Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 1, 2003Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac, None Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Jim Movius, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None Commissioner Blockley stated that he did not attend the pre-meeting on Monday but has been briefed by staff on the items discussed and is prepared to participate in tonight's hearings. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of March 17, 2003 and March 20, 2003. 4.1b Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the acquisition of a 20,000 square foot parcel located at 713 Lake Street to be developed as part of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency Baker Street Mixed Use Project. (City of Bakersfield) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) Motion was made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. Minutes, PC, May 1, 2003 Page 2 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Vestin.q Parcel Map 10981 (Delmarter and Diefel Eng) (Ward 7) 4.2b Vestinq Tentative Map 6187 (Delmarter and Diefel Eng) (Ward 5) Public portion of the hearing opened. Commissioner Tragish requested that agenda item 4.2a removed from the Consent Agenda. Public portion of the hearing closed. There were no other comments from the public or Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve the remaining item on the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Parcel Map 5.1) Vestinq Tentative Parcel Map 10929 (Pinnacle Eng). (Ward 3) Staff reported that the applicant has requested this item be continued until May 15, 2003. Public portion of the hearing opened. There were no Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to continue Agenda Item 5.1 until May 15, 2003. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac None None 5.2) Vestin.q Parcel Map 10981 (Delmarter and Diefel Eng) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Jim Delmarter, representing the developer, stated that he is available to answer any questions. He asked the Commission to take into consideration the memorandum attached to the staff report that they received. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish said that his essential concern is whether or not this tract is compatible with the neighborhood. He said he has a concern about having 26 commercial lots in this area even though it is of a light industrial nature. Since this is so close to a residential area, he is not sure it is compatible with the neighborhood. He feels the neighborhood is already noisy from the Minutes, PC, May 1, 2003 Page 3 freeway and this will compound the problem. Commissioner Blockley asked staff about condition number four which changed the requirement for a collector-collector intersection to marking Hughes Lane as "no parking." Ms. Shaw said that is not a significant deviation from city standards. An expanded collector-collector intersection is needed to provide the additional room for a right turn lane and parking because we can have houses fronting on a collector. Commissioner Gay said it is unfortunate to have M-1 zoning so close to housing but it has been zoned M-1 since 1978. The housing to the east was constructed after the zoning was in place. Some of those homeowners should have been aware of the heavy use across the street. He does have a concern about injecting the M zoning against a residential neighborhood. He would be more comfortable if this had extensive CC&Rs similar to the Stockdale Industrial Park that operates on White Lane. Commissioner Gay said he would support this if signage could be limited to a monument signs no higher than eight feet on Hughes and Pacheco. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission could change the signage? Mr. Grady said that through this map they cannot dictate the type of signage without the agreement of the subdivider. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission has the right to impose CC&Rs without the applicant's approval? Mr. Grady said not without his agreement. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission could require more landscaping? Mr. Grady said no. Commissioner Blockley said he is prepared to support the project. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Delmarter if the applicant would consider limiting the height of the signs to eight feet or seeing that there are lawns, which would make it more compatible to a residential nature? Mr. Delmarter asked if there is another height limit that could be put on a pylon sign rather than a monument sign? Mr. Grady said he believes there is a maximum height of 25 feet but if the Commission wants to negotiate with the applicant to arrive at a set height then they could do it tonight. Mr. Delmarter suggested 15 feet. Commissioner Gay asked if there could be grass instead of shrubs in the 8 foot setback? Doug Murray, with Coldwater Banker, said he thinks shrubs would be more practical. Commissioner Tragish asked if the applicant would be willing to put a block wall up along Pacheco Road? Mr. Delmarter said that is their frontage. It would be impossible. They have agreed to a common driveway. Mr. Grady said that the maximum height on the pylon sign in the zone is 30 feet and the monument sign is eight feet and if the Commission is inclined to pursue some agreement on a sign program for this property, he suggests it should be done as a comprehensive sign plan so staff would have some mechanism for monitoring it. Commissioner Ellison asked what type of findings would they have to make to disapprove this based on incompatible land use and what type of evidence would they have to get into the record? Mr. Grady said they would have to put in findings that support their position that the subdivision is incompatible and those findings would have to be placed in the record. The Commission can make the determination but it is up to them to identify what those facts and findings are in support of that determination. Commissioner Ellison said he feels this should have been a PCD overlay. He feels that it should be approved tonight with a restriction to the signage. Mr. Grady said that we are not dealing with zoning. We are dealing with the subdivision map act and the Commission concerns are placing them at odds with the subdivision map act. The city Minutes, PC, May 1, 2003 Page 4 has the authority to come up with design standards and development requirements for zones. They must be in place at the time the applicant submits a subdivision. Those are the rules that apply to the subdivision. If the Commission finds something that is significantly inappropriate about a particular subdivision, there are specific things that the map act would allow the Commission to make findings about and support the decision to deny the map. Mr. Grady said he hasn't heard any of those. The Commission's desire to have something different for signs does not lead them to a position to deny the subdivision map. They need to have something more substantial than what he has heard. Commissioner Gay asked if the wording should state that the applicant has agreed to limit pylon signs to 15 feet and should be in the form of a comprehensive sign plan? Mr. Grady said the comprehensive sign plan that the applicant would submit to them for review would have the one change regarding the height of the pylon sign. Commissioner Tragish asked if the project were approved as it is tonight if the applicant would have the ability to put a pylon sign in front of each lot fronting Hughes and Pacheco? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Tragish said it is his belief that this is incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Grady said that Commissioner Tragish would have to provide some evidence for findings that makes him feel that this is not compatible before the Commission could deny the project. Commissioner Blockley asked Mr. Murray if he is willing to agree to a comprehensive sign plan? Mr. Murray asked Mr. Grady to repeat what a comprehensive sign plan would mean. Mr. Grady said that a comprehensive sign plan identifies what kind of signage program would be applied to the property. The only change to the sign program for this property is a 15-foot high pylon sign. The comprehensive sign program will come back to the Planning Commission and be approved by the Planning Commission and would only have one change in it. It would still identify that the building faces will have the signs that are allowed in the zone. Monument signs would still be allowed in the zone. The only change would be that all of the parcels would be limited to a 15- foot high pylon sign. Mr. Murray said he agrees. Mr. Grady said it does require some design. They will need some drawings. Mr. Murray said that is fair. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10981 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A incorporating the memo of April 23 by Marian Shaw and the addition tonight of a Comprehensive Sign Plan on the tract with a limitation of the pylon signs to 15 feet as agreed by the applicant. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Tragish said he abstained because he feels the project is too dense and incompatible with the neighborhood. He doesn't think there is enough on the record for his satisfaction to be able to make a decision one way or the other. Minutes, PC, May 1, 2003 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 6.1) Vestinq Tentative Map 6148 (Pinnacle Eng) (Ward 3) No staff report was given as the applicant has requested this item be continued until June 5, 2003. Public portion of the hearing opened. Don McKelvey, a resident of Cattle King Estates, stated his concern about the drainage in this area. He doesn't know if the drainage has been compensated properly. The additional development from others will just add more to the drainage and the natural drainage right now runs along the old Alfred Harrell Highway. There are houses proposed for that area and he doesn't see how the drainage will be handled. He also had a concern about additional traffic and asked what the proposed drilling site is for. He said this is natural habitat for the coyotes and kit foxes. He doesn't want to see the east side become totally developed without enough forethought. Dave Dmohowski, representing the applicant, stated they had submitted a formal request for a continuance until June 5, 2003. They will be prepared at that time to make a full presentation of the project details. They will respond to Mr. McKelvey's concerns at that time. There were no Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to continue this item until June 5, 2003. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.2) Vestinq Tentative Map 6185 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report including various memorandums from Marian Shaw and Stanley Grady presented to the Commission. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. Roger Mclntosh, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He requested clarification of the memorandum from Public Works dated April 28, 2003 concerning condition number seven. He asked to add language to condition 7.4 so that the condition reads: "reconstruct the channel at the new crossing as approved by the district." That way it is clear just how much of the channel is to be reconstructed. Ms. Shaw agreed. Mr. Mclntosh said the Minutes, PC, May 1, 2003 Page 6 memorandum dated May 1 from Public Works is acceptable and the memo dated May 1 from the Planning Department clarifying the amenities that go into the rec facility and the other unique aspects of the subdivision is acceptable as well. Also, Mr. Mclntosh explained the request for the modification for the lot reduction. Mr. Mclntosh said they would be agreeable to condition this map that all lots along the freeway will have a 30-foot rear yard setback as spelled out in the zoning ordinance. They can accommodate the 30-foot setback with 115 foot lot depth. They ask that the Commission approve condition number 25 with the requirement that there be a 30-foot rear yard setback on all lots that back up to the Kern River Freeway. Mr. Mclntosh said he is available to answer any questions the Commission may have and ask that they approve his requests. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Grady if the condition is adequate that changes the setback from 120 to 115. Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Tragish asked if staff has any objections to the request? Mr. Grady said staff did not agree with the request. Staff recommends that the lot depth remain as it is in the ordinance. Commissioner Tragish asked what staff's objection is to the reduction? Mr. Grady said the size of the lot was not intended to suggest that you would have all of the structures 30 feet away from the property line. The intent of the ordinance was to have 120 foot lot depth. It was also the intent that it would be on standard lot sizes as well. This would be a smaller lot in width and footprint and now they would be a lot closer to the right-of- way. Staff felt that all three of those did not need to occur on this parcel. At a request from Commissioner Tragish, Mr. Mclntosh responded that if the lots were lengthened by five feet, they would end up reducing the area for the recreation facility. They are proposing to provide a 5.57 percent passive recreation facility which is more than twice required by ordinance to get the small lot approved. Commissioner Tragish said that he would rather keep it at 120 feet. It is a small development to begin with and someday there maybe a freeway going through there which means they will be closer to the cars and dust and everything else that comes off it. Commissioner Gay said he would support the project with covering the canal but is not sure he would support the lot size reduction. Commissioner Blockley said that he feels the landscape strip in front of the project could be reduced so that the lot sizes would not have to be. He agrees with staff regarding the 120 foot lots. Commissioner Ellison said he would support a motion leaving the condition unchanged. Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Mclntosh how much the recreation area would be reduced if they don't reduce the setback? Mr. Mclntosh said he does not know the exact percent decrease. He also said in response to Commissioner Blockley's comment about reducing the landscape strip in front that they won't do that. They want to create a grand entrance. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6185 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution and incorporate Public Works memorandum dated April 28, 2003 and the Planning Department's memorandum dated May 1, 2003 with the modification of the Marian Shaw April 28, 2003 memorandum where it indicates as to condition 7.4 that the language should hereinafter read: "reconstruct the channel at the new crossing as Minutes, PC, May 1, 2003 Page 7 approved by the district" and including the May 1, 2003 memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac None None 6.3) Vesting Tentative Map 6187 (Delmarter and Diefel Eng) (Ward 5) See Consent Agenda COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Grady told the Commission about an air quality seminar that is being held at Cai State on Monday and invited them to attend if they could do so. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Ellison said he would be attending the seminar but would still like an air quality workshop for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tragish said he would like a workshop also when staff has the time. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW MEMBERS AND APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE- 10. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grady introduced John Spencer and Barbara Lomas who will be taking the seats of Commissioner Sprague and Commissioner McGinnis. Commissioner Gay was elected Chairman and Commissioner Tragish Vice-Chairman by group vote. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- 11. MEETING: It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on May 12, 2003. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Minutes, PC, May 1, 2003 Page 8 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director June 10, 2003