Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 12, 2002MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Tuesday, Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL November 12, 2002, 3:00 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Present: BOARD MEMBERS: Present: STAFF MEMBERS: The Chairperson read the Notice of Right to appeal PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING DONNA KUNZ, Chairperson JACK LA ROCHELLE JACK LEONARD JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner JAKE SWEENY, Associate Planner ROBERT SHERFY Assistant City Attorney ISABEL WILLIAMS, Recording Secretary as set forth on the agenda. Motion was made by Member LaRochelle to approve minutes of the meeting held October 8, 2002. Motion carried. 4.A. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - FILE 02-0944 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY MclNTOSH & ASSOCIATES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 2~600 SQUARE FOOT PRO SHOP AT THE EXISTING SEVEN OAKS GOLF COURSE WITHIN AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2000 GRAND LAKES AVENUE. Staff report was given. Public hearing was opened. Michelle LaMoine with Mclntosh & Associates spoke in favor of the project. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Minutes, BZA, 11/12/02 4.A.2) Page 2 Motion was made by Member La Rochelle to adopt the resolution with all findings and conditions, approving Conditional use Permit No. 02-0944 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: La Rochelle, Leonard, Kunz NOES: None PUBLIC HEARING - FILE 02-0968 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A STATE LICENSED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR 14 JUVENILES IN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN AN R-3 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY) ZONE DISTRICT~ AND A PARKING MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN OFF STREET PARKING FROM 22 SPACES (REQUIRED) TO 9 SPACES (PROPOSED) LOCATED AT 2510 WILSON ROAD. Staff report was given. Several letters were received in opposition to the proposed project. Public hearing was opened. Cheryl McCraw spoke in opposition indicating the neighborhood is not the appropriate area for this type of facility because of the schools and park so close to the proposed project. Lance Torres resident behind the proposed facility spoke in opposition also citing that the schools and parks are too close to the proposed juvenile project. Jack Doty, 2616 Emerald Street spoke in opposition indicating there is already crime in the area and bringing this type of facility into the neighborhood would only make things worst. Sheila Swearigen, resident in the area indicated that she has a handicapped child and was concerned about juveniles in the area and if anything happened to her daughter she would not be able to defend herself. She indicated that a facility of this nature is needed but in a different area. Mary Joan Hurley, trustee and officer of the Plaza Christian Church at 2600 Wilson Road spoke in opposition indicating that the case workers have no law enforcement authority over the juveniles and the proposed facility is not a lock down facility. Minutes, BZA, 11/12/02 Page 3 Mr. Yamasachi indicated that he used to live next a halfway house in Richmond, California. Based on his experience with this facility, it was only a matter of time before the neighborhood had a lot of robberies and drug problems. Mary Louise Limi, 2209 Wilson Road spoke in opposition to the facility stating that it should not be put in an area close to schools and parks where children play and walk to school. Bill Packer, 2700 Delburn Street spoke in opposition and wondered if the police gang unit had any idea about this type of facility coming into the neighborhood. He suggested that a good use for the house would be the BARC Association. Adrian Garcia resident in the neighborhood spoke in opposition. He indicated that when he was growing up they used to play basketball in the park and never had any problems. However, if a facility of this type goes in, there is bound to be problems with children playing in the park. Dorothy Ernst resident across from the proposed facility spoke in opposition and indicated that the number of young people that will be in this facility could pose a problem if they should walk away from this facility. Susan Asani, resident on Emerald Street indicated that the alley already has a lot of traffic and there is already problems with people smoking marijauna and hanging out in the alley. Linda White resident in the area spoke in opposition indicating there are a lot of elderly people who live in the area. She also has an eight year old daughter, and was worried about the safety of her daughter and the neighborhood. Mr. Len Turner and Kenneth Porter spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Turner indicated that all of these kids are from the Bakersfield area and there will be one staff member per three kids and they will not be unsupervised. He further indicated they can guarantee that they would not go to the park without supervision. They will not be standing around without supervision. They will not be doing anything without supervision. He handed out a flyer showing what the facility is like and the success that they have had up north. They are