HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 16, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
Meeting — March 16, 2006 — 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL: Present: BARBARA LOMAS, Chairperson
MURRAY TRAGISH, Vice Chairperson
TED BLOCKLEY
RUSSELLJOHNSON
TOM McGINNIS
JOHN S. SPENCER
JEFFREY TKAC
Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns
Staff: Marc Gauthier, Dana Cornelius
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
None.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commissioner meeting of February 16, 2006.
4.1 b Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6642 (McIntosh &Associates)
Motion made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to
approve Consent Calendar Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a and 4.1 b.
Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approve continuance until April 3 & 6, 2006 General Plan Amendment 05-0423
(SmithTech/USA)
4.2b Approve continuance until April 3 & 6, 2006 Zone Change 05-0423
(SmithTech/USA)
4.2c Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-0424 (Pinnacle Engineering)
4.2d Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-0599 (Pinnacle Engineering)
Planning Commission — March 16, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 2
4.2e Approval of Zone Change 05-0599 (Pinnacle Engineering)
4.2f Approve continuance to June cycle and re-advertise General Plan Amendment 05-
0946 (SmithTech/USA) (THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN)
4.2g Approve continuance to June cycle and re-advertise Zone Change 05-0946
(SmithTech\USA) (THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN)
4.2h Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1257 (Marino &Associates)
4.2i Approval of Zone Change 05-1257 (Marino &Associates)
4.2j Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-1343 (Porter— Robertson Engineering)
4.2k Approval of Zone Change 05-1343 (Porter— Robertson Engineering)
The public hearing is opened. No one spoke on these consent items. No commissioner
spoke on these consent items. The public hearing is closed, except for 4.2a and 4.2b.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he did attend the pre-meeting on Monday, and has
reviewed the tape from the point that he had to leave the meeting.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he did not attend the pre-meeting on Monday, but did
review the tape.
Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve
the consent calendar as read.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES: None.
5. Vesting Tentative Tract 6642 (McIntosh &Associates)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS / Land Use Element Amendments / Zone
Changes
6.1a) General Plan Amendment 05-0423 (SmithTech USA, Inc)
6.1b) Zone Change 05-0423 (SmithTech/USA)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6.2) General Plan Amendment 05-0424 (Pinnacle Engineering)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
Planning Commission — March 16, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 3
6.3a) General Plan Amendment 05-0599 (Pinnacle Engineering)
6.3b) Zone Change 05-0599 (Pinnacle Engineering)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6.4a) General Plan Amendment 05-0940 (McIntosh &Associates)
6.4b) Zone Change 05-0940 (McIntosh &Associates)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Roger McIntosh with McIntosh &Associates,
representing Sheldon Trust, went through the issues raised. He pointed out that the Bull Arena
has had a Conditional Use Permit since 1994, and the other areas have been in the County
since before the zoning. He pointed out that the closest shed where the chickens are kept are
about 50 feet off of the road right-away, and the grinding operation is about 200 feet off
Cottonwood Rd. He stated that it appears that the operator of the chicken ranch keeps them
enclosed as best as possible and keeps the moisture out of the shed themselves. He pointed out
where the residences to the north are located, as well as the mobile homes. Mr. McIntosh stated
that when he read the letter from the Entertain Area/Bull Riding Area, it did not oppose this
project, but pointed out that there is noise from loud speakers throughout the day when the
facility is being operated. According to County information that Mr. McIntosh pulled, there was a
Negative Declaration approved for the Entertainment Area/Bull Area's Conditional Use Permit,
and there are conditions of approval that requirement this facility to limit their decibel level to 74
decibels after 10 o'clock p.m., and 84 decibels before the hours of 10:00 p.m. He pointed out
that with the distance set back from the road, as well as the construction of the block wall along
the frontage of Cottonwood Rd. along this project would tend to mitigate or reduce the noise
levels that would be encountered on this project. Mr. McIntosh stated that with regard to the
second letter from Farmer John Eggs, while it does say they are concerned about the noise of
the grinding operation, as well as the flies, insects and odor, when he was out at the project there
was no odor. Mr. McIntosh stated that there is a noise from the grinding operation, but the noise
level was estimated at 50—45 decibels, and he pointed out that the truck and vehicular traffic
that went down the road created more noise then the grinding operation. Mr. McIntosh stated
that they will put up at a minimum a 6' high block wall to mitigate that noise, which is the
standard.
Mr. McIntosh stated that this project complies with the General Plan as far as setbacks are
concerned, and they will mitigate the noise issues. He indicated that they do not agree with
Staff's recommendation and would like approval on this project.
Thomas Fallgatter, on behalf of the applicant, added that this is somewhat of a unique
circumstance, and asked the commission to engage with the applicant for a creative solution.
Eric Sergic, on behalf of the Bakersfield Sport's Arena stated that this facility is not a nuisance
and that it existed prior to this development, and that a note be put on any final maps recorded.
Mr. McIntosh stated that they are agreeable to a covenant disclosing these issues, and have no
problems with it being a condition.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac inquired if they remove the chicken manure off
the ranch. Staff indicated that they do not know, but that they probably have to because
according to the letter they have thousands and thousands of chickens.
Commissioner Tragish pointed out that different people have different sensitivity to odors. He
inquired how the Planning Commission is to determine these odor and noise issues since there
are no studies provided. Staff responded that this evening there is not enough information to
determine whether it could be made compatible. Staff recommended that if the Planning
Commission wants to look at this project further the Planning Commission can continue it to the
Planning Commission — March 16, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 4
next cycle so that these issues can be studied. Staff pointed out that walls are a good barrier for
traffic given where the source comes from, but elevated speakers are not mitigated by a wall.
With regard to the chicken ranch the guidelines for assessing noise impacts do talk about this
type of situation, and the odor analysis for this study was provided by Mr. McIntosh and correctly
indicated that typically you go by complaints in an area. Staff further pointed out that the
guidelines go further than this by stating that if you have a potential source of odor like this and
you bring people closer to it, you call the air quality district they go through a process where they
look at similar circumstances and identify the complaints. Staff indicated that they believe this
type of information should be required from the air quality consultant.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he agrees with Mr. Fallgatter's suggestion for a creative way
to make this work; however there is not enough information to make a determination.
Commissioner Tragish inquired about the sports arena's request, to which Staff responded that
any mitigation would come from the applicant and not the sport's arena.
Commissioner Tragish stated he would be in support of a continuance to allow time to gather
necessary information, orjust vote it up and down.
Commissioner Johnson stated he has concerns with the odor. He added that a friend who owns
a chicken farm has advised him that typically every 6 months they clean out the dirt pits, or there
are incidents when concrete pads are cleaned every seven days. He pointed out that without
knowing the specific information from the specific chicken ranch in question it is difficult to make
a decision. He indicated that he would feel more comfortable with making a decision if there was
a noise study.
Commissioner Spencer stated that the chicken ranch has been there first, and that it is up to the
developer to solve the problems. He pointed out that smells do not have any boundary. He
pointed out that the few homes in the area may belong to the existing business owners and may
not really be "already existing residences." He stated that he cannot support this application
under the conditions that have been presented.
Commissioner McGinnis commended Mr. Fallgatter and Mr. McIntosh, but states that he does
not see how anything can be mitigated. He inquired of Mr. Sertic if they have regularly
scheduled events at the arena, to which he responded about 4-6 a year. Mr. Sertic stated that
they have other weekly events which draw about 1200 people. Mr. Sertic indicated that they
park in the back to the east of his facility.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he agrees with Commissioner Tragish and would like to see
a solution, but does not see how a continuance will improve the issues regarding this application.
Commissioner Blockley stated he supports growth in this area, but doesn't have anything to
support this project. He stated that he is inclined to support Staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she has not heard anything about how to mitigate this type of
odor. She stated that she falls back on the General Plan which included the chicken ranch. She
indicated that this particular project location does not demonstrate a need and/or benefit to the
community.
Commissioner Johnson inquired of the applicant if they are amenable to a continuance, to which
Mr. McIntosh indicated they are amenable to a continuance as they could come back with an
odor and noise study that will address most of these issues.
Staff indicated that the next meeting is April 6tn. Staff pointed out that the applicant would only
then be providing raw data because Staff would not have enough time to determine if the
information is accurate. Staff recommended it be continued to the next cycle. Mr. McIntosh
indicated that they would prefer four weeks, and perhaps take it up on the next meeting after
tn
April 6
Planning Commission — March 16, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 5
Commissioner Johnson stated that the Planning Commission needs to know how the chicken
ranch operates and what their removal methods are, as well as a noise study, as well as looking
at additional setbacks.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about a six week continuance to which Staff responded that it is
a General Plan cycle, and there is not enough time.
Commissioner Lomas stated that she would want to know who regulates how chicken ranches
are cleaned.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he believes it is self-patrolling with regard to the cleaning of
chicken ranches. He stated that he would like to get it into this cycle if possible.
Commissioner Blockley stated he agrees with Commissioner Tkac's statement about the
operation of the chicken ranch.
Commissioner Spencer stated that he thinks too much emphasis is being put on the chicken
ranch in that it is a bona fide facility that has been operating for years and years, and he does not
see how it can be rectified for this project, and he does not think the commission should continue
it, because there is no way to abate what is existing. He stated the Planning Commission should
not control development on somebody else's property. He further stated that this project is an
intrusion into a very intense zone.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that if he thought there was any way to mitigate these issues he
would be in support of a continuance, but the chicken ranch has no obligation to change the way
they do business. He stated he is not in support of a continuance at this point.
Thomas Fallgatter addressed Commissioners Spencer and McGinnis' comments, stating that
any solution that they would come back with would not involve any change to the operation of the
chicken farm. He stated that he thinks the studies would provide information upon which to craft
some change in the land use that would be compatible with the chicken ranch, but still allow
some development.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if the applicant could come in with another land use, to which
Staff replied that it would need a new application and re-advertisement. Staff pointed out that if
the project is denied there is the possibility that the applicant could put together their studies
before it gets to City Council, which is more than four weeks away.
Mr. Fallgatter clarified that he did not mean to imply that a rezoning would be immediate, but
rather that the Planning Commission could determine what amount of the 50 acres would be
appropriate for residential, and then the applicant would come back with an application to rezone
the remaining portion.
Commissioner Tragish stated he doesn't have a problem with supporting a continuance.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he does believe residential can exist near a chicken ranch.
Commissioner Tkac commented that he would like to make a motion to continue to April 6 th
Commissioner Johnson moved to continue this item to the next general plan cycle date of June
15, 2006, the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change for Assessor Parcel Number
414190-05.
Planning Commission — March 16, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 6
Commissioner Lomas inquired of the applicant about the continuance issues. Mr. Fallgatter
stated that at this point the applicant would suggest the Planning Commission vote on the merits
of the project as it currently stands.
Commissioner Johnson withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt the Resolution
making findings denying a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-
1A to LR on 52.29 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2" attached to the Draft Resolution, and
recommend the same to the City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas
NOES:None.
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tragish
Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt the Resolution
making findings denying a Zone change from A to R-1 on 52.29 acres as shown on Exhibit"A-2"
attached to the Draft Resolution, and recommend the same to the City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas
NOES:None.
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tragish
Commissioner Tragish stated that his abstention is because there is not enough information one
way or the other, and would have liked a continuance.
15 MINUTE BREAK TAKEN.
6.5a) General Plan Amendment 05-0946 (SmithTech, USA Inc.)
6.5b) Zone Change 05-0946 (SmithTech, USA Inc.)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6.6a) General Plan Amendment 05-1021 (Michael Dhanens Architect)
6.6b) Zone Change 05-1021 (Michael Dhanens Architect)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's
recommendation. Michael Dhanens reiterated the timeline of the project. He indicated that the
surrounding neighborhood and site development information on the rendering is not accurate as
it was done out of city. However, the buildings themselves and their representation are accurate
for the design. Mr. Dhanenes pointed out that there is a grading design that drains the project
away from the existing masonry wall. He commented that with the undeveloped property the
ponding water on the side is what has created the problem for the adjoining landowner, however
with this development and with the approved grading plan, that problem will be eliminated, as
there will be positive drainage away from the masonry wall.
