The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/03/92 "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION :OF_ THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, December 3, 1992, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber,' City Hall, 1501 .Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. 'ROLL CALL o COMMISSIONERS: Present: DARREN POWERS,Chairperson STEVE MESSNER, Vice Chairperson JEFF ANDREW JIM MARINO KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate · - -Absent: ADVISORy MEMBERS~. Present: STAFF: 'Present: PUBLIC STATEMENTS DAVID COHN LAURA MARINO, Assistant City ' Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director MIKE QUON, Building Plan Check Engineer ' JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary No' one made any public statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to'appf°Ve -the minutes of October 1, 1992. Motion carried. CommissiOner Frapwell abstained ~since he was not present 'at this meeting: .Minutes, PC, 12/3/92 4. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 3-92 Page 2 e Staff report was waived due t° the fact the hpplicant has requested a continuance. Motion was made by-Commissioner MarinO, seconded by Commissioner Messner to refer this item to-the sign committee. .Commissioner Messner asked staff for documentation relating to the East Hills Mall sign plan. Responding to a question by:Commissioner Messner regarding CommiSsioner Hersh's aPpointment to committee's, Commissioner Powers stated he would be taking Commissioner Anderson's place on the committee roster. MOtion ~arried. WALL AND-LANDSCAPE PLAN - TRACT 5544 Staff report was given._ Roger McIntosh represented the property owner. He referred to the ordinance section cited in the staff report, stating their proposal which was pointed out on the map. He asked that:Condition #7 of Exhibit "A" be changed to read as foll6ws: "Owner.shall comply'with 17.60.11ON. allowing no more than 5 freestandingsigns for' Tract 5544." With the balance of the conditioning remaining as-is. Commissioner:Messner~asked Mr. McIntosh if his-intention is to place 2 additional signs along the Jewetta entrance. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she felt 5 signs is exdes~ive. She stated she had no problem with the corner monumentation sign and ~one sign per entrance bringing the-total to-3.. Responding to questions by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said staff has recommended that neighborhood signage be at the main entry of a neighborhood ~nd not all entrances. - Responding to a question :-by Commissioner Rosenlieb regarding the wall and landscape ordinance, Mr. Movius said it Was decided that a limit of two entry signs would be placed in the sign ordinance. Minutes, PC, .12/3/92 Page 3 Commissioner Rosenlieb stated her concerns With corner monumentati°n that -other developers have ~been turned down for this request and the lack of consistency. She also stated' she Would like to see a standard which would prohibit, styrofoam: signs on the walls. Commissioner Powers stated his agreement with this comment. Commissioner Rosenlieb felt discussion concerning this could be continued under` commission Comments. Commissioner Powers stated he was not opposed to the monumentation sign, however, possibly-a distance requirement needs to be added. Discussion ensued regarding distances between signs. Commissioner:Marino said he had no problem with the amount of signs on this Project given the amouni of acreage that is involved. He said he agreed that something more-permanent than styrofoam needs to be used. Commissioner Messner said he would be inclined to support the applicant's request. ~ - '~- Responding to a .qUestion by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. McIntosh said if the Commission would .like to limit this so that styrofoam is not allowed he would be agreeable.. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Marino to approve wall and landscap.e plans for Tentative Tract 5544 subject to the findings on-Page-'3 of the;staff report dated. December 3, _1992 and conditions on attached Exhibit "A",-.with the following change: Condition #7 of the Planning Department to read as follows: · Owner shall comply with Section 17.60.110 N., allowing no m6re than five (5) freestanding signs for Tract 5544. (With the remainder - - of the condition to remain as it exists). And the addition as follows: "Signage shall not be of styrofoam material." Motion'carried. COmmis'sioner Rosenlieb vOted no. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5418 .Staff report was given~ Commissioner Marino abstained due to a conflict of interest in that his employer may own prOperty:within-the area. Minutes, PC, 12/3/92 7.1 Public portion of the hearing _was Patricia-Harbison-represented the engineer. grant the extension. Public portion of the hearing was Closed. Page 4 opened; no one spoke in opposition. She asked that the Commission Motion was made by Commissioner Frapwell, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5418. Motion carried.- PUBLIC HEA~RING" TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9884 Staff report was given. - Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger McIntosh represented'the owner of the property. He gave background on this parcel map.-'He asked that Condition # 1 of Building Department conditions be deleted.since this-requirement is covered elsewhere. Mr. Quon stated the Building Department would have no objection to this request. Regarding Planning Department Condition # 1 he asked that this condition be rewritten as follows: "Prior to filing of. a final map or further development, an approved plan for utility easements:shall be provided? Mr. Hardisty was agreeable to this revision.. Public portion-of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to approve Prtposed Tentative Parcel Map 9884 subject to the conditions outlined, in the Exhibit "A,"-with the addition of the December 1, 1992 memo from Public-Works and deletion of Building. Department Condition #1, Page 3 and amended Condition # 1 of Planning Department Conditions to read as follows: _ Prior tofiling of a final map or further development, an approved plan for Utility easements shall be provided. (The second sentence remaining as it exists). - MotiOn carried. -5. Minutes, PC, 12/3/92 Page 5 'PUBLIC-HEARING 'TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9900 Commissioner.; Powers-~tbstained due to a conflict of interest because an adjacent property owner has been a source of income to his firm within the last year: Commissioner Messner chaired this hearing. Staff report was_ given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Bill Cooper, Kern River Parkway Committee, asked for a clarification of what is being proposed. Mr. Hardisty said as subdivision occurs any of the parcels affected by this would require adjustment of the road pattern to fit the subdivision, therefore the location could change in the future. He said they would like to see this issue be returned to staff so that they can have some input as to-the possibility of a conservation easement along the river for the length of the development to address all issues within the Kern River Plan including trails system, riparian protection area and to serve as a buffer between the. development and the river area and trails systems.~ He requested no action be taken on this issue pending the development of a better access plan. -Randy Bergquist represented'the owner/subdivider. Regarding the issue of access he stated they reviewed the requirements of the subdivision map act. Staff has come uP with an ~ acceptable recommendation which is to provide a parking lot and access to and along the river. He stated his acceptance of memorandums and conditiOnS set forthby staff. Regarding the sewer issue he said they feel enough conditions exist on this-parcel map to ensure a sewer system in the area. This is the first time a developer has been willing to address the sewer issue and approval of this map will make a statement that the commission would like the construction of sewer in this area. Commissioner Mes~ner stated he spoke With the developer whO said he was agreeable-to the conditions. Public portion bf the-hearing was closed. Responding to a questionby 'Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said this area is outside the Kern River Parkway Plan, however the Kern River Element would be effective in this area.- Mr. Hardisty said each tract does not have to provide individual access, however it must be found that reasonable access is provided. Mr. Hardisty said he. felt access should be provided every 1/2 mile to 1 mile where it can be obtained. Discussion continued regarding staff's recommendation of access. Minutes, PC, t2/3j92 page 6 Responding.to questions by-Commissioner Marino, Mr. Hardisty said-the _- ~' ' -re!ocation~of the dedicated access would go through a hearing process. The - access would be pedestrian only: Regarding possible bicycle use, Mr. Hardisty said he_would have concerns'about a bicycle trail being at the foot of the bluff .because of-t-he damage to the riparian habitat. A pedestrian trail will be located along the Kern River. if the pending lawsuit is not successful. The issue of trails _ and possibly additional access can be addressed at a future date. - Commissioner Marino gave summary of the committee meeting on this issue, saying there was a lot of concern about how the sewer issue would be resolved. There was implication that an assessment district is being-formed, however 'because of the size of the lots-sewer service would not be required. On the smaller lot subdivision a will-serve letter exists that would allow it to empty into an interim leach field south of Highway 178. He stated his concern that the leach field will fill up quicklyif all development uses it. He agreed that denial of this parcel map would be sending the wrong message; that of not wanting sewer service installation to-this area.. Commissioner Marino proposed'a condition as follows: "Prior to recordation of a parce! map, a master sewage-trunk line plan for providing permanent service to each parcel, a mechanism for constructing that system including financing and a 'grading plan for the subdivision shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Permanent municipal service, not including an interim .leach field or fields' shall be required for each lot in future subdivisions." Fred Porter said he had no probiemwith the word "permanenf', however the last sentence, he felt, would' cease-any future development until the sewer is out there. He said they have paid into the sewer:.system, but are told now that they can't use it.