Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-2007 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, July 10, 2007, 3:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1.ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS: Present: VINCE ZARAGOZA, Chairperson PHIL BURNS JACK LA ROCHELLE STAFF MEMBERS: JIM EGGERT, Assistant Planning Director PAUL HELLMAN, Principal 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.Public Hearing Items: File No. 07-1088 – 1. Approval of a Zoning Modification to waive the requirement to construct a six-foot high masonry block wall and 7-foot wide landscape area along the common boundary line of a warehouse development in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zone district and abutting residentially zoned and/or designated properties developed with nonresidential uses located at 1825 Feliz Drive. File No. 07-1199 2. – Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an approximately 3,000 square foot drive-through restaurant (Farmer Boys) in a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district located at 4920 Gosford Road. The public hearing was opened. No one from the audience or from the Board requested removal of any consent agenda item. The public hearing was closed. Member La Rochelle moved to approve the consent agenda. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, BZA, 07/10/07 Page 2 AYES: Members: Zaragoza, Burns, La Rochelle NAYS: None 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.File No. 071044 - - Conditional Use Permit to permit the operation of a landscaping business, including outdoor storage of up to six vehicles, trailers, equipment and landscape materials, on a single-family residential property in R-S (Residential Suburban) and R-1 10K (One-Family Dwelling – 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) zone districts. The public hearing was opened and the staff report was given recommending denial of the request. Tommy Guerra stated he resides at 3602 Essendon Court, just west of the project site. Mr. Guerra requested clarification of the reasons for staff’s recommendation. Staff stated that home occupation permits are an option in this case, but that they only allow for one commercial vehicle, require all activities to be conducted within an enclosed building, and prohibit employees from coming to the premises, all of which the proposal does not comply with. Staff stated that, therefore, the use would operate more like a commercial use in a residential neighborhood which consists of traditional smaller single-family lots on three sides of the site. Staff stated that they feel the proposal would not be an appropriate use for the neighborhood at the proposed intensity. Mr. Guerra stated the applicant has made a lot of improvements over the past couple of years and that the dust has settled down and the noise has been reduced. He further stated they are going to further improve the quality of their driveway and their backyard. He stated that he thinks the proposal is good for the neighborhood, does not hamper their lifestyle, that he likes the trees they’ve installed between his property and theirs, and that he has no problem with the proposal. Greg Oja stated that he resides at 3603 Essendon Court, adjacent to the property on the west side. He stated that he is not totally opposed to staff’s recommendation and what they’re trying to do is state their concerns in a neighborly fashion. He stated that they are probably most affected by the proposal and that they signed the petition that said the applicant would go along with the conditions they’ve suggested they would follow, but that they don’t want to open up a Pandora’s Box and have someone else turn their property into a commercial facility, which is why he was confused about whether or not to oppose the proposal. He stated that he is trying to support their neighbors and understand that they’re trying to run a business. Minutes, BZA, 07/10/07 Page 3 Jim Marino stated he was asked to speak for the applicant. He stated that the business is a family operation, and that right now they have four vehicles which are all being driven by family members. He stated that the owner lives on the site and three other relatives involved in the business live elsewhere. He stated they started storing the vehicles on-site for security purposes, and that they understand now that they are only allowed one vehicle but that the other three do not have a place to store the vehicles so they would have to park them on the street, so the conditional use permit to allow the vehicles to be parked on-site is important to them. He stated that at around 6 a.m. two vehicles show up at the site with the other three drivers and the four work vehicles leave the site, and then in the evening the work vehicles return and the two vehicles which came in the morning leave. Mr. Marino pointed out that the site is more centrally located to the applicant’s clients than to where the others involved in the business live. He stated that two alternatives were submitted, Alternative A being the applicant’s submittal and that Alternative B was staff’s suggestion. Mr. Marino described the two proposals and stated that either alternative is acceptable. He stated that the materials they store outside are plants and that there is no fertilizer or anything like that. He stated that they don’t stockpile plants; they buy them for a particular job so they don’t remain on-site for long. He stated that they have conditional support from all of the adjacent property owners except for one. He stated that the applicant is requesting approval for at least a few years and that if it pleases the Board a five year approval would probably help them out since they have a lot of bills so approval is pretty critical to their operation. Al Johnson stated that he lives at 3608 Alice Meadows Court, south of the subject property. He stated that he agrees with staff’s recommendation. He stated there is a large pile of dirt within the southern portion of the site about 40 feet in width and 12 feet in height and that a large amount of dirt is blown into the neighboring properties, including their swimming pools, to the south on a consistent basis from the dirt pile and from vehicles on the site in the morning and evening. He stated that the workers sit around and play music after work and load their equipment in the morning when the neighbors are trying to sleep, so the operation does impact the neighbors to the south tremendously. He stated that there are other people in opposition to the proposal who weren’t able to attend the meeting. Minutes, BZA, 07/10/07 Page 4 Richard Paglia stated that he lives at 3607 Essendon Court and that although he does not live adjacent to the subject property he does have some impacts from it. He apologized to the applicants, stating that although he signed the petition in support, after speaking to his wife and other neighbors he is not in favor of approval. He stated that there is no reason to have to tell neighbors at 6a.m. in the morning when they’re banging things into trucks to be quiet when people are trying to sleep. He stated that a lot of dust gets into the swimming pool next to the gravel area from any kind of traffic on the site. He stated that he guesses property values will plummet in the area from having a business next door. He stated that things have quieted down recently since filing their application, but that he doesn’t know if that will be an ongoing situation or just until the permit is approved, and that he hopes that it will be quiet from now on. Diane Moore stated that she lives at 3612 Alice Meadows Court and is not entirely opposed to the proposal. She stated that she spoke with the applicant and that they’re trying to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors, but her concerns are: 1) How big the operation could get, citing a landscaping company on Wible Road with large boulders and a lot of activity, stating that the applicant’s business could grow; 2) The potential for other neighbors on similarly large properties in the area to want to establish businesses. She stated that her property is directly behind the subject property and that the applicant has put a tarp over the mound of dirt which cuts down the dust which she appreciates and that there used to be a lot of noise which was a concern, but that lately it’s been a lot quieter. She stated that they’re out of town a lot, so they don’t get the same impact the other close neighbors do. She inquired about how hard it would be to revoke the permit if they violated some of the agreements that they made. The public hearing was closed. Member Zaragoza asked staff if the dirt piles are related to the business. Staff stated that Mr. Marino indicated that it was not part of the business and that staff has no reason to think that it is part of the current operation and that it might have been there before the applicant purchased the property. Member Burns explained how the permit could be revoked, stating that there would have to be a code enforcement action pertaining to a violation, and then it would be back in front of the BZA for another hearing to determine if conditions need to be changed or if the permit should be revoked. Member Burns stated that he has been privy to some of the code enforcement activity at this property and that he is very concerned about this particular project. He stated that his staff has explained Home Occupation Permit (HOP) rules and regulations to the applicant several times and has difficulty being in favor of the project knowing that the HOP has been explained to the owners in detail and that the rules have not been followed. He further stated that he is having a hard time as a Board member being in favor of the project especially with neighbors in opposition and also based on the applicant’s poor track record since February. Member La Rochelle stated he agrees with Member Burns. He stated that he understands they’re trying Minutes, BZA, 07/10/07 Page 5 to conduct a business and, in fact, that he has a next door neighbor who has a landscape maintenance business that is very benign, but that he isn’t storing things on the property. He stated that he thinks this is perhaps just not the right location and that he supports staff’s recommendation. Member Zaragoza inquired about the applicant’s current permit. Staff stated that they have an HOP issued by the Planning Department. Member Zaragoza stated that there are obviously conditions that are not currently being met, which is why there has been code enforcement action. Member Zaragoza inquired about the next steps if the conditional use permit is not granted. Staff stated if the conditional use permit is not approved and no appeal is filed, then Code Enforcement would have to ensure that the violations cease. Member Zaragoza inquired if they could stay in business if they comply with the conditions of the HOP. Staff stated that it would be up to the Building Director if he feels that they could bring the use into compliance with the HOP. Member Burns moved to adopt the attached Resolution with findings denying conditional use permit 07-1044 as depicted in the project description. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Zaragoza, Burns, La Rochelle NAYS: None 5.COMMUNICATIONS None. 6. BOARD COMMENTS: None. 7. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was concluded at 3:38 p.m. The next Board of Zoning Adjustment meeting is scheduled for August 14, 2007. Delores Oldham, Recording Secretary _______________________________________ JIM EGGERT, Assistant Planning Director