Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 20, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 0 ` Meeting — July 20, 2006 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Ronald Lair commented he will speak during the public hearing on item 6.2. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of June 12 &June 15, 2006. Commissioner Spencer moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley to approve the\consent Agenda. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6811 (Dewalt Corporation) 4.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6857 (Quad Knopf) 4.2c Approval of Continuance to August 17, 2006 Meetings and Re-advertisement of Vesting Tentative Tract 6859 (SmithTech/USA Inc.) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6874 (SmithTech/USA Inc.) 4.2e Approval of Zone Change 06-0380 (Jim Marino&Associates) 4.2f Approval of ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (06-0765) — 9500 BRIMHALL (McIntosh & Associates) Staff pointed out that item 4.2c was continued to August 17, and not the 14th and 16th. (The correction is made in these Minutes) The public hearing is opened. Daniel Rudnick requested removal of consent item 4.2d regarding vesting tentative tract 6874 (Agenda Item 5.4). Michael Goodwin requested removal of consent item 4.2e (Agenda item 6.1). The public hearing is closed on all items except items 4.2d and 4.2e. Planning Commission — July 20, 2006 Page 2 Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the consent calendar items for the public hearing items 4.2a, 4.2b, 4.2c, 4.2f, with the amendment to item 4.2c reading continued to August 17. Motion carried by group vote. Commissioner Tkac is noted to have arrived. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — Tentative Tract Maps 5.1 Vesting Tentative Tract 6811 (Dewalt Corporation) Heard on consent calendar. 5.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6857 (Quad Knopf) Heard on consent calendar. 5.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6859 (SmithTech/USA Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 5.4 Vesting Tentative Tract 6874 (SmithTech/USA Inc.) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Daniel Rudnick, representing Chris Jacobs who is a representative of a number of mineral rights owners that own more than 605 of the minerals in three tracts, (6874, 6875 and 6873) consisting of about 236 acres. He stated that their objections are stated in the letter submitted, and specifically that the drilling island designated off-site is insufficient given the overall scheme of things. He stated that they are more interested in 12 acres and not six acres and they don't want them stuck in one place. He stated that it is not economically feasible to produce minerals or explore, or even get oil companies signed up on a lease if they are too limited in the areas that they can explore. He pointed out that this area doesn't have any active production on it currently, but it is in an area where the closest oilfield is the Canfield Ranch and commented that there is pretty significant production out there. Mr. Rudnick stated that there really should be resolution of the proponent of this tract simply because they've designated a drill island off—site that's larger than the city requires under regulation which is 2 net acres, because you have to take into account the total amount of acreage in the three maps and the mineral rights that his clients own. He stated that when you do this, there needs to be at least 12 acres devoted to that, and they do not want to be stuck in one spot because it is not prudent to be stuck in one spot. He stated that this proposal should not be approved the way it is, and that an overall plan for all three of the tract maps be considered prior to the approval of one, instead of taking them piecemeal at a time. Bob Smith, with SmithTec USA, stated they are in agreement with Staff's conditions of approval. He stated that they have a mineral expert available. He commented that they feel that they are providing access to the mineral owners through the drill site, and that it is larger than required. Mr. Smith pointed out that they are only looking at this particular tract tonight. Kerry Zemp, mineral engineer, stated the proposal submitted is achievable. He stated that in this area most of the production is around 7,000 to 10,000 feet, and with horizontal drilling there is the ability to drill 7,000 feet horizontal, and all of section 28 and beyond would be covered. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac inquired how they set where a drill island is going to go and whose expertise is typically used. Staff responded that the only criteria there is is the ordinance which requires if you have a drill site you can locate it in the tract or off the tract with a minimum of 2 acres, and other than that it is the expert testimony presented. Planning Commission — July 20, 2006 Page 3 Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Zemp about the 53.11 acres, and if in his professional opinion it is possible to extract any minerals from the one proposed drill site. Mr. Zemp responded in the affirmative. He added that when you are in a residential area it is better to be consolidated, rather than having wells scattered throughout. He reiterated that they would be able to extract all of their minerals from the one location. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Smith what Mr. Rudnick's request for six drill sites would do to the subdivision. Mr. Smith stated they would lose acreage which would calculate to approximately 90 lots. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Rudnick about the comments, to which he responded that he doesn't know if he can dispute how best to configure drilling islands in a residential area, and that consolidation is an idea, but they do not believe that it gives you the ability to maximum the minerals. Mr. Rudnick pointed out that Mr. Zemp only referred to Long Beach, and not to any knowledge about the Canfield Ranch, the Stevens Zone, with Division of Oil & Gas. He further commented that Mr. Zemp is not a petroleum geologist and understood him to be an engineer. Mr. Rudnick stated that with regard to the number of lots lost; this right of surface entry is just as valuable to the mineral owners as the minerals under the ground. Mr. Rudnick pointed out that when you own it and have a right to it, you ought to be able to, in a free market, be able to sell if for a fair price. He stated that due to the parties' impasse on this issue, he is left with no choice but the register their objections and request that they get the number of acreage that they need for their 236 acres. Mr. Rudnick pointed out that it will ultimately take away his clients' property rights to explore. Commissioner McGinnis inquired where the six sites came from, to which Mr. Rudnick responded that there is an understanding with the proponents of this tract that 12 acres would be appropriate for a drill sites, and pointed out that he does not want to be confined to one spot. Commissioner McGinnis pointed out that Mr. Rudnick had not brought in an expert to advise the Commissioner further, and stated they are stuck on what they can do, and perhaps could continue it so he could bring in an expert. Mr. Rudnick responded that they would prefer that as they are concerned with the fact that the whole big picture is not being looked at, because technically the proposed is right, as they've got more than two acres, and they're looking at one map, however all three separate tract maps should be looked at as a whole. Mr. Rudnick stated that he believes these issues can be worked out between the parties, and feel that it would be beneficial to have a continuance on this matter. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Smith if a continuance would allow for an agreement with Mr. Rudnick's clients. Mr. Smith stated that they have been negotiating for a while and they have not come anywhere, and the applicant feels that they are providing adequate access to the mineral holders' property rights. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he would probably be in favor of a continuance so the parties can resolve these issues. Commissioner Tragish stated that if a motion is made to continue he will hold off on his comments, otherwise he would like to make his comments. As there were other commissioners with comments, Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff if he were to vote against this application based on the objections made by Mr. Rudnick, what findings would have to be made. Staff responded the finding would be that the off-site drill site proposed by the applicant provides reasonable access to the minerals beneath the subdivision, and the inverse would be true if a vote was made in favor. Commissioner Tragish further inquired about the ordinance for drill islands, and inquired if it has to be on the tract which is being approved. Staff responded in the negative. Commissioner Tragish inquired where the property is that the mineral rights owner is talking about. Staff responded that the mineral right owner would have to explain this. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the location of the other two tracts. Staff explained the location of the three tracts. Staff pointed out that on the other industrial property a drill site on the industrial zone property is beneficial to a mineral right owner because they don't need a conditional use permit because it is far enough away from the residences that it is much easier to meet the drill restrictions should they decide to drill, and therefore, Staffs' opinion is that the location would be reasonable and beneficial. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that it appears to him that is putting a burden on the mineral rights owner to come back and object on the future tracts, which he thinks is inherently unfair. He further commented that he has not heard that the proposed six acre drill site is insufficient, and inquired of Mr. Rudnick as to any comments about it being insufficient to service the mineral right owners' needs in this area. Mr. Rudnick responded that attached to their objections is a plan that has been used at the Canfield Ranch Field, which is the closest large find to this property, and they are doing infill drilling well Planning Commission — July 20, 2006 Page 4 every 10 acres, and therefore, short of what's there, he can't comment any further without bringing in a petroleum engineer or geologist to explain the geology in this area, and what would be the most economically feasible design. Commissioner Tragish commented that he does not know where the material submitted by Mr. Rudnick came from or how old it is. Commissioner Tragish suggested that Mr. Rudnick speak with the developer if a continuance is made to clean these issues up. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Zemp if he is saying that giving a six acre drill island is sufficient to reach all of the alleged mineral deposits in this area. Mr. Zemp responded in the affirmative, commenting that it looks like most of the development is going to be in the south half of 28, and you could reach beyond that, and therefore, there is more than adequate room to use directional drilling to reach any minerals that could be on Section 28. Mr. Zemp further pointed out that he has owned wells in a residential area, and commented that you are much better to have your production or the wells located in an industrial area, because of clanking and noise and engines running, and residents don't like that. He reiterated that whoever tried to develop the minerals would not have any difficulty reaching any reserves in the south half. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that Mr. Rudnick points out that they may want to use more than one well to pull out the minerals faster and more efficiently and economically, and therefore the six acres----- (end of tape 1, side A) ------ Mr. Zemp stated that if you had 10 acre spacing on 320 acres, which would be all of the south half of section 28, that would be 32 wells, and 32/450 you get quite a bit of spacing, which is more than adequate to drill 32 wells on the six acres. Commissioner Tragish stated that technically the applicant has complied with the statute with providing a drill island for this particular tract, which is the only tract before the Planning Commission, and technically when the applicant comes back with the other tracts, which do not provide at this point for a drill island, Mr. Rudnick will have to come back again with his concern for drill sites. Commissioner Tragish stated that he has a problem with this because it is somewhat trying to get around the rules, and stated that he thinks Commissioner McGinnis' suggestion to continue to allow the parties to work this out is reasonable. Commissioner Blockley inquired of Staff if there is any limit as to the size of the tract that can be approved with a 2-acre drill island. Staff responded there is no maximum. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the time limit on the duration for the existence of a drill island after which it can be converted into developable lots, to which Staff responded that it is 10 years. Commissioner Blockley further inquired if in the ordinance the way it is applied effected by surface entry rights, to which Staff responded it is if they have waivers of surface entry rights, they don't have to provide a drill island, and so the converse is that surface entry rights is the only way they can enforce a requirement for a drill island. Commissioner Blockley further inquired if the ordinance addresses adding tracts to a reservation for a drill island. Staff responded that every tract that would come in, if they wanted to take advantage of this drill site, it would be considered an off-site drill site for those tracts, so they would have to advertise it, and there's a notice procedure in the ordinance that they have to send it to the mineral rights owners and to operators in the area that they're going to use this drill site for another tract. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the gas line has any bearing on the matter of mineral development related to this tract. Staff responded that if a drill site was proposed right up against the pipeline they would make sure that the fire department was involved for any risk potential, however this would be far enough away that it would not fall into category. Commissioner Blockley inquired of Mr. Smith about the property to the east that has an additional acreage that is not indicated as part of a tract, and if the land is under the same ownership. Mr. Smith responded that it is not under the same ownership. Commissioner Blockley stated that he is not inclined to support a continuance because it seems that the applicant has complied with all of the ordinances. Commissioner Spencer inquired of Mr. Rudnick how long the Pasqual family has owned the south half of this section, to which Mr. Rudnick responded five years. He pointed out that the General Plan has designated this property for residential use, and if it is already approved for residential use then he has given up the rights to industrial drill sites all over the south half of this section. Mr. Rudnick responded that he does not agree with this. Staff responded that with this subdivision application, the subdivider Planning Commission — July 20, 2006 Page 5 and the surface owner is required to notify anybody who has mineral rights or an operator in the area, and if anybody has surface entry rights, they are required to address that issue. Staff indicated that they can go get the signatures and pay for them to sign the map when it comes in for recordation, and the other option is the reservation of drill sites, which is what is before the Planning Commission this evening. The applicant's other option is to provide a study showing it is not practical to access minerals beneath the subdivision. Staff stated that this is the appropriate stage to address the access to the mineral rights, and the mineral right owners are somewhat protected, however, the ordinance is set up so neither side can really hold the other side "hostage", and therefore there is an attempt to balance the interest in the ordinance. Commissioner Spencer stated that he is leaning towards a continuance for answers. Commissioner Johnson stated that if a motion is made to continue, he would like to see a geological expert opinion and explain what the effects of the six acre drill islands are going to mean for the tract adjacent to Gosford Road in terms of the geology of the area. He further stated, that given the situation, all of the ordinances have been met, and if a motion is made, technically he does not see a reason to not approve it, but he would support a continuance. Commissioner Lomas stated that she was the only one who voted in favor of a mineral right holder in a previous meeting. She stated that she wants people to know that she appreciates that the mineral right owner holder owns something, and they do not have the right to take it away from them, and it is their obligation to protect it. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Mr. Smith how many acres the three parcels that are not used cumulatively is. Mr. Smith responded that it makes up about 220 acres. She pointed out that they are going round and round about something that is not before them, and if it was before them the guideline that the County uses in the NW area is two acres per every 80 acres. Commissioner Lomas inquired if the southern half of Section 28 is in the Canfield Ranch. (inaudible) responded that it is not in the Canfield Ranch as it exists today. Commissioner Lomas stated that there has not been anything presented except speculation, and pointed out that 226 acres is above and beyond what would be required if all three were presented before the Planning Commission at this time. She further pointed out that one of the locations proposed is in an industrial area which is a good thing. Commissioner Lomas stated that she is at a loss as to how the mineral owner, when it is not in the Canfield Ranch, can come before the Commission and ask for 12 acres without anything other than, it's by the Canfield Ranch. She went on to state that it has not been proven that there are minerals below, nor proven a need, and therefore, since the applicant has demonstrated and provided what is required, as well as put it in an industrial area, is good planning. She stated that she does not agree that the applicant should be punished with a delay and additional expert costs. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff if they put a condition on the approval that the drill island can only be utilized by the tracts in front of the commission this evening, if it would require the other tracts when they came in to provide a drill island as well. Staff responded not necessarily because they could choose the other options in the ordinance. Staff commented that when the other tracts came in the same drill island is used deal with it on those other tracts, and not with a condition on this tract. Commissioner Tragish went on to state that he does not feel that Mr. Rudnick and his clients have made sufficient showing, however there still is a question about whether it provides reasonable access for the mineral rights. He further stated that he has concerns about it expiring in 10 years, and there still may be substantial minerals in the area. Staff commented that the drill island doesn't necessarily expire in 10 years, but gives the applicant of a subdivision an opportunity to come back in and request resubdivision at that time, and show evidence as to why it hasn't been used, and is no longer needed. He stated that it is not an automatic expiration. Commissioner Tragish stated that slant drilling, and the amount of wells required by Mr. Rudnick and his client, cut into the six acres and is concerned that the location will support this number of wells. Commissioner Blockley stated a reasonable compromise might be to limit it to this subdivision and tract 6875, which is contiguous with the proposed drill island, which is where the proposed industrial zone is located. He further pointed out that not only does the drill island have a 10-year life span, but the tract itself would expire if it's not developed and everything reverts back to the way it was. Planning Commission — July 20, 2006 Page 6 Commissioner Lomas stated that she does not support a continuance because if Mr. Rudnick believes he is entitled to more drill islands he can bring that up when the next tract comes in and bring his experts. Commissioner Tkac inquired if Mr. Rudnick can come back with the next tract, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. He stated that he would like a continuance because they don't have enough of the right information. Commissioner Tkac stated he would bring this motion. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to continue this item to the next available date of August 3, 2006. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: Commissioners: Blockley, Lomas Commissioners Blockley and Lomas both stated that in the interest of brevity they incorporate their previous comments as for their no vote. Five minute break taken. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS—Zone Changes 6.1 Zone Change 06-0380 (Jim Marino&Associates) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Michael Goodwin stated he lives in the Madison Grove area and his wall butts up to Snow Road. He inquired what could go into a C-1/C-2 zone, and what they can do to eliminate some of the noise. Janice Grubbs stated she lives at the corner of Calloway and Snow, and is concerned about the school on the southeast side where there is already traffic issues. Teri Bijorn with Kronick Moskovitz law firm, on behalf of the applicant, stated they are in agreement to the down zoning to the C-1 that staff has recommended. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Blockley said that with respect to Snow Road and Calloway they are both designated arterials. He stated that he is in support of Staff's recommendation for a C-1 zone which is more restrictive than a C-2. Commissioner Tragish responded that the zoning can be used for a gasoline station, apparel stores, bakeries, book stores, churches, drug stores, etc., and that a C-1 will be more of a neighborhood center than a major retail center. Commissioner Tragish inquired for other locations along Snow Road where there are other retail centers. Staff pointed out a center one mile from this location. Staff estimated that the big Rosedale center is three miles from this location. He stated that he thinks a neighborhood center like this would serve the area well. He stated that he is in support of C-1. Commissioner Lomas inquired where the denied shopping center was located, to which Staff responded it was the one a mile to the east (Coffee and Snow) wherein Staff recommended against a PCD. Staff further pointed out that one was denied a mile to the west of this project. Commissioner Lomas stated that this project complies with the general plan. She inquired of a comparable example of another commercial center that this project will resemble. Staff responded Olive and Coffee on the northwest corner. Commissioner Lomas requested that Staff provide a copy of what is allowed in the C-1 zone and elaborate on improvement requirements that will go along with the zoning. Staff responded that Calloway and Snow Road will require medians, travel lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, etc., and that there would be a requirement for right turn deceleration lanes at the major access points. Staff pointed out that if there is a left out they will have to pay for a signal. Mr. Goodwin inquired who they contact about their side of the street with the landscape easement. Staff responded that Tom Jones with the Parks Department can assist with this. Planning Commission — July 20, 2006 Page 7 Ms. Grubbs stated that her concern is with the school and loitering down to the shopping center. Commissioner Lomas responded that to her knowledge there were no longer any open campuses. Commissioner Tragish inquired what type of showing would have to be made to recommend a PCD zoning on this project. Staff responded there would not need to be any special findings, and the PCD finding would have to be attached. Staff indicated that size is not necessarily the determining factor to put a PCD on. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, and to approve zone change 06-0380 with a C-1 zone as recommended by Staff with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A-1" 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. 6.2 Zone Change 06-0581 (Jim Marino&Associates) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Ron Lehr lives on Breckenridge Road state he and three members of the Stoller family who farm adjacent to this property submitted a letter of opposition to the annexation. He stated that the response they received back from the Planning Department was that the reason for the annexation was so that it conformed to the General Plan. Mr. Lehr inquired why it has to be annexed to the City to conform with the General Plan, as the zoning can be changed if it's in the county, but does not have to be annexed to the city. Mr. Lehr pointed out that trying to farm next to city residential housing is very difficult. He stated that this piece of property is landlocked, and isn't within a half a mile of a paved road, and it isn't within a mile of a sewer line, and that this annexation is premature. He stated that he does not understand why the city needs a little tongue of land there just because they have thousands of acres on the north side that isn't even developed. He stated that he believes that it will just be a matter of time until the city will want to condemn his property for access to the land either by road or sewer line. He stated that the county has a statute that restricts premature zoning. He stated he would ask the Planning Commission to oppose this project. Harlan Ode stated he has a piece of property approximately 165 ft. from the corner of this property just to the southwest. He inquired if there's been any mention of how many houses have been proposed on this parcel. He further inquired what has been proposed as far as sewer or septic tanks in this area. Carol Barns a property owner in the area stated she agrees with the previous speakers. Teri Bijorn with Kronick Moskovitz firm, representing the applicant, stated they are in accord with all of the conditions and reminded the Planning Commission that the action is to bring zoning in compliance with the General Plan and a pre-zoning upon annexation, pointing out that the annexation is a different procedure and doesn't have anything to do with tonight's action. She further stated that she does not have a lot of details on the proposed plan and Mr. Marino, the project consultant, is out of town. She stated that it is her understanding that they are proposing densities less than what would otherwise be allowed under this zoning by having larger lots which would be compatible with the surrounding areas. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac stated he would be concerned with any intense agriculture which appears to be present at the time. He stated that he is for infill, however he would be more concerned with the agriculture issues. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Lehr if they currently use pesticides, to which he stated they do. He stated that all of his property is citrus, and the adjacent property to him is all vineyard. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Lehr as to the location of his property. Mr. Lehr responded that it is directly south of the yellow line all the way down to Breckenridge Road and all the way over to Vineland Road. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Ms. Bijorn what is the maximum number of lots that can be put on this project. Ms. Bijorn deferred to Staff. Staff responded that they estimate about 40 maximum under the proposed half-acre lots. Staff further pointed out that the area is on the General Plan and this Planning Commission — July 20, 2006 Page 8 designation actually allows four units per acre, so this applicant could be proposing 10,000 sq. ft. lots. He further pointed out that it would also allow for animals which is compatible with adjacent uses. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the agricultural use to the south and east, and any buffers that can be provided which would allow the agricultural uses to still maintain their use without having to encroach upon their property. Staff responded that City ordinances to require some buffering as far as set backs for houses, and typically those are incorporated. Staff pointed out that there is a note on the final map that lets people know that they are in an area of agricultural operations where they may be inconvenienced or discomforted by them. Staff further pointed out that typically they have allowed single family residential lots much smaller than these to abut right up against agricultural uses in other parts of the city. Commissioner Johnson inquired if they were to add the condition regarding the covenant, if it would be a covenant that they would be adding or just a notice given to property owners at time of mortgage deliberation. Staff responded that it could be done either as a covenant or a note on the final map. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would be more comfortable with a covenant. Staff indicated that it would read as follows: this is a neighbor and businesses activity statement. The County of Kern and City of Bakersfield encourages operation of properly conducted businesses and agricultural, oil mining, manufacturing, and other non-residential operations within the County. If the property you are purchasing is located near these businesses, you may be subject to inconveniences or discomforts arising from such operation to the extent allowed by law. This notice does not waive your legal rights. Commissioner Tragish inquired if given the current GP designation for this property and its current zoning for agricultural if the applicant can build on this property. Staff responded that they could pull a permit for one house on this project area. Commissioner Tragish stated that he has the same concerns as Commissioner Tkac. He further commented that this is not a leap frog into the area, and his issue is the prematurity issue raised by Mr. Lehr, and is not sure if that is sufficient grounds for denial of the application. Staff responded that in this case it would probably be a stretch as there are houses right next to it, pointing out that there is development in the area, and specifically within the ag areas themselves. Commissioner Tragish inquired if premature application for zoning could ever be grounds for rejection. Staff responded that it is subjective, but would justifiably be used in a leapfrog situation, or if peninsulas were being created. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not see grounds for rejection of this application. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Lehr about his spray applications to which he responded it is done with ground rigs. Mr. Lehr stated that the County has '/ mile to 'h mile buffer zone for spraying, and that his over spray is zero. Mr. Lehr stated that his past experience has been that the school in the area will call him to tell him that a child is throwing up and it must be his spray rig. Mr. Lehr stated that he hasn't had a spray rig in the orchard for at least a month before the child was sick. He pointed out that people are paranoid. Mr. McGinnis inquired of Mr. Lehr how far away he would want to live from orchard spraying. Mr. Lehr stated that he lives in the orchard and it has not effected him. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Staff what the setback would be for residential against ag. Staff responded that there is a lot depth that's 140 ft. and there's a set back of homes of 50 ft. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Lehr if he thought these setbacks would be adequate for development. Mr. Lehr stated that the 150 ft. would be adequate. Mr. Lehr stated that if this is approved he would like to see a setback of home sites and animals, because he does not want someone to have a dead horse and blame him for spraying. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the odor is the worst part of spraying, to which Mr. Lehr responded it is in most cases. Commissioner Lomas stated that she had a phone conversation with Terri Stoller. She inquired of Staff about the set back being 50 or 150. Staff stated that the building set back is 50 ft. She further inquired at zoning what latitude they have. Staff responded that within a reasonable amount of time of a General Plan designation on an area the zoning has to be consistent with the General Plan, pointing out that this is not premature and is reasonable that the owner of the property could expect that now because there are homes adjacent to this area that they could expect that their property be brought into conformance with the GP, and is a reasonable expectation. Commissioner Lomas asked for an explanation as to how this parcel would have to have roads and sewer, as well as services. Staff responded that the conditions being placed on the zone change include a requirement to build an off-site road to bring the road system to this site. Staff further pointed out that the applicant would be required upon further subdivision to construct whatever frontage roads there might Planning Commission — July 20, 2006 Page 9 be. Staff indicated that Eucalyptus Drive would probably be a fronting street. Staff continued stating the applicant would be required to provide urban services to the parcels, including, sewer, water, power, cable, and telephone. Commissioner Lomas addressed Mr. Lehr's concern that someone is going to come and take his land, and pointed out that this is not going to happen. Staff confirmed that this will not happen, and on a tract map off site road improvements where a future road is needed that is in the GP, you can get roads from another property owner like a major road. Staff further pointed out that they are responding to a request for annexation to the city and a zone change, and that the City is not the applicant on that. Commissioner Lomas inquired if the 40 number is the highest number with the zoning, to which Staff responded that is what they would consider to be the highest number. She clarified that it is her understanding that Mr. Lehr is not so much concerned about this project being a hindrance to his activity, but rather about the complaints that he is getting. She further stated that they have confirmed that no one is going to take his property, and that there will be services required. She pointed out that there is no policy, and there has not been any evidence of any health or safety concerns, therefore, she doesn't see that they can say it's premature. Commissioner Tkac stated he would like to see a buffer on the farm land sides. He inquired if the current zoning would be for a maximum of 40, when would be the next time somebody could come back in and request R-1 or R-2. Staff responded that the applicant could come in and ask for estate 10,000 sq ft. lots at any time in the future because 1/ acre lots would be consistent with the GP. Staff further pointed out that there is a requirement with annexations that you have to wait two years before you change the zoning. He stated that he agrees that it's a little outside the sphere and there are no roads out there. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Lehr about the pinkish shade of homes on Vineland and along Pioneer. Mr. Lehr stated that there are some recent new homes north of Orangewood Elementary School which was a 10 acre parcel that had two homes sites and was parceled off so that now it has five parcels on a 10 acre site right now. Commissioner Johnson further inquired of Mr. Lehr about the 50 ft. setback to which Mr. Lehr responded that it would not be sufficient. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that when the roadway goes in, it will be a 32 ft. roadway and then there's an 8 ft of shoulder on each side, and then as the development goes in there will probably be a set back as well. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Eucalyptus would have to be developed through and almost equal 50 ft when the setback is put in from the property. Staff responded that they could not say for sure that definitely a road would be between the two or not. Staff stated that at the subdivision stage there may be some ability to require this, or the Planning Commission could condition a zone change. Staff stated that Eucalyptus would not necessarily have to go across Vineland and provide a road on the south side of the property, and therefore should not count on a road being a separation at this point. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that there is a pattern of growth moving in this direction, and does not believe that it is premature. He inquired about the 20 lots previously referenced to which Staff responded that the acreage was 20 acres with half acre lots to equal 40. He stated that the applicant is within their rights, and there is not enough evidence of a heath, safety and welfare concern to reject this application. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the person who has standing to make an application for either a general plan amendment or zone change limited to the owner, or can it be any individual that's located adjacent to that property or anybody who has a public interest in it. Staff responded ---- (end of side A, Tape 2) as long as they own 60% of the area of the zone change they can apply for a larger area than they actually own, and the City Council can initiate a zone change, as well as Commissioner Tragish or himself. Commissioner Tragish pointed out that the farmers can take action and have more power then they probably utilize. Commissioner Lomas stated that land use designation was put on this quite a while ago and therefore this applicant has property rights that can't be taken away from them. She stated with the proposed sized lots she doesn't know why there couldn't be 150 ft. set back on the eastern and southern boundary if the applicant was agreeable to this. Ms. Bjorn stated that she would have to defer to the Mr. Marino or the owner to commit to such an agreement. Ms. Bjorn stated that she could make a phone call. Five minute break taken. Planning Commission — July 20, 2006 Page 10 Ms. Bjorn stated that her client has advised that they are willing to agree to a condition that the lots on the eastern and southern boundaries would be 175 ft. total depth of lot, and if that is broken down that already includes the required 50 ft. set back from the A zone to the house, and then City policy mentioned would be 145 ft. Her clients are willing to add 30 ft onto the lot depth to go up to 175 ft. Staff responded that with '/2 acre lots you will end up with the 175 ft most likely, with a 25 ft. front yard set back, with a 150 ft , and theoretically you could be within the 150 ft setback for the home between the front yard set back of 150 ft you would have 25 ft. building envelope for the home. Ms. Bjorn said that this would be outside any road right-of-way so if there is a road extended along the southern boundary than that covers the additional. Ms. Bjorn inquired if it would be just the first tier of lots along those boundaries to which Commissioner Lomas responded in the affirmative. Staff read the following: "The lots on the easterly and southern boundary of the project shall have a minimum lot depth of 175 ft." Ms. Bjorn stated that it is the total lot depth that she is trying not to get convoluted by breaking down the internal setbacks. Staff commented that when a subdivision is designed you can end up with a lot that has a side yard which could be 80 ft. Commissioner Lomas stated that this should be addressed. Ms. Bjorn asked for clarification. Staff stated that if along the south side if there was a tier of lots that were facing a north south direction and there was a road, there would be a lot in the corner which would actually have a side yard adjacent to the ag instead of a rear yard. Ms. Bjorn stated that they cannot assume that all rear yards because if it was all rear yards they'd all be facing west or east, and they typically build their homes facing north or south. Staff stated that it could be done with only having to deal with a few side yards. Staff stated that the ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 80 ft. in a RS zone, and if a 100 ft. lot width was required with a 50 ft. setback that would only give 45 ft of an envelope to build a house in with a 5' setback on one side, and a 50 ft. setback next to the ag zone. Stated commented that you would probably want 100 or 125 ft. Commissioner Lomas inquired if they could require a full cul-de-sac on the eastern boundary. Staff responded that they could require that only rear yards back up to the boundary which would require cul- de-sacs to accomplish. Ms. Bjorn stated that she would like to call her client. She restated her understanding of the conditions as follows: all lots on the eastern and southern boundaries have to be rear facing with a minimum 175 ft. lot depth and all rear yards on the eastern and southern boundaries. Commissioner Johnson requested that Ms. Bjorn ask her client about the additional condition regarding the uses of agriculture and other businesses notice. Harlan Ode commented that Ms. Barns has a piece of property that if you draw a line from Eucalyptus Drive to the southwest corner of the yellow property boundary is Ms. Barns driveway to her house. Subsequently, if Eucalyptus is extended she will lose all of her driveway and access to her house which means she would lose 40 of 50 ft. of her property for 660 ft. which is a substantial amount of her property. Mr. Harlan Ode indicated that he subdivided the property in 1992 there was no talk in the 2010 Plan of Eucalyptus going anywhere other than where it is. He commented that it is not an arterial and is not on a section line and was suppose to cease where it does. Mr. Ode stated that if this goes forward as is, it is going to totally change the face of her property. Staff responded that Eucalyptus Drive is not shown on the circulation element as either a collector or an arterial, and therefore is a local street. She stated that it is not necessary or desirable to have it extend across Vineland to serve this zone change area. She indicated that the zone change area would have to be served by Pioneer to the north which is a collector on the circulation element. Commissioner Tragish commented that in these types of situations where there are modifications to the buffer requirements, there is also an additional condition that if the surrounding agricultural properties rezone before the tract map records that the buffer requirement will be terminated. Staff responded that this could be dealt with by saying that the lots adjacent to A zoning shall have a minimum lot depth of 175 ft., and be designed so that rear yards abut the A zone, so that if it's some other condition that condition would not apply. Commissioner Spencer commented that there is an attached Exhibit 1 which would need to be modified to indicate all of the proposed restrictive requirements, and specifically pertaining to setbacks. Staff Planning Commission — July 20, 2006 Page 11 responded that would be correct and that they would be adding conditions to the Exhibit 1 list attached to the Resolution. Commissioner Spencer stated that he would go along with this. Ms. Bjorn stated that her client's concern from a planning standpoint is that if a road does go along the south then they will end up with double frontage lots which would not be a good design. She stated that they would propose a compromise where her client will agree to the condition of rear-facing yards along the eastern and southern boundaries, unless the city requires a road. She stated that if the city requires a road then they will not have to have rear-facing lots, but would still agree to the 175 ft. lot depth on all of the lots. Staff responded that they don't think there will be a road on the south side of the property. Staff commented that if there was a road on the southern boundary they would not allow a double frontage lot on a local street, and therefore there would have to be back to back lots if there is a road on the south side. Staff commented that there could be language added that if there is a road between the A zone and the lot the road width will act as part of the 175 ft. depth. Staff pointed out that if there is a 60 ft. wide local street with a 25 ft. setback that would equal an 85 ft. buffer which would be a sufficient buffer. Staff read the modified conditions as follows: Adjacent to A zoning the lots shall have a minimum lot depth of 175 ft. and shall be designed so that rear yards abut the A zone, unless a road separates the lots from the A zone. Ms. Bjorn inquired if they need to work in the concept that if there is a road then that would be incorporated into the 175 ft. Staff responded they didn't need to incorporate it in because the language indicates that the applicant has to abide by the lot depth and the rear yard arrangement, but if there is a road separation than all of that goes away automatically. Ms. Bjorn responded that if there is a road, and the conditions of the depth and rear facing lots would therefore not apply, that the new language is reasonable. Staff read another condition as follows: A neighboring business activity covenant shall be recorded on each parcel within future subdivisions. The wording shall be similar to the following: County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield encourages operation of properly conducted businesses and agricultural, oil, mining, manufacturing, and other non-residential operations within the County. If the property you purchase is located near these businesses, you may be subject to inconveniences or discomforts arising from such operations to the extent allowed by law. This notice does not waive your legal rights. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve zone change 06-0581 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, and adding the two amended conditions as read by Mr. Movius, and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. ABSTAINED: Commissioner: Blockley 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (06-0765) — 9500 BRIMHALL (McIntosh & Associates) located on the northeast corner of Calloway Drive and Brimhall Road. (Exempt from CEQA) Heard on consent calendar. Mr. Blockley returned. 8. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff commented that there is a memo handed out prior to the meeting that deals with the Hillside Ordinance agenda item. Staff commented that this matter has been again continued to September 5, 2006 for a pre- meeting, and September 7, 2006 for a regular meeting. Staff commented that they have to comply with the Planning Commission — July 20, 2006 Page 12 Brown Act and on the August 14 at the pre-meeting they will have to convene the Commissioner solely for the purpose of continuing the matter. 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Johnson inquired if it would be possible to take the ethics training on the 14th. He further commented that the Hillside Ordinance is a very controversial issue and he would hope that it is not continued again unless need be so as deemed at the hearing, because they need to address the concerns as they relate to the Hillside Ordinance and he does not want to see it continued until infinity. 10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director August 30, 2006