HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/94MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Held Thursday, July 7, 1994, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamberl City Hall, 1501 Truxtun
Avenue, Bakersfield, California.
1. ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
Present:
Absent:
STEVE MESSNER, Chairperson
JEFF ANDREW, Vice Chair. person
MATHEW BRADY
STEPHEN BOYLE
DOUG DELGADO
KENNETH HERSH
JIM MARINO
DARREN POWERS, Alternate
ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present:
LAURA MARINO, Assistant City
Attorney
JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV
DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director
STAFF: Present:
STANLEY GRADY, Assistant Planning
Director
MIKE LEE, Associate Planner
LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary
2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
After filling out a speaker's card Mr. Art Powell spoke stating his opposition to
GPA 2-94 Segment V, Casa Loma Specific Plan Amendment and the zone
change. He was opposed to the construction of apartments on this site due to
safety reasons, the crime associated with apartments for this area, and the
detrimental effects it would have on his business.
Commissioner Brady said he was of the understanding the public portion would
be reopened on this item in order to discuss the conditions. Ms. Marino said this
could not be done, however could be renoticed if the commission wishes to take
additional input. Commissioner Marino said he was under this impression also.
*Commissioner Boyle was seated at this time.
Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda.
Minutes, PC, 7/7/94
Page 2
3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
1. Agenda Item #4.1 - Change of Conditions - Tentative Tract 5666
2. Agenda Item #4.2 - Change of Conditions - Tentative Tract 5688
Commissioner Andrew said he would abstain from voting on the consent agenda
because he was involved in the sale of property for Agenda Item #4.2.
Commissioner Delgado stated a conflict of interest on Agenda Item #4.2 because
he represents clients involved in the purchase of a portion of subject property, he
therefore abstained from voting on the consent agenda.
Ms. Marino stated someone was present to speak in Agenda Item #4.2 and asked
that it be taken offthe consent agenda. Chairman Messner removed this item.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to
approve consent agenda consisting of Agenda Item #4.1. Motion carried.
Commissioners Andrew and Delgado abstained because of conflicts of interest.
4.1 PUBLIC HEARING - CHANGE OF CONDITIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT
4.2
5666
Approved as consent agenda item.
PUBLIC HEARING - CHANGE OF CONDITIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT
5688
In response to a question by someone in the audience, Mr. Lee, staff planner
stated it was requested that the reservation of a drill island be eliminated.
Public portion of the' hearing was closed.
Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Grady gave information
concerning mineral rights owners.
Commissioner Marino said he had missed the staff reports on the first 2 items
and therefore listened to the tapes.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to
make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to eliminate the requirement
for a two acre drill site reservation as a condition of approval on tentative tract
5688. Motion carried.
Minutes, PC, 7/7/94 Page 3
4.3 PUBLIC HEARING - CHANGE OF CONDITIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT
5762
o
Commissioner Andrew abstained because of a conflict of interest in that he was
involved in the sale of subject property.
Staff report was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor.
Donna Thompson stated she is a registered Geologist and had performed a
geological evaluation of Tentative Tract 5768 which is located about 300 feet to
the east of this tract. Because of the proximity they felt the same conclusion that
there is no likelihood of commercial oil production for this parcel either.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Thompson said there has
been no activity in the area since 1988.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Marino to
make findings 1 and 2 as recommended by the staff report and approve the
request for 'waiver of signatures. Motion carried. Commissioner Andrew was
absent because of an abstention.
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE 5569/TENTATIVE TRACT 5673
Staff report recommending denial was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened.
Jill Kleiss represented the Southwest Community Action Committee stating their
concerns that the applicant wishes again to avoid abiding by the change in the
amenity ordinance. She said a PUD allows for a certain density and should not
allow for further revisions. The applicant agreed to the parks and off-street
parking in order to obtain approval of the PUD in the first place. She felt they
should honor their original agreement. Approval of this would set a precedent of
not recommending an amenity and allowing tracts with no open spaces.
Regarding Silver Creek Park she said this was the applicant's decision to construct
and should not be used in place of the parks which were required for this
subdivision. She felt it would be used as a bargaining chip for all future
developments in this area. Regarding Mr. McIntosh's comment that narrow
streets would make for more cautious driving, she was concerned about the need
for wide streets for fire department access. Regarding shorter setbacks she said
Minutes, PC, 7/7/94
Page 4
this would cause shorter driveways. She submitted photos of a development in
the vicinity depicting the need for off-street parking. She felt this development
offers the bare minimum with respect to landscaping. She urged the Commission
to require the off-street parking and the park.
Roger McIntosh represented the property owner. Regarding Public Works
Condition # 1 he said some of the lots have slightly less than 35 feet of frontage.
It was approved in the previous tract. The current map contains basically the
same layout without the recreational facilities and parking locations. Mr.
LaRochelle said they would be amenable to some slight modifications. Mr.
McIntosh asked if it could be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Regarding Building Department Condition #5, he said it is contrary to a
condition by the Planning Department which requires a 6-foot high block wall.
He gave history of the fence saying they have had problems with those
responsible for the canal saying they would like to maintain the chainlink fence
and they would like to erect a wood fence for aesthetic purposes. Regarding
staff's concern about noise, noise studies have been conducted and it was found
that a block wall would not mitigate noise coming from an elevated position.
Discussion continued between Mr. McIntosh and Commissioner Marino regarding
amendment of Public Works Condition # 1.
Regarding Mr. McIntosh's request about the fencing, Mr. Grady Said the block
wall was required to be continued through this project from the adjoining project
for aesthetics and noise attenuation. He said he was not aware of a noise study
which Mr. McIntosh referenced and would continue to recommend the
continuation of the block wall.
Mr. McIntosh asked for revision of Condition #3 of Exhibit "C" to read as
follows: "A minimum 13-foot rear yard setback shall be observed except adjacent
to Spring Creek Loop and Harris Road, except on those lots required to have 23-
foot front yard setback." Regarding Condition #4 of Exhibit "C" regarding 45
degree airspace diagonal he said the developer has established 15-foot wide
landscape easements in addition to 6 feet of landscaping behind the sidewalk
along the collector. They are already proposing to go beyond the minimum
requirement and to place this requirement on the project would preclude them
from placing some of the units along Harris Road and Spring Creek Loop. He
asked for deletion of this condition and that the proposed setbacks as shown on
the plan be approved. Mr. Grady said staff is referencing a setback that identifies
usable rear yard space, the applicant is referencing 31 feet which is the distance
between the structure and street the majority of which is not usable space to the
property owner. Staff's concern with the 45 degree diagonal cutoff is to provide
usable rear yard space. If the front yard setback is to be shortened with sizeable
structures being placed on smaller lots, this will result in substantially Smaller rear
yards especially along the collector.
Minutes, pC, 7/7/94
Page 5
Mr. McIntosh said with a 10-foot rear yard minimum required on all lots he did
not feel there would be a difference between homes on the interior or those
backing up to Spring Creek Loop.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Chairman Messner said due to the Commission by-laws even though he listened
to the tape he would not vote on this item because it is not legally required.
Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Grady said the 45 degree
airspace diagonal would serve both purposes of eliminating the tunnel effect and
increasing the size of the back yards. He also stated if Mr. McIntosh is prepared
to agree to a minimum 10-foot rear yard setback it would give a greater distance
than the 45 degree diagonal cut-off, and the condition requiring this cut-off could
be deleted.
Mr. McIntosh said the ordinance requires 25-foot rear yard setbacks in the R-1 or
20 percent of the depth of the lot whichever is less. In cases where not more
than 45 percent of the lot area is b4ing covered it can be reduced to 5 feet. A 45
degree diagonal would not affect any of the single story units; there is enough
room for a 10-foot setback.
Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. McIntosh said the amenities
being proposed for elimination would be approximately 65 percent of the
association fees. Regarding alternate locations for parking lots, Mr. McIntosh
said they had a problem with only one location as recommended by staff that
being Lot 91, asking that it be placed on Lot 90 which is immediately north.
Commissioner Brady said he is in support of the revision as long as the parking
spaces are left in. He felt the streets were wide enough and along with the
setbacks did not feel there would be a tunnel effect problem, therefore he would
not be in favor of the 45 degree diagonal. He did not feel it made sense for
those living in this subdivision to live across the street from a park such as Silver
Creek and pay extra to have their own smaller parks.
