Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/29/01 AGENDA REGULAR PRE-MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Monday, January 29, 2001 12:15 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. Items listed on this agenda will be continued to 5:30 p.m. on the Thursday following the date listed on this agenda. 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. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and TentatiVe Subdivision maps are subject ~to appeal by any interested 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 acceptance date of appeal. The appeal shall include the appellant'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 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 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it - will not beconducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. Agenda,. PC, Monday - January 29, 2001 -~ Page 2 If no appeai is received within, the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning CommiSsion shall become final. 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 sign. ed 'an ':agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wiShes t°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. NOne (Ward 7) PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE P00-0419 (MGC Architecture representing Paul Owhadi, Sierra PaCific Development) Consisting of a request to m-zone the 64 +/- acm site from a PCD (Planned 'Commercial Development),zone, known as the "Grand Canal Shopping Center" to a C:2 (Regional'Commercial) zone for purposes of mixed use commercial shopping center containing 555,000 square feet of leasable ama; located between State Route (SR) 99, the Arvin-Edison Canal, South "H" Street, and Berkshire Road alignment. (EIR) (Continued.from January 18, 2001) RECOMMENDATION: Approve ROll Call-Vote 'COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees Agenda, PC, Monday - January 29, 2001 Page 3 7. ADJOURNMENT Janua~ 2~,2001 Planning Director Held JanUary 29, 2001 12:~15 p.m. City Council Chamber, City-Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE Absent:. STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson JEFFREY TKAC ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Assistant City Attorney JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner PATTI HOCK, Clerk Typist II PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman 'Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS None Minutes, PC, January 29, 2001 Page '2' PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE P00-0419 (MGC Architecture representing Paul Owhadi, Sierra Pacific Development) (Ward 7) Mr.. Grady gave a Planning :Commission ad hoc committee report'that met to discuss additional conditions that could be applied to the project to address concerns that were raised by. the Commission during the hearing on January 18, 2001. The Commission was presented .with some proposals by staff that fell into four areas. There were some general conditions to address landscaping and architectural theme and there were aesthetic conditions applied to address the look of the project along 99 Freeway and Berkshire Road. There were also some requirements for the design of the parking lot with regard to separation of the spaces so that the mass of the parking area would be broken up with additional landscaping. The committee's concerns centered around two points. One was the site plan review process and whom that would be in front of and what would be reviewed. The other was the architectural style that would be applied to the project. The committee had considered the proposals by staff. The applicant was also present and there was some lengthy and detailed discusSions that generated the conditions that are in the committee report that was handed out to the Commissioners which proposes to apply one additional condition relating to aesthetics, landscaping, architecture and parking. .The condition reads as follows: "The site plan review for any proposed project on the subject property shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing and in addition to all information required under Municipal Code Section 17.08 the applicant Shall provide to the Commission for its review and approval a consistent landscape theme and common architectural theme with accompanying architectural elements which apply to all development approvals on the subject property. For each subsequent site plan review, the Development Services Director shall ensure the proposed landscape and architecture themes substantially comply with _those themes approved by the Planning Commission at the firSt site plan review." Mr. Grady said there was discussion regarding the standards that would be applied through site plan review and perhaps an additional sentence should be-added to condition number 39 (above) that would flow after the word at a noticed Public hearing. It wOuld say "applying the same rules consistent with the terms of approval." The purpose of that is to make it clear the Commission was talking about applying the conditions of approval that Were presented at the January 18 meeting and the Conditions that were agreed to in the committee meeting and they were not intending to apply, new conditions other than looking at the architectural theme and the landscaping plan and commenting on how that fits the site and how that fits with the design desires of the Planning Commission at that particular time. Mr. Grady said they also talked about how they would handle big box retailers. It was decided that some of the architectural elements from the theme would be applied to the big box retailers but they Would not be required to be architecturally the same as the shop ter~ants and/or the in-line tenants. Condition number 41 is the one that requires the common architectural theme using architectural elements and a sentence should be added 'also that Says "while allowing for national chains to establish their Minutes, PC, January 29, 2001 Page identity shall, be observed throughout the site for structures, two stories in height or less." . Mr. Grady said:there are some additional findings in the staff report that they are recommending the Commission approve as part of the .approval process. The recommended motion in thb committee report includes the language to add the findings. Staff is recommending the Commission approve the project with the conditions from January 18 and the new conditions that were formed in the ad hoc committee. Commissioner Dhanens asked if staff would make available for the Commission on Thursday night the complete text of the two changes that Mr. Grady mentioned tl'iis afternoon? Mr. Grady said."yes." The item wasturned over to the Commission for.any comments or questions. Commissioner Sprague asked what made this property different from other applications that the Commission was asked to change from an R-1 to a C-2 zone (i.e. Froehlich or the Coleman projects) and the Commission insisted on a PCD? Mr. Grady said that this site has established residences to the north separated from the site by a canal which places the homes about 165 feet away. There is also a canal on the east side and light industrial. On thewest side is the 99 Freeway and the only residences that would share a common road or access point and would have a potential to be closer than the properties at the north would be along Berkshire. There are different kinds of uses bordering this property. The Coleman property did have two major roads to the north and east and residential to the south and west. The closest residential was to the west and we had required some additional separations using landscaping and screening for loading docks. The Froehlich property had residents across a major highway to the east and a major highway to the south. They owned the remainder of the property to the west and to the north. Commissioner Sprague asked if he is saying that this development is properly buffered to incorporate a C-2 zone iastead of PCD? Mr. Grady said he is saying there are more natural barriers between this project and residential and there is less likelihood of a .residential conflict. They have applied Similar conditions as the Coleman PCD project for this requested C-2 zone. Commissioner Sprague asked if there would be a brick wall on the south side between the C-2 and the residential? Mr. Grady said there is an existing approved Vesting Tentative Map on"this property and as they are side yards and one cul-de-sac they will have a block wall. Commissioner Sprague asked to see a copy of the Tract Map on Thursday. Commissioner Sprague asked about fencing for the canals and .whether or not the fencing will extend -1/4 milein either direction? Mr. Grady said that that is a condition that is applied at subdivision. There is no requirement on the zone change to fence the canal 1/4 mile away. All the canals that are in close proximity to this project are fenced. Minutes, PC, January 29, 2001 Page 4 Those that are clOse to residential have additional fencing requirements. Commissioner Sprague asked about the width of the easement along Colony Street from Panama into the site going over the canal? Commissioner Sprague asked if it is wide enough to accommodate a major entry into this area and what width of road would fit in there? Mr. Grady said.he doesn't know the width off hand but will have that information on Thursday night. Commissioner Dhanens said that one other reason for allowing the C-2 on this property rather than a PCD was a potentially mitigating factor that there was an EIR done for this' and several impacts identified mitigation measures provided for this project where they would not have been provided for the Coleman or Froehlich piece of property. Commissioner Dhanens asked about Exhibit A attached to the memo passed out today. He feels that on condition number 44 beginning the second sentence number nine should be deleted and condition number 41 should read: '% uniform architectural theme using common architectural elements." Commissioner Dhanens asked staff to respond on Thursday night, Commissioner Brady said that on behalf of the committee he came to the conclusion that there are no perfect solutions. This is a compromise that addresses to the best possible extent the concerns he had about this project and he thinks what they are trying to do is a good resolUtion. This particular site has had a significant amount of study~and the conditions placed on it are similar to or beyond what they have required on other projects. The site plan review that is being proposed he believes will adequately protect future residents. There were no other CommisSion comments or questions. Item continued until Thursday night. 5. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady said that they are adding the ordinance for the PCD/PUD for Thursday night's meeting. ^ staff report was provided to the Commission. ' 6.. - COMMISSION COMMENTS · 7. ADJOURNMENT ' February 21,2001 There being no fUrther business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 12:42 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary