Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/00 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Thursday, July 6, 2000 5:30 p.m. MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice-Chairman MA THEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC 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. 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, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 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 $334 nomrefundable 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received Within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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, Thursday - July 6, 2000 Page 2 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 recommendedfor 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) 3.2) ' Agenda Item 4) - Minutes of May 30 & June 1, 2000, Planning Commission meetings. Agenda Item 5) -Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10700 (Delmarter & Deifel) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held*May 30 and June 1, 2000. 5. (Ward 1) PUBLIC HEARING'- VESTING TENTATIVE pARCEL MAP 10700 (Delmarter & Deifel) consisting of three parcels on 10.32 acres, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), to convert existing multiple family residential units for condominium purposes, located approximately 150 feet south of East California Avenue, between South Owens Street and Lakeview Avenue. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vOte (Ward 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 5430 Second Revision (Mclntosh & Associates) A proposed second reVision to vesting tentative tract map containing 214 lots on 64..1 acres for single family residential purposes, and a proposed 0.65 acre private clubhouse zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); and request for private gated streets, alternate street improvements, double frontage lots on local streets; and reverse corner lots located west of Old River Road, north and south of White Oak Drive (extended). (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - July 6, 2000 Page 3 (war~ 4) 6.2)' Vesting Tentative Tract 5993 (Porter-Robertson) containing 421 lots on 123.33 acres for-single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-1 Ch (One Family Dwelling-Church); and a request for modifications to street improvements, located on the southeast corner of Calloway Drive and Snow Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vote (Ward 5). PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change P99-0911 (Cornerstone Engineering) Proposed zone change from a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone to a revised PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone on 10.1 acres to allow a helistop for emergency medical purposes; a revised footprint of the future hospital wing; and medical office building. The request also includes a modification to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from June 1 and June 15, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vote 8. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 8.1 .a) (Wards 2 & 5) General Plan Amendment P00-0236 - Halferty Development Company LLC has proposed to change*the land use designation from HMR (High Medium Density Residential) to GC (General Commercial) on 5.14 acres, located along the south side of Ming Avenue between Canter Way and Raintree Court. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from June 15, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vote. 8.2.b) (Wards 2 & 5) Zone Change No. P00-0236 - Halferty Development Company LLC has proposed a change in zoning from an R-1 CH (One Family Dwelling-Church) and R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone on 5.14 acres, located along the south side of Ming ^venue between Canter Way and Raintree Court. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from June 15, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday - July 6, 2000 Page 4 9. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A JOINT MEETING OF THI= CITY AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS. 10. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BLOCK WALLS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. 11. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees 13. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THI= NEXT PRE-MEETING ON JULY 31, 2000 14. ADJOURNMENT July 3, 2000 Planning Director MINUTES OF THE REGULARMEETiNGi.::~::i?::"'" '"-'~:.?: <::i:'?~ Held July 6, 2000 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC Absent: MATHEW BRADY ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: ANDREW THOMSON, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JENNIE ENG,.Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) 3.2) A.qenda Item 4) - Minutes of May 30 & June 1, 2000, Planning Commission meetings. Agenda Item 5) -Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10700 (Delmarter & Deifel) A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper to approve the Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, July 6, 2000 Parle 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held May 30 and June 1, 2000. See Consent agenda. 5. PUBLIC HEARING -VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10700 (Delmarter & Deifel) (Ward 1) See Consent agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 5430 Second Revision (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions, attached to resolution. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle & Cooke,CA Inc., said they reviewed the staff report and concur with the recommendations as well as the memorandum dated July 6, 2000, and asked for the Commission's approval. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Kemper asked Ms. Shaw. for her comment about putting a gate past the next intersection to the east of Mountain Vista. Ms. Shaw said that she had talked to the Public Works Director and he is not adverse to leaving it a public street. Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract 5430 Second Revision with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" including memorandum of July 3 and July 6, 2000. Motion carried. 6.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 5993 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward4) Staff reported there is a request from the applicant to continue this item until August 3, 2000. Minutes, .Pc, July 6, 2000 Page 3 Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke for or against the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to continue this item until the Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 2000. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change P99-091'1 (Cornerstone Engineering) (Ward 5) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution along with memorandums from the Planing Department and Public Works ' 'Department. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Mike-Callagy, representing Cornerstone Engineering and the Heart Hospital of Bakersfield, stated that they are asking for revisions to make the Heart Hospital complex work more efficiently. One of them is for a hell-stop. It has been inspected by both CalTrans Division of Aeronautics and the FAA and it meets their requirements. They decided to move the hospital wing westerly because it was sitting on top of the cooling tower and emergency generators. In doing so, parking had to be rearranged which is shown on the site plan the Commissioners now have. In doing that the architect was able to get more beds into the wing to which parking had to be addressed. Actually, the number of beds they are asking to increase was the original request back in 1996 when this first came before the Commission and Council. Mr. Callagy asked the Commission to approve their request including the two memorandums as Mr. Grady outlined. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague said that he reviewed the project and he wholeheartedly supports the project. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady if he cOuld refresh his memory as to why the project was only approved with the 78 beds and not the 100 that had been on the original application? Mr. Grady said they have no information as to why it went from 103 to 78. Commissioner Boyle asked the City Attorney if there was a problem with the hearing tonight approving the 100 plus beds and the notice being originally for 78 beds? Mr. Thomson, Deputy City Attorney, said not that he was aware of. Mr. Grady said the EIR was approved for 103 beds. Minutes, PC, July 6, 2000 Page 4 Commissioner Tkac remembered that when the project was first heard, there were some issues regarding the equestrian trail and the heli-stopand asked if those issues have been mitigated? Mr. Grady said there is an equestrian easement that is part of the project that runs along the eastern border of the site and it is in place. Staff determined the condition had been complied with as part of the agreement. Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw why the item was stricken in the Public Works memo regarding the condition requiring the Heart Hospital to be responsible for coordinating with GET on the replacement of the bus shelter? Ms. Shaw said that Mr. Callagy, Mr. Grady and her boss, Jacques LaRochelle, met and decided that the City is responsible for putting things back where they belong and if there is an existing GET bus shelter, the City would be responsible for making sure it was relocated with the extension of Oak Street. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Zone Change P99- 0911 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" approving 103 beds with the requirement that a minimum number of parking spaces be provided in accordance to the zoning code and incorporating the revisions and recommendations in Public Works memo dated July 5, 2000 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES None ABSENT: Commissioner Brady PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE 8.1 .a) General Plan Amendment P00-0236 - Halferty Development Company LLC (Wards 2 & 5) Combined with 8.1.b below. 8.2.b) Zone Change No. P00-0236 - Halferty Development Company LLC (Continued from June t5, 2000) (Wards 2 & 5) Staff report given recommending approval including the 13 revised conditions that came from the sub-committee meeting held June 21, 2000. Public portion of the meeting was re-opened. No one spoke in opposition. Minutes, PC, July 6, 2000 Parle 5 Tim Gintzky, representing Halferty Development, thanked staff for their efforts in the sub-committee. Mr. Gintzky requested that the language be changed in condition No. 5 regarding the voice box for the restaurant from "the southwest corner of the building" to the "south side of the building." The speaker will still be between the east and west walls of the shop building and the brick wall to buffer the residential. Aisc, Mr. Gintzky asked for a modification to condition No. 13 regarding the left turn traffic storage from Ming Avenue turning onto Rain Tree Court. They agree with the condition but he has been talking to Steve Walker about the possibility of an alternative solution which is a left turn pocket from Ming Avenue directly into the main entrance to the shopping center leaving the left turn pocket the way it is currently configured into Rain Tree Court and Canter Way. They are not sure at this time if this will work but he requested adding some additional language that a comparable or better mitigation measure be acceptable to the Commission subject to further exploration with Public Works. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle said that he was on the committee and wanted to inform the other Commissioners that he is in support of the project With the conditions that have been discussed. Commissioner Boyle then asked if the City Engineer had any problem with changing the wording to condition No. 137 Ms. Shaw said that that would be acceptable. Commissioner Sprague stated that the committee meeting was very product able and the project is going to be good for the area. He then talked about one of the items he has discussed with the applicant which is the evergreen landscape to the south and eastern portion of the development. They discussed the trees being 36 inch trees on 20 foot centers which would allow the greenbelt shielding to occur faster and to shield the residences. Commissioner Sprague said the applicants have agreed to that and he wanted to incorporate that into one of the conditions. He also said they had a conversation regarding some 40 inch trees in the clump corners and he would like to get concurrence with the applicant and also incorporate that into the conditions of approval. He stated that he supports the project and thinks it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Commissioner Sprague asked Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, to address the applicant's request regarding traffic and the entrance to the shopping center. Mr. Walker said that there is some engineering challenges to overcome but it appears there is enough frontage available and length of median that they can do what they are talking about but they may have to move the opening a few feet to the east. He said it is basically an engineering decision based on whether there is enough room and it can be investigated and a determination later if that is acceptable to the Planning Commission. Minutes, PC,'July 6, 2000 Parle 6 Commissioner Sprague then asked the applicant his thoughts on the requests Commissioner Sprague made regarding the landscaping. Mr. Gintzky said they are in agreement with Commissioner Sprague's recommendation for the landscaping but as a point of clarification he wanted to know if the 36 inch trees were to be put on the south wall abutting the residential and the east wall abutting the residential? Commissioner Sprague said that is correct. Mr. Gintzky said they accept those conditions. Commissioner Tkac also stated that he supported the project and commended staff and the committee for working this out quickly and efficiently. Commissioner Dhanens stated that the height of the light standards was a concern at the last meeting and wondered if the committee had evaluated that situation? Mr. Grady said he didn't think the committee came up with a condition for light standards. Commissioner Boyle said that during the committee meeting their primary concern was with the lights on the south side of the project because they would be the ones closest to homes. What they designed were lights being built into the retaining wall one foot lower than the wall. The committee did not discuss parking lot lights. Commissioner Dhanens also wondered if the committee had considered the dozen parking spaces that face Rain Tree Court that exists between Shops B and Restaurant A and whether or not discussion took place regarding vehicle lights shining into the residences across the street? Commissioner Boyle said that they did not discuss that in any detail other than the apartments on Rain Tree are heavily landscaped on that side so there is already sufficient landscaping to defuse whatever light that would be shining across a 60 foot wide street. Commissioner Sprague said there is a 4 foot block wall across the street and he feels there is sufficient mitigation on that street for any light that may shine from automobiles. Commissioner Dhanens asked Steve Walker if three left hand turns in the median would be too much in such a short distance and wanted to know if it is a · good thing to do from a traffic flow stand point? Mr. Walker said that is a consideration but because it would direct the majority of the traffic to the center into their own private drive it will reduce traffic on Rain Tree and Canter and to him it looked like an advantage and a good possibility if the distances can be worked out. Commissioner Dhanens said that notwithstanding the committee's efforts and the conditions they came up with but from a general plan amendment standpoint he could not support the project of putting more commercial on Ming Avenue which is already a heavy commercial strip. Minutes, PC, July 6, 2000 Pal]e 7 Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle to adopt resolution with findings .adopting a negative declaration and approving the requested general plan land use amendment from HMR to GC as shown on Exhibit "B" subject to mitigation measures and conditions of approval as shown in Exhibit "A" plus the conditions of the Planning Commission sub-committee with the following modifications: Item 5) will be the south side of the building and Item 13) applicant will increase traffic storage area on Ming Avenue at the Rain Tree Court median break, the storage to be a minimum of 200 feet along with a 90 foot bay taper or in the alternative to provide for a left turn directly into the shopping center with a 200 feet stacking and 50 foot taper to be approved by the City Engineer. Also, one- half of all trees will be evergreen and the trees on the south side of the project and also including the east side of the project south of the entrance off of Canter Way will be 36-inch box on 20 foot on-center and that they will be evergreen on that portion of the project. Mr. Grady stated that he wanted to make clear as to the landscaping condition. Essentially, we are saying the landscape plan will comply with the requirements of Title 17. That will take care of whatever percentages of evergreen to deciduous trees that are needed and with the addition that planting on the east and south border shall be evergreen trees 36 inch in size 20 feet on-center. The motion was amended by Commissioner Boyle and seconded by Sprague. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: - Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac NOES Commissioner Dhanens ABSENT: Commissioner Brady Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to adopt resolution with findings adopting a negative declaration and approving the requested zone change from R-1 Ch (One Family Dwelling- Church) and R-3 to a P.C.D. as shown on Exhibit "B" subject to the mitigation measures and conditions of approval shown on Exhibit "A" plus the conditions from the sub-committee including the modifications that the landscaping will be consistent with Title 17 with the addition that the trees on the east and south sides will be 36 inch 20 foot on-center and all evergreen. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac NOES Commissioner Dhanens ABSENT: Commissioner Brady Minutes, PC, July 6, 2000 Parle 8 9. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A JOINT MEETING OF THF CITY AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Chairman Dhanens asked for any comments, questions or proposals from the Commission. Commissioner Sprague asked "that'since we went through the committee process on the Coleman project (the shopping center at Buena Vista and Stockdale) which is very similar to this project (Ming Avenue at Canter Way and Rain Tree) and then going through three hours of discussion at committee on this project which basically came up with a lot of the same terms and conditions regarding the increase in size of the wall from 6 to 8 feet and the evergreen landscaping and the items contained in the 13 conditions, if staff could research these items and possibly bring back some type of revised ordinance that would allow for these in residential adjacent communities so that we have an ordinance on the books so that developers can see the provisions of the ordinance before they even come to develop the property and they know what they are · faced with as far as putting in those improvements?" Mr. Grady said they could do that. Commissioner Boyle said that he would like to meet with the County Planning Commission but since the City Council is involved in an on-going process with the Board of Supervisors he feels that the Commission should have specific instruction as to what items the Council would like them to discuss and a meeting should not be scheduled without it first coming from City Council. Commissioner Sprague said that he thinks it is a good time to have a joint meeting and talk about some of the differences in the codes and ordinances between the County and the City and to get some resolution that would run in continuity. In many cases you have city on one side and county on one side and you have requirements from the city for de-cel lanes and none from the county and you end up with awkward looking intersections. There are various other ordinances regarding landscaping, shielding walls and things like that Commissioner Sprague feels that if we could get together we could run some continuity. He has talked with some of the County Planning Commissioners and other City Commissioners and some Councilmembers and they like the idea. Commissioner Sprague said that he feels that the Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Dhanens, should send a letter to the Council requesting a joint meeting and then the Commission could get together and talk about topics with staff prior to that meeting of what needs to be accomplished, that it would be a benefit to the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if he still feels that the best way to approach this would be to write a letter to the City Council outlining what issues or items that the Commission proposes to discuss so that they could concur or disagree with those items? Mr. Grady said that he originally suggested that the Commission draft a letter to the Councilmember who is no longer on the Council but there definitely should be an agenda so that both the City Council and the Board of Supervisors would know what Minutes, PC, July 6, 2000 Page 9 the purpose and intent of the joint meeting is going to be and to. have some idea of what the outcome would be. Mr. Grady said that in his opinion the Commission needs to get some direction from the City Council. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if one scenario would be for him to write a letter on behalf of the Commission to the Council saying that we are amenable to having a meeting like this and if you are agreeable to this what type of issues would the Council want us to research? Or that we would be more than happy to meet with the Council ahead of time to discuss potential agenda items? Would that be the avenue to take this? Mr. Grady said that woUld be a good start. Commissioner Boyle said that he would suggest that Chairman Dhanens write a letter to the Council saying that we are available and interested in doing that to the extent that the Council would like our services and that we then schedule a meeting between the Planning Commission and the Council or between the Subdivision Committee of the City Council whichever would be appropriate to come up with items the City would like us to address with our counterparts at the County Planning Commission. Mr. Grady reminded the Commission that it is a legal requirement that whenever they meet and whatever they meet to discuss they must have an agenda. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Grady if staff could prepare a list of some of the differences in codes between the county and the city? Mr. Grady said that staff could do a review to highlight the most obvious things that are different between what the city and county do in a memorandum. Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to request city staff to provide the Commission with a list of specific items that are incongruous between the way the city does planning and the county does planning and once the list has been reviewed, then to have the Chairman of our Commission write a letter offering our services to the City Council. Motion carried. 10. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BLOCK WALLS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. Mr. Grady reported that the City Council recommended the Planning Commission give some consideration to reviewing this matter and said the Commission might want to refer this to a committee. Slides were shown to the Commission showing examples of the kinds of fences that staff has dealt with in the past. Things that have been approved and things that have not been approved that are out in the community and to show how they have applied, through the Board of Zoning Adjustment, the review and decisions made individually on what kinds of fences in the front yard would be allowed. Minutes, PC, July 6, 2000 Page 10 Mr. Grady said .that what the Council wants is some review by the Commission to determine if the current process is working or if there is some need to open up the process and allow these things by right or provide some different measure for handling requests for fences in the front yard. Commissioner Sprague asked staff how many requests the city gets in a one or two year period? Mr. Grady said one a year is usually the norm. Sometimes two. Commissioner Sprague said he feels the way we are doing it works on a as needed basis and the amount of requests per year does not justify a change in the ordinance. Commissioner Boyle asked if these requests were primarily on arterial or collector' streets or are they on residential as well? Mr. Grady said they are on all streets. Commissioner Boyle stated that if this goes to a committee, his feeling is primarily for fencing that is open in nature such as wrought iron. He would be vehemently opposed to anything that was chain-link with slats. Commissioner Dhanens said the ordinance that deals with this issue states that there are two situations wherein a wall higher than four feet in the front yard setback is allowed and it looks like they take either both Planning Commission/Council or BZA/Council approval to do that but the fences that were shown in slides tonight do not appear to fall into those categories and Commissioner Dhanens asked if there is a difference in providing an exception in cases where the subdivision wall needs finishing or where there is noise attenuation versus situations where homeowners want to do it for aesthetics or privacy reasons? Mr. Grady said that language could be added. It doesn't specifically say that but in practice the BZA has the authority vested in it to make modifications to fences beyond the two provisions in Section B.1 and 2. That is the opportunity for someone to discuss the aesthetics of a wall as opposed to one that is going to attenuate noise or one that is required as part of a subdivision. Commissioner Dhanens stated that his initial reaction is similar to that of Commissioner Sprague's in that there is relatively few situations where the BZA or the Commission is asked to provide a modification to this requirement. If there is a way for language to be drafted to accommodate the wrought iron type of fence that is aesthetically pleasing along with it not being a traffic hazard, he would go along with it going to a committee but Commissioner Dhanens asked how many applications are denied through the BZA. Mr. Fidler said that probably 1/3 of them are not passed. Normally if they are not passed it is because the neighbors are opposed to it. The reason for the ordinances are so that people know when they purchase property what the conditions are and if you are going to change them then the neighborhood should be given an opportunity to state their purpose. Usually a wrought iron fence doesn't get much opposition as opposed to a block wall. Commissioner Boyle suggested that a committee be appointed to develop this issue further. Commissioner Dhanens appointed Commissioners Tkac, McGinnis and Sprague to the committee with Commissioner Tkac as Chairman. Minutes, PC, July 6, 2000 Parle 11 11. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady announced the next Planning Commission meeting would be August 3. There are no items for the July 20 agenda. 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS None 13. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF NEXT PRE-MEETING ON JULY 31,200n It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on July 31, 2000. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY,~ Planning Director August 10, 2000 B A K--E-R-'S ~F I E-:-L D Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director Dennis C. Fidler Stanley C. Grady Building Director ' - - Planning Director (661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266 (661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 327-0646 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF - ' -- THE REGULAR MEETING .... oF THE PLANING COMMISSION - OF THE CITY-OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBy G!_V_EN_that the-'regu!arly scheduled ......... meeting, of the ' Planning commission of the City of Bakersfield scheduled for THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2000, is canceled. DATED: July 12, 2000 pc~agenda\7-20 _ Planning Director ~ - City of Bakersfield · 1715 CheSter-Avenue · BakersfieldI California .- 93301 - . _ .:_-:-:__- : - , :_ ~ :_-~--:_.-~.~- ....... : - . _.-_-:_---: -:_ .... : ~ .: .. :_-~ ~_._ . _ ..... _ ........... : ~--: