Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/96MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held October 17, 1996 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. COMMISSIONERS: Present: KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN JEFFREY TI(AC Absent: MICHAEL DHANENS 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 JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC S'[ATEME NTS Jim Whitehead submitted a speaker's card and spoke on the issues of public notice concerning signage for the Marketplace Shopping Center. He stated citizens are customers of the city and have the right to know what is being proposed. He proposed that key public locations be identified such as libraries, schools, etc. where agendas can be posted. *Commissioner Ortiz was seated. Frank Pecarich spoke after submitting a speaker's card. He stated he felt public participation builds commitment for the overall project, it allows for new information. Ann Anderson submitted a speaker's card and spoke regarding the amount of signage for the Marketplace, stating she felt it to be excessive. She was concerned that residents were not notified. She asked that this reqUest be reheard with proper notification given. She also asked that the city ordinance be adhered to. Minutes, 10117/96 Page 2 Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Anderson to cite the ordinance which she felt had not been followed. She stated she could not cite an ordinance. Jill Kleiss asked that she be allowed to address the signage issue for the Marketplace at the time the discussion item comes forth on the agenda. Commissioner Brady stated he would recognize Ms. Kleiss at the time this item is discussed. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. None APPROVAL OF~ Motion was made by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve minutes of the regular meetings held September 16, and September 19, 1996. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING -VES~I~]'IVE~J~2~ELMAP '10368 (PJ~ Staff report recommending approval was given. Mr. LaRochelle stated Public Works requested a change to Condition #1 of Exhibit "A," to read as follows: The subdivider shall dedicate and construct right turn deceleration lanes at the main allowable access points from Coffee Road at the time of development. The right turn deceleration lanes shall be designed and constructed with a minimum 150 feet of storage. Access from Coffee Road to both phase 1 and phase 2 shall be limited and shall be determined at the time of development as approved by the City Engineer. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or in favor. Steve DeBranch represented the subdivider. Commissioner Hersh stated his concern about last minute changes to conditions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked for explanation as to the addition to Condition #1 limiting access to Coffee Road. Mr. LaRochelle felt there is a concern regarding access points. Mr. DeBranch stated the language is acceptable. Minutes, 10/17/96 Page 3 Commissioner Tavorn asked if conSideration was given to this project with relation to the open sPace asking how the project will look. Mr. Grady stated that open space will be a 25-foot landscape strip as required by the Riverlakes Plan. Chairman Hersh asked if the accesses as outlined in change to Condition #1 would be determined at the time of phasing. Mr. LaRochelle said they would be determined at the time of development. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt resolution to approve Proposed Tentative Parcel Map 10368 with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution (Exhibit "1 ,"), with the following amendment to Condition #1 as follows: The subdivider shall dedicate and construct right turn deceleration lanes at the main allowable access points from Coffee Road at the time of development. The right turn deceleration lanes shall be designed and constructed with a minimum 150 feet of storage. Access from Coffee Road to both phase 1 and phase 2 shall be limited and shall be determined at the time of development as approved by the City Engineer. Motion carried. 6.1 EUB~ING - TENT~YJE~T~J~CT 5699 (PHASED~ Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Harold Robertson represented the owner/subdivider. He stated with regard to condition #2 that the applicant had constructed a full width median along Stine Road in-lieu of participation at the cited location. Mr. LaRochelle stated the condition had been inadvertently placed on this and should be omitted. Regarding condition #~ he submitted a diagram showing their proposal for access. Mr. St. Clair said they wished to provide only a 20-foot fire access between the two tracts. Both streets on either end are somewhat long and they felt by reducing the amount of traffic through this area it would reduce the amount of traffic continuing on to Stine Road through the long corridor. Mr. LaRochelle stated their agreement with this request so long as the Fire Department access is adequate. Ron Fraze, Fire Department, stated the Fire Chief has a problem with the fire access they are proposing to provide. He felt the road should be continued or another entrance added. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. LaRochelle gave information concerning traffic projects being installed in this area. Minutes, 10/17/96 Page 4 Commissioner Delgado asked if the tract to the east was recorded. Mr. LaRochelle stated it is a proposed tract and is part of the property being subdivided at this time. Commissioner Brady asked for a distance from the proposed Golden Gate Drive to Ashe Road and Stine Road. Mr. LaRochelle stated both are ~ mile. Mr. Brady was concerned that Golden Gate Drive would serve as a collector for the entire project for all traffic trying to access Panama Lane. Mr. LaRochelle said the north/south collector street was eliminated at the time the 2010 was adopted. The only collector street existing is the east/west collector street ~ mile to the north which is Harris Road. Discussion continued regarding this issue. Commissioner Brady asked if the proposed fire access would be blocked off. Mr. Robertson said it would be a paved access that would be fenced and blocked off and used for emergency access only. Commissioner Brady was concerned that there is a mile distance in which there is no access to Panama except for proposed Golden Gate Drive and there would be a great deal of morning commuters. Commissioner Boyle asked if traffic would be able to turn left from Golden Gate Drive onto Panama. Mr. LaRochelle said it would be possible because this is a mid-section location and would eventually be signalized. Commissioner Tavorn asked if any help will be given in paying for the traffic signal at Golden Gate and Panama Lane. Mr. LaRochelle pointed out the condition which requires this payment. He gave a history which led up to the proposed circulation. Commissioner Brady felt because Golden Gate Drive is going to be a major access point for the entire development to access Panama and there will be considerable morning traffic the length of Golden Gate Drive is considerably short. He felt cars would be backed up into this neighborhood especially prior to a traffic light being installed. Given this reason he stated he could not support this concept. Commissioner Boyle asked how staff reached the 2/10 of 1 percent share for the traffic signal for this project. Mr. LaRochelle said when the traffic study was prepared it was done so without this connection. The traffic was shifted to other locations. It was determined that the net share of. mitigation is so minuscule that it would not have made a difference. It was therefore not recalculated. Commissioner Boyle stated he would be in favor of continuing the project in order to look at it taking into account the access point. Commissioner Delgado felt it would be beneficial for the Commission to take another look at this map and he would appreciate a continuance to the next meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meetings of November 4, and November 7, 1996. Minutes, 10117/96 Page 5 Commissioner Brady asked for the length of Golden Gate Drive from Panama to Stacy Palm. Mr. LaRochelle said it would have approximately 250-300 feet of stacking space for cars which would allow approximately 12-18 Cars. Commissioner Brady asked if Golden Gate Drive is constructed would the adjacent properties have a brick wall constructed as part of the project. Mr. Grady said there is no requirement that a block wall be constructed behind the property to separate the residential properties. Commissioner Brady stated he is uncomfortable using private streets to gain access to arterials, however if staff feels this is the best possible situation and it will solve more problems he will agree to it. Commissioner Hersh said he would also like to take another look at this and would be amenable to a continuance. Previous motion was seconded by Commissioner Delgado. Motion carried. 6.2 EUBLIC~RING - VES3'JNG TENTATIVE TR.~CT ~ Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Jim Delmarter represented the subdivider. He stated the traffic mitigation included in the condition does not take into account the fact that the first tract is recorded. He therefore cited a memo from the Traffic Engineer stating the fees should be reduced. Mr. LaRochelle agreed with this memo. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Per request by Commissioner Brady, Mr. LaRochelle said the following wording should be added to the end of the first paragraph of condition #9: subject to reduction based on the number of units at a rate of 72.59 percent of the following mitigation: Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to adopt resolution, approving and adopting the Negative Declaration, and to approve Proposed Vesting Tentative Tract 5762 (Revised) with findings and conditions as presented in said resolution, subject to the following addition to Condition #9 of Exhibit "A." subject to reduction based on the number of units at a rate of 72.59 percent of the following mitigation: Motion carried. Minutes, 10/17/96 Page 6 7.1 ~LAN CONSISTENCY FINDING - BOT~ OF LAND FOR SUMP PURPOS SOUTH OF MADONNA AVENUE Staff report recommending approval was given. Ron Berry stated they would be forced to look directly at the sump if it is relocated. In speaking with the church they have agreed to provide a 15-foot buffer behind his fence and other adjacent neighbors homes with landscaping. He stated if this were done he would withdraw his opposition. Curt Carter stated he is a trustee of the church. He was not in favor of a condition being imposed on them which would require them to provide the buffer and landscaping that Mr. Berry is asking for until they are sure what the architect is planning, however they would try to accommodate the neighbors in order to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Brady said the commission does not have the authority to place any conditions on this project and stated Mr. Berry would have to work this out with the church. Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Brady to make a finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 that the proposed acquisition and sale of property for sump site purposes is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Motion carried. 7.2 ~~ONSISTENCY FII~2IlAG - TJ~,AI~R O~Y~_CESS PJG~E-QF~- WAY PJ~O~E~~AST CORNER OF FREEWAY 99 AND ~OAK DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES~_URSUANT TQ AGREEMENT NO. 93-238 Staff report recommending approval was given. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 to find the transfer of city-owned excess right-of- way property (fee owned), at the northeast corner of Freeway 99 and California Avenue, to CalOak Development Properties, consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, with the inclusion of the legal description outlined in the memo of October 17, 1996. Motion carried. 8. STATJ. JS REPORT - ZOJ~CJ::IA~F_~2_4 (S~_OCKDALF__GLREENS P~JD_) Mr. Grady cited the staff report on this item and summarized it for the Commission. *5-minute recess was taken at this time. Minutes, 10/17/96 Page 7 9. BO ' - ISCUSSLON OF H~SEEED~_ Mr. Brummett, Executive Director, Kern COG gave a history and presentation of the high speed rail plan and intention for its location and alignments. He also gave information concerning fares, possible funding and travel times. He gave growth predictions of the San Joaquin Valley and the effects this service will have on it with respect to jobs and cost of housing. Commissioner Boyle asked if Amtrak is to be deleted, why is a new train station being planned. Mr. Brummett stated a proposal that will be looked into is building an Amtrak station to be used for 10 years that can be modified to handle the high speed rail. Commissioner Tavorn asked for a comment on an article published in the newspaper that did not appear to be favorable. Mr. Brummett stated the writer was somewhat skeptical that voters would vote in favor of a sales tax to support this issue. He stated this is the only opportunity they have to select the location of the station and the type of service. Commissioner Hersh stated his feeling that placing a direct route over the San Andreas fault is ridiculous. 10. DIS~_ [SS GIVEN UNDER PUBLI_C ~NG COMMISSION MEETING ON OCTOBER 3: 199~ ~EQUEST ~ MARKE~P_LACE Jim Whitehead read the letter from Bob Wdght, Attorney for the Southwest Community Action Committee, into the record. A copy of which is on file. Jill Kleiss stated her discontent with the procedures of the Planning Department. She stated she received a letter from the City Attorney's Office stating surrounding property owners were not entitled to notification based on their interpretation of the law. She stated it was interpreted to be property owners of the surrounding businesses. She quoted Chapter 17.60 stating one of the purposes of the comprehensive sign plan is to "protect and enhance the character of residential neighborhoods and property values by prohibiting obtrusive and incompatible signs," and to "encourage a desirable urban character." She felt in order to ensure that this is accomplished they need to have proper notification. She stated it makes sense that property owners are notified. She felt the public is not being represented properly and felt a sense of arrogance on the part of city officials. Minutes, 10/17/96 Page 8 Commissioner Brady asked for the appropriate notice requirement for a comprehensive sign plan. Ms. Marino cited this information. Commissioner Brady asked if the notice requirements for this project were met. Mr. Grady stated they were. Commissioner Brady felt perhaps the ordinance should be modified allowing for notification 0f a greater extent. He also felt in the future when a controversial project is brought to the commission an extended notice should be given. The existing law has been complied with and he stated he would not be in .favor of rescinding the action. Commissioner Boyle asked if the commission has the power to rescind the.previous action. Ms. Marino said the commission has no power to do this at this hearing, however has the power to place an item on the agenda to allow consideration of a reconsideration. He asked if those concerned have the ability to appeal this decision to the city council. Ms. Marino said there is no provision for appeal of a comprehensive sign plan. Commissioner Boyle said he was not aware that the notice requirement did not require a mailing to surrounding property owners. He did not feel due process was violated and did not feel this sign plan substantially affects the property values. He felt the issue is whether or not notice should be given to property owners within 300 feet whether or not a substantial impact is present. He did not feet is was necessary in all cases, however would be interested in seeing an ordinance that based upon the size ora project would allow for notification of property owners within 300 feet. Ms. Marino said provisions in the city's ordinances and State law exist for notice to those requesting notice on certain issues which she suggested be included within the ordinance. Commissioner Boyle stated he would be in favor of adding this onto a future agenda for discussion. Commissioner Tavorn cited the letter submitted from the southwest community action committee's attorney requesting notice. Ms. Marino said certain action allows for notice to be given upon request. A comprehensive sign plan is not one of those items. Commissioner Boyle asked if the city has investigated the possibility of publishing the Monday hearing items on the agenda.in the newspaper. Mr. Grady said staff has not. Chairman Hersh felt because of the recent lawsuit that the city should go the extra distance to make sure the property owners were informed of this issue. He cited a promise that the site plan review ordinance would be brought to the commission after the Marketplace lawsuit was settled for review and possible revision stating this has not yet occurred. He felt there was not continuity between local government and the community. Minutes, 10/17/96 Page 9 Commissioner Delgado stated his agreement tl~at it appears that the ordinance has been followed with respect to noticing requirements, according to the city attorney's interpretation. However perhaps those most affected may not be receiving noticing. He felt if he had been told at the time of the hearing that the residential property owners were not noticed he may have wanted to handle the noticing differently. He stated he is not in opposi!ion to noticing property owners within 300 feet of comprehensive sign plans and would be in favor of setting the property owners' request for consideration of a new hearing on a future agenda. Commissioner Boyle made a motion that an item be added to the November 7, 1996 agenda to discuss the possible reconsideration of this matter and that a second item be added to discuss a possible recommendation to the city council that the ordinance for special notice be amended such that when a party requests special notice regarding a project that it include all public hearings. Commissioner Delgado seconded the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Ortiz voted no. Commissioner Brady abstained. 11. ~M~NLOATIONS A) Writte~ B) Verbal Mr. Grady stated there was no arrogance on the part of staff with respect to the noticing issue for comprehensive sign plan for the Marketplace. There was not a conscience decision made not to send notices out; the rules were followed. Chairman Hersh said consensus is reality. When situations repeat themselves it becomes reality. On sensitive issues in order for there to be any support from the public they are going'to have to be informed. Mr. Grady suggested that if the commission is not satisfied with the process steps be taken to change the rules to provide the level of participation they wish. Mr. Hersh stated he would be willing to do this. Mr. Grady asked what speakers Chairman Hersh wished to have for the meeting of November 7th. Mr. Hersh said he would like to have a public relations person from P.G.&E. to speak regarding open space under power lines and their future plans in the community. Mr. Grady stated she would be contacted and if available it would be placed on the agenda. If not it would be placed on the next available agenda. Mr. Grady stated the kiosk sign program was heard by the Urban Development Committee and they are recommending changes which have been referred to the commission's committee for conSideration. A meeting will be convened on October 27 to discuss these proposed changes. Minutes, 10/17/96 Page 10 Commissioner Tavorn asked for further information to be provided for issues under the discussion of impacts topic in the staff reports. Ms. Marino explained the levels of significance of some of these topics and stated the threshold numbers could be provided. Commissioner Boyle stated he felt the statute with respect to the previously addressed comprehensive sign plan was handled properly, stating it is up to the commission to decide the level of participation. Commissioner Brady echoed Commissioner Boyle's comments. Chairman Hersh reminded commissioners about a Forum '96 Livable Community, Friday, November 15, 1996 at 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. He stated he had brochures if commissioners needed them. Chairman Hersh asked about the standing on the site plan review issue. Mr. Grady said staff is still working on this issue giving' an explanation of the process which is being followed. 12. COMMISSION ~TS Chairman Hersh asked for an update from committee chairmen at the November 7, 1996 meeting. Mr. Grady stated the subdivision committee work on the small lot issue is scheduled for the commission's meeting of November 21, 1996. 13. DJSCUSSJONA~ID~J~TJ~ ~EGARDING PO~C F T~ -PJ~i~EE~IG. Commissioner Brady stated he did not want to cancel the next pre-meeting because of some of the issues which have been added to the next agenda. The next pre-meeting was not canceled. There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary ~letary Planning Director