Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/04/93-MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held ThurSday, March 4, 1993, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL -COMMISSIONERS: Present: DARREN POWERS, .Chairperson STEVE MESSNER, Vice Chairperson JEFF ANDREW KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate Absenti ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: STAFF: Pr'esent: DAVID COHN LAURA MARINo, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, .Principal Planner JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner JENNIE LNG, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary o PUBLIC STATEMENTS Marc Ashley spoke regarding Item #8 concerning determination of the general plan hearing schedule. He represented the Southwest Community Action Committee to request that Segment I not be changed as he was told is a . possibility. He said theylwould be willing to abide by a time restriction for their 'presentation in order to maintain the date of March 18, 1993. Their concern is that they have already relayed the information regarding this date and their constituents are prepared for this date and their cause may. be harmed if they have 'to change .it. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. Minutes, PC, 3/4/93 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to approve minutes of the regular meeting held January 7, 1993. carried. 4.1 Page 2 Motion PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5436 4.2 Chairman Powers stated -the Commission would hear agenda item it's 4.!, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and4.5 concUrrentlY. ~ PUBLIC HEARING ~ EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5476 ' 4.3 PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5477 4~4 PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5478 4.5 PUBLIC HEARING -'EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5479 Commissioner Marino abstained due to a conflict of interest on all of these items due to the fact-he is employed by the engineer of this tract. Staff report was waived. Public portions of the hearings was'opened; no one spoke in opposition. Kenneth Green represente~d the applicant on these items. He asked about the conditions relating to parkS. Regarding Condition it3 .he asked that the assessments be prorated to each property owner and not be a blanket assessment to all 'property owners. Mr. Hardisty felt the intent of the condition is that the assessment be levied to each property owner. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to a question 'by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty responded there would be no reason :t0 change the condition regardingparks. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to approve the one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5436 Revised to expire February 21, 1994, subject to updated conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A". Motion carried. -Minutes, PC, 3/4/93 Page 3 Motion was made. by co~mmissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to approve one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5476 to expire February 21, 1994, subjeqt to the updated conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A". Motion carried. . Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner 'to approve the One-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5477 to expire February 21,' 19941 'subject to updated conditions outlined in the'Exhibit Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to approve the one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5478 to expire February 21, 1994, subject to updated conditions outlined in 'the Exhibit "A". Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to approve the one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5479 to expire -March' 7, 1994, subject t° updated conditions outlined in' the Exhibit "A". Motion carried. - 5. PUBLIC'HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5762 (VESTING)-. Commissioner Andrew abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he is ' involved in marketing adjacent properties. 'S/afl report was given. Public portion of the heahng was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Jim Delmarter represented the applicant. Regarding CalTrans late response he asked that the Commission approve the tract without taking their comments into consideration, however if the Commission feels that these issues need to be addressed they are willing to abide by mitigation measures which may be determined by the additional study required.. Mr. Kloepper felt the State's request should be recognized so the project could move forward by adding a condition to the Public Works conditions as follows: "Mitigations identified by the developer's traffic consultant relative to a.m. peak traffic-impacts shall be completed subject to approval of the City Engineer." After discussion, Mr. Delmarter was agreeable;to this condition. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 3/4/93- Page 4 Responding to a question by Commissioner Marino, Ms. Marino said the Commission cannot disregard CalTrans comments even though they were late because it is evidence which should be considered regarding possible mitigation. Motion Was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in tlie staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5762 subject to the conditions outlined in~ the Exhibit "A", subject to the following changes: Exhibit "A" of Public Works shall be conditions dated February 24, 1993 with the addition of Condition #40 to read as follows: 6.1 Mitigation identified by the developer's traffic consultant relative to a.m. peak traffic impacts shall be completed subject to approval of the City 'Engineer. Motion carried. FILE 5429.-o REQUEST BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TO PREZONE TO CITY E (ESTATE) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE ON APPROXIMATELY 25 +~/- ACRES LOCATED WEST OF CALLOWAY DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET SOUTH OF MEACHAM ROAD. Commissioner Marino abs/ained due to a possible conflict of interest in that his employer may own or mayi:be in the process of acquiring land within 300 feet of this area. Staff report was givem Public portion of the hearing was opened. Steve Hartsell represented the Kern High School District. He said the district has provided th'e city with information which indicates this project would have a significant impact in the area of high school facilities and for this reason considers it in violation of CEQA for a negative declaration to be adopted. He stated he provided a copy of information containing a copy of the legislative council opinion stating that cities and counties can continue to impose mitigation measures after the passage of SB 1287. He pointed out that the Supreme Court Of the State filed an opinion on this issu, e on February 11, 1993 on a specific suit stating that special taxes imposed., under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Law are exempt from the provisions ~of Government Code Section 65995 which is the point their office has been making in that Mello~Roos Act is not preempted in any way by SB 1287 or pre-existing provisions of law. Minutes, PC, 3/4/93 Page 5 Paul Andre, 2608 Alder Street spoke stating he is a property owner within the proposed annexation boundaries. He stated he represented Mr. Cleo Brannen, 2907 Calloway Drive acknowledging they support this annexation conditionally at this time. He asked for Clarification of whether the subdivision project would not hold up possible approvals. Mr. Hardisty said it is his understanding there is an existing approved tentative tract. Public portion of the heating was closed. Responding to a question~by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Hardisty said approvals would have to be obtained for development within the utilities easement. ? ' Commissioner Rosenlieb clarified the Commission has not seen any development Plans, tract maps or proposal for development on this project but is strictly looking at the annexation. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded~by Commissioner Frapwell to adopt resolution making findings presented in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and approving Prezoning No. 5429 to the City designation of E (Estate) on 25 +/- acres with conditions as attached in Exhibit -"A" and recommend same ~.to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Frapwell, Hersh, Messner, RosenIlieb, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cohn, Marino 6.2 FILE 5430 -- REQUEST BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TO PREZONE TO R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE ON APPROXIMATELY 25 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MORNING DRIVE AND COLLEGE AVENUE. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated her concern for lack of sidewalk, curb and gutter facilities in the area asking if approval could be conditioned to require this. Mr. Hardisty said he did not have an analysis of this, however this item could be continued to a future meeting at which time this information could be provided. Minutes, PC, 3/4/93 Page 6 Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to continue this item to the April 1, 1993 meeting. Motion carried. 7.1 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PROPOSED ADDITION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICES- Commissioner Powers abgtained from participation on this item and relinquished the chair to Commissioner Messner. Staff report .was given. Public portion'of the heating was Opened. Terry Arnold spoke stating they own 14 Burger King restaurants in the city. She felt the C-1 zone should b~e left alone and this proposal has made it worse. She said the proposed Ordinance denies businesses such as hers to expand, establish new .stores or modify existing stores. The drive-through type enterprises are being undUly hamperedbygovernmental restrictions. She said in order to comply it wOuld almost be necessary'to have at least one-half a city block set aside for a single store. Area would have to be completely fenced or screened by shrubbery and contain access and exfts that only utilize alleyways. Public rights-of-way would not be used for drix~e-through operations. Sidewalks or pedestrian ways would not be acceptable if~ crossing a drive-through lane. The ordinance -requirements regarding po,sitioning of menu board and speakers along with minimum setback and screening requirements almost preclude any new drive- through stores from being built within the city. She said they strongly oppose this draft ordinance as it Currently exists. She requested that the Planning Commission direct staff to 'meet with operators of drive-through businesses. She said she felt the-only portiSn of the ordinance with any merit was with regard to stacking. She said she stated in the past that this ordinance was not brokdn and should not be fixed and now feels as it currently exists it is broken.. She said the portion of the ordinance which requires landscaping to minimize the impact of directional signs is contradictory because the directional signs are there for a purpose. She said she wou[ld be agreeable to working with the Commission on this issue. Barbara Don carlos represented the Building Industry Association, stating it was discussed at the committee meeting that the Conditional Use Permit process was working well. She stated she requested that if the standards were to be used they be allowed to go through them because they were unreasonable and did not have that opportunity. She was concerned about the limitation on time a drive-through could be used, distance of 50 feet in which a voice box could not be used, however at 100 it could, the lack of wording concerning a wall or landscaping Minutes, PC, 3/4/93 Page 7 buffer between residential and drive-through use,~ stating there are no alternatives. She also cited contradictions in the ordinance specifically the pedestrian walkway not:intersecting .the drive,through lane. She was Concerned about traffic flow requirements, stating the!traffic engineer woUld look at each of these cases making a determinati0n.: She suggested that this entire issue be dropped. The conditional use permit is~sue is well within the purview that they accept. Judith Worley stated she~would want landscaping and would not