Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/94MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held ThurSday, January 6, 1994,15:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: DARREN POWERS, Chairperson STEVE MESSNER, Vice Chairperson JEFF ANDREW DOUG DELGADO KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO KATE ROSENLIEB ADVISORY MEMBERSi Present: BILL SLOCUMB, Alternate LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: PUBLIC STATEMENTS Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary No one made any public Statements at this time. Chairman read the notice!of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 1. Agenda Item #5.1- Tentative Tract 5226 (Change of Conditions) *Agenda Item #6.' Tentative Parcel Map 9758 (Revised) Agenda Item #7.1 - Tentative Tract 5597 Minutes, PC, 1/6/94 ' Page 2 Responding to a question iby Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty felt it would be appropriate to remove ~ agenda item #6 so that the motion could reflect change to Finding #16 as proposed at the pre-meeting. *Agenda Item #6 - Tentative Parcel Map 9758 (Revised) was removed from the consent agenda. o Public portions of the hearings was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Public portions of the hearings was closed. MotiOn was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to approve consent agenda. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINuTEs 5.1 Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to approve minutes of the regular meetings held October 4, October 18 and October 21, 1993. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - CHANGE OF CONDITIONS TENTATIVE TRACT 5.2 5226 Approved as consent agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING - CHANGE OF CONDITIONS TENTATIVE TRACT 5688 Commissioner Andrew abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he was involved in the property sale on this project. Chairman Powers stated a request for continuance had been received. Staff report was given. MX. Lee said the.request was for continuance for a period of two weeks, however he! suggested this item be continued for a period of one month in order to give staff time to process the required information. Public portion of the he~aring was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson represented the applicant. He stated continuance to the February 3, 1994 meeting was acceptable. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by CommissiOner Hersh to continue this item to the pre-meeting of January 31, and regular meeting of February 3, 1994. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 1/6/94 Page 3 6. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 9758 Staff report was given, Mr. Lee cited a correction to Finding #16 to reference lot width rather than lot area. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. George Dickey _represented the applicant, stating their concurrence with conditions, Public portion of the.hea~ing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to approve and adopt the ~Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, with the modification to finding # 16 as follows: 16. The reduction of the minimum lot width ... (the balance of the finding to remain as written). and to approve. Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 9758 (Revised) subject to the conditions outlined in the:~Exhibit "A". Motion carried. 7.1 PUBLIC 'HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5597 Approved as consent agenda item. 7.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5702 Commissioner AndreTM abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he was involved in the sale of the property. Staff report was given. M~r. Lee cited a letter had been received from the applicant requesting changes to some conditions. Responding to qUestion bY Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Kloepper was in agreement with condition changes proposed by the applicant saying the applicant's letter could be included in the approval. He asked that the word "temporary" be placed in front of the word "paving" in condition #26. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Harold Robertson represented the applicant. He stated their agreement with the staff report with the excePtion of conditions as noted in their letter. Minutes, PC, 1/6/94 Public portiOn of the hearing was closedl Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Marino to make all findin'gs set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5702 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A", with the inclusion of the letter ~dated January 4, 1994 from Porter-Robertson Engineering, with the addition to Condition #26 of this letter as follows: Page 4 Last sentence to read as follows: The secondary access shall consist of 32 feet of temporary paving (2" asphalt concrete oVer native soil) with graded shoulders. Deletion of Building Department Condition #4. Motion carried. 7.3 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5716 Commissioner Marino abstained on this item due to the fact he is employed by the applicant. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or favor. Steve DeBranch represented the applicant. He asked if the staff report included the Public Works Department memo dated January 3, 1994. Staff indicated it did. He stated concurrence with these conditions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Rosenlieb ~aid she was on the committee that discussed the issues surrounding this tract, saying they heard discussion from the applicant as to why they did not feel there should be any recreational facilities in this tract. She said they had not heard any new evidence from what was heard at the previous public hearing. Regarding the maintenance issue she said a representative from North of the River Recreation and Park District was available at the meeting in which they indicated they did not wish to maintain the facilities, however said they could easily be maintained by a ~homeowner's association. It was the committee's feeling that a recreation facility should be part of the development plan. She said the committee made it clear to the applicant their wish to see something internal to the project, centrally located. She said this is a very undefined neighborhood recreational facility. She asked Mr. DeBranch if he would be willing to meet Minutes, PC, 1/6/94 Page 5 again with the committee in order to discuss why a proposal for a centrally located facility cannot be 'agreed upon. Mr. DeBranch said he would not be willing to do this. He said they have made the proposal of Alternate 2 which staff has reviewed and they have in turn presented Alternates 3 and 4. Responding to previous question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, he stated they are not willing to go back to committee with this~ project. She said the committee is in agreement with staff that the alternatives are not acceptable. Mr. DeBranch said they Would prefer Alternate 3 being imposed on their site. Responding to question bY Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. DeBranch said in the event of approval of Alternate 4 he would question whether staff had strong arguments supporting this! site. He said they feel that Alternate 3 is better suited to their development. ~ Responding to question by Commissioner Slocumb, Ms. Marino agreed the Council's intent when adopting the specific plan was that the plan be used as a basis for requiring recreational amenities. Mr. Movius responded to a question by him saying staff's prefe~rence for Alternate 3 was their feeling that a designation of a recreational facility at the end of a cul-de-sac was not as conducive to use by the entire subdivision as was a recreational facility on the cul- de-sac. There were also concerns about police protection with alternate 4. He said staff felt site 4 was clOser to responding to the committee's concerns than site 3. He said staff did not r~commend approval of site 4. Responding to questions by Commissioner Slocumb, Chairman Powers said the Council's feeling at the Joint Council/Planning Commission meeting was that the Council wanted to see in areas of less than 6,000 square foot lot size some type of community amenity in exchange. Chairman Powers said he is having a problem with this issue because of the approved specific plan, saying he was not sure the commission was within their rights to require this. Responding to questions by Commissioner Slocumb, Mr. Hardisty said the same amount of amenity acreag~ would be recommended whether all lots were 6,000 square feet or higher. Commissioner Slocumb stated his concern being two requirements for amenity; ithe specific plan and the amenity to be provided for deviating from the 6,000 square foot lot size. Chairman Powers said no direction was given from the Council regarding the percentage of acreage for amenities but that whatever is approved ishould be within the tract boundaries. Commissioner Messner was concerned that the laws and ordinances be followed with regard to these amenities. He felt the developer should be allowed the flexibility for location of optional features as long as the location is a safe place. He said he Would be cOmfortable with either Alternate 3 or 4. Minutes, PC, 1/6/94 Page 6 Commissioner Andrew felt some extraordinary amenities are planned for this project, saying he questioned whether the commission can implement anything additional. He felt the location within the cul-de-sac would be the safest area for the amenities and did noti feel it was much harder to access than the other proposed area. ~ Commissioner Hersh did not feel the Commission is asking a great deal, stating the Commission did not request the change in lot size. He said he would support staffs position. Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to make findings set forth~ in the staff report, and to deny Proposed Tentative Tract 5716 and deny the ~equest for modification of lot area, width, frontage and depth. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Delgado, Hersh, Rosenlieb, Slocumb NOES: Commissioners Andrew, Messner, Powers ABSENT: commissioner Marino 8. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written Mr. Hardisty said Communication was received from the Bakersfield Californian inviting Commissioners to proceedings that they are co- sponsoring to disculss Brown Act changes. B) Verbal None COMMISSION COMMENTS A. Committees 1) General Plan Commissioner Messner said he would like to convene the General Plan Committee at the earliest convenience in order to dis?uss the appropriate acreage amount for commercial sites. He also said he wanted to discuss the need for market studies. He asked that BIA and other interested parties be invited. Minutes, PC, 1/6/94 3) 4) 6) 7) Page 7 Zoning Ordinance No new information. Sign Ordinance No n~w information. Subdivision and Public Services No new information. Trail~ and Ways Chair~nan Powers said he had a notice of meeting for Park Stockdale residents Monday, January 17, 1994 to explore the issue of providing an access from Park Stockdale to Quailwood for bicycle access. He said he hoped the trails committee members would attend. Mr. Kloepper said a meet~g would be held on January 11, 1994 for Quailwood residents. Parksi and Environmental Quality Act Commissioner Rosenlieb said several meetings have been held iegarding the Kern River access situation with relation to M~. Nickel's property which is scheduled to be heard at the n~xt hearing. She said another meeting would be held the following week. Joint ~Council/Planning Commission Commissioner Rosenlieb cited the minutes from the previous meeting asking Chairman Powers about whether the issue of small !lot size has been assigned to a committee. If not she asked! if the zoning ordinance committee would like to meet on this issue. Chairman Powers said he would like to see the subdivision and public services committee handle this issue. Commissioner Rosenlieb suggested the possibility of a W°rkshop of the entire commission. Chairman Powers said he would like to have a committee meeting, then a workshop and then discussion among the commission. Commissioner Delgado felt as a new commissioner it would be helpful for him to approach this in a workshop environment. Minutes, PC, 1/6/94 Page 8 Commissioner Hersh suggested a workshop then a committee meeting for refinement. Commissioner Marino felt it would be better to send the issue to committee first so that when it goes to a workshop there is something for discussion. Chairman Powers asked that a meeting of the subdivision committee be set prior to the next regular meeting and a workshop to be scheduled between the next meeting and first meeting in February. He asked that representatives of the industry be included in the committee meeting for input. Commissioner Rosenlieb asked that copies of the current ordinance be provided to the committee for the meeting. The Committee meeting was tentatively scheduled for January 12, 1993 at noon. 10. Commissioner Powers said he would not be at the meetings of January 20, and February 17, 1994. WORKSHOP ON COMMITTEES AND BROWN ACT Ms. Marino, City AttOrney stated she had submitted a memo in the past concerning amendments to the Brown Act stating the change most likely to have an impact on the Planning Commission would be that the standing committees are subject to the Brown· Act just as the regular meetings are. She Stated there were also changes t° closed session items. Responding to questions by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Hardisty said there is cost involved in noticing the committee meetings· much in the time it takes for staff to process the additional paperwork. He said the workload is having to be reallocated at this time. Responding to question bY Commissioner Delgado, Ms. Marino said the noticing of these meetings d°es not change the fact that only 3 commissioners can be present at.them. DisCussi°n continued regarding this topic. Chairman Powers felt it would be bad policy for this practice to take place. Ms. Marino responded to'questions by Commissioner Marino saying the definition regarding individual contact with the public is a due process issue. She said this was taking evidence outside the public hearing and stated her caution remains the same that this activity is inappropriate. Minutes, PC, 1/6/94 Page 9 Ms. Marino said although~ the Brown Act changes do not go into effect until April, the City Manager asked that they be implemented at the beginning of this year. Chairman Powers recommended the committees be abolished and ad hoc committees be formed each time an issue needs to be discussed. Ms. Marino said this has been a recommendation to various bodies with standing committees. She said where there are on-gOing issues a standing committee would have to be formed and would be subject to the Brown Act, however the majority of committees could be handled through ad hoc committees. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary ' K~~~' ~ Secretary ~ lanni~