Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/92MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ' OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, October 1, 1992, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL : COMMISSIONERS: : Present: DARREN POWERS, Vice Chairperson JEFF ANDREW DAVID COHN JIM MARINO STEVE MESSNER KATE ROSENLIEB Absent: STEVE ANDERSON C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director MIKE QUON, Building Plan Check Engineer STAFF: Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS o 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 Messner, seconded by Commissioner Marino to approve minutes of the regular meetings held August 6, and August 20, 1992. Motion carried. Minutes, pC, 10/1/92, 4. Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5327 5:1). 5.2) Staff report was given. Public portion Of the hea~ing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. C'arl'Moreland represented the applicant. He stated agreement with recommended conditions. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to approve a 'on~-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5327 as amended by Public Works in the Exhibit "A". Motion carried. PUBLIC 'HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5620 2 Motion was-made by_ Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by CommissiOner Messner-to hear-agenda item #'s 5.1 and 5.2 concurrently. pUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5621 CommiSsioner Marin0.stated he would abstain on agenda item #'s 5.1 and 5.2 due to his employment by~the applicant. Commissioner Andrew abStained on b'oth items 5.i and 5.2 because he markets properties for the adjacentI property owner. Previous motion carried. Staff reports were given. Chairman poWers stated that a request was received from the applicant for continuance on these items. Public portion of-the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Steve DeBranch, DeWalt Corporation, represented Fruitvale Properties, and requested a continuance until the next hearing to allow additional time to review the recommendation of the. staff report. -; Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to continue agenda item #'s 5.1 and 5.2 to the next regularly scheduled meeting of OCtober 15, 1992. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 10/1/92.- Page 3 6. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDITION - PROPOSED ADDITION TO SECTION 17.08.080 (RECONSTRUCTION OF DAMAGED NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS) TO PROTECT THE NON- CONFORMING STATUS OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS BEING-REMODELED,: RECONSTRUCTED OR REPLACED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 15.40 REGARDING SEISMIC STRENGTHENING OF SAID BUILDINGS. Commissioner Andrew abstained from this item because he owns property within 300 feet of some of the I~uildings on the URM list. Chairman Powers stated his conflict on this item as well as agenda item #7. la and 7. lb and relinquished the chair to Commissioner Messner. staff report was given. '~ Public portion of the hearing was opened. Tom DeNatale spoke saying he is an attorney representing the Downtown Business and Property Owners Association. He said they do not object to this matter being referred by the Council or CDDA, however they are disappointed that the CommiSsion doeg not see fit to give their input to the Council. it would be appropriate for CDDA as well as the Commission to give recommendation to the Council. Public portion of the hearing was closed. They felt RespOnding .to comments iby Mr. DeNatale, Commissioner Cohn clarified the commission did not participate on any portion of this ordinance before the Commission was asked to:.review it at the request of the property owners. He felt something needs to be done to revitalize the downtown and this may be the method of doing it. He felt the CDDA should have been the lead agency and felt they would have been inttmately involved in this ordinance, which he found was not the case. He felt the message to be sent to the Council would be that the CommissiOn encourages the council to consider something along the lines suggested to help revitalize downtown. Commissioner Marino said the commission has been out of the loop on this ordinance and has not addressed the issue. Technically this ordinance should have gone to the zoning committee. The reason it was sent to the Joint Council Planning Commission committee was to get their input. Minutes, 'PC, 10/1/92 Page 4 Responding _to questions~by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Hardisty said the meeting was for the Planning Commission's joint committee to discuss and if necessary to carry on a continued discussion with the council committee when they next meet. Discussion continued regarding future hearings and options to the property owners. Commissioner Marino stated his agreement with the recommendations made by the property owners. He felt this ordinance .is going backward and should have gone to the Council and CDDA before it went to Commission, stating he would like the Council and CDDA~s input first. Mr. Hardisty pointed out :that the Council's Urban Development Committee reached an agreement with the representatives of the unreinforced masonry buildings to preserve non'conforming status if a remodel would result in actually demolishing the building and rebuilding the same thing. He said the committee should have been focusing on whether or not what the council agreed upon should be incorporated into the zoning ordinance. Mr. DeNatale stated they participated in some meetings with the Urban Development Committee of the council and the issues previously were topics of discussion. He stated it was his understanding there was nothing decided by the committee except the amendment to the existing ordinance which was passed in the spring. He stated a cOncern they have is that the Council will look negatively on his making a presentation to-this body and having this body not see it fit to adopt any proposals they have placed before the Commission. Commissioner Rosenlieb shid it was her understanding this was what came ~out of the meeting with their group and the Urban Development Committee. She said this is why the commissionl has felt that the process has seemed to have gone backward. This is more of a redevelopment issue. Responding to questions by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said this is in the City Council's purview 'and is an outgrowth of an amendment to the building code. He. outlined previous committee meetings and recommendations on this issue.~ He said the council came to an agreement but does not have the authority to change the ordinance in ~the zoning codes automatically with a change to the building codes. These must be referred to the Planning Commission for a hearing which is why this issue is now before the commission. A copy of the proposed ordinance was sent to Central District Development Agency in September. He felt the issue of a bonus should be referred to the Urban Development Committee' or some other lead group designated by the City Council for study as to the percentage and other relative rules and regulations and the administration of it. It will then have to be brought back to the commission for a hearing. Minutes, PC, 10/1/92 Page 5 Commissioner Rosenlieb said when the commission Votes to send something to the Joint City Council/Planning Commission committee it is with a reasonable .expectation that the council will be present. She asked that if this is to be done in the future and the couficil will not be there, the commission should be informed so that perhaps they can refer an issue to a different committee. Commissioner Cohn said based on what he has heard and information received by the committee he is not Willing to make a decision on this issue with the lack of background and the conflicts. Mr. DeNatale said at the September 3, 1992 meeting they were of the impression that the subcommittee meeting would include members of the City Council. He said they would not object to this being referred to a joint meeting of the commission and aa appropriate council committee. Discussion continued regarding the future of this issue, Commissioner Messner felt it was unanimous that a great deal of study needs to be done on the part of staff before the commission would feel comfortable proceeding with this item. Commissioner Marino said he would like additional review of Mr. DeNatale's proposal in order to make sure that two conflicting ordinances will not exist in the future. Responding to a question by Commissioner Marino, Commissioner Cohn said he would not have a p~oblem with this being continued and referred to both the CDDA and City Council lfor review and recommendation back, however he felt the Urban DeVelopment Committee does not want to deal with this issue. He felt it may be a futile effort. Commissioner Cohn saidl the message he would like to convey to the council is the commission ~s wondering why this came before them the way it did and that the commission may have an inclination to do something beyond what is being proposed but is not certain how to go about it and needs direction. He did not see the point in a commission committee meeting with the CDDA if they are simply, going to come up with a recommendation that the council is not in favor of. Commissioner Marino asked about referring this item~ to the City Council without a recommendation due to the fact that the commission does not understand why it was not reviewed by them and CDDA prior to it coming before the commission. Commissioner Cohn stated his agreement with this. Minutes, :PC, 10/1/92 ' -' Motion was made by-Commissioner Marin°, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to refer this item to the City Council without a recommendation due to the fact that the Commission does not understand why it appeared before it without a recommendation from the CDDA and the City Council. page 6 Commissioner' Messner asked about the second recommendation on the ideas presented, saying he would: like to pass along this as part of the recommendation that the Commission did find the idea worthwhile. Commissioner Marino amended his motion, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to include that the Commission has reviewed the proposal presented by Mr. William Slocumb-as'per-his September 3, 1992; letter and feels that it has some merit but the commission does not understand how this may interface with or' be contrary to on-going efforts of both the Council and CDDA. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Marino, Rosenlieb, Messner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Powers, Anderson, Frapwell 7.1 a&b PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-92, SEGMENT II AND ZONE CHANGE #5361 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger"Mclntosh' represented the property owner. He stated an agreement on school mitigation fees had been reached and signed. Regarding Exhibit "A" he stated Condition #'s 3 and 4 had been addressed by the staff presentation by incorporating wording which allows for an agreement on school fees. Regarding Condition #7, .he felt it needs to contain wording which allows for a canal to be included as a separation between agricultural and residential property on the south side. He said he would like the word "canal" added after the words "a landscaping setback," Mr. Hardisty stated his agreement with this addition. He said regarding comments 0f the staff presentation, that they have no intent to develop 6~000 square foot lots. If the density and ordinances allow for a subdivision such as a P.U.D. where additional amenities can be added they mhy apply- for a reduction in lot sizes as long as they do not exceed the density allowed by the general plan. He stated his agreement with the remaining conditions.. Minutes, PC, .10/1/92 Page 7 Public portion of the hearing was closed. CommissiOner Rosenlieb-asked regarding COndition #'s 6 and 7 if these are unique to this project and !if they will be imposed from this time fonvard on all projects. Mr. Hardisty said they are a result of the agricultural conversion study which evolved from review of the project, but will not necessarily be standard conditions.- Discussion continued regarding agricultural conversion. Commissioner ~Rosenlieb said she would prefer in the future in an attempt to reduce complaints if the language for the agricultural conversion could be cleaned up. DisCUssion continued regarding agricultural separation. Regarding a question by' her' about cost maintenance district, Mr. Hardisty said the number was taken from the budget and was an average number. ResPonding to questions by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Hardisty said staff is anticipating comments from the Department of Conservation on agricultural conversion and is being placed on the list of items to be dealt with when a large agricultural parcel is involved. Mr. McIntoSh clarified when his firm performed the agricultural study they contact the DePartment of Agriculture and typically the notice regarding agricultural spraying is plhced on an item as a mitigation measure. Mr. Kloepper corrected the action required on Condition #11, referring to items #1, 2 and 3 Saying it shoUld be revised to read: "items 8, 9 and 10 above". Commissioner Marino stated regarding Condition #'s 6 and 7 he did not have a problem approving them :as they are, however in the future possibly after the first sentenCe in Condition #6 add the following wording "as part of the transfer of properties, within 600 feet or 800 feet of property currently in agricultural production" which he felt would give 'some limitation. It would allow the developer to move along with their project. He felt this type of detail should be more particular to zoning or development instead of general plan policies. Commissioner Marino felt possibly some type of wording could be developed which' would allow staff the opportunity to require a block wall or permanent barrier at the time of development. ROger McIntosh said staff's recommendation allows for a physical barrier. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would have no problem with a wooden fence being erected on the western side. Discussion continued regarding 50-foot setback from structure tO adjoining agricultural land and possible exemption from this requirement: Minutes, PC, i0/1/92 ~ :. . -. Page 8 Commissioner' C0hn felt possibly the parks committee should meet with NOR and staff to avoid any future, problems, stating he did not want them to begin asking -for EIR's for all:projects.. He felt something could be worked out..Mr. Hard;sty suggested this be 'taken as a separate motion and formally adopted. Motion was made by' Commissioner Mar;no, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to adoPt resolution making findings as set forth in the staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving General Plan Amendment 3- 92, Segment II to LR (LOw Density Residential) with conditions as attached in Exhibit ."A" and recommend-same to the City Council with the following changes: Condition #3 shall read as follows: This approval andjssuance of each building permit for the project are expressly conditioned On full compliance with the terms and conditions of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between the applicant and Rosedale Union School District dated October 1, 1992. Condition #4 shall read as follows: -This approval and' issuance of each building permit for the project are expressly conditioned on .full compliance with the terms and conditions of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between the .applicant and the Kern High School District dated October 1, 1992. Condition #7, second sentence shall read as follows: This barrier or separation may include, but is not limited to, a 6-foot high masonry Wall; a landscaping setback, a Canal or a road: -Condition #11 shall be revised so that the first sentence reads as follows: The traffic studY' and resulting imPacts identified in items 8., 9. and 10. above are baSed on 480 lots, within the General Plan Area, while the land use proposed wo~ld allow more or less than 480 lots. Motion carried-by the fo!lowingroll call vote: ~ ~ AYES: -' - Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Marino, Rosenlieb, Messner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Powers, Anderson, Frapwell -Z Minutes, PC, 10/1/92 Page 9 Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to adopt resolution.making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration and approving Prezoning No. 5361 to the city designation of R-1 (One Family Dwelling) with conditions as attached in Exhibit "A" .and as revised in the previous motion and recommend same to the City 'Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: ' Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Marino, Rosenlieb, Messner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Powers, Anderson, Frapwell Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to refer the issue of the North of the River request for EIR's to the Parks Committee. Motion carried. .7.2 a&b PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-92, SEGMENT V. AND ZONE-CHANGE #5365 Commissioner Andrew abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he has marketed property for prOPerty owners within 300 feet of subject property. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Public-portion of the hea,ring was closed. Commissioner Cohn felt if staff's ~recommendation is followed it would encourage future commercial development in the area which he felt would cause a significant impact to the adjoining property owners. Commissioner Powers felt a need to cover the ditch, stating he spoke with staff regarding the possibility of requiring as part of an approval, a 30-foot landscaping setback along the Stine Road frontage. If construction occurred along this portion it would trigger the landscape requirement on the Moose Lodge property. He was in favor of granting C-1 on the Jaco portion, C-1 on the Moose Lodge and condition the C-1 zoning with a 30-foot landscaping setback and add a requirement for signage and berming of landscaping. Minutes, PC, 10/1/92 i Page 10 Responding to a questions by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Hardisty said normally the adjacent commercial properties are interwoven so that traffic moves from parcel to parcel internally. Commissioner Powers said it is possible at some point for the corner parcel to acquire the Moose Lodge property and develop a much larger commercial property which could impact the neighborhood. Mr.. Hardisty said they could do this regardless of this zone change. Having the non-access strip would inhibit-the ability to develop, but would not stop it. Commissioner Marino feR subject strip of land cannot be developed upon. Commissioner Cohn said ~he is not concerned about this strip being developed upon, however is concerned that having this strip zoned commercial will give the owner the ability to develop somet~ng more intense than what exists. Commissioner Marino felt this should possibly be sent'to the zoning committee with the possibility'of looking at conditioning the strip in front of the Moose Lodge; HoweVer he saidihe was prepared to support staff's recommendation. Commissioner Rosenlieb ~felt Commissioner Powers' suggestion would work as a compromise, stating she Wanted to take a close look at reconstructing this conditional zoning. Discussion continued regarding the possibility of approving the general plan amendment and continuing the zoning issue and sending it to the zoning committee. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to_ adgpt resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving GPA 3-921 Segment V consisting of an amendment to the land use element from HR (High :Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 3.46 acres subject to .mitigation measure listed in Exhibit "A" and recommend the same to City COUncil. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said the Exhibit "A" conditions Pertain to the zone change only, therefore since Commissioner Rosenlieb's intent was to continue the zone change she revised her motion to strike the follOWing wording "subject to mitigation measure listed in EXhibit ,,A,,.- Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: ~. Commissioners Cohn, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Andrew, Frapwell Minutes, PC, i0/1/92. Page 11 Motion Was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by CommiSsioner Cohn to send the issue of zoning this property to the Zoning Committee with the intent that the committee come :back with a recommendation at the next regularly scheduled meeting and the intent that the committee look at potential spot zone of the middle piece to a C-1 zone that would be restricted by landscape setbacks, potential access, Potential signage with very careful wording on the landscaping conditions. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Andrew, Frapwell Commissioner Rosenlieb responded to a question by Commissioner Cohn, stating she would be agreeable t° serving on the zoning ordinance committee because of 'the absence of Commissioner Anderson due to his resignation and absence of CommisSioner Andrew b~cause of his abstention on this item. Chairman Powers appointed Commissioner Rosenlieb as member pro-tern of the zoning ordinance committee on this issue only. !- 7.3 a&b PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3-92, SEGMENT VI AND ZONE CHANGE #5329 Staff report was given. _ .i Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in 'opPosition. Roger Mclntosh represented the property owner. Regarding Condition #6 of - Public Works Conditions;in Exhibit "A" he said a traffic study had been prepared to show the cumulative impacts of this land Use designation. He asked that the condition be revised to allow for approval by the Public Works Director of a reduction of the amount of fees based on the traffic study they submitted. Mr. Kloepper was agreeable to this and proposed the following additional language to Condition #6, "however, upon approval by the City Engineer of the supporting traffic study a revision to the improvement agreement reflecting the affects of reduce traffic generation ,from the project may be processed." He also cited the change to condition #3 regarding school mitigation; the need for change of the dollar amount of the fee. Mr. Mclntosh was in agreement with the changes proposed by Mr. Kloepper. Public-portion of the hearing was closed. MinUtes, PC, 10/1/92 Page 12 -MotiOn was made bY Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Messner to make finding as set forth in the staff report and approving the negative declaration with the following change: Findings #6 and 7 be deleted, and new finding #6 be added as follows: Finding #6:' .. -Mitigation has been required and agreed to by the Panama-Buena ~ista Union School District and the Kern High School District and the applicant · which fully mitigates the impacts of this development on the school districts. : and that the project is subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" with the following changes: Planning Department Condition #2 revised to read as follows: The approval and i~suance of each building permit for the project are expressly conditioned on full compliance with the terms and conditions of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between the apPlicant and the Panama-Buena Vista School District dated October 1, 1992. Planning Department Condition #3 revised to read as follows: This approval and the issuance of each building permit for the project are expressly conditioned on full compliance with the terms and-conditions of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between the appliCant and the Kern High School District dated October 1, 1992. Public Works Condition #6 revised to read as follows: GPA 2-88, Segment V shall be complied with concerning traffic related fees, however upon approval by the City Engineer-of the supporting traffic study a revision to the improvement agreement reflecting the effects of reduced traffic generation from the project may be processed. Minutes; PC, 10/_1/92 Page 13 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers NOES: -None ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Frapwell Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner 'Messner to adopt resoluti°n making findings as set forth in the staff report approving the Negative Declaration witk the changes to finding #'s 6 and 7 as stated in the previous motion for the general plan amendment and approving the R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zoning district subject to the conditions shown in Exhibit "A" with the' same changes to conditions as previously stated in the general plan amendment motion. Motibn carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Cobh, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb, Powers ~NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Frapwell 8. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written Mr. Hardisty cited a copy of correspondence between former Chairman of the Commission and the City Council, regarding his resignation which was distributed to the COmmission. He stated the Council will begin recruitment of a commissioner and felt a choice would probably be made around the end of November. Commissioner 'Powers asked that appointment of a new chairman be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Hardisty said an appointment of officers would be placed on the agenda along with adoption of a resolution in appreciation of fine service received from Commissioner Anderson. Minutes, PC, 10)1/92 B) Verbal Page 14 Mr. Hardisty cautioned the Commission about casually referring to adopting-spot zoning as a way of dealing with problems. He said the commission may-want to consider zoning with appropriate conditions to avoid conflicts, however it should not be referred to as "spot zoning." 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Rosenlieb ,questioned the progress on the changes to subdivision ordinance.- Mr. Hardisty said this has not been reported to the urban development committee as of yet. Commissioner Marino stated he was contacted by Peter Smith at Kern COG who is 'looking at revising the adopted bike path between Manor and Gordon's Ferry, .saying he would like to meet with the Trails Committee. Mr. Hardisty said this would be placed on an agenda for consideration. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjoUrned at 7:30 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary