Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/92MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, september i7, 1992, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 _Truxtun AvenUe, Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS:' Present: STEVEN ANDERSON, Chairperson DARREN POWERS, Vice Chairperson DAVID COHN JIM MARINO STEVE MESSNER KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate Absent: JEFF ANDREW ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present:' LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director MIKE QUON, Building Plan Check Engineer STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Assistant Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER,. Principal Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. 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. Chairman Anderson stated the following items: 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.2a & b, 6.3, 6.4a & b., 6.6a. & 6.6b. would be continued from this hearing, due to a memorandum from the Planning Director, which states the lack of signed mitigation agreements between the developer and applicable school districts. He read the memo into the record. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to hear the preceding items at this point of the agenda. Motion carried. Commissioner Marino abstained from this vote due to a conflict on one item. Minutes, PC, 9/17/92. Page 2 Mr. Grady stated the memo. was prepared in response to a conversation with the school district that no agreement had been reached. It was felt it would be appropriate for the general plan cases to be continued to the December GPA cycle because they have not been shown in the past to be resolved in short order and because of overlapping problems with general plan cycles. He stated he spoke with Brian Haupt regarding a continuance of Agenda Item #'s 6.4a. and b. in which Mr. Haupt asked that the Commercial be split from the residential because the school mitigation issue only concerns the residential property. Mr. Haupt asked for a twoZweek continuance on the commercial with the residential being dropped until the next cycle. He stated staff's concurrence with this. Chairman Anderson stated Commissioner Powers had a conflict of interest on item #6.2a. and b. He stated he had a conflict on Agenda Item #'s 6.2a. and b., 6.4a: and b.,-6.6a, and b. Commissioner Marino had a conflict of 6.4a. and b. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to hear agenda item #'s 3.1), 4.1) and 5.1) concurrently. Motion carried. 3..1) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5597 4:1) PUBLIC HEARING'-- ZONE CHANGE #5341 -- APPLICATION BY TELSTAR ENGINEERING TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN RS-2.5A (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN-2.5 ACRES MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ZONE TO AN E (ESTATE-ONE FAMILY DWELLING), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE ON 4.97 +/- ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF PALM AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET EAST OF JEWETrA 5.1) AVENUE PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING #5300 - APPLICATION BY TELSTAR ENGINEERING TO PREZONE TO R-1 18,000 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING- MINIMUM LOT SIZE 18,000 SQUARE FEET), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE OF SAID PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF jEWETTA AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET NORTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD KNOWN AS THE BRIMHALL NO. 3 ANNEXATION Staff reports were waived. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Motion was made by CommiSsioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to continue these items to the December 17, 1992 meeting. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 9/17/92 Page 3 6.2 a&b PUBLIC HEARINGS - GPA 3-92, SEGMENT II AND ZONE CHANGE #5361 Commissioners Anderson and Powers abstained due to conflicts of interest. Chairman Anderson appointed Commissioner Messner to chair these items. -Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. MOtion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to cOntinue these items to the December 17, 1992 GPA cycle as recommended by staff.' Roger McIntosh stated the owner was not in favor of continuing this item to the December 17, 1992 GPA cycle. He stated he had a letter.requesting a two-week continuance. Mr. Grady stated it is still staff's feeling that these items be continued to the December GPA cycle unless the applicant is in receipt of a memorandum of understanding. Mr. McIntosh said the owner has been in negotiations with the schOol district. Commissioner Rosenlieb said a history exists in the case in which mitigation has not been resolVed in a speedy manner. She' said if a memorandum of understanding cannot be brought back to the commission at the next hearing her mOtion would stand. Mr. Hattsell, Schools Legal Service, representing Kern High School District, stated he has been working with the districts involved in negotiations with the applicant. He felt negotiations were proceeding in a manner which would permit resolution of the issue by the next meeting. Commissioner Rosenlieb withdrew her motion, suggesting if a memorandum of understanding would not be forthcoming in two weeks she would suggest it be continued to the next cycle. Commissioner Cohn said he did not feel this would be accomplished within 2 weeks and would be inclined to continue it 4 weeks and if it is then not resolved it Will be continued to the next GPA cycle. Roger McIntosh said most of the technical issues were resolved. The applicant would not be opposed to a 4-week continuance. Mr. Grady said if this item is continued the entire cycle must be continued. Commissioner Rosenlieb said this is why she would not want this continued for a month. Minutes,-PC, 9/17/92 Page 4 Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 1, 1992. Discussion continued regarding the continuance of general plan items. Commissioner Marino. responded to a question by Commissioner Cohn, saying since the applicant and school district said they felt the issue could be resolved in two weeks he felt a two-week continuance would be appropriate. Commissioner Messner felt since the developer and School district appear to be cooperating he would be agreeable to a two-week continuance. Motion carried. 6.4 a&b PUBLIC HEARINGS - GPA 3-92, SEGMENT IV AND ZONE CHANGE #5360 Commissioners Anderson and Marino abstained on these items due to conflicts of interest. Vice-ChairpersOn Powers chaired this hearing. - Staff report was waived. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Jerry VanCuren represented an adjacent land owner. He said he would wait to sPeak at the future hearing if this item is to be continued. He submitted letters to the commission and staff regarding this issue. Pauline Pascoe stated she owned property on Panama Lane and she was representing other members of her family for property on Pacheco Road. She stated her concern being the irrigation of their property with water transported through the Buena Vista Canal. Her concern was a possible change in water transportation to irrigate their property and possible change to the water table. Responding t°a question-by. Ms. Pascoe, Mr. Kloepper said regarding the possibility of grade .separation for the railroad track along the north side of Pacheco Road, it isVery unlikely a grade separation will be constructed. It is likely to remain an at-grade crossing because it is an auxiliary track. Responding to discussion regarding water rights, Ms. Pascoe stated she wanted to go on record tl~at they do not want interference with water or loss of water table. Minutes, PC, 9/17/92 Page 5 Brian Haupt represented the-applicant, stating he had requested a continuance on both issues for two weeks. He said they would be agreeable to a continuance on the zone change issue to the December 17th cycle, however would like the general plan amendment regarding the commercial site continued to the October 1, 1992 meeting. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she would not be in favor of making this type of separatiOn of applications, preferring to continue the entire project to the next cycle: Commissioner Messner said he would prefer taking action on both issues together and continuing it t° the December 17, 1992 cycle. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to COntinue these items to the December 17, 1992 meeting. Commissioner Powers agreed with comments by Commissioners Rosenlieb and Messner that these items should be kept together. Mr. Haupt felt Ms. Pascoe's concerns about water rights were not an issue because-they were protected as a matter of deeds and record. He said the reason for requesting continuance is that they have not had time to review the public works report completely. He asked that the entire project be continued for two weeks allowing the same benefit afforded the previous applicant. Motion carried. Commissioner Powers voted no. 6.6 a&b PUBLIC HEARING - GPA 3-92, SEGMENT VI AND ZONE CHANGE #5365 Staff report was Waived. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger ~McIntosh represented the land owner. He stated he submitted a letter requesting two-week continuance. He gave history of this site. He said he would submit a study from a traffic consultant, however he needs additional time to work on this issue with staff. Responding-to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hartsell, Schools Legal Service, representing Kern High School District and Panama-Buena Vista School District stated discussions are progressing favorably. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 1, 1992. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 9/17/92 Page 6 4.2) PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE #5369 -- APPLICATION BY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 'TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN 4.3 R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE ON 9.6 +/- ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH "H" STREET, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF PANAMA LANE Staff report was given.. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Public pOrtion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Powers to make findings set forth in the staff report and approve the zone change as proposed and adVertised, and recommend adoption of same to 'the City Council. MotiOn carried by the following roll call vote: - AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Marino, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Anderson NOES:' None ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CHANGE #5370 -- APPLICATION BY WILFORD R. LEWIS TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE TO AN R-l-CH (ONE FAMILY DWELLING-CHURCH), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE ON 1.68 +/- ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON ROAD, ONE- HALF BLOCK WEST OF HUGHES LANE AND EAST OF CALVIN STREET Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Wilford LewiS was present to speak in favor. staff report. Public portion of the hearing was closed. He stated his agreement with the Chairman read staff's recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Powers to make finding set forth in the staff report and approve the Negative Declaration and zone change as proposed and advertised, subject to the following condition and recommend adoption of same to the City Council. Minutes, PC; 9/17/92 Page 7 A solid masonry wall constructed at a minimum height of six feet from highest grade shall be required to separate the church property from any adjacent property zoned or designated for residential development (along the west and north sides of the subject property). This condition shall be implemented through the site plan review process in accordance with Section 17.36.020 H. of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Marino, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Anderson NOEs: None ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew 6.1 PUBLIC HEARINGS KERN RIVER PLAN ELEMENT AMENDMENT 2-92, SEGMENT I AND GPA 3-92, SEGMENT I COmmissioners Anderson and Powers abstained due to conflicts of interest. Commissioner Rosenlieb chaired this hearing. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favOr. pUblic portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Frapwell, seconded by Commissioner Messner to adopt resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving GPA 3-92, Segment I, (KRPE 2-92, Segment I) consisting of an amendment to the Kern River Plan Element from a 7.2 (Service Industrial) to a 6.2 (General Commercial) land use designation over 156 acres. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cohn, Frapwell, Marino, Messner, Rosenlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Andrew, Powers, Anderson Minutes, PC, 9/17/92 Page 8 6.3) PUBLIC HEARINGS -, GPA 3-92, SEGMENT III AND ZONE CHANGE #5358 This item has been removed from the 3-92 Cycle and placed in the 4-92 Cycle. 'The scheduled hearing date is December 17, 1992. 6.5' a&b PUBLIC HEARING - GPA 3-92, SEGMENT V AND ZONE CHANGE #5365 Staff report was given. Discussion ensued regarding construction over the canal. Commissioner' Rosenlieb said she did not remember a policy of zoning canals commercial. Commissioner Cohn felt if the canal is zoned commercial the property owner would be allowed to cover it causing intensification in the area. He said he would not be in favor of subjecting the residents to further intrusion or increasing the commercial use in the area. Mr. Grady said the property is-currently being used for commercial. This action would simply be a clean up measure, due to annexation of the property. If the property owner is to continue to use the property for access and parking it needs to be appropriately zoned for the major use which is commercial. Leaving it R-3 is suggesting that crossing the R-3 property would be prohibited. Commissioner Cohn felt the issue is that if the property is rezoned commercial the owner would be allowed to have additional buildable commercial area. He said he would be agreeable to the R-3 zoning remaining. Commissioner Powers agreed With previous comments, and therefore made a motion, seconded by 'Commissioner Messner to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of October 1, 1992, asking staff to bring back a map outlining the existing uses and how they are placed on the site so that spot zoning could be considered. Commissioner' Marino said he did not feel this motion would accomplish anything, however said staff might check to see if any access exists anywhere else, because traffic Would have to cross a commercial zone and multi-family zone to get to the.only paved access. "He felt this conflict is due to the fact that county policy and city policy 'are different. Commissioner Powers amended his motion, seconded by Commissioner Messner to request staff to present a map which delineates the existing uses to be labelled so that the Commission may see how they relate to each other. He also asked staff to l°ok at the area zoned C-1-PD for evaluation. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 9/17/92 Page 9 7. - PUBLIC.HEARING - GPA 3-92, SEGMENT VIII COmmissioner Marino abstained due to a conflict of interest due to the fact his emPlOyer owns property within 300 feet. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Bob Burdette spoke saying he collected-signatures on a petition, which he had previously submitted. He stated he visited 76 percent of the neighborhood, with 68 percent signing the .petition in opposition. He felt the fence border around the trail should not be eliminated because it delineates their neighborhood. He felt as the equestrian trail exists it is undesirable and not used. He felt horses would not be rode on the trail because of the proposal of Jewetta becoming a four lane road. He was also concerned about possible overlook into properties abutting the equestrian trail by horse riders. He felt it was ludicrous that those people in the Polo Grounds cannot stable horses, however it is through tax dollars their responsibility to maintain the trail. He felt it was an eyesore as it exists. He felt the trail should be cemented along with the red area as shown on the map. Responding to questions by Chairman Anderson, Mr. Cramer, Parks Division Outlined figures for the cost of trails. Jane Blake stated she lives across the street from the Polo Grounds, saying they moved to the area 10 years ago in order to have animals and have area in which to ride. She said the developer misrepresented their development. She felt there was not an overlook Problem by those people riding horses. Responding to a question by Commissioner Cohn, Ms. Blake said the trail being resurfaced to concrete can cause problems for horses, such as lameness and physical problems for their legs. Perry Knight spoke saying he is a resident off Allen Road, stating they bought the property with the intention of being able to ride in the area. He felt the cost of decomposed granite wOuld cost less than concrete. Regarding the overlook problem he said it would not be possible for someone riding to look over a 7 foot fence. DisCussion continued regarding the use of decomposed granite, Mr. Knight felt the decomposed granite would be loosened up by the horses hooves no matter how compacted it was. He felt the horse could be better controlled on the decomposed granite. Mr. Burdett responded to comments stating his petition specifically stated those signing .were polo grounds homeowners, those paying for the upkeep of it. Minutes, PC, 9/i7/92 .. CommisSioner Cohn gave a background on the polo grounds development regarding agreement made 'betWeen the developer and property owners at that time. Mr. Burdette said: his understanding was that the decomposed granite was supposed to be used for a multi-purpose trail, however is not usable at this time for anything Other than an equestrian trail. Page 10 Dennis Fox felt the asphalt would be a definite problem for horses. Decomposed granite can become a mess. He recommended using a compacted clay. Betty Strand, stating she liVes off Jewetta, saying the reason for purchasing in this area was because she was assured there would be a riding area for the horses. She stated her resentment of the proposal to take away the trail. She also stated overlook was not possible. Susan Bennett; stated-she is a resident on Verdugo. When they purchased the property the area was open for riding. She asked that they be left alone to be able to cOntinue riding in the area as they have in the past. Kevin Lumas, stated 'be'is a resident of the Pol° Grounds, saying he bought in the development because it was originally proposed to them that they would be allowed to keep horses. He did nOt feel he should have to pay for the maintenance of the-trail to be used as an equestrian trail, he felt cement was a good idea..Responding to a qUestion by Chairman Anderson, Mr. Lumas said his children-would ride their bikes on the trail if it were cement and his family would take walks. He felt the trail would be safer for these types of uses. Ken Payne Said he'is lOoking into building homes in the area. He said access would remain to the park system through the remaining trail. Herb Hardt spoke saying he is the present developer of the polo grounds. He said he would find it difficult to explain to a potential buyer that he is obligated to pay fOr ~an 'equestrian trail that he will never be able to use. If this were an 8- foot wide meandering sidewalk with landscaping on each side it could be used by a variety of people and would make sense for those paying for it. The original concept for the equestrian trail is no longer valid. He felt the present proposal was equitable for both sets of property owners and should be adopted. Betsy Teeter, spoke saying the trails system is a master trail system which will have access to a staging area and the river. She felt it would be in the best interest of all if the trail were left intact and resurfaced with a material which would make it more conducive to everyone. Regarding the possible spooking of horses She said many hOrses would be alright to ride adjacent to a four-lane highway. She stated she is a member of the county and city trails committee and felt they are looking at alternative ways to maintain trails through grants and possible fund raisers and there is no reason the polo grOunds could not be cOnsidered under other funding possibilities. Minutes, PC, 9/17/92 · Page 11 Mr. Hardt disagreed With previous comments stating he felt these are not riding trails for. horses. -Mr. Batey was concerned abo. ut the lack of definition for "multi-use" trails. He was also concerned ~about residents paying for maintenance and construction of trails to benefit those who do not live in the area. Randy Bergquist representing Porter-Robertson Engineering submitted Pictures of the trail, stating he felt the Proposition was a compromise. It was felt that access will be'maintained for horses from the south of the property to the staging area to tie into the Kern River trail system. Public portion of the hearing was closed. *5-minute break-was taken at this time. Commissioner Rosenlieb gave history of this project saying it has been a "bait and -switch" type situation. She said substantial time has been spent on this trails issue. She stated she.voted in favor of the trails because it was designed to be a multi-use trail. She felt new surface material should be looked at in order to have a multi-use trail. She said she is not willing to compromise to cut this trail down additionally because this was the selling amenity for this project. She stated she believed it could still work. Commissioner poWers felt the project was too far to change the equestrian nature of it. He felt a different base material or compaction procedure needed to be investigated. He also stated this deal has been made and he is not in favor of changing anything. Commissioner Frapwell said he would like to leave the area indicated in red as it is, the decomposed granite rolled properly and the project completed, taking another look as to whether decomposed granite is the answer or whether or not something else would work better. He was not in favor of paving the area with a 6-foot sidewalk. Commissioner Messner felt ~the trails indicated in red should be left because they are a link in the master plan. He felt possibly the recommendation is too much of a compromise. He felt by providing the links to riding areas it is helping to preserve the atmosphere. He felt the proposal was premature at this time. Chairman Anderson said this is a multi-purpose trail system and was carefully named and designed, never being intended by the Commission to be exclusively for horses. It was intended to provide access to riding areas. He said the committee' did not feel that it was fair that the trail be installed in such a fashion that it accommodated only horses,' particularly when the people to be paying for it were .specifically precluded from having horses. He felt recreational areas should be shared by everyone in the area. He said he was in favor of giving the existing- Minutes, pC, 9/17/92. Page 12 trail area a chance to' function once properly installed and compacted. He stated he would support .staff's recommendation and therefore read it into the record. Commissioner Powers stated regardless of the .type of trail, when improvements are made to the community, property values are made more attractive for others. He urged the commission not to support staff's recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Frapwell to adopt resolution making findings, presented in the staff report and modify the improvement standard to the trail system as shown in Exhibit "B" for that portion of the trail shown in Exhibit "A" with the following clarification: The trail indicated in green around the back side of both commercial sites shall be changed so that it is adjacent to the street. Commissioner Frapwell clarified this area is the commercial site to the northeast, along Olive Drive and Calloway Road and the commercial site on the northwest corner of Hageman and Jewetta. Commissioner Rosenlieb pointed this area out on the map. ~ After discussion regarding the intent of the motion, Commissioner Rosenlieb made a substitute motion to deny this project with the finding that it is not consistent with the general plan. She said the rerouting around commercial sites has not been' discussed.- She stated she preferred to have it behind commercial sites. Commissioner Frapwell's motion died for lack of second. Commissi°ne~ Powers seconded Commissioner Rosenlieb's motion. COmmissioner Rosenlieb restated her motion to deny the request with the finding that it is inConsistent.with the general plan and to direct the trails committee to meet with staff on this issue and discuss the potential or existing resurfacing of the project trail site and bring it back to the commission within a month. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Cohn. Commissioner Rosenlieb clarified her motion saying her recommendation is to deny the applicant's request, thereby not changing anything on this issue. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Cohn, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb NOES: Commissioner Frapwell, Anderson ABSENT:' COmmissioners Andrew, Marino Minutes, PC, 9/17/92 Page 13 8. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Verbal Mr. Kloepper repOrted his office had'received plans for improvement on Gosford and White Lane regarding Jaco Oil's project. He said the plans are in cOnformance with what the City Council permitted the applicant to do. 9. coMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Rosenlieb commented on the previous Council meeting saying an issue had been appealed from a Planning Commission decision regarding a zone change at Buena Vista and Pacheco Road. There was a question as to how many units would be allowed under the rezoning. She recalled the decision of the Commission being to support the applicant as opposed to the school district on the ~request. She stated the issue was split with the commercial zoning being allowed to go through and the school issue being sent back to the commission. Responding to a qUestion by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper said the reason for the lack of median on Ming Avenue because of resurfacing it is a matter of economics that there is not sufficient funds to raise the median. Respondingto :a questiOn by Commissioner Powers, Ms. Marino outlined the - _necessary votes for the council to pass a general plan amendment. Commissioner Marino cited a letter from Mr. Hardisty to Walt Williams, Chairman of downtown beautification committee. He felt if the issue of signage is gOing to begin with the CDDA, possibly a commission members could be a representative. Responding to a question by Chairman Anderson, Ms. Marino said the commission has control over the sign ordinance. It may address areas in the downtown separately and these areas also would be looked at by the CDDA because this is their area .of purview. Commissioner Marino responded to a question by Chairman Anderson saying he felt it would be appropriate, in the event of a meeting with the CDDA to discuss signage downtown, possibly the sign committee could be notified with the chairman designating a member to attend the meeting to monitor the situation. Minutes, PC, 9/17/92 Page 14 Chairman Anderson appointed Commissioner Cohn to attend this meeting. He . asked that staff check into the feasibility of this and possibly clear the way for it in advance. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjoUrned at 8:40 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording' Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Acting Secretary Assistant Planning Director