want a drive- through within 50 feet from her home. She felt the ordinance is fine with regard to C-1 properties abutting residential. Regarding Item G she asked for clarification on a public ~tlley. Mr. Kloepper said this could be made clear by adding the term "publicly maintained alley." He also clarified a collector street' for her. She felt this ordinance could work in the C-1 zone, however the conditional use permit process has worked very well· Michael Meyers: asked if~this plan were adopted with the removal of the conditional use permit process would developers be able to ask for modifications. He'felt keeping the conditional use permit process allows public input. Mr. Hardis-ty _said it'does not.change the conditional use permit process at all, however provisions exist in the ordinance to allow for modification of the standards upon notice and public hearing. Vicki Moore spoke stating she owns property near a C-1 zoned property. Responding to a questioO by her, Commissioner Messner said the CUP process is not an issue in subject ordinance amendments. She felt the CUP process would give those residents of Older neighborhoods such as theirs a level of comfort. Publi6 portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Andrew gax~e a committee report on this issue. He suggested that -this item be sent back to committee and either have a committee meeting before input is received or a decision as to whether this issue should be continued and if so receive input from those of the public concerned. He felt this item was back at this hearing due to miscommunication. Commissioner Marino g.ave history of this issue. He thanked those present for their input, stating he felt the current ordinance is designed to force C-1 and C-O zoned properties to go through the CUP process because it is simpler. He stated he would not support this ordinance, however would support informing the City Council that this Ordinance is not broke and should be left the way it is. -Minutes, PC, 3/4/93 Page 8 Commissioner Messner added to Cominissioner Marino's comments that the commission was asked to.~create an ordinance that woUld help streamline the process, however felt this: ordinance is not doing this. The Commission was also told to involVe residents and those in the industry, and the BIA and he did not feel this has been done sufficiently. Commissioner Hersh reiterated Commissioner Andrew's comments adding that it was agreed in the commiitee meetings that the CUP process woul'd be adhered to -on thi~ issue. He felt if a standard is set it should be done within committee. He suggested that this issue not be killed automatically, however would like to see if a minimum standard is necessary on the other zones in a committee setting. Commissioner Messner thought there is merit in pursuing minimum standards. Commissioner· Rosenlieb ~said she felt this has evolved into something totally different. She clarified what is being looked at now is whether on the other zones minimum standards be imposed. She asked Ms. Arnold for her input on - minimum standards. Ms.~ Arnold said she would be agreeable to lending her input, however She would like to see this begin from scratch. Commissioner Marino said there seems to be consensus that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the C-1 and C-O ordinances be-left in-place. Motion Was-made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb that-the Commission recommend to the City Council that they do not alter-the existing drive2th/ough ordinance for the C-1 and C-O zones and that they continue to require a Conditional Use Permit in those zones. Motion 'carried. ' Chairman poWers felt everyone in this process may want to take a break from it at this time and reconvene the issue in a couple of months. 7.2 Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would like to see the zoning ordinance committee take up this issue. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.08.150 REGARDING SPECIAL DWELLING SETBACKS MODIFYING DWELLING SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL OR RURAL RESIDENTIAL, AND ADDING SPECIAL SETBACKS FOR DWELLINGS FROM FREEWAY AND RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY Staff report was given~ Minutes} PC,. 3/4/93 Page 9 Chairman Powers said thls issue has not been discussed substantially in the zoning -ordinance committee meeting. -~ Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Motion was made by Commissioner RoSenlieb, seconded by Commissio. ner Hersh to adopt the-findings in the staff report and approve the ordinance amendments as proposed and recommend same to the City Council. Motion carried by the . following roll call vote: AYES: .Commissioners Andrew, FrapWell, Hersh, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None ABSENT:~ Commissioner Cohn 7.3 PUBLIC HEARING zONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RESCINDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MODEL HOMES IN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT AND ALLOWING SAID MODEL HOMES AND ASSOCIATED SALES OFFICE AS A PERMITIED USE IN THE R-1 ZONE. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Dennis Fox asked if AB 235.pertaining to water conservation would apply t6 the model homes. Mr. Hardisty said the State law would apply, therefore this issue would not need to be addressed by this ordinance. Barbara Don Carlos represented the Building Industry Association stating theY are very supportive .of the changes in this ordinance. She asked that the -.Commission-consider allowing 6 models per builder with any higher number to be -at the discretion of the Planning Director. Mr. Hardisty was agreeable to this. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 3/4/93 Page 10 Motion was made by cOmmissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Me~sner to recommend to the City Council that the findings from the staff report be adopted-and approve the' ordinance amendments as proposed with the revision to the maximum number of models to be 6 and clarification that the ordinance referenced is that which amends item 1 to allow additional model homes subject to approval by the Plannling Director and staff's proposed recommendation to itam #4. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Frapwell, Hersh, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None ABSENT:' Commissioner Cohn 8. -DETERMINATION OF. GENERAL PLAN HEARING SCHEDULE AND CONDUCT OF HEARI~NGS Chairman Poweis stated ihe would rather go through each application on the March 18, 1993-meeting and not continue any items to another hearing date. He felt 45 minutes in favor and 45 minutes in opposition Could be imposed as a time limit. Commissioner Rosenliebi stated she tended to agree with Commissioner Powers, however she did not want the meeting to go so late that the Commission can no longer focus on the issues. She agreed that a 45-minute time limit pro and con should be imposed, however said she did not want to do this on a regular basis. She felt 'even with time limits the potential of not finishing the agenda exists stating she felt a consideration should be given for another' night on which to continue the remaining items. Commissioner Marino said he is generally opposed to time limits because he felt the Commission is flirting with violation of due process. He felt that possibly using the lights may be helpful. He also stated the possibility of a consent calendar for the next meeting. Mr. Hardisty said it may be possible to group certain non-controversial!hearings together. Commissioner Marino said in the future he would like discussion on up-coming items so that the possibility of separate hearings can be -approached. Mr. Hardi~ty felt it needs to be clear that each side will be given 45 minutes which would inclUde the applicant's time to present his evidence. The Commission does not have to consider rebuttal points. Minutes, PC, 3/4/93 Page 11 Commissioner Powers felt rules for the hearing should be.stated in the beginning. Discussion COntinued regtrding the possibility hearing these items at two separate hearings because of the pbssibility of it going late into the evening. Commissioner Rosenlieb hsked that another night be chosen at this time .in the event all hearings cannot be conducted on March 18th. It was agreed upon by the majority of those present that Monday, March 22, 1993 would be that date. Commissioner Andrew stated he would have to check his calendar for this date. o Commissioner Andrew stated he would rather hear all items on one night. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded bY Commissioner Hersh for the next hearing that e:ach agenda item will have a maximum time limit of 45 minutes for each side with, no rebuttal time allowed: In the event that the Commission is unable tO finish the agenda on the evening of March 18, 1993 a special meeting will be held on March 22, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. in order to. hear the remainder of the items. 'Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she will not set a time limit in her motion for the'-Commission to finish, however felt it could be determined on this evening. Motion carried. Commissioners Andrew and Marino voted no. Mr. Hardisty responded toiChairman Powers questions suggesting in the discussion at the beginning of the meeting that a statement be included that a 20- minute break would be tal~en at 7:00 p.m. with intermediate breaks taken during the evening. Commissione~ Rosenlieb felt Chairman Powers could state at the beginning Of the hearing that a dinner break would be taken somewhere between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. 9. CHANGING AGENDA TO PROVIDE FOR CONSOLIDATED HEARINGS ON NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS Mr. Hardisty said he wouldl like to work on using a symbol system indicating a note that as of the date of the agenda's publication the items appear to be non- controversial and would be :treated in routine matter as a group, however if anyone has an issue to be raised it will be taken off and heard in its normal place. Commissioner Marino said ,this procedure shortens meetingsl Chairman recognized Mr. Delmarter Who was present to answer questions regarding this procedure, suggesting that the County uses it very effectively. He explained the procedure used by the County. He asked that this be considered. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she is willing to try this procedure. Mr. Delmarter pointed out the staff initiated new process will help in expediting _the process. Minutes, PC,'3/4/93 10. COMMUNICATIONS Page 12 1I. A) Written B) Mr. Hardisty brought the Commission's attentiOn to an envelope handed out to the Commission containing the general plan amendment istaff reports in order to give the commission.plenty of time for review. He stated this package would be released to the City Council. ~ He cited a report submitted by the Building Director on the fee schedule. Responding to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Fidler said the fee hs of March 2, 1993 is $1.65. Fees adopted in other cities are higher and have already begun. On April 1st the school fee will increase by $2~000. He reviewed the charts for the Commission.: Verbal None COMMISSION COMMENTS Al committees 1) 2) 3) General Plan -. No new information given. Zoning Ordinance No new information given. Sign Ordinance Commissioner Hersh said a meeting was held the prex;ious Tuesda~y and the Committee is continuing to review revisions and proposals.. The Committee plans to meet with members of the ,community and BIA. Minutes, PC, 3/4-/93 Page 13 4) Subdivision and Public Services 'No new information given. 5) Trails and Ways No new information given. -6) Parks and Environmental Quali _ty Act No nbw information given. 7) Joint Council/Planning Commission No new information given. Mr. Hardisty said akmeeting was scheduled for the Urban Development Committee-on Moffday, March 22, 1993 at noon. He felt this would be a good time for the Commission's committee to meet with them as well. Discussion continued regarding this committee meeting. Commissioner-Hersh said it was noticed when reviewing the sign ordinance an-ordinance does not exist for the parks department signage asking if something could be ,placed on the agenda in order to bring this about. Mr. Hardisty said staff Would work toward a proposal on this item. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary