Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 BANI)OWl: 8-16-95 URBAlq DEVELOP14EIq'I: COlqH'~EE HEETIlqG MEMORANDUM August 16, 1995 TO: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR FROM: .. ;:~:7/" STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SMALL LOT ORDINANCE REVISION It appears that the current proposal is unacceptable. If that conclusion, then the problem becomes do we reject the proposal and leave the existing ordinance in place or establish a new set of parameters? What follows is an identification of some of the issues and a recommendation in the form of alternative solutions. Planning Commission's Subdivision Committee Considerations: Problem - Requiring that 80% of the lots in a subdivision be small lots in order to qualify for reduction of area width, frontage and/or depth (Section 16.28.170(O)(2). Solution(s) - 1. To allow subdivisions with lots less than 6,000 sq.ft, in multi-family zones without requiring an amenity or other element of public benefit. 2. Establish a minimum lot size of 4,200 sq.ft, for R-2 zones with different lot width and depth standards. Issues - From public hearing before the City Council on July 19, 1995: 1. The proposed minimum is too small. 2. No element of public benefit for the privilege of being allowed to have lots in single family subdivisions less than 6000 sq.ft. 3. Planning Commission adopted an ordinance requiring an amenity in small lot subdivisions on May 5, 19912[. It was heard by the City Council on August 10, 1994, and referred to Urban Development Committee. It was held in committee pending the outcome of the Planning Commission subdivision committee activity on this proposal. Jack Hardisty August 16, 1995 Page 2 Considerations based on City Council meeting of July 19, 1995 - Problem - Subdivisions on lots less than 6,000 sq.ft, are allowed on sites zoned for multi-family dwellings without any special requirements. Solution(s) based on City Council meeting of July 19 - 1. Additional park land should be dedicated proportionately to the percent reduction of lot area. 2. Elements of public benefit required for reduced lot size should be defined and not left to judgement. ISSUES - 1. If the requirement is for an amenity it will be difficult to define exactly what it should be given the concerns for maintenance, appropriate size, and design elements. 2. Could the existing ordinance work with a requirement for an amenity with small lot subdivisions? OTHER ISSUES - 1. Multi-family burdens open space and therefore these projects should dedicate more park land, or contain amenities unique to the project. 2. Tri-plexes and four-plexes are being built without amenities. RECOMMENDATIONS - Adopt one of the following amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance: OPTION I: 16.28.170(O)(3) - Further, if the project site is zoned for multi-family dwellings, the advisory agency may permit a reduction of less than or equal to 25% of lot area in a single family subdivision. A public benefit to justify the reduction in lot area standards as set forth below shall be required. A. Park land dedication or in-lieu fees at 25% more than the standard rate for all lots in the subdivision. B. Park land development fees at 25% more than the standard rate for all lots in the subdivision. Jack Hardisty August 16, 1995 Page 3 OPTION II: 16.28.170(0)3 - 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 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. Amenities Options 1. Payment of increased fees for enhancements to existing parks. 