Planning Commission — March 16, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 7
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley indicated that via e-mail it is Staff's
recommendation to remove condition 3b and address the concern with water through changing
the irrigation practices. He stated that he would support this project with the removal of condition
3b.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the general plan amendment
to change the land use designation from GC to HMR on 2.14 acres, and from GC to P on 0.14
acre as shown on Exhibit "A-2" attached to the draft Resolution, and recommend the same to
City Council with the elimination of Condition 3b.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES:None.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt a resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from C-2 to
R-2 on 2.28 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2" attached to the draft Resolution, and recommend
the same to City Council with the elimination of Condition 3b.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES:None.
6.7a) General Plan Amendment 05-1257 (Marino &Associates)
6.7b) Zone Change 05-1257 (Marino &Associates)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
6.8a) General Plan Amendment 05-1280 (Jerry L. Hendricks)
6.8b) Zone Change 05-1280 (Jerry L. Hendricks)
The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's
recommendation. Jerry Hendricks stated that they had no problems with the original conditions,
but do have some concerns with the added condition. He stated that it is a small 25 acre
development, and it seems like it is a tremendous burden to require this small project to not only
improve Madison from the boundary of the property down to Hosking, but to also have to
improve another 100 feet of Hosking. He stated that it is also a strong burden to require
additional curb and gutter.
The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish inquired if in the past they have required this
type of improvement (1100 ft. on a 25 acre project) of street, curb and gutters outside the project
boundaries. Staff responded that they can't require that they've required this extensive
improvement for a GPA zone change of this size, although they have required off-site
improvements on several general plans in the last couple of years to close gaps and provide
improvement around corners. Staff indicated that this one is a little bit more than what the
Planning Commissioner has required in the past.
Commissioner Lomas stated this has been a difficult situation in that they have been dealing with
County areas. She pointed out that the homes in the area are not likely to be annexed into the
City, and therefore will not have curb and gutter, and that to the west of the three parcels the
Planning Commission — March 16, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 8
property will probably be developed within the City and curb and gutter will be improved. She
explained that the only way that they can get curb and gutter is through a general plan. She
pointed out that it is orderly development, and that this parcel is not contiguous to growth.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if the applicant is going to put in a park site, if they could modify a
condition to say it doesn't have to be completed until the park improvement is done.
Staff stated that they do not believe that Commissioner Lomas' suggestion will accomplish the
intent, as the park site is going to be up in the property, and not along the major road. Mr.
Hendricks stated it is a little unclear as to which pieces will end up in a park site because it's too
far in the future right now to know for sure. He pointed out that right now as it is being proposed;
there is an 8-acre parcel and another 1.7 acre piece where the house is along Hosking, which
currently are trying to be acquired for the park site. He pointed out that the piece is actually
adjacent to this project. He stated that they could pave additional lanes for traffic concerns. He
stated that there is no question that the three pieces of property that they are talking about will be
developed.
Commissioner Tragish inquired about the road that the applicant has to improve pertaining to
Madison. Staff responded that it goes straight down. Staff indicated where the additional
Hosking frontage would be. Commissioner Tragish inquired if Staff thought the additional
improvement conditioned was excessive, to which Staff responded that for a 25 acre parcel it
might be a bit much, and suggested that it could possibly be squared off. Commissioner Tragish
commented that it does seem to be a little much to ask the developer to go that far in its
improvements in view of the fact of the size of the development, and the improvements that they
are making to Madison.
Commissioner Blockley compared this improvement situation to a section on Panama Lane west
of 99 and east of Stine Road (end of side A)where the road narrows and then widens again. He
concurred with Commissioner Tragish's comments about the excessiveness of the conditional
improvements.
Commissioner Spencer stated he concurs that the conditional improvement are extreme, and
would establish precedent for future development. He stated that he objections to Staff's March
15th memo from the Public Works Department.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the amount of frontage involved if the project was
squared off as suggested. Staff responded it would be approximately 500—600 ft.
Commissioner McGinnis stated that he appreciates the applicant's position, and agrees with
Commissioner Spencer that the applicant should not be held liable to continue past the property
owner's property line. He stated that the property owner is responsible for squaring off that
portion of approximately 600 ft., and whoever would development that property west of this
parcel would then have to complete the rest of the frontage. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr.
Hendricks if he objects to squaring off the property to which Mr. Hendricks responded that it
would be more reasonable then the original condition.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he agrees with Commissioners McGinnis and Tragish. He
inquired if there has ever been a situation where regional traffic impact fee credits were given for
improvements of these types. Staff responded that regional traffic impact fee credits are only
available for the roads that are on the facilities' list, and indicated that this portion of Hosking is
not on the facilities' list (it cuts off at Union). Staff indicated that they expect at the next update of
the impact fee that these types of improvements will be included in the facilities' list, but that the
update is 12-16 months away. Commissioner Johnson stated that he is in agreement with
paving to the property line.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if the parcel to the west is the entire area outlined in blue, to
which Staff responded that it does not touch Hosking. Commissioner Lomas stated that she
thinks it is fair to square off this parcel. She stated that she looks to staff for assurances that the
other part will be picked up when the land comes in.
Planning Commission — March 16, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 9
Commissioner Blockley commented that the public expects the "government"to avoid this type of
"road" development, without realizing that it is accomplished through the developer fees, etc. He
stated without some sort of coordinated policy on this they are going to be faced with this hodge-
podge of street widths that may not be to everyone's liking. He stated that he brings this up as
something for policy discussions.
Staff stated that they have had recent discussions with Kern County Departments regarding
issues such as this, and they will be doing more coordination and early notification to them that
the City has projects. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the funding issue. Staff responded
that as projects come in the developer will pick up the costs. Commissioner Lomas inquired if
the curb, street, gutter, sidewalk be funded with the transportation impact fee, to which Staff
responded that for the most part it is not funded with the transportation impact fee.
Commissioner McGinnis commented that it appears from the discussions that the Commission is
in agreement, and the applicant appears to be agreeable, that the 600 ft. distance seems within
reason. He inquired if they are looking at an eminent domain situation with the County parcel,
and if they will have to go through the County to accomplish that. Staff responded that it would
need County approval, and that the only recollection of this situation being done before was on
Norris Road west of Coffee where one single house was in the County and a tract was on all
three sides of that house, and when the developer was unsuccessful in obtaining they went to
eminent domain with the County, and the County told them no. Commissioner McGinnis stated
that he supports Commissioner Tragish's motion.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adopt a resolution
making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving a General Plan Amendment
to change the land use designation from R-1A to LR on 25 acres as shown on Exhibit "A-2"
attached to the draft Resolution, and including Staff's March 15th memo, with an added condition
where it is bolded which states, "additionally full roadway improvement shall be constructed for
the north half of Hosking Avenue from the west boundary of the GPA/ZA to a distance of
approximately 500-600 feet to the west along the front of parcel APN 518-040-16, and a full
roadway improvements for both halves of Madison Street shall be constructed to Parcel 518-
040-16," and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES:None.
Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve a Resolution
making findings, approving the Negative Declaration, and approving a Zone Change from A to R-
1 on 25 acres as shown on Exhibit"A-2" attached to the draft Resolution, and including Staff's
March 15th memo, with an added condition where it is bolded which states, "additionally full
roadway improvement shall be constructed for the north half of Hosking Avenue from the west
boundary of the GPA/ZA to a distance of approximately 500-600 feet to the west along the front
of parcel APN 518-040-16, and a full roadway improvements for both halves of Madison Street
shall be constructed to Parcel 518-040-16," and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas
NOES:None.
Planning Commission — March 16, 2006 — 5:30 p.m. Page 10
6.9a) General Plan Amendment 05-1343 (Porter-Robertson Engineering)
6.9b) Zone Change 05-1343 (Porter-Robertson Engineering)
Heard on Consent Calendar.
7. COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff referenced a question about the letter regarding ethics training, and distributed a Resolution, which
establishes a policy for re-imbursement of expenses such as training for the Planning Commission. He
stated that with regard to ethics training under subparagraph C at the bottom of page 2, the City will be
getting back with a decision of whether the City will be providing its own ethics training course, or using an
outside provider. Staff recommended holding off on the letter received from the outside firm until the City
makes a decision on the ethics training.
8. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
April 10,2006