Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/97 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, March 6, 1997 5:30 p.m. KENNETH HERSH, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN JEFFREY TKAC ALTERNATE: MICHAEL DHANENS NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. ~_OTICE OF RIGHT T~AP~:AL Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $330 non-refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $330 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, 3~6~97 3. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) Page 2 These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or aadience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held January 16, and February 3, 1997. 5. P~JBLIC HEARING - COMPREHFNSIVE SIGN PLAN COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FILE NO. P97-0014 Comprehensive sign plan for the commercial retail/office center located on the east side of Oswell Street south of State Highway 178 known as 2631 through 2671 Oswell Street. (Categorically exempt) (Continued from the regular meeting of February 20, 1997) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny. Group vote 6. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10183 (French & Associates) Locted on the northeast corner of Talisman Drive and Castro Lane. Consists of 5 residential lots on .85 acre, zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential) along with a modification to allow reduction of the minimum lot width and frontage from 55 feet to 50 feet on interior lots and from 60 feet to 55 feet on a corner lot. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions. Group vote Agenda, PC, 3~6~97 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - PREZONING NO. P97-0019 Prezoning from County M-2 to City M-2 (General Manufacturing) zone for property located on the southeast corner of Golden State Highway and Freeway 99. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. Roll call vote GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDJ.NG (Government Code Section 65402) General plan consistency finding for abandonment of public utility easements in Lots 1 through 5 of Tract 4646 located north of Panama Lane, east of Castleford Street. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED SITE PLAN REVIEW DISCUSSION AND ACTLON_I~GAPJ~tNG~TENTIAL USE OF P._G~&~ EASEMENTS. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMEN~_S A. _Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE:-MEE~ING. ADJOURNMENT February. 27 1997 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, March 6, 1997, 5:30 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 TKAC MICHAEL DHANENS ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: STAFF: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS The chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. CONSE~ND~_S None. AP PRQVAL~)~ Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve the minutes of January 16 and February 3, 1997. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 3~6~97 Page 2 P_U_BLLC~ARING - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN_~NSIVE SIGN FILE P97-0014, CQMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR T_I:IE_CDMMEECIALIRETAIL OEFJCE_CENTEPLLOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OSWELL STRE~ HIGHWAY 178 KNOWN AS 2631 THROUGH 267.10SWELLS~._ CATEGORICALLY I=XEMP~ Staff reported that the applicant submitted to the Commission three examples of different scenarios of the sign. Staff report recommending denial was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. David Milazzo represented the new owners of the East Hills Shopping Center. He stated that the new designs are architecturally consistent with the surrounding area. He stated that a number of improvements have been made to the center to repair its Previous deterioration, and that the final step in their overall improvement plan was to relocate the existing pylon sign to the intersection where traffic would have an opportunity to see it and know who was in the center. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked if the applicant had provided a new comprehensive sign plan that would keep the existing signage except for the pylon sign in place. Mr. Milazzo indicated that the applicant would consider approval of the comprehensive sign plan with the relocated pylon sign, and that the rest of the signage in the center would stay at C-1 standard. Commissioner Brady indicated that he could support a comprehensive sign plan for the project that would keep the existing signage in place with the exception of the existing pylon sign and a replacement of that pylon sign with the Example C as provided by the applicant. Commissioner Boyle stated that the center had no real architecture per se, that each phase seemed to have a slightly different architectural style than the other. He asked Staff how a comprehensive sign plan could be developed in a center built in phases not architecturally connected. Staff replied that they would first look at what is trying to be accomplished with the sign program, and that Staff's view on this particular project was there is an intent to increase the signage allowance which the ordinance does not permit. Commissioner Boyle asked if there were a procedure for a variance that would allow a pylon sign larger than the C-1 standard. Staff replied that the comprehensive sign plan was the only way to restructure signage. Chairman Hersh asked Mr. Grady if he had reviewed the applicant's proposal. Mr. Grady replied that he had, and indicated that the alternatives submitted did not comply with the ordinance. Minutes, PC, 3~6~97 Page 3 Mr. Milazzo pointed out that the center had an exceptionally narrow street frontage, that there was a single location available to accomplish quality signage. He stated that larger signs have been erected by surrounding centers with much smaller clientele and no major tenants. Motion was made by Commissioner De!gado, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to adopt the resolution with findings, denying Comprehensive Sign Plan No. P97-0014 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried. Commissioner Brady voted no. PJJBLIC~.EAR~TAT_I_VE~.RCEL MAP. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10'[8_3 (FRENCH&ASSOCIATES). LOCATED ON THE NOR_'I'_I-JEAST CORNER OF TALISMAN DRIVE AND CASTRO LANE. CONSISTS O_F~SJ~ESIDENTIAL LOTS ON .85 ACRE, ZONED R-I (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AL_O_NG WITH A ,MODIFICATION TO ALLOW REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUML~ND FRONTAGE FROM 55 FEET TO 50 FEET ON INTERIOR LOTS AND_E~ TO 55 FEET ON A CORNER LOT. Staff report recommending approval with conditions was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Mr. Jeff French, engineer for the project, stated that the applicant concurred with staff recommendation and the conditions. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle indicated since the lots were considerably larger than City standard and that it was an infill project, he would support the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to adopt the resolution approving the Tentative Parcel Map 10183 and approving modifications of the required lot width and frontage as required in Section 16.28.170b, 16.28.170d, and 16.28.170dl with findings and conditions as set forth in attached Exhibit C. Motion carried. P_UBLLCJJEARING - PREZO_NING NO. P97-0019. PREZONING FROM COUNTY ~ TO CIT_Y~.ERAL MANUFACT_URIJ~R PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE_S_OU~C~DE[~LSTATE HIGHWAY AND FREEWAY 99._ Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 3~6~97 Page 4 Commissioner Delgado made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the requested zone change from the County M-1 zone to the City M-2 zone on approximately 7 acres as shown on Exhibit A and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Ortiz, Tavorn, Tkac, Delgado, Hersh NOES: None GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING (GOVERNMENT_CODE SECTION 65_402) FO _I~ABAND_ONMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY E.'~_LOTS 1 THROUGH_5 OF TRACT 4646~_QCATED NORTH OF PANAMA LANE, EAST OF CA~TLEEORD Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Delgado made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to adopt resolution Exhibit B making findings pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, that the proposed abandonment of the public utility easements in Lots 1 through 5 of Tract No. 4646 is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Motion carried. o DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED SITE PLAN RI=V~ Chairman Hersh asked Mr. Grady to give an overview of the proposed site plan review ordinance. Mr. Grady referred to an outline previously distributed to the Commission, which explained the levels of procedures for approval of proposed site plans, and the authority; and responsibilities of the various agencies involved. Mr. Grady referred to a memo from Judy Skousen dated February 7th that identified the standards that are in the Site Plan Resolution 55-83 that was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1983 and approved by the City Council. Mr. Jerry Marquis felt that the proposed ordinance would effectively eliminate public and Planning Commission input, and felt it would have a negative effect. As an example, he cited that the thresholds within the proposed ordinance would classify a 500-unit apartment complex as small, inconsequential and trivial. Mr. Marquis felt that the proposed ordinance would disregard environmental impacts, and that approval of such a project would be delegated solely to a small group of officials. He recommended that the Planning Commission not approve the proposed ordinance as it is presently written. Minutes, PC, 3~6~97 Page 5 Mr. Bill Slocumb read a statement regarding community involvement in the planning process. Ms. Jill Kleiss represented the Southwest Action Committee. Ms. Kleiss stated that the proposed ordinance was flawed, citing thresholds and elimination of Planning Commission involvement and public input in the site plan review process. Ms. Lynn Mihalyo represented Del Rio Area Concerned Citizens. She stated that their organization believed that the Planning Commission needs to remain involved in the public review process. She indicated that those who live in the areas to be developed should be consulted by Staff when making decisions concerning proposed development. Betty Sadler represented the East Bakersfield Positive Action Committee, and stated that County residents are often not properly notified regarding proposed developments are proposed that may cross or blur City-County lines. Renee Nelson stressed environmental impact concerns, maintaining community involvement in planning, and felt that the proposed ordinance seemed more concerned with preventing litigation against the city, and did not follow CEQA guidelines. Dennis Bainbridge represented the citizens' group CLEAN, and stated that the primary goal of his organization has been to relocate Interstate 40 at the Kern River Freeway to a more logical site. He stated that he opposed the proposed site plan review ordinance because it severely limited public awareness and participation in the early stages of development and decision-making. Ms. Barbara Lomas represented Del Rio Area Concerned Citizens. She stated that all projects, regardless of size, should be subject to review by the residents of the area where development is to take place. She expressed disapproval of the site plan review ordinance stating her feeling that it should be rewritten. Mr. Roy Malahowsky stated that environmental impacts and government process are to a degree determined by State law, and while public input is desirable to a degree, it often leads to decisions being determined in court via lawsuits. Amy Richardson represented the West Park Homeowners Association. She expressed concern over commercial areas encroaching school and residential areas. She stated that input of residents is important, that citizen participation should be accessible at the earliest stages of development, and that the process of participation should be a simple one. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 3~6~97 Page 6 Commissioner Boyle pointed out that the Commission does not have a vote on the ordinance and urged concerned citizens to attend the City Council meeting at such time when the ordinance is to be considered. He felt the ordinance as written addresses the needs of the development community for a process that is understandable, administratively simple, and expeditious; however, he believed that the City Attorney was instructed to draft the ordinance to meet legal requirements. Commissioner Boyle felt the issue of public input should be determined by the City Council, not the City Attorney. He stated that he did not support public participation regardless of project size, that property owners as well as neighborhood rights needed to be considered, and that there should be a balance between the two. He noted that public hearings are conducted at several levels of the site plan review process to give citizens opportunity to express their concerns. Commissioner Boyle felt that public hearings should be held to address the issue of thresholds as outlined in the proposed ordinance. He also felt that appeals should be directed to the Commission rather than the City Council. Commissioner Brady asked what would be the effect of the Planning Commission meeting. Staff replied that a collective agreement on what the Commission would wish staff to put in a memorandum would be transmitted to City Council for consideration. Commissioner Brady stated that he supported public hearings for commercial centers proposed in or near residential developments, but pointed out that there were a number of existing ordinances that stated explicitly how property could or could not be developed in any given area. He agreed that there should be rules and ordinances to serve as guidelines, and that there should be some certainty within those guidelines. Commissioner Dhanens stated that while the Board of Zoning Adjustment had staff members that reviewed site plan review projects, those members are well qualified and capable of making decisions on projects as they relate to various zoning ordinances and other requirements. Referring to the proposed ordinance resulting in elimination of the Planning Commission, he pointed out that at present the only time the Commission would get involved in a site plan review would be in case of appeal. He recommended that the thresholds in the proposed ordinance be re-examined, and recommended that reference to policy should be eliminated from the proposed ordinance as written. Commissioner Tavorn stated that the public perception should be considered, that the public should be informed of what their officials are planning and why, and that citizens should be given the opportunity to express their concerns at special hearings if necessary. Commissioner Delgado expressed concern over the thresholds in the proposed ordinance, that the ordinance as written needs a closer look, and that the public should have an opportunity to express concern and participate in the development of the site plan review ordinance. Minutes, PC, 3~6~97 Page 7 Chairman Hersh stated that he agreed with Commissioner Tavorn that perception is an important factor that should be considered. He noted that the development community in Bakersfield has been aggressive regarding zoning and ordinances, and possibly had undue influence. He expressed concern over the threshold values in the ordinance as written, that they were not realistic. He stated that public review of projects would not consume an inordinate amount of time, that City officials should not forget who they represent. Chairman Hersh said that he would endorse the present site plan review, and would also endorse a public review with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dhanens said he supported public review of projects and greater Planning Commission involvement in the site plan review process. Commissioner Brady stated that the present system is an open one, that the public has opportunity for input at several levels of the site plan review process, and felt that the perception of undue influence being exerted on elected city officials was inappropriate :and not based on fact. Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Delgado, that the Commission recommend to the City Council that prior to adoption of the proposed ordinance that expanded public hearings or workshops be conducted on the issue of thresholds, that public hearings be conducted at a convenient hour, that an opportunity for a full hearing on the matter be given rather than the fifteen minutes normally allowed at City Council meetings, that the hearings for site plan review occur before the Planning Commission or that the appeal be from the Board of Zoning Adjustment to the Planning Commission rather than the City Council. Motion carried. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POTENTIAL U_SE OF P.G.&E. UTILITY EASEMENTS. Commissioner Delgado left the meeting at this time. Committee Chairman Commissioner Tkac reported that the committee met with P.G.&E. representatives and discussed the establishment of goals, safe uses, what can be done legally. He stated that research was underway to see what other communities were doing in this area. Commission Ortiz reported that P.G.&E. noted that less than one percent of property underneath transmission lines was owned by P.G.&E. He referred to the liability of property owners, and that attempts to enhance the area might result in strong opposition. He stated that first clearly defined uses had to be determined. Commissioner Boyle asked if there were an ordinance that required property owners to develop easements. Mr. Grady replied that no such ordinance existed; however,, they have encouraged property owners to do so. Commissioner Boyle suggested that an ordinance might be considered that would require property owners to meet with P.G.&E. on such easements to determine possible uses for such easements. Minutes, PC, 3~6~97 Page 8 Chairman Hersh asked if P.G.&E. had provided maps showing these areas within the City and County. Commissioner Tkac replied that they had. COmmissioner Ortiz cautioned against an ordinance, suggesting that standards be established instead. Commissioner Tkac asked that the item be continued to the next meeting. 11. COM M U NICATJ_ON_S There were no written or verbal communications. 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS ,:Commissioner Brady stated that the next subdivision meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, March 12, 1997. -t3, DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING PO_SS Chairman Hersh stated that the Commission would have a pre-meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Planning Director