Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/94MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING · OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, May 5, 1994, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL o COMMISSIONERS: Present: STEVE MESSNER, Chairperson MATHEW BRADY STEPHEN BOYLE DOUG DELGADO KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO Absent: JEFF ANDREW DARREN POWERS, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS Commissioner Messner stated a speaker's card had been received from Michael Callagy regarding Agenda, Item #5. Commissioner Messner said information regarding this item could be taken at the time Of hearing. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Page 2 AMENDMENT T© SECTION 17.08.180 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO EXCLUDING SUBDIVISION AND NOISE ATTENUATION WALLS IN EXCESS OF 4 FEET HIGH FROM THE ZONE MODIFICATION REQUIREMENT AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 16.16.010 AND 17.64.035 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR FILING TENTATIVE MAPS AND MODIFICATIONS OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE STANDARDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A TENTATIVE MAP, AND FILING OF APPEALS OF SAiD MAPS AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 16.28.170 C, D & H OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MINIMUM SIZE FOR LOT DEPTH, WIDTH, AND DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 16.28.170 I AND J OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS. 5. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 16.28.170.O OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS OF LOT STANDARDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND REQUIRING RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE/FACILITIES WITH SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE SUBDIVISIONS. Staff reports recommending approval were given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Barbara Don Carlos represented the Building Industry Association. She asked if this were the opportunity to make comment about other sections of the ordinance. Ms. Marino said it would not be appropriate to discuSs items which are not on the agenda. They could be commented on during the public statements portion of the agenda. Ms. Don Carlos referenced Exhibit "A" specifically the depth and width of lots being a certain criteria when abutting agricultural uses. She asked for clarification and asked that this mean literally abutting rather than a street separating residential from the agricultural zone. Mr. Hardisty said it is based on a common property line arrangement. Regarding paragraph H concerning double Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 Page 3 frontage lotS, she suggested if the width is being changed perhaps a more exacting description could be given to qualify the lots which may technically be considered double frontage. She gaee an example of a lot abutting a collector and having a masonry Wall. She asked~that language be added as follows: "The lots which include a waiver of vehicle access at one side shall not be deemed to be double frontage lots." Mr. HardiSty said this is already covered in the ordinance. Regarding Page 3 of Exhibit "A" the changes relating to paragraph 3 as referring to property zoned multi-family in which an element of public benefit is necessary to justify the reduction in lot area standards in the form of recreational open space or facilities unique to the project, she said it was her understanding that in requiring amenities of single family developed in a multi-family zone that it be consistent with the requirement of R-1 development with reduced lot sizes. The restriction is that only recreational facilities can be provided as an amenity, however in an R-1 zone With reduced lot sizes several options exist such as park land or in-lieu fees, requirement for 80 percent of the median sales price and other criteria. This does not accomplish uniformity. She suggested there should be another category that would address recreational opportunities in the proximity of the project. Commissioner Hersh asked for example from Ms. Don carlos in which a recreational amenity could not be provided· within the project boundaries. She said if a parcel is only 15 acres and a park is required within this site it would not pencil out. She felt perhaps some criteria to allow this would be an option. She asked that the Commission revisit criteria such as Item D which requires 80 percent substandard lots within the subdivision. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Messner said there are 3 criteria that the Commission considers for single family housing Such as recreational open space facilities, park land dedication and in-lieu feeS which would take care of the fear expressed by Ms. Don Carlos regarding some sites not being able to provide an on-site facility. He asked if any consideration was given to adding these items to Section 3. Mr. Hardisty said the criteria in F could be used, however the Commission must be careful to tie the amenity to the project. Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 Page 4 Commissioner Marino said a workshop was held on this issue in which minutes were prepared and he referenced handouts that the neTM commissioners did not receive. He said Commissioner Powers had asked that two ordinances be written one in which the open space amenity would be eliminated in the R-1 zone and one in which it would be added in the R-2. He did not feel there Was a problem with the smaller lots, however felt there was a problem with the ordinance. He said he would be inclinedi to continue this ordinance to the June 2, 1994 meeting so that Item D could be added and staff could work on a clarification for Item H. He suggested this item be sent to committee to meet with the BIA to clarify unclear wording. Commissioner Brady said he was unclear about Item 16.16.O.3. saying he felt the small lot subdivision could be justified without an amenity by saying they are immediately adjacent to sufficient open space for the area. He was concerned that in this situation staff may reject it and the commission would not see it. Mr. Hardisty said staff Would recommend approval of subdivisions in which amenities were previOUsly provided in other developments to benefit the SUbject subdivision. He said approval would not be recommended in situations in which a developer is trying to take advantage of a neighbor's generosity. Commissioner Hersh said'the 80 percent rule bothered him and he would like to see something that would refine it. He felt staff would be amenable to allowing a developer of a small subdivision to contribute to an existing amenity within the area. He said he had a problem with large subdivisions with small lots and surrounding residential subdivisions all trying to use the same planned or existing amenity. He said he felt the ordinance was acceptable in general and leaves enough leeway for staff to make adjustments for special situations. Commissioner Delgado concurred with Commissioner Hersh's assessment regarding the basic need for an ordinance. He said he wanted to see the issue of compensation for the fact ~that the Commission is dealing with small lots to be addressed. The absence of open space in each yard should be addressed through alternative solutions. He stated his reluctance in seeing these amendments postponed further. He said he was not opposed to further review of the 80 · percent rule in the future,, however would like to see the Commission proceed with the adoption of these ordinances as they exist. Commissioner Messner stated his inclination to act as a commission on these ordinances and handle the 80 percent issue at a later time. Mr. Hardisty recommended that any motion regarding the 80 percent rule be handled separately from these prOposed ordinance amendments. He pointed out a map which depicts subdivisions with substandard lots. Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 Page 5 Commissioner Brady was concerned the Commission is recommending passing an ordinance just to get something on the books. He felt the proposed Ordinance should be broad enough to allow a developer to install a larger park at a site in the vicinity of a developing subdivision thus providing amenities for both. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Hardisty said the language in paragraph 3 restricts the public benefit and is not meant to match the definition of paragraph 2.:F. He felt if substandard lots are going to be allowed they should not be justified with a bigger than average pa?k three blocks away. He suggested the wording be as follows: "Recreational open space connected or adjacent to the project and/or facilities unique to the project." Commissioner Hersh agreed with Commissioner Boyle's comments, asking if his proposed language would! be appropriate. Mr. Hardisty said it could be added to Paragraph 3. Commissioner Marino said he did not vote for this ordinance at the previous hearing on it. He agreedi with Commissioner Brady's comment regarding the type and distance of amenity from a project. He felt the ordinance requires those of a lower economic status to provide more park land, which he did not feel was equitable or consistent with the general plan. He said he was agreeable to the wording proposed by Ms. Don Carlos for Item H. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Brady to direct staff to bring back this entire ordinance at the May 30, and June 2, 1994 meetings, in the interim holding a meeting with a commission committee and Building Industry Association to develop wording which is clear and applied equitably.~ Responding to question by Mr. Hardisty, Commissioner Marino said he wanted consideration given to all iitems on Pages 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Exhibit "A," which includes the 80 percent rule. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Brady, Marino Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Messner ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew Chairman Messner said it was his preference to handle this issue at this time. the 80 percent situation is to be considered it could be handled at a future hearing. If Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 Commissioner Delgado suggested that Item #0.3 read as follows: Further if the project site is zoned for multiple-family dwellings and a proposed development offers elements of public benefit within or adjacent to the project that justify the reduction in lot area standards in the form of recreational open space and/or facilities Unique to the project, ... (the balance to read as in the staff repOrt). Motion-was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by COmmissioner Hersh to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed amendments to Sections 16.16.010, 16.28.170.C, 16.28.170.D, 16.28.170.H, 16.28.170.I, 16.28.170.J, 16.28.170.O, with Item #3 modified to read as follows: Further if the project site is zoned for multiple family dwellings and the proposed development offers elements of public benefit within Or adjacent to the project that justify the reduction in lot area... (the 'balance of the condition to remain as it exists in the staff report). Page 6 and 17.64.035, as shown On the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report and recommend the same to City Council. Commissioner Marino asked Commissioner Delgado if he could define "acceptable amenity" for a project. Commissioner Delgado felt an. acceptable amenity would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission upon the examination of each individual project, since less than 6,000 square foot lots are a discretionary item. Commissioner Marino felt this ordinance would not work. and for this reason he would not support 'the motion. He stated his belief that excessive cost placed on affordable housing becomes a barrier to affordable housing and is not consistent with the Housing Element, therefore Finding #4 that this is consistent with the 2010 General Plan could not be made. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Commissioner Delgado said "adjacent to" would not include projects in which a street would separate amenity from housing. Commissioner Boyle did not know if the standards were specific, however felt planning is discretionary. Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 Page 7 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Messner NOES: Commissioners Brady, Marino ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Marino to make findings set forth in; staff report and approve the amendment to Section 17.08.180(B) as described in the staff report, and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Marino Messner ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew Chairman Messner said he would entertain a motion at this time to refer items concerning the ordinances to committee. Motion was made by COmmissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh send this item to committee to reconsider the language to Paragraph 2.F. so that it adopts the same language that the recreation open space be within or adjacent to the project and consideration of Paragraph 2.D. as well. Chairman Messner appointed CommiSsioners~ Hersh, Brady and Boyle to the committee. Motion carried. FILE 5502 -- TIME SET .FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST BY SKIP ' HARDY TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE ON 23.77 +/- ACRES AND TO AN R-l-CH (ONE FAMILY DWELLING-CHURCH) ZONE ON 2.5 +/- ACRES, CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 26.27 +/- ACRES FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST AND WEST OF WIBLE ROAD, NORTH OF BERKSHIRE ROAD, AND SOUTH OF THE ARVIN-EDISON CANAL (Continued from the regular meeting of April 21, 1994) Staff report recommending approval was updated. Chairman Messner said the public hearing was closed at the last hearing, however upon a request by Mr. Callagy he recognized him. Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 Page 8 Mike Callagy said upon request by the Commission at the last hearing he had obtained a document' signed by all property owners in agreement with the general plan amendment and zone change. He was concerned about the requirement placed on this zone change of obtaining C-2 zoning, saying they have no control over this. He said he did not object to Mr. Robinson's desires for Mr. Fambrough and Mr. Tackett's property. He felt this should be sent to the Council for their decision on zoning for the surrounding property. Commissioner Delgado said in looking at the current situation for the properties he felt it prudent that this is not the location for commercial property and he would accept the recommendation of staff. Chairman Messner felt a 6-acre, mid-block C-1 parcel could be a benefit for this area. He felt the proposal by staff makes sense from a planning standpoint and conforms with City Council's request. He felt it should be left to the Council to undo a situation that they have created. Commissioner Hersh concurred with comments by Commissioners Delgado and messner. Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Delgado to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report and approve the Negative Declaration, and approve Zone Change No. 5502, subject to the conditions of approval on Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report and recommend same to City Council. MOtion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Marino Messner ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew 6. COMMUNICATIONS A. Written 1) Planning Commissioners Orientation Program - discussion. Chairman Messner said this would be the time for Commissioners to bring forth specific recommendations on this issue. Commissioner Boyle said he would like information regarding local ordinances and California Environmental Quality Act, saying he is least familiar with these issues. Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 Page 9 Commissioner Hersh Said he wanted information regarding the basic role of the commissioner. Commissioner Delgado asked for staff to be straight-forward and honest about expectations of commissioners. He asked for information regarding the role of the commissioner and how they are supposed to interact with staff. 2) RePort and recommendation by the Central Business District Advisory Coinmittee for Downtown Bakersfield Zoning' and Development. (Referral from the City Council) This item was discussed at the Monday meeting. Mr. Hardisty said a need to evaluate base data is anticipated for an EIR and that he would perhaps ask for help from the Council concerning consulting for traffic and air quality. He said he wanted the Commission to read this and then it would be brought back for discussion and prOposals to be taken to a workshop. He expected the hearings to be held around September. Commissioner Messner said this was a consensus product. He felt this should be brought back at a future date as a workshop item. B) Verbal Mr. Hardisty said an agenda for the next meeting was not submitted to the Commission because no items were continued or scheduled for this hearing. He said he wanted to take this opportunity to · work on the Orientation Program outline. He said a Monday pre- meeting wOUld not be necessary. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Boyle said he should have placed on the record at the last hearing that although he had not attended the prior Monday meeting he had listened to the tape prior to participation at Thursday's meeting. A. Committees Appointment to sign committee to discuss off-site residential directional signs. Chairman Messner appointed Commissioners Andrew, Delgado and Hersh to this committee as an ad hoc committee. Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 Page 10 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further buSiness to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary / }'lanning/~4ctor