Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/01 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION oF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Thursday, February 1, 2001 5:30 p.m. MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice-Chairman MA THEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the .decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 - February 1, 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 o~' 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' 4. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Amendments to the text of Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.52 and 17.54 to allow use of the P.U.D. (Planned Unit Department) and P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Department) as combined~zones, located city-wide. (Exempt from CEQA) (All wards) Recommendation: Approve Roll Call vote e (Ward 7) PUBLIC HEARING -ZONE CHANGE P00-0419 (MGC Architecture representing Paul Owhadi, Sierra Pacific Development) Consisting of a request to re-zone the 64 +/- acre 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 area; 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 Agenda, PC~ Thu~'sday '- February 1, 2001 Page'3 COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees = DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING 9. ADJOURNMENT January 22, 2001- ~cretary --}~ ' 'Planning Director Held February 1, 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 TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Assistant City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JAMES MOVlUS, Principal Planner PATTI HOCK, Clerk Typist II PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS_ N°ne Commissioner Boyle statedithat he was absent at Monday's pre-meeting'but had listened to a copy ofthe tape and was prepared to participate in tonight's meeting. Minutes, PC, February 1, 2001 Page 2 = PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Amendments to the text of Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.52 and 17.54 to allow use of the P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) and P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) as combined zones, located city-wide. Staff report given recommending the Commission approve this ordinance amendment to provide the Commission with the option of determining that the project has a certain sensitivity attached to it's location that would suggest that the design of that project would need to be reviewed by the Commission rather than by staff at a site plan review hearing. By doing so, the Commission would provide the developer with the zone district classification that he or She would need to go out and shop their site to atfi'act tenants and once they have tenants they could come in with a design. The Commission would then no, longer be dealing with the zoning issue just the architecture, placement of ihe buildings and the relationship of those buildings to the surrounding environment. Commissioner Tkac was seated at this time. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke for or against the item. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tkac stated that he had been absent at Monday's pre-me~eting but had listened to a copy of the tape ofthe meeting. CommiSsioner Sprague stated that he has reviewed the ordinance and asked for it to be brought back to the Commission. He thinks this would have accomplished what they were trying to accomplish in the conversion from the Grand Canal to the Gateway project. Commissioner Sprague saiU that there is no threshold of square footage in the ordinance and he would like to discuss with the other Commissioners al00,000 square foot threshold that would apply to trigger this ordinance. Commissioner Brady asked if staff had any comment from the industry regarding this change? Mr. Grady said that the only one he knew of who had seen the ordinance was Roger Mclntosh who is a member of BIA. Commissioner Brady asked if we would still have the two zones (PUD and PCD) if they approved the change? Mr.'Grady said "yes." Commissioner Brady asked how the two zones would change if this ordinance passed? Mr. Grady said that you would be able to apply it the. same way as in the past. Commissioner Brady asked if we are adding a new zone or a new overlay? Mr. Grady said they are adding a new overlay. It would remove the site plan review process from the Development Services Director and place it in the hands of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brady asked Commissioner Sprague what the effect of the 100,000 square feet trigger would be? Commissioner Sprague said that putting al00,000 square foot limit on this runs in conformity to the ordinance regarding traffic impact fees. Minutes, PC, February 1, 2001 Page 3 · Commissioner Brady said that he does not have a comfort level with imposing a number that the Commission would have to impose an overlay on a particular level. If the 'Commission is going to do that, then he believes they should give the development community the opportunity to have input. They should have some reasonable basis for. mandating that the overlay~be applied. At this time, he would not be willing to support · an automatic trigger. He said he would support the ordinance as written. Mr. Grady said that the ass'ociations that received notice about this ordinance were the Bakersfield Building Industry Association, Architecture Association and Celsoc. There were also a number of engineers and builders on the list as well. Commissioner Brady asked when they received the notice and Mr. Grady said that it was ten days prior to the meeting. It did not Contain a provision on square foot limitations. Commissioner McGinnis said that he Concurs with Commissioner Brady and feels that this amendment would streamline the process for staff, Commission and applicants. Commissioner Boyle said that his feeling about a trigger would be anything below the amOunt chosen would not be subject to the ordinance. Mr. Grady said the minimum size fOr a PCD and a PUD is a one acre lot and the ordinance does not contain a threshold. From that standPoint Commissioner Boyle thinks 100,000 square feet would be a perfect size. This should be put on larger projects in a discretionary way and not automatic on'a'project of any Size and certainly not available on projects smaller