Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/94MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, June 2, 1994, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFF ANDRETM, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY STEPHEN BOYLE DOUG DELGADO KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO DARREN POWERS, Alternate Absent: STEVE MESSNER · ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: STAFF: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, PrinciPal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS No one made any public statements at this time. *Commissioner Powers was seated. o Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None Minutes, PC, 6/2/94 Page 2 REVISED COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN #4-94 (HOME BASE - MILAZZO & ASSOCIATES) Commissioners Brady and Boyle abstained because of conflicts of interest due to the fact that a client of their law firm owns subject property. Chairman Andrew said he missed the Monday meeting, however he had listened to the tape. David Milazzo represented the applicant of the project. He said they requested a change to a previously approved comprehensive sign plan. He said the freeway sign would provide identity for the two small pads on Panama Lane and would not be used for the entire center. Regarding the two pylon signs he said the staff report recommends they become two-pole pylon signs taking on the architectural feature of the entrance signage. He asked that the original single pole sign be approved. Regarding the recommendation that one monument sign on Colony Avenue be removed he said the ordinance provides that 4 monument signs be allowed on a street frontage and in this particular location there would only be 2. The ordinance provides that they be no closer than 50 feet apart and they are 175 feet apart. The purpose of.the two monument signs is not redundant signage. He asked for approval of both monument signs to be restricted to small tenant use. Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Milazzo Said the rear building on the right side is about 135,000 square feet and would have a large wall-mounted sign, 250 square feet to serve the major tenant. Responding to question by Commissioner Delgado, Mr. Hardisty said HomeBase could not have a pylon sign because freeway oriented signage is only for identification of businesses which serve the motoring public such as restaurants, service stations, hotels, etc. Commissioner Delgado said he would like to see a continuation of the architectural features as they relate to the signage. Responding to question by Commissioner Powers, Mr. Milazzo indicated that if the smaller tenants do not occupy building "B" the monument signs would not be constrUcted. Commissioner Hersh agreed with comments made with regard to the concept of pylon signs on the freeway so that passers-by can notice quickly those services to be provided to the motoring public. Commissioner Andrew did not feel with the amount of buildable area that there was a need for signage. Regarding the architectural features he was in favor of it. Minutes, PC, 6/2/94 Page 3 Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Powers to make findings set forth~ in staff report and approve Revised Comprehensive Sign Plan 4-94 subject to conditions outlined in the June 2, 1994 staff report, with the following changes: The freeway oriented pylon sign will not be required to carry On the architectural feature of HomeBase. To allow two monument signs on Colony Street. Motion carried. 5.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5697 Commissioner Andrew abstained because of a conflict of interest in that he was involved in the sale of property to the owner. Commissioner Marino chaired the hearing. Staff report recOmmending approval was given. Mr. Lee said confirmation of the recommendation was received from the applicant. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Bruce Anderson represented the owner. He stated concurrence with conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by COmmissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Delgado to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5697 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A." Motion carried. 5.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5768 Commissioner Andrew abstained because of a conflict of interest in that he is marketing properties in the area. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Minutes, PC, 6/2/94 Page 4 Frank Slinkard represented the applicant, stating concurrence with conditions and the revision of Public Works Condition #1. Mr. Kloepper stated this was reflected in a memo from Public Works dated May 26, 1994, which he requested be made a part.of the exhibit "A" conditions. 'Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Thompson said the closest shallow production of oil was probably Fruitvale which is six miles away. There was no potential for drilling on subject property. Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Delgado to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract Map. 5768 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A," and approve the modification to allow a 230-foot lot depth for Lot 27, Phase 1, with the inclusion of Public Works memo dated May 26, 1994 and inclusion of the findings from the May 12, 1994 memo concerning mineral rights owners as follows: l&2 13. 14. Motion carried. abstained. The required written notice to all mineral rights owners and mineral lessees of record has been given by the applicant. (Bakersfield Municipal code Section 16.20.060 B(4). The applicant has presented competent, technical evidence that the production of minerals from beneath the subdivision is improbable. (BMC 16.20.060 B(4)) Commissioner Andrew was absent. Commissioner Powers PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE #5569 AND TENTATIVE TRACT 5673 (OPTIONAL DESIGN - PHASED) Public portion of the hearing was opened. Jill Kleiss spoke representing the Southwest Community Action Committee. She addressed Tentative Tract 5673 saying the applicant wants to avoid abiding by the recent change in the amenity ordinance that the Commission apprOVed. They are asking to eliminate the amenities and are offering nothing in return. She asked that the Commission follow staff's recommendation. She asked why the parks and off-street parking were offered if they were not going to be provided. She felt in order to ensure managed growth in the future, consistency must be provided today. Minutes, PC, 6/2/94 Page 5 · Roger McIntosh represented the applicant. He stated the general plan designation of this site is low density and high to medium density residential which requires a density of 7.26 to 17.42 dwelling units per net acre. He cited comments of the staff report regarding provision of off-street parking for compensation for the reduced setbacks and street width. He said the same setbacks are being propoSed as for Tract 5617 and Tract 5649. The off-street parking in Phase 1 of Tract 5617 are being used more for storage than for guest parking and haVe become a maintenance burden to the homeowners. They are only asking for a reduction in street width standards on those streets which have more than 300 trips per day. He quoted ordinance standards regarding distance from carport or garage from property line saying it was not applied to the previous PUD on this property because it was not in the form of an adopted ordinance at the time of approval. He felt staff is confusing the PUD intent with other ordinances, policies and standards meant to deal with typical residentially zoned properties. The PUD zone allows for innovative planning techniques such as the construction of several floor plans, staggering setbacks, reducing front yard setback to 13 feet and constructing standard streets with narrower streetscapes. He quoted the ordinance as it relates to the allowance of combinations of uses and the fact that the PUD allows one family dwellings. He said the proposal allows for diversification in relationship to lot size saying with Some of the area designated as HMR and by developing 4,500 or greater square foot lots with recreational facilities the density range of 7.26 to 17.42 cannot be met. The intent of this application is to average the HMR and LR designations to come up with 7.87 dwelling units per acre. He felt the request satisfies the requirements of . public health, safety and general welfare because standards of previous projects in the area are being observed. Regarding the statement by staff that this project could be developed using current standards so as not to become a monotonous development, he felt this statement is irrelevant. The developer is proposing several different floor plans with completely different elevations and varied setbacks. Regarding staff's comment that there is no provision to compensate for the reduced parking, he said the dex)eloper is providing two car garages in all units and sufficient space is available for two cars to park in the driveway. The developer has provided for 200 percent of the required parking spaces for single family dwellings units with 2 bedrooms or more. He felt staff's interpretation of amenities within a subject community are too limiting. This developer has provided an amenity far in excess of what is required as a minimum recreational facility in Silver Creek Park. He stated the findings which must be made and' stated there would be no problem meeting them. He said if the plan is denied the setbacks and street widths would remain the same and the burden of additional maintenance costs would rest on the homeowners. He requested that staff be directed to Submit conditions of approval to the commission for consideration at the next hearing. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 6/2/94 Page 6 Responding to questions by Commissioner Brady, Mr. McIntosh said through observation of parking relating to R-1 property they have found that people using the additional parking spaces are using them for storage of vehicles. An approximate cost of maintenance of the recreation facilities and parking lot is $100 per month per'unit which is an association fee. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Ms. Marino said the optional design section of the ordinance is what requires amenities. Mr. Kloepper responded to question by Commissioner Hersh saying it is up to the discretion of the Commission to determine whether this development is appropriate. If this determination is made he would agree to it. Commissioner Hersh said he was concerned about this proposal because of the lack of amenity to provide a break in the monotony of smaller streets, short driveways, small lots and setbacks. Roger McIntosh said they: agreed to stagger the setbacks on Phase 2 to every third lot and he would be :willing to provide something similar on this request. Commissioner Hersh said he wOuld like to see a breakup in communities with amenities. - Responding to questions by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Kloepper said a number of opportunities exist with this map on side yard areas on corners leaving some unencumbered areas which could be available for extra parking and could provide roughly 125 spaces. This is a matter of subjectivety and whether the Commission feels the parking is adequately provided for. Commissioner Delgado recalled the original approval of this tract as being one that would be unique, that would provide affordable housing, off-street parking and additional amenities. He failed, to see that elimination of parking space and community recreational facilities is innovative planning, stating he would support staff's recommendation. Responding to questions by Commissioner Andrew, Mr. McInt0sh said density with the parking and recreational facilities falls just under 7.26 dwelling units per acre required in the HMR designation. By taking out the recreational facilities and adding lots in 'it can be brought up to about 7.87 to meet the designation. If the recreational facilities were deleted and the parking lot were left it would come close to meeting the densi,ty. Minutes, PC, 6/2/94 Page 7 CommisSioner Powers said he would be in favor of allowing the elimination of the recreational facilities because he felt a youngster would be more likely to use Silver Creek Park. He said he would like to see the application approved, however not delete the off-street parking. Commissioner Powers asked if off- street parking existed in the A portion of the tract. Mr. McIntosh said there is off-street parking in both phases. Commissioner Brady felt those in this area would not use another facility because such a nice facility is available. He said he was not in favor of eliminating the off-street parking becauseI he felt it is used. He said he would support Commissioner Marino's suggestion of approving this tract so long as the off-street parking was not eliminated. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. McIntosh gave background On the project and said the innovation with this project is smaller lots and the use of adjacent neighbors lots to provide "Z" lots, which provides an adjacent easement to the neighbor~in the back yard and obtaining an easement from the neighbor on the opposite side in the front yard. This creates a more useable yard space on a smaller lot. Commissioner Boyle complimented the applicant on the "Z" lot concept, however said-he was concerned about elimination of the off-street parking and the park within the tract, because younger children cannot make it to the larger park. Mr. Mclntosh said he would be willing to work with staff to develOp some reasonable off-site parking locations. Commissioner Andrew said he felt this is a successful project and said he was in favor of more larger parks than a lot of smaller ones which do not seem to be used. -He said he was more comfortable eliminating the recreational amenities because of the large existing amenity. Commissioner Marino said he would prefer the parking spaces being clustered in 8 spaces. Commissioner Hersh asked Mr. McIntosh if he would be agreeable to a continuance and meeting with staff within this time. Mr. McIntosh said he would like to be back at the next meeting and would like direction from the Commission to staff. Responding to questiOn by Chairman AndreTM, Mr. Hardisty said he did not feel this could be back before the Commission within two weeks. Mr. McIntosh said he would be willing to provide staff with his resources to bring about a continuance for two weeks. Commissioner Hersh requested that the staggering of Minutes, PC, 6/2/94 Page 8 front yard setbacks be incorporated into the future request; Mr. McIntosh said this would be done. Mr. Hardisty said the item could be placed on the next agenda, however the staff report would probably be delivered quite late. Mr. McIntosh said he would be amenable to continuing this item to the first meeting in July, stating he would waive the 50-day period for the Negative Declaration. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to reopen the public hearing. Commissioner Powers said he would not support the motion. Motion to reopen the public hearing carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to continue these items to the regular meetings of July 5, and July 7, 1994, directing staff to bring back conditions of approval, keeping in mind the staggering of front yard setbacks, and providing off-street parking spaces. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Hersh, Marino, Andrew NOES: Commissioners Delgad0, Powers ABSENT: Commissioner Messner GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FROM RIVERLAKES RANCH INC., TO BE DEVELOPED AS A WATER WELL SITE This item was apprOVed at the meeting of May 31, 1994. 8. RIVERLAKES RANCH/UNIBELL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2-94 Commissioners Brady and' Boyle abstained because of conflicts of interest. Staff report was waived because of request for continuance. Responding to questions by Commissioner Delgado, Mr. Gauthier said an application would be heard by the Commission in September which is a significant change to the Riverlakes area. The applicant could provide some type of overview of projects relating to this area. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Delgado to continue this item to the regular meetings of July 5, and July 7, 1994. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 6/2/94 Page 9 9. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Verbal Mr. Hardisty said regarding the discussion concerning the Planned Unit Development's purposes and intent he would forward some examples of innovative planning which have been used as the basis for justifying PUD's. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS A. Committees Chairman'Andrew Said the Sign Committee along with members of the, real estate and development community met to discuss kiosk signs for residential subdivisions and meetings have been scheduled for the third wednesday of every month. The committee will try to develop an ordinance from the next hearing. Commissioner HerSh said the Subdivision Committee met and another meeting would be held on June 7th. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 7:45. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary ~ry~ r~anmng Ol~or