Commissioner Marino stated agreement with proposed change to Public Works
Condition #1. Regarding the chainlink fence he felt it would be consistent with
what has been required in the past, stating his agreement with deleting Planning
Condition #11 Building Condition #5 to remain. Regarding Condition #3 of
Exhibit "C", he asked if it were changed to require a minimum 10-foot Setback
would it be acceptable. Mr. Grady indicated it would.
Commissioner Marino said he would like to see a block wall adjacent to parking
areas. He' said with the proposed changes he would support the project.
Minutes, PC, 7/7/94
Page 6
Commissioner Delgado said he would not support th'e project because he did not
see any innovation in this design other than the utilization of small lots in a "Z"
lot configuration. He felt because these are starter homes it is important to
provide for the needs of these families.
Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Lee explained the safety
issue as it relates to angled driveways and approaches. Commissioner Hersh felt
because of the size of Silver Creek Park it would service this subdivision. He did
not feel requirement of the masonry wall was too much to ask. He said the PUD
and optional design allows the developer to go below the minimum standards and
certain amenities and design features should be given in exchange. He did not
feel this project was innovative. He stated he would not support this request.
Commissioner Boyle felt this type of development is a logical successor to
condominiums. He said in driving through a similar type development all parking
lots were used and the swimming pool and tot lot were utilized. There is no
room in subject development for children because of the size of the back yards
and the narrowness of the streets.- He felt a majority of these homes are a great
distance from the Silver Creek Park. He felt the project is not consistent with the
municipal code, insufficient open space exists, public safety concerns exist and
that some open space is necessary for this project. He said he would support this
in its original condition, however would not support this modification.
Responding to question by Commissioner Andrew, Commissioner Delgado said
he was told the association fee for the amenities Was about $65. 'Commissioner
Andrew .said he is in favor of more larger parks. He felt the amenity of providing
"Z" lots justifies this project. He said he has supported projects in which
amenities were much further away than in this case. He said he would be willing
to support a motion in favor of this project.
COmmissioner Brady felt those who would be purchasing in this subdivision 'would
be young families or Older couples; those that could least afford to pay extra for
parks. : ~ .
Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew
to make all findings set forth in the Exhibit "B" and to approve Proposed Revised
Tentative Tract 5673 (Optional Design) subject to the conditions outlined in the
Exhibit "A" with the following changes:
Public Works Condition #1 to read as follows:
Lots fronting on cul-de-sacs or knuckles shall be subject to approval
by the Public Works Director with no lot having less than 33 feet of
frontage.
Minutes, PC, 7/7/94 '- Page 7
Addition of the following Planning Department conditions 8. and 9. from
the July 6, 1994:
o
Prior to approval of final development plans, the parking area plans
shall demonstrate compliance with minimum City requirements
including Sections 17.34, 17.53.061 and 17.58 of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code and the requirements of the Subdivision Design
Manual.
o
Motion failed
The developer shall provide a minimum of 40 off-street parking
spaces on a minimum of 5 lots per staff recommendation as shown
on the Exhibit "D" or alternative locations as approved by the
Planning Director. The parking lots shall be designed to City
standards and submitted for review and approval with the final
development plans.
to carry by the follOwing roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Andrew, Brady, Marino
NOES:
Commissioners Boyle, Delgad0, Hersh
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Messner
Motion was. made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew
to make all findings set forth in Exhibit "B" of the staff report and adopt a
resolution to approve Zone Change #5569, and recommend same to the City
Council, with the following changes:
Addition of conditions of approval of Exhibit "C" of the staff report, with
the following changes to those condition:
Deletion of Condition #4.
Condition #3 to read as follows:
A minimum 10-foot rear yard setback shall be observed.
Motion failed to carry by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Brady, Marino
NOES:
ABSTAINED:.
Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh
Commissioner Messner
*5-minute break was taken at this time.
Minutes, PC, 7/7/94
Page 8
6.1 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE 5558
Chairman Messner stated a written request had been received frOm the applicant
for a 30-day continuance on this item.
Staff report was waived.
Public portion of the hearing was opened.
Duane Hilton wished to speak, stating his residence is on the southeast corner of
Real Road and Elcia Drive. He was concerned about the current traffic situation
and the possibility of it worsening. He asked if an additional stoplight was
proposed to the south of the existing one. Mr. LaRochelle said it was his
understanding that there was a proposed traffic signal just south of the Freeway
58 and Real Road intersection. This is a concern of CalTrans and the reason for.
'the request for continuance.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to
continue this item to the regular meetings of August 1, and August 4, 1994.
Motion carried.
6.2a. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE 5559
6.2b FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS - ZONE CHANGE #5559
Staff report recommending approval was given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition.
Mr. Wilson stated some of the conditions make reference to their property being
adjacent to State Route 178 and this is not the case. He asked that those
conditions (Public Works Condition #'s 5, 9, 11, 12, 15) be deleted. Mr.
LaRochelle did not know of any other vehicle in which to ensure these
improvements would be accomplished. He said it was brought to their attention
that this is adjacent to a 178 right-of-way that needed widening which staff has
not had sufficient time to review.
Ms. Marino said this is information the applicant has had for quite some time and
has not brought to staff's attention until recently. This item should be continued
so that staff can evaluate this information.
Mr. Wilson said the property was Clearly delineated on the tentative tract map
which was submitted. He stated he has not had sufficient time to review
conditions and work with staff.
MinUtes, PC, 7/7/94
Page 9
Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Ms. Marino said since the
property within 300 feet of subject property is owned by a client of his law firm he
should declare a conflict of interest. For this reason both Commissioners Boyle
and Brady abstained because of a pOtential conflict of interest.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Delgado
to continue these items to the regular meetings of July 18, and July 21, 1994.
Jim Childress, developer of subject property said regardless of what is done with
the 40-foot strip, a strip which cannot be improved exists.
Motion for continuance carried.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2-94 AND
ASSOCIATED REZONING
Staff report. was updated.
Commissioner Brady asked about the applicability of the California Public
Utilities Code to this project. He asked who were the operators of the airpark.
Ms. Marino said it was the City. She responded to questions by him, saying at
the present time an airport land use commission does not exist. He quoted the
finding regarding minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
standards. He asked if a comprehensive land use plan had been provided. Ms.
Marino said a comprehensive land use plan exists which may have been
formulated by the. land use commission in place at the time. The law allows for a
land use commission or that the City Council may take over those duties.
Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. GradY said reference to
Section 21675 could be taken out of findings without changing the substance. Mr.
Brady said a reason given under this code section for revoking a permit is that the
site may no longer be safely used by the general public because of a change in
physical or legal conditions either on or off the airport site. Therefore, he asked
if this airport is subject to the Public Utility Commission's permit process is the
Commission potentially creating a change in physical or legal conditions which
could result in the pulling of the permit to operate. Mr. Grady responded that he
did not have an answer to this question and that it should be kept in mind that
staff did not recommend approval of this project.
Responding to question by Commissioner Brady regarding the adoption of airport
noise standards by the State, Mr. Grady said he did not feel these standards were
reviewed in preparing conditions of approval for this project.
Minutes, PC, 7/7/94
Page 10
Mr. LaRochelle responded to question by Commissioner Brady regarding
avigation easement, saying the intent of the condition is to ensure the vehicle is in
place to require the easement which would be a height limitation in the project
area and an overflight easement. Discussion continued regarding noise levels, Mr.
LaRochelle said no noise limits have been spelled out.
Ms. Marino stated her concerns that this item was not brought back as a public
hearing, but was brought back so that findings could be made to support a
decision which was previously made. She was concerned information was being
elicited that should be done in a public hearing.
Commissioner Brady felt this issue is very complex and the Commission does not
have all of the information necessary.
Commissioner Hersh felt if a safe zone is necessary around the airpark it should
have been accomplished at this time. He agreed a lot of questions exist, however
did not feel there was any initiative taken on the part of the airpark.
Mr. Fidler reiterated comments previously made by Larry Jamison, saying he was
not in favor of this project.
· Commissioner Andrew felt this is not the time to worry about a safe zone since a
school and park already exist. Regarding the noise issue those moving next to the
airport should already be aware of it.
Motion was made by Commissioner Andrew, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to
adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the memo dated June 27, 1994,
approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested HMR (High
Medium Density Residential) land use designation, and recommend same to City
Council, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "A".
Commissioner Marino stated he would be more comfortable with the following
changes:
Finding #8 amended to read as follows:
Approval of the project as mitigated and conditioned will provide for the
orderly expansion of the airport and will minimize the public's exposure to
excessive noise and safety hazards within the area around the airport.
Amendment to Planning Condition #2 of Exhibit "A" to reference
Bakersfield City School District.
Minutes, PC, 7/7/94
Page 11
Mr. LaRochelle asked for amendment to Condition #9 as follows:
Developer to record an avigation and overflight easement in favor of, and
approved by, the City of Bakersfield prior to any land division approval or
development permit approval.
Commissioner Merino asked for the following change:
Resolution, Page 2, Item #15 amended to read as follows:
That the required avigation and overflight easement will help minimize
land use conflicts between the airport and this residential development.
Commissioner Andrew amended his motion to include these changes.
Commissioner Merino felt there were conflicting directives of protecting the
airpark and providing affordable housing.
Commissioner Brady asked if there was any ability to add notice provision in the
lease so that residents of the apartments would kn°w that they cannot file suit
against the city because of noise. Mr. Grady stated this would be difficult to
enforce.
Commissioner Brady felt zoning is the process which allOWs incompatible uses to
be kept away from each other and this is the opportunity to accomplish this. He
said he would continue to oppose this project.
Commissioner Merino stated he had the same concern about placing residences in
a buffer zone.
Commissioner Delgado felt this comes down to a safety issue, and there is
nothing that can be done about the existingpark, school and church, however
something can be done about placing this residential project on subject property.
He stated his concern about the safety issue.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Boyle, Hersh, Messner
NOES: Commissioners Brady, Delgado, Merino
Minutes, PC, 7/7/94
Page 12
Motion Was made by Commissioner Andrew, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to
adopt resolution making findings as set forth in the memo dated June 27, 1994
approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested 5.2 (Medium
Density Residential) land use designation/zone change, and recommend same to
City Council with the same changes as outlined in the previous motion for
approval of general plan amendment. Motion carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Andrew, Boyle, Hersh, Messner
NOES:
Commissioners Brady, Delgado, Marino
8. RIVERLAKEs RANCH/UNIBELL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2-94
9.1
Commissioners Brady, Boyle and Marino abstained due to conflicts of interest.
Chairman Messner stated a request for cOntinuance to the August 1, and August
4, 1994 meetings had been received.
Public portion of the hearing was opened.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to
continue this item to the regular meetings of August 1, and August 4, 1994.
Motion carried. Commissioners Marino, Boyle and Brady were absent because of
conflicts of interest.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR PROPOSED
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY THE PANAMA-BUENA VISTA UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR DEVELOPMENT AS AN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL SITE.
commissioner Andrew 'abstained due to a conflict of interest because he has sold
property to the current property owner.
Commissioner Delgado abstained because he represents a client who is
negotiating purchase of property across the street from subject site.
Staff report recommending approval was given.
Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to
make a finding pursuant to Government Code 65402, that the proposed
acquisition of the subject 10-acre site by the Panama Buena Vista School District,
located on the south side of Harris Road approximately one-half mile west of
Stine Road, is consistent with the general plan. Motion carried.
Minutes, PC, 7/7/94 Page 13
9.2 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR PROPOSED SALE OF
SURPLUS PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHITE
LANE BETWEEN SOUTH "H" STREET AND HUGHES LANE.
10.
11.
Staff report recommending approval was given.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to
make a finding pursuant to Government Code 65402, that the proposed sale of
the existing surplus City-owned parcel to an adjoining landowner is consistent
with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Motion carried.
COMMUNICATIONS
A) Written
None
B) Verbal
None '
COMMISSION COMMENTS
A. Committees
Commissioner Hersh stated concerning the last Subdivision Committee
meeting that the committee was still pondering over the 80 percent rule
and it was suggested by Commissioner Brady that the committee invite
members of the development community to attend the next meeting to
provide input.
Commissioner Andrew said the sign committee discussed the directional
signs at the last meeting and are going to postpone next months' meeting
and meet in two months to give staff time to write a draft resolution
reflecting changes the committee may wish to discuss.
Minutes, PC, 7/7/94'
12.
Page 14
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was
adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Laurie Davis
Recording Secretary
~~tary
Assistant Planning Director