Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1992 BAKERSFIELD Ken Peterson, Chair Kevin McDermott Patricia M. Smith Staff: jack Hardisty AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITYEE Monday, August 17, 1992 12:00 noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. Freeway Update 2. Rollerblades on the Bikepath 3. Riverlakes Ranch Development Agreement 4. Planning Commissioners - Messner, Powers, Andrew a. Fast Food Driveup Windows b. West Rosedale Specific Plan Review 5. Set Next Meeting CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ . DATE: JULY 30, 1992 SUBJECT: STATUS OF FREEWAY PROJECTS, METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD For your information, attached is a report prepared by this department regarding the status of various freeway and State route projects in the metropolitan area. Since there are a number of ongoing projects, we intend to update the Council at least monthly as to their status. /mro Attach. cc: Ail Councilmembers July 30, 1992 STATUS OF FREEWAY PROJECTS METROPOLITAN' BAKERSFIELD AREA Public Works DePartment Marian P. Shaw, CE III This report is intended to bring the members of the City Council up to date On the various freeway projects in the metropolitan area of Bakersfield. Kern River Corridor (Kern River Freeway) The need for an east/west freeway corridor west of State Route 99 has been recognized since 1973, when it was identified in the 1990 TransDortation Plan and Proqram for the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. Since then, the City, County and Kern COG have been working with CalTrans and have completed the lengthy planning process required to adopt a Specific Plan Line for the Kern River Freeway Corridor'. On April 10, 1991 the City Council adopted the Kern River Freeway Specific Plan Line, which extends from Enos Lane to Mohawk Street. On April 22, 1991, the County Board of Supervisors followed suit, but instructed their staff to work with the City of' Bakersfield to evaluate, an alternative alignment further away from the river between Coffee Road and Mohawk Street as well~ as an alternative alignment in the Allen Road area. On June 15, 1992, the County Board of Supervisors approved a revision to the Specific Plan Line between Coffee and Mohawk to meet the concerns of the Kern River Parkway Committee. The City Pianning Department has not received a request from the County Board of Supervisors for review ~and adoption~ of the revised alignment. This revised alignment should be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council and will require public hearings. However, staff recommends that it may be appropriate to wait for completion of the CalTrans State Route 58 Adoption Study 'now being prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas before the City adopts the revised plan line.. This study will'include the present City adopted Specific Plan Line as well as the recent County adopted revision. On July 8, 1992, a coordination meeting was held at the GET offices between GET and their Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas (PBQD) consultants and CalTrans District 6 and their Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas consultants. The main thrust of the meeting was to ensure that both the CalTrans Route 58 Adoption Study and the GET "Long-Range Public Transportation System~ Study" are going in the same direction. The addition of a transit corridor to the CalTrans study was discussed. CalTrans has i~dicated that the California Transportation Commission is committed to completing the S.R. 58 link between Interstate 5 and S.R. 99. Currently, there is $45 million in funds earmarked for right-of-way acquisition for S.R. 58 as a part of the State Transportation Improvement Program. These funds will be available beginning in 1996. There is also an additional $4.7 million in the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) for "innovative" projects along S.R. 58. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas is presently thirty days into their S.R. 58 study. City staff has been contacted by PBQD and has supplied them with the updated legal description of the City and County's adopted Specific Plan Line. South Beltwa¥ The MetroDolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan established a future need for a freeway corridor wrapping through the south and east part of Metropolitan Bakersfield which would connect Interstate 5 with State Route 58 and 178. The City of Bakersfield has been working actively on studying alternate alignments for this corridor, now called the "South Beltway", since May, 1991. However, the environmental document required for formal adoption of a Specific Plan Line was delayed six months because of funding problems and a contractual dispute. The contract for the environmental document between Kern COG and Harland Bartholomew & Associates (HBA) was executed on May 20, 1992. On July 1, 1992, Kern COG and HBA held the first scoping meeting for the environmental process at McKee School. The timing of this meeting was unfortunate. Not only were the City staffpersons associated with this' project, Mr. Kloepper and Ms. Shaw, unable to attend, but HBA's Project Director, Mr. Frank B. Wein, was also unable to attend. In his.stead, HBA sent two other team members to conduct the meeting and answer the public's questions. There were approximately 75 members of the public at this meeting, as well as representatives from the media. The main concerns the attendees had were as follows: I. What is the process involved in adopting a freeway route? How long does the process take? What factors .are considered in choosing a route and how are they weighted? .2. The route should go well to the south of Hosking. 