Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/1997 BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Gail E. Waiters AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 7, 1997 City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF APRIL 16, 1997 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. STANDARDS FOR UTILITIES IN RIGHT-OF-WAY - LaRochelle B. SMALL LOTS - Grady 6. NEW BUSINESS A. POLICY REGARDING REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE - Skousen 7. ADJOURNMENT GEW:jp FILE COPY DRAFT BAKERSFIELD Kevin McDermott, Chair ,Alan Tandy, City Manager Randy Rowles ' Staff: Gall E. Waiters Patricia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL MEETING URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 16, 1997 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:15 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; and Patricia Smith Absent: Councilmember Randy Rowles 2. APPROVAL OF MARCH 12, 1997 MINUTES Approved as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Renee Nelson read a letter from Jill Kleiss regarding the Comprehensive Sign Plan Ordinance. 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN ORDINANCE The proposed ordinance amendment requires that notices be sent to the neighbors within 300 feet as well as those business owners affected by the signs in the DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, April 16, 1997 Page -2- immediate shopping area. The cost would be borne by the person wanting to change the sign(s). The ordinance change presents a conflict for staff -- trying to provide notice to all that would be affected by the sign changes, yet establish a procedure that represents the betterment of the entire city. The BIA does not see a need to have additional noticing because it would stifle creativity. The Committee believes that a mechanism to expand the notification is warranted, but is not sure that the proposed procedure is the most effective one. Staff will return to the committee at a later date with other options. B. KERN RIVER FREEWAY UPDATE Staff reaffirmed that approximately $200 million may be available from CalTrans to assist in constructing the Kern River Freeway. CalTrans is looking for a written commitment from the City and County that their proposal is acceptable. The City Manager will send a letter to CalTrans making that commitment. The proposal is scheduled to be presented to the California Transportation Commissio~ in fall 1997. C. MAJOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STRATEGY (MTIS) UPDATE This was an update from staff and the project manager for the MTIS. The technical group has developed a local preferred alternative to traffic circulation for roadways, maintenance, bus transit and other modes of transportation. The majority of the plan focuses on construction of new roads and maintenance of existing roads. Public hearings have been held on the strategy and in the near future the City Council and other officials will be interviewed regarding the strategy and to develop a consensus. A funding source has been identified for the next 20 years, but based on the proposed strategy, addition funding would need to be identified. A public open house will be held on May 14 at the Holiday Inn. The Committee expressed the need to have the Q Street segment included in the plan. No action was required of the Committee at this time. D. PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE Councilmember Rowles was not present at the meeting. The Chair set May 7, 1997 as the next meeting date. This item will be rescheduled when the full Committee is present to vote on the meeting dates for the 1997 calendar year. ' DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday,' April 16, 1997 Page -3- 6. NEW BUSINESS A. POLICY REGARDING REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE Deferred until next meeting 7. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 1:03 p.m. GEW:jp Jill Kleiss 9109 Versailles Drive Bakersfield, CA 93311 805-664-8643 April 16, 1997 Dear Urban Development Committee: It has come to my attention that the Comprehensive Sign Plan, considered for revision back in October, has come before you once again. This time you are being advised that it is a voluntary ordinance. What part of the law is voluntary? None. This is a violation and a clear misreading of the Comprehensive Sign Plan already in place. I quote verbatim from Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, 17.60.030 which states: "