Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/96MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, February 1, 1996, 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 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 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve minutes of the regular meeting of December 18, 1995. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 2/1/96 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT 5656 6: This item was withdrawn; to be readvertised and placed on agenda for next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Lee stated the applicant requested this item be placed on the consent calendar at that time. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5425 o Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Roger McIntosh represented the property owner. He stated agreement with staff report and memo of January 31, 1996 recommendations. He asked for approval. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5425 subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" and the January 31, 1996 memorandum from the Planning Director. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS Staff report recommending approval was given. Mr. Eggert outlined the following proposed changes: Section 2. - Permits, first sentence after the word "any", add the following wording: "builder or" Section 3 - Program Administration, Item f. - first sentence after the words "A specific project"~ add the following wording: "or builder", third line of that paragraph after the word "project" add "or builder." Under Item G of this section, third to the last line change the word "with" to "within" Section 4 - Violations and abatement - Item b., 7th line replace the words "permit holder's" with "builder/developer", 8th line add the word "be" after "development to", 10th line change the word "developer" to "builder/developer", 12th line after the word "kiosk" add the wording as follows "for that specific development", 13th line replace the word "developer" with "builder/developer" Addition of language such that an administrator of the program would be required. Minutes, PC, 2/1/96 Page 3 Public portion of the hearing was opened. Randy Wheeler represented Castle & Cooke. He said he had just been apprised of this ordinance about 3 days before, therefore had not had a chance to review it. He read a letter from Marion Keesling, their Vice President in charge of marketing and requested a continuance. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Wheeler if he were aware that a representative from Castle and Cooke had attended the meetings. Mr. Wheeler stated he was aware of this, however felt their representative misunderstood how quickly this issue would come before the commission for action. David Gay stated he represented the Association of Realtors at sign committee meetings. He felt this issue had been gone over in finite detail. He requested approval of this issue. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Hersh cited a letter from the BIA endorsing this kiosk program. In response to question by him, Mr. Wheeler said he had gotten this issue the previous Monday and asked for a continuance so that he would have time to review the ordinance himself. Commissioner Hersh agreed with Mr. Gay's comments. This issue has been discussed the BIA is in agreement, there are issues which must be ironed out, however the issue of phasing out the existing signs has been discussed for at least a year. He recommended, as a member of the committee, that there be no continuance. He recommended it be sent to the council with the understanding that some modification would be necessary. Chairman Andrew stated agreement with Commissioner Hersh's comments concerning continuance on this item. He felt these proposed changes would be better for the builder and the community. Commissioner Brady asked what efforts had been made to approach the county regarding their sign ordinance and possible changes. Mr. Grady said he understood that the BIA had contacted the county regarding this. Commissioner Brady stated his concern that the city has numerous county pockets which are not addressed with this ordinance. He was concerned that this ordinance would require removal of existing signage, regardless of whether the kiosk program is in place. Mr. Grady said the ordinance allows for the city to implement the program if'someone cannot be designated. It does not leave a void for implementation. Minutes, PC, 2/1/96 Page 4 Commissioner Brady did not feel this ordinance addresses the elimination of bandit signs because the problem is that there is not enough manpower to enforce the present ordinance. Discussion continued regarding penalty for developers who erect illegal signage. Mr. Fidler responded to Commissioner Brady, stating developers can be cited along with non-participation in the kiosk program for a six-month period. Commissioner Brady did not feel this ordinance effectively addresses the current problem and felt a kiosk program in addition to the present ordinance would be satisfactory. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Ms. Marino said legal counsel is satisfied that this ordinance provides due process. The decision of the Board of Building appeals is final. It provides no appeal process to the City Council. Commissioner Brady felt additional work needs to be done on this ordinance. He felt this ordinance has an effect of placing builders in the county in a better position than those in the city and it is inappropriate. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Ms. Marino said this ordinance does not preclude a builder from placing an advertisement on an existing billboard. This is not considered an off-site sign under existing ordinance. Commissioner Brady felt this ordinance needed to be sent back to committee to address the aspects of how and who will fund it, architectural design, cost estimate of implementation and coordination with the county. Chairman Andrew stated because signage is very important for a developer to market his product the penalty of no signage for a minimum of six months for violators will help to prevent bandit signage. He felt the main issue was eliminating all the different types of signage on main intersections and coming up with a uniform program. He stated it was his understanding the BIA had spoken to the county concerning possible implementation of a similar program, however there is not guarantee this will occur. He felt better and more off-site signage is being offered to builders than was available in the past. Chairman Andrew said the committee felt the ordinance needs to be developed and placed before the City Council before any more time is spent on the issue of who will administer it, sign colors and other issues. Commissioner Boyle stated concerning the county having an unfair advantage that his understanding is that if a developer is building in the county they cannot legally place signs in the city. He said a wide scale violation of the city ordinance is occurring and it is not feasible to bring offenders to justice through the legal system. He did not feel it would be fair if this were continued as requested by Mr. Wheeler since this has been a long process and Mr. Wheeler's company has had the opportunity to provide representation at these meetings. He stated issues such as design criteria and location will be the nextissues to be addressed by the committee. Minutes, PC, 2/1/96 Page 5 Commissioner Hersh said the radius is being increased to $ miles, and he felt the county was going to participate. He felt superior signs and a better community would result from the changes to this ordinance. Responding to questions by Commissioner Brady concerning sign carriers for subdivisions, Mr. Fidler said this type of use is covered under special signs. He said to his knowledge they had never cited anyone for this type of use since it is normally done on weekends. Commissioner Brady felt this needs to be specifically addressed. Responding to question by him, Chairman Andrew gave an estimate of 2 months for further revisions after adoption by the Council. Commissioner Brady was concerned about implementation of this ordinance and removal of signage by builders and developers and felt this item should be continued in order to address these issues. He also stated his concern that county builders would be on signs located within the city. Responding to question by him, Chairman Andrew stated Barbara Don Carlos of the BIA has been discussing the possibility of addressing this same type of kiosk program with the County. Responding to question by Chairman Andrew, Mr. Eggert recalled there was no priority given to developers in the city as opposed to those in the county. Language was left in the ordinance making the sign program effective metropolitan-wide. Commissioner Brady felt this was a good beginning, however he would like to see the rest of the sign program brought back with this portion so that the entire ordinance can be implemented at once. Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to forward this ordinance to the City Council along with a recommendation for adoption, subject to the following changes: Section 2. - Permits, first sentence after the word "any", add the following wording: "builder or" Section 3 - Program Administration, Item f. - first sentence after the words "A specific project", add the following wording: "or builder", third line of that paragraph after the word "project" add "or builder." Under Item G of this section, third to the last line change the word "with" to "within" Section 4 - Violations and abatement - Item b., 7th line replace the words "permit holder's" with "builder/developer", 8th line add the word "be" after "development to", 10th line change the word "developer" to "builder/developer", 12th line after the word "kiosk" add the wording as follows "for that specific development", 13th line replace the word "developer" with "builder/developer" Minutes, PC, 2/1/96 o Page 6 Responding to question by Chairman Andrew, Commissioner Boyle felt the following language should be added: Addition of language such that an administrator of the program would be required. Commissioner Hersh amended his motion, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to include the previous language. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Ortiz, Tavorn, Andrew NOES: Commissioner Brady MODIFICATION OF WAIVER OF DIRECT ACCESS TO ALLOW A 50- FOOT ACCESS OPENING TO WIBLE ROAD FROM PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 7145 Commissioner Boyle abstained because of a conflict of interest due to the fact the applicant is a client of his law firm. Staff report recommending approval was given. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. LaRochelle said this modification would facilitate the moving of vehicles by the applicant. Staff is not concerned about the possibility of a congestion problem arising on Wible Road. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to adopt a resolution approving modification to waiver of direct street access to Wible Road and allow one, 50-foot access opening to Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 7145. UPDATE AND STATUS ON RIVERLAKES RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN City Attorney Skousen gave update and status on this issue. She gave boundaries of the original development agreement and what is left of the unfinished agreement. She stated the specific plan was adopted in 1985, the development subsequently went into bankruptcy with a subsequent development agreement being entered into as an attempt to assist the developer in completing the project. She gave specifics about promises made with respect to the agreement. She stated changes were made in 1990 none being substantial; the city making more concessions in helping the developer complete the project. She explained the Minutes, PC, 2/1/96 Page 7 city's procedures with respect to bonds for assessment districts saying a substantial amount of reserves are required. The city has had to go into those reserves and unless some of the assessments can be collected these reserves may be exhausted. She explained the situation in which the property was sold at foreclosure. She said several tract maps were issued for this property which are pending. The development agreement has now, by law, been terminated. However the specific plan still exists. In the development agreement as consideration of special amenities promised by the developer the city agreed to waive the traffic mitigation fees one of which was to pay $675,000 toward the west side freeway ~ fund. These were paid until bankruptcy was filed. The last $200,000 payment was made after bankruptcy was filed without permission of the bankruptcy court. The trustee for the bankruptcy has written a letter to the city demanding return of this illegal payment. They failed to make the final $75,000 payment. The city is negotiating with the bankruptcy trustee because they do not want to return the payment, however there is no legal basis for keeping it. Because part of the agreement was waiver of the traffic mitigation fees for provision of the special amenities; it now appears there is no chance the previous developer will provide the amenities such as the golf course as promised. The purchaser of the property has tentative tract maps on the property with some being developed and others to expire in February. She explained the process of extensions of time for tract maps saying the developer would have to either request an amendment to the specific plan or make the specific plan viable once again. The city is in the process of discussing issues with the developer; perhaps some special arrangements could be made. Responding to questions by Chairman Andrew, Ms. Skousen said the golf course was part of the specific plan and development agreement. The specific plan goes with the land and not the developer, the requirements that the amenities be constructed still remains. It is her understanding that Mr. DeWalt will be requesting an amendment to the specific plan because he feels the golf course is not the best amenity for this area or economically feasible. The developer could request a change to some other type of open space. She explained that when the development agreement is void the agreements contained in it regarding the zoning, specific plan and density not being changed no longer exist. She responded to Chairman Andrew's question, stating the developer built both sides of Coffee Road. She stated she would have percentage of what the developer promised and what has been accomplished by the time a map is before the commission. Minutes, PC, 2/1/96 Page 8 R~sponding to question by Co~nmissioner Hersh, Ms. Skousen gave an estimate of traffic impact fees at $10 million taking into consideration every lot that could be developed and the traffic mitigation fee at today's rate. However at the time the development agreement was entered into the city had not established the traffic, mitigation fee. She estimated the traffic mitigation fees that could be collected in the future to be approximately $6 million. Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Grady indicated there have been no plans for development submitted for the commercial frontage on Rosedale Highway. Responding to questions by Commissioner Hersh, Ms. Skousen said the new property owner is working on a plan for Riverlakes, however has not presented anything. She explained there is no requirement for park development fees at this time. She said in the future the city will require strong deadlines which require provision of amenities before sale of homes. Responding to question by Commissioner Delgado, Ms. Skousen said it would be her recommendation as well as the planning department's recommendation that all property owners within this area be notified when any of the decisions concerning Riverlakes are before the Commission. Ms. Skousen gave background on construction of the Beach Club. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Ms. Skousen said if the developer complies with all conditions of the maps before expiration a final map may not be denied. Conditions may only be amended if the property owner requests an extension to the map. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Hardisty said conditions relative to maps are contained in tentative approvals. The city does not rely on third parties to satisfy conditions: The development agreement in this case confused the normal process of tying the development to a proportionate share of the obligations. The development agreement no longer exists. Responding to questions by Commissioner Boyle, Ms. Skousen said if Mr. DeWalt requests amendment to the specific plan or extension to any maps the commission can take into consideration the fact that conditions have changed. Minutes, PC, 2/1/96 Page 9 10. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Verbal None 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS Responding to question by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. Grady said the issue of transportation impact fees was not brought before the commission the last time they were reviewed by the Council, nor would they be at the next time of review. Mr. Hardisty said the matter was last discussed by the Urban Development Committee and would be going before the City Council in the near future. Where the commission has involvement in the transportation impact fee is through the Capital Improvement Plan and its consistency with the general plan. Responding to question by Commissioner Tavorn, Mr. Hardisty said the policy and implementation of the 2010 General Plan were the basis for the transportation impact fee being instituted. The policy is not to allow intersections to degrade below Level of Service C. Mr. Hardisty said the commission would be supplied with the update information which Commissioner Hersh received from the Public Works Department. He stated a workshop would be held the following evening with the city council. This issue could be placed on an agenda for a full discussion. A. Committees Commissioner Dhanens stated the next meeting date of the Ordinance Committee discussing the Hillside Ordinance would be for the purpose of having a field trip, thereafter meetings would be held on a monthly basis. Mr. Grady said. the field trip would be held on the second Monday in February. Minutes, PC, 2/1/96 Page 10 12.DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF 13. THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Mr. Grady gave information concerning items on the next agenda. Commissioner Hersh asked for a more lengthy dissertation concerning the transportation impact fee to be added to the next agenda. Mr. Grady stated this would be done. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to cancel the pre-meeting of February 12, 1996. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Planning Director