Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/03/94o MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, February 3, 199~¢, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: DARREN POWERS, Chairperson STEVE MESSNER, Vice Chairperson JEFF ANDREW DOUG DELGADO KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO KATE ROSENLIEB BILL SLOCUMB, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: .! LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: PUBLIC STATEMENTS JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary Jill Kleiss represented the Southwest Community Action Committee addressing the issue of requirement for 6,000 square foot lots in R-1 zoned developments. She stated her opinion that square footage matters in quality of life. She felt minimum standards will diminish with the smaller lot sizes, and felt in these situations there should beia trade-off such as parks. She asked that the 6,000 square foot lot size be maintained in R-! developments, however at the least an amenity should be offered. Chairman read the notice' of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA I~MS None Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page 2 o Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to approve minutes of th:e regular meetings held November 18, December 2, and December '16, 1993. MOtion carried. WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLANS - TENTATIVE TRACT 5762 Commissioner Andrew abstained on this item due to a conflict of interest because he has marketed'and sold properties in the area. Staff report was given. Jim Delmarter represented the applicant. He stated his agreement with the staff report. He asked for clarification regarding the use of pilasters. Mr. Hardisty said 8'inch'block could b& used in place of the pilasters with use of the same material. : Responding to question bY Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. Hardisty said landscape retention basins have not in the past been dealt with in this manner as part of the landscape plan. i Motion was made by Commissioner Slocumb, seconded by Commissioner Mar/no to approve wall and landscape plans for Tract 5762 subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibits "A" ~nd "B" and memo from Parks Department dated January' 12, 1994. Commissioner Rosenlieb ~aid she would not want to encourage this type of landscape plan, however ih light of the engineering difficulties that need to be overcome she would be willing to try. it on this project. Mr. Hardisty said his initial reaction was negative because of the nuisance it may cause in terms of a marshy area but subsequent review of the plans alleviated his Concerns. Commissioner Hersh said ibis concern is that this has not been done before and there is a lack of fencing Of the sump. Responding to question by Commissioner · Hersh, Mr. Delmarter said it was felt the size of the basins is adequate to handle run-off.. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 Page 3 6. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR FAMILY FITNESS AT EAST HILLS MALL - P.C.D. ZONE CHANGE #5506 Staff report was given. Ron Marlett represented the applicant. Responding to question bY Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said the main concern is the separation between adjacent uses is not a flat ground to flat ground relationship. Commissioner Rosenlieb was concerned that the commission is recommending something other than that stated in the ordinance and the applicant may not be awa~e of it. She said she would be more comfortable knowing that the adjoining property is aware of the recommended wall and agrees with it. Commissioner Marino said he was comfortable with staff's recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to make findings set forth in the staff report, and apProve final development plans for the Family Fitness Center (Phase 1) of PCD Zone Change No. 5506, subject to the conditions listed in :Exhibit "A" and memorandum dated February 2, 1994. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would not support the motion because she was not comfortable that the adjoining property was fully aware of the situation. Motion carried. CommisSioner Rosenlieb voted no. PUBLIC HEARING - CHANGE OF CONDITIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT 5688 Commissioner Andrew abStained due to a conflict of interest because he was involved in the land sale Odjacent to subject property. Staff report was given. · Randy Bergquist represented the applicant, stating their acceptance of the conditions. Motion was made by Commissioner Slocumb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve the street name change requested on Tentative Tract 5688, subject to the conditions set forth in the Exhibit "A". Motion Carried. Commissioner Andrew was absent. Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 Page 4 8. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9899 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE 5452 (Nickle) Chairman Powers stated lie was absent for the original public hearing on Item #'s 8. and 9. and would ~hot participate on these items, and therefore turned the chair over to Commissioner Messner. Commissioner Delgado stated he was absent from the original hearing on these items and would not parti.~ipate. Chairman Messner indicated Agenda Item #'s 8 and 9 would be taken concurrently. Chairman Messner indicated he had listened to the tapes of the previous hearings on this item. Commissioner Marino said he had missed the Monday pre-meeting on this item and listened to the tape. He said he was in attendance at the original hearing on this iiem. Staff report was given. Ms. Eng pointed out correspondence received on this item, saying it was submitied to the commission in the staff report. She also said a new Exhibit "A" had been prepared. Commissioner Rosenlieb Cited an error in the staff report under "Parks Committee Recommendation" saying in every situation in which 'the word "pedestrian" is used the word "public" should be used with the exception of the second to the last paragraph in Page 3 saying it was the committee's intent to allow only pedestrian access through existing fences. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Arthur Unger represented the Sierra Club. He said they appreciate commission efforts to preserve a riparian corridor for the community. He submitted copies of their group's policies to the commission. He stated their concern about the non- buildable buffer, saying they hope it will be devoted completely to local native plants and the possibility of fences being perpendicular and abutting the river. He said they urge that bike and hiking trails be on the bluff in bluff areas. Responding to question by Chairman Messner, Mr. Hardisty said the non- buildable buffer would not allow back yards or fences. Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 Page 5 Carolyn Belli represented Kern Equestrians for Preservation of Trails. She showed the Commission a video which she took of the area that is on file. Ms. Belli said part of the iKern River Park Plan includes a trail system for hiking, bicycling and horseback riding along the river. She felt every opportunity should be taken to ensure the preservation of the corridor. She stated their agreement with parks committee recommendations. They felt the top of the bluffs should be included in the plan requirement in order to maintain a contiguous trails system and the top of the bluff Would be the only safe area for safe public easement. She said they agreed withi the committee findings that due to the access hardship caused by thick riparian v~getation, falling logs, steep terrain and loose soil it is appropriate and reasonab!e for the access easement to include the top of the bluffs. She asked that the commission relay a recommendation to the Council that they direct staff to develop a specific trails plan in conjunction with the Bakersfield City Trails Technical Advisory Committee. RespOnding to question by Commissioner Messner, Commissioner Slocumb said a public easement has beeni proposed at the base of the bluffs. Rich O'Neil spoke on behalf of the Kern River Parkway Committee. He felt the equestrian trail system is an integral part of the Kern River Plan and Parkway system. He requested theYe be a 100-foot minimum buffer that would encompass the entire length of this parcel for riparian protection and safe and efficient access corridor to include ipassage of pedestrians, horses and bicyclists. They felt the pedestrian gate should be made to be accessible to horses. Ron Schumaker, 3505 Wa~lport Lane, spoke representing the Kern River Fly Fishermen. Regarding reasonable access he concurred with the previous speakers in requesting a minimum 100-foot buffer zone, however in problem areas the access should be expanded. Tom Fallgatter representeld the Kern River Public Access Committee. He asked that the opinion letter they submitted to the City Attorney be made part of the record: He showed a dra..Wing depicting their view of the proposed access. The area below the bluffs has been depicted in testimony as not being suitable for access, however they have been used for these types of uses. He felt it would be the most functional use of the trails system to have all Uses continuous along the river. He felt the city hasi the power under the zoning ordinances and map act to take the trails system upon the bluffs where it is impractical to place it along the river. He submitted the previously referenced letter. Commissioner Slocumb felt the letter was submitted late in the proceedings, stating he did not feel he would have time to read the letter during this hearing. He asked the Commission to reject the letter, especially if it simply contains legal advice. He said he would be in favor of oral presentation by Mr. Fallgatter of points raised in the letter. He also stated he would not b:e in favor of continuance of this hearing in order to provide time to read the letter. Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 Page 6 Ms. Marino said the letter being given to the Commission during the hearing - should be made Part of the record, however it should be noted for the record that the Commission did not have the opportunity to read it and was not considered as part of the decision-making process. Chairman Messner askedithat staff make copies and provide them to the Commission. David Cohn, 2493 .Beech Street, spoke as a member of the Kern Wheelmen, saying he hoped the Commission would take into consideration needs of the trail with respect to cyclists. He felt enough public access could be created to provide access opportunities for many users. Mr. Bergquist, Porter-Robertson Engineering, showed slides of areas which he said were not depicted in the video. He felt the parks committee's desire to create a 50-foot wide Public access easement would encourage use along the river and delete the need for the Fish and Game Department's buffer requirement. He said a conflict exists Within the Map Act which states the public easement shall be along a portion of the bank of the river, and the request to take the trail up a 90-foot high bluff, across and down the bluff is outside the banks of the river. He cited a c°nflict of trespassing on private property versus public access to the river. He also cited a conflict of the Kern River Plan with the requirement of the adoption of a specific trails plan, stating that until adopted only foot access can be offered for dedication. He stated a conflict exists regarding the specific trails plan's need to comply with CEQA versus the desire of some to bypass the review process. He said there is a conflict to safeguard existing development versus the requeSt to place a 50-foot wide easement in an existing resident's back yard and a horse trail on top of a bluff. Conflict of the parking lot request versus the Kern River Plan which states that parking, shall be provided in the general location of areas indicated on the Kern River Plan map which specifically shows a parking lot at the Rancheria Bridge. Conflict of the interpretation of what is reasonable for the type of proposed development. He said this is not a hearing on trails, however a hearing on a zone change and large parcel map. He felt the trail issue should be dealt with at the proper time. He requested approval of the zone change and map with a 100-foot buffer and variable width pedestrian trail along the river measuring 10 feet south of the riparian area. He felt future trails would be planned for but located upon mutually agreed terms. Jim Nickel felt most of the testimony surrounds equestrian and bicycle access, however the attorney has Stated that all that can be requested at this time is foot access. Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 Page 7 Responding to question bY Mr. Nickel, Ms. Marino said the map act requires a public access easement along the banks of the river and states it can be used for hiking, equestrian and biking uses. She said the commission must make the determination of reasonable access. ~ Responding to questions by Commissioner Slocumb, Ms. Marino said the map act requires a public access easement and gives parameters, those parameters.could be limited by the general iplan. Mr. Nickel clarified Section 5.3 of the Kern River Plan Element restricts what this trail can be used for at this time to foot access. He said they had offered to the committee to provide an alternate trail for equestrian and bikes along Old Walker Pass Roatl. He was concerned the commission is trying to develop a specific trails plan at this hearing which is not the proper place to do it. Responding to question bY Commissioner Slocumb concerning an alternate route, Mr. Nickel said he wanted to defer this until development of the property because of the likelihood of trespass. Betsy Teeter said this is the first time she has heard of the possibility of the alternate route which was': suggested. Public portion of the hea~ing was closed. CommissiOner Rosenlieb thanked those who spoke. She said the committee has not recommended a trail of any kind, but a public access area. She recommended that the Commission as a whole ask Council to take up the trails issue. She said the reason for requiring pedestrian access at this time is that Mr. Nickel has a working ranch and the commission did not feel it would be appropriate to require that he take down fences until further development occurs. Commissioner Marino stated he had received phone calls from Doreen Jones and Diane Gatey and letters from T.J. Walker and Milan Filkens stating their agreement with the equestrian trails. Responding to a request, Mr. Movius outlined the location of the access easement and buffer. Responding t° questions by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Movius said staff did not feel the Department of Fish and Game has presented any evidence justifying additional buffer area at this time. Ms. Marino said she understood the access is to be along the bank of the river, however if the public Can't navigate through certain portions there would be a portion that they could navigate. Minutes, PC, 2/3/94. '~ Page 8 Mr. Hardisty responded tO questiOn by Commissioner Messner saying this access is specifically tied to consideration of subdivisions and parcel maps. COmmissioner Andrew said he would like to try to act on the portion of this map ~'v which is not close to the ~ er. He said he did not feel comfortable acting on this parcel map at this hearing, saying he would like to take a little more time to make sure the legal issues are resolved. He said he would abstain on this item if the commission votes on the entire site at this time. Commissioner Hersh said~he woUld like time to read Mr. Fallgatter's letter. He agreed with the attorney's opinion saying the commission is asking for designation of reasonable access consistent with public safety. He stated he would back staffs position on this item. Commissioner Marino asked Mr. Nickel if his objection was to the 50-foot buffer Outside the riparian area. ~ Mr. Nickel said this was one objection because this was a take of land. He felt 50 feet was excessive. Commissioner Marino said he felt 10 feet of access was reasonable. He said he would abstain from voting on this item. He said he would appreciate that the issue of the trails connection be referred to the trails committee. Commissioner Messner felt the evidence presented shows that public access need not be limited to a ·simple foot trail, therefore public access could not reasonably be provided on the steep ~lope. He said he would support the 40-foot alignment as recommended by the committee. He said the Department of Fish and Game has indicated the need for.: a 100-foOt setback from drip area so that the habitat could be preserved. He said he would support the committee's recommendation and he'supported an effort to look at a specific trails alignment throughout this area, however would not guggest it at this time. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Slocumb to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9899, subject to the conditions Outlined in the Exhibit "A" with the changes as made to the staff report concerning the word "pedestrian" and the inclusion of revised Page 1 of Exhibit "A" from the Public Works Department dated February 2, 1994. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 AYES: NOES: Commissioners Hersh, Messner, Rosenlieb, Slocumb Non~ Page 9 ABSENT: Commissioner Powers, Delgado ABSTAINED: Commissioners Andrew, Marino Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Slocumb to make findings in the staff report and approve the proposed Negative Declaration and zoning, with the exception that the area proposed for R-I-FP-S remain A-FP-S, subject to the conditions in the Exhibit "A" and recommend same to the City Council, with inclusion of the revised Page 1 of Exhibit "A" from the Public Works Department dated February 2, 1994. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hersh, Messner, Rosenlieb, Slocumb NOES: None 10. ABSENT: Commissioner Powers, Delgado ABSTAINED: commissioners Andrew, Marino RESTRUCTURING OF COMMITTEES PURSUANT TO BROWN ACT AMENDMENTS Ms. Marino gave options for committees because of changes to the Brown Act. She said a regular meeting schedule would have to be adopted for the standing committees. Meetings held outside this schedule would' be considered special meetings and notices will be hand-delivered to each member of the committee increasing costs. She said! ad-hoc committees could be formed for issues being referred. Some committees which meet over a long period of time may need to be heard by a standing committee, however generally the meetings are to consider something which can be handled with 1-2 meetings. Chairman Powers felt it would be easiest to dissolve the committee structure and appoint a committee eachi time an item needs to be heard. Ms. Marino suggested a regular meeting date be~ set if the commission chooses to keep the standing committees. Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 Page 10 COmmissioner Messner felt keeping the standing committees would be too Unwieldy.' He said ad-hoc committees could be appointed by the chairman under the Roberts Rules 'of Order. He did not feel it would be a problem for the chairman to select 3 commissioners to discuss an issue in committee. Chairman Powers said he was not in favor of taking action at this meeting. Responding to questions by Commissioner Delgado, Ms. Marino said an ad-hoc committee is not limited to meet only once, however they cannot have a standing jurisdiction. Commissioner Slocumb felt if Committees are not meeting at least 4 times per year theY do not need to be standing committees and could be handled on an ad- hoc basis. He felt meetings could be scheduled at regular intervals every three months, with special meetings held if a mOre frequent meeting is necessary. Chairman Powers felt some commissioners may develop an area of expertise because they may be following an on-going issue. Mr. Hardisty said management's position is that standing committees should be eliminated because it becomes more complex to maintain the paperwork and attention necessary for the standing committees. CommissiOner Slocumb sa!id he would resist the abandoning of standing committees because he felt it would institutionalize the concentration of influence in the··chairman's positioni Ms. Marino said the by-laws could be changed so that the choosing of members for committees would be done on a more routine basis, taking the responsibility from the chairperson. Responding to questions by Commissioner Marino, Ms. Marino said an item could be continued to a date certain for committee but would still be considered a special meeting having special meeting requirements. Commissioner Powers felt a rotating list could be established for committees. Commissioner Hersh felt the Commission should give this item some thought and come back-at a future meeting with ideas. Mr. Hardisty said this would be placed on the agenda for the first meeting in March. Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 Page 11 11. WORKSHOP - MINIMUM LOT SIZE · Commissioner Marino submitted a handout to the entire commission which he stated he had given to the committee regarding increase of housing prices and marketability, with the idea being that small lots are more affordable. He felt the problem with small lots W~as not presented at the meeting, however pros and cons were discussed. Commissioner Rosenlieb felt concerns expressed by council members were covered in the handout submitted by staff. She felt only a small change is being made in the ordinance in iorder to stop a back door approach that developers have chosen. She felt it Was an oversight that the commission did not require amenities with R-2 zones. She stated her support for staff's recommendation. She said she did not feel/hat single family detached housing should be allowed in multi-family zones. Commissioner Marino gave background on amenities being levied on the R-1 zone. He said he did notlsupport the ordinance, however in speaking to councilmembers they asked that the commission come up with something that is fair and felt that an additional 20 percent parkland requirement was unfair. Regarding the affOrdability issue he felt it is cyclic and a change of demographics is taking place. Regarding the desirability issue he did not feel it is fair to hit those who choose this tyPe of home with a surCharge. Lower denSities accelerate urban sprawl, stretch out infrastructure and make driving trips longer. Commissioner Andrew agreed with Commissioner Marino on most of the issues. He said he did not feel thlat the Council was giving such a strong direction, stating he felt it was being directed more from Commissioners than from Council. He felt there are not a lOt of irequests for rezoning to R-2 for this purpose but land that is already zoned R-2 ~is being developed with single family dwellings because of the lack of need for apartments. He said he would be in favor of more larger parks rather than the small parks that consist of a picnic bench and little more. He was also concerned that because it is getting more difficult to develop these smaller ·lots in the city, developers are doing it in the county and then they are being annexed into the city. Commissioner Messner said he had a different impression from the meeting than Commissioner Andrew. He said he was not sure what was fair. He asked staff how park fees are paid. Mr. Hardisty responded they are paid based on the actual number of lots which are subdivided and number of homes built. Commissioner Messner felt the problem is that the ordinances are not consistent with one another and different types of projects are being approved. Clear guidelines need to be-set.' He felt this was not a response to market conditions but a response to a loop hole in the ordinance. He said he would be more in favor of requiring an amenity in the R-2 zone. Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 ~ Page 12 Chairman Powers said regarding this issue being market driven that data indicates the smaller lot single family development is where the housing market has shifted. He said he felt direction was clear from the Council that when substandard development occurs an amenity should be added Within the tract boundaries. Commissioner R0senlieb Stated she said she did not want to see the status quo continue. She asked that ~the commission take action to require some type of amenity in this situation. Chairman Powers said he felt there was some value with some of the projects developed in the R-2 z0n~, however felt the language completely eliminates the ability to develop these types of projects. Commissioner Sl°cumb :felt the proposal does not interfere with a person's right as to what size lot they Would like to live on. He felt the issue is when smaller lots are being looked at d6es a compensating amenity have to be included in the development. Chairman Powers felt whatever is done the commission should focus on an amenity being included within the tract boundary so that it will be accessible to homeowners within the lots. Commissioner Hersh said ~he felt "marketability" and "affordability" are not terms that should be part of planning a community. He said he felt there is a market for small lots, but this is 0nly a segment of the community. Regarding the idea of increasing the density forcing the use of rapid transit, he said that this goes in a reverse. Density is increaSed, people will struggle, then rapid transit is established. He said he would like to see some type of proportionality ordinance of structure to lot size. Commissioner Delgado said he had no problem with suggested language and agreed the ordinances needed to be brought into conformance. He felt affordability is an important issue, however this is one of the most affordable cities in which to live. He felt it was important to try to clear up this problem. He asked that the ordinance be drafted for appropriate hearing and cOnsideration. ~- Commissioner Andrew feli planning for rapid transit must begin now. He felt this was a marketability isSue since these homes are selling. He asked that any limitation be based on number of parcels. Mr. Hardisty said staff would bring the ordinance back to a fUture hearing. Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 Page 13 Commissioner Marino said he felt the original ordinance was not well written or well thought. Chairman Powers suggested two ordinances be written, one in which the open space amenity is eliminated from the R-1 zone and one in which it is added to the R-2 zone. He felt marketability should be considered because it reflects the needs and de~ires of the community. 12. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written Mr. Hardisty brought a distributed news release from the City Clerk's Office to the attention of the commission. He asked the commission to give consideration to attending the League of California Cities COnference. B) He mentioned a handout from the University of California, Davis regarding the role bf the Planning Commissioner. Verbal Mr. Hardisty brought to the attention of the Commission final committee approval of draft oi'dinances regarding downtown which he said would come to the Planning Commission for hearing within 2-1/2 months from approval. He cited draft of a hillside ordinance which he said would be coming to the commission shortly. He said the Building Director would be giving a workshop On the location of earthquake faults and how they affect building. 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Delgado asked that a sign committee be arranged in order to continue with discussion regarding the kiosk sign program. A. Committees i) 2) 3) 4) 6) 7) General Plan Zoning Ordinance Sign Ordinance Subdivision and Public Services Trail~ and Ways Parks and Environmental Quality ACt Joint !Council/Planning Commission Minutes, PC, 2/3/94 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further btisiness adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Page 14 to come before the Commission, meeting was Laurie Davis Recording Secretary