Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/95MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, September 7, 1995, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFF ANDREW, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY KENNETH HERSH ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN MICHAEL DHANENS Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 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 None Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 2 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to approve minutes of the regular meetings held July 6, July 20, and August 3, 1995. Commissioner Hersh made motion, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to hear agenda item #6.2 before agenda item #6.1. Motion carried. Commissioner~ Delgado stated that although he was absent at the previous Monday meeting he had listened to a copy of the tape and would be participating at this meeting. Commissioners Tavorn and Boyle stated the same applied to them. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10236 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. John Schuler, Ron Ruettgers Office represented the subdivider. He stated agreement with conditions of approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 10236 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A," and September 5, 1995 memo from Jack LaRochelle. Motion carried. 6.2 PUBLIC HEARING -- ZONE CHANGE #5653 Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the-hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Wayne Deifel represented the applicant stating concurrence with staff's recommendation. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 'Page 3 Motion was made Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report and approve the Negative Declaration, and approve Zone Change No. 5653 and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Ortiz, Tavorn, Andrew NOES: None 6.1 FILE 5646 -- APPLICATION BY SEQUOIA ENGINEERING TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A C-2 ZONE TO A PCD ZONE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FAMILY RECREATION/AQUATICS FACILITY AND A MINI-STORAGE FACILITY ON 25.4 +/- ACRES FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF BRIMHALL ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH COFFEE ROAD. Chairman Andrew abstained from participating on this item because he has received income from property owners within 500 feet of the property within the last year. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Charles Page, 8713 Willow Spring Court spoke in opposition. He said he was speaking on behalf of himself and other residents in the neighborhood. He stated their opposition to this rezoning, but stated they are not in opposition to a water park in the city. He stated their concerns with crime and noise. He did not feel a sound wall and trees as placed on this item would mitigate the noise issues. He was also concerned about positioning of lights and security from the storage area. He stated concern about the effects of this rezoning on traffic patterns on Coffee and Brimhall Roads. Under the previous light commercial designation they felt the traffic would be constant and manageable. He felt this use would cause "rush" type traffic patterns. He stated their concern of increased pedestrian traffic from unsupervised children. He cited the location of Camelot Park saying this facility has buffers between it and residential properties. He felt there was a need for this type of facility in the city, however was not sure of the economic viability. He was also concerned about the decrease in property values. Regarding the signatures submitted on this application, he said the 141 signatures they submitted were from people who would be directly affected by this water park. He stated their feeling that this proposal shows poor planning, poor community relations and total lack of consideration for the affected homeowners. Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 4 Jeff Caneta resident of North Creek Court, approximately 1 block from the proposal, spoke in opposition. He said 5 months ago he lived about 5 blocks from Camelot Park. He cited an increase in crime, traffic and noise from this use. He said when children are through using the park they begin to wander through adjacent neighborhoods getting into criminal behavior. He was concerned that these types of parks, do not belong in residential neighborhoods. He stated his agreement with the development of an amusement park in the city, however felt it should be in an isolated business district. He asked that the commission deny this request. Angela Henderson, homeowner in the area submitted photos. She stated her opposition to this project. She was concerned about trespassers using their park and wandering through their neighborhood. She said they were told this property would be used for low key medical office uses which they approved of. She was concerned this park would not be financially supported by the community. She was also concerned about this becoming a weed infested property if this venture is not successful. She suggested this project be built in the Hart Park area. Cindy Eggert, 1113 Sand Creek Drive, spoke in opposition. She showed a map which they were given before purchasing their property which depicted subject property as medical office use. She was concerned about the traffic situation and increase in noise. She was concerned about the possible decrease in property values. She stated her agreement with the need for this type of use in the city, however did not feel it belonged in this location, stating her feeling that more suitable locations exist. She was concerned about the applicant not following through on promises should this application be approved and asked if the permit could be revoked or conditions be added if problems arise. Janet Lutz, 1109 Sand Creek Drive, spoke. She said she and her husband chose Bakersfield for their home, saying they have been delighted in living in the city. She said they looked into the surrounding zoning when choosing their home and did not envision this type of use. She was concerned about resale and property values of their home and the quality of life being taken away. Helene Hill stated she could not see a necessity for mini-storage units because of those to the northeast of this proposal. She was concerned about this becoming an eyesore similar to one which previously existed on White Lane. Jerry Lutz, 1109 Sand Creek Drive, said he was not in opposition to a water park being constructed, however did not want it constructed 'in this neighborhood. He stated his concerns with increase to the existing traffic problem, security issues, ~decrease in property values. Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 5 Jim Eggert, 1113 Sand Creek Drive, stated his opposition and his agreement with previous comments. He submitted a chart comparing this proposal with the existing Camelot Park. Linda Powers, resident of North Creek stated her concern about possible decrease in property values and the aesthetics of the neighborhood if this proposal is constructed. Jim Meyers, 700 Harvest Creek, stated his opposition to this proposal because he felt it is not the best use for the property. Terry Caneta said he lives in close proximity to Camelot Park. He felt a water park is.a great idea, however cited problems with Camelot Park such as graffiti and increase in crime. Vernon Carr, 8601 White Rock Drive agreed with previously stated reasons for opposition. He said he is very close to subject property and is therefore opposed to construction of the waterpark. Joyce Prior, resident of Sand Creek said what they want is what they thought they bought into. She was concerned about this situation possibly being a "bait and switch" type situation. Ron Froehlich, proposed builder of the waterpark said he lives within 1-1/2 to 2 miles of the waterpark. He said it was their intention to develop this C-2 property with apartments and shopping uses. However after studying the market he found that a family recreation center would be better suited to the city because the city is seriously lacking in quality family recreation centers. He said they chose this site because of the growth in this area. He said they solicited and obtained feedback. This caused them to redesign this waterpark by redirecting the access to the furthest point toward Coffee Road, adding additional landscaping and creating a noise and light buffer to the west by planting larger and more trees. He said they had conducted two meetings with the neighborhood who expressed concerns regarding traffic. Their study has shown this proposal will create less trips to the site than a medical office, commercial development or multi-family housing. He felt this would be a much needed family facility containing a family fun center, restaurant, children's arcade, miniature golf course, go-cart track, in-line roller hockey arenas, aquatic recreation facility and mini-storage facility. It will be a park-like setting with beautiful landscaping and open spaces. He said two-thirds of this park will be closed 8 months of the year asking how the residents could have a better neighboring use than this. He stated their proposed hours of 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the week and 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends for the aquatics portion. He cited the employment opportunities for teenagers during summer months. He commented on the 3,200 letters they submitted in support of this facility. He said this project is in no way similar to Camelot Park. Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 6 Randy Mendioroz, Aquatics Design Group stated he is the planner of the Project. He gave background of the waterpark industry and the steps they have taken to be sensitive to the surrounding community. He gave slide projection presentation depicting other facilities they have developed, giving the commission an overview of what will be developed for subject facility. He stated he felt Mr. Froehlich had gone to great lengths to mitigate concerns of the residents and encouraged support of the project. Bob Smith, engineer for the project spoke in favor saying they had prepared a noise study of an existing water park comparable to the proposal which showed the decibel leVels to be' less than what is required by the city. Regarding traffic he said it would be less than the initially proposed medical office at peak hour. The peak hour for this proposal would be in the morning after rush hour and in the afternoon before rush hour. A turn lane has been incorporated so that traffic would not be slowed on Brimhall. Regarding the block wall he said they 'proposed to depress the picnic area rather than adding to the block wall. Charley Harwell was present stating he had been retained to design the landScaping. He gave information concerning the landscape concept, saying they intend to provide a very beautiful waterpark with their landscaping. Robert Barnett stated he was a real estate appraiser and wished to address concerns of the neighbors regarding values of their homes with relation to this water park. He stated he felt the proposed project may provide a very positive and aesthetic boost to the surrounding neighborhood. Rick Williams, CPA for the Froehlich Family gave a history of this type of use saying they are usually very financially sound ventures. He said-they have researched this type of use and have hired the best people in the industry to work on it. Jim Cashman stated he was a member of the Bakersfield Oilers hockey team stating his main interest would be with the roller hockey rink. He felt this use alone would bring economic and recreational benefits to the city. Jim Marino represented the property owner to the east, B & C Associates, stating their concurrence with the project. Regarding the access he said they have agreed to allow this project to have access across B & C's property to connect to Coffee Road which will act as a traffic release valve. Discussion continued regarding traffic. Mr. LaRochelle responded to a question by Mr. Marino saying a memo dated September 7, 1995 adding to Condition #12.b gives flexibility to the traffic situation. Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 7 Responding to questions by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Marino clarified his property is a commercially zoned parcel map. They are proposing to use the access proposed for subject request and the proposed use would use B & C's access to Coffee. Discussion continued regarding access and public streets. Mr. LaRochelle clarified a circulation plan must be developed and approved by the city engineer. Discussion continued regarding acceleration and deceleration lanes. Mr. LaRochelle clarified for the Coffee Road portion connecting for the east/west street there is a deceleration lane at this time. Brimhall Road does not have one because it was not required. By constructing streets as Mr. Marino suggested it would eliminate the potential conflict because the north/south street would no longer exist. Responding to question by Chairman Delgado, Mr. Froehlich stated he agrees with proposed conditions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. * 10-minute break was taken at this time. Responding to question by Chairman Delgado, Mr. LaRochelle said at least 4 major street projects are planned or under construction within the Coffee Road/Calloway Drive area of which he gave a summary. Commissioner Brady felt this is a great project, however wondered if the effects of it could be mitigated to an acceptable level. In evaluating the project he said he would do so against what could be developed on this property. He stated his inclination of accepting the traffic study indicating the traffic to the neighborhood from this proposal would be less than other proposed uses which could be developed for this property. Regarding the crime issue he felt it would increase regardless of what is developed on this property. He felt the one-price situation with this waterpark would eliminate the problem of children running out .of money and leaving the facility to wander into the neighborhood. He stated his concern about the noise issue, saying he questions if the noise generated would be an unacceptable level in light of the benefits derived. He felt the proposed mitigation would be helpful, however would not eliminate all noise. He wanted to ensure through appropriate condition that the residential street is not used as access for the commercial property immediately to the south, except for emergency access if required. Mr. Grady said this could be required as a condition of approval. He stated his agreement with eliminating one access point to Brimhall. Mr. Grady said this could be part of the final development plan process which would be brought back before the commission. Mr. LaRochelle said the condition is that a circulation plan be established to the satisfaction of the city engineer. He said it could be amended to be presented back to the commission for final approval. Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 8 Responding to concerns by Commissioner Brady, Bob Smith, Engineer for the project said they will have to prove that the circulation problems have been solved when this item is brought back for approval of final development plans. Responding to question by Commissioner Tavorn, Mr. Grady said apartments would only be allowed on subject property through granting of a conditional use permit. Mr. Grady gave a summary of uses allowed on the property. Discussion continued regarding the ingress/egress and traffic patterns for this project. Responding to a question by Commissioner Tavorn, Mr. Grady said the water situation was not evaluated as part of the planning process, however if a drought should exist this project would not escape the restriction placed on any other user. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Harwell, landscape engineer explained the time frame for growth of the trees. Mr. Mendioroz (water park planner) said the towers, speed slide and body flume have been designed to be as far away from the residences as possible. The intent on the slide towers was to screen in such a way that it is not possible for the patrons to view into the residential subdivision. Mr. Grady responded to questions indicating the towers can be screened so that those using it cannot look into adjacent back yards and that a condition could be added with the appropriate finding to be made that security must be provided. Mr. Boyle indicated his reservation about the signal at Brimhall being eliminated because of traffic safety. He asked if it could be conditioned that a traffic signal must be installed. Mr. LaRochelle said it could be, however explained the city does not wish to maintain an unnecessary signal. Mr. Grady responded to a question saying condition #10 requires the applicant to be responsible for all future costs associated with noise problems, and stated this could be conditioned so that no music could be played after sunset. Commissioner Boyle stated his feelings that he has seen no indication of a greater traffic and did not feel light is a major issue. Mr. Mendioroz responded to questions by Commissioner Dhanens saying the primary noise comes from at grade or in the pools. Their company has recommended several operational consultants to the applicant and is in the process of negotiating the operations consulting which consists of a security plan, lifeguard plan, operations and maintenance protocol for the park. He said it was his understanding that they would seek a professional manager from within the industry with experience in this area. The PA system would be directed downward with a low level of music. Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 9 Mr. LaRochelle responded to question by Commissioner Dhanens saying Brimhall is designated as a collector street ultimately having 4 lanes. Commissioner Dhanens agreed that Fox Run Drive should not be extended easterly to connect with the north/south project street. He agreed with the addition of a condition screening the towers. Mr. Froehlich responded to question by Commissioner Hersh saying they have no plans at this time for the property immediately to the south, however if this project is successful they would consider future expansion. Commissioner Hersh said he would be concerned about an expansion as previously stated by Mr. Froehlich. Mr. Marino said this would require additional public hearings. Commissioner Hersh said because the project abuts three residential lots he would be more in favor of a berming and raising of the wall and trees three feet with some .type of gradient. He cited another waterpark in which the landscaping was such that the facility was a good neighbor. He stated his concern about noise, access roads, landscape on the north side. He said he was concerned about security with respect to teenagers leaving the facility and wandering through the adjacent neighborhoods. He felt if done properly this facility would be an asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Ortiz was concerned about the success of this project, concerns of the neighborhood, longevity, quality of life for residents and the possibility of it becoming an eyesore. He felt this project is much needed in the city, would create jobs for youth and provide family recreation. The revenue generating aspect of this project is astronomical. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Grady said he had draft language to address the access, overlook, music and security questions. Mr. Froehlich said the access issue to the east is about 95 percent worked out and he is confident it will be worked out shortly. Regarding the water issue he .said the water is recycled and the only water lost is through evaporation. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Smith said the concept of raising the block wall would create an 8-9 foot wall in a person's back yard which is less desirable than taking care of the problem from the side of subject property and still creating the elevation difference. Commissioner Hersh said it was his intention that a berm be created that would elevate at a 4:1. ratio on the gradient with the trees planted along the gradient. The 6-foot wall would bring the height to 9 feet. Mr. Grady said to accomplish this the block wall would have to be taken out. What the applicant is proposing will not raise the elevation of the plant materials, however will cause those using the facility to be below the fence line. Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 10 Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Smith said the wall along River Ranch would be a six-foot wall which would tie into the existing wall. Commissioner Brady said he had visited the site twice and would be using information gained from this upon which to base his vote. If the conditions can be worked out he stated he would support the project. He felt some negative impacts would be created to the residents, however he did not feel they would be significant. Because the project will provide such an overwhelming benefit to the community he stated he would take this over the negative aspects to this specific community. Commissioner Dhanens said he is aware that there are much fewer calls received from Camelot Park from when it was opened. Regarding storage facilities he felt it would be well maintained and not much of a detriment to the community. With appropriate conditioning of the project he said he could support the project. He proposed an enhancement of the redwood trees along the west property line adjacent to the street by a groving effect to provide more depth. He proposed that the landscape median to the base of the electric towers be duplicated to break the parking areas into smaller sections. He asked that if light poles are proposed for the picnic area they not exceed 12-15 feet from grade. He stated his support for the applicant providing a security plan to ensure adequate security. Commissioner Boyle asked if the project could be conditioned upon having an indepth landscape plan brought back to the commission for review. Mr. Grady said it could, however he asked for more direction. Commissioner Boyle said he would like to see the groving, landscaping in the parking lot and types and size of plants along the front of the project. Mr. Grady said this would be submitted with the final development plan. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Froehlich said their plan at this time is that the aquatics facility would be closed for 8 months of the year. Mr. Grady read the additional conditions and changes proposed by staff into the record. Mr. Grady said these changes are with the understanding that the landscaping plan will be brought back to the commission at the final development plan stages for review. Mr. Froehlich stated his agreement with these changes to conditions. Discussion continued regarding review of the circulation plan. Mr. Grady said the Commission could place themselves as the approving body of the circulation plan and it could add additional conditions. Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 11 Mr. Hernandez, City Attorney, suggested this could be reviewed at the final development plan stage and that the city engineer could advise the commission regarding additions at that time. Commissioner Brady found this acceptable. Mr. LaRochelle said a lot of scenarios could happen this is why the circulation plan was left open. It could be conditioned such that the final circulation plan be established and reviewed by the Commission at the time of final development. Mr. Hernandez said the commission needs to rely on staff's recommendation that the circulation plan is consistent with the circulation element with respect to the proposal at hand. Commissioner Brady was concerned that if nothing is worked out with the property owner to the east it may affect his willingness to accept the project as it presently is proposed. Discussion continued regarding circulation. Commissioner Brady said he did not feel he knows exactly what he would be approving at this time, however he would be willing to accept this if he knew he would be able in the future to place additional conditions on the approval of the project. Mr. Froehlich stated his acceptance with replacing the city engineer with the commission as approving the circulation plan. Mr. LaRochelle said because this involves a traffic study, the commission would have to review it and check the adequacy of it. He suggested the circulation plan be approved by the city engineer and reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Tavorn suggested a continuance to work out the circulation issues. Mr. LaRochelle said the purpose of the circulation condition was to address access to the south. It does not address internal circulation. Mr. Dhanens said he Would be willing to accept the recommendation of the traffic engineer, however would encourage the applicant to work toward an agreement for access from Coffee, however he could continue to support the project if that did not happen. He pointed out on the map his desire for the groving of trees and his proposed change to the parking lot. Commissioner Boyle said he also would like to be certain how the circulation is going to be achieved. He stated his inclination for continuing this to the next meeting. Discussion continued regarding possible continuance on this item. Commissioner Hersh said he would be willing to allow staff to make a recommendation regarding the circulation plan. Commissioner Brady was agreeable to Mr. LaRochelle making a circulation presentation to the Commission at the final development plan stage. Mr. Grady read the proposed changes and additional conditions for the Commission as follows: Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 12 6.1 Fox Run Drive should not be extended to :serve uses developed on the C-2-PCD zoning east of the residential subdivision other than for emergency services as required by City Fire or Police Departments. 6.2 The applicant shall provide screening so as to prevent overlook into the rear yards of the residential neighborhoods from the project including but not limited to all slide towers. Proposed screening shall be submitted for review and approval with the final development plans. 6.3 There shall be no amplified music in outdoor areas after sunset. 6.4 Prior to submittal of a final development plan, applicant shall provide a public safety/security plan including but not limited to providing of a private security force which shall be maintained for the duration of the project. The plan shall be submitted to the city police department for review and approval. 6.5 Hours of operation shall be from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday through Saturday. Hours of operation for the storage facility shall be Sunday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The following additional finding should be made: 10. The proposed use provides commercial and recreational services to large groups of persons in an open environment where security is needed in and around the facility. Mr. Froehlich statedhis agreement with these conditions. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. LaRochelle said the last sentence of Condition #16c. should be deleted. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to adopt resolution making findings as set forth in staff report and approve the Negative Declaration, and approve Zone Change No. 5646, subject to conditions of approval on Exhibit "A," and recommend same to City Council, with the following additions and changes to conditions: 6.1 Fox Run Drive shall not be extended to serve uses developed on the C-2- PCD zoning east of the residential subdivision other than for emergency services as required by City Fire or Police Departments. Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 13 6.2 The applicant shall provide screening so as to prevent overlook into the rear yards of the residential neighborhood from the project including but not limited to all slide towers. Proposed screening shall be submitted for review and approval with the final development plan. 6.3 6.4 There shall be no amplified music in outdoor areas after sunset. Prior to submittal of a final development plan the applicant Shall provide a public safety security plan including but not limited to providing of a private security force that shall be maintained for the duration of the project. 'The plan shall be submitted to the city police department for review and approval. 6.5 Hours of operation shall be 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday through Saturday for the family recreation/aquatics areas and 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for the mini- storage facility. Deletion of second sentence of Condition # 16.c) of Public Works conditions. Inclusion of memorandum of september 7, 1995 from Mr. LaRochelle regarding Public Works Condition No. 12 (access). Finding #10 shall read as follows: The proposed use provides commercial recreational services to large groups of persons in an open environment where security is needed in and around the facility. Responding to a question by Commissioner Brady, Commissioner Boyle amended his motion, to add the following condition: 6.6 A landscape plan shall be brought back before the Commission with a final development plan including the grove concept and parking lot median concept as articulated by Commissioner Dhanens. Amendment was seconded by Commissioner Hersh. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Hersh, Ortiz NOES: Commissioners Tavorn, Delgado ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 14 7. PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS CONCERNING SUBDIVISION DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. Staff report was given. Barbara Don Carlos represented the Building Industry Association. She felt the committee has come up with something that is the consensus among the group. She said the BIA is capable and willing to take on and administer the program. She said the loss of individual off-site signage is a concern of some of the builders. She felt the proposal is something that could work for this community. They would like the flexibility of allowing the builder name as well as the subdivision or project name to the panels. She asked for support so that this issue could go forward. Marian Keesling represented Castle and Cooke Development Corporation, she said they support this type of kiosk sign. However felt it would be difficult on developers not to have any other type of signage other than these kiosk signs. She was concerned about the cost. David Gay said he sat on the committee. He felt the goal of consolidation of signs has been reached with the proposed ordinance and with the Commission's support they will be able to move forward with this issue. Keith Pfeffer, Vital Signs of Bakersfield stated he rePresented other sign makers in the community. He felt business would be restricted for those in the sign industry with this ordinance. He felt the city had done a great job at administering the signage program and was concerned about the BIA taking over this with respect to impartiality. Commissioner Hersh stated his agreement with this proposal. He said everyone has had ample time to voice their opposition to this. He felt this was a step forward. Responding to question by Commissioner Delgado, Ms. Don Carlos said she felt if panels are available there should be an option to allow buildings to put their names on the kiosk. He questioned whether there would be motivation for developers to contribute to signage in which they do not get advertisement on until the premises is reached. Commissioner Boyle felt there should be some way to write the ordinance to avoid the problem of a group of builders from one development taking over the entire kiosk. Regarding the length of existing signs being able to stay he felt they should have at least through the end of 1996. Commissioner Brady asked if billboard signage is addressed in the proposal. Chairman Andrew said he did not recall this issue being brought up before the committee, however his personal opinion is that they would not be precluded. Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 Page 15 Commissioner Brady asked if there had been any coordination with the county on this proposal. Ms. Don Carlos said she had spoken to several department heads at the county expressing her desire that this be a metro kiosk sign program. They were not anxious to issue encroachment permits allowing signage in the public right-of-way. She said she continues to work with the County for uniform adoption. Commissioner Brady said he liked the kiosk signs erected by Castle and Cooke. He felt this proposal was a step in the right direction. Commissioner Dhanens felt this was a good program which would go a long way in cleaning up some of the intersections. Responding to question by him, Mr. Eggert said a suggestion was that 3 or 4 different designs would be brought back to ultimately be approved by the City Council. This design would be used city- wide. Responding to. questions Mr. Fidler explained the process of the Building Board of Appeals. He felt the allowance of 2 kiosk sign panels per residential project needed to be clarified because there could potentially be quite a number of developers per tract. Commissioner Hersh felt a purpose of this proposal was to eliminate large signs. Mr. Eggert responded to questions saying the existing signs would have to be removed 6 months from the date of approval of the proposed ordinance. Keith Pfeffer responded to comments by Chairman Andrew saying most of the bandit signs are done out of the Los Angeles area. Mr. Fidler said there are methods of penalizing those erecting bandit signs, however they are not effective. This ordinance would allow the city to directly penalize by removing developers from kiosk signs if they violate the rules. Responding to question by Mr. Pfeffer, Chairman Andrew said the issue of funding of the erection of kiosks needs to be addressed. Discussion continued regarding the location and number of kiosks allowed. o Responding to questions by Chairman Andrew, Mr. Eggert said the placement of signs is on a first come, first serve bais of approved applications. The ordinance is written such that two years from date of recordation signs must be removed. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Verbal None Minutes, PC, 9/7/95 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS 10. A. Committees Page 16 DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF 11. THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Mr. Grady said the next meeting would cover general plan amendments. Chairman Andrew said the pre-meeting would not be cancelled for that meeting. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Hernandez said the city is involved in pending litigation regarding the Marketplace, therefore he could not comment on letters which the commission received concerning this. He reminded the commission that they represent the city in an official capacity and should not discuss this issue with the public. Commissioner Brady cautioned commissioners about making public statements because they may have to potentially review the project in the future. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 11:29 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Secretary