Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/2001 BAKERSFIELD r~ ~ David Couch, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager Sue Benham Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, September 17, 2001, 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:07 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham; and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT AUGUST 20, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding New Zone for Commercial Development This was a referral to the Committee to explore the possibility of creating a new zone that would fall between Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and Regional Commercial (C-2) zones due to issues that arise with residents when a developer asks for a zone change when building a shopping center with multiple uses next to established residential areas. Development Services Director Jack Hardisty explained, people who want to develop commercial properties always ask for the most intense commercial zoning they can get on the books. The argument being they need the flexibility. C-2 zoning was originally meant for the Downtown, Valley Plaza and similar places needing Regional Commemial zoning. C-2 was not the zoning intended for development of commercial properties in established neighborhoods. Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) has limitations including: four-story height limit; no drive up windows; prohibits motorcycle sales; and no bars or restaurants with beer and wine sales. However, with a C-1 zoning an applicant can ask for a conditional use permit ADOPTED. AS SUB14ITI'ED ON OCTOBER 1, 2001 URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, September 17, 2001 Page -2- (CUP) and have a hearing to allow other uses. This allows the City to apply restrictions, such as how close a drive-up window can be to the nearest residents or the placement of restaurants serving liquor. In this way, if there's an application for a CUP for a bar, the residents would get a notice of the hearing. However, an applicant developing a commercial center will want a C-2 so they have no limitations and a full range of potential without having to apply for a conditional use permit because of the possibility it may be denied. Mr. Hardisty expressed that a sizable, successful shopping center can be built with C-1 zoning and staff is recommending that we keep the zoning we have. When an applicant comes in for commercial center developments next to neighborhoods, give them C-1 zoning and have them apply for a CUP for uses not allowed in that zone. If we need to enhance the C-1 zone to make its application fit, staff would rather do that and continue calling it Neighborhood Commercial, C-1. Staff has concerns that creating a new zone may not produce a better end result and will require changing all the zone maps and ordinances, which would be extremely time intensive for staff. Staff recommended when applicants come in for a commercial development next to established residential areas, they be given C-1 zoning. If they insist on C-2, they could have a hearing before the Planning Commission and if denied, appeal to the City Council. The Council's decision would be final and would not have to be referred back to the Planning Commission, as it has already been heard by that body. It was suggested that perhaps the requirement for a conditional use permit could be conditional on the distances from residential development. The committee agreed with staff's recommendation to consider the adoption of C-1 zones for neighborhood commercial development rather than C-2 (Regional Commercial) in neighborhoods. An ordinance addressing some of the shortcomings of commercial development in neighborhoods has been referred to Urban Development which may prove to be a better approach than creating a new commercial zone district. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Halfway Houses, Rehab and Boarding Facilities Development Services Director Jack Hardisty provided information and a map showing locations of licensed group homes by ward. This was referred to theCommittee because some wards have areas with heavy concentrations of group facilities. There are two types of facilities, small (serving six or less persons) and large (serving more than six.) State law exist that preempts local zoning control over residential care facilities if the facility serves six or fewer persons (this does not include care givers). The law states this is a residential use and, therefore, cannot be treated any differently that a typical family living situation. This precludes the City from requiring any special permits, business license, home occupation permit, fire code restrictions, building codes, etc., unless such is required of any other family dwellings. There are some restrictions allowed by the City URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, September 17, 2001 Page -3- for alcohol and drug rehab facilities. However, small facilities are required to be licensed by the State and the City will not recognize any preemptions if a facility is operating without a State license. Those homes which are not licensed and exceed two boarders are considered a roominghouse or boardinghouse. The zoning ordinance permits anyone to rent no more than two rooms (one to a person) by right. Once that number (two) is exceeded, if not a licensed facility by the State, a conditional use permit is required. It was. noted that the State restricts the small group facilities to a separation of 300 feet between facilities or it requires a waiver from the City. The City does not grant waivers. In residential zones, if a facility serves more than six people, City regulations require a conditional use permit (except in the R-4 zone for people with disabilities). Through the conditional use permit process, conditions can be imposed to further regulate the home, such as occupancy limits, fire sprinklers, alarm systems and parking requirements. For commercial or industrial zones, facilities are permitted by right (if the industrial zone allows commercial uses) and subject only to the City's site plan review process and a City business license. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding elevated Tree/Play Houses (This item heard first) Development Services Director Jack Hardisty gave an overview of the Building Code requirements for these structures. In June 2000, the rules were changed due to a complaint about a large tree house next to a fence equipped with electricity and television. At that time, for structures (playhouses, sheds, etc.) built within five feet of a fence, the height was reduced from 12 feet down to 7 feet and structures cannot exceed 120 square feet. Structures over 7 feet are required to have a 5 foot setback. If the structure is over 120 square feet, a building permit is required and all Uniform Building Code requirements apply that would apply to a house. Mr. Jason Andrews explained his concerns. About a year ago, a group of kids from his neighbor's yard began to taunt his dog through the fence. He put up chicken wire to keep his dog back from the fence. Now the kids get up in the tree house and throw objects at his dog across the yard. He has talked to the parents, called Police and animal control, but the behavior continues. Code Enforcement staff came out, but because the structure is not next to his fence, they did not take action. He stated tree houses are a burden to neighbors because you have no privacy in your own back yard. He looked into building an 8 or 10 foot fence, but it cost three times that of a 6 foot fence and suggested the code should be looked into to allow taller fences. Mr. Andrews stated he is moving in two weeks due to this problem and feels the City should do something to limit tree houses due to the huge invasion to privacy. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, September 17, 2001 Page -4- Committee member Sue Benham stated there are two problems and they should be separated. The issue of tree houses and malicious behavior by children throwing rocks. There was a discussion regarding possible solutions. It was noted when building a fence higher than 6 feet, it is subject to the Building Code, inspection and modification approval because it has to be engineered structurally sound so as not to fall in a windstorm. It was discussed that although Mr. Andrews is moving, someone else will be moving into his house. The Committee directed the Development Services Director to check the following: confirm the tree house structure is in compliance with the Building Code and due to its size, whether a permit was required; check to see if it is safe and structurally sound; and coordinate contact of the homeowner by the Police regarding the rock throwing incidents. Staff will report the findings and share information with Mr. Andrews. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m. Attendance - staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Principal Planner Jim Eggert, Planning; and Economic Development Director Donna Kunz. Others: Jason Andrews, homeowner. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN\Urban Dev2001\ud01sepl 7summary.wpd