Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/01 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, January'4, 2001 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 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 i~terested person adversely affected by the decision of the Commission. No permit shall ,be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acce prance date of appeal. The appeal shall include the e'ppellant's interest in or relationship to the subject property, the decision or action appealed and shall state specific facts and reasons why the appellant believes the decision or action of the Commission should not be upheld. Such appeal must be filed in Writing within 10 days from date ofhearing, 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 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within~the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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, Thursday - January, 4, 2001 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 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 open. ed and the items acted on as a group. 3.1) Agenda Item 6) - Amendment to Title 17 regarding uses in M-'I zone, 3,2) Agenda Item 7) - Zone Change P00-0835 (City of Bakersfield) 3,3) Agenda Item 10) - General Plan Consistency Finding for the acq uisition of property, (Ward 4) PUBLIC HEARING - Revised Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10617 (Mclntosh & Associates)-Containing 2 parcels on 321.44 acres for purposes of creating large 10ts for future residential and commercial subdivision, zoned R-1 (One Family - Dwelling), R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) and C-2 (Regional Commercial) zones and a request to waive certain-improvements; generally located on the south side of Ming Avenue (extended) and east of South Allen Road (extended). (Negative - Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION:' Approve GrOupvote -5. (Ward 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 5.1 Vesting Tentative Tract 6032 (SmithTech USA, Inc) Containing 108 buildable lots, on 26.67 net acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-:'I (One Family Dwelling). The'applicant is also requesting a modification to standards to allow reverse corner lots and a modification to allow a curve radius of less than 500 feet on a local street; located on the northeast corner .of Ming Avenue and South Allen Road, on the west side of River Run 'Boulevard. (Negati~,e Declaration on file) (Continued from December 7, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - January 4, 2001 Page 3 (Ward 4) 5.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 6034 (SmithTech USA) Containing 94 buildable lots on 26.24 net acres for single family residential purposes zoned R-1 (One Family Dwel!ing). The applicant is also requesting a modification to standards to allow a reverse corner lot; located approximately 680 feet north of Ming Avenue on the east side of South Allen Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from December 7, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote (Ward 4) 5.3) Vesting Tentative Tract 5827 Second Revision (Mclntosh & Assoc) Containing 95 lots on 38.12 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family DWelling) and a request to allow reverse corner lots. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote 6. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD' MUNICIPAL CODE (City of Bakersfield) adding certain agricultural, commercial and industrial uses to the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zone to accommodate uses within the Bakersfield Airpark. (ExemPt from CEQA) (All Wards) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE P00-0835 (City of Bakersfield) Zone Change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to M-1 (Light ManufactUring) to correct a zoning error on approximately 200 acres and allow continued use of the site as · Bakersfield Airpark with related industrial uses; located south of Watts Drive, north of East White Lane between Madison Street and South Union Avenue. Aisc included is a small rectangular area at the northwest corner of Watts Drive and Madison Street. (Exempt from CEQA) - (Ward 1). RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote -Agenda, PC, ThursdaY - January 4, 2001 Page 4 (Ward 4) (Ward 4) 10. (Ward 2) 11. 12. 13. MASTER WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN #P00-0901 (Castle and Cooke) A'master wall and-landscape concept plan for the several single family residential tracts in the Brimhall Road area, including design of streetscape landscaping, subdivision walls, and neighborhood identification corner monumentation; generally located on the south side-of Brimhall Road, between Allen Road and Verdugo Lane, Old Farm Road and Jewetta Road. (Exempt from CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. ' PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN (Northwest Target LLC) fo[' the Northwest Promenade located at 8100 through 9400 Rosedale Highway zoned PCD '(Planned Commercial. Development). (Continued from December 21, 2000) (Exempt from CEQA) '- RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. GENERAL PLAN-CONSISTENCY FINDING for the acquisition of a parcel by the City at- the northeast corner of 13th~ Street and "O" Street. (Exempt from CEQA) · RECOMMENDATION: " Make Finding Group vote COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING 14. ADJOURNMENT Janua~ 2,2001 Planning Director Held January 4, 2001 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 MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC Absent: None ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present:. Staff: CARL HERNANDEZ, Assistant City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director - JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner JIM EGGERT. Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal Commissioners Boyle and McGinnis stated they had missed Monday's pre-meeting but listened to a copy of the tape of the meeting and were prepared to participate in tonight's meeting. Minutes, PC,-January 4,- 2001 Page 2 '3. -CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1). Agenda Item 6) -Amendment to Title 17 regarding uses in M-I zone. 3.2) Agenda Item 7) - Zone Change P00-0835 (City of Bakersfield) 3.3) Agenda Item 10) - General Plan Consistency Finding for the acquisition of property. Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve the consent agenda items. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - ReviSed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10617 (Mclntosh & Associates) ¢Ward 4) Staff recommended approval with conditions and stated that the Commission needed to include in the motion a memorandum from the Public Works Department revising conditionNo. 1.2. "- Public portion of the hearing Was opened. No one spoke in opposition. R0gerMclntosh, representing Castle and Cooke CA, stated they Concur-with staff's recommendations and conditions but there should be two.memos dated January 2 included in the motion. One from the Public Works Department and one from Florn Core of the Water Resources Department. A copy of the memo from the Water Department was passed out to the Commission. The memo amends condition No. 7 under Water Resources Department. Public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commission comments or questions.. ' Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to 'approve-ReviSed Vesting-Tentative Parcel Map 10617 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution-and incorporating the two memorandums dated January 2, one from Marian Shaw and the other from Florn Core, the Water Resources Director. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 6.1 Vesting Tentative Tract 6032 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Continued from December 7, 2000) (ward4) Staff recommendedi approval and stated that the Commission needed to include a memorandum from the Public Works Department dated January 2, 2001. Public Portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. .Minutes, PC, January 4, 200t Page 3 Tricia Harbeson representing the applicant, stated they are satisfied with staff's recommendations and conditions and requested the Commission's approval of the project. - Public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commission comments or questions, Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6032 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution including the memo~dated January 2 from Marian Shaw of the Public Works ' Department. Motion carried. 5.2) Vesting Tentative Tract 6034 (SmithTech USA) (W~,rd 4) Staff ~ecommended approval with conditions and stated that the Commission needed to add a memorandum from the Public Works Department dated January 2 to the motion. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Tricia Harbeson, representing the applicant, stated they are satisfied with staff's recommendations and conditions. She told the Commission that on November 30,' they requested permission to build a median at Sugar Pine Drive which would be consistent, with other developments that are in the area and Ms. Shaw -has approved that. Public 'portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Dhar~ens asked Ms. Shaw if she hada comment about the median? Ms. ShaW, said she has discussed this with Ms. Harbeson and that it is consistent with other developments in the area and Public Works has no objection to this particular variance. Ms. Shaw said that if conditi°n No. 4 were taken out it would take care of it. Commissioner Boyle asked about the large indentation shown on the map and was told by Mr. Grady that is a site set aside for a park. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by 'Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6034 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A with the deleting of Public Works Department'condition No. 4 and the inclusion of the revisions contained in the January 2 memorandum. from Marian Shaw. Motion carried. MinUtes, PC, January 4, 2001 Page 4 5.3) Vesting Tentative Tract 5827 Second Revision (Mclntosh &Assoc) (Ward 4) Nothing new was added since the Monday pre-meeting. Staff recommended aPproval with conditions.. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger MclntoSh, representing the applicant, stated they are satisfied with staff's recommendations and conditionsand said he is available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commission comments or questions.. Motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract .MaP 5827 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached reSolUtion Exhibit A: Motion carried. 7. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE (City of Bakersfield) (All Wards) See Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE P00-0835 (City of- Bakersfield) (Ward See Consent Agenda. MASTER WALL'AND 'LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN #P00-0901 (Castle and Cooke) (Ward 4) Mr. Grady.said the Commission should have a memorandum dated January 4 which identifies a change in the number of development sUbdivision signs. Staff had initially ..'mentioned at.the pre-meeting that there are 27 when there is actually 19. Commissioner Boyle asked if the applicant is proposing a ten foot wall for the entire length or just a segment at,the entrance? Mr. Grady said the proposal is to have the ability to exceed'the standard for any of the wall segments. Commissioner Boyle said' he would have a. problem with that because aesthetically it wouldn't be very pleasing. Commissioner Kemper Said at the Monday pre-meeting either-Mr. Grady or Mr. Movius said that it was because of .the grading of the lots behind them. It is to compensate the change in the elevation of the lots. MinUtes,PC,-*January 4, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Mclntosh why they need to go up to ten feet? Mr. Mclntosh said that there are areas that necessitates the ability to'go up to ten feet simply because the grade difference on the street side to the lots on the inside i'equire _a six foot height and some cases there is a four feet differencefrom the street to the lot so a ten-fOot wail'has to beibuilt for Storm drainage and sewer grades.' In engineering this area, it was difficult to keep. the walls to an eight foot height. They will try to minimize as much as possible the ten foot walls. -Commissioner Brady asked how they propose to make the change .from an existing eight foot height.to a ten foot height? Mr. Mclntosh said they usually step down at a .pilaster so visually you don~t see a step down. Commissioner Brady said that based on the testimony of the applicant and the reasoning for it and the fact that it has been done where necessary bef°re, he would support the applicant's request as presented. Commissioner Boyle said.that he agrees that the wall has to be built to city standards, and city standards do require a six foot wall inside of the lot, but what he is concerned about is the way he reads this particular condition. The way the condition reads they could have the ability to build a flat 10 foot wall the entire street length and that is his concern. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Mclntosh if he would be willingto modify the ' condition that the wall height could be up to ten feet between pilasters when necessary to achieve a minimum six foot high wall from the grade of the inside of the lot? Mr. Mclntosh said "absolutely."' Commissioner Boyle said that he would suggest that modification to the other Commissioners. . Commissioner Dhanens said that he didn't recall anywhere in the staff report or conditions mentioning pilasters and wanted to know what other methods or means they would employ to achieve the wall height change? Commissioner Dhanens asked if this wasn't a problem on the north side of Brimhall as well? Mr. Mclntosh said that these appear to be-all smooth face walls. In Seven Oaks there are pilasters every 32 feet. In the case of a smooth faced wall, there still would need to be a step down and they wouldn't want to build a ten' foot wall around the entire subdivision. In that case, the step down .may have to be a foot at a time. A transition would be made from a ten foot to a ninefoot to an eight to!a seven, etc. They could have a condition that a step down be done a block at a time. Commissioner. Dhanens said that around the planters there is a series of scored blocks and asked Mr. Mclntosh if tha~ feature will be included in the wall plan. Mr. Mclntosh said (hey couid do that. Mh Mclntosh said they want to be consistent with what is already out there. Commissioner Brady asked, if it is a smooth faced fence without pilasters, if there isn't some other architectural feature that could be put in or use appropriate landscaping to conceal the change? Mr. Mclntosh said they could possible design the landscaping to mask as much as possible ~(group the plant material or a grouping of trees) once they know where the steps are going to be. Minutes, PC, January 4, 2001 Page 6 Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Mclntosh if it would be helpful to add a condition to give them .the option to puta pilaster in at a break where a change is needed if it would make it more aesthetically pleasing? Mr. Mclntosh said he would rather not as they want to make it consistent with the area and he would rather treat it with landscape material~- There were no other Commission comments or questions. A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve' the Master Wall arid Landscaping Concept Plan File No. P00-0901 with findings and conditions set :forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A with the following additional condition: "That wall heights may exceed the city standard of nine feet to a maximum of ten ~feet when ~necessary to achieve a minimum of six foot high wall from the inside g~ade of the lot and-that the step down, or step up, in this wall height will be done one block' at a time inr an aesthetically pleasing manner and that as much as possible the applicant will use landscaping to mask the step up and step down." Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN (Northwest Target LLC) (Ward4) Mr. Grady said that the Commission should have a memorandum dated January 4 which provides them with some information that was requested at the pre-meeting. There is also coPies of the slides that are in the presentation depicting the sign program that is being proposed for the Northwest Promenade. Also in the memorandum is-an explanation about the difference in what was-requested by the applicant and what staff determined to be the true size of the Target sign that they were asking the major variance for. It was originally measured to include the rectangle that encompasses the entire logo and letters and came out with a much larger number of square feet than the code would allow. Once staff met with the applicant and re- measured, it was determined that the sign only exceeds the ordinance requirements by ten square feet. Staff is recommending approval of the comprehensive sign plan with the allowed' increase for the major tenant sign to exceed the 250 square feet by ten square feet to equal a total ~of' 260 square feet. Public portion of the-hearing was oPened. No one spoke in opposition. Lee Jamieson, representing the project, said that they are asking for a Slight variance to accommodate some of the larger tenants. It is a small increase from where the ordinance' reads right now. He said he would be happy to answer any questions the .Commission might have. Public:portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Dhanens asked if they were talking about all the wall signs or just the .major tenant? Mr..Grady said it was just the major tenant. Minutes, PC, January 4, 2001 Page 7 10. Commissioner Dhanens asked if there is going to be an off-site pylon sign? Mr. Grady said there should be an access road to connect the sign or Otherwise it would be an off- premise sign. Mr. Eggert said the applicant has purchased the property and linked it with their project so for all intents and purposes it is now considered an on-premise sign and is included as part of their project. They will have an access off of CallowaY Drive. Commissioner Dhanens said the plan shows there is parking behind the two buildings on the west side of the property that borders the rectangular piece the pylon sign is on so it doesn't look like the project is integrated with that little piece of property or ' integrated with Calloway and Commissioner Dhanens wanted to know if there were any plans in'the future to makelan actual physical integration there? Mr. Eggert said there are plans to make the integration. The parking spots are not necessary. The drive does incorporate a 'better circulation pattern to the rear of the buildings and also' as a requirement of part of the zone change that occurred alongCalloway, is to have an access from Calloway to the Northwest Promenade. The final plans that come in for building permit will aCtuallyincorporate and take those parking spaces out. There were no other Commission comments or questions. A motion was made.by Commissioner Kemper, Seconded by Commissioner Boyle,' -approving in modified form;Comprehensive Sign Plan No. P00-0860 with the memorandum dated January 4, 2001 from Stanley Grady. Motion carried. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING for the acquisitiOn of a parcel.by the City at the northeast corner of 13t~ Street and "O" Street. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward2). SeeConsent Agenda. 11¸. COMMUNICATIONS None 12. COMMISSION'COMMENTS Commissioner Sprague said that some time back he made a request to check into the possibility of having joint wOrkshop meetings with the County Planning Commission and that Councilman Couch has requested that twice at recent Council meetings. ~Commissioner Sprague asked for an update status as to where we are in trying to put together that meeting Or a letter to Mr. James with the County Planning Department to establish a meeting so that', we could work on some continuity of our zoning codes and things like that? Mr. Grady said that the Commission was suppose to get back to the Chairperson who-would draft a letter that would go to the county defining what it was the.Commissi0n wants to meet with them on in a joint meeting and that has not occurred. Commissioner Sprague said it was his understanding that Mr. Grady was going to come to him with a memo of the differences between the zoning and different Minutesl PC,- January 4, 2001 Page 8 ordinances and then they were going to construct a memo to the Chairman and then the Chairman would address the letter. Mr. Grady said they did provide the . Commission with'a memorandum that identified the difference between the county zoning ordinance and the City zoning ordinance. Commissioner Sprague_said that he ..has not seen it and asked if he should draft a memorandum to the Chairman so that the Chairman could draft aletter to Mr. James? Commissioner Dhanens said that he hadn't ~een a copy-of it either and asked if Mr. Grady could provide the Commission with a copy of that at their next meeting? Mr. Grady said "yes:" Commissioner Dhanens said he suggeststhat that be put on the agenda at the Commission's next meeting. Commissioner Sprague said that he respectfully requests that other Commissioners make some notes of what they would like to address of things that have come up in the past few years. 13. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. It was decided to have a pre-meeting on January 16, 2001. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:17 p.m. Janua~ 16.2001 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Director ~