Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/92MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF-BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, August 20, 1992, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: STEVEN ANDERSON, Chairperson DARREN POWERS, Vice Chairperson JEFF ANDREW DAVID COHN JIM MARINO KATE ROSENLIEB ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: STEVE MESSNER C. ROBERT FRAPWELL,' Alternate LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director STAFF: Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2.- PUBLIC STATEMENTS No one made any public statements at this time. o Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN 2-92 This item was not heard and was continued to the next regular meeting of September 3, 1992 due to the lack of a quorum. Minutes, PC, 8/20/92 Page 2 4. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5369 Staff report was given._ Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Randy Bergquist stated his acceptance of the conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Powers · to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve a one-Year extension of Tentative Tract 5369 subject to the conditions originally approved with the addition of the conditions in the Public Works Memo dated August 10, 1992. Motion carried. 4.2 PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5149 Staff report was given. Michelle Lamoine, Simpson-Vancuren represented the property owner. She stated their concurrence with staff's recommendations and the memo of August 18, 1992, saying if this additional requirement is going to apply across the board, they would concur. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to questions by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said the 24- month maintenance'period is for slopes more than 4:1 because it takes longer to establish landscaping. She said in reading the minutes for the first extension on this item, the discussion centered around the slope problem and whether it should be brought back within the 4:1 requirement with the consensus being it would cause a hardship. She said she would not support this extension of time, because of her concern over the septic system. She said she did not want to encourage any. more development within the city limits that is not served by sewer line because she felt it is not in the city's best interest. Commissioner Powers concurred with Commissioner Rosenlieb's comments regarding the-slope, however he felt this has been approved with the conditions stated and said he would support it. The dry line requirement allows for connection to sewer when available and felt it would happen at some point. He said he would also like to discourage new tracts coming into the city with septic systems. Minutes, PC, 8/20/92 Page 3 Regarding the sewer situation COmmissioner Marino said he was not agreeable to septic systems and Would encourage the development of a sewer trunkline in the area. He recalled one corner exceeding the 4:1 slope, Mr. Hardisty agreed with this. Responding to a question, Mr. Hardisty said it would not be appropriate to change the condition to.require 24 months on slopes exceeding the 4:1' requirement because it splits up the ability to correctly assess the cost and responsibilities. Commissioner Marino said his inclination was to approve 'this extension, saying since the 4:1 slopes do not impact the entire site he felt a better standard would be 12 months on an interim basis. Chairman read the recommended action into the record. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty recalled a situation in which an applicant was required to hook up to the sewer system when it became possible. However he stated the difficulty is that if the septic system is operating properly it may continue to be used, however if it fails and the sewer line is within a prescribed distance then it is required to be hooked up. A condition otherwise would ~be contrary to the municipal code. Responding to questions by Chairman Anderson, Mr. Cramer, City Parks Division, said there would be a greater amount of establishment which would occur within the extra year. It is the City's responsibility to maintain the area, not for the establishment of the area. A possible option is to decrease the spacing between plants. Motion Was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to approve the extension of time for Tentative Tract 5149 and to approve phasing of said map subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Exhibit "A" with the inclusion of the August 18, 1992 memo from the Parks Department adding the following additional finding: "Public welfare necessitates that the developer maintain landscaping for a period of not less than 24 months prior to acceptance by the City." and a change to Planning Department Condition #17, Exhibit ,,A,,, Page 8 of 8, as follows: In all three Paragraphs, replace the 180 days figure with a 24-month requirement. Motion failed. Commissioners Cobh. Marino, Rosenlieb, Anderson voted no. Minutes, PC, 8/20/92 Page 4 Alternate motion was made by Commissioner Marino to approve the extension of ~time for Tentative Tract 5149 and to approve the phasing of said map subject to the -conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the following finding: The public Welfare necessitates that the developer maintain landscaping for a period of.not less than 12 months prior to acceptance by the City. and change to Planning Department condition #17, Page 8 of 8 as follows: In 'all three paragraphs replace the 180 day figure with a 24-month requirement. Motion died for lack of second. Motion was made.by-Commissioner Rosenlieb to deny the extension of time for Tentative Tract 5149, and make the following finding: The denial of this extension of time is based on health, safety and welfare considerations. Motion died for lack of second. Motion-was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Powers to reconsider Commissioner Powers first motion which he re~read as follows: Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to approve the extension of time for Tentative Tract 5149 and to approve phasing of said map subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the inclusion of the August 18, 1992 memo to the Planning Commission from the Parks Department, adding an additional finding and revision to condition as follows: Finding - ' "Public Welfare necessitates that the developer maintain landscaping for a period of not less than 24 months prior to acceptance by the City." Revision to Condition #17, Exhibit "A", Page 8 of 8: In all three paragraphs, replace the 180 days figUre with a 24-month requirement. Motion carried. Commissioner Rosenlieb voted no. Minutes, PC, 8/20/92 Page 5 5.1 PUBLIC.HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5544 Chairman Anderson abstained from hearing this item due to a financial conflict of interest in that his company is presently providing services to the applicant. Commissioner Powers Chaired this hearing. Staff report was givem Publi~ portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger McIntosh represented the property owner. Regarding Condition #26, Public Works conditions, Page 2 of 9, he requested the words "and approval of grading plans" be stricken. Mr. Kloepper concurred with this change. Regarding Condition #7 of Planning Department conditions he asked that it read "Seminole Way shall be renamed Bitteroot Way or De Petro Drive." He stated his concurrence with all other conditions of approval. Mr. Hardisty stated his acceptance of this proposed change. Public portion of th'e hearing was closed. Responding to a question by Commissioner Andrew, Mr. Kloepper said the city has not been retroactively collecting fees. He felt a contribution could be made by this applicant to the bridge crossing between Brimhall and Truxtun Avenue. Chairman powers read staff's recommendation for the record. 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 Tract 5544 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the following changes: Page 2 of 9, Condition #26 the following wording "and approval of grading plans" shall be deleted. Page 9 of 9, Condition #7 shall read as follows: Seminole Way shall be renamed Bitteroot Way or De Petro Drive. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson was absent due to an abstention. Minutes, PC, 8/20/92 Page 6 5.2 5.3 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5758 Commissioner Powers abstained due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Lee, staff planner said the applicant has requested a continuance on this item. Commissioner Marino abstained due to a conflict of interest in that his employer owns property within 300 feet. Staff report was waived. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to continue this item to the next regular meeting of September 3, 1992. Motion carried. Commissioners Powers and Marino was absent from voting due to abstentions. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5738 Commissioner Powers abstained due to a conflict of interest because his firm represents a property owner in the vicinity. Staff report was givem Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Carl Moreland represented the applicant. He stated he was in concurrence with conditions of approval and memos dated August 17, and August 20, 1992. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Cohn stated his reservations regarding the commercial in the center of this project. Mr. Hardisty said when the general plan hearing was held it was a dilemma as to how to deal with two different sites developing independently. The Commission approved both because of the difference in character which the council adopted as the appropriate zoning. Minutes, PC, 8/20/92 .~ ~: Page 7 Regarding question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said the appliCant withdrew his reqUest for multi-family zoning between the park site and commercial site and. along the western boundary adjacent to Highway 99 at the council level. She said she did not vote for this configuration of commercial and stated her disagreement with it, however she stated she would vote in favor of this map. She stated her disagreement with the configuration of single family lots on the northern Portion-of the commercial site, saying change to this would require changes to the subdivision ordinance which she stated she had asked for at the last hearing under commission comments. Responding to .a request by Chairman Anderson, Mr. Moreland addressed the ' reason for lots facing commercial saying this could be changed. Mr. Moreland responded to a question by CommissiOner Rosenlieb,~ saying he would not be adverse to'a reconfiguration of the lots on the 'north side of Berkshire Road. - : Commissioner Rosenlieb stated her disagreement with how residential abutting freeways is handled. Mr. Hardisty stated his remembrance of a discussion to the effect of a proposed .change to the ordinance. Mr. KloePper stated his appreciation of the Commission's desire to limit the lots fronting across from the commercial areas, however Berkshire is the secondary collector. Certain spacing requirements must be observed for sections coming onto collectors and he recommended, that a condition not be adopted requiring the streets to go through and that staff be relied upon to work with the engineer to mitigate it as best as possible. Mr. Kloepper said those purchasers of the lots should be well aware that a commercial site exists across the street. ~ Responding to a question by Commissioner.Andrew regarding the need for this subdivision to pay traffic mitigation fees for stoplights at Hosking and South "H", Mr. Kloepper said this was covered in the general plan amendment. Chairman Anderson stated he shared the concerns of Commissioner Rosenlieb about the height of the wall or position in conjunction with the house. Regarding Mr. KloePper's comments that a property owner would be aware of a commercial center across the street, he felt the economics of some of these project is that homes will be s01d regardless of the obvious nature of the restrictions and he felt part of the responsibility is for the commission to see that those forced economiCally into this neighborhood have a fair shake. Regarding questions by Chairman Anderson, Mr. Moreland said the elevation of the tract is the same as the freewaY, the sole mitigation between the freeway and tract is the berm and the wall. Minutes, PC, 8/20/92 Page 8 Discussion continued regarding increasing the distance from the wall to the ~homes:_ Responding to questions by Commissioner Marino, Mr. HardistY clarified the increased distance between the home and wall being enhancement of the ability of the house to maintain minimum sound levels. Mr. Bidwell asked if, with the concurrence of the applicant, the commission would set a limitation on the habitable living space, to which Chairman Anderson said this would be done. Mr. Bidwell asked if additions being built in the future would be precluded from occurring with a condition of approval. Chairman Anderson felt this should be a deed restriction on the property. In response to questions by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Bidwell felt a setback should be established on this map. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded bY Commissioner Cohn to approve ~and adopt the Negative Declaration, to' make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5738 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the following changes and additions: Planning Department Conditio.n #10, Page 8 of 8 to be added to read as follows: There will be a 40 foot minimum setback from the wall along ·the freeway to any habitable residential structure. - Responding to discussion, Chairman Marino added the following condition: Since the Planning Commission is concerned about lots fronting Commercial districts, if staff and the developer can work out an alternate it shall be in substantial conformity with the approved tract. Mr. KloepPer concurred with this condition. Motion carried. Minutes,-PC, 8/20/92 Page 9 5.4 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5756 Chairman Anderson abstained due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Powers chaired this hearing. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh represented the property owner. He asked, regarding Condition # 17 of Public Works conditions,_ that the words "and approval of grading plans" be deleted. He stated his agreement with remaining conditions and the requested deletion of condition in the August 19, 1992, memorandum from the City Water 'Department.- Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5756 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the following change and addition: Condition #17, Page 2 of 9 the following wording "and approval of grading plans" shall be deleted. Inclusion of the August 19, 1992 memo from the Department of Water and Sanitation Motion carried. COmmissioner Anderson was absent from voting due to an abstention. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to approve the reduction of the lot frontage from 60 feet to 55 feet on non-curvalinear streets and 52.31 feet and 53.72 feet on curvalinear streets as shown on the tentative map. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson was absent from voting due to a conflict of interest. Minutes-, PC, 8/20/92 6.1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - PROPOSED CITY Page 10 ACQUISITION OF LOT 100, TRACT 5084, PHASE 2 Commissioner Andrew abstained from voting on this item because he markets property for the property owner in other areas of the city. Staff report was given.' 6.2 Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Marino to make a finding pursuant to Government Code 65402, that the proposed acquisition. of real, property for the proposed water well site is consistent with the general plan. Motion carried. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - SUMMARY VACATION OF CITY EASEMENT RIGHTS IN A PORTION OF GEORGIA DRIVE (ACCESS EASEMENT) BETWEEN MANOR STREET AND FALLGATFER STREET. Staff report was given. Chairman read staff's recommendation. Responding to questions by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said a notice was not sent to property owners within 300 feet. The hearing regarding the aPpropriateness of the abandonment is Conducted by the Council. Commissioner Powers felt this item should be continued to the next regular meeting because he thought people are probably using the area regardless of the intent for abandonment. He said he would like to see those property owners in the area noticed. Ms. Marino, Attorney, said this noticing can be done, however it should be understood that this is a consistency finding and not the decision to abandon. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of September 3, 1992, with the stipulation that prior to the hearing all property owners within 300 feet of subject vacation shall be notified of the meeting. Motion carried. Minutes,. PC, 8/20/92. 6.3. 'GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - VACATION OF THE Page 11 NORTH/SOUTH ALLEY CONNECTING BERNARD STREET TO JEFFERSON STREET BETWEEN ALTA VISTA DRIVE AND INYO STREET Staff report was given. . No one was present representing the applicant. Chairman read the recommended action into the record. Motion was made. by cOmmissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Powers Pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 to find the vacation of the north/south alley connecting Bernard Street to Jefferson Street between Alta Vista Drive and Iny0 Street (Block 7, Alta Vista Tract) consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan and report the same to the City Council' With the_condition that easement be reserved for the public utilities and" city- sewer line _located in the closing area. Motion carried. STATUS REPORT - ZONE CHANGE #4709 Report was given by Jim Movius, Principal Planner. He recommended since nothing has occurred on the site, that staff be directed to initiate a rezoning for the portion north of Auburn Oaks Drive to R-1 and the portion south be recommended for-R-2 zoning, which would reduce the.total number of units to about 1/3 of what is currently-allowed. Rick Coop represented the property owner saying he reviewed staff's recommendation asking'that a change be added that the property be zoned R-3 on the portion to the southeast of Auburn Oaks Drive. Commissioner Powers said he would like to see the applicant meet with the zoning committee to discuss this issue before action is taken. Commissioner Marino stated his agreement with this. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Marino to continue this item to the next regular meeting of September 3, 1992, and hold a zoning o~dinance committee meeting in the interim to discuss zoning options on subject site. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 8/20/92 8. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written Page 12 Report from School Task Force Update was given by Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner. He said most school districts will not consider multi-tract, year-round education which was recommended by the task force. It was also recommended that a focused EIR be prepared in order to come up with a number for full mitigation. The school districts voted not to support the recommendation with the development community voting to support it. He stated on Page 28 of thc school district's report, 5 things were outlined that the school districts would do before asking for mitigation in order to show that they have explored 'all options. Steve Hartsell addressed the Commission regarding the report, saying he was in oppOsition to a focused EIR because if it is performed additional money would be spent on this EIR and it wOUld simply verify their numbers. Regarding the issue of funding the EIR, their primary concern is that the focused EIR would take school district resources. Commissioner Cohn felt because the financial impacts are significant to the development community the numbers are going to be suspect. He felt in order to get the legislative change needed an EIR is necessary. He felt financial participation for the school districts would not be significant when divided. Responding to a question by Chairman Anderson, Commissioner Marino said he felt the cost of the EIR would be approximately $35,000-$50,000. Responding to questions, Mr. Hardisty said the study would focus on the impacts that development would have on the school system. Discussion continued regarding the possible contents of the EIR. Commissioner Powers felt the solution to the school fee problem is the focused EIR, however he felt the school districts should contribute their share of the cost. Mr. Hartsell gave his opinion that in other situations where a development is causing an impact, it is up to the developer to pay the cost of calculating that impact. He said the school should not pay directly, however does pay indirectly by hiring people to respond to the EIR and provide information. Minutes, PC, 8/20/92. Page 13 Commissioner Powers said it behooves the school district who Would benefit_ from the outcome of the EIR to band together and come up with a share of funding. Mr. Hartsell stated he would pass these- comments on to the school districts he represents.. Responding to a question by Commissioner Powers, Ms. Marino said the comments from the school district cannot be ignored as they relate to CEQA and approvals could not be conditioned upon a final agreement between the applicant and school districts. Discussion continued regarding the possibility of placing a condition that the applicant would pay the mitigation per the EIR which would be placed on deposit, With the difference being refunded to _ the applicant. Ms. Marino said if the commission can find that what the school districts are requesting is full mitigation, then this could be done.- -Commissioner Powers said he would like to see this issue referred to the zoning committee between now and the next _planning commission meeting in order to come up with some language to this effect. Responding to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Ms. Marino felt this should be referred to the Parks and Environmental Quality Act-Committee because it is a CEQA matter. Mr. Hardisty clarified for Commissioner Anderson this item will be going to the Board of Supervisors and the Council for decision on the EIR issue. Commissioner Cohn felt that simply because the school is being. impacted, .does not mean they should share in the cost of mitigating the impact as through the EIR. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers to refer this item to the zoning committee in order to develop a condition which will allow the Commission to continue to conduct business, and allow the attachment of a condition to future agenda items. The meeting to be held between now and the next regular meeting of September 3, 1992. Commissioner Anderson posed a question for Council being if the Commission does not come back with a recommendation does it become-status quo. Ms. Marino said this is correct. Commissioner Marino seconded the previous motion. Minutes, PC, 8/20/92 Page 14 Motion was restated by Commissioner Powers to refer 'this item to the Zoning Committee in order to discuss development of a condition to be placed on future projects so that the Commissi°n may continUe to conduct business as usual and allow projects to be approved and considered mitigated, for this item to come back at the next meeting. Commissioner Anderson felt it was redundant as it relates to refunding fees to the developer if determined to be less than the agreed-upon amount. Responding to a question by him, Ms. Marino said refunds could be given as well as collecting additional fees. Motion carried, cOmmissioner Cohn voted no. Chairman Anderson felt some consideration should be given to the comment by Mr. Hartsell that they have and will continue to contributing to a solution on this issue in the form of man hours and information provided. B) Verbal None 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Rosenlieb thanked Commissioner Anderson for his effort on the School Funding Task Force. She referenced a subdivision committee meeting regarding a tract which did not meet subdivision standards as proposed. Responding to a question by her, Mr. Kloepper agreed what was being proposed was a satisfactory solution to developing the land, however did not meet subdivision ordinance standards. Discussion continued regarding the possibility of changes to the gubdivision ordinance. Commissioner Marino gave update on the trails issue, saying the county broke the Committee into 3 subcommittees. He said the alignment committee and standard committee had completed their work, with the funding committee just getting started. Mr. Hardisty cited a referral to the Water Board on the trails committeel Minutes, PC, 8/20/92 ~ Page 15 Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said the next scheduled meeting of the Urban Development Committee meeting is September 10th stating he could have the draft back to them in time for release for the September 30, 1992 Council meeting. He said he would try for this as a target date. Chairman Anderson stated a date had been agreed upon for the Zoning Ordinance Committee meeting being Wednesday, September 2, 1992, at noon. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary