Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-11-2008 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 3:00 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1.ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS: Present: BRAD UNDERWOOD, Chairperson PHIL BURNS VINCE ZARAGOZA STAFF MEMBERS: Present: PAUL HELLMAN, Principal Planner JIM EGGERT, Assistant Planning Director MICHAEL RICHARDS, 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 February 12, 2008. Member Zaragoza moved to approve the minutes of February 12, 2008. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Underwood, Burns, Zaragoza NAYS: None ABSENT: None B.Public Hearing Items: 1.File No. 08-0192 - Approval of a conditional use permit to operate a bar in a 3,200 square foot building with a 3,000 square foot patio in a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district located at 3001 Calloway Drive. Minutes, BZA, 03/11/08 Page 2 2.File No. 08-0201 - Approval of aconditional use permit to operate a recycling facility for the processing of beverage containers, paper, cardboard, plastic containers, and electronic waste within a 20,827 square foot building and paved areas adjacent to the building in an M-1 (Light Industrial) zone district located at 2260 S. Union Avenue. 3.File No. 08-0234 - Approval to continue to April 8, 2008 a conditional use permit to construct six 2-bedroom dwelling units in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zone district located at 531 Kentucky Street. 4.File No. 08-0274 - Approval of aconditional use permit to allow a 1,056 square foot commercial coach as a sales facility with a 7-space off-street parking lot for a 2-year period of time for Tract 6426 in an R-1 (One- Family Dwelling) zone district located at 9206 and 9210 Jack Ranch Court. 5.File No. 08-0289 - Approval to continue to April 8, 2008 azoning modification to reduce the required off-street parking from 128 to 110 spaces to allow for the construction of a 70-unit low-income housing project in a C-C (Commercial Center) zone district located at 1401 S Street. The public hearing was opened. No one from the audience or from the Board requested removal of any items from the consent calendar. The public hearing was closed. Motion made by Member Burns to approve public hearing consent agenda items. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Underwood, Burns, Zaragoza NAYS: None ABSENT: None 4.PUBLIC HEARING: 1.File No. 07-2352: A zoning modification to construct 9-foot tall masonry walls within the side and rear yard setbacks and to construct a 9-foot tall, 200 square foot pool equipment enclosure within the side yard setback in an E (Estate One- Family Dwelling) zone district located at 13307 Nantucket Place. The public hearing was opened and the staff report was given. Staff informed the Board that based upon a site inspection staff has determined that the elevation of the abutting undeveloped property to the south is approximately two feet higher Minutes, BZA, 03/11/08 Page 3 than the subject property and that, therefore, the construction of a wall approximately 8 feet in height would be permissible along the rear property boundary without the approval of a modification. However, staff stated that the construction of walls greater than 6 feet in height along the side property boundaries would require the approval of a modification. Staff recommended denial of the request, but stated that they would not object to the approval of a modification allowing the side walls to be stepped up in height within the rear 15 feet of the property to match the permitted height of the rear wall at the point where they connect. Mark Kinnsch, property owner, referred to his letter outlining justifications for the request as well as letters from neighbors in support of the request. He stated that the primary reason for the request is to mitigate noise effects and that rather than relying upon the enforcement of City noise ordinances they wish to preemptively address their noise concerns through the design of the proposed walls. At the request of the Member Underwood, Mr. Kinnsch read the justifications for the request from his letter. No one else spoke in favor or against the project. The public hearing was closed. Member Burns stated that there is an approved grading plan that depicts a 24 to 32 inch high retaining wall on the abutting property to the south. With regard to the applicant’s comment that a 9-foot 6-inch plate is unusually high, Member Burns stated that this is not uncommon in Bakersfield and that many homes have even higher plates. Member Burns also pointed out that a 25,000 square foot lot is not an unusually large parcel for Bakersfield. Member Burns stated that he agrees with staff position that 9-foot high walls are excessive. Member Underwood asked staff to provide further clarification regarding the pool equipment building. Staff stated that the pool equipment enclosure is 200 square feet in area, where the maximum size of an accessory structure within a side yard setback is 120 square feet; staff stated that the existing height of 7 feet is acceptable for accessory structures of 120 square feet or less. Staff also pointed out that the request includes an increase in the height of the building to 9 feet to allow for the addition of a flat roof. Staff stated that the structure was not built legally, and that staff would not object to allowing it to be retained in its current configuration with respect to area and height. Member Underwood inquired if this is includes as part of the staff recommendation. Staff responded that the staff recommendation does not specifically include the retention of the existing pool equipment enclosure, but that staff would not have a problem with the Board allowing it to remain in its current configuration. Staff suggested that perhaps the applicant could explain the justification for the request to increase the height of the structure to 9 feet. Member Underwood asked Mr. Kinnsch to respond to this issue. Mr. Kinnsch responded that they would like to add a roof to the enclosure, and that if at least one additional foot of height is permitted that would be helpful. Mr. Kinnsch also stated that any additional height allowance for the side property Minutes, BZA, 03/11/08 Page 4 walls above the 6-foot maximum would be helpful. In response to a question from Member Underwood, staff stated that it would be preferable if the height of the enclosure were not permitted to exceed the height of the side property line wall. Member Underwood inquired if letters from the neighbors have been received, to which staff responded they have not seen any letters from neighbors. Mr. Kinnsch indicated that he has letters from the neighbors. Member Underwood asked Mr. Kinnsch to submit the letters to the clerk. Member Burns inquired if staff considered or evaluated a lower wall height than requested by the applicant. Staff responded that they did consider the possibility of a height between 6 and 9 feet, but that staff did not find anything unusual in the evidence to justify additional height above the zoning ordinance limit of 6 feet. However, given the absence of any opposition from neighbors and the large lot size, staff stated that they would not have any objections to allowing an additional foot of height. Staff stated that the requested height of 9 feet is 50 percent above the standard, which if allowed would set a precedent that would make it very difficult for staff to oppose future requests for walls in the 7-foot to 8-foot height range. Member Burns stated that he would not object to an additional foot of wall height in this case. Member Underwood stated that he would support a minor increase in wall height, but would not support a height of 9 feet. Member Underwood moved to allow 7-foot high walls along the side property lines and to allow these walls to step up in height within the rear yard as recommended by staff, as well as to allow an increase in the height of the pool equipment enclosure to 8 feet to allow for the addition of a roof. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Underwood, Burns, Zaragoza NAYS: None ABSENT: None 2.File No. 07-2363 – Conditional use permit to expand a mini-storage facility through the addition of 83,500 square feet of storage space and a 3,200 square foot manager residence, and expansion of the recreational vehicle storage area in a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district located at 11015 & 11107 Kern Canyon Road (State Route 184). Zoning modification to waive the requirement to pave the expanded recreational vehicle storage area; gravel surfacing to match the existing storage area is proposed. The public hearing was opened and the staff report was given. Rolland Van De Valk of Porter & Associates, representing Payless Mini Storage and Mr. John Minutes, BZA, 03/11/08 Page 5 Thomson, stated that both the owner and he have read the staff report as well as the conditions and the memorandum regarding the drive approach. He stated that they are in agreement with all of the recommended conditions of approval with the exception of Public Works-Engineering condition 9, which requires the developer to either construct the equivalent of a full width median landscaped island on Kern Canyon Road or pay the standard $100 per linear foot fee, or have the median island designed and paid for based on an engineer’s estimate and actual costs. Mr. Van De Valk stated that in their conversations with Caltrans, one of their comments was that they did not want a median island, and that the original use permit included a similar condition and the construction of a median island was not required. Mr. Van De Valk further pointed out that the original condition from the use permit granted in 1999 reads, “The developer shall construct a landscaped median island at the parcel frontage on Kern Canyon Road as required by condition number 34 of a previous General Plan Amendment. If this condition is amended or rescinded by the appropriate decision-making body (Caltrans), such action shall govern the implementation of this item.” Mr. Van De Valk recommended that if they can’t make a decision regarding the elimination of the requirement for the median island now, then the addition of language stating that if Caltrans does not want the median island, which will be clear through their encroachment permit process, then this requirement will not apply. No one else spoke in favor or against the project. The public hearing was closed. Member Zaragoza inquired if the Caltrans Office of Transportation Planning has been informed of staff’s recommendation. Staff responded that they did not request to review the conditions, and that they have permit authority over the project which will allow them to dictate how State Route 183 along the project frontage is modified. Staff stated that the only issue raised as a comment was the issue of the throat depth at the new proposed driveway, and they had hoped that the applicant would be able to work with Caltrans to resolve this issue between the time the staff report was written and this hearing. Staff stated that they feel their concerns are met with the recommended conditions of approval, and the facility could function without the additional driveway. Member Zaragoza inquired about condition 9 regarding the landscape median, and asked if it’s a Caltrans requirement or a city requirement. Staff responded it is a city requirement along all arterial roadways, and that there is a process in which an applicant can pursue variations of the requirement through the Public Works Director. Staff responded that they are not aware of any other developments in the area that were relieved of this obligation. Member Underwood inquired if the original storage facility was required to pay the fees, to which staff responded that although the adopted condition of approval was the same as the recommended condition it is not known if they paid the fee. Minutes, BZA, 03/11/08 Page 6 Member Underwood inquired if staff has had any discussions with Caltrans regarding the need for this median. Staff responded that no such discussions are known to have occurred and since Caltrans has constructed median islands in similar roadways it is not known why they would not ultimately want a median island constructed in this roadway. Member Burns moved to approve File No. 07-2363, including the modifications to condition D.12. pursuant to the March 11, 2008 staff memorandum. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Members: Underwood, Burns, Zaragoza NAYS: None ABSENT: None 5.COMMUNICATIONS None. 6. BOARD COMMENTS: None. 7. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was concluded at 3:49 p.m. Delores Oldham, Recording Secretary _______________________________________ JIM EGGERT, Assistant Planning Director