3. Has the City already made the final route selection and bought right-of way? 4. What is the cost of the alternatives and where are the cost estimates? 5. When will we be paid for our property? The Notice of Preparation required for ~he environmental process was issued by KernCOG for HBA on July 7, 1992. The City is currently responding to the Notice of Preparation. City staff has not been contacted by HBA. Prior to certification of the environmental document, there will be two more joint public meetings. The environmental document should be certified by mid-October, 1992 and the Specific Plan Line adopted soon thereafter. State Route 99 There are several projects along State Route 99 which are currently either under construction or planned for construction soon. These projects are the Rosedale interchange, the Golden State/ Airport Drive interchange, and the widening of S.R. 99 between Wilson and Golden State/Airport Drive. The tentative completion date for construction of the 99 and Rosedale interchange is October of 1992. Additionally, the City has received a grant of $350,000 from the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program for landscaping this interchange. The City has a-conceptual plan for the landscaping of this interchange. Once the conceptual plan is finalized, an agreement with CalTrans must be obtained prior to beginning the work. Under the grant terms, the City will have until 1994 to complete the landscaping at this interchange. The modification of the interchange at 99 and Golden State/Airport Drive is tentatively scheduled to start in November, 1992 with a completion date in August, 1994. The project will completely rebuild the interchange eliminating the "rotary". ~. New ramps, two new signals; and an overpass will be added. State Route 99 will be widened ~to eight lanes between Wilson Road and Golden State/Airport Drive. This project will remove the existing landscaped median, construct a concrete barrier median, install new landscaping on the existing side slopes and install new decorative concrete block sound walls in various locations. This project is scheduled to start in 1994 and will take approximately 6 months. Union Avenue Union Avenue between 20th and Brundage is scheduled ~o. be repaved and improved. The contract includes resurfacing, curb and gutter, wheelchair ramps, sidewalk, stamped concrete medians and some electrical improvements, including some cable interconnects. The contractor for this project is Griffith Construction. The tentative start date is late August, 1992 and the project should be complete within 4 months. ~~ ~EMO RAN D UM ~'. TO: JACK HARDISTY, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR -~ . DATE: AUGUST 13, 1992 SUBJECT: USE OF ROLLERBLADES & ROLLERSKATES ON BIKE PATH For your information; contact was made with a Kern River Parkway Committee representative regarding a proposal by the City to allow for joint use of the bike path by the subject users. The response from the committee representative was as indicated on the attached report. /toro Attachment D7 2. ,~. .:CHUL:-, .'UBL:-- ,~0~.:{£ FROi~: !TEPH£!.! L. ',;^Lb;ER. :'RAFPT,-' :-'~ ~SJECT: uRB^N. L, EVEL'OP!'{:--i-,:'? :./OPI['II ..... RIVER PARKWA: COXI~ITTEE FOR COXMENTS ON FROPO':;AL '?O ALLOW ROLLERSKATERS ON THE ~:ERN RIVER '3IKE i';ATH, .-.'n ^ugus% ~e. L'~92. :!r. ~{zcn ,-_,'~'.lezz. :epr'e~.en:mng :ne '-.ommi%tee. appropriate ac%~vlty ~or :ne D1Keway since peGestr~ans wer~ aiioweG. They ,~o ask that the City consider either widening of the path or aGd~tlonal parailei patn~ in t~e iuture as tra/i~c increases on the o~ke Aath. RIVERLAKES July 15, 1992 Mr. Lawrence W. Lunardini City Attorney 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Lunardini: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 29, 1992. Riverlakes Ranch, Limited Partnership is proposing the following for your consideration: 1. All building fees collected from July 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993, during the deferral period, shall be paid at the same rate as the existing ordinance. Credit will be given to Riverlakes for any fees paid during the deferral period and applied to the fifth year's payment. 2. The current total obligation of $675,000 will be increased to $1,000,00¢. It would be divided into five (5) payments due, respectively, July 15, 1993; July 15, 1994; July 15, 1995; July 15, 1996 and July 1997. Please contact me if you need further information. Sincerely, RIVERLAKES RANCH, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP General Manager/Chief Financial Officer FL/bcm cc: Mrs. Conni Brunni, .Council Member 8900 Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, California 93312 · {805} 589-0408 ',FAX ~805} 589-0631 RAN D U M Augus~ 14, 1992 TO: Joint City Council/PI an ning Co m ,~sio~ommittee ./ ./~' FROM: Jack Hardisty, Planning DirectS. SUBJECT: Restaurant drive-through servic/~ (C-1 zone) On June 18, 1992, the Planning Commission members of this committee (Commissioners Andrew, Anderson and Powers), met with staff to discuss the issues and alternatives outlined in the attached memorandum regarding drive-through services. The Commission members felt strongly that minimum standards should be developed to apply to all drive-through services, especially those adjacent to residential uses. They also suggested that the conditional use permit requirement be eliminated from the C-1 zone as these minimum standards would be utilized as part of the site plan review process. It was the opinion of the Commission members that these standards would benefit both staff and a developer since requirements would be consistently applied by staff during site plan review, while a developer would know precisely what would be required in the design in order to determine if a project could be built on a site. Deviation of any of the minimum standards by the developer would require approval of a modification by the BZA. Therefore, it is recommended by the Commission members that staff be directed to modify the Zoning Ordinance to add minimum development standards for drive-through services, and modify the C-1 zone to exclude drive-through services from the conditional use requirement. MEM'ORANDUM June 15, 1992 TO: Joint City Council/Planning Commission Committee FROM: Jim Eggert, Principal Plan/~e~ SUBJECT: Restaurant drive-through ~epviC'es (C-1 zone) BACKGROUND The City Council has requested staff to put together information regarding restaurant drive- through services in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district. Specifically, the Council is interested in whether a conditional use permit (CUP) should be required for drive- through services fOr restaurants, or could such uses be adequately evaluated during site plan review. Currently, the C-1 zone permits restaurants but drive-through services require approval of a CUP by the Board of Zoning Adjustment. (NOTE: Attached is a survey of what other cities require for drive-through services.) The C-1 zone definition in the zoning ordinance encourages retail establishments and services that mainly benefit the needs of residents in the immediate area. Uses are preferred that blend into the area to retain the residential character of these adjacent neighborhoods. CUP's have been required for drive-through services in the City since the early 1970's recognizing that drive-through services can adversely affect a neighborhood. The CUP process allows the BZA the opportunity to examine such issues as noise (from speakers, idling vehicles), vehicular emissions near residents, adequate stacking area for vehicles in the drive-though lane, lighting, internal traffic circulation, drive approaches, etc. ISSUES/ALTERNATIVES Issues/concerns that have been generally associated with drive-through services have included: * Noise - concerns have centered mainly on the speaker location; however, additional noise from idling vehicles, location of the drive-through lane with respect to adjacent homes, late hours of operation, outdoor tables for eating (area for people to congregate), has also been mentioned as potential problems. * On-site circulation - there should be a minimum length of the drive-through lane to reduce the number of vehicles that would obstruct internal circulation or cause vehicles to stack onto the public street. Other issues with respect to circulation include location of drive approaches, parking layout, pedestrian access, delivery of products, access to trash dumpsters by city trucks. * Air quality - concerns have been raised regarding location of drive-through lanes and idling vehicles near residences compared to a typical sit-down restaurant where vehicles are turned off. - * Lighting - increase in the amount of light and glare spillover onto adjacent residences. * Trash - some comments have mentioned that people do not use the trash receptacles and that trash is throwr~ over fences, into adjacent resident's yards, etc. * Buffering - many comments have stressed the use of block walls and landscaping to help buffer the potential effects mentioned above. The alternatives available for consideration/discussion are as follows: A. Require a CUP for drive-through services. This option would not propose any changes to the current ordinance requirements. The CUP process is flexible in that each proposal is examined based on its own merits. The BZA can establish conditions that are specifically linked to the particular design proposed and the type of uses are adjacent to the site. For example, if there is only other commercial uses nearby, placement of the speaker or arrangement of on-site lighting may be less of a concern than if adjacent uses are residential. B. Drive-through services permitted (would be evaluated during site plan review). The (3-1 zone would be modified to permit drive-through services without the requirement of a CUP. The drive-through would be evaluated during site plan review of the proposed restaurant. However, if the ordinance was modified, it is encouraged that minimum site development standards be required that would apply to the drive- through service (ie. minimum setback of speakers from residences including orientation; drive-through lane located along the street-side of the site; minimum length of space for the drive-though lane for vehicle stacking; use of full cut-off lighting fixtures adjacent to residential uses; masonry wall and minimum width of landscaping adjacent to residential). C. Drive-through-services prohibited (in the C-1 zone or in the city). This option would prohibit drive-through services within the C-1 zone district or could be expanded to apply citywide. This option would eliminate the concerns that would arise when drive-through restaurants locate adjacent to existing residential areas. CITY SURVEY OF RESTAURANT DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICES CITY NO CUP · CUP DRIVE- CUP FOR REQUIRED THRU ONLY RESTAURANTS (SITE PLAN) INCLUDING . DRIVE-THRU BAKERSFIELD C-2 ZONE C-1 ZONE C-O ZONE Fresno -- All zones .. Riverside .. All zones .. Stockton All zones .... San Bernardino -- All zones -- Modesto .... All zones Visalia .. All zones -- Santa Clarita All zones .... Oxnard .. All zones -- Sacramento All zones All zones .. If stds met If stds not met Sunnyvale .... All zones