2. Construction of a mini-park. a. Minimum 2.5 usable acres - (source: 2010 General Plan). b. Improvements: tot lot, trees, picnic areas with benches and barbecue pits, open space area for sports activities. SG:pjt m\mjh8.3 Comparison of Percent Lot Reduction to Percent Increase in Park Requirements LOT SIZE REDUCTION Standard Reduced Percent Lot Size Lot Size ~ Difference Difference 6000 sqft 5500 sqft 500 sqft 8% 6000 sqft 5000 sqft 1000 sqft 17% 6000 sqft 4800 sqft 1200 sqft 20% 6000 sqfi 4500 sqfi 1500 sqft 25% 6000 sqfi 4000 sqfi 2000 sqft 33% PARK ACREAGE DEDICATION Standard Increased Park Land Park Land Percent Dedication Dedication Increase Increase 2.5 acres 2.7 acres 0.20 acres 8% 2.5 acres 2.93 acres 0.43 acres 17% 2.5 acres 3.00 acres 0.50 acres 20% 2.5 acres 3.13 acres 0.63 acres 25% 2.5 acres 3.33 acres 0.83 acres 33% Multi Family and Small Lot Subdivisions Comparing Persons Per Dwelling Unit MULTI FAMILY PROJECTS POP UNITS/ NAME ADDRESS LOTS # DU's AC (PPDU) ACRE LU ZONE 1 N/A 6801 Valley View 1 25 1.55 ii:~!?~!::!:.::?:?~i:~?~ii~!~:?: 16 HMR R-2 2 Cambridge 8200 N. Laurelglen 1 320 26.5 ?:?:::::::::::::6: 12 HMR R-2 5 Fuller 1100 Mondavi 1 113 4.9 5i~:~2~,~{~::~ 23 HR R-3 7 4 Plexes 2800 Gosford Road 9 36 Z.V4 13 R-2 8 3 & 4 Plexes 8600 White Rock Driv~ 18 V7 5.48 ??~:?:!~:~.~:~{~14 HR R-3 9 4 Plexes 8150 S. Laurelglen 23 92 V ?:'~0~ 13 R-3 10 N/A 4103 - 4209 ~lt~rberry 7 28 4.38 55 ?~::?~i~i~8~ 6 HMR R-2 SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS LOT AREA POP UNITS/ MAX TRACT SQFT W X D LOTS # DU's AC (PPDU) ACRE UNITS ZONE I 5397 5500 50 X 100 87 87 18 iii~:i: !iiiiiiii263 5 100 R-1 3 5477 5000 50X 100 124 124 22 i:ii::iii:iiiiiii?ili!!!!!!!!i!~ ~i?ii 6 122 R-1 4 5545 5460 52 X 105 94 94 20 !.:ii::i:~iii~?~i~::i:~i 5 111 PUD 5 5616 3600 40 X 90 107 107 18 :~i:?~?:?~iii:~!!ii 6 135 R-2 6 5617 4500 50 X 90 117 117 21 i::i::::.!.!?~i!:.~:i~:!! 6 117 PUD 7 5649 4500 50 X 90 121 121 21 ?:i~:i~:?:i:~iii:~i::i~:iill 6 117 PUD 8 5670 4590 45 X 102 102 102 22 ?::':?::~:::~:~?~i3O~:~i. 5 165 R-2 9 5673 4500 50 X 90 194 194 36 iii:.i:.::ii::?:??:::iiiiiS~il 5 200 PUD 1 5675 5000 50X 100 209 209 40 ?~:~:~:~:~?~:::~:::. ~?~: ~l~iiii 5 300 R-2 10 5682 5000 50 X 100 237 237 56 ~:~:~:~::::~::~:~ 4 312 R- 1 11 5716 5000 50 X 100 344 344 68 ~%~039~ 5 510 R-2 ' ' ~illi~illiSii5 ii~illl ............................................. "'"" '"'""'" ":- ' ' .... 13 5678 4275 45 X 90 240 240 59 ::::~}:?~3}?:~:}}~}}~}}~}}}~3 4 443 R-2 14 5665 4275 45 X 90 119 119 23 ~::~}~:.~ 5 173 R- 2 4,713 48 X 96 150 150 30 :::???~?:~:??~g~?~ 5 201 B A K E R S F I E L D Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Gall E. Waiters AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, August 16, 1995 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF JULY 11, 1995 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. MORNING DRIVE SPECIFIC PLAN LINE - R. Rojas B. SPORTS COMPLEX - Tandy 6. NEW BUSINESS A. MINIMUM LOT SIZES - Grady B. SEPTEMBER MEETING DATE 7. ADJOURNMENT GEW:jp GREATER BAKERSFIELD CHAMBER OF COMMERCI May 5, 1995 c..:~ :~--_< Ms. Carol Williams, City Clerk Ci~ of B~ersfield _: 1501T~ Avenue B~ersfiel~ CA 93301 ~ M~. Willim: The Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce (GBCC) and the member businesses it represents have monitored the development of plans to construct a multi-use sports complex in Bakersfield. As members of our organization reviewed the various proposals for a future multi-use sports complex, it became evident that each would require substantial investment of public funds. At a time when government is in need of resources to fund essential government services, we believe that public support must be determined as to whether taxpayer revenues should be used to fund a non-essential project. Although our members agree that all proposals have merit, the GBCC Board of Directors urges you to consider the following suggestions: · Prelect Comparisort~ - It is ~ that cost comparisons be evaluated for both the southwest and Sam Lynn sites, so that differences in construction and other infrastructure costs can be easily identified. · Funding Sources Identified - AfLer the identification of costs, funding sources must be identified and include the degree to which taxpayer revenues are to be put at rislc · Economic Benefits DeterminO4 - As a government official charged with representing a large and diverse constituency, it is incumbent upon you to give a clear indication of the economic benefits of developing such a sports complex. We believe that the public can fairly assess the merits of a multi-use sports complex, based upon cost comparison, revenue sources, identified risks, and economic benefits. We also believe that this decision should be made by the citizens of Bakersfield through the public voting process. The GBCC appreciates your dedication to the future of Bakersfield and looks forward to working with you in this important project and future activities. We welcome your response to these recommendations and would be pleased to meet with you as well. Sincerely, Bernard J. Herma~ .