in scale. CommisSioner Dhanens asked MS. Shaw if there is an ordinance in place that requires developerS of. large commercial projects do a traffic study when their project is 100,000 square or larger? Ms: Shaw said "yes." Commissioner Dhanens asked if the Commission would be able to look at architectural design on projects coming before them or are they limited to site plan review issues? Mr. Grady said that if they are applying this ordinance, they Would be able to look at the architectural design. Mr. Grady said that the process as it is proposed provides the Commission with the most flexibility. A cap would set in motion a threshold that everyone would know that if you met that threshold then it would apply to you. It would also set in motion that it would automatically have to happen to you. The intent of this ordinance was to provide the Commission with the ability to respond to unique circumstances such as the iproject.that will be heard later on tonight. If a threshold were put in, it would be automatic. Every project that met that threshold would come to the Commission as a zone Change with a combining district. Commissioner Dhanens said that he would not like this to be used as a tool to put a PCD oVerlay zone on every commercial zone change that comes before them. Some areas are sensitive and need a PCD but he wouldn't want it to be overused. Commissioner Brady said that with regard to a "trigger" his feeling is that if they are going to have this overlay zone available to them they should have as much discretion as possible. ~ There may be a setting where a particular application is in such a sensitive place even though it is small, the Commission might want to impose it and he would MinUtes, PC, February 1, 2001 Parle 4 hate to have something in the ordinance that would preclude them from doing that. Commissioner Brady said that he Would support the ordinance as written and would encourage the COmmission to adopt it. .Commissioner Kemper said that she would prefer not to limit the flexibility of the ordinance by adding a threShold on it for the same reasons. Commissioner Kemper said that she supports the Ordinance as written. Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt the resolution approving the proposed text revisions to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code as contained in the attached Exhibit "A" with no threshold. Motion was passed by the following roll! call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES: None ABSENT: None .PUBLIC HEARING -ZONE CHANGE P00-0419 (MGC Architecture representing Paul Owhadi, Sierra Pacific'Development) Staff report given recommending approval of the project. Mr. Grady stated that the' Commission has a memorandum dated January 31 informing the Commissioners the result of the committee's recommendation that met twice with Mr. Owhadi to address some' of the concerns that the Commission had regarding the design of the project. This memorandum contains additional conditions that are being recommended that were agreed to by the applicant in the committee that address architecture, landscaping and aesthetics. It also addresses aesthetics along Freeway 99 and Berkshire Road. These conditions combined with the conditions of approval that were in the staff report dated January 18are what ~is being recommended by staff. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Fred Porter, engineer for the project, stated that they are in agreement with staff's recommendations and the January 31 memorandum. Mark Minns, with Sperry Vaness, stated they have looked at this project and the C-2 zoning will be a lot easier to bring tenants in rather than the current zoning. Paul owhadi thanked the Commission for spending numerous hours on this project. Mr. Owhadi stated that after the last committee meeting he forwarded a clarification letter in reference to two matters. One of which was' the easement. They inherited this from the previous owner. The second item that he had asked the Commission to consider was~the construction of the wall separating the project from the 74 acre residential property to the south. He does agree with the concept but he suggested Minutes, PC, February 1, 2001 Page.5 that the CommiSsion agree~to allow the construction of that wall to occur either at 90 percent completion of his pi'oject or the commencement of construction of the first. single family dwelling on the 74 acres to the south. He thanked the Commission again and said that he would be available for any questions they might have. · Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Porter if there is something he could show the Commission as to how they propose accessibility to this project from Highway 99. Mr. Porter said that accessibility will come from South "H" Street; Panama Lane, Wible Road and FreewaY 99. This project is not intended to draw off of the freeway as the ' canal project was,. This will probably serve the community more than the canal project. Commissioner Kemper staied that as a member of the ad hoc cOmmittee she feels they arrived at a fair.and equitable decision. They hammered out the issues that are normally of concern t° the Planning Commission while allowing enough flexibility for the developer to Proceed on a realistic time line and she asked for the support of the other Commissioners in approving it as it stands this evening. Commissioner Sprague asked staff the width of the easement on Colony. Mr. Grady said it was 6Ofeet. Commissioner Sprague asked if that was wide enough for a main entrance into 'this shopping center from the north? Ms. Shaw said she has discussed this was the Traffic Engineer and Colony Street is wide enough for two lanes in each direction and that would prObably be adequate as reflected by the traffic study. Commissioner SpragUe asked if there would be right and left turn lanes on Panama so -that traffic flows easily into that intersection on and off the freeway. Ms. Shaw said "yes.'.' . Commissioner Sprague asked what happens to the parcel map on the property to the south? Itis part.of a parcel map that is overlaid onto this property which was the original-R-1. What :happens to that parcel map and that portion of Berkshire Road from: the end of the road as it transposes to Freeway 99 which shows existing lots? Does the parcel map Completely go away or does it have to be revised at a later date? Mr. Grady said that the there would have to be a redesign of the property to accommodate the commercial zoning. Commissioner Sprague asked if the south property gets built first, are they responsible to build the brick wall? Mr. Grady said that both property owners have some .responsibility for a portion of it. ~ Commissioner Boyle asked when the bridge will be built on Colony? Mr. Grady said the -Colony bridge would have to be built with the first project on-site. Commissioner Brady asked about the wall and Mr. Owhadi's request to construct at a later time. Mr. Grady said that there is a condition that requires that it be constructed with occupancy of the first structure on the west half of the project site. The difficulty of tying it to the prOperty to the south is that the condition is not on the property to the south. It is on the property to the north. Deferring it to 90 percent build out is like Minutes, PC, February 1, 2001 Page 6 deferring it forever. Staff tried to come up with a reasonable condition as we have no way of predicting if an applicant is going to apply for a zone change in the future or even if they apply for a zone change in the future, we are bound to have the project respond to existing conditions. We did try to delay it. We didn't require that it be built with the first project. We lOoked at the west half of the property being closest to the freeway and probably being built later and that would by itself defer the wall. Commissioner Brady asked when the applicant is required to build out Berkshire? Ms. Shaw said on "opening day., phase." Mr. Owhadi said that it is not the cost'of the wall that is the prOblem, it's 'thatlfact that it may become an obstacle if the property to the south would be rezoned commercial. Mr. Owhadi said that he would go ahead and post a bond so that if the p~operty is developed residential it would be built. Commissioner Brady said that he thinks that staff has chosen a reasonable choice that yOu don't have to do it opening day but as that portion of the project is built out. The concern is that there is a separation between any residential and the commercial property. Commissioner Brady asked if they are asking for a change in regard to the easement in one of the conditions that is placed on the property now? Mr. Owhadi said the previous owner and developer had a condition that the easements had to be constructed by the year 2000. Home Base haS imposed a requirement that the bridge be built before the year 2005. There is no request for a change in condition regarding the easement. Commissioner Brady said that he supports the C-2 zone change with the conditi°nS set forth and the review that will happen on it. Commissioner Dhanens said he also supports the C-2 zone change and urge the rest of the Commission to do so. With respect to the time frame of the wall he agrees that triggering it to some level of development on Mr. Owhadi's property is adequate and appropriate but he would not have a problem if the condition were rewritten so that the wall is constructed concurrent with the development in the southwest quadrant of the property. Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve Zone Change P00-0419 with findings and conditions set forth in the resolution attached to the staff report dated January 18, 2001, incorporating the Planning Director's memorandum dated January 18, 2001, the findings recommended in the Gateway Project' review ad hoc committee report and the Planning Director's memorandum dated January 31,-2001 and regarding the wall in the southwest corner, it would be constructed concurrently with construction of the southwest quadrant of the project and recommend same to the City Council. Motion was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens None None Minutes, PC, February 1, 2001 Page 7 COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Grady t01d the Commission that if they are interested in attending the 2001 Planning Commissioner's Institute, they need to contact Lois by February 9. Mr. Grady also said the Chamber of Commerce has completed their 2020 Vision process and made a presentation to the.City Council last night and he has supplied the Commission with a copy of. the full text of the 2020 Vision. The Council has taken it under consideration. If the:Commission desires to have any kind of presentation from the Chamber of if they want to discuss this in detail, there is a free meeting on March 1 and a workshop could be scheduled to discuss this issue, 2020 and the joint City/County PlanningCommission meeting. Commissioner Dhanens asked how long the presentation is for the 2020 plan. Mr. Grady said he thought it was about a 10 to 15 minute presentation. Commissioner Sprague asked how many Commissioners can go to the Planning Institute? Mr. Grady said they usually budget for 3 to 4, however, there are funds .available if more.than that wants to go. Commissioner Sprague asked about the Systems Study that was presented to City Council and asked if each of the Commissioners could get a copy of it so the different routes can be analyzed. Mr. Grady said there wasn't a report. There were 20 maps with 20 options. A verbal presentation was presented at the Council meeting.. Commissioner Brady asked if there was some direction from the City Council requesting the Planning Commission do anything with Vision 2020? Commissioner Bradyalso asked when the: 2010 General Plan will be updated? Mr. Grady said that they are doing it now. Commissioner Brady asked when it will be ready? Mr. Grady said that during this year after the summer. Commissioner Dhanens said that he wouldn't want to devote a meeting to a 10 minute presentation and 'also agrees with Mr. Brady that he does not want to usurp the Council's roll in it without th'eir direction. COMMISSION 'COMMENTS Commissioner Sprague thanked the staff from the Fire and Building Departments for their help the day before in'helping one of his constituents. 8. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. On a motion by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, is was decided not to have a pre-meeting on February 12, 2001. ~ Minutes, PC, February 1, 2001 Page 8 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before theCommission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:39 p.m. February 21. 2001 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary