Map Act text concerning vesting tentative maps. He also called Commission's attention to a memorandum giving an annexation status report. He pointed out for the Commission's information Concord Development's request for annexation was referred to a City Council workshop. He outlined the hearing prOCess.- Responding to a question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Hardisty said their .request for annexation would have to be heard before the Commission. Responding to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Hardisty said the Commission was invited to the Council workshop. B) Verbal Tom'R0ddy gave a report back to the Commission.regarding the landscaping on the corner of Auburn Street and Eissler Street which was requested at the September 19, 1991 meeting. 13: COMMISSION COMMENTS - Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Ms. Marino said the hearing procedure in the by-laws states no commissioner can participate in a public hearing matter unless they were present during all public testimony. If 'Participation is legally required, a commissioner may listen to previous tapes and participate. Regarding a question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Hardisty said a condition could not have been placed on Tentative Tract 5563 to specify roofing material. Commissioner Bjorn stated she would be absent from the December 19, 1991 meeting. Chairman Marino asked for update on the Animal Ordinance. Mr. Hardisty gave progress' on this, along with other ordinance revisions. Commissioner Powers gave a report on parking lot lighting and animal ordinance from the committee meetings held: Minutes, PC, 12/5/91 Page 21 Commissioner R0sen!ieb'gave a summary of'the decision of the Commission regarding the County's general plan designations being that the City would acknowledge them rather, than approve. Commissioner Messner said regarding revisions to the sign ordinance that the committee decided to begin with the revision of the M-1 and M-2 districts. 14. - ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Laurie Davis Reco~ l~g Secretary / Plannifig Director AJ