HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD NO 3608ORDINANCE NO. 3 6 0 8
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTIONS C, D, H, I, J
AND 0.4. OF SECTION 16.28.170 OF THE BAKERSFIELD
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE MINIMUM LOT
DESIGN STANDARDS AND REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR
REDUCTION OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield, filed an application requesting
amendment to portions of Section 16.28.170 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code relating
to minimum lot size standards and the findings required to reduce minimum standards;
and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 19-94 on May 5, 1994, the Planning
Commission recommended approval and adoption of said amendments; and
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission recommendation including changes
to 16.28.170 0.3. was referred to the Urban Development Committee of the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Development Committee recommended that said
ordinance changes be made with the exception that no change be made to Section
16.20.170 0.3 at this time, as the Planning Commission is investigating this section of the
ordinance further; and
WHEREAS, this Council has fully considered the recommendation made by
the Planning Commission and Urban Development Committee 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.
of the city.
The proposed amendment is necessary for the orderly development
r-
ORIGINAL
4. 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. Subsections C, D, H, I, J and 0.4 of Section 16.28.170 of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
16.28.170
Design Standards.
C. Lot Depth. The lot depth is the length of a line that bisects a lot from a
point on the front property line measured half way between the side property lines to a
point on the rear of the property. The minimum depth for residential lots shall be 100
feet except as follows:
1. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting agricultural or
residential suburban zoned property shall be 140 feet.
2. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting a freeway or
railroad right-of-way shall be 120 feet.
D.. Lot Width. The lot width is the length of a line between side property lines
that is the perpendicular bisect of the lot depth. The minimum width for residential lots
shall be fifty-five feet on interior lots and 60 feet on corner lots, except as follows:
1. The minimum width for a lot with a side yard abutting agricultural or
residential suburban zoned property shall be 100 feet.
2. The minimum width for a lot with a side yard abutting a freeway or
railroad right-of-way shall be 85 feet on interior lots and 90 feet on corner lots.
H. Double Frontage Lots. Double frontage lots having a depth less than two
hundred feet will not be approved except where, as determined by the advisory agency,
conditions permit no other reasonable form of platting, or where the proposed double
frontage lots abut a major street and the advisory agency deems it to be reasonable due
to such controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance and setback. Each such lot shall
have a six-foot high masonry wall (the height shall be measured from whichever side of
the wall the adjacent finished grade is higher) with landscaping (on the exterior side)
installed by the subdivider adjacent to the rear property line or, where the wall and
landscaping are to be maintained by a homeowner's association or maintenance district
installed within the street right-of-way and additional landscape easement or adjacent
ORIGINAL
common lot. Alternate wall and landscape concepts may be approved in areas where, in
the opinion of the advisory agency, topographic or other physical conditions make strict
adherence to this criteria undesirable. Conceptual wall and landscaping plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the advisory agency prior to filing of any final tract or final
parcel map.
I. Walls along side yards adjacent to collector or arterial streets. Where it is
found to be necessary for orderly development, residential lots having side yards adjacent
to collector or arterial streets shall be required to install a six-foot high masonry wall
(the height shall be measured from whichever side of the wall the adjacent finished
grade is higher) with landscaping (on the exterior side) installed by the subdivider
adjacent to the side property line or, where the wall and landscaping are to be
maintained by a homeowner's association or maintenance district, installed within the
street right-of-way and additional landscape easement or adjacent common lot.
Conceptual wall and landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with
adopted resolutions prior to filing of any final tract or final parcel map.
J. Landscape walls exceeding four feet within front yard setback. The Planning
Director, in accordance with adopted resolutions, or the advisory agency may permit
walls exceeding four feet in height within the front yard setback area of a residential lot
when approved as part of a conceptual wall and landscape plan approved in conjunction
with a subdivision.
0.4. A reduction in lot width, depth and frontage in a subdivision may be
permitted by the advisory agency if it makes the following findings:
a. The minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet.
b. The reduction in the minimum lot width/depth/frontage is for a minimum
of 80 percent of the lots in a tract or all the lots in a phase of the tract.
c. The applicant has demonstrated that the development will not require a
modification for the reduction of the required front, rear, or side yard setbacks on any
lot within the subdivision.
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
$111~ 1[ 8 1~ , by the following vote:
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED $£P
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED as to form:
JUDY SKOUSEN
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield
'~'ra~ Marino, Assistant City Attorney
BY: l,au
ML:pjt
September 15, 1994
res\o1628170.cc
4
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 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 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 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.
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
.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 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.
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."
C. ommissioner Hersh agreed with Commissioner Boyle's comments, asking if 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
heating 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, Messher
ABSENT:
Commissioner Andrew
Chairman Messnet 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.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, Messnet
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
Messner
ABSENT:
Commissioner Andrew
Chairman Messher 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.
~~.~.qHAFILE 5502 -- TIME SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST BY SKIP RDY TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A C-1
N. EIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY
DWFr. LLING) ZONE ON 23.77 +/- ACRES AND TO AN Rol-CH (ONE
FAMIL-~WELLING-CHURCH) ZONE ON 2.5 +/- ACRES. CONTAINING
A TOTAL O-~6.27 +/- ACRES FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
EAST AND WES'"I~QF WIBLE ROAD. NORTH OF BERKSHIRE ROAD,
AND SOUTH OF TH~?A, RVIN-EDISON CANAL (Continued from the regular
meeting of April 21, 1994) ~"~was d~t
Staff report recommending approval
the last hearing, however
Chairman Messnet said the public hearing was
upon a request by Mr. Callagy he recognized him. ~.~
OR~GINAt.
RESOLUTION NO. 19-94
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF TITLE SIXTEEN OF
THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
MINIMUM LOT DESIGN STANDARDS AND REQUIRED
FINDINGS FOR REDUCTION OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield, filed an application requesting amendment
to portions of Section 16.28.170 of the Municipal Code relating to minimum lot size standards
and the findings required to reduces minimum standards; and
VVl-IEREAS, the Planning Commission, through its Secretary, did set, MONDAY,
MAY 2, 1994 and, THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1994, at the hour of 5:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a
public hearing before said Planning Commission on said application, and notice of the public
hearing was given in the manner provided in Title Seventeen of the Bakersfield Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, for the above-described project, 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, at said public hearing held May 5, 1994, said amendment was duly
heard and considered, and the Planning Commission found as follows:
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.
The proposed amendment is necessary for the orderly development of the
city.
4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives, goals and
policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD as follows:
1. That the above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.
2. The amendments to the Bakersfield Municipal Code as indicated in
Exhibit "A" is hereby approved with a recommendation that the City Council adopt the
Commission's findings and approve same.
ORIGINAL
On a motion by Commissioner Delgado and seconded by Commissioner Hersh,
the Planning Commission approved the foregoing, and recommend same to the City Council by
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Messner
NOES:
Commissioners Brady, Marino
ABSENT:
Commissioner Andrew
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th
day of May, 1994.
DATED: May 5, 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
JACK HARDISTY, Secretary
Planning Director
ML:pjt
res\1628170.pc
Septemher 15, 1994
3
EXHIBIT A
16.28.17{)
C. Lot Depth. The minimum depth for residential lots shall be 100 feet. The lot depth
is the length of a line that bisects a lot from a point on the front property line measured half way
between the side property lines to a point on the rear of the property. The minimum depth for
residential lots shall be 100 feet except as follows:
1. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting agricultural or residential
suburban zoned property shall be 140 feet.
2. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting a freeway or railroad right-of-
way shall be 120feet.
D. Lot Width. The minimum width for residential lots shall be 55 feet on interior lots
and 60 feet on corner lots. The lot width is the length of a line between side property lines that
is the perpendicular bisect of the lot depth. The minimum width for residential lots shall be fifty-
five feet on interior lots and 60 feet on comer lots, except as follows.'
1. The minimum width for a lot with a side yard abutting agricultural or residential
suburban zoned property shall be 100 feet.
The minimum wMth for a lot with a side yard abutting a freeway or railroad right-of-
way shall be 85feet on interior lots and 90feet on comer lots.
11. Double Frontage Lots. Double frontage lots having a depth less than two hundred
c .....feet will not be approved except where, as determined by the advisory agency, conditions
permit no other reasonable form of platting, or where the proposed double frontage lots abut a
major street and the advisory agency deems it to be reasonable due to such controlling factors as
traffic, safety, appearance and setback. Each such lot shall have a six-foot high masonry wall
(the height shall be measured from whichever side of the wall the adjacent finished grade is
higher) with landscaping (on the exterior side) installed by the subdivider adjacent to the rear
property line or, where the wall and landscaping are to be maintained by a homeowner's
association or maintenance district installed within the street right-of-way and additional
landscape easement or adjacent common lot. Alternate wall and landscape concepts may be
approved in areas where, in the opinion of the advisory agency, topographic or other physical
conditions make strict adherence to this criteria undesirable. Conceptual wall and landscaping
plans shall be reviewed and approved by the advisory agency prior to filing of any final tract or
final parcel map.
