Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/29/1992 B A K E R S F I E L D Ken Peterson, Chair Kevin McDermott Patricia M. Smith staff: Jack Hardisty AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, June 29, 1992 12:00 noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. Oil Well Ordinance 2. Subdivision Ordinance 3. Set Next Meeting 'BUILDINGOF INDUSTRY KERN COUNTY ASSOCIATION BIB BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309- 2501 -:- 805/832-3577 FAX 805/832-0258 May 19, 1992 Mr. Jack-Hardisty, Planning Director City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: Title 16 Subdivision Ordinance Dear Mr. Hardisty: The Building Industry Association of Kern County worked diligently and in good faith with a subcommittee of the Bakersfield Planning Commission in attempting to reach an agreement regarding revisions in the Tittle 16, Subdivision Ordinance. The ordinance referred to your council has, in our opinion, several major flaws of which the BIA cannot support. · The concerns lie within Chapter 16.28, Design Standards. The Planning Commission felt the overwhelming obligation to set a minimum lot size for all single family residential development. Their intent was to apply a consistent standard and allow reductions in lot size only through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, Optional Design Subdivision conditions or Density Bonus provisions. The modification procedure allowed by Title 17, specifically section 17.64.035, will be rendered in operable by this adoption. 'To the regret of those working on this ordinance.? the consideration of simply providinq a more afford- able housing product, through some reduction-in the lot size, was of no consequence to Several of the commissioners. The options provided we're truly "non" options, from the perspec- tive of an .affordability issue. The PUD is a more expensive process to undertake and should be Considered where new entitle- ments are required, i.e. general plan amendments, zone changes, etc. The Optional Design Subdivision is allowed only when physical constraints exist or when extraordinary amenities are being provided, neither address housing affordability, and~. in fact add to the cost of development. The third option rests in the Density Bonus provisions, which are so restrictive and carry such long term commitments in price controls that it is useless as a viable option. Section 16.28. 170 addresses lot size and restrictions. Paragraphs B through E specify the lot standards and we have no problem with these conditions, as long as a mechanism exists for flexibility. Paragraph O of that same section, was the focus of the BIA attempts at building in some opportunity, for flexibility. To some. extent there were some successes, however, we feel it has Jack Hardisty, Planning Director May 19, 1992 Page two not quite met its mark. Findings 1, 2 and 3 are agreed to by our association. Finding number 4 is acceptable.when the intent of the .subdivision is to uniformly maintain lot sizes consistently below the 6,000 sq. ft. minimum. There is one concern, however, expressed by our civil engineer members. There may be some instances' where a subdivision design may very well result in the majority of lots being 6,000 sq. ft. However, due to public access provisions, easement requirements, or property configura- tion, there may result in a certain .percentage of lots that may consequently be less than 6,000 sq. ft. As this ordinance is currently written no reduction would be allowed if only a few lots were affected. Subdivision design is not an exact science and properties do not always fit conveniently into an exact pattern for 6,000 square foot lots. We would request that a paragraph be added to this section as follows: "The advisory agency may permit a reduction of lot area, width, frontage and/or depth in a subdivision if the affected lots comprise 10% or less of the total lots in the subdivision or total lots within a phase of the tract." This ~ould.allow flexibility for those engineering abnormalities which Could result in a portion of the lots falling below the standard. We agree with finding number 5 but must' strenuously oppose finding number 6. Item number 6 requires an element of public benefit to justify a reduction in lot size. We have been offered no clear definition of "public benefit." Item-6 states that the development' mu~t meet public benefits such as the list below, but ]i~ited to those listed. .It also must b~ one or more of those listed. How can the development be .required to incorporate one or more conditions but not limited to the ones listed? How can we pick one or more of the'following if it is an incomplete list and purely sub3ective? The first two conditions listed under item 6 requiring recreational open space facilities and higher park fees or dedications would not be conducive to providing an affordable product. The third item is confusing at best. It requires that the home prices be 80 percent of the area median' sales price or less for new and resale homes in metro Bakersfield. Since this will be applied to new homes, the intervention of resale median prices in not appropriate. You cannot refer to both Since they can be very different. It was pointed out during a public hearing, before the commission, that the Association of Realtors multiple listing service no longer reports median home prices. Their computer system will currently only relate the average prices. There is currently no reliable method to determine the median sales price of new homes within the Bakersfield Metropolitan area, therefore this entire condition is confusing and impossible to implement. Jack Hardisty, Planning Director May 19, 1992 Page three We would request that item number 6 be deleted from the required findings in allowing reductions to minimum lot areas. We would also request, a slight wording change as a result of recent changes in Pacific Gas and Electric utility installation procedures. It is our understanding that PG&E will be installing transformers in residential subdivisions on pad mounts and not placing them underground. We have been told that if the developer wants them underground, it will be an additional $5,000 to $7,000 for each transformer. It would clarify implementation of this requirement by revising chapter 16.32.060, paragraph 11, to exempt electrical transformers from the undergrounding require- ment. The BIA requests that you take under advisement the problems identified and recommendations provided and allow BIA representa- tives the opportunity to meet with a Council committee to discuss further the overly restrictive language currently, contained Within this proposed Title 16 ordinance revision. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Respectfully, Barbara Don Carlos Executive Vice President BDC:bs the subdivider to the city in connection therewith and which obstructions, in the determination of the city engineer, interfere with the use of said existing county, state or city streets or roadways, or constitute a dangerous or hazardous condition to the traveling public. 3. Said obstructions shah be relocated without expense to the city to such locations as shall be specified by the city engineer or in the approved plans and profiles for the 'subdivision. 4. It shall be the responsibility of the subdivider to contact the utility companies or other owners of said obstructions to advise them of proposed improvements, and make direct arrangements for the relocation of and compensation for the cost of relocating any conflicting obstructions. Evidence of such completed arrangements shall be presented bythe subdivider'to the city-engineer prior' to the final approval of the subdivision plans by the city. B. Final acceptance of the tract shall be contingent upon the subdivider providing within and/or outside the tract, drainage disposal facilities, methods or easements as required to receive or dispose of storm water. Said facilities, methods, or easements shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. Unless diversion of water is required to conform to a comprehensive drainage plan, off-site water shah be allowed to flow through the tract and shall be received and discharged at the locations which existed prior to development and as nearly as possible in the manner which existed prior to development. 16.28.160 Blocks. Length and width. A. Block lengths. Blocks shall not exceed one thousand feet in length between street centerlines, except %'here approved by the advisory agency. B. Block width. Except as othenarise approved by the advisory agency, the width of each block shall be sufficient for an ultimate layout of two tiers of lots therein of a size required by the provisions of this title. 16.28.170 Lots. A. Lot sizes. All residential lots shall have a minimum ..... ~, .......... ~..... : . ,~. ~_.3 ~ net area as described in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code o~ H. Double Frontage Lots. Double frontage lots having a depth less than two hundred forty feet will not be approved except where, as determined by the advisory agency, conditions permit no other reasonable form of platting, or where land abuts a major street and the advisory agency deems it to be reasonable due to such controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance and setback. Each such lot shah have a six-foot high masonry wall (the height shah be measured from whichever side of the wall the adjacent finished grade is higher) with landscaping (on the exterior side) installed by the subdivider adjacent to the rear property line or, where the wall and landscaping are to. be maintained by a homeowner's association or maintenance district installed within the street right-of-way and additional land~a_pe easement or adiatent comtnon lot. e: Jr ~,.~,.,~..,~'~; .... ' v,~"'~..,..--~.,,~." '"'~""' .... "~;'"'"~' '~--- ....... ~"~- ~ ';"~'e ....... ''~ ...... :- Alternate wall and landscape concepts may be approved in areas where, in the opinion of the advisory agency_. topographic or other ph~ical conditions make strict adherence to this c~iteri.~ undesirable. Conceptual wall and landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the advisory agency prior to filing of any final t~act or final parcel map. I. Walls along side yards adjacent to collector or arterial streets. Where it it found to be necessary for orderly development, residential lots having side yards adjacent to collector or arterial streets-shaH be required to install a six-foot high masonry wall (the height shall be measured from whichever side of the wall the adjacent finished grade is higher) with landscaping (on the exterior side) insta!!ed by the subdivider adjacent to the side property_ line or, where the wall and landscaping are to be maintained by a homeowner's a~sociation or maintenance district, inatalled within the street right-of-way and additional landscape eosement or adjacent common lot. Conceptual wall and landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the advisory a~encv prior to filing of any ~ ~/nal tract or final parcel map. J. Landscape walls exceeding four feet within front yard setback. The advisory agen~ may permit walls exceediag four feet in height within the front yard setback area of a residential lot when submitted as part of a conceptual wall and landscape plan and if it makes the findings set forth in Section 17.64.070 D of the Municipal Code. K. Lots abutting commercial uses. Where it is found to be necessory for orderly development, residential lots which share a common property_ line with office commercial or industrial zoning or land use designations shah be separated by a masonry block wall along said propert3, line a minimum of 6 feet but not exceeding 8 feet in heigh~ as measured from highest adjacent finished grade. Timing of said wall installation to be determined by the advisory agency_. 6_. The proposed develoUment offers elements of public benefit that justify_ the reduction in lot area standards such as~t..~ not limitecl. L_ to one or more o~ the followmg:~~ ° Recreational open space and/or facilities unique to the project. o Park land dedication or in-lieu fees at 3 acres per 1,000 population. °Home prices at 80 percent of the area median sales price or less for new and resale home. s in metropolitan Bakersfield. .~ ~_ Further, if the project site is zoned for multiple-family dwellings, the advisory agency_ may permit a reduction of lot area in a subdivision if it makes the findings set forth in Section 17.64.070 C of the Municipal Code and makes findings 2, 4 and 5 above. P~ reduction in lot width and frontage in a subdivision may be permitted by the advisory_ agency_ if it makes the findings set forth in Section 17.64.070 C of the Municipal Code, along with the following findings: L The minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet. 2_. The reduction in the minimum lot width/frontage is for a minimum of 80 percent of the lots in a tract or all the lots in a phase of the tract. ~,/,-- ~-'0~ o /3..~."'" 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. 16.28.180 Reserve strips for controlling access. Reserve strips controlling the access to streets or other public rights-of-way from adjoining property will not be approved unless such strips are necessary for the '~ '-' protection of the public welfare or of substantial property fights and the control and disposal of the land comprising such strips are placed definitely within the jurisdiction of the city under conditions approved by the advisory agency. 16.28.190 Al~l~roved access required. A. Each 10t or parcel of subdivision shall be provided with approved vehicular access improved to city standards to a street or highway improved and maintained by a · public agency or connecting thereto directly or indirectly by means of access which has been approved by the advisory agency. Such access may be established by recordation of a covenant of easement in accordance with Section 65870 of the Government Code and may be released by direction of the planning commission, following a public hearing thereon, after the applicant seeking release has paid the fee therefor set by city council resolution.