- They 'Would like to be able to begin their subdivision. Commissioner Marino said he was concerned that theirYpermanent municipal sewer system" could be expanded to include a leach field. Mr. Porter said this is not what .they are proposing. He said they are nOt proposing the community leach field to be the permanent system. He said he-would like the option of being able to subdivide the property Using an interim system. Mr. Kloepper responded to a question by Commissioner Messner, saying the - currentlanguage gives the latitude requested by Mr. Porter. The addition of Condition #'s-15 and 16, payment of fees would alleviate reluctance for hookup to a sewer system._ Ms. Marino, Attorne~ responded to a question by Commissioner Andrew saying it is up to. the Commission to determine whether adequate sewer services exist for this property. If adequate services exist and there are no other reasons for denial the commission must approve this map. Minutes, PC, 12/3/92 Page 7 Commissioner _Andrew asked if the additional memo was to ensure that the fees would be paid_in' advance, Mr. Kloepper said this would be the result. Commissioner Andrew said he did not want to see the leach field continue to expand. He said he had no problem with the prepayment of the sewer hookup fee and 'using the Olcese ~facilities on a 'temporary basis.- Commissioner Marino .said what'he is trying to do is ensure that the mechanism is inplace prior to future subdivision. Joe Gillig, Consultant for Olcese Water District 'said they have been assessing their options for future handling of wastewater Within _their boundaries. The leach field is being watched very carefully both_ by olcese and-Regional Water Quality Control Board and could be a viable system .fo.r many years. 'Commissioner Rosenlieb said she really wants to see growth in the northeast, h°Wev'er the issue is that urban-'development requires infrastructure and Oicese is 0nly providing a temporary system. Commissioner Marino~s modification only requires that upon future subdivision a permanent system, not including leach fields, be in Place.- The language, she felt, protects the City and allows for development, statingshewished the applicant would reconsider his stance on this language. 'Commissioner FrapWell felt if a mechanism is in place before further subdivision, this would be a reasonable condition-for consideration. Mr. Porter felt this was reasonable. - - - Joe-Gillig,' representing Olcese Water District, spoke saying they are providing an. interim system and~expect to work with the city on this. Discussion continued' regarding assessment district for this area. Commissioner Marino said the intent is to stop future subdivision maps from recording prior to the final hearing by the City Council for the sale of bonds. He felt it would be.irresponsible to allow development without a mechanism in place. Respondingt0 a question by Commissioner Andrew, Commissioner Marino clarified the 'change to condition regarding sewer requirement. Commissioner Andrew said he did'not Want to see the expansion of the leach field become the permanent system. Morri's Taylor, Engineer for Olcese Water District, clarified the operation of Olcese in the' area. The sewer system has only been approved for 700 units and Olcese Cannot give a will-serve letter for any more than this. Expansion would have to go to the State for approval. In response to questions by Commissioner · Messner, Mr. Taylor said it would take years to go through a process for approval beyond 700 units. Minute~i' PC, 12/3/92 'Page 8 Commissioner Andrew asked if approval of the bonding ensures the assessment "district. Mr. Kloepper said the district could die, however there are many land owners expressing interest in this district and costs are reasonable enough per acre that he felt it had an' excellent chance of making it to completion. If it was not approved and additional parcels were hooked to the Olcese system as it exists, staff would have no concerns because it is rigidly controlled through the State. He -felt placing developers at a competitive disadvantage by not allowing interim hook ups is discouraging development. He recommended the project be approved with the conditions as currently written. Commissioner Messner agreed with Mr. Kloepper's comments, saying he would -not support the amendment to this condition. Motion was made'by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and.. to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9900 subject to the' conditions ~outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the changes as outlined in the memorandums from the Planning Director dated December 2, 1992 and pUblic Works~Department dated November 17, 1992- and December 2, 1992 and the memorandum dated November 19, 1992 from the Planning staff relating to .fire safety Control with the additional change in the November 17, 1992 memorandum from the Public Works Department with Condition #2 to read as follows: ~ Prior toxecordaticm of a parcel map, a master sewer trunk line plan for Providing permanent municipal service to each parcel, a mechanism for constructing that system, including financing and a grading plan for the s_ubdivisitn shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Permanent municipal service not including an interim leach field or fields shall be required for each lot in future subdivisions. Mr. Porter said they could not agree to this amended condition because it would stop development in this area. If all developments are stopped in this area a sewer will never be constructed and there will be 200 units on a community leach field. MOtion. failed 'to carry by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Marino, Rosenlieb, Hersh NOES: ... _ Commissioners Messner, Andrew, Frapwell Mr. Hardisty_said since no decision was reached another motion could be made or debate continued. Minutes, PC, 12/3/92 Page 9 -Motion was made by Commissioner Frapwell, seconded, by Commissioner Andrew to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9900 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the changes as outlined in the memOrandums from the-Planning Director dated December 2, 1992 and Public Works Department dated-November 17, 1992 and December 2, 1992 and Memo from-Planning staff dated November 19, 1992 with the addition to the November 17, 1992 memo from the-Public. Works Department that assessment district mechanism be in place before any further subdivision of any properties within that area are considered.. Responding to'La question by Commissioner Rosenlieb,-Commissioner Frapwell said his intent is that .a funding mechanism be in -place, however he is not saying that it must be approved~- DiscUssion continued regarding the possible growth of the temporary system. Commissioner F.rapwell agreed there is no guarantee that this will not happen, however 'it would-be very difficult to move forward with development without an interim system. Further .development will-have to come before the Commission. · Commissioner Matin° disagreed that development would be locked out. . Discussion continued regarding the possibility of amending the motion. Commissioner Marino stated he felt nervous because of the lack of guarantees of the trunkline for this parcel map. Mr. 'pOrter spoke saying this was not considered a problem 4 months ago, saying he felt the Commission has insulted the Olcese Board and Engineers which are a legislative bodies which take-care of this type of business. Commissioner Rosenlieb amended Commissioner Frapwell's motion, changing Condition #2' of the December 17, 1992 memorandum from the Public Works Department to read-as follows: Prior to recordation of a parcel map a master sewer trunk line plan for providingpermanent municipal service to each parcel, a mechanism for conStructing that system, including financing and a grading plan for the subdivision shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Financing shall be defined as final approval of the assessment district at the protest hearing.~ Permanent municipal service; not including an interim leach field..or fields shall be required for each lot in future subdivisions. Responding to a question by Commissioner Frapwell, Mr. Porter said at this point they request the condition be approved as stated. Amended motion Was seconded by Commissioner Andrew. '--0 Minutes, PC, 12/3/92 Page 10 Mr. porter clarifie~d they are-not in agreement with the condition, however they are anxious .to move on to the next step. MotiOn carried. Commissioner Messner voted no. *5-minute recess was taken at this time. 8.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5743 Commissioner Powers abstained due to a conflict of interest because an adjacent 'property owner has been a source of income to his firm within the last year. Commissioner Messner Cliaired this-hearing. Staff report .was given, Public poition ofth'e hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or favor. Jim Murphy spoke-statinghe was the applicant. He said all agencies concerned have approved the leach field as an interim system. He said their position is very well stated and will agr6e to pay any hookup charges which could be assessed, however will 'not agree to any additions to this. He asked that the commission take action on-this item. He felt if this is ~denied the Commission is.sending a Signal to the Olcese Water Board that they will no longer honor will-serve letters, that the leach field has reached the caPacity at 200 ~homes and that they can no lOnger assess residences for this leach field. Randy Bergcluist wanted to clarify their request that improvement conditions be deferred on Lot 73. Public pOrtion Of the hearing was closed. Commissioner R0senlieb .said it has always been her understanding that the temporary, system through Olcese was to serve the golf course'lots, but upon expansions could serve 'more area. Mr. Murphy said when the system was set up it was not limited to the golf course but had an expanded area that immediately began being assessed:' She felt if their project is allowed it would be that many less units which-could-be allowed On the golf course. She did not feel Olcese set the system up as "firs/_ come first serve." Mr. Murphy. felt the Commission. is trying to make a decision on something that is not within their purview, by arguing the issue .of who can be placed on the system. In response to discussion, Mr. Porter said he was not sure of. the lot yield at this Point.._ ~- Minutes, PC, 12/3/92 Page 11 Commissioner Andrew felt if they have the capacity to hook to the sewer system, that the commission should not stop this development. Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Kloepper agreed to deferral of conditions onLot 73 until future subdivision. He also recommended the 'addition of an advisory condition as follows: "The NPDES shall be complied with prior-to start of .grading operations." Commissioner Messner clarified this made reference to the NPDES storm water mrements and not the entire NPDES system. on wa~ made by-Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to approve' and adopt th~:Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve PrOposed Tentative Tract 5743 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", attached to the staff report, with the inClusion'of Condit{on-#!S 34 and 35 contained in the December 2, 1992 Public WOrks Department memo, with the addition of Condition #36 to read as' follows: The NPDES shall be complied with prior to start of grading operations (AdvisOry Condition). The addition of a condition that all conditions requiring improvement of Lot 73 shall be deferred until 'future subdivision. Commissioner Rosenlieb told Mr. Murphy it was her opinion it was the original intent'fOr the 700 finit capacity to serve the golf course lots, however if he was given a will-serve letter they have the ability to be serviced. Responding to a question by Commissioner-Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said existing homes in the area wOUld not have _to pay a connection fee when.the municipal sewer system is available and the details as to connection would be outlined in an agreement between the water district and the city. c~rried. Minutes, PC, .12/3/92 ~- · Page 12 8.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5369 (REVISED) Staff report was given. : Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. .Randy Bei~gquist represen.ted the applicant. Regarding Condition # 13 of Public Works conditions he said the applicant had a problem with a possible lien on the property. He asked that this item be deleted. Mr. Kloepper clarified this condition, saying it is an advisory condition. Mr.. Bergquist said the applicant is concerned thatif the city does the work associated with this condition it would cost him twice as much. Regarding the modification of lot width on 9 lots he asked for approval. Mr. Hardisty said he supports the original recommendation based, on consistency with', the ordinance which was recently adopted. Responding to a question, by Commissioner Frapwell, Mr. Hardisty said the ordinance allows for the ability to vary on 5 percent of the lots for 5 percent of a deviation. Mr. Bergquist said they would like to get more lots because this is an expensive subdivision being they have to construct 2 roads. Public portion Of the hearing was closed. Commissioner R0senlieb said the ordinance was drafted with the idea that there should be a standard that can be adhered to. With the 5 percent factor added by the Council; developers are allowed more lots. She stated she supported staff's recommendation: Responding to questions by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr2 Kloepper said the property would have an opportunity to appear before Council regarding improvements as cited by Mr. Bergquist. Motion was made-by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to make all findings set forth in the staff report and approve Proposed Tentative Tract-5369 (Revised) subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit '"A" attached to the staff.report: Motion carried. Motion was made by COmmissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner. to deny ihe reductiOn of lot frontage to allow 53 foot minimum lot frontage. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 12/3/92 Page 13 9. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR DONATING A VACANT .5 ACRE PARCEL TO CLINICA SIERRA FOR CONSTRUCTING A NON- -PROFIT MEDICAL CLINIC LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CLARENDON STREET AND LAKEVIEW AVENUE. Staff. report was given( - Motion-was made by .Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to_make-a finding, pursuant to Government Code 65402, that the proposed donation of real property':for use by the Clinica Sierra Vista for the establishment of a non-profit medical clinic is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 -General "Plan. · ' 'Respon~ling to .a questiOn, by Commissioner Andrew, Mr. Hardisty said he was not aware of any' time frame for the property to revert back to the city in the Case that it is not developed; however he felt it would be upon demand. Motion carried. 10. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR-DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICES staff report was. given.. Public portion of the hearing-was opened. TerrY Arnold-spoke saying she and her husband own the Burger King restaurants -in the City. She expressed concern about the ordinance asking if it is. necessary. The stacking lane _requirements would cause problems interfering with parking spaces which she felt would cause them to need a larger and more eXpensive site. Regarding the current standards for drive-throughs she felt they are very safe and did not understand the concern about exit from a drive-through onto a public -roadway. She did not-feel this is a very well thought out ordinance. Judith .Worley stated_she is a homeowner of property near the corner of California and Oak Street in which they have had an issue with a restaurant and drive-through window~ She said they have no opposition to a restaurant but are opposed to a drive throUgh_window. She cited the zoning ordinance under the C- 1 (neighborhood Commercial) zone, ' saying the expansion of a commercial zone of such magnitude that it would cause significant volumes of traffic, should not be allowed. She _said the proposed standards do not help the residents. Chairman Powers clarified the issue being discussed is a city-wide ordinance and as such should not tie addressed for one particular piece of property. Minutes, PC,- 12/3/92 _ Page 14 Lamar Curly 'said he was stunned that CommissiOner Powers did not disqualifY himself on this issue because he has been involved in buying and developing the property which initiated the issue before the commission at this time: Mr.-SherfY said since this is a city-wide ordinance there would be no legal conflict. Commissioner Marino clarified this issue was referred to the Commission by. the City Council and is more restrictive than what currently exists. Mr.- Curly cited his area_as an example, saying they are not opposed to a restaurant in the area, but are opposed to an entrance being on Park Way. John Moore spoke saying he is a property owner near the intersection of California and Oak Street. He said the conditional use permit_process is necessary for neighborhood commercial zoning. He stated the alternative is that the standards would be set out during site plan review, stating there is no public input for site plan review. He said he would like 'no speakers alloWed and no entrances onto reSidential 'streets. Paul Worley said he is completely opposed to this ordinance, stating he felt if the city Wants to be: more restrictive the possibility of drive-up windows should be -eliminated. He cited the problems with air ~pollution caused by drive-through windows,r-' Commissioner Messner pointed out that a study had been prepared regarding the impacts of air .pollutiOn fr?m drive-through windows saying it has been concluded that the amount of start and stop emissions by people getting in and out of :vehicles can equal:-or exceed idling emissions of drive-through traffic. Curt Hettinger stated' his opposition to removing the conditional use permit requirement for drive-up: windows because it does not give residents the - opportunity to voice concerns relative to their unique situation. Chairman P0wers clarified if a drive-up speaker were to be within 50 feet of any residential use a curfew would exist and the user would.' have to apply for a ~condit_ional use permit if they wanted to use it past that time. Mr. Hettinger said the area of Park Way which is their neighborhood is already impacted by a .trash problem and if a drive-through were constructed he felt high school students would, frequent their' area much more causing additional pr_oblems. Minutes, PC,'-12/3/92 Page 15 Vickie Moore stated her~opposition to eliminating the conditional use permit process :fo'r drive-through services in C-1 zones. The process is not very difficult, takes a short period of time and is inexpensive. The amount of conditional use permits requested for drive-through windows each year is relatively small. She cited a Survey ~prepared regarding cities .requiring conditional use permits for drive~.through services. Lori Hettinger stated-her opposition to any change asking if this ordinance is changed would their' existing situation change' in which a conditional use permit was-denied for their area. Mr. Hardisty said the ordinance, if adopted, would allow C-1 properties to exercise their rights granted through the change. The previous denial would, no longer be relevant. MiChael Myers SpOke saying he did not expect a driveZthrough restaurant to go in when he purchased his property. He said he did not