1. Walls along side yards adjacent to collector or arterial streets. Where it is found to be
necessary for orderly development, residential lots having side yards adjacent to collector or
arterial streets shall be required to install a six-foot high masonry wall (the height shall be
measured from whichever side of the wall the adjacent finished grade is higher) with landscaping
(on the exterior side) installed by the subdivider adjacent to the side property line or, where the
wall and landscaping are to be maintained by a homeowner's association or maintenance district,
installed within the street right-of-way and additional landscape easement or adjacent common
lot. Conceptual wall and landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with ~ %i0(~4,6,
adopted resolutions by the advisory agerob, prior to filing of any final tract or final parcel map. ~ ~
O]:IIGI~!AL
J. Landscape walls exceeding four feet within front yard setback. The Planning Director,
in accordance with adopted resolutions, or the advisory agency may permit walls exceeding four
feet in height within the front yard setback area of a residential lot when approved as part of a
conceptual wall and landscape plan approved in conjunction with a subdivision. and if it makes the
findings set forth in Section 17.6'1.070 C of the Municipal Code.
O. Reduction of Minimum Standards. The advisory agency may permit a reduction in
minimum standards including lot area, width, frontage and/or depth pursuant to the provisions in
either Chapter 16.36, 17.52 or density bonus provisions of the Municipal Code. Reduction of
minimum standards may also be allowed as follows:
1. The advisory agency may permit a five percent reduction of lot area, width,
frontage and/or depth for not more than 5 percent of the lots in a subdivision if it makes Oa~
findings set forth in Section 17.6'1.070 C of the Municipal Code, along with the following
~,~-~" ~ findings
a. The proposed subdivision is within the density range depicted for the property in
the general plan.
b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the purposes and intent of the
subdivision ordinance and zoning ordinance.
c. The applicant has provided justification for the proposed reduction based on
sound engineering practices and subdivision design features.
2. Additionally, the advisory agency may permit a reduction of lot area, width,
frontage and/or depth in a subdivision if it makes the findings set forth in Section 17.6'1.070 C of
the Municipal Code, along with the following ........... findings.
a. The proposed subdivision is within the density range depicted for the property in
the general plan.
area.
The subdivision is planned to provide a balanced housing stock within a defined
c. The subdivision does not result in an unjustified concentration of substandard lots
within a defined area.
d. The reduction of the minimum lot area is for a minimum of 80 percent of the lots
in a subdivision or all lots within a phase of the tract.
e. The applicant has demonstrated that the development will not require a
modification for the reduction of the required front, rear, or side-yard setbacks on any lot within
the subdivision.
f. The proposed development offers elements of public benefit that justify the
reduction in lot area standards such as but not limited to one or more of the following:
Recreational open space and/or facilities unique to the project.
OAtGI,~!AL
5
° Park land dedication or in-lieu fees at 3 acres per 1,000 population:
Home prices at 80 percent of the area median sales price or less for new and
resale homes in metropolitan Bakersfield.
3. Further, if the project site is zoned for multiple-family dwellings and the proposed
developrnent offers elements of'public benefit that justify the reduction in lot area standards in the
form of recreational open space and/or facilities unique to the project, the advisory agency may
permit a reduction of lot area, width, frontage and/or depth in a subdivision if it makes the
findings set forth in SecXion 17.64,070 C of the Municipal Code and makes findings of subsection
O.2.a., d., and e.
4. A reduction in lot width, depth and frontage in a subdivision may be permitted by
the advisory agency if it makes the findings set forth in Section 17.6~1.070 C of the Municipal
Code, along with the following findings:
a. The minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet.
b. The reduction in the minimum lot width/depth/frontage is for a minimum of 80
percent of the lots in a tract or all the lots in a phase of the tract.
c:. The applicant has demonstrated that the development will not require a
modification for the reduction of the required front, rear, or side yard setbacks on any lot within
the subdivision.
ORIGI~IAI_
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. 3608, passed by
the Bakersfield City Council at a meeting held on the 28th day of
September, 1994, and entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTIONS C, D, H, I,
J AND 0.4. OF SECTION 16.28.170 OF THE
BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
MINIMUM LOT DESIGN STANDARDS AND REQUIRED
FINDINGS FOR REDUCTION OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE
/s/ CAROL WILLIAMS
City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield
By: ~/~/L, ~ ~ r~~--
D~PUTY City