HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 3610ORDINANCE NO. $ $ ~, 0
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION B OF
SECTION 17.08.180 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO WALL HEIGHTS WITHIN THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the provisions of
Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the Planning Commission held
a public hearing to consider amending Section 17.08.180(B) of Title 17 of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code relating to wall heights within the front yard setback in
residential zones; and
WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 22-94, on May 5, 1994, the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of said ordinance amendment and this
Council has fully considered the recommendation made by the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation of
environmental documents as set forth in CEQA and the City of Bakersfield CEQA
Implementation Procedures has been duly followed by the city staff, Planning
Commission and this Council, with this project determined to be exempt from CEQA
pursuant to Section IV.B.3.d of Bakersfield City Council Resolution No. 212-92; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined after due consideration of the
recommendation of the Planning Commission herein on file, that the proposed
ordinance amendment should be authorized.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City
of Bakersfield as follows:
SECTION 1.
1. All of the foregoing recitals, incorporated herein, are found to be
true and correct.
2. The Council adopts the following findings as recommended by the
Planning Commission:
a. All required public notices have been given.
b. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA,
pursuant to Section IV.B.3.d of Bakersfield City Council Resolution No. 212-92.
ORIGINAL
c. The proposed amendment is necessary for the orderly
development of the city.
d. The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives,
goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
SECTION 2.
Subsection B of Section 17.80.180 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
17.08.180
Fences, walls and hedltes.
B. In the R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones, no fence, wall or hedge located
in the required front yard shall exceed a height of four feet, except in the following
situations, in which such fence or wall may be higher but shall not exceed a height of six
feet:
1. Where, as determined by the planning commission, a side
yard is adjacent to an arterial or collector street and a higher wall is necessary to finish
the required subdivision wall.
2. Where, as determined by the city council, planning
commission, or board of zoning adjustment, a higher fence or wall is necessary for
purpose of noise attenuation.
SECTION 3.
This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with provisions of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after
the date of its passage.
.......... o00 ..........
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and
adopted by~ Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
I[ S lffi~ , by the following vote:
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED SlIP 2 8 ~
BOI~PRICE
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
JUDY SKOUSEN
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield
JE:pjt
September 15, 1994
res\o1780.cc
3
ORIGINAL
Minutes. PC, 5/5/94 Page 2
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.08.180 OF THE BAKERSFIELD
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO EXCLUDING SUBDIVISION
AND NOISE ATTENUATION WALLS IN EXCESS OF 4 FEET HIGH
FROM THE ZONE MODIFICATION REOUIREMENT
AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 16.16.010 AND 17.64.035 OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
PROCEDURES FOR FILING TENTATIVE MAPS AND
MODIFICATIONS OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE STANDARDS IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A TENTATIVE MAP. AND FILING OF
APPEALS OF SAID MAPS
AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 16.28.170 C. D & H OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MINIMUM
SIZE FOR LOT DEPTH. WIDTH. AND DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS
AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 16.28.170 I AND J OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 16.28.170.O OF THE BAKERSFIELD
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REOUIRED FINDINGS FOR
APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS OF LOT STANDARDS IN
CONJUNCTION WITH SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND
REQUIRING RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE/FACILITIES WITI-I
SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE SUBDIVISIONS.
Staff reports recommending approval were given.
Public portion of the hearing was opened.
Barbara Don Carlos represented the Building Industry Association. She asked if
this were the opportunity to make comment about other sections of the
ordinance. Ms. Marino said it would not be appropriate to discuss items which
are not on the agenda. They could be commented on during the public
statements portion of the agenda.
Ms. Don Carlos referenced Exhibit "A" specifically the depth and width of lots
being a certain criteria when abutting agricultural uses. She asked for
clarification and asked that this mean literally abutting rather than a street
separating residential from the agricultural zone. Mr. Hardisty said it is based on
a common property line arrangement. Regarding paragraph H concerning double
ORIG~At.
Minutes. PC, 5/5/94
Page 3
frontage lots, she suggested if the width is being changed perhaps a more exacting
description could be given to qualify the lots which may technically be considered
double frontage. She gave an example of a lot abutting a collector and having a
masonry wall. She asked that language be added as follows: "The lots which
include a waiver of vehicle access at one side shall not be deemed to be double
frontage lots." Mr. Hardisty said this is already covered in the ordinance.
