The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES NO 112-95RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD OVERTURNING THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPLICATION OF DANNY L. HUTCHINSON REQUESTING A MODIFICATION AFFECTING THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED TO PERMIT THE REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FROM TWO SPACES TO ONE SPACE WHICH WOULD ALLOW AN EXISTING GARAGE TO BE USED AS TEMPORARY LIVING AREA FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. (MOD #5635) WHEREAS, DANNY L. HUTCHINSON filed a written application with the Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of Bakersfield requesting a Modification to permit reduction in the number of required parking spaces at a single family residence from two spaces to one space which would allow an existing garage to be used as temporary living area for a five year period in an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone district on property located at 9319 Seabeck Avenue; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing held at 3:00 p.m., April 25, 1995, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, Bakersfield, California, the Board of Zoning Adjustment did consider said application pursuant to Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code with testimony given both in support and opposition to the proposal, and by its Resolution No. 16-95, denied the requested Modification; and WHEREAS, within the time prescribed by law, DANNY HUTCHINSON filed in writing with the Council of the City of Bakersfield through the City Clerk, an appeal of the denial of the modification; and WHEREAS, the Council through its Clerk set June 28, 1995, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of City Hall, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before them on said appeal and notice of the hearing was given in the manner provided by Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield; and WHEREAS, at said hearing held June 28, 1995, the appeal was duly heard and considered; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by staff, the Board of Zoning Adjustment and this Council; and WHEREAS, based upon the record of proceeding before and findings adopted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and the proceeding before this Council, the council found as follows: 1) The granting of the proposed modification will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the area as the modification is for a temporary period of time. 2) The approval of this modification is necessary to permit appropriate improvements on the site for temporary living space for an elderly parent. 3) The approval of this modification will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the City of Bakersfield's Zoning Ordinance and the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. 4) Public notice has been given pursuant to both city and state regulations. 5) The provisions of CEQA and the city's environmental implementation procedures have been followed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD that the Board of Zoning Adjustments decision is hereby overturned and a modification to permit tandem parking in the side yard as proposed by the applicant be approved subject to the conditions in Exhibit -2- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Modification #$635 The applicant's rights granted by this approval are subject to the following provisions: The project shall be in accordance with all approved plans, conditions of approva~ and other required permits and approvals. ,,tll construction shall comply with applicable building codes. .dll conditions imposed shall be diligently complied with at all times and all construction authorized or required shall be diligently prosecuted to completion before the premises shall be used for the purposes applied for under this approval. This approval shall automatically be null and void one (1) year after the effective date unless the applicant or successor has actually commenced use of or construction of what was authorized; or if the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of one (1) year or more. This time can be extended or conditioned for a longer period if approved by the City Council. The City Council may revisit a modification to add or amend any conditions if there is sufficient cause, including but not limited to, complaints regarding the project, or that the conditions are not adequate for the intended purpose. The Planning Director may initiate revocation of the rights granted if there is good cause, including but not limited to, failure to comply with conditions or complete construction, or the violation by the owner or tenant of any provision of the Bakersfield Municipal Code pertaining to the premises for which the approval was granted, subject to Section 17.64.070 H. Unless otherwise conditioned, this approval runs with the land and may continue under successive owners provided all the above mentioned provisions are satisfied. The following conditions, as required at the discretion of the City Council, shall be satisfied as part of the approval of this project: The applicant shall obtain a special inspection from the Building Department by July 7, 1995. All other necessary permits shall be obtained immediately thereafter. The applicant shall restore the converted living space back into a two car garage within 5 years of the approval date of this modification (June 28, 2000), or when the space is no longer needed by the applicant's mother, whichever occurs first. The garage door shall remain in place and functional through the duration of this permit. -3- I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the Ci~ of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on dUN 2 $ ~ , by the following vote: AYES; COUNCILMEMBER DeMOND, CARSON, SMITH, McDERMOTT, ROWLES, ~ SALVAGGIO NOES: COUN(3ILMEMBER ~?O~-M ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER ~/'~.Ld CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO CLERK of the Council of the City of Bakersfield JUN 2 8 ~ APPROVED BOB I E,~AYOR~tof the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: JUDY SKOUSEN, CITY ATFORNEY of the City of Bakersfield -4- THEODORA R- 1 I ' I [ I E(1) iA_1 ' I RS , C-2 q 21 19 i MODIFICATION 5635 MEACHAM R-1 R-1 ~ TOKEI.AND CTD ~' R-~ o ALKI COURT GHEC:AW CT. ~ R-1 i20 c-2 ROSEDALE HIGHWAY (HWY. 58) N T295, P,27£ MODIFICATION 5635 PLOT PLAN 9319 SEABECK AVENUE SEABECK AVENUE DRIVEWAy - ~7~o~ pARKING 11 RESIDENCE LAWN (N~GHBOR) BACK YARD B,N::K Y.