Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/99 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL ALTERNATE: Thursday - April 15, 1999 5:30 p.m. JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TA VORN RON SPRAGUE 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.a) 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. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL 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, c/o 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. Agenda, PC, Thursday - April 15, 1999 Page 2 2.b) If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. PRESENTATIONS 1. Award of Service Plaques to outgoing Commissioners Robert Ortiz and Wade Tavorn. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience 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. 3.1) Agenda Item 3.2) Agenda Item 3.3) Agenda Item 3.4) Agenda Item 3.5) Agenda Item 3.6) Agenda Item 3.7) Agenda Item 3.8) Agenda Item 4.1 - EOT Vesting Tentative Tract 5669 4.2 - EOT Parcel Map 9784 4.3 - EOT Tentative Tract 5529 4.4 - EOT Tentative Tract 5656 5.1 - Vesting Rights Extension - Tract 5877 Phase B 6.2 - Vesting Rights Extension - Tract 5429 Phases A & B 5.3 - Vesting Rights Extension - Tract 5863 Phases C, D & G 5.4 - Vesting Rights Extension - Tract 5876 Phase C PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 4.1) Vestin_~ Tentative Tract 5669 (Delmarter & Deifel) An extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract 5669 consisting of 75 residential lots on 19.3 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located on the west side of Coffee Road, north of Old Farm Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote 4.2) Tentative Parcel Map 9784 (Porter-Robertson) An extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map 9784 consisting of 8 parcels on 420 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), located at the southeast corner of Highway 178 and Miramonte Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote - Agenda, PC, Thursday- April 15, 1999 Page 3 m 4.3) Tentative Tract 5529 (Simpson-Lusich-VanCuren) An extension of time for Tentative Tract 5529 consisting of 110 lots on 26 acres, zoned A-20A (Agriculture - 20-acre minimum), located at the northeast corner of Akers Road and Berkshire Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote 4.4) Tentative Tract 5656 (Porter-Robertson) An extension of time for Tentative Tract 5656 consisting of 184 lots on 193.68 acres that include 180 lots for purposes of single family residential development, and 4 lots of more than 21 acres in size, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located on the southwest corner of Highway 178 and Miramonte Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote EXTENSIONS OF TIME - VESTING RIGHTS (Roger Mclntosh for Castle & Cooke) 5.1) Tract 5877, Phase B - Located on the north side of Ming Avenue, east of Grand Lakes Avenue. (Exempt from CEQA) Recommendation: Approve Group vote 5.2) Tract 5429, Phases A & B - Located north of White Lane, west of Old River Road. (Exempt from CEQA) Recommendation: Approve Group vote Tract 5863 Phases C, D & G - Located south of Ming Avenue, east of Buena Vista Road. (Exempt from CEQA) Recommendation: Approve Group vote Tract 5876, Phase C - Located north of Ming Avenue, west of Old River Road. (Exempt from CEQA) 5.3) 5.4) Agenda, PC, Thursday - April 15, 1999 Page 4 ..Recommendation: Approve ~ Group vote GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 6.1) General Plan Consistency Finding and Recommendation that City Council approve and adopt Old Town Kern - Pioneer Redevelopment project. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Approve Group vote 6.2) General Plan Consistency Findincj and Recommendation that City Council approve and adopt the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment project. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (City of Bakersfield) Ordinance amending and deleting sections of Chapters 17.52 and 17.54 of Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code related to the authority granted the Planning Director to approve modifications to site plans for approved development projects in P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) and P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) zones. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Approve Roll call vote COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees Agenda, PC, Thursday - April 15, 1999 Page 5 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. 11. ADJOURNMENT April12,1999 ~~Plann.mg Director ~ Held Thursday April 15, 1999 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TA¥ORN RON SPRAGUE, Alternate Absent: MATHEW BRADY = ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary 2.a.) PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal Commissioners Boyle and Tavorn stated that they did not attend the Monday pre-meeting but that they had listened to the tape of the meeting and would be taking part in tonight's meeting. Minutes, PC, Thursday - April 15, 1999 Page 2 = 2.b) PRESENTATIONS Stanley Grady, Planning Director, acknowledged and presented service awards to the two outgoing Commissioners, Robert Ortiz and Wade Tavorn. He thanked them for their service and contribution to the city during their term as Planning Commissioners. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) 3.2) 3.3) 3.4) 3.6) 3.6) 3.7) 3.8) Agenda Item 4.1 - EOT Vesting Tentative Tract 5669 Agenda Item 4.2 - EOT Parcel Map 9784 Agenda Item 4.3 - EOT Tentative Tract 5529 Agenda Item 4.4 - EOT Tentative Tract 5656 - Agenda Item 5.1 - Vesting Rights Extension - Tract 5877 Phase B Agenda Item 5.2 - Vesting Rights Extension - Tract 5429 Phases A & B Agenda Item 5.3 - Vesting Rights Extension - Tract 5863 Phases C, D & G Agenda Item 5.4 - Vesting Rights Extension - Tract 5876 Phase C Commissioner Sprague stated a conflict of interest for Consent Agenda Item's 3.2 and 3.4. A motion was made by COmmissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve the Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 4.