supported by Kern County Social Services and they noted that this type of facility was needed in Bakersfield. He also stated that the number of children in the facility is governed by the state as there has to be a certain number of staff members per children. Minutes, BZA, 11/12/02 Page 4 Mr. Porter commented they have received recommendation from the Mayor of Oakland and received recognition from Congresswoman Barbara Lee concerning their existing facility in Oakland. He also indicated this is not a fly by night operation, they take seriously the job that they do in working with the children. The children are taught different types of skills to hopefully become good citizens. He further commented that they are looking at fencing the back part of the site so that everything is contained behind of the house such as a basketball court, tennis courts and parking. If the public park is utilized they will be supervised. As for the schools, the children would not be attending the area schools, they will be attending schools such as Vista and schools that will work with these types of kids. Also, McDonald's and other types of places employ these children to help them get back into the main stream. Mr. Turner indicated that the youth are screened before being accepted into this program, by both the county staff upon referral and by his staff. Rebuttal: Bill Packer, 2700 Delburn Street applauded their progress in the area where they are working and wanted to know if they had any statistics as to the success of the children that have gone to this facility. Mary Joan Hurley, member of the Plaza Christian Church indicated that the requirements for the caregivers is at minimum a high school diploma and not all of them will be case workers or social workers. Cheryl McCraw asked who does the assessments for the juveniles, and how do they screen the families that visit the juveniles. Zeffa Burkette commented that the traffic on Wilson Road has increased as well as the foot traffic. Albert Ernst resident on Sherwood Avenue was concerned about the schools and the park as well as the home's proximity to the mall. Ellen Ernst resident wanted to know if the juveniles would be visiting the park with their relatives and friends. Also, if they had a complaint if this facility should become established, would they be able to go to the state about any problems? In reply to the rebuttals, Mr. Porter indicated that the children will be driven to Vista or a continuation school in the area. Minutes, BZA, 11/12/02 Page 5 Mr. Turner indicated that the ages of the children will be from ages 10 through 17 and that Mr. Porter and a social worker will do the assessments. As far as screening the family, Mr. Porter will do that along with a staff member. Mr. Porter commented that each child is pre-screened by the Probation Department to see if they are qualified to come into such a program. After being pre-screened by the Probation Department then he screens them to meet his criteria in order to be allowed into the facility. He further stated that he has been in this business for ten years. He started out as a counselor and moved his way up into administration and then having a facility of his own. Their facilities are evaluated on a regular bases. There is a number in which to call if there is a complaint. He further stated that he is willing to work with the community, and willing to listen to suggestions. The public hearing was closed. Alternate member, Jack Leonard commented to Mr. Porter and Mr. Turner that he appreciates the type of facility indicating there is a true need for this type of service for young people, however he had some concerns. It was his understanding that a six client facility does not require a Conditional Use Permit and could operate without coming to this board. He then asked staff if the state requires a buffer between the facility and the school. Jim Eggert replied that the state requires a 300 foot separation between like facilities. Staff was not aware of any other restrictions as far as separations from parks or schools. Jack Leonard asked if it was a state requirement that there be a ratio of one staff per three clients in this facility. Mr. Porter replied that it is their internal policy but he believed that the state may also require a three-to-one ratio. Jack Leonard asked if the clients are allowed to leave with relatives. Mr. Porter replied they have to get approval from the Probation Department after they meet certain requirements and standards. Jack Leonard asked Mr. Porter what were his credentials. Mr. Porter replied that he does not have any degrees but he has licensed social workers who work with the clients. Mr. Turner noted he has an engineering degree. Jack Leonard asked about training. Minutes, BZA, 11/12/02 Page 6 Mr. Porter replied that training is a requirement with a minimum of 40 hours of training per year done by licensed professionals. Jack Leonard asked about visitations. Mr. Porter replied that visitations take place one day a week usually on a Sunday between the hours of 12 and 5. The family has to make an appointment prior to visitation. Jack Leonard was concerned about the parking. He was also concerned about the 77 plus letters received in opposition plus those in the audience that are in opposition. He then read the group home statement, "This facility is designed to treat delinquencies 13 to 17 years old that have committed offenses against other persons, offenses against property, drug and alcohol and other related offenses and use of weapons." He further stated that he was having a difficult time making a finding that the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood based on the client's offenses. He further concluded that this type of facility is needed but not in this neighborhood. Member La Rochelle agreed wholeheartedly with Member Leonard's comments and further stated that a facility of this type is greatly needed. Chairman Kunz supported the project and further indicated that a Conditional Use Permit is subject to Board review if problems do arise. She stated these facilities do well in neighborhoods because clients are very well supervised and that they (clients) generally want to better themselves. She was in support of the project. Member Leonard informed Mr. Porter and Mr. Turner that it would be advantageous in the future to meet with neighbors once you find another place. Motion was made by Member Leonard to adopt the resolution with all findings and conditions denying Conditional Use Permit 02-0968 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: LaRochelle, Leonard NOES: Kunz A TWO MINUTE BREAK WAS TAKEN. Minutes, BZA, 11/12/02 Page 7 4.B. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - FILE 02-0880 - KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN~ INC. HAS REQUESTED A MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING FROM 738 PARKING SPACES (REQUIRED) TO 551 PARKING SPACES (PROVIDED) IN A C-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) ZONE DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT 45~000 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING GENERAL OFFICE SPACE TO MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE WITHIN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 1200 DISCOVERY DRIVE. Staff report was given. Staff noted that it is the applicant's intent to only have this modification for a limited time since they plan to add the required parking by covering the adjacent canal. However, since they can only work over the canal during certain times of the year, they will occupy the building before the parking over the canal is completed. Public hearing was opened. Nancy Burke, manager for Kaiser Foundation was present and introduced their Traffic Engineer, Jack Greenspan as well as the representative for Mutual of New York, owner of subject property. She indicated they have plans to immediately begin work on the canal as soon as possible and will be going to the City Council on November 20th for their approval since the sand is owned by the city. They feel that this will be completed in the next two years in order to provide parking. Mark Smith, real estate representative for Kaiser Permanente clarified that a canal agreement has been prepared and negotiated between the owner of the property and the City Attorney and will appear as a consent item on the November 20th City Council agenda. It is the intent in anticipation of that going forward that the property owner did hire a local structural engineer to design the canal structure. This time frame would allow for the construction of the canal parking area to commence December 1st with an anticipated completion in mid-February. Member LaRochelle asked Mr. Smith when the tenant improvements are to be completed. Mr. Smith replied that once the agreement of the canal is approved the demolition of existing improvements would commence on or around January 1st. There is a 30-day time frame for completion of existing improvements, then the work that Kaiser would undertake for their tenant improvements would be anticipated for completion in the June/July time frame. Member LaRochelle asked staff once the canal is covered would that bring it into compliance with the parking requirements. Minutes, BZA, 11/12/02 Page 8 Staff planner, Jim Eggert replied based on the plans, the use would then be in compliance. They would need an additional 190 spaces and they are showing approximately 200 that they could provide, over the canal. Member LaRochelle commented that if the tenant improvements are not going to be done until July and the work on the canal is going to be done in February then why is this before the Board. Jim Eggert replied that at the time there was uncertainty that the applicant could actually obtain permission to cover the canal this coming year, and if they did, when that was actually going to occur. Member LaRochelle commented that now that they know all the information why are we proceeding. If we go ahead with this, what incentive do they have to do the expense in covering the canal if they are given a three year approval? Jim Eggert replied in light of the information just given, the Board can grant a shorter time period. Mr. LaRochelle stated that based on the new information and the time frames given, it appears that this is uncessary and he would not support this. He was concerned that if the approval is granted the additional parking, it may never get done. Member Leonard asked if Kaiser would be occupying the entire building. Jim Eggert replied they would only be occupying about a third of the building. Member Leonard asked Ms. Burke what would happen if this was not approved. Ms. Burke replied that there are a couple of things that may go wrong such as the weather canal construction can stop and this window does not guarantee that construction will be completed. The other reason for this request is that the construction of pipeline for this canal can only be manufactured in ten foot segments, one segment per day which is 55 consecutive days, so we are not sure we can complete the canal in this window of opportunity. We have every intention on moving forward. Member Leonard suggested that perhaps the applicant could obtain a bond to ensure that this will be done. Minutes, BZA, 11/12/02 Page 9 Staff planner, Jim Eggert replied that a bond could be required. There could be added a provision, if the Modification was turned down, the Planning Director, could allow the tenant improvement and could get a bond for the parking. The only concern would be a possible gap between the office opening and when the parking can actually be available. It could be explored, however there is an obligation in the ordinance that when a business opens, the available parking should be there. Member LaRochelle commented that once they get started pouring concrete they do not stop. He noted his experience regarding the city's construction of piping the canals under Olive Drive. Mr. Mark Smith on behalf of Kaiser commented that Ms. Burke has been focused on the land use on this BZA application process and there is a whole separate division of Kaiser that is responsible for the real estate negotiation with the owner. At the start of the process Kaiser went out for recommendations and it appeared to be the most manageable processes to deal with 10-foot sections. However what is proposed, Warren Minner has used the Ming Avenue, Kern Canal project as his model at the suggestion of Development Services Director Jack Hardisty. It appears to be a pour in place in three sections, which is a manageble time frame. Motion was made by Member LaRochelle to adopt the resolution with all findings and conditions, approving Modification No. 02-0880, for a period of 3 years, as depicted in the project description with the following comment, that he expects to see the box culvert under construction upon approval by the City Council of the canal agreement. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: LaRochelle, Leonard, Kunz NOES: None Minutes, BZA, 11/12/02 Page 10 4.B.2. PUBLIC HEARING - FILE NO. 02-0870 -- MATTHEW HILL HAS REQUESTED A MODIFICATION TO ALLLOW RETENTION AND ENLARGEMENT OF A TREE HOUSE 0 (ZERO) FEET ALONG THE STREET SIDE YARD WHERE A 10 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED AND TO PERMIT A REDUCTION OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET (REQUIRED) TO 15 FEET (PROPOSED) IN AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE LOCATED AT 1720 DOOLITTLE AVENUE. THIS THREE HOUSE WOULD ALSO EXTENHD INTO THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY OF FREMONT STREET Staff report was given. This case was continued from the October 8, 2002, BZA hearing to allow time for staff to assess the existing structure and to identify required permits. City staff members from the Building Department and Public Works Department visited the site on October 25, 2002, to view the existing tree house. Staff determined that the applicant must submit engineered plans and obtain an encroachment permit. Public hearing was opened. Applicant Matt Hill spoke in favor of the application. He indicated that he has some plans and further commented that he plans on having an engineer look at this. There being no others wishing to speak either in favor or opposition, public hearing was closed. Member LaRochelle commented that from an encroachment standpoint, it didn't appear to have a problem with getting in the way of traveling vehicles or pedestrians. Member Leonard informed Staff and Board Members that he wasn't at the October 8th meeting, however he did list to the tape. He commented that he visited the site. He stated that as a Civil Engineer, the existing tree house is unstable, and suggested that the applicant have an engineer analyze it. He was concerned from a health and safety standpoint that if a child should fall from the tree house, it could cause great bodily injury and even death. He was also concerned that if something should fall out of the tree house and someone is walking down the sidewalk, it could injure someone causing a liability issue for the city. He noted that restricting access would be difficult to control since it was in the front yard and it would become an attractive nuisance. Member Kunz commented that this is going to be popular with neighborhood kids but there could be liability issues to the city and the overall safety of it was questionable. She felt it would be more manageable if it were in the back yard. She further commented that she agrees that it should be structurally engineered. Minutes, BZA, 11/12/02 Page 11 Motion was made by Member LaRochelle to adopt the resolution with all findings, denying Modification No. 02-0870 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: LaRochelle, Leonard, Kunz NOES: None COMM[INICATIONS None. BOARD COMMENTS None. ADJO[IRNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m. Isabel Williams Recording Secretary STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director