Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 13, 2006 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Tuesday, June 13, 2006, 3:00 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. ROLL CALL 1. BOARD MEMBERS: Present: GEORGE GONZALES, Chairperson JACK LA ROCHELLE PHIL BURNS STAFF MEMBERS: JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner ROBERT SHERFY, Deputy City Attorney II GEORGE GILLBURG, Engineer II ISABEL WILLIAMS, Recording Secretary The Chairperson read the Notice of Right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 2. No speakers cards were presented. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 3. Member Gonzales stated that revised minutes were provided. Motion was made by Member La Rochelle to approve revised minutes of the meeting held May 9, 2006. Motion carried by group vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. CONDITIONAL USE PREMITS A. 1)File No. 06-0428 – Conditional Use Permit to allow temporary farm animals for 4-H/FFA projects on a 7,500 sq. ft. site located in an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone located at 1717 Hendricks Lane. (Continued from meeting of May 9, 2006.) Member Burns asked Mr. Eggert if there was an update on this conditional use permit. Mr. Eggert responded that the applicant has withdrawn the application for consideration, and therefore the Board would not have to take any further action. Mr. Eggert noted that code enforcement will go out to give the applicant a 10 day notice to remove their animals off of the property. Minutes, BZA, 06/13/06 Page 2 2)File No. 06-0587 – A Conditional Use Permit to allow a 1,415 sq. ft. sales facility for a 2 year period of time for Tract 6329 in an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone district located at 5801 Grizzly Peak Drive. The public hearing was opened. Staff report was given recommending approval of the request. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of the application. The public hearing was closed. Member La Rochelle moved to adopt the attached Resolution with all findings and conditions approving Conditional Use Permit 06-0587 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Burns, La Rochelle, Gonzales. NOES: None 3)File No. 06-0602 – A Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of a wholesale truck parts store including the construction of two +/- 3,000 sq. ft. metal warehouse buildings in a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone district located at 490 Belle Terrace. The public hearing was opened. Staff report was given recommending approval of the request. No one spoke in opposition of this application. Ron Farney, the project manager, stated that the first building would go up in the first 12 months, and the next in the following 12 months. The public hearing was closed. Member La Rochelle moved to adopt the attached Resolution with all findings and conditions approving Conditional Use Permit 06-0602 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Burns, La Rochelle, Gonzales. NOES: None 4)File N0. 06-0787 – Conditional Use Permit to allow a tool and equipment rental facility at an existing commercial development in a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone district located at 1919 Columbus Street. Minutes, BZA, 06/13/06 Page 3 The public portion of the hearing was opened. Staff report was given recommending approval of the request. Mr. Eggert directed the Board’s attention to a letter received from the Bakersfield School District. The district requested that a risk analysis study be required for the above ground propane and fuel tanks because they will be less than 300 feet from an elementary school. He therefore, recommended that the Board add requiring this study be approved by the city Fire Department (HazMat) before permits are granted. No one spoke in opposition to the application. Bob Fares stated that he is one of the owners of BS&E, and indicated that they have been a family owned business in this town since 1951, and it is their intent to continue with safe sites. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Member La Rochelle moved to adopt the attached Resolution with all findings and conditions approving Conditional Use Permit 06-0787 as depicted in the project description, with the addition of the risk analysis condition as noted by Mr. Eggert. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Burns, La Rochelle, Gonzales. NOES: None 5)File No. 06-0683 – A Conditional Use Permit to allow a wholesale nursery in an R-2 (Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling) zone district located at 8501 Westwold Drive. The public hearing was opened. Staff report was given recommending approval of the request. Jeff Folger, a resident in the neighborhood, stated that his and the neighbors concerns relate to traffic. He specifically pointed out that there is no restriction on the time of deliveries which could cause severe traffic problems if done during school hours. He further pointed out that the way Westwold curves there is a blind intersection at Brookeside and Westwold that is very difficult to maneuver and see oncoming traffic. He further stated that they are concerned with trucks dragging decomposed granite and dirt out onto Westwold. He reiterated their concern for the safety of the children. David Green stated he owns property in the residential area west of the proposed site, and he stated that he operates a home business, and it appears to him the issues are the proposal as it relates to the property itself, and the beautification or camouflage of what they consider a questionable area. He stated that he seriously doubts that the nursery’s effect on Westwold can be camouflaged. He further pointed out the existing problems with speeding traffic in the area. He stated that he Minutes, BZA, 06/13/06 Page 4 thought a nursery truck is going to find it difficult to make the turn into the nursery. He went on to state that he does not think the nursery will be able to keep the gravel and mud on their own property with the trucks taking it out onto Westwold. He further pointed out the enforcement issues of commercial nurseries, especially the problems the city had with the one on Kroll Way. David Rimer, the owner of Rimer’s Wholesale Nursery, stated that he has been in the business for about 21 years. He stated that with regard to the entrance, Nextel is currently putting in a site there, and part of their agreement with him is to put in a 30’ wide paved entry, which is setback about 15’ feet from Westwold Drive. He stated that they are also putting in some improved driveways for their facility and he expects to be done th with that portion of the project on July 15. He said the driveways will help with keeping gravel off the road, and give the semi/delivery trucks room to make the corner and get into the nursery. He stated that he thinks this will be a good project for the area because it will clean the area up. Mr. Rimmer presented some photos of his current nursery facility. He reassured the previous gentleman that their fears will not be there because he takes pride in his nursery, and all of the conditions imposed by the City are also things that he described in his original proposal to the City. Mr. Rimmer went on to reference condition number 7 regarding no site lighting. He stated that his concern is that he would like to put some low site lighting on the portable building as there has already been some problems with kids breaking into the property and doing a little vandalizing. He stated that he was also concerned about condition number 14 that transport trucks should only be on site during normal hours. He asked for clarification as to the trucks and if he will have the ability to park a pick up truck over night. Mr. Eggert stated that the intent of that condition was not a pick up truck under this definition, but would be the flat beds or semi trucks that would be bringing in the nursery stock. Mr. Rimmer said that he may need to have a pickup truck available for the people that are working there, and Mr. Eggert stated that would be fine. Jeff Folger stated that with regard to the trucks there was an issue with people being parked on this property, indicating that Code Enforcement had to come out and speak to Mr. Rimer about removing the trucks, and it took weeks to get them removed. He stated that their concern is with enforcement and the ability of the applicant to be a responsible neighbor. The public hearing was closed. Member Burns inquired what the right-of- way is for Westwold. Mr. Eggert responded that the current right-of-way Minutes, BZA, 06/13/06 Page 5 width is 60’, and that curb to curb is probably 44 feet. Member Burns inquired if it is two lanes going both directions, or one with parking on each side. Mr. Eggert responded that it is just one with parking on the side, and indicated that there are no parking restrictions on the street. He further pointed out that there is no median as it is a local residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph. Member Gonzales asked that with respect to the enforcement issue raised, if a CUP was granted and complaints came in that were against the CUP, there would be another hearing where the public would have an opportunity to come in and comment against the CUP, could the CUP potentially be revoked? Mr. Eggert responded yes, another hearing could be held and the Board always has the authority to revoke a CUP for cause. Member La Rochelle stated that he does recall a similar situation off of Camino Media and Kroll, but there were still some traffic problems even though it was a wholesale nursery. He stated that he will not support this as he feels there is a blind spot where the driveway is too near the barrier wall for the canal. Member La Rochelle further stated that if the applicant has to ask for lighting in a wholesale nursery area to deal with vandalism in the middle of a residential area, that concerns him, as there should be no lighting necessary for a commercial type operation in a residential area. Therefore, based upon his experience with the other location and the traffic concerns he cannot support this application. Member Burns stated that he agrees with Member La Rochelle, and that he cannot support this application either for the same reasons. Member La Rochelle moved to adopt a Resolution denying the application due to traffic safety concerns and compatibility in a residential neighborhood. Motion denying the application was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Burns, La Rochelle, Gonzales. NOES: None B.MODIFICATIONS 1)File No. 06-0751 – A zoning modification to reduce the required side yard setback along Hubbard Street from 10 feet to 6 feet to permit an addition to an existing single-family residence in an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone district located at 2700 Pine Street. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Staff report was given recommending approval of the request. No one spoke in opposition or in Minutes, BZA, 06/13/06 Page 6 favor of this application as there are no sight line issues and that it appears to be consistent with other improvements in the neighborhood. The public hearing was closed. Member La Rochelle stated that he can support this application. Member La Rochelle moved to adopt the attached Resolution with all findings and conditions approving modification 06-0751 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members Burns, La Rochelle, Gonzales. NOES: None 2)File No.06-0821 – A zoning modification to allow 15 and 20 front yard setbacks where a minimum of 25-feet is required on a total of 70 of 426 lots in Tentative Tract No. 6406 in the R-1 (One Family Dwelling) zone district located at the SE corner of Panorama Drive and Vineland Road. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. Eggert states that the applicant has requested a continuance so that the master HOA for City in the Hills could review the request. By group vote the Board agreed to continue this item to July 11, 2006. 3)File No. 06-0659 - A zoning modification to allow a reduction in parking from 525 parking spaces to 315 parking spaces for a proposed 65,595 sq. ft. multiple tenant medical office in the C-O (Professional and Administrative Office) zone district located at 9900 Stockdale Highway. The public hearing was opened. Staff report was given recommending denial of the original request and only permitting a parking reduction of 15%. Roger McIntosh with McIntosh and Associates, stated he represents Castle & Cooke Commercial in this application. He stated that when they first started this study they took a look at two different approaches. One was to look at other cities and see what is required, and discovered that there is a wide range of parking requirements throughout the U.S., and the city of Bakersfield falls on the high end of those requirements at 1 space per 125 sq. ft. He stated that along the Stockdale Hwy. office corridor there is a range from 62% vacancy to 22% vacancy depending on the type of tenant in the building, indicating an average vacancy rate of 45%. He stated that this project will be unique in that it will be a medical condo which will have common areas and hallways, and estimates that there’s about 10,000 sq. ft. that will be common area and should not be taken into account for the reduction of parking. Mr. McIntosh further stated that if you look at the reduction in the common area, and calculate the actual parking requirement on the net leaseable area there is still a justifiable Minutes, BZA, 06/13/06 Page 7 reduction in parking. He also commented that the reciprocal parking agreement with adjacent property owners probably isn’t likely to happen because this developer does not own any other properties around this building. He stated that they are asking for more than the 15% reduction, and they do not agree with the requirement for the reciprocal parking. He indicated that they feel they can get 1 space for every 143 sq. ft. which is a slight increase based on the net saleable area that will end up being the condo. Joe Columbo stated there is no shared parking with the Castle & Cooke building because that building is currently 400 ft. of dirt, so there is no way somebody in the medical complex is going to park over at Castle & Cooke’s building to walk across dirt to get to a doctor. Mr. Columbo further pointed out that in Roger’s study not one of those existing parking lots was ever full. The public hearing was closed. Member La Rochelle inquired of Mr. th McIntosh if the photos were taken February 14, 2006, to which Mr. McIntosh stated that’s when the photos were taken. Member La Rochelle stated that he does not disagree that it appears as the parking standards may be a little bit much, however, it’s a big reduction that is being requested. He stated that he is not sure he can agree with the drastic parking reduction for two reasons. One reason being these are fairly new medical office buildings and the clientele for the medical offices has not been reached. Secondly, as noted in the staff report, the adjacent building is yet still under construction and there is no data concerning parking demand. Member Burns stated that he visited the site and he noticed the facilities that have been open for a longer time have less vacant parking spaces. He pointed out that in time the demand for spaces is going to be higher than what is being requested. He stated that he could reasonably support a 15% reduction, but not a 45% reduction. Member La Rochelle stated that right now he doesn’t think he has enough information to make a decision. He wanted verification of the common space in the building with a floor plan by the applicant. Member Burns inquired if updating the parking study would help in determining if the 15% would be acceptable, and continuing this to the next BZA meeting. Member La Rochelle commented that he is leaning toward continuing this to the next meeting so there can be an update of the numbers, and take into account the common areas. He also commented that the high parking Minutes, BZA, 06/13/06 Page 8 numbers may need to be looked at by the Planning Department to refresh their ordinances. Member La Rochelle moved to continue this matter to the next BZA meeting at which time they will work with the applicant to refresh some of the numbers, and look at the common areas and what the real net effects would be on the parking demand. Mr. McIntosh stated they were in agreement with this, and reiterated that they probably can’t get reciprocal easements, but a 15% reduction based on the common area would be appropriate. Motion to continue the matter to July 11, 2006 was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members La Rochelle, Gonzales. NOES: None COMMUNICATIONS 5. None. BOARD COMMENTS 6. None. ADJOURNMENT 7. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. The next Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2006. Isabel Williams Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Planning Director