Regarding Page 3 of Exhibit "A" the changes relating to paragraph 3 as referring
to property zoned multi-family in which an element of public benefit is necessary
to justify the reduction in lot area standards in the form of recreational open
space or facilities unique to the project, she said it was her understanding that in
requiting amenities of single family developed in a multi-family zone that it be
consistent with the requirement of R-1 development with reduced lot sizes. The
restriction is that only recreational facilities can be provided as an amenity,
however in an R-1 zone with reduced lot sizes several options exist such as park
land or in-lieu fees, requirement for 80 percent of the median sales price and
other criteria. This does not accomplish uniformity. She suggested there should
be another category that would address recreational opportunities in the proximity
of the project.
Commissioner Hersh asked for example from Ms. Don Carlos in which a
recreational amenity could not be provided within the project boundaries. She
said if a parcel is only 15 acres and a park is required within this site it would not
pencil out. She felt perhaps some criteria to allow this would be an option. She
asked that the Commission revisit criteria such as Item D which requires 80
percent substandard lots within the subdivision.
Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Messner said there are 3 criteria that the Commission considers
for single family housing such as recreational open space facilities, park land
dedication and in-lieu fees which would take care of the fear expressed by Ms.
Don Carlos regarding some sites not being able to provide an on-site facility. He
asked if any consideration was given to adding these items to Section 3. Mr.
Hardisty said the criteria in F could be used, however the Commission must be
careful to tie the amenity to the project.
OR~GINAt.
Minutes, PC. 5/5/94
Page 4
Commissioner Marino said a workshop was held on this issue in which minutes
were prepared and he referenced handouts that the new commissioners did not
receive. He said Commissioner Powers had asked that two ordinances be written
one in which the open space amenity would be eliminated in the R-1 zone and
one in which it would be added in the R-2. He did not feel there was a problem
with the smaller lots, however felt there was a problem with the ordinance. He
said he would be inclined to continue this ordinance to the June 2, 1994 meeting
so that Item D could be added and staff could work on a clarification for Item H.
He suggested this item be sent to committee to meet with the BIA to clarify
unclear wording.
Commissioner Brady said he was unclear about Item 16.16.O.3. saying he felt the
small lot subdivision could be justified without an amenity by saying they are
immediately adjacent to sufficient open space for the area. He was concerned
that in this situation staff may reject it and the commission would not see it. Mr.
Hardisty said staff would recommend approval of subdivisions in which amenities
were previously provided in other developments to benefit the subject subdivision.
He said approval would not be recommended in situations in which a developer is
trying to take advantage of a neighbor's generosity.
Commissioner Hersh said the 80 percent rule bothered him and he would like to
see something that would refine it. He felt staff would be amenable to allowing a
developer of a small subdivision to contribute to an existing amenity within the
area. He said he had a problem with large subdivisions with small lots and
surrounding residential subdivisions all t~ying to use the same planned or existing
amenity. He said he felt the ordinance was acceptable in general and leaves
enough leeway for staff to make adjustments for special situations.
Commissioner Delgado concurred with Commissioner Hersh's assessment
regarding the basic need for an ordinance. He said he wanted to see the issue of
compensation for the fact that the Commission is dealing with small lots to be
addressed. The absence of open space in each yard should be addressed through
alternative solutions. He stated his reluctance in seeing these amendments
postponed further. He said he was not opposed to further review of the 80
percent rule in the future, however would like to see the Commission proceed
with the adoption of these ordinances as they exist.
Commissioner Messnet stated his inclination to act as a commission on these
ordinances and handle the 80 percent issue at a later time. Mr. Hardisty
recommended that any motion regarding the 80 percent rule be handled
separately from these proposed ordinance amendments. He pointed out a map
which depicts subdivisions with substandard lots.
ORIGINAL
Minutes, PC, 5/5/94
Page 5
Commissioner Brady was concerned the Commission is recommending passing an
ordinance just to get something on the books. He felt the proposed ordinance
should be broad enough to allow a developer to install a larger park at a site in
the vicinity of a developing subdivision thus providing amenities for both.
Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Hardisty said the language
in paragraph 3 restricts the public benefit and is not meant to match the
definition of paragraph 2.F. He felt if substandard lots are going to be allowed
they should not be justified with a bigger than average park three blocks away.
He suggested the wording be as follows: "Recreational open space connected or
adjacent to the project and/or facilities unique to the project."
Commissioner Hersh agreed with Commissioner Boyle's conunents, asking ff his
proposed language would be appropriate. Mr. Hardisty said it could be added to
Paragraph 3.
Commissioner Marino said he did not vote for this ordinance at the previous
hearing on it. He agreed with Commissioner Brady's comment regarding the type
and distance of amenity from a project. He felt the ordinance requires those of a
lower economic status to provide more park land, which he did not feel was
equitable or consistent with the general plan. He said he was agreeable to the
wording proposed by Ms. Don Carlos for Item H.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Brady to
direct staff to bring back this entire ordinance at the May 30, and June 2, 1994
meetings, in the interim holding a meeting with a commission committee and
Building Industry Association to develop wording which is clear and applied
equitably.
Responding to question by Mr. Hardisty, Commissioner Marino said he wanted
consideration given to all items on Pages 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Exhibit "A," which
includes the 80 percent rule.
Motion failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Brady, Marino
NOES:
Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Messnet
ABSENT:
Commissioner Andrew
Chairman Messner said it was his preference to handle this issue at this time. If
the 80 percent situation is to be considered it could be handled at a future
heating.
ORIGINAL
Minutes, PC, 5/5/94
Page 6
Commissioner Delgado suggested that Item #0.3 read as follows: Further if the
project site is zoned for multiple-family dwellings and a proposed development
offers elements of public benefit within or adjacent to the project that justify the
reduction in lot area standards in the form of recreational open space and/or
facilities unique to the project, ... (the balance to read as in the staff report).
Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Hersh
to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed
amendments to Sections 16.16.010, 16.28.170.C, 16.28.170.D, 16.28.170.H,
16.28.170.1, 16.28.170.J, 16.28.170.O, with Item #3 modified to read as follows:
Further if the project site is zoned for multiple family dwellings and the
proposed development offers elements of public benefit within or adjacent
to the project that justify the reduction in lot area... (the balance of the
condition to remain as it exists in the staff report).
and 17.64.035, as shown on the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report and
recommend the same to City Council.
Commissioner Marino asked Commissioner Delgado if he could define
"acceptable amenity" for a project. Commissioner Delgado felt an acceptable
amenity would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission upon the
examination of each individual project, since less than 6,000 square foot lots are a
discretionary item.
Commissioner Marino felt this ordinance would not work and for this reason he
would not support the motion. He stated his belief that excessive cost placed on
affordable housing becomes a barrier to affordable housing and is not consistent
with the Housing Element, therefore Finding #4 that this is consistent with the
2010 General Plan could not be made.
Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Commissioner Delgado said
"adjacent to" would not include projects in which a street would separate amenity
from housing.
Commissioner Boyle did not know if the standards were specific, however felt
planning is discretionary.
Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 Page 7
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Messher
NOES: Commissioners Brady, Marino
ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew
Motion was made by Commissioner Hersh, seconded by Commissioner Marino to
make findings set forth in staff report and approve the amendment to Section
17.08.180(B) as described in the staff report, and recommend same to City
Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Marino
Messher
ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew
Chairman Messner said he would entertain a motion at this thne to refer items
concerning the ordinances to committee.
Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Hersh
send this item to committee to reconsider the language to Paragraph 2.F. so that
it adopts the same language that the recreation open space be within or adjacent
to the project and consideration of Paragraph 2.D. as well. Chairman Messnet
appointed Commissioners Hersh, Brady and Boyle to the committee. Motion
carried.
~ 5. FILE 5502 -- TIME SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON A REOUEST BY SiKIP
~ HARDY TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A C-1
'"--.(~NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY
DW~.LLING) ZONE ON 23.77 +/- ACRES AND TO AN R-1-CH (ONE
FAMIL~r'-DWELLING-CHURCH) ZONE ON 2.5 +/- ACRES. CONTAINING
A TOTAL O~-Z6.27 +/- ACRES FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
EAST AND WES~QF WIBLE ROAD. NORTH OF BERKSHIRE ROAD,
AND SOUTH OF THL~"'A-RVIN-EDISON CANAL (Continued from the regular
meeting of April 21, 1994) ~
Staff report recommending approval was%p~
Chairman Messher said the public hearing was closL~.~he last hearing, however
upon a request by Mr. Catlagy he recognized him. %~
ORIGh~.~L
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss.
County of Kern )
CAROL WILLIAMS, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is the duly appointed, acting and qualified City Clerk of
the City of Bakersfield; and that on the 29th day of September,
1994 she posted on the Bulletin Board at City Hall, a full, true
and correct copy of the following: Ordinance No. 3610, passed by
the Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 28th day of
September, 1994, and entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION B OF SECTION
17.08.180 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO WALL HEIGHTS WITHIN THE FRONT YART
SETBACK IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
/s/ CAROL WILLIAMS
City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield