The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/14/1996 BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Gail E. Waiters AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, August 14, 1996 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF JULY 17, 1996 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS B. FIRE STATION LOCATION 6. NEW BUSINESS NONE 7. ADJOURNMENT GEW:jp FILE COPY B A K E R S F I E L B Alar~Za~dy,~,~!y_/Manager Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Staff: Gail E Waiters / Patricia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, July 17, 1996 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:25 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; and Randy Rowles Absent: Councilmember Patricia M. Smith (Due to attendance at the League of California Cities Executive Forum) 2. APPROVAL OF MAY 22, 1996 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS Although the issue was not agendized for this meeting, the Committee asked that staff follow up on the progress of the County's fire station location at Brimhall and Stockdale and find out if the funding for the station has been delayed. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, July 17, 1996 Page -2- 6. NEW BUSINESS A. TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STRATEGY Steve Ruggenberg from Golden Empire Transit introduced a presentation by consultants, Barton-Ashman Associates, on the Transportation Investment Strategy which is currently being developed for metropolitan Bakersfield. The purpose of the strategy is to develop consensus on the transportation needs in metro Bakersfield and provide for an implementation plan to place Bakersfield in a competitive position for Federal discretionary funding. The Committee expressed concern that this was yet another study of conclusions which have already been agreed upon as part of the 2010 Plan and previously adopted highway alignments. The Committee felt that it is time to build the highways not study them. Mr Ruggenberg indicated that a comprehensive planning process is critical if Bakersfield wishes to claim Federal discretionary dollars for highway and transit expansion. He further indicated that the City's input is very important in the planning process and asked that he and the consultants be allowed to return to the Committee to provide updates, on the process and gain input. The Committee supported this idea and concluded the discussion by naming several projects of high priority to the City. B.. SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS Staff provided an overview of proposed changes to the site plan review process. Several weaknesses in the process were brought to light during the Marketplace litigation and this proposal attempts to address them. Staff indicated that the revised process could still be challenged; however, it is a significant improvement on the current process without being overly rigid or inflexible. The proposed new Traffic Impact Fee could resolve the majority of problems with our process. However, since it is unlikely that the County will approve it, staff is proposing some incremental changes to the site plan review process which removes language that could be interpreted to be overly discretionary. The revision also inserts a provision allowing the public to appeal a site plan review to the Planning Commission. The Committee requested that staff take a look at project size as a threshold for increasing levels of project review. This was an informational item, therefore no action was taken. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2:03 p.m. DBT:jp MEMORANDUM July 18, 1996 TO: GAIL WAITERS, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPM ENT SERVICES DI~ECT~ SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE PROPOSED A,I~IElqDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE A subcommittee of the Planning Commission has been meeting on two issues referred by the City Council. One concerns elements of public benefit for small lot subdivisions. The other concerns open space amenities for small multi-family projects of four units or less. The committee has completed its review of the small lot issue but is still reviewing the multi-family issue. A draft ordinance is attached that presents the committee's proposed changes to the subdivision ordinance adopting criteria for elements of public benefit. The ordinance defines requirements for active recreational activities alone or in combination with passive activities, subdivision design features and the payment of in-lieu fees. It also gives the applicant the option of proposing something different for approval by the Planning Commission. The purpose of this memo is to request that the committee's proposal be placed on the agenda of the Urban Development Committee for review prior to placing it on the Planning Commission's agenda for review and recommendation to the City Council. The Urban Development Committee reviewed the changes to the Subdivision Ordinance which were adopted by the City Council and recommended the referral of this matter and the multi-family issue to the Planning Commission. Please let me know when this can be scheduled so that copies of the ordinance can be made for distribution. SG:pjt Attachment m\mgw7-17 AMENITIES IN SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS Proposed Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance Planning Commission Subdivision and Public Services Committee June 11, 1996 16.28.170.0. 3. Further, if the project site is zoned for multiple-family dwellings, the advisory agency may permit a reduction of lot area for one family dwellings (as provided for in Section 17.14.070(B) in a subdivision if it makes the following findings: a. The proposed subdivision is within the density range depicted for the property in the general plan. b. The subdivision is planned to provide a balanced housing stock within a defined area. c. The subdivision does not result in an unjustified concentration of substandard lots within a defined area. .d. 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. e. The proposed development offers elements unique to the project that justify the reduction in lot area standards such as one or more of the following: 2% of the gross acreage of subdivision is designed as active recreational area. Active recreational area as selected by the applicant shall include but is not limited to: court sports, field sports, pool areas, indoor recreational facilities, tot lots, playground apparatus areas, and par course facilities. Also included are trails with a paved surface separate from otherwise required improvements (i.e. roads, sidewalks, trails) which are interior or exterior to the subdivision and which connect to public parks, multi-uso- trails or the Kern River adjacent to or within a reasonable distance from the subdivision. The active recreational area claimed as a unique element shall include no more than 20% of its total area dedicated to passive uses (excluding industry_ recommended clear space setbacks for separation of apparatus, sport fields and courts). 2.5% of the gross acreage o£subdivision is designed as combipafion recreational area. Combination recreational area includes active recreational area and pa.qsive recreational area as selected by the applicant when more than 20% of the area claimed for unique element credit is dedicated to passive recreational area (excluding industry_ recommended clear space setbacks for separation of apparatus, sport fields and courts). Passive recreational area is open space such as open turf and tree are~ park-like landscaped areas, informal open play areas and picnic/BBQ area. Unique element credit for active or combination recreational areas shall not be allotted for any individually owned open space, landscape area.q otherwise required by eiB' ordinances or the State Map Act (river access), or natural and landscaped areas required for mitigation of environmental impacts. 5 Subdivision design features such as pedestrian oriented parkways providing one 24" box size tree per lot (species subject to City Parks Department aoproval) installed within a landscaped parkway between the street and sidewalk for all streets within the interior of the subdivision and maintained by the individual lot owners. 5 Subdivisions less than 10 _gross acres in size may pay park land in-lieu feeq at three acres per one thousand population. 5 Recreational Open SPace and/or other facilities unique to the project subject to the approval of the advisory_ agency. p: 16-28