Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/2003 B A K E R S F I E L D David Couch, Chair Sue Benham Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, October 6, 2003 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1.501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Minimum Park Size and Park Credits for Gated Communities -- Hardisty B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Zoning Process - Big Box Centers -- Hardisty C. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Joint 'City/County Planning Commission -- Hardisty 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~JOHl~Council Corn m ittees~.d03oct06.doc $ DRAFT ~-~ ~ David Couch, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager Sue Benham Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, September 8, 2003, 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:07 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT JULY 23, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Transportation Development Fees Public Works Director Raul Rojas provided background. At the last Committee meeting staff recommended an adjusted fee of $7,059 per single family unit, $4,352 per multi-family unit and tripling the fee for commercial and industrial. The Committee moved the fees forward to the July 30th Council meeting for review and comment with a provision to provide the Board of Supervisors time and flexibility to suggest changes. The Councilmembers provided comment and scheduled a hearing for the September 10th City Council meeting and recommended continuing the hearing to the Joint City/County meeting on September 15, 2003 for adoption of the Phase III Transportation Development Fee Program. The Public Works Director explained City and County staffs have met and made changes to the facilities list to be able to recommend lower fees and also offer an option with a different fee (lower) in the "core" of the City where many of the transportation improvements are already in place. Staff emphasized the cost of the needed 2020 facilities remains the same, but the cost funded by impact fees has been reduced by identifying items on the list that have other funding sources. Approximately $40 million of the right-of-way component was eliminated; dedication DRAFT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, September 8, 2003 Page 2 of right-of-way is already a requirement of development under the subdivision regulations. Many of the collector roads, for a total of approximately $77 million, were removed from the list as construction of these collectors is also a requirement of development. Also removed from the list was approximately $8 million in changes to projects, revised freeway funding levels and recognizing that the West Beltway need not be constructed until after 2020. The above actions changed the total facilities list program costs from $531 million to $406-million enabling a recommendation for lower fees. The Public Works Director stated staff's recommendation was the "Core Area" concept, which includes an area in the southeast part of the City with lower fees of $2,882 per single family unit and $1,383 per multi-family unit in the "Core Area" and "Non-Core" would be $5,813 per single family unit and $2,790 per multi-family unit. Industrial and commercial fees would be increased an average of 50% (some higher or lower) in the "Non-Core" area with lower fees in the "Core Area." Having lower fees in the core area will encourage in-fill housing, redevelopment and job creation in the City. The other option included in the packet was a non-core Metro Area Option, which did not include a "Core Area" and provided for a fee of $5,233 per single family unit and $2,511 per multi-family unit. Staff did not recommend this option as infrastructure is mostly in place in the core area of the City and this higher fee would discourage in-fill housing, redevelopment and job creation as profit margins are lower in the more depressed areas. Public Works Civil Engineer Marian Shaw gave an overview of a memorandum which responded to four points from the Building Industry Association listed in an article in the September 5th Bakersfield Californian, which indicated changes were needed in the proposed traffic impact program. "1. Pull all of the projects not on the Kern Council Governments (Kern COG) traffic model off the list." There are very few projects on the Facilities List that are not on the Kern COG model. Two examples are Rudd Road, which is the West Beltway alignment and Alfred Harrell Highway from Roberts Lane and Manor to China Grade Loop. The West Beltway is not expected to be needed until beyond the year 2020, but money is included in the fee program to preserve the right-of-way. Similarly, only transportation study money is included for the Alfred Harrell Highway link as this connection is not anticipated to be needed until after 2020. The connection between 7th Standard and SR 99 is in the model; the model does not analyze the network down to the intersection level, but it is anticipated the interchange will need to be widened to operate properly in the year 2020. There are a few other links that are not on the early model runs that have been .included in the program for circulation purposes, for instance, Casa Loma is shown as ending at Mt. Vernon and picking up again at Fairfax--leaving a two-mile gap. Similarly, there is a three mile gap in WhiteLane/Muller Road. Without these roads, the only east west roads would be Brundage Lane, SR 178 and Panama Lane---a gap of four miles. To restrict the AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING DRAFT Monday, September 8, 2003 Page 3 Facilities List to only those projects that show up in a computer generated model would result in the elimination of roadways needed for circulation. "2. Reduce the cost of the impact fee to developers when other sources of funding become available." There is a City ordinance in place that provides a remedy for the City to make an adjustment when other funding becomes available for any of the projects on the Facilities List. "3. Keep the ability to do independent traffic studies to determine the amount of the fee." The Transportation Impact Fee is based upon a metro-wide series of average factors for the various types of development--trip generation, peak hours of operation, and the number of projects within an effective radius of the project. Staff's experience with fee related traffic studies has been that they are only presented to the City when the developer is sure the fee determined by this study will be lower than that required. The projects that have a higher impact as determined by a traffic study never apply to have their fee raised to the appropriate level, thereby causing a shortfall in the total dollar amount raised by the fee. The Public Works Director explained not all traffic studies are eliminated. Any Commercial project over 100,000 sq. ft. and General Plan Amendments require traffic studies. City Manager Alan Tandy explained fewer studies have a side benefit of less work load and time consumption for developers and staff. Studies are costly and can lead to inconsistencies as traffic engineering firms may use different assumptions. Staff reviews attempt to make studies consistent, but it is an imperfect science. "4. Phase the increase in over the next three to five years. City and County staffs have established a nexus between new growth and the $406 million Facilities .List. The fees are based upon the expected twenty year growth. If the fee is not collected for the first three to five years from new growth projects, the fees will not meet the 20-year need. There is also a CEQA issue if the fees are phased-in, as the program will never collect the needed funds and there will be a shortfall in the early years. Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle handed out a chart to the Committee that showed the unfunded transportation needs and compared traffic impact fees for new development, unfunded road maintenance needs and unfunded Alternate 15. He explained staff had a positive meeting with the Bakersfield Association of Realtors. At that meeting there were concerns about a perception in the community that the Transportation Impact Fees will pay for all traffic needs, so other funding or a Y2 cent sales tax is not needed. It was explained the Transportation Impact Fees only pay for new development's share of transportation needs and do not pay for huge Citywide transportation and road maintenance needs. AGENDA SUMMARy REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMI'I-i'EE MEETING Monday, September 8, 2003 DRAFT Page 4 Roger Mclntosh spoke regarding the Kern COG model not being complete (collectors not shown); another $60 million worth of projects that could be taken off the list not now shown on the model; individual studies should be allowed to adjust the fees if applicable; and the new fees should recognize traffic studies already completed for EIRs that show different traffic impacts or EIRs should be grandfathered-in even though the projects do not have vested' maps. He spoke in favor of the core concept but expressed because of the growth in the northwest, there is a subsidy going to other areas of the town. Staff exPlained the new fees are effective 60 days after adoption of the resolution, but will not affect projects that have submitted a completed application before the effective date. There were questions if that meant a completed application or a vested tract map. The Committee requested staff to ensure the administrative report is clear in regard to what projects will be under the new fee. Bruce Freeman, Castle and Cooke, spoke regarding some developing areas of the City having part of the traffic infrastructure already in place. He was in favor of being able to do a traffic study for projects with Commercial over 100,000 sq. ft. or those requiring a General Plan Amendment to allow a lower impact fee for that project if that is the findings of the study. He also spoke about doing market research to identify growth to be able to take projects off the list that are not absolutely needed in order to lower the total cost of the facilities list. Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition, spoke regarding new growth paying its fair share and the core plan being more equitable than the first proposed plan without a "core plan." Committee Member Benham made a motion that the Committee support staff's recommendation, but recommended further review of the project list with ithnput from the development community before the Council meeting on September 10 and with the understanding the language of concern regarding the General Plan Amendment study option is clear. The Committee unanimously approved. 5, NEW BUSINESS 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee Chair Couch expressed appreciation to County and City staffs, Roger Mclntosh, Castle and Cooke, the BIA, developers and all those who have attended meetings and provided input into the Transportation Development Plan. He was hopeful there would be support for the plan, so when the City and County are asked to support the Y2 cent sales tax, it can be said the development community is paying their fair share and transportation monies are being spent in the best way possible. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:34 p.m. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING DRAFT Monday, September 8, 2003 Page 5 Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle; Civil Engineer Marian Shaw; and Traffic Engineer Stephen Walker Attendance-others: Craig M. Pope, County Roads; John Fallgatter, Smart Growth Coalition; Ron Brummett, Kern COG; Rob Ball, Kern COG; Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition of Kern; Steve DeBranch, Castle & Cooke; Bruce Freeman, Castle & Cooke; Brian Todd, BIA of Kern County; Cassie Daniel, Bakersfield Association of Realtors; James Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield Californian; Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; Roger Mclntosh, Mclntosh & Associates; Dennis Hards, Mountain View Bravo; Patricia Ebel, Kern County Roads Department; Warren Maxwell, Kern County Roads Department; and Mimi Mok, Mountain View Bravo cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN~Council Com m ittees~o&d0,3sept08sum man/.doc B A K E . R S .F .I- .E L D MEMORANDUM October 3, 2005 TO: John Stinson, Assistant City Manager FROM: ,~ Stanley C. Grady, Planning Director SUBJECT: Zoning Process - Big Box Centers (Agenda Item 5B). The attached material is being provided as background for the subject discussion. It was proposed earlier this year and provided to the City Council. SCG:djl Attachment P:\Memos~.on for big box.doc B A K E R S F I E L D January 28, 2003 TO: COUNCILMEMBER SUE BENHAM FROM: ~ STANLEY C. GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: BIG-BOX RETAIL STORE REGULATIONS In 1999 Assembly members Floyd and Villaraigosa proposed AB-84, referred to as the Anti- Wal-Mart Bill, to regulate the development of big box retailers. The Bill was vetoed by the Governor. The intent of the Bill wasto prohibit the approval of retail stores over 100,000 square feet and having more than 15,000 square feet of floor space devoted to non-taxable merchandise. Some cities in California prior to and after AB-84 have considered or adopted similar regulations. The threshold gross building square footage varies, as well as the method of regulating non-taxable sales. The City of Inglewood addressed the issue by limiting non-taxable sales to 20,000 items. The Cities of Martinez and Calexico addressed the issue by establishing the maximum non-taxable sales at 5% and 7.5% respectively, of gross building square footage. Across the nation other cities have sought to regulate big-box retailers as a category of use. Big-box retail has been defined as large-scale retailers that occupy more than 50,000 square feet deriving their profits from high sales volumes. Examples would be IKEA, Wal-Mart, Target, Circuit City, Lowe's, Home Depot, K'Mart and Costco. This method focuses on the land use impacts rather than business practices within the retail space. The following is a listir~g of sample big-box retail regulations. There are other examples. However, these are most representative of the types of regulations applied to big-box retail. They are regulations based on AB 84, guidelines from a 1998 APA Conference, and standards adopted by Scott County, Kentucky Development Services. ' ' - 1. Retail bUsiness'size cap - establishes maximum gross building square footage for large- scale retailers. (AB 84) : 2. Non-taxable merchandise sales cap - establishes maximUm area as a,percentage of gross building square footage or number of items for non-taxable merchandise. (AB 84) 3. Architectural Character · Forbid "uninterrupted length of any facade" in excess of 100 horizontal feet. Facades greater than 100 feet in length must incorporate recesses and projections along at least 20% of the length of the facade. Windows, awnings, and arcades must total at least 60% of the facade length abutting a public street. .. · Require that smaller retail stores that are part of a larger principal building have display windows and separate outside entrances. Such smaller stores are encouraged by the city. CouncilmemberSue Benham January 28,2003 Page 2 · Encourage greater architectural interest in the main structure by directing the use of a repeating pattern of change in'color, texture, and material modules. "At least one of these elements shall repeat horizontally. All elements shall repeat at intervals of no more than 30 feet, either horizontally or vertically." · Dictate variations in roof lines to reduce the massive scale of these structures and add visual interest. Roofs must have at least two of the following features: Parapets concealing flat roofs and rooftop equipment; overhanging eaves, slopes roofs, and three or more roof slope planes. · Require that each principal building have a clearly defined, highly visible customer entrance with features such as canopies or porticos, arcades, arches, wing walls, and integral planters. 3. Color/Materials · Predominant exterior building materials must be of high quality. These include brick, w, sandstone, other native stone, and tinted/textured concrete masonry units. Smooth-faced concrete clock, tilt-up concrete panels, or Pre-fabricated steel panels are prohibited as the predominant exterior building materials. · Facade colors must be of "low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent colors is prohibited." · Building trim may feature brighter colors, but neon tubing is not allowed as an accent material. 4. Relationship to Surrounding Community/Streets · "All facades of a building that are visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets should contribute to the pleasing scale features of the building and encourage community integration by featuring characteristics similar to a front facade. This policy is implemented by requiring architectural treatment as discussed above. · "All sides of a principal building that directly'face an abutting public street shall feature at least one customer entrance. Where a principal building directly faces more than two abutting public streets, this requirement shall apply onlY to two sides of the building..." · The minimum setback of any building facade is 35 feet. Where the facade faces adjacent residential uses, an earth berm of at least 6 feet in height and planted with evergreen trees at intervals of 20 feet on center, or in clusters is required. · Loading docks, trash collection, outdoor storage and similar facilities and functions "shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. Use of screening materials "that are different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape is prohibitedi" No delivery, loading, trash removal, or similar operations are permitted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., except in special circumstances and where steps are taken to reduce noise impacts. · Each retail establishment must "contribute to the establishment or enhancement of the community and public spaces" by providing at least two community amenities such as a patio/seating area, water feature, clock tower, and pedestrian plaza with benches. " CouncilmemberSue Benham January 28,2003 Page 3 5. Pedestrian Flows · Sidewalks 'at least 8 feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street," and a continuous internal pedestrian walkway must be provided from the perimeter public sidewalk to the principal customer entrance. This internal walkway must feature landscaping, benches, and other such materials/facilities for no less than 50% of its length. · Sidewalks must be provided "along the full length of the building along any facade featuring a customer entrance and along any facade abutting public parking areas. Such sidewalks shall be located at least six feet from the facade of the building to provide planting beds for foundation landscaping..." · Internal pedestrian walkways must provide a weather protection feature such as an awning within 30 feet of all customer entrances. · The internal pedestrian walkways must be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of special pavers, bricks, or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and the attractiveness of the walkways. 6. Parking Lots Encourage structures to be located closer to streets and that parking areas be broken up into modules separated by landscaping and other features. The primary mandatory standard is that "no more than 50% of the off-street parking area for the entire property shall be located between the front facade of the principal building and .the primary abutting street." APA National Planning Conference - 1998 Chris Duerksen and Robert Blanchard ARTICLE I - AESTHETIC CHARACTER 1. Facades and 'Exterior Walls INTENT: Facades should be articulated to reduce the massive scale and the uniform, impersOnal appearances of large retail 'buildings and provide visual interest that will be consistent with the community's identity character, and scale. The intent is to encourage a more human scale that residents of Georgetown-Scott County will be able -to identify with their community. The resulting scale will ensure a greater likelihood of reuse of structure by subsequent tenants. GUIDELINE: Developments with facade over 100 feet in linear length shall incorporate wall projections or recesses a minimum of 3 foot depth and a minimum of 20 contiguous feet within each 100 feet of facade length and shall extend over 20 percent of the facade. Developments shall use animating features such as arcades, display windows, entry areas, or awnings along at least 60 percent of the facade. CouncilmemberSue Benham Janua~ 28,2003 Page 4 (Photo courtesy of Hamburg Place) 2. Smaller Retail Stores INTENT: The presence of smaller retail stores gives a center a "friendlier" appearance by creating variety, breaking up large expanses, and expanding the range of the site's activities. Windows and window displays of such stores should be used to contribute to the visual interest of exterior facades. The standards presented in this section are directed toward those situations where additional, smaller stores, with separate, exterior customer entrances are located in the principal buildings or development site. GUIDELINE: Where principal buildings contain additional, separately owned stores, which occupy less than fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of gross floor area, with separate, exterior customer entrances: a. The street level facade of such stores shall be transparent between the height of three feet and eight feet above the walkway grade for no less than 60 percent of the horizontal length of the 'building facade of such additional stores. b. Windows shall be recessed and should include visually prominent sills, shutters, or other such forms of framing. 