Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/91 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE -PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, September-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 DAVID COHN STEVE MESSNER DARREN POWERS KATE ROSENLIEB 3.1 Absent: ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: STAFF: Present: TERI BJORN C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 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. WALL AND LANDSC~PE PLAN -.TENTATIVE TRACT 5489 Commissioner AnderSon abstained on items 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 due to a possible' conflict- of_interest. Staff report was given on this item. Minutes, PC, 9/5/91 Page .2 3.1 Wall-and Landscape Plan - Tentative Tract 5489 (continued) Mr. Hardisty responded t6 Commissioner Rosenlieb's question saying the additional condition proposed by the applicant is acceptable to staff. David.Milazz0 was present representing the applicant. He submitted a large scale plan on this item. ~He felt the benefits derived from allowing this wall to range to 8 .feet would be the mitigation of sound affecting homes close to the collector arterial streets and the lighting of'cars turning into the subdivision would be shielded. . - Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenliebl seconded by Commissioner Messner-to approve Wall and landscape plans for Tentative Tract 5489 subject to conditions, on Exhibit "A", with the addition of condition #4 to Page 3 of 3 of Exhibit "A" as provi~ded for in the applicant's letter dated September 5 1991. Motion carried.. Commissioner Anderson abstained. 3.2- WALL' AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - TENTATIVE TRACT 5386 - - · staff report was given. David Milazzo rePresented the applicant. He said the they would like the commission's acceptance of the same condition addressing the access entrance as on item ~3.1.' They would prefer to maintain the 8-foot wall, however if it is to be reduced they would like the ability to blend it across from the R-3 properties. He said their intent was to create a unique design for the overall project area. To devel°p a wall and landscape plan with varying colors in-lieu of matching small incremental block colors of walls across the street is not the best approach.. In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Milazzo said item numbers 3 and 4 of Page .2 of 3 of Exhibit "A" are acceptable. Commissioner RoSenliel~ said she' is not concerned about the difference in the wall to nearby walls because of the separation. Mr. Milazzo asked that they not be limited to a six-foot wall on the street side which would eliminate the ability to retain earth against the back side of the lot to get drainage out .of the subdivision. They would like to have the. ability to have the 8-foot'wall in areas where they feel it necessary and to not have to match the colors of the walls across the street. Minutes, PC, '9/5/91 Page 3 3.2 3.3 Wall and Landscape Plan - Tentative Tract 5386 (continued) Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to apprOVe wall and landscape plans for Tentative Tract 5386 subject to conditions on Exhibit "A",' with the following 2 changes: Item #3, Page 3 of 3 shall be deleted and an additional condition #6 to be added to Page 3 of 3 as proposed by the applicant in their letter of September 5, 1991. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson abstained. WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN - SECTIONS 6 AND 7, T30S, R27E, SEVEN OAKS DEVELOPMENT A request had-been received to continue this item in order for the plans to be .worked out. Mr. Hardisty responded to a question by Chairman Marino this item can' be referred back to staff to be brought back before the Commission when the plans are ready. Motion was made by-Commissioner Cohn, seconded by. Commissioner Powers to refer this item back to staff to be brought before Commission at a later date. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson abstained. PUBLIC HEARING -'EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9108 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Jim Redstone was present representing the applicant. He asked that condition #3, Page 1 of 8 be deleted because the fees have been paid. Mr. Kloepper said this is correct and was in concurrence with the deletion of this condition. Mr. Redstone asked that Item #4-A be changed to 6 which was determined after consultation by staff and also asked that the wording "or adjacent to" be eliminated for consistency because there is nothing it would be adjacent to. Mr. Kloepper said he.-is 'in concurrence with these changes. In response to a question :by Chairman Marino, Mr. Redstone said the two additional'conditions per Planning Department memo of September 5, 1991 are acceptable. Public portion of the hearing was closed: Pc, 9/5/91 Page 4 4. Public Hearing -' Extension of Time Ten. Parcel Map 9108 (continued) Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map 9108 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" with the changes outlined in the memorandum from the Planning Department dated September 5, 1991, the deletion of item #3-A of Public Works Department conditions, changing Condition #IV-A to change eight to six in the first sentence and striking "or adjacent to" in the second sentence. Motion carried. puBLIC HEARING-- EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5150, · 5151, 5152 · Chairman Marino said extensions of time on Tentative Tracts 5150, 5151 and 5152 would be heard concurrently. Commissioner Anderson abstained on these items due to a possible conflict of interest.. Chairman Marino also abstained on these items along with Item #6.1 because of a possible conflict of interest in that he is employed by the applicant and abstained on Item'6.2 because his employer owns property within 300 feet of the site. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner thatCommissioner Rosenlieb chair the items that Chairman Marino abstained on. Motion carried. Chairman Marino abstained. Staff-reports were given. Motion was made by Chairman Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to hear items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 concurrently. Motion carried. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Greg Owens was present representing the applicant. He stated they are in favor of all additions and revisions to conditions. Public portion of the hearings were closed. MinUtes, PC, 9/5/91 Page 5 5,1 Public Hea~ing - Extensions of Time - Tent. Tracts 5150, 5151, 5152 (continued) MotiOn was made by Commissioner.Powers, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5150, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the changes outlined in the memorandum from the Planning Department dated September 5, 1991. 'Motion carried. Commissioners Anderson and Marino abstained. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner to approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5151, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the changes, outlined in the memorandum from the Planning Department dated September 5, 1991. Motion carried. Commissioners Anderson and Marino abstained. ¸6.1 Motion was made.by Commissioner Powers, seconded by'Commissioner Messner to approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5152, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit ,A", with the changes to the Public Works Department conditions referenced in the memorandum from the Planning Department dated September 5, 1991. Motion carried, commissioners Anderson and Marino abstained. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9605 (MILLER NICKEL) This item was withdrawn by the applicant. 6.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9702 (SEQUOIA ENGINEERING) Commissioner AndersOn abstained on this item due to a.possible conflict of interest in that he owns property 'within 300 feet of subject property. Chairman Marino abstained on this item due to the fact that his employer owns property' within 300 feet of subject site. Staff report was waived due to the fact that a 'continuance was requested. 'Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one wished to speak on. this item. Motion was made by Commissioner Cohn, seconded by Commissioner Powers to continue this item to the next regular meeting of September 19, 1991. Motion carried. -Minutes, iPC, 9/5/91 Page 6 7,1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACE 5084-REVISED (CARRIAGE HOME. S, INC.) . 7.2 This item was withdrawn by the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5540 (ALEXANDRA J. PAOLA) This item was withdrawn by the applicant. 8.1 PUBLIC HEARING'- AMENDING THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING, MINIMUM LOT AREA NOT LESS THAN 6,000 SQUARE FEET) TO AN M-1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE. (FILE 5132 - JOHN GUIMARRA, JR.) (Negative Declaration on file) Mr. Hardisty said he reviewed correspondence forwarded to him for a recommendation and stated the request was to take this item off the agenda. However, since this is a-noticed public hearing the public hearing must be opened} and testimony taken. If the commission chooses to continue the matter it -may be done. Chairman Marino Summarized the applicant's request to be referred to the Planning Commission zoning committee in order to work out issues and answer questions raised by staff. _ Staff report was given. pUblic por. tion of the hearing was opened. TinY'Upton was present representing residents of Brandon Park and stated they are against this zone change. She submitted a letter and petition opposing this request.. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, she stated there are over 319 signatures. John Machado said he was representing 5 other property owner representing a total of 40 acres and they are in opposition to this request. He felt it would be a shame to rezone this prime residential property and would be a detriment to the majority of the Surrounding property owners and decrease property values. He felt there is a surplus of industrial property on Union Avenue and also on District Boulevard. He asked that the commission deny this change of zone. Minutes, PC, 9/5/91 8.1 Zone Change #5132 (continued) Page 7 Johan Tillman stated he lives near subject area. He Stated his opposition being the same as Mr. Machado's. He felt it would be a detriment to the neighborhood because bf safety issues involving children living in the area. Joseph Leon said-he is representing some of the residents at the northeast boundary line of this property. He said they have indicated they would be willing to work with the land owner in the area in order to promote a stable R-1 development along with any commercial that may work well in this' community. John Hattibaw, 1101 Aster Street, stated he recently purchased a home in this area With the idea that it would be in a rural type setting.- He stated it was his understanding all of the area would be developed residentially. Harold Sherwood said he lives south of this area. He was conCerned about the traffic using this road. Arleen Gordon spoke saying-she lives on Ona Court. She was concerned that more people xvere not notified of this. She felt property values would decrease . and-was concerned about pollution. John Guimarra, Jr. was present tO speak in favor. He said he applied for this change of zone because the general plan provides a light industrial zoning designation for this area and in order to develop the property it must be in cOnformance with the general plan. He said they have not had an opportunity to address the .issues which were raised in the staff report. He felt the concerns and issues can be dealt with, however not within the short period of time after receiving the staff report. He stated he requested in a letter that this item be referred to the subcommittee so that he can provide the information to them and requested this item be continued to a meeting at a later date. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PCi' 9/5/91 Page 8 8.1 Zone Change #5132 (continued) Commissioner Rosenlieb said being involved in the 2010 Plan process, during the process a number of people asked for a different designation than what they had. She asked- how Mr. Guimara's designation was changed without any public hearing. Mr. Guimara said he recalled that there was not a public hearing on each property within the 2010 Plan area. He stated he simply made a request through the Planning DePartment which was subject to public scrutiny and he was . not called upon to attend a public meeting and present information. He feels this piece of property is Properly buffered for this land use, because there is a major . canal .running east and west and a large interstate arterial on the west side. He said this designation was done according to the rules. In response to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty clarified those who came before the Commission-were those that wanted a land use designation that Was different from that proposed by staff and the consultant. In the early period of the process the public.was invited to make their requests to be evaluated. Commissioner. Roseniieb said she felt this was not a good location for industrial development and 'is concerned with the way it was dealt with. She was also concerned that Mr. Guimara was lead to believe that he could secure industrial zoningl She, hOWever did not feel that the community has enough industrial zoning, however she was not sure this would be the proper location. Commissioner Messner said he was opposed to this proposal until such time as a much more specific plan is brought before the Commission. He felt in order for manufacturing bordering on residential to work, mitigation muSt be involved. He did not feel a canal would be proper buffering between residential and a possible 6-story manufacturing building. He also felt the commission has a degree of obligation to address the discrepancy between the zoning and general plan. He said he would like to sec'this referred to a committee. He also felt what is needed is a more specific proposal with very specific mitigation measures. Commissioner Powers felt this needed to go to the zoning-committee to deal with the issues surrounding the discrepancy in the designations. He said he is concerned about the proximity of industrial to residential and was not convinced that there may be a more appropriate place for this designation, however agreed with Commissioner Rosenlieb's comment that there is not enough industrial zoning in the .city. Minutes,' pC, 9/5/91 Page 9 8.1 Zone Change #5132 (continued) In response to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty clarified subject property was zoned upon annexation under the previous general plan. He 'stated he appreciated the applicant's willingness to work with the committee. He cited another-area of industrial abutting residential property which has proven to be .acceptable. Chairman MarinO stated he concurred with previous commissioner comments regarding referring this item to the zoning ordinance committee. He stated he had a problem supporting staffs recommendation and would like the committee to consider the following-items: 1) there is an R-I zone with light industrial designation which means ~it cannot ~be developed with industrial unless the zone is changed, however if the zone change is denied, there will be an R-1 zone with a light industrial designation and cannot be developed for residential either. He felt if the committee recommends leaving the zoning R-1 the city should initiate the general plan amendment so that the applicant can develop his property. 2)- The piece of property which is being looked at is only part of the picture and was concerned about other parcels south of this being in the same situation.. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she lives in the area referred to by Commissioner Anderson in which industrial is abutting residential saying the reason it works is because of very wide landscaping requirements and tremendous buffering requirements put on by the developer through C.C.&R.'s. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Powers to defer this item to the Zoning Ordinance Committee at a meeting set for Thursday, September 19~ 1991 at noon in the basement conference room. This item to be continued and brought back before the full c°mmission at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of October 3, 1991. Commissioner Cohn recommended that representatives of the neighborhood be invited to the committee meeting as well. Chairman Marino recommended that staff Contact Ms. Upton who spoke previously in order that a representative may be chosen. Minutes, pC, 9/5/91 - 8.1- Zone Change #5132 (continued) page .10 MOtion carried by' the' following roll call vote: AyES: AndErson, Cohn, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bjorn, Frapwell Chairman Marino clarified for those present what would take place on each of the previously stated meetings of September 19 and October 3, 1991. - 8.2 a&b Discussion continued between Mr2 Guimara and Chairman Marino as to the clarification of the procedure for hearing this item.~ ZUA #5181 & COLUMBUS NO. 1 ANNEXATION Commissioner Powers abstained due to a possible conflict of interest due to the fact he is a property~owner within the annexation area. Staff report'was given. Publie'portion Of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Scott Hair thanked the Commission and City staff for recommending zoning consistent with ~the previous zoning on the property. Brad Barbeau was presem stating he is also involved in the same property as the previous speaker and stated he appreciated the change in zoning and is in favor of the project as it now stands. Public portiOn of the hearing was closed. Commissioner still concerned in services and Messner said he understood those in the audience were probably about the project, however this annexation will provide efficiency benefits. In response to Commissioner a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty stated due to Anderson's absence last meeting he would abstain from voting. Minutes, PC, 9/5/91. Page 11 8.2 a&b ZUA #5181 & Columbus No. 1 Annexation (continued) Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner, to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Messner, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bjorn, Frapwell ABSTAINED: Commissioners Anderson, Powers Commissioner Anderson stated he abstained due to the fact he was not present at the meeting in which public testimony was given. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner .to adopt a resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report APPROVING Zoning Upon Annexation No. 5181 consisting of a change of zone from County zoning of R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Medium Density Residential), R-2 PD (Medium Density Residential, Precise Development), R-3 (High Density Residential) and R-3 PD (High Density Residential, Precise Development) to the City zoning designations of R-1 (One Family Dwelling), R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling one dwelling per 2,500 square feet), R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling one dwelling per 1,250 square feet), C-1 (Limited Commercial) and C-2 (Commercial) zones, and recommend same to City Council. Motion-carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn; Messner, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bjorn, Frapwell ABSTAINED: Commissioners Anderson, Powers MinUtes, PC,~ 9/5/91 Page 12 8.2 ZUA #5181 & Columbus No. 1 Annexation (continued) Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to adopt resolutiOn 'making findings as set forth in the staff report, APPROVING the'propoSed Columbus No. 1 Annexation and recommend same to City CoUncil. Motion Carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Messner, Rosenlieb, Marino NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Bjorn, Frapwell ABSTAINED': Commissioners Anderson, Powers Chairman Marino clarified for Mr. Zane Thomas, resident of Alturas Drive, the action previously taken. 9. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING Commissioner Anderson abstained due to a possible conflict of interest in that his firm is providing serVices for 'the applicant. Staff report was given. In response to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Kloepper said the motion would be adequate to handle the standard expanded intersection in the future. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 to findthe summary vacation of superseded portions of Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road between Allen Road and Old River Road consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and report the same to the City Council with the recommendation that adequate easements .be reserVed for existing public utilities and for access to municipal facilities~ Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson abstained. Minutes, PC, 9/5/91 Page 13 10. SCHOOL DISTRICT TASK FORCE Commissioner Roseniieb stated she has found Commissioner Bjorn to be extremely helpful' on this issue because of her legal expertise. Commission Bjorn indicated-she would be willing to serve on this item. She said she would like-to add into the motion that Commissioner Bjorn be the Commissioner to serve on the task force. ChairmanMarino said' he was approached by two other Commissioners who would als° lik~ to be on the task force. Commissioner Anderson said he would have an equal interest in serving on the task force in that he has had quite a bit of interest because he has school-aged children and quite-a bit of experience in dealing with public agencies, specifically schools-as they relate to construction. Chairman Marino said he agreed that Commissioner Anderson should be on the committee because construction techniques and costs will likely be a key issue. Commissioner pOwers asked about the possibility of having two commissioners on the task force saying he feels equally comfortable with Commissioners Bjorn and Anderson being on the commission. He also felt part of the motion should include the limitation of 3~representatives from all school districts. COmmissioner Cohn responded to Commissioner Power's comment feeling that any district that wants to be involved should be invited, because there may be som~ overlapping concerns and needs. Discussion-continued regarding representatives of school districts. In response to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hardisty recommended that the number 'of members of the task force be kept small. Chairman Marino felt if a large number of people are on the task force.there will be a lot of discontinuity and nothing will be accomplished. Commissioner Anderson felt the Commission is trying to eliminate duplication of services. He felt to prematurely exclude any school from 'participating would be disastrous. Theidea is to try to come. up with recommendations that everyone agrees upon. Minutes, pC, 9/5/91 Page 14 10. 11. School District Task Force (continued) Commissioner Rosenlieb said it should be kept in mind that the Commission is only making a recommendation to the City Council. She therefore made the motion, seconde, d byCommissioner Powers to request the City Council to form a task force to-study and make recommendations on the development impacts on school districts. The Planning Commission further recommends such task force be formed no later than October 1 and consist of Commissioner Anderson as the representative from the Planning Commission with Commissioner Bjorn serving as alternate,-a City Council.member, a member of the Board of Supervisors, City Planning staff, County Planning staff, Building Industry Association, Board of Realtors· and i to 4' people as determined by Council, representing the school districts in-the Metropolitan area. Commissioner Messner said there are two issues at the State level which will apPear on the ballot, November of 1992 which may affect the committee's action 'bUt should not be a deterrent. One is a measure to allow 50 percent voter . approval for local, school bond issues and the second is a major bond issue. Chairman Marino said he 'is not comfortable with the motion and would prefer referring this to the joint city council/planning commission committee and discussing it with the council. He asked for clarification of the alternates obligation. Ms: Marino, City Attorney said the commissioner and alternate can trade off meetings as long.as no more than 3 members participate. Motion carried.' Chairman Marino voted no. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written There was no written communication. B) Verbal Mr. Hardisty said he is attempting to schedule an Urban Development COmmittee meeting joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting for September 11 which is tentatively set. There is some deferred business on the agenda and there was some desire expressed at the pre-meeting to set a meeting with the council to discuss the school district task force. Minutes, PC,-9/5/91 Page 15 I3. COMMISSION ~COMMENTS Commissioner Rosenlieb said it is her understanding that an ordinance will be brought before the Commission regarding transportation impact fees at a later date, which was due to her question of whether the general plan committee should be pursuing the idea of freeway right-of-way acquisition fees. ADJOURNMENT There being no further bUsiness to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary nning Dire~q~ .