want to hear people oi~dering food while' he is trying, to sleep. Judith Worley felt the whole concept' of drive-through restaurants with the 'problems associaied with pollution and litter is a bad one. Public-portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Andrew thanked those who spoke saying he felt the commission is trying to cut 'down on the _amount of conditional use permits issued, thereby causing the develoPers of these.types of uses to look at the sites more closely before development. He said there has been a lack of participation from the - public during the. committee meetings up to this point. He therefore made the .moti0n, seconded by Commissioner Marino to send thiS item back to the Zoning Ordinance Committee and continue it to the next convenient meeting. Commissioner Rosenlieb thanked .those who came to thig hearing. She said when she first saw this it appeared rather harmless, however since investigating she felt this is the most contaminated ordinance she has ever seen. She answered a previous question by Ms.' Arnold saying she felt this ordinance is not necessary nor .well-thought, but'reactionary. A reaction to Mr. Lawton Powers not getting. an approval of a project at California and Oak Streets after two trips to the City Council, one trip_to' the Board of Zoning Adjustment and one trip to the Plhnning Commission. There has not been a problem before with the conditional use permit process, nor is there a problem now. She said. the.lack of participation during the committee meetings is due to the fact that they are not publicly noticed. She said the makeup of the committee does not constitute a legal conflict of. interest, however there is clearly a perceived conflict of interest that she also perceives. She stated to Commissioner Powers her feeling that his intentions have been honorable, however his participation-is unnecessarily tainting Minutes,' PC, 12/3/92 Page 16 the process. She' asked if this is referred to committee that someone replace Commissioner Powers 'on the committee, asking that he volunteer for replacement because she felt it is unnecessarily tainting the process. Commissioner Messner s~aid it concerned him that there had been'no input from the public into the process before this hearing. He questioned Whether this ordinance' is necessary, stating the commission has heard from both sides that Possibly it is not. He stated he was skeptical that anything Would be achieved if this iSsue was sent to the cOmmittee, however stated he would support a referral to-committee. He thanked those who spoke. Commissioner Hersh thanked those wh° spoke, echoing Commissioner Messner's comments stating it is rare that two opposing sides would agree on the same issUe. Commissioner Marino stated his agreement that this could be thought out better, however it is more restrictive. He said dUring the'z0ning committee meeting the California and Oak site was not focused on, however information from it was used in an exemplary fashion. He said a set of criteria was attempted at that would be somewhat comPatible with residential zones and uses. He stated he was in favor of .sending this issue back to the committee. Regarding a question by Ms. M°ore regarding aPPeal, Mr. aardisty said the applicant may appeal a decision of the site plan review committee. Commissioner Powers stated the isSuecame to the Commission at the direction of the City Council. He felt the entire issue should go back to the committee, meeting with 'those in the industry and concerned citizens. Respondiiig to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Commissioner Andrew said it wa.s .his intent that this issue be continued to the next meeting in which it would be Possible to fit this on the agenda. Respondifig to CommissiOner Messner's statement that he did not feel placing this issue into committee woUld be productive, Commissioner Rosenlieb concurred and stated she would not support the motion. Responding to a qUestion by Commissioner Powers, Commissioner Rosenlieb clarified she would prefer.to kill this ordinance at this time rather than allowing it to die a slow painful death. :- Commissioner Marino felt to kill this ordinance would be to tell' the City Council that the CommiSsion is nbt going to do what they have asked them to do. Mr. ' . Hardisty clarified: the Council has asked the Commission to look into this and give a recommendatiOn, jf the Commission proposes it not be changed'then that' would be the recommendation. Minutes, PC, 12/3/92 Page 18 Commissioner Rosenlieb~ asked staff at tile next pre-meeting to informally tell the Commission if. a .standard should exist for wall signs, who would prepare this standard and when it would be forthcoming. 13. Commissioner Andrew said being on the committee which was working on the drive-through ordinance issue, he felt Commissioner Rosenlieb could have stated her concerns more tactfu~lly. ADJOURNMENT : There being no further b.usiness to come before 'the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 9:35. p.m. -_ Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Planning Director~