HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/1995 BAKERSFIELD
Kevin McDermott, Chair
Randy Rowles
Patricia M. Smith
Staff: Gail E. Waiters
AGENDA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, March 1, 1995
12:30 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA
1. ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 1, 1995 MINUTES
3. PRESENTATIONS
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. TRAILS PLAN (PLANNING COMMISSION) - Hardisty
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. SMALL LOT SIZES (PLANNING COMMISSION) - GRADY
B. PLANNING COMMISSION EMERGING ISSUES - GRADY
C. WARD REAPPORTIONMENT - Hardisty
7. ADJOURNMENT'
GEW:jp
lqt. E COPY
~ February 2, 1995
TO: GAIL WAITERS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DI
SUBJECT: MARCH 1ST URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMI
REGARDING SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS
Attached is information regarding the above meeting where the Urban Development Committee
will be meeting with the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee to discuss "small lot
subdivisions."
You may wish to distribute this to members of the Urban Development Committee to assist in
their preparation for the meeting. I have distributed it to the Planning Commission committee.
JM:pjt
Attachments
m\mgw2.1
MEMORANDUM
February 2, 1995
TO: MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISIgN
COMMITI'EE ~")/
FROM: JACK HARDISTY, PLANNING,, DIRECTOR~/~
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF "SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS - ~ROPOSED
ORDINANCE CHANGES ~
In response to Council concerns regarding the approval process for subdivisions with lots less
than the 6,000 square feet city standard (i.e. small lot subdivisions), the Planning Commission
Subdivision Committee wishes to discuss the attached proposed ordinance changes with the
Urban Development Committce.
Generally, the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee is focusing in on proposals which
would result in the following changes to the process for approving small lot subdivisions:
A. It would be much casicr to obtain approval of a small lot subdivision in an R-2 zone
because the lot size standards for single family dwellings in an R-2 zone would be
reduced.
B. Approval of a small lot subdivision in an R-1 zone would require a zone change to
P.U.D., R-2 or thc filing of an optional design subdivision.
A more detailed summary of the proposed ordinance changes is as follows:
1) Thc proposal allows a single family dwelling lot size of 4,200 square feet or larger in R-2
zones (17.14.070 A.) with no amenity and no special findings necessary for small lot
subdivision in R-2 zone.
2) Proposal removes special findings section for small lot subdivisions in subdivision
ordinance (16.28.170 0.2.)
3) Proposal amends subdivision ordinance to allow lots 45 feet wide and 90 feet deep for
R-2 zone-one family dwelling lot (16.28.170 B.C.&D.).
4) Small lot subdivisions in R-1 zone would require optional design approval, or zone
change to P.U.D. or R-2. NOTE: R-2 zone change requests will be evaluated by staff
using reasonable buildout at R-2 densities. (i.e. staff assumes development of multiple
family dwellings in R-2 zone proposals for compliance with Calitbrnia Environmental
Quality Act.)
Urban Development Committee
Planning Commission Subdivision Committee
February 2, 1995
Page 2
5) Proposal addresses sidc and rear yard setbacks of multiple-family units adjacent to single
family residential zoning and development, including R-2 single family development
(17.14.050 B, 17.14.060 A., B.) by requiring 10 and 25-foot setbacks for the first and
second stories, rcspectively.
6) Proposal addresses accessory building lot coverage for single family development in R-2
zone (17.14.020 C.), thc same as single family in R-1.
7) P.U.D. application requirements are summarized in Exhibit "C". NOTE: A staff level
permit streamlining task force will also be recommending that the P.U.D. and P.C.D.
ordinance be amended to allow final development plan approval as a staff review at site
plan approval. Current ordinance requires Planning Commission approval of final
development plans.
The Subdivision Committee also requested that staff review street width standards for small lot
subdivisions. The Public Works Department will undertake a comprehensive review of their
street standards this fiscal year. It is likely they will be proposing narrower street and right-of-
way widths dependent on traffic volumes for some street classifications.
The attached exhibits depict proposed ordinance changes and provide information on the
characteristics of previously approved small lot subdivisions.
JM:pjt
Attachments
cc: Jack LaRochelle, Engineer IV
Laura Marino, Ass't City Attorney
Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer
m\mudcl2.1
EXHIBITS
A. R-2 Zone Revisions
B. Subdivision Ordinance Revisions
C. P.U.D. Zone Requirements
D. Summary Chart
E. Small Lot Subdivision Characteristics
Chart
EXHIBIT "A"
Chapter 17.14
R-2 LIMITED MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING ZONE
Sections:
17.14.010 Generally.
17.14.020 Uses permitted.
17.14.026 Site plan review.
17.14.030 Building height. , , v,
17.14.040 Front yard.
17.14.050 Side yards.
17.14.060 Rear yard.
17.14.070 Minimum iot'area.
17.14.080 Distance between buildings on the same lot.
'17.14.010 Generally.
The regulations set out in this chapter shall apply in the R-2 limited multiple:
family dwelling zone unless otherwise provided in this title.
17.14.020 Use permitted.. ,
The following uses are permitted in an R-2 zone:
A. Any use permitted in an R-1 zone;
B. Limited multiple-family dwellings;
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.
17.14.026 Site plan review.'
All permitted and conditional uses pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to site
plan review as provided in Chapter 17.53.
17.14~030 Building height.
Building requirements in an R:2 zone shall be two and one-half stories and not to
exceed thirty-five feet.
17.14.040 Front yard.
A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 17.08.125, there shall be a front
yard of not less than fifteen feet in depth measured from the front lot line. If a garage
or carport opening faces a public or private street, such garage or carport whether
attached to or detached from the main building, shall be set back not less than twenty
feet. However, the garage/carport provision shall not apply to homes located within
Tract 5728.
B. The front yard setback shall be determined by the intersection of the first
or each successive story with a forty-five degree airspace diagonal as defined in Section
t/.04.03.,. Roofs, parapets and appurtenances may not extend more than ten feet
beyond the air space diagonal.
17.14.050 Side yard.
A. There shall be a side yard for the main building of not less than five feet.
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-I, 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.
C. For corner lots, the side yard on the street side frontage shall not be less
than ten feet; however, the side yard may be reduced to five feet for swimming pools
and spas. If a garage or carport opening faces a public or private street, such garage or
carport whether attached to or detached from the main building, shall be set back not
less than twenty feet. However, the garage/carport provision shall not apply to homes
located within Tract 5728.
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 - er. ce ..,u~.~ ,u ..... ,. ,: ........ ,.~ ~
............... v,--v----~ ....... v .......10t
...... : ,- ............... ~, ............... , ...... j .... the rear yard may be reduced
to five feet if not more than fifty percent of the lot is covered by bui]diQgs or structures.
""""i-'"'-"', ~"" ..... : ................................................. j ~,~ gn)'
-2-
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-I, E, MH o~ 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 twen _ty-five (25) feet for the second and
additional stories.
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 shal1 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.
C. Where there is an alley to the rear of the lot, the minimum lot area shall
be measured to the center of said alley.
D. A lot may be less than the minimum provided it is a lot shown on a
recorded subdivision~map approved by the city.
ord\ord.r2
-3-
EXHIBIT "B"
TITLE 16
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PROPOSED CHANGES
16.28.170 Lots.
B. Lot Fr°ntage. All residential lots shall have a minimum street 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 shall 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 shall 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:
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.
p:tl.6.pc
O, Reduction of Minimum Standards. The advisory agency may permit a
reduction in minimum standards including lot area. width, frontage and/ol 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.
December 13, 1994
p:4200a.rl
EXHIBIT "C"
APPLICATION FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE CHANGE (P.U.D.)
Application must include:
A. 1. Proposed uses
2. Natural features
3. Circulation plan
4. Landscaping, parking, rec. areas
5. Anticipated grading
6. Location and type of existing structures
B. Reasons for any commercial uses proposed.
C. Reason for public areas and maintenance.
D. Proposed density and population.
E. General plan conformance statement.
p:pud.sf
EXHIBIT "D"
SUMMARY
Existing Municipal Code Section 16.28.170 O
With
Proposed Minimum Lot Size Standards
STANDARD METHOD REASON FINDINGS
Area (6,000) ®Optional Design ®Physical constraints or ®Physical constraints
Width (5. /60 C) Subdivision (16.36) ®Extraordinary or
Frontage (_ 5,60 .C) amenities ®Extraordinary
Depth (100') amenities
· Planned Unit ·Diversification ·Desirability
Development (17.52) ·Open Space ·Harmony
· Density Bonus (15.79) ·Higher Density ·Specific
· "affordable" housing "affordability" criteria
· 5% reduction for _< ·Engineering practices · 17.64.070 (c)
5% of lots (16.28.170 ·Subdivision features ·G.P. density
O.1) ·Ord. intent
· Sound eng.
..... ' · No. setback .mods.: ...
· ' benefit:
"' .... '- OPen Space.'
: eNo setback.mods
Width, frontage, depth ·General application 'if · 17.64.070(c)
(16.28.170 0.4) lots 6,000 sq. ft. ' ·Min. 6,000 sq: ft.
· 80% of lots
· No setback mods.
· Shaded sections would no longer be in effect.
p:tbl.mls
EXHIBIT "E"
SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED SINCE 2010' ADOPTION
!i::?:. · ':i!~ii::: .:::;::ii:ii:i:ii!ii!:i::::: : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .?? :!. ! . !:::i: ::::::. : ": ::::::::::::::::::::: ~:: :?:iii:.'::':'i:.i?iii: ::?~iiii::i!:::i:::i?' i.: ~::i!!:.?~ft:y:~::ii:: ?
5397 SE Panama/ 87 18 R-1 50 x 110 5,500
Monitor
5464 Haggm Oaks 72 14 R-2/O.D. ** 50 x 90 4,500
5477 Riverlakes' 124 22 R-1 50 x 100 5,000
5545 Mtn. Vista 94 20 P.U.D. 52 x 105 5,460
5616 Campus Park 107 18 R-2 40 x 90 3,600
5617 Silver Creek 117 21 P.U.D. 50 x 90 4,500
5645 Silver Creek 121 21 P.U.D. 50 x 90 4,500
5670 Seasons 102 22 R-2 45 x 102 4,590
5673 Silver Creek 194 36 P.U.D. 50 x 90 4,500
5675 Riverlakes 209 40 R-2 50 x 100 5,000
5682 Renfro 237 56 R-i/O.D. 50 x 100 5.000
5716 Riverlakes 344 68 R-2 50 x 100 5.000
5728 Polo Grounds 80 15 R-2 50 x 100 5,000
5678 N.W. Mt. Ln./ .. 240 59 R-2 45 x 95 4,275
Gosford Rd.
5665 NE Old River/ 119 23 R-2 45 x 95 4,27Y
Pacheco Rd.
2.297 453 48 x 97 4,713
(rtl) (rtl) (ave.) (ave.)
ORDINANCE PROPOSAL (R-2) 45 x 90 4.200
WXD = Width x Depth
O.D. = Optional Design
COMMENTS RELATING TO THE ATTACHED TABLE
A. Since 1990, 15 "small lot" subdivisions (area less than 6,000 square feet) have
been approved. No small lot subdivision application has been denied under
current or previous ordinance. :
B. The proposed ordinance would accommodate lot sizes in all but one (93.3%) of
the small lot subdivisions approved (Tract 5616 - Campus Park). This subdivision
has 40 ft. lot widths and 3,600 square foot lot areas.
C. The average lot width of approved small lot subdivisions is 48 feet.
D. The average lot depth of approved small lot subdivisions is 97 feet.
E. The'average area of small lot subdivisions is 4,713 square feet.
MEMORA DUM
~ December 6, 1 ~'
TO: ALAN TANDY, City Manager ,
FROM: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Dir
SUBJECT: Ward Populations
Union #10 is proposed to become a part of Ward 1 because it is essentially
surrounded by Ward 1.
It also seems to be a good time to re-estimate the ward populations. Using
permit activity as an indicator for distribution growth gives us the
following:
Ward 1 28,954 (includes Union #10)
Ward 2 25,446
Ward 3 .. 26,706
Ward 4 47,347
Ward 5 25,617
Ward 6 28,779
Ward 7 27,668
I expect these numbers are within 5 percent of reality. It will take 4-5 weeks
to apportion growth to the precinct level.
The matter of Ward Apportionment has been referred to the Urban Development
Committee. I've asked my staff to continue working on this so we will be ready
to work on boundary changes whenever the city council wants.
JH/Id
MWP
MEMORANDUM
APRIL 5~ 1991
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILS
FROM: JACK HARDISTY, PLANNING DIRECTOR V.~/~,/~
The Council requested a summary of various itmm~ regarding reapportionment. The
major points I recall that the Council may wish to consider are:
1.. The precinct in which Councilmembers reside should ren~ain in their
respective wards.
2. Ward boundary adjustments will be based upon whole precincts.
Precincts shall be entirely within a ward pursuant to City
Charter. However, the County has agreed to work with us where a
precinct line may need to be adjusted.
3. Populations of each ward should be as equal as possible, though
variations may occur due to geographic, topographic or population
differences between precincts. Neighborhood cohesiveness may also
be a factor in some instances. It has been suggested that ward
populations differ no more than 200 persons (approx~mmtely 1/10 of
1%). Precincts tend to have 700 - 800 people in them.
4. A ward may have noncontiguous precincts; however, how the areas may
be related (ie. common geography, neighborhood cohesiveness, etc.)
should be noted. It is the intent that w~rds be as compact as
possible.
5. Boundary adjustments should affect as few people as possible.
Gerry~%ndering for political purposes should be minimized.
6. All Councilmembers should participate in the reapportionment effort.
The Council is reminded that a final decision for reapportionment is needed by
May 22, 1991 in order for the changes to be completed by the County Elections
Department for the'next election.
Planning Department staff has completed compilation of the 1990 Federal census
data and has calculated populations of all voter precincts within the City.
These precinct populations have been combined to provide the Council with current
figures of each ward population. A map depicting these numbers with ward
boundaries highlighted in color, is enclosed in each Counci~member's packet.
Please let me know if my department can provide with additional
you
any
information for your review.
· B A K E R S F I E L D
Alan T~.~ul"dy,~City ~ar~ger Kevin McDermott, Chair
Staff: Gail E. Waiters Randy Rowles
Patdcia M. Smith
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Wednesday, February 1, 1995
12:15 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room
1. ROLL CALL '
Call to Order 12:40 p.m.
t
Present: Councilmembers: Kevin McDermott, Chair; and Randy'Rowles
Absent: Councilmember Patdcia M. Smith
2.APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 1, 1995 MINUTES
Approved as submitted.
3.PRESENTATIONS
None
4.·PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5. DEFERRED BUSINESS
None
Urban Development Committee
Agenda Summary Report
February 1, 1995
Page 2
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. SIDEWALK REPAIR
According to the Municipal Code, the responsibility for repairing sidewalks rests with the
property owner. Staff has found this difficult to enforce and, therefore, proposed to the
Committee a policy that would address liability as well as resource availability issues.
The Committee directed staff to develop criteria outlining the various repair/replacement
options for sub-standard sidewalks. In addition, staffwill look into establishing a process
whereby certain sidewalk repair/replacement projects will be eligible for CDBG funding.
A Committee report recommending this policy will go before Council at its February 22,
1995 meeting.
B. HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS
The home occupation (conditional use) permit process is a way to allow some uses of
a home for commercial or professional use. However, the ordinance prohibits those
services where customers come to the home, and for services that produce noise,
pedestrian or vehicular traffic or other services' which create "nuisance" activity. Staff
asked the Committee to 'consider granting the Planning Director the administrative
discretion to evaluate the permits on a case-by-case basis, particularly because to obtain
a Conditional Use Permit the fee is $1,000. In addition, the potential permittee would
have to appeal to its neighbors to obtain concurrence that the use is compatible with the
neighborhood. The Planning Director (through the Planning Commission) would have
the latitude to revoke a permit if complaints from neighbors cannot be resolved. The
Committee asked that this item return to staff for an ordinance amendment. Once the
Planning Commission has held a public hearing on the item, it will be brought back to
the Committee for final recommendation to the full Council. The Committee
recommends that the Council ask the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing.
C. STATUS REPORT ON'WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Staff presented the Committee with an Executive Summary from Brown and Caldwell
which transmits the recommended improvement program' and financial plan for waste
water treatment. The summary breaks down the costs over 5-7 years for connection and
user fees at a total cost of approximately $128 million. · More detailed analysis is
expected from the consultant within four weeks. The Committee asked staff to place the
issue regarding CSA 71 on the IGRC agenda for February 10; and to write a letter
requesting that the County adopt a policy to require all new developments to be hooked
up to the wastewater treatment plant.
Urban Development Committee
Agenda Summary Report
February 1, 1995
Page 3
D. PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE
The proposed schedule was approved by the Committee.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned 2:45 p.m.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
GE~N:jp