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 5669 (Delmarter & Deifel) Approved as a Consent Agenda item. 4.2) Tentative Parcel Map 9784 (Porter-Robertson) 4.3) 4.4) Approved as a Consent Agenda item. Tentative Tract 5529 (Simpson=Lusich-VanCuren) Approved as a Consent Agenda item. Tentative Tract 5656 (Porter-Robertson) Approved as a Consent Agenda item. EXTENSIONS OF TIME - VESTING RIGHTS (Roger Mclntosh for Castle & Cooke) 5.1) Tract 5877,' Phase B - Approved as a Consent Agenda item. 5.2) Tract 5429, Phases A & B - Approved as a. Consent Agenda item. Minutes, PC, Thursday, April 15, 1999 Page 3 5.3) Tract 5863 Phases C, D & G - Approved as a Consent Agenda item. 5.4) Tract 5876, Phase C - Approved as a Consent Agenda item. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 6.1) and 6.2) General Plan Consistency Findings and Recommendations Jake Wager, Economic Development Director and the Deputy Executive Director for the Central District Development Agency for the City of Bakersfield, asked the Commission to approve the General Plan Consistency finding for the proposed Old Town Kern- *Pioneer Redevelopment and the Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment-project area, and recommend same to the City Council. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition or in favor. public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague commended Mr. Wager on the work that's been done on the two projects. Commissioner Ortiz also commended Mr. Wager on the job that's being done. · Commissioner Boyle asked if there is anything in the general plan consistency finding that actually changes existing ordinances or rules and regulations to give more flexibility or encOuragement to build .in these areas? Mr. Grady answered that there is not. Commissioner Boyle asked as part of the redevelopment plan such changes would be proposed. Mr. Wager responded by saying the projects are viewed as a financing plan as a way'to induce private investment. There is some flexibility that would allow the Redevelopment Agency in consultation with the City Council and the Planning Commission to establish some additional level of ease of doing business. That is not anticipated at this time. Commissioner Boyle said that he thinks staff should look into making it easier to do business such as a modified or elimination of many of the filing fees and other things that would encourage people to look at these areas. Mr. Wager said the financial inducements would address those things; such as, absorbing the cost of fees, absorbing the cost of off-site improvements, mitigation measures that would be required on a project-specific basis. Minutes, PC, Thursday - April 15, 1999 Page 4 7~ Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Wager what he sees in the next 1 to 5 years in the terms of possible projects - things in the works? Mr. Wager said they are presently engaged in discussion with some industrial users, primarily in southeast Bakersfield. Mr. Wager stated that he thinks the southeast area offers faster growth because there are larger tracts of land and more suitable for large industrial plants. That is the major reason this project was embarked on. This venturb is to try to secure more jobs and secure that type of investment. The Old Town Kern- Pioneer project area will see smaller projects, such as expanding small businesses.' Commissioner Sprague asked Dennis Fidler, Building Director, What the status is on the unreinfOrced masonry buildings. What is the count and also what is the cut off date that · these buildings had to comply with? Mr. Fidler said that there were 50 out of 204 still to be reinforced. The cut off date is indefinite. Last November the City Council voted to remove the December 31, 1999, deadline. Commissioner Tkac asked Mr. Wager how the people in these areas are informed? Mr. Wager said it was done on two levels. The first is a first class mailing that goes to every property owner, resident and business within the proposed project areas. There is also a recording done on each individual parcel that that property is located in a Redevelopment project area. Mr..Wager said that especially the development community is aware of it as it has received a lot of publicity in the newspapers and on television. Motion was made by COmmissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, reporting on the proposed redevelopment plan for Old Town Kern-Pioneer Redevelopment project and recommending that said redevelopment plan be approved and adopted by the City Council. Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, reporting on the proposed redevelopment plan for Southeast Bakersfield Redevelopment project and recommending that said redevelopment plan be approved and adopted by the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (City of BakerSfield) Staff report was given by the planning Director, Stanley Grady. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition or'favor. Public portion of the hearing is closed. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Grady the ~lefinition of"minor." Commissioner Sprague stated that he is against adding additional language to the ordinance giving the Planning Director sole authority to make "minor" changes because we don't know what "minor" means. He asked that staff explain the parameters. Minutes, PC, Thursday -April 15, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Grady responded by saying that it would be anything that did not affect environmental mitigation or any of the original conditions of approval that would reduce or eliminate amenities or substantially alter the application of existing ordinances and standards applied to the zone change. Commissioner Sprague stated that he thinks if this ordinance is adopted, it will come back to haunt the planning Commission: Commissioner Sprague thinks seven heads are better than one and you need the whole Commission to make the decision not just one person. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady if this change in the ordinance allows the Planning Director to make modifications to both the preliminary plan and the final plan? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Boyle said that he has no problem with the Planning Director approving the changes in the preliminary plan but a final plan should have no changes made to it without coming back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tavorn stated that he agreed. The Planning Commission should have the final say. This particular ordinance needs to be a little more objective. Commissioner Kemper said she agreed with Commissioner Boyle regarding the final plans but that she had no problem with the way the ordinance was written. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if the changes to the Grand Canal project were brought in with the changes made to the ordinance would Mr. Grady have had the ability to approve those at staff level instead of having a public hearing? Mr. Grady said that yes he would have been able to approve site plan modifications without a public hearing. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if the language in the current ordinance wasn't recently changed. Mr. Grady said it was changed last year. Commissioner Dhanens said based on the answers and the experience of the Grand Canal, he does not have a problem with the language in the proposed ordinance. It would streamline the process. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady what happens if its not a minor modification? Does it have to go all the way-back to the beginning? Mr. Grady said that if its not minor it would require a new PCD zone change. CommisSioner'Sprague asked Mr. Grady if when the plan came back for a final PCD plan, would there be an opportunity to make changes? Mr. Grady said they would be looking at it just to see if its in compliance not for a redesign. Changes cannot be made. Commissioner Kemper said that this needs to be looked at as a streamlining effort. It accomplishes what needs to be done in an efficient manner. Commissioner Kemper said in her opinion the Planning Director should be allowed to have this discretion. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady that if the Commission had a preliminary development plan which they approve and have as a condition that the final be brought back to the Planning Commission, then Mr. Grady approves what he believes is minor Minutes, PC, Thursday- April 15, 1999 Page 6 and then the map comes back to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission doesn't think the changes were minor and doesn't agree with them, does that mean that the Planning Commission has no ability to change it back? Mr. Grady stated that the way the ordinance is written is the Planning Commission's review of the final is a consistency review, not a design review. Mr. Grady said that the ordinance should state that if thefinal plan is conditioned to come back to the Planning Commission, then the Planning Director cannot make any minor modifications to it. Commissioner Boyle stated that he feels that if there have been minor changes made to a plan and it comes back for final, then the Commission ought to have the ability to comment on the changes and maybe as a condition of approval require them to change it back. Commissioner Boyle asked to continue this ordinance for two weeks or 30 days so that Mr. Hernandez Will have the opportunity to take some of the Commission's comments and see if he can reword some changes that would be acceptable. Commissioner Tkac agreed that it should be continued so that the language in the ordinance can be changed. Commissioner Dhanens asked if the Commission can on a case-by-case basis make one of the conditions that the Planning Director cannot allow any minor modifications to the plan. Mr. Grady said that the way the ordinance is written now, you wouldn't be able to do that. Commissioner Sprague stated that he is for streamlining but agrees with Commissioner Boyle that a continuance should be made so that a change in the language proposed can be made. Commissioner Boyle made a motion to continue the matter and ask that city staff, in particular the City Attorney's office, look at the ordinance for inclusion of provisions that on those maps where the Commission has asked for the final map to come back to the Planning Commission that they work on appropriate language either as a condition of approval, the Commission can prohibit the Planning Director from making minor modifications or that the COmmission can somehow have the power to "second guess" those minor modifications to be able to change that as a condition of approval. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Hernandez how long he would need to change the language in the ordinance. Mr. Hernandez responded that he could have it changed in two weeks. Commissioner Boyle made the motion to continue it until May 6. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady stated that the first meeting in May would be the election of officers. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioners Sprague, Boyle and Tkac commended Commissioners Tavorn and Ortiz for sitting on the Planning Commission. Minutes, PC, Thursday - April 15, 1999 Page 7 10. Commissioner Ortiz and Tavorn thanked the rest of the Commissioners for their nice ~:omments and commended staff for doing a fine job. ' DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THI~ 11. May 4, 1999 NEXT PRE-MEETING. ' Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, not to have a pre-meeting because of the light agenda. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Director I \