~.~ D RESIDENCE (NEIGHBOR) BACK YARD NOT TO SCN.E Minutes, BZA, 4/25/95 8. Page 4 9319 SEABECK AVENUE -- A MODIFICATION TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REOUIRED PARKING SPACES AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FROM TWO SPACES TO ONE SPACE WHICH WOULD AI.I.OW AN EXISTING GARAGE TO BE USED AS TEMPORARY LIVING AREA FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD IN AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE DISTRICT. (FILE 5635 - DANNY L. HUTCHINSON) Staff report was given. Public hearing was opened. Jeff Smith spoke in opposition. He was concerned that after five years, the room would not be changed back into a garage. Tim Johnson, read a letter of opposition, and submitted same to the Board. Applicant was present. He stated this room is for his ill mother. He also stated that she is unable to drive and does not own a cat. Public hearing was closed. Acting Member Leonard suggested putting the off-street parking in back, and asked if there are any structures in the way. Mr. Hutchinson replied there is a covered patio in the back. There being no others wishing to speak, public hearing was closed. Chairman Ro]as asked staff if anything like this has ever been done in the past concerning limiting the modification to a specific time period. Staff planner replied he did not know. Motion was made by Alternate Member Shefly to adopt resolution, based upon all the facts presented making all findings set forth in the staff report approving Modification #5635 as set forth in the pro~ect description, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A". The following roll call vote was taken: AYES: Shefly NOES: Leonard, Rojas The motion did not carry. and the modification was therefore denied. Apdl 25, 1995 To: The Planning Department Re: The proposed modification #5635 Following is our opposing testimony: As a homeowner in a new development, please let the record show that I am against this amendment. This modification is a direct violation of city ordinance #17.58.050 L, and should not have been considered. As a superintendent for a major builder, I know that building codes and city ordinance are put in force for many reasons. The most important of them are as follows: This modification will drastically reduce off street parking - which clutter our neighborhood and decreases our property values. This also eliminates storage from the garage area causing supplies now to set along the sides of our homes or in small tacky metal sheds, which may be viewed over fences. I myself moved to this new development to get away from a neighborhood which was overtaken by similar violations. If one such modification is considered, other similar cases may follow, but with more leniency and others will use this particular case as leverage for their own. This modification must be prohibited now, or it will never stop, which will cause our community to soon be overrun with non-compliance of our city rules and codes. It is very unfortunate that Mr. Hutchinson put himself in this situation, and hopefully he will find another way to better accommodate his family's needs. We do not want our neighborhood downgraded due to one individual's poor planning! Even though this modification claims to be temporary, any amount of time can be detrimental to property values. This confrontation/argument is not pleasant for anyone, but we only wish to improve our neighborhood and ensure quality living. In closing let me thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter. Mr. Timothy W. Johnson P.S. Apparently this violation is being shown leniency due to a hardship within the family, i.e. the grandmother has terminal cancer. Has this claim been vedfied with a letter from a reputable physician? TWS/mac RESOLUTION NO. 16-95 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DENYING AN APPLICATION OF DANNY L. HUTCHINSON REQUESTING A MODIFICATION AFFECTING THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED TO PERMIT THE REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FROM TWO SPACES TO ONE SPACE WHICH WOULD ALLOW AN EXISTING GARAGE TO BE USED AS TEMPORARY LIVING AREA FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. (MOD #5635) WHEREAS, DANNY L. HUTCHINSON filed a written application with the Board of Zoning Adjusmient of the City of Bakersfield requesting a Modification to permit reduction in the number of required parking spaces at a single family residence from two spaces to one space which would allow an existing garage to be used as temporary living area for a five year period in an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone disUict on property located at 9319 Seabeck Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustment met at 3:00 p.m., April 25, 1995, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, Bakersfield, California, and did consider said application pursuant to Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to CEQA and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by staff and the Board of Zoning Adjustment; and WHEREAS, at said hearing held April 25, 1995, the application wa~ duly heard and considered, and the Board of Zoning Adjustment found as follows: 1) The granting of the proposed modification will be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property or improvements in the area as the modification would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. 2) The approval of this modification is not necessary to permit appropriate improvements on the site for temporary living space for an elderly parent. There are unused bedrooms in the house that can be used by the applicant's parent. -2- 3) 4) 5) The approval of this modification will be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the City of Bakersfield's Zoning Ordinance and the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Public notice has been given pursuant to both city and state regulations. The provisions of CEQA and the city's environmental implementation procedures have been followed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD that said application for said Modification, is hereby denied. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD U~L ROJ~hairman Approved and Adopted this 25th day of April, 1995