3. Detail Features INTENT: Buildings should' have architectural features and patterns that provide visual interests, at the scale of 'the pedestrian, reduce massive aesthetic effeCts, and recognize local character. The elements in the following standard should be integral parts of the .building fabric, and not superficially applied trim or graphics, or paint. GUIDELINE: Building facades shall include a repeating pattern that shall include no less than three of the elements listed below. At least one of these elements shall repeat horizontally. All elements shall repeat at intervals of no more than thirty (30) feet, either horizontally or vertically. o Color change o Texture change o Material module change Councilmember Sue Benham January 28, 2003 Page 5 o Expression of architectural or structural bay through a change in plane no less than 12 inches in width, such as an offset, reveal, or projecting rib. prajccdng ribs rc-.'cnls structural bay layout Expression of Architectural or Structural Bay (Drawing courtesy of Fort Collins, Colorado) 4, Roofs INTENT: Variations in roof lines should be used to add interest to, and reduce the massive scale of large buildings. Roof features should compliment the .character of adjoining neighborhoods. GUIDELINE: Roof lines shall be varied with a change in height every 100 linear feet in the building length. Parapets, mansard roofs, gable roofs, hip roofs, or dormers 'shall be used to conceal flat roofs and roof top equipment from public view. Alternating lengths and designs may be acceptable and can be addressed during the preliminary development plan. (Photo courtesy of Hamburg Place) 5. Materials and Colors INTENT: Exterior building materials and colors comprise a significant part of the visual impact of a building. Therefore, they should be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used in adjoining neighborhoods. CouncilmemberSue Benham January 28,2003 Page 6 GUIDELINE: a. Predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality materials. These include, without limitation: · Brick · Wood · Sandstone · Other native stone · Tinted, textured, concrete masonry units b. Facade colors shall be Iow reflectance, subtle, neutral, or earth tone colors. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent colors is prohibited. c. Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter colors, including primary colors, but neon tubing shall not be an acceptable feature for building trim or accent areas. d. Predominant exterior building materials as well as accents should not include the following: · Smooth-faced concrete block · Tilt-up concrete panels · Pre-fabricated steel panels 6. Entryways INTENT: Entryway design elements and variations should give orientation and aesthetically pleasing character to the building. The standards identify desirable entryway design features. GUIDELINE: Each principal building on a site shall have clearly defined, highly visible customer entrances featuring no less than three of the following: · canopies or porticos · overhangs · recesses/projections · arcades · raised corniced parapets over the door · peaked roof forms · arches · outdoor patios · display windows · architectural details such as tile work and moldings which are integrated into the building structure'and design CouncilmemberSue Benham January 28,2003 Page 7 · integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscaped areas and/or places for sitting (Photo courtesy of Hamburg Place) ARTICLE II - SITE DESIGN AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY 1. Entrances INTENT: Large retail buildings should feature multiple entrances. Multiple building entrances reduce walking distances from cars, facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access from public sidewalks, and provide convenience where certain entrances offer access to individual stores, or identified departments in a store. Multiple entrances also mitigate the effect of the unbroken walls and neglected areas that often characterize building facades that face bordering land uses. GUIDELINE: All sides of a principal building that directly face an abutting public or private right- of-way shall feature at least one customer entrance. Where a principal building directly faces more than two abutting public or private rights-of-way, this requirement shall apply only to two sides of the building, including the side of the building facing the primary street, and another side of the building facing a secondary street. The number of entrances for the principal building shall be addressed at the preliminary development plan stage. Where additional stores will be located in the principal building, each such store shall have at least one exterior customer entrance, which shall conform to the above requirements. ~ ,, Councilmember Sue Benham ,, January 28, 2003 Page 8 Stores with Customer Entran .R~ Public Street Example of a development with customer entrances on all sides which face a public street. (Drawing courtesy of Fort Collins, Colorado) 2. Parking Lot Orientation INTENT: Parking areas should provide safe, convenient, and efficient access for vehicles and pedestrians. They should be distributed around large buildings in order to shorten the distance to other buildings and public sidewalks and to reduce the overall scale of the paved surface. If buildings are located closer to streets, the scale of the complex is reduced, pedestrian traffic is encouraged, and architectural details take on added importance. GUIDELINE: No more than 60 percent of the off-street parking area for the entire property' shall be located between the front facade within the front yard of the principal buildin, g(s) and the . primary abutting street unless the principal building(s) and/or parking lots are screened from --~ view by outlot development (such as restaurants) and additional tree plantings and/or berms. 3. BaCk and Sides INTENT: The rear or sides of buildings often present an unattractive vieTM of blank walls, loading areas, storage areas, HVAC units, garbage receptacles, and other such features. Architectural and landscaping features should mitigate these impacts. Any back or side of a building visible from a public or private right-of,way shall be built in accordance with Article I. The Planning Commission may waive .this requirement as part of the development plan. GUIDELINE: The minimum setback for any building facade shall be in accordance with the B-5 requirements (Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.484, 1- 4). Where the facade faces adjacent residential uses an earthen berm shall be installed, no less than 6 feet in height, containing at a minimum, a double row of evergreen or deciduous trees planted at intervals of 15 feet on center. CouncilmemberSue Benham January 28,2003 Page 9 Additional landscaping may be required by the Planning Commission to effectively buffer adjacent land use as deemed appropriate. All additional landscape requirements of the Landscape Ordinance shall apply. 4. Outdoor Storage, Trash Collection, and Loading Areas INTENT: Loading areas and outdoor storage areas exert visual and noise impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. These areas, when visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets, should be screened, recessed or enclosed. While screens and recesses can effectively mitigate these impacts, the selection of inappropriate screening materials can exacerbate the problem. Appropriate locations for loading and outdoor storage areas include areas between buildings, where more than one building is located on a site and such buildings are not more than 40 feet apart, or on those sides of buildings that do not have customer entrances.. GUIDELINE: a. Areas for outdoor storage, truck parking, trash collection or compaction, loading, or other such uses shall not be visible from public or private rights-of-way. b. No areas for outdoor storage, trash collection or compaction, loading, or other such uses shall be located within 20 feet of any public or street, public sidewalk, or internal pedestrian way. c. Loading docks, truck parking, outdoor storage, utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction, and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets, and no attention is attracted to the functions by the use of screening materials that are different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. d. Non-enclosed areas for the storage and sale of seasonal inventory shall be permanently defined and screened with walls and/or fences. Materials, colors, and designs of screening walls and/or fences and the cover shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors of the building. If such areas are to be covered, then the covering shall conform to those used as predominant materials and colors on the buildings. e. Temporary sales/displays, suCh as Christmas trees, landscape materials, and fireworks, shall follow all outdoor requirements for B-2, B-4, and B-5 districts as described in the Zoning Ordinance. Location and time/duration of such sales/displays shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or appointed designee. 5. Pedestrian Flows INTENT: Pedestrian accessibility opens auto-oriented developments to the neighborhood, thereby reducing traffic impacts and enabling the development to project a friendlier, more inviting image. This section sets forth standards for public sidewalks and internal pedestrian circulation systems that can provide user-friendly pedestrian access as well as pedestrian safety, shelter, and convenience within the center grounds. Councilmember Sue Benham January 28, 2003 Page 10 GUIDELINE: a. Sidewalks at least 6 feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public or private right:of-way; excluding interstates, Cherry Blossom Way, and McClelland Circle. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement as part of the development plan. b. Continuous internal pedestrian walkways, no less than 5-feet in width, shall be provided from the public sidewalk or right-of-way to the principal customer entrance of all principal buildings on the site. At a minimum, walkways shall connect focal points of pedestrian activity such as, but.not limited to, transit stops, street crossings, building and store entry points, and shall feature adjoining landscaped areas that include trees, shrubs, benches, flower beds, ground covers, or other such materials for no less than 50 percent of their length. c. Sidewalks, no less than 5 feet in width, shall be provided along the full length 'of the building along any facade featuring a customer entrance, and along any facade abutting public parking areas. Such sidewalks shall be located at least six (6) feet from the facade of the building to provide planting beds for foundation landscaping, except where features such as arcades or entryways are part of the facade. d. Internal pedestrian walkways provided in conformance with Subsection b above, shall provide weather protection features such as awnings or arcades within 30 feet of all customer entrances, constructed parallel to the facade of the building. This is not intended to extend into the driving aisles or parking areas. e. All internal pedestrian walkways shall be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of durable, Iow maintenance surface materials such as pavers, bricks, or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort, as-well as the attractiveness of the walkways..Signs shall be installed to designate pedestrian walkways. 6. Central Features and Community Spaces INTENT: Buildings should offer attractive and inviting pedestrian scale features, spaces and amenities. Entrances and parking lots .should be configured to be functional and inviting with walkways conveniently tied tological destinations. Bus stops and drop-off/pick-up points should be considered as integral parts of the configuration. Pedestrian ways should be anchored by special design features such as towers, arcades, porticos, pedestrian light fixtures, bollards, planter walls, and other architectural elements that define circulation ways and outdoor spaces. The features and spaces should enhance the building and the center as integral parts of the community fabric. GUIDELINE: Each retail establishment subject to these standards shall contribute to the establishment or enhancement of community and public spaces by providing at least two of the following: patio/seating area, pedestrian plaza with benches, transportation center, window shopping walkways, outdoor play area, kiosk area, water feature, clock tower, steeple, or other such deliberately shaped area and/or a focal feature or amenity that, in the judgement of the Planning Commission, adequately enhances such community and public spaces. Any.such areas shall have direct access to the public sidewalk network and such features shall not be · constructed of materials that are inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. Councilmember Sue Benham January 28, 2003 Page 11 Although Georgetown does not currently maintain a public bus system, areas should be provided or designed to accommodate possible (future) bus service and the growing number of private bus services (i.e., nursing home/assisted living, Housing Authority, Bluegrass Action Council, etc.) Example of a center with numerous special features and community spaces (Drawing courtesy of Fort Collins, Colorado) Development Services - Scott County Georgetown, Kentucky SG:djl Cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director S:\Big box retail regulations.doc B ,a~ K E R S_ F I E L D MEMORANDUM October 3, 2003 TO: John Stinson, Assista~3t City Manager FROM: ~3,~nley C. Grady, Planning Director SUBJECT: Joint City/County Planning Commission (Agenda Item 5C). The attached paper is being provided for consideration with discussion of the subject agenda item. The information was proposed in October of last year and provides background material on Metropolitan Planning Agencies. The closing comments in the paper summarize possible outcomes of collaborative planning for Metropolitan Bakersfield. "Regardless of the course taken there is always room for improvement in planning for the entire Metropolitan area. The city and county could be more collaborative and coordinated at the legislative, commission and staff levels. Joint meetings such as the city/count joint meetings contribute to that improvement. Frank discussions by the city and county representatives and planners directed towards improvements in coordination and outcomes of planning may result in a Metropolitan Planning Agency or some other arrangements by the city and county. Rather than a JPA they might result in a series of agreements to ensure the quality of our future community". SCG:djl Attachment P:\Memos\joint city-county plan.doc Metropolitan Planning Agency For Bakersfield During a recent joint city/county meeting of the Board of Supervisors and City Council a speaker proposed that the formation of a Metropolitan Planning Agency Commission to coordinate planning and growth issues be explored. Those issues might be as narrowly focused as the differences in development standards and land use regulations to the broader pro-development philosophy shared by the city and county. Some of those could be between the city and the county while others might be between the public's expectations and the government planning process outcomes. Certainly, identification of the issues to be addressed would be an important part of such a feasibility study. In addition, there are Organizational issues which would need to be addressed by city and county representatives such as: · Is the establishment of a Metropolitan Planning Agency permissible? · What would be the purposes of the agency? · What would be its scope of authority and powers? · Who would sit as its board?" · How would they be put in or removed from office? · Who would hear appeals of their actions? · What would be its source of funds? · Should the Kern Council of Governments, City Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment, Planning Division, etc. be disbanded? · How would a transition from city and county planning to a Metropolitan Planning Agency be accomplished? A few thoughts are offered for discussion: Establishment: Setting aside political issues, the answer is that it could be done. The most likely way of setting up such an agency would be through a joint powers agreement between the city and the county. The city and county are permitted to establish governmental entities to exercise administrative and legislative powers which they have in common. Both have the authority to plan and adopt ordinances for the Metro-Bakersfield area within their jurisdictions. Purposes: To borrow a line from State Law, regional planning agencies are established to provide for the orderly and harmonious development of urban areas, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries, to provide for the needs of future generations. There must be more of a purpose to a Metropolitan Planning Agency. Otherwise, the same purpose could be achieved by the existing governments. Scope of authority: The Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPA) could be an advisory body to the city and county or it could have planning and implementation authority. A final model could be something in between. As an advisory group it could conduct special studies of planning issues and comment on city and county plans. On the other hand, it could adopt a general plan, zoning ordinances, development standards, hear proposals for subdivisions, conditional use permits and variances. It could replace the city and county planning commissions for the metropolitan area of Bakersfield. It could even have some final regulatory authority. Metropolitan Planning Agency for Bakersfield October 3, 2002 Page 2 The Board: The board of the MPA could be comprised of .supervisors and council members or its membership could be appointed by members of those ele_ct~d bodies. If they are appointed, the number appointed, qualifications and terms of office Would need to be determined. This could involve such factors as populations, districts and assessed value. Appeals: At what level would appeals be considered? Would the only recourse be to Superior Court? Would a jointly constituted appeals board, consisting of council and board members hear appeals? Would the legislative body of the jurisdiction where the case originated hear appeals? Money: Would this agency raise its own funds, set its own budget, bill the city and county for its support? Would it be expected to function on what might be offered by the city and county from year to year budget allocations? Different local examples can be found in the Local Agency Formation Commission, Kern County Water Agency, Kern Council of Governments, and Golden Empire Transit. Replacement of existing planners: Depending on the scope of authority granted to the new agency, existing planning entities might be dissolved. These could include the City Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment, Planning Division and Kern Council of Governments. Transition: A part of the negotiations should address the process of transition. This would not just apply to the effective date but also to staffing, funding, and facilities. The difference a new agency makes: Whether or not a new agency would make a difference would depend on its founding principles and authority adopted for it by the Board of Supervisors and City Council. Fundamentally, the. board and council should decide if the policies for development of Metropolitan Bakersfield are to be changed. Change is a given, how the city and county deal with it is the issue. How much should the city and county or MPA guide it and contribute to it? Is the creation of a third overarching planning entity necessary? What are the expectations of the community? Are the existing governmental institutions, specifically the Board of Supervisors and City Council, ready to give up control over planning? Regardless of the course taken there is always room for improvement in planning for the entire metropolitan area. The city and county could be more collaborative and coordinated at the legislative, commission and staff levels. Joint meetings such as the city/county joint meetings contribute to that improvement. Frank discussions by the city and county representatives and planners directed towards improvements in coordination and outcomes of planning may result in a Metropolitan Planning Agency or some other arrangements by the city and county. Rather than a JPA they might result in a series of agreements to ensure the quality of our future community. P:\Metro Planning Agency.doc