Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/2001 BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy, City Man;~ger Sue Benham Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, November $, 2001, 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:04 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch,-Chair; Sue Benham; and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT OCTOBER 1, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding City/County drilling requirements Development Services Director Jack Hardisty provided an update. The referral to evaluate the differences between City and County ordinances was to the Planning Commission as well as the Urban Development Committee. A sub-committee of the Planning Commission has been working on this for several months to evaluate and consolidate the ordinances and comprehensive regulations. This included drilling islands and drilling zones and reconciling the differences. The sub-committee has one more meeting at the end of November and then will be sending a draft to the Planning Commission in December to have their work endorsed. The Planning Commission will return the draft regulations to the City Council for referral back to the Urban Development Committee. If there are any changes, it can then be return to the Planning Commission for hearings on any ordinance changes. Staff will invite CELSOC members and the BIA to the next Planning Commission sub- committee meeting. ADOPTED AS SUBHITTED ON DECEHBER 3, 2001 URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, November 5, 2001 Page -2- The Committee requested the draft regulations be provided to Councilmembers as soon as available. Due to the timing of meetings in December, it will most likely come back to the Urban Development Committee after the first of the year. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding commercial and industrial development regulations The Committee deferred this item. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding development of new dairies Jack Hardisty explained the County has recently adopted an ordinance regarding "by right" dairies. In principle, the environmental work still needs to be completed. During the County's proceedings, the County indicated the City would potentially have the ability to permit a dairy within the City limits or within the 2010 General Plan area, because a conditional use permit could be applied for to put anything, anywhere. However, staff felt the Resolution adopted by the City Council regarding dairies would not allow it. Staff is recommending taking steps to eliminate the reference to "concentrated, keeping of animals" (hog lots, turkey farms, feed lots and dairy operations) by precluding them from the City's ordinance and adopting a General Plan policy which would also preclude their placement within the General Plan area. Since conditional use permits are required to be consistent with the General Plan, if the General Plan precludes dairies, then it would be difficult to have a finding allowing a dairy within the 2010 General Plan area. This would cover an area of about five or six miles outside the planned urban area. Existing permitted dairies would become nonconforming uses and continue to operate. As the City Council had already adopted a resolution against allowing dairies close to the City, the Committee approved staff's preparing a General Plan policy for the amendment cycle beginning in February 2002 to bring forward to the City Council for adoption. As part of the General Plan referral process, the County will be informed of the proposed action. C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding lot sizes Committee Chair David Couch stated he referred this to the Committee to have dialog and input from developers and City staff regarding R-1 zoning, which allows 6,000 square foot lots to be developed next to existing Estate developments, which have 10,000 square foot lot minimums. He hears from people living in Estate zoned areas, whenever a developer comes in to develop property with R-1 zoning next to Estate zoning, as they do not want 6,000 foot square lots next to their estate-sized homes. He felt there should be some type of buffer to separate R-1 with 6,000 square foot lot minimums and Estate URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, November 5, 2001 Page -3- zoning. He would like input from the development community on the possibility of creating zoning for lot sizes between R-1 and Estate zoning. Another issue he would like to explore is R-1 zoning with 6,000 square foot lot minimums when a developer wants to build on smaller lots. Mr. Fred Porter spoke about creating another zoning for set lot sizes between R-1 and Estate zoning not allowing a developer flexibility. If a tier for lot sizes is added, a developer may have to apply for additional zoning to increase lot sizes. The current R-1 zoning allows increasing lot sizes from the 6,000 square foot minimum up to the next level, Estate zoning with10,000 square foot lots. Jack Hardisty and staff will meet with interested parties/developers for input and create a discussion paper on lot sizes to facilitate the Committee's discussion. Committee Chair Couch will attend the meeting as his schedule allows. D. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding freeway phasing Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle gave a brief overview of the information presented at the Council workshop on October 24, 2001, regarding the status of funding and phasing issues for the freeway system. The phase being planned to start first is the westside parkway corridor between Stockdale Highway at Heath Road to Mohawk Street or Mohawk to Rosedale and then Mohawk to St. Rt. 99 so continuous construction can be seen. The Mohawk to Rosedale segment would open up a section that could be used as it will connect to existing major roadways. The segment that would really make things work will be Mohawk to Highway 99, but funding is $40 million short and is planned to be funded out of the next funding cycle. The bridges are very costly and the City's Corporation Yard needs to be relocated. The City and County control timing and phasing on the westside parkway and Hageman flyover, but Caltrans has a policy that they will be the one overseeing and approving the environmental program and since this segment of the system will be using federal funding, they are also the entity that works with the federal government on funding. It was discussed that other sections of the freeway system may be a better starting point, but the westside parkway has been in the works for over 11 years and the preliminary environmental work, specific plan line and funding make it possible to start this project in about two years. Everyone seemed to agree that it would be ideal to start at Highway178 in the east and work west, but none of the preliminary work, including environmental documents, has been done, so it would be more than 10 years before any actual construction could begin. It was noted that although plans are to start on the westside parkway, preliminary environment work could be done simultaneously on other segments of the freeway system. For instance, a portion of the Hageman Flyover is in the Traffic Fee Program, so some of the preliminary work could be done using funds from the Fee Program. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Monday, November 5, 2001 Page -4- The 24th Street segment was discussed. A strategy needs to be developed and a decision made on the exact plan for this segment. An environmental document will need to be done and from that develop a specific plan line. The Committee agreed that the Urban Development Committee should further discuss meeting with legislators for help to facilitate the process to get the freeway system built. Congressman Thomas has shown interest in helping with a special project, like the 24th Street segment of the system. It was noted, that as soon as the design for the westside parkway is completed by URS Greiner that the exact location of the property needed for relocating the recharge ponds needs to be communicated to the owner/developer of the property. The agreement for relocation of the ponds includes the Water District, Kern COG and the City, with the City purchasing the relocation property. Committee Chair Couch spoke about air quality issues, the Valley being able to reach attainment by 2003,and implications that could have on Federal freeway funding. There will be a meeting of the Air Pollution Control Board in May 2002. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. Attendance - staff: City Manager Alan Tandyl Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Principal Planner Jim Eggert, Planning; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle; and Public Works Traffic Engineer Steve Walker. Others: Fred Porter, CELSOC; Carl Moreland, CELSOC; Brian Todd, BIA of Kern County; James Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Californian; Tammy Brown, KUZZ/KERN Radio News; and Cassie Daniel, Bakersfield Association of Realtors. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers $:~JOHN\Urban Dev2001\ud01 nov05summa~j.wpd