~,'~ '/~. ~, 7-/1¢ L;~[~t,d Ii)ice Of Bako'~'field Bl~siness 1033 Truxlun A~cnu¢ · R O. Box 1947 ·Bakersficld. Calilbrnia 93303 · 805/327-4421 ~EFERRED TO' iJRBAN DEVELPMNT G WAITERS RE===RED TO- PLANNING '3CHH J HARDISTY ZTSH- REC©RD~ 15140 Ordinance amenCin9 :£haD%er 17.14 of the Bakersfie'!d Hun~cq3a! Code ¢e]a~ing minimum lot sizes for one ¢am~}y dwellings ~nd se%back re~uiremen%s tn L~m~%ed Hu'l~oie Family Dwelling Zones. .ACTION TAKEN .BY COUNCIL. ,~OTION TO REFER TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A dOINT MEETING FOR DISCUSSION OF THiS ISSUE. APPROVED. NS' ~D, lC, ,*~S. T ~, ' ES BACKUP !4ATERIAL AT,Au.4ED v DATE FORWARDED ~v CiT~ ...... ~'". ,~ '~, ~, ~==~ .... 7/=~/'95. Bakersfield, California, July 19, 1995- Page 10 9. HEARINGS continued ACTION TAKEN b. McDermott requested a Joint Planning/ Urban Development Meeting be scheduled to discuss and clarify issues, such as: · Additional amenities below 6,000 square feet in R-2 · Minimum objective standard of amenities · The addition of additional amendities required for all multi-family zones · Do the additional amenities need to be provided at the site of the project or can they be provided as an in-lieu fee that we provide parks in the basic area ? Motion by McDermott to refer to Urban APPROVED Development/Planning Commission Joint NS DEMOND Committee to discuss the issues and CARSON bring back recommendations as soon as SALVAGGIO possible. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.14 OF TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MINIMUM LOT SIZES FOR ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING ZONES. WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider amending Chapter 17.14 of Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code relating to minimum lot sizes for one family dwellings and setback requirements in limited multiple family dwelling zones; and WHEREAS, in Resolution 34-95 on April 20, 1995, 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 City staff, Planning Commission and this Council, with this project determined to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of CEQA Guidelines; 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. AH 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 exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of CEQA Guidelines. c. The proposed amendment is necessary for orderly .~ development by the City. d. The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives, goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. SECTION 2. Subsection C of Section 17.14.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.14.020 Uses Permitted C. The accessory buildings or structures necessary to such use, located on the same lot or parcel or land. Accessory buildings on lots developed with one family dwellings shall not exceed twelve percent of the area of the lot. Subsection B of Section 17.14.050 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.14.050 Side yards. B. For multiple-family dwellings only, where the side property line separates a lot in an R-2 zone from an adjacent lot zoned R-l, E, MH, or a PUD or R-2 project of one family character with private rear and/or side yards, the side yard shall not be less than ten (10) feet for the first story and twenty-five (25) feet for the second and additional stories. Section 17.14.060 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.14.060 Rear Yard. A. There shall be a rear yard upon each lot in an R-2 zone behind every main building of not less than twenty-five feet or twenty percent of the depth of the lot, whichever is less; provided, however o the rear yard may be reduced to five feet if not more than fifty percent of the lot is covered by buildings or structures. B. For multiple-family dwellings only, where the rear property line separates a lot in an R-2 zone from an adjacent lot zoned R-l, E, MH or a PUD or R-2 project of one family character with private rear and/or side yards, the rear yard shall .not be less than ten (10) feet for the first story and twenty-five (25) feet for the second and additional stories. 2 Subsections A and B of Section 17.14.070 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: 17.14.070 Minimum lot area. A. For one family dwellings the minimum lot area shall be not less than 4,200 square feet per dwelling unit. B. For multiple-family dwellings the minimum lot area shall be not less than six thousand square feet, and the minimum lot area shall be not less than twenty-five hundred square feet per dwelling unit. 'When a nonconforming lot has less than six thousand square feet and was recorded in the office of the county recorder at the time of the passage of the ordinance codified in this section, said lot may be occupied by not more than one dwelling unit for each twenty-five hundred square feet. 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. ......... 000 ......... 3 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 , by the following vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: JUDY SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY BY: LAURA C. MARINO ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JM:pjt May 12, 1995 res\ol714.cc 4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 16.28.170 OF TITLE 16 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LOT SIZES FOR ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING ZONES AND REDUCTION IN MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN SUBDIVISIONS. WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider amending Section 16.28.70 of Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code relating to lot sizes for one family dwellings in limited multiple family dwelling zones and reduction in minimum lot size requirements in subdivisions; and WHEREAS, in Resolution 35-95 on April 20, 1995, 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 City staff, Planning Commission and this Council, with this project determined to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of CEQA Guidelines; 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 exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of CEQA Guidelines. c. The proposed amendment is necessary for orderly ~ development by the City. d. The proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives, goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. SECTION 2. Section 16.28.170 of Title 16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.28.170 Lots. B. Lot Frontage. All residential lots shall have a minimum slxeet frontage of 55 feet except as follows: 1. The minimum street frontage for interior one family dwelling lots in an R-2 zone shall be 45 feet. 2. The minimum lot frontage for corner lots shah be 60 feet except for one family dwelling lots in an R-2 zone where it is 55 feet. For purposes of measuring frontage on a corner lot with a radius return, the distance shall be measured from the point of intersection of the extensions of the street side property line and the front property line. 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 shah be 120 feet. 3. The minimum depth for a one family dwelling lot in an R-2 zone shall be 90 feet except as required in 1 and 2. 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: 2 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. 3. The minimum width for a one family dwelling lot in the R-2 zone shall be 45 feet on interior lots and 55 feet on corner lots except as required in 1 and 2. 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 five percent of the lots in a subdivision if it makes the findings set forth in Section 17.64.070 C. of the Municipal Code, along with the following additional 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. A reduction in lot width, depth and frontage in a subdivision may be permitted by the advisory agency if it makes the 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. 3 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. 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 , by the following vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: JUDY SKOUSEN CITY ATI'ORNEY BY: LAURA C. MARINO ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JM:pjt May 12, 1995 res\o1628170.cc 5 BAKERSFIELD Alal;~andy, City~Mana(~j~r / Kevin McDermo~, Chair Staff: Gail E. Waitem / Randy Rowles / Patdcia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMI~EE Tuesday, July 11, 1995 Tour at 12:00 noon Meeting 1:30 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room NOTE: A tour of the Morning Drive Specific Plan Line was held pdor to the Urban Development Committee conducting business. No Committee discussion took place and no action was taken. 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order 1:45 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Patdcia M. Smith; and Randy Rowles 2. APPROVAL OF JUNE 19, 1995 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Urban Development Committee Agenda Summary Report July 11, 1995 Page -2- 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. RESULTS OF PILOT SPEED HUMP PROGRAM Staff provided the committee with a report of the results. In general, the results were mixed. There was a motion to accept the report, with Councilmember Rowles dissenting. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION INCENTIVES Councilmember Rowles has been working with staff to find a way to reward large employees with offices along Truxtun Extension with incentives for meeting trip reduction goals. One suggestion was to reduce the requirement for parking for those companies who encourage carpooling and meet their goals. Currently, companies must request a modification from the Board of Zoning Adjustment to reduce parking requirements. The Committee asked staff to draft a proposal and ultimately an ordinance to address some adjustment based on the new air quality standards. A mechanism that monitors the successful attainment of established goals would need to be established. B. ADA RETROFIT OF COUNCIL CHAMBER Staff provided the Committee with a listing of proposed renovations to the Council Chamber. Some are proposed to comply with the ADA, others are not as critical, but were proposed based on construction and economies of scale. The listing was divided into three priorities: Priority #1 to concentrate solely on ADA improvements; Priority #2 to implement ADA improvements and other amenities; and Priority #3 for total renovation of the Chamber and ancillary facilities. The Committee asked staff to further define the highest priority items and provide a recommendation to the full Council. 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned 2:50 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council GE~N:jp August 11, 1995 Urban Development Committee Agendas mailed to the following: Ms. Kate Rosenlieb 3305 Denver Way Bakersfield, CA 93309 Mr. Bill Slocum c/o Klein Wegis 4550 California Avenue, 2nd Floor Bakersfield, CA 93309 Ms. Jill Kliess 9101 Versailles Drive Bakersfield, CA 93311 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM August 11, 1995 TO: CAROL WILLIAMS, CITY CLERK FROM: JEAN PARKS, SECRETARY I SUBJECT: NOTICE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Per your request, an agenda for the Urban Development Committee meeting for August 16, 1995, which included New Business, Item A., Minimum Lot Sizes, was* sent to the following: Ms. Kate Rosenlieb 3305 Denver Way Bakersfield, CA 93309 Mr. Bill Slocum c/o Klein Wegis 4550 California Avenue, 2nd Floor Bakersfield, CA 93309 Attachment: Copy of your request. cc: Ginger Roe MEMORANDUM July 25, 1995 SUBJECT: APPEAL BY JILL KLIESS Small Lot Subdivision Proposed Ordinance Attached is a copy of a letter faxed to my office on July 24, 1995 from Kate Rosenlieb. I am forwarding a copy to you at Ms. Rosenlieb's request so that she and Mr. Slocum can be notified of any committee meetings that pertain to the above listed appeal. If you have any questions or require further information on this matter, please call. cw\gjr Cit~ of City Clerk's Office ATT: (linger 1501 Tmxllm Avenue B~la,~aeld, CA 93301 RE: APPEAL BI' FILL KLI~S Dear Oinger: As ~ our earlier lelephonc conversation, several people were involved in funding the appeal of the small lot subdivision pmposefl ordinance lhat was heard by the City Council on ~uly 19th, item 9.b. Both myself and form~ planniag commissioner Bill $1ocum would li~ to have our names added to 1t~ appeal, which was continued by the City Council, and_ seat to the joint Urban Developmeat Committee and l~lanni~ll Commission Subdivision Committee for further study and We want to be notified of any and all meetings, titrough eam~ or otharwise ets__t_ occur r~garding this issue. Please notify us as follows: l~st.e Rosenli~b Mr. Rill Slocum 3305 Denvex Way c/o ~ Wegis Bala:tsfield, CA 93309 4550 California Ave.~ 2nd Floor Hom~ 834-2951 Bake~ie!,!_, CA 93309 Work ~;89-5480 Work 395-1000 Th,,t~ for your help ia this marker ~0 'd 0aHBS§508 'ON ~g I~d ITdV 01:5I BAKERSFIELD City Manager's Office 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield · California · 93301 Ms. Kate Rosenlleb 3305 Denver Way Bakersfield, CA 93309 BAKERSFIELD City Manager's Office 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield · California · 93301 Mr. Bill Slocum c/o Klein Wegis 4550 California Avenue, 2nd Floor Bakersfield, CA 93309 BAKERSFIELD City Manager's Office 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield · California · 93301 Ms. Jill Kliess 9101 Versailles Drive Bakersfield, CA 93311 WHILE YOU WERE OUT Phone ( ,) Area Code Number Extension TELEPHONED ~LEASE CALL X Me~sage __ ~ ~ 0perato~  A S T M A N 4C200 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Bakersfield Date FOR YOUR: Information Note and return · ..~.Action Note and tile Signature Approval PL~.F: ~.,/\ Read Investigate Forward Follow up Review 'See me about this Return Make ~,, ~C~2.~_,. ' ' '~-- ~ j ~ecommendation 'R'E IVED JUL..' WILLIAM SLOCUMB 4550 California Avenue, Second Floor All 'Bakersfield, California 93309 (805) 328-5204 Thursday July 20 1995 '" Carol Williams, City Clerk ~.,~ City of Bakersfield , - --'~i -- 1501 Truxtun Avenue ~ Bakersfield, California 93301 I-.~ ~ Regarding: Hearing Item 9B on Agenda of July 19, 1995 Dear Ms. Williams: The Council at last night's meeting referred Agenda Item 9B (entitled "Appeal by Jill Kleiss of the Planning Commission decision approving Ordinance amendments regarding 'small lot' subdivisions in Limited Multiple Family Dwelling Zones") to the Urban Development Committee. May I be provided advance notice or a copy of any agenda of any Council Committee Meeting where this item is to be discussed? Thank you, WILLIAM H. SLOCUMB P.O. Box 176 Co,,~'LT,,o EN~,,EE,S ~,~ Bakemfield, Cali~mia 93~2 L.~D SURVEYORS ~F CALIFORNIA 1501 Tr~un Avenue B~ersfield, CA 93301 ~: PRO~SED MODI~C~ON TO ~TLE 16 De~ ~un~l Members: We hereby request that Secfi~ 16~.l~.D of the Mu~dp~ ~de be r~d to of subdMsion 1o~ ~th~ cul-de-m or ~uc~es to be desired for le~ ~ 1~ foot ~m lot depths. Under ~e cu~ent guide~es for lot desi~ ouffined ~ the above mentioned Se~o~ pr~iom were made to ~ow for redu~d lot ~on~es on cul-de-~ ~d ~uc~es; h~ever pr~iom were not made for ~e ~o '~ifion~ lorn on each cul-de-~c ~d ~uc~e ~at ~not meet ~e ~mum lot depth req~remen~ ~tho~ ~ey meet ~mum lot ~dth ~d s~dent to pe~t f~ ~o~ ~ ~e y~d ~d ~tback requkemen~ of Title 17. On a ~l-de-~c s~eet the mini~m lot dep~ required to meet cu~ent lot desi~ ~teda on ~ 1o~ ~on~g ~e' cul-de-~c ~ appro~ma~e~ 116 feet. Tr~sifion~ 1o~ on a ~l-de-~ s~eet ~ le~ th~ 112 feet of depth ~ot me~t cu~ent smd~ds. Enclo~d s~eet desi~ that ~us~ates ~ you for yo~ ~mider~on ~ t~s manet. Membem of our org~fion world ~ ~d to meet at ~y time with repre~n~es of ~e Ci~ to d~ ~ ~ue. ~ Distributed to: Vi~-President Mayor '~' ~ Council Ben E~i~ E~s Development ~. C~y Atty. Bob H~ H~s Homm ~c. ~r By City Clerk July 21, 1995 City Council 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO TITLE 16 Dear Council Members: We hereby request that Section 1628.160.D of the Municipal Code be revised to allow for the use' of subdivision lots within cul-de-sacs or knuckles to be designed for less than 100 foot minimum lot depths. Under the current guidelines for lot design outlined in the above mentioned Section, provisions were made to allow for reduced lot frontages on cul-de-sacs and knuckles; however provisions were not made for the two "transitional' lots on each cul-de-sac and knuckle that cannot meet the minimum lot depth requirements although they meet minimum lot width and area requirements and are sufficient to permit full conformity with the yard and setback requirements of Title 17. On a cul-de-sac street the minimum lot depth required to meet current lot design criteria on all lots fronting the cul-de-sac is approximately 116 feet. Transitional lots on a cul-de-sac street with less than 112 feet of depth cannot meet current standards. Enclosed is a detail of a typical cul-de-sac street design that illustrates the problem. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Members of our organization would be glad to meet at any time with representatives of the City to discuss this issue. Vice-President Distributed to: Mayor H'WR/II Council cc: Barbara Don Carlos, B.I.A. City Mgr__ Ben Ennis, Ennis Development Corp. City Arty_ Bob Harris, Harris Homes Inc. By City Clerk 25.4' 117.9' 118.0' 25.4' 126 127 C) 7381 s.f. d 7384 s.f. 125 9813 s.f. 1 28 9813 ..... 100' ~,\ ~~ LOT 100' DEPTH 124 x, I 129 6618 s.f. ~ 6618 ~.f. 117.3' 26.0' 26.0' 117..:3' 123 '~ ~ 6906 s.f. ~ ~ 1 30 '~ 6906 $.f. ~ 117.3' 117.3' I 122 ~ '~ 151 ~ ~ 6906 s.f. ~ ~ 6906 s.f. 117.3' 117.3' 121 26.0' 26.o' 152 TYPICAL CUL, DE SAC SCALE: 1"= 40' COUNCILMEMBER -- FIFTH WARD ~ ~'~.:.:~'~ --~--~- 2, 1 995 ,.,ay ~--~-j-.~.~:_:.~._. ...... Mr. Jim Delmarter Rickett, Delmarter, and Deifel 2901 "H" Street Suite 3 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Delmarter: This is just a short note to thank you for your comments regarding Mesa Marin Neighborhood Compatibility Study, and Street Width at South Union and Panama Lane at the May 1, Urban Development Committee meeting. I want to personally assure you that your participation at the Committee level is very much appreciated and any comments and/or suggestions you may have contributed will be taken into consideration by the Committee. The citizens of Bakersfield are encouraged to take advantage of all the opportunities available to address the City Council whenever possible, whether it be at a Council Committee meeting or the regular City Council meetings held in the Council Chamber. On behalf of my fellow Committee members, I again extend my thanks. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 326-3767 if you have any further concerns. Sincerely, Randy Rowles, Councilmember Acting Chair, Urban Development Committee RR:jp 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE ,, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 · (805) 326-3767 TO,, J ;..,,, '~ '~ DATE FAX S February 27, 1995 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: PLEASE ROUTE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: BOB GRANDY SMITH AND KEMPTON FAX NUMBER SENDING MESSAGE TO: 916-446-1499 FROM: Per your request, please find enclosed a meeting schedule for the City of Bakersfield, Urban Development Committee of the City Council. 'The meetings are held in the City Manager's Conference Room, City Hall, Suite 201, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA, unless otherwise noticed. Please call (805) 326-3751 if you have questions. 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 (805) 326-3751 White: Department Copy Yellow: File Copy