Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 3609ORDINANCE NO. $ ~ 0 9 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.64.035 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT MODIFICATIONS TO LOT SIZE. WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield, filed an application requesting amendment to Section 17.64.035 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code relating to the authority of the Planning Commission to grant modifications to lot standards; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 21-94 on May 5, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of said amendments and this Council has fully considered the recommendation made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and WHEREAS, it was determined that the proposed project was categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15300.4 as identified in the City's CEQA Implementation Procedures, Resolution No. 212-92; and WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to CEQA and City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by city staff, Planning Commission and this Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and hereby makes the following findings: 1. All required public notices have been given. 2. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section IV.B.3.d of Bakersfield City Council Resolution No. 212-92. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives, goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. All of the foregoing recitals are hereby found to be true and correct. 2. Section 17.64.035 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ORIGINAL 17.64.035 Authority of planning commission--Lot size regulations. The planning commission, as the advisory agency, shall have authority to grant modifications of minimum lot size standards as may be necessary to permit appropriate improvement or improvements on a lot or lots within a subdivision in the course of approval or conditional approval of any tentative map. The hearing on any such modification shall be consolidated with the hearing on the tentative map, shall be noticed with the notice of hearing on such map, and the commission shall not approve such modification unless it makes the findings specified in Section 16.28.170 O. Appeal of the commission decision on such modification shall be governed by the provisions of Section 16.52. Fees shall be required as provided in Section 3.70. SECTION 2. 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 ......... ORIGINAL I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on Slip 2 8 ]~lt , by the following vote: AYES: GOUNg~.MEMBERS McDERMOTF,~.~...~m~,, ~R[~iN _ . ~DES: COUNCILMEMBERS ---~,~p,w~mm~ , HOWl. ES, ,~,N.VAGGJO ABSTAIN' CO~ ~ue'--~,,e ..... '-- ~ CITY CLERK and l~x Officig dlerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED SIP 2 $ ~ MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: JUDY SKOUSEN ACTING CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield BY:t Laura Marino, Assistant City Attorney ML:pjt September 15, 1994 res\o1764035.cc ORIGINAL Minutes, PC, 5/5/94 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Page 2 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.08.180 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO EXCLUDING SUBDIVISION AND NOISE A'ITENUATION 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 REOUIRING RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE/FACILITIES WITH 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 ORIGINAL 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 requiring 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 Messnet 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. ORIGINAL 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 t~ing 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 trying 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 adjuslanents 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 Messner 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 comments, 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, Messner ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew Chairman Messner said it was his preference to handle this issue at this time. the 80 percent situation is to be considered it could be handled at a future hearing. If 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.I, 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. ORIGINAL Minutes. PC, 5/5/94 Page 7 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Messner 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 Messnet ABSENT: Commissioner Andrew Chairman Messner said he would entertain a motion at this time 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 REQUEST BY SKIP ~ HARDY TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A C-1 ~--.(N~EIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DW~.LLING) ZONE ON 23.77 +/- ACRES AND TO AN R-1-CH (ONE FAMIL"Y'-DWELLING-CHURCH) ZONE ON 2.5 +/o ACRES. CONTAINING A TOTAL O~F~Z6.27 +/- ACRES FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST AND WES'~"O.F 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~ Chairman Messnet said the public earth 'n.g w,a,s .closL~i.a..t...the last hearing, however upon a request by Mr. Callagy he recognized him. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DOCUMENTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA) 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. 3609, passed by the Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 28th day of September, 1994, and entitled: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.64.035 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT MODIFICATIONS TO LOT SIZE By: /s/ CAROL WILLIAMS City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield