Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-2007 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, June 21, 2007, 1:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1.ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS: Present: VINCE ZARAGOZA, Chairperson CHRIS LEE JACK LA ROCHELLE STAFF MEMBERS: PAUL HELLMAN, Principal Planner RYAN PHARR, Associate Planner MICHAEL RICHARDS, Associate City Attorney GEORGE GILLBURG, Engineer II DELORES OLDHAM, Recording Secretary 2.PUBLIC STATEMENTS No speaker cards were presented. 3.CONSENT CALENDAR A.Non-Public Hearing Items: 1.Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on May 8, 2007. Motion made by Member Lee to approve the May 8, 2007 minutes. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Zaragoza, Lee, La Rochelle NAYS: None B.Public Hearing Items: File No. 07-0859 – 1.A zoning modification to allow a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence within the front yard setback where a maximum of 4 feet is permitted in an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone district, located at 4314 Woodlake Drive. File No. 07-0943 2. – A zoning modification to reduce the required front yard setback for a duplex from 15 feet to 7 feet in an R-2 (Limited th Multiple-Family Dwelling) zone district, located at 205 East 8 Street. Minutes, BZA, 06/21/07 Page 2 File No. 070974 -- 3.-A zoning modification to allow an 8-foot tall fence within the rear yard setback where a maximum of 6 feet is permitted for a mobile home park adjacent to a PG&E power line easement in an MH (Mobile Home) zone district, located at 1501 Calcutta Drive. File No. 07-1037 – 4.A zoning modification to permit an encroachment of 9 feet into the required 10-foot side yard non-buildable area to allow the retention of a patio cover accessory to a single family residence in an R-2 (Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling) zone district, located at 8228 Horsemouth Street. The public hearing was opened. Jessie Avalos stated he would like to address Item 2, File No. 07-0943. This item was pulled from the consent agenda. Don Kincaid of Cal Valley Development submitted articles in favor of Item 4, File No. 07-1037. Member La Rochelle stated he would like to discuss Item 1, File No. 07- 0859. This item was pulled from the consent agenda. The public hearing on the consent agenda was closed, with the exception of File Nos. 07-0859 and 07-0943, which were removed from the consent agenda. Member La Rochelle moved to approve the consent agenda. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Zaragoza, Lee, La Rochelle. NAYS: None 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS File No. 07-0859: 1.A zoning modification to allow a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence within the front yard setback where a maximum of 4 feet is permitted in an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone district, located at 4314 Woodlake Drive. The public hearing was opened and the staff report was given. No one spoke in favor or against the staff recommendation. The public hearing was closed. Minutes, BZA, 06/21/07 Page 3 Member La Rochelle stated he typically does not like modifications like this, but feels that this application has a sound reason. He stated that he likes the fact that the Planning Director will approve the materials so that it will have a nice appearance. He inquired about the possibility of adding a condition that the modification will go away if the property changes ownership since it’s for a specific purpose. Staff stated that modifications run with the property, not with the owner, so it would be a difficult condition to enforce since staff is not made aware of changes in ownership. Member La Rochelle stated that if, after the current owner moves, a neighbor were to bring a request before the Board to eliminate the fence that he would support it since it would no longer be necessary. Member Lee expressed concern regarding line of sight issues if the owner chooses to plant landscaping along the fence. Staff responded that hedges come under the same regulations as fences and that approval of the proposal as conditioned would not permit a hedge over four feet in height. Staff indicated that a statement could be added to the conditions indicating that the approval does not include any hedges over four feet in height, to which Member Lee expressed concurrence. Member La Rochelle moved to adopt the attached resolution with all findings and conditions approving modification 07-0859 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Zaragoza, Lee, La Rochelle NAYS: None File No. 07-0943: 2. A zoning modification to reduce the required front yard setback for a duplex from 15 feet to 7 feet in an R-2 (Limited th Multiple-Family Dwelling) zone district, located at 205 East 8 Street. The public hearing was opened and the staff report was given. th Jessie Avalos stated that he inherited property at 230 and 232 E. 8 Street, which is approximately across the street from the project site. He presented photos for the Board to review and stated that he has a plot plan that he’d like the Board to see since the figures on the map provided by the Board don’t match the map from the County. Member Zaragoza stated he is welcome to submit the plan, but indicated that if the map was prepared for tax purposes it may not accurately reflect the actual property dimensions. Mr. Avalos stated that the property’s parking is only accessible from the alley. He stated there is no street sweeping service because of all the cars parked on the street and that they have to place their trash cans into the street in order for trash to be picked up. Minutes, BZA, 06/21/07 Page 4 Mr. Avalos stated that some neighbors came with him. Mr. Jose Cisneros lives directly across the street from the project, Maria Maring lives next door to Mr. Cisneros, and George Gonzales lives next door to the project on the east side. Mr. Avalos stated that he believes that there used to be underground fuel tanks on the project site associated with a trucking business and was wondering if any soil samples have been taken. He stated that Mr. Cisneros saw them dig out a couple of tanks of some sort on the project site. He stated that he doesn’t believe the contractor or owner could be required to tear the building down or move it back since it wouldn’t be feasible. He stated that he understands that they intend to build two more units on the adjacent vacant lots with the same reduced setback; he stated that he and his neighbors would prefer that they build the additional units with parking in front of the units instead of along the alley. He stated that the neighbors with him will not be making comments since they do not speak English. He reiterated that the figures on the map provided to him don’t match the map from the County and asked the Board to consider these items and the problems they have on the street. Member Zaragoza asked if Mr. Avalos was opposed to the staff recommendation or if he just wanted his conditions to be considered. Mr. Avalos replied that they are opposed to the project. Mr. Zaragoza restated the issues discussed by Mr. Avalos and asked sought clarification from Mr. Avalos as needed. The public hearing was closed. Member Lee assured Mr. Avalos that the foundation footing for this one- story building was adequately designed for the correct soil bearing value. He stated that his only comment pertains to the condition of approval requiring the project to be constructed in accordance with all approved plans and conditions; since the project as constructed does not reflect the approved plans he would ask the applicant to have as-built plans prepared by the same person who prepared the original plans and to submit them to the Building Department for their records. Member La Rochelle stated that this is not one of those situations that is easy to rectify and that the only option besides approving it is to tear it down. He asked staff if there will be any requirement for additional landscaping in the front or something to soften the front look, of if a condition can be placed on it that would soften it. Member La Rochelle stated that he is leaning towards approving it, but there are some issues that need to rectified. He agrees that if there is a lot line dispute or issue, then that needs to be resolved before issuance of a certificate of Minutes, BZA, 06/21/07 Page 5 occupancy. He stated that if the underground tanks were removed there should be some record of it and soils testing. He would like staff to verify the records regarding underground tank removal prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. He stated that the owner is allowed to use the public alley for ingress and egress. He suggested that Mr. Avalos call the City’s graffiti hotline if he would like to improve the alley and stated that if fences encroaching into the alley then it would be a code enforcement issue. Member Lee asked staff if additional structures were proposed to be built on the adjacent vacant lots and asked if they would meet the 15-foot front setback requirement. Mr. Hellman responded that he believes that a Site Plan Review has been approved at least for one additional duplex and maybe two next door to this property, and stated that those approvals would require the standard 15-foot setback unless a separate modification were approved by the Board. Member Lee asked if the applicant would have the advantage of being able to park in the front yard if they had a driveway. Staff pointed out that as part of the Site Plan Review approval the applicant was required to provide a landscape area in the front yard with two street trees and that with the proposed reduced front yard setback there would not be enough space remaining to both meet the landscape requirements and to park within the front yard. Member La Rochelle moved to adopt the attached Resolution with all findings and conditions approving Modification 07-0943 as depicted in the project description, with the following additional conditions: 1) The applicant shall provide verification of the lot boundaries by a licensed land surveyor or a civil engineer who can practice land surveying; 2) If underground storage tanks were removed from the site, the applicant shall provide sufficient evidence that the work was done in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations; 3) The applicant shall submit as-built plans for the property as constructed for approval by the Building Department. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Zaragoza, Lee, La Rochelle NAYS: None File No. 07-1040: 3. A Zoning Modification to reduce required off-street parking for a 26-person residential facility with two employees from 22 spaces to 2 spaces in a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district, located at 2000 Baker Street. The public hearing was opened and the staff report was given. Minutes, BZA, 06/21/07 Page 6 Dan Neil, speaking for Hulda Magnus, stated many of the neighbors in the area are against the proposal. He expressed concern about the ability of two staff to oversee 26 residents living one block from a park and a school. He asked for an explanation of what it means for a use to be allowed “by right.” He stated that Ms. Magnus has lived in her home for 60 years and that she is not the only person in the neighborhood against the proposal. He is afraid that the residents would overflow into the park and surrounding community and urged denial of the proposal. Jonathan Hudson, speaking on behalf of the property owner, emphasized that the proposal is strictly a parking issue since they have the right in the C-1 zone to use the facility for the proposed use. After seeing that staff is recommending the development of the alley, he stated that he would like to modify the request since they have proposed plans to close the alley and develop the whole area since the same owner owns the surrounding three lots. He stated that he would like to modify the proposal by providing parking off-site in an existing two-car garage on the property immediately to the west, not improve the alley, and continue with the application to close the alley and develop the whole corner. Member Zaragoza asked Mr. Hudson to clarify what he meant by “develop the corner.” Mr. Hudson stated that they plan to put more residential facilities on the vacant two parcels to the west and rehabilitate the vacant building to the north to be used as office space. Member Zaragoza asked for clarification regarding the parking proposal. Mr. Hudson pointed out that they are requesting to be able to utilize an existing two-car garage on the property immediately to the west instead of providing on-site parking due to the expense of improving the alley. Mr. Hudson stated that the residents of the proposed facility would be coming from existing facilities within one city block, with a net increase of only two residents. Member Zaragoza asked how many facilities will be closed. Mr. Hudson responded that three facilities would be closed, one of which is the City and two of which are in the County. Member Zaragoza asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of staff’s recommendation. Hulda Magnus came to the podium and began to speak. Member Zaragoza asked Ms. Magnus if she wished to speak in favor of the staff recommendation, to which she replied no and then continued to speak. Ms. Magnus stated that she has resided across the street at 2001 Baker Street since 1945; she inquired if the additional buildings Mr. Hudson spoke of adding to the property would be for the same purpose of adding more halfway houses. Member Zaragoza stated that this was new information provided by the applicant just seconds before and that it is unknown at this time. Minutes, BZA, 06/21/07 Page 7 The public hearing was closed. Member La Rochelle asked Mr. Hudson if this facility would allow visitors. Mr. Hudson responded that a representative from Jason’s Retreat could respond to that question, although he has been told that all visitation would take place at their 600 Bernard Street facility. Michael Angelo, Executive Director for Jason’s Retreat, responded that visitors would not be permitted at the proposed facility and that visitation would occur at their 600 Bernard Street facility in the County which will remain open. Member Lee inquired about arrangements to transport residents to the 600 Bernard Street facility for visitation. Mr. Angelo responded that the 600 Bernard Street facility is within walking distance. Member Zaragoza asked staff if they investigated past complaints at Jason’s Retreat’s existing facilities. Staff responded that for their one existing facility in the City on Grace Street the Bakersfield Police Department has not received any complaints since January 2006. Staff stated that this facility houses either 16 or 18 residents, to which Mr. Angelo clarified that it has a capacity of 18 residents. Member Zaragoza inquired about the average length of residency at the proposed facility. Mr. Angelo responded that it depends on the source of the client’s referral, but that it could be anywhere from 45 days to six or eight months; he stated that the average would probably be six months. Member Zaragoza asked how it was determined that two employees would be sufficient to supervise the proposed 26 residents since the ratio of employees to residents seems low. Mr. Angelo stated that the proposed staffing level is consistent with how they operate the rest of their programs. Jenny Bell, Clinical Director for Jason’s Retreat, stated that the residents will be working during regular business hours. She stated that Jason’s Retreat has 14 employees at their Bernard Street facilities. She stated that two staff members will remain awake at the proposed facility throughout the night to ensure that the residents do not leave during the night and that they are following by the rules of the facility. She also stated that staff will be present at the facility during the day even though there will be very little activity. Member Lee commented that the employee parking will need to be handicap accessible and that adequate back up space will be required. He also stated that a recommended condition of approval would require that they obtain all necessary building permits and that the change in the use of the building would result in a lot of requirements that they will need to comply with. Ms. Bell responded that they are working with the property owner on these issues. Ms. Bell added that with respect to comments Minutes, BZA, 06/21/07 Page 8 made about disruptions to the neighborhood the proposed consolidation of their facilities would result in a lot less activity in the neighborhood. Mr. La Rochelle asked Ms. Bell where Jason’s Retreat’s 14 employees park. Ms. Bell responded that staff members park in parking lots at their 504 Bernard Street administration office and 600 Bernard Street facility. Member Zaragoza inquired about the size of the structures on the project site. Mr. Hudson stated that the three on-site structures contain a total of 4,600 square feet. Member Zaragoza inquired about the number of bedrooms. Mr. Hudson stated that after all modifications are completed the facility should have a total of ten bedrooms. Mr. Zaragoza inquired about the average size of the bedrooms. Mr. Hudson estimated that they would be no larger than 12-feet by 12-feet and no smaller than 9-feet by 9- feet. Member Zaragoza asked staff if the proposal would comply with the applicable building codes regarding overcrowding. Staff stated that building and housing code compliance will be evaluated prior to occupancy and that it is possible that they may not be able to achieve the proposed 26-resident capacity. Staff commented that recommended condition #5 requires a 6-foot by 8- foot trash enclosure to be provided on the site in a location acceptable to the Solid Waste Division. Staff stated that this should be taken into account when considering the applicant’s request to provide parking off- site since it was anticipated that the trash enclosure would be accessed from the improved alley and because the Solid Waste Division may not allow the trash enclosure to be located off-site. Member Zaragoza asked staff to clarify for the audience what “C-1 by right” means. Staff explained that under the Zoning Ordinance every zone district has uses permitted by right, meaning that they do not require a conditional use permit as long as they comply with all applicable zoning regulations. Staff stated that the proposed use is one of the uses allowed by right in a commercial zone without requiring approval of a conditional use permit. Member Lee moved to approve zoning modification 07-1040 to reduce the required off-street parking for a 26-person residential facility with two employees in a C-1 zone at 2000 Baker Street from 22 spaces to 2 spaces subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Member La Rochelle stated that he won’t be able to support the motion. He stated that he dislikes last minute changes. He stated that vacating an alley is a process with a public hearing in which all sorts of things could come up and that changing the proposal at the last minute in order to avoid paving the alley is not a slam dunk. He stated that he thinks the project Minutes, BZA, 06/21/07 Page 9 should go back so that the applicant can propose the project they want to do, stating that he doesn’t like the piecemeal approach. He stated that he doesn’t dislike the project but doesn’t like having it changed at the last minute. Member Zaragoza called for a roll call vote on the motion. Member Lee requested clarification regarding the motion. Member Zaragoza stated his assumption that the motion is on the table to vote yes or no and that if it fails then the applicant could reapply. Associate City Attorney Michael Richards stated that a motion was made and that they need to vote on the motion. Mr. Zaragoza called for a roll call vote on the motion. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Lee NAYS: Member: La Rochelle ABSTAIN: Member: Zaragoza Member La Rochelle stated that the motion didn’t carry since it needs a majority vote. Member La Rochelle made a motion to postpone a decision on the proposal until the next meeting so that the alley vacation could be discussed further and stated that it’s a bigger issue than the applicant thinks it is since there may be utilities in the way and other potential issues. He suggested that the applicant pave the alley since it would be simpler. Member Zaragoza stated that the intent of the changes to the proposal is well taken but that the way they are being piecemealed has made him reconsider and stated that that is probably why he abstained. Mr. Richards stated that the Board needs to vote on Member La Rochelle’s motion to continue the item to the next hearing date. Member Zaragoza requested clarification of the motion. Member La Rochelle offered to assist to clarify the motion. Member La Rochelle began to speak, then paused and indicated that Mr. Hudson was shaking his head in disagreement and restated that he doesn’t like last minute changes. He stated that he would like to see what it is they want to do. In response to communication from Mr. Hudson, Member La Rochelle stated that Mr. Hudson is not going to show him the proposal now and that he should have shown it to him much earlier. Mr. Hudson replied, “You guys changed the meeting, not us. You guys did your last minute changes.” In response, Member La Rochelle stated that he will let the original motion stand. Member Zaragoza sought and received confirmation of his understanding that there was no longer a motion on the floor to continue the item. Minutes, BZA, 06/21/07 Page 10 4. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 5. BOARD COMMENTS: None. 6. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was concluded at 2:11 p.m. The next Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2007. Delores Oldham, Recording Secretary _______________________________________ JIM EGGERT, Assistant Planning Director