Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 12, 2005 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Tuesday, July 12, 2005, 3:00 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL 1. BOARD MEMBERS: Present: JACK LA ROCHELLE JACK LEONARD GEORGE GONZALES Absent: NONE STAFF MEMBERS: JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner ROBERT SHERFY, Deputy City Attorney II ISABEL WILLIAMS, Recording Secretary GEORGE GILLBURG, ENGINEER II The Chairperson read the Notice of Right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 2. None. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 3. Motion was made by Member Gonzales to approve minutes of the meeting held June 14, 2005. Motion carried. 4.A.1 FILE NO. 04-1812 – CHRISTINA GALVAN HAS REQUESTED A CONDITIONSL USE PREMIT TO ALLOW A 1,592 SQ. FT. TAKE-OUT DELICATESSEN ON A 5,856 SQ. FT. PACEL IN A C-O (PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE) ZONE DISTRICT. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ONSITE PARKING SPACES FROM 5 (REQUIRED) TH TO 4 (PROPOSED), LOCATED AT 1927 20 STREET. Staff report given by Jim Eggert. Public hearing opened for comments. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of the project. The public hearing closed for comments. Minutes, BZA, 07/12/05 Page 2 Member Leonard inquired why there isn’t a fifth parking space east of the concrete walkway, to which Mr. Eggert responded that it is not an area problem, but the applicant was concerned about appearance and having more green space in front to better blend with the landscaping in the neighborhood. Mr. Eggert stated that with the added parking space, they would lose about 9 more feet of frontage. Member Gonzales inquired what the building is currently be used for. Mr. Eggert responded that it is currently vacant, but previously was an office. Member La Rochelle stated that there is a lot of landscaping being provided. He would not support the parking reduction because it can easily be put in and still have landscaping. Member Leonard moved to adopt the attached resolution with all the findings and conditions, approving Conditional Use Permit number 04-1812 for the delicatessen use, but denying the request to reduce the parking. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Gonzales, Leonard, La Rochelle NOES: None. FILE NO. 05-0764 PAUL DHANENS ARCHITECT HAS REQUESTED A 4.A.2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING VETERINARY HOSPITAL TO INCLUDE A 3,140 SQ. FT. INDOOR KENNEL AND GROOMING FACILITY ON A 0.95 ACRE SITE IN A C-O (PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRAVIE OFFICE) ZONE, LOCATED AT 9887 CAMINO MEDIA. Staff report was given by Jim Eggert. Public hearing opened for comments. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of the project. Mr. Dhanens stated that he was available to answer any questions and was in agreement with the conditions. Public hearing was closed. Member Gonzales moved to adopt the attached resolution with all the findings and conditions, approving Conditional Use Permit number 05-0764 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Gonzales, Leonard, La Rochelle NOES: None Minutes, BZA, 07/12/05 Page 3 FILE NO. 05-0739 THE CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY HAS REQUESTED A 4.B.1. MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A 6 FOOT HIGH FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WHERE 4 FEET IS THE MAXIUMUM HEIGHT PERMITTD IN AN R-1 (ONE-FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE DISTRICT. THE SITE IS PLANNED AS A FUTURE DOMESTIC WATER WELL FACILITY LOCATED TO 11450 PALADINO DRIVE. Staff report was given by Jim Eggert. Public hearing opened for comments. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of the project. The public portion of the hearing closed. Member Leonard inquired about the adjacent subdivision backing up to a collector or arterial street. He would like there to be no obstruction of view by the wall when backing out of the driveway. Mr. Eggert responded that they do not know because a tract map has not been filed, and therefore they don’t know where the streets are going to be. Mr. Eggert stated that if it follows previous similar situations, this lot would be by itself, and the residential lots will back up to or around it. Mr. Eggert indicated that usually this type of lot will not have two access points. Member Leonard moved to adopt the attached resolution with all the findings and conditions, approving Modification number 05-0739 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Gonzales, Leonard, La Rochelle NOES: None. FILE NO. 05-0782 GARY R. OLSEN HAS REQUESTED A MODIFICATION TO 4.B.2. REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FROM 405 TO 357 ON A 6.06 ACRE SITE. THE PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE INTERIOR LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING CITY ORDINANCE IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AND ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF 11,400 SQ. FEET OF NEW RETAIL BUILDING SPACE, LOCATED AT 4120 MING AVE. Staff report was given by Jim Eggert. Public hearing opened for comments. No one spoke in opposition. Gary Olsen, the architect for the project, stated that the owner has given the recycling operator notice to vacate, and that the applicant has no objection to Staff’s recommendation. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Minutes, BZA, 07/12/05 Page 4 Member Gonzales inquired about the approach being improved and made part of the conditions of this approval. Mr. Eggert stated that they are not written in, but that it could be made part of the approval, or it can be deferred to site plan review. Mr. Eggert indicated that the applicant was looking at doing 30’ radius turns, and actually redoing both entrances to widen them out. Member Leonard inquired why there is such a discrepancy between what is required, and what is actually out there. Mr. Eggert stated that this center contains two fast food pads, and the parking ratio is a lot higher for restaurants then it is for mixed retail. Therefore, there are many available parking stalls in the center. Member La Rochelle indicated that his main concern is with a right turn in from Stine Road. He further inquired about landscape medians which is a standard. Member Gonzales inquired about any proposals with the old Zody’s shopping center across Ming Avenue and if they would have to put in a landscape median. Mr. Eggert responded that a plan recently came in with revisions to the parking lot and entrances, as well as landscaping the parking lot. Mr. Eggert pointed out that unless the old Zody’s applicant came in with something that required site plan review, which right now they are not, there is nothing to require them to do a landscape median. Member Gonzales stated that with deceleration lanes they would be losing more parking spaces, and then does it become too much of a push for the landscaping in the parking lot, which is important as well. Member Gonzales inquired if this lane would be too costly for the applicant. Member Gonzales noted that the percentage of additional loss may be minimal. Mr. Eggert responded that if they reduce the parking number even more, their public notice may be in jeopardy, and the item would have to be re-noticed. Member La Rochelle indicated that Mr. Olsen does not know what the additional parking reduction would be because there has not been a traffic analysis to determine if a deceleration lane is necessary. However, if it meets the 25 peak hour trip criteria then the lane is required as a matter of policy. Additionally, if there is new development, it is required to meet the city’s current standards. Member La Rochelle further indicated that if the other property owner is not going to pay the landscaping, it may never get done. The city quite frequently, however, adds this to other monies available into a capital project. Mr. Eggert stated that with regard to the Board’s recommendation, it would be the staff's recommendation that the Board make a motion to approve, with the existing conditions. The applicant still has to go through site plan review for the building additions, and that review is the vehicle which would require the median island improvements, the fee, the right turn lane, because it would be based all on standards that that expansion is driving. Mr. Eggert indicated that if the applicant does not put in the buildings the modification becomes void and the center remains as is. Minutes, BZA, 07/12/05 Page 5 Member Gonzales moved to adopt the attached resolution with all the findings and conditions, approving Modification number 05-0782 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Gonzales, Leonard, La Rochelle NOES: None. FILE NO. 05-0854 ANDREW FULLER HAS REQUESTED A MODIFICATION TO 4.B.3. WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT OF A SIX-FOOT HIGH MASONRY BLOCK WALL ALONG THE COMMON BOUNDARY LINE OF A PROPOSED HOUSING PROJECT ZONED R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE LFAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND THE RIO BRAVO COUNTY CLUB GOLF COURSE, WHICH IS ZONED R-1 (ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). THIS WALL IS REQUIRED BY SECTION 17.14.026G OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO SEPARATE R-1 AND R-2 ZONED PROPERTIES; HOWEVER, IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS REQUIREMENTS IS NOT NECESSARY TO SEPARATE DIFFERENT HOSING PRODUCTS AND WOULD OBSTRUCT FUTURE HOMEOWNER’S VIEWS OF THE ADJACENT GOLF COURSE LOCATED AT 14801 CASA CLUB DRIVE. Staff report was given by Jim Eggert. Public hearing opened for comments. Kelly Lucas stated that he lives in the Rio Bravo area, and had a chance to speak to Mr. Fuller earlier. He indicated that it is an R-1 area, and not open space, and the golf course is not a park, and therefore, some separation is needed between the housing development and the golf course. He inquired that if the 6’ high block wall is waived, what fencing requirement will be imposed to separate this area of homes from the golf course. He further inquired what would happen if the property changes ownership and the design of the project is changed to apartments, and if the waiver is conditioned upon the current plans, or will it become a waiver regardless of what is developed and built. Mr. Lucas further inquired what change in circumstances would render the requested waiver void and subsequent owners would be required to resubmit a proposal for a waiver. Mr. Lucas additionally pointed out that the fencing requirement should be consistent with the existing fencing in the Rio Bravo County Club, and the housing development to the west. Mr. Lucas indicated that he is the President of the Rio Bravo Master Golf Course Homeowner’s Association. Andy Fuller, the applicant, stated that they have developed other properties in town where the condition to separate R-2 from R-1 with a block wall was entirely appropriate. He indicated that in this instance it is inappropriate due to the value and attraction of the neighboring golf course property. He indicated that having the fairways zoned R-1 is a problem that the Homeowner’s Association should probably deal with. Mr. Fuller stated that to apply the ordinance in this situation is really an unfair taking of property, and does not feel that was originally intended. Minutes, BZA, 07/12/05 Page 6 Member La Rochelle inquired of Mr. Fuller that if this passes, what type of fencing material he proposed using. Mr. Fuller responded that there a several fencing scenarios, such as 3’ high view fence whether it be wrought iron, decorative wrought iron of some type, or maybe a 2’ high wall of some type with a little decorative wrought iron on top of that as is the style across the fairway. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Member Gonzales inquired about the topography in that area, to which Mr. Eggert responded that some of it is hilly, but around this site it is flatter with not a lot of elevation changes. Member La Rochelle stated that he is in favor of staff’s recommendation, and believes that this is an anomaly, and that the intent was to separate single family homes from multi-family homes, and not necessary multi-family homes from a view. Member La Rochelle indicated that the golf course zoning of R-1 is a technicality, and believes that there must be some sort of requirement that the type of fencing material be equal to, or better than what is already existing to be consistent with the planned community. Member Leonard inquired about how many units will be going in, to which Mr. Eggert responded that the maximum number of units is permitted 190. Member Leonard moved to adopt the attached resolution with all the findings and conditions, approving Modification number 05-0854 as depicted in the project description, with the addition that the fencing along the golf course would be similar to that of the surrounding area, and be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director. Member La Rochelle stated that he would encourage Mr. Lucas, Mr. Fuller and Mr. Eggert to have a discussion after this hearing on how this should be implemented. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Gonzales, Leonard, La Rochelle NOES: None. Minutes, BZA, 07/12/05 Page 7 COMMUNICATIONS 5. None. BOARD COMMENTS 6. None. ADJOURNMENT 7. They’re being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:14 P.M. The next Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting is scheduled for August 9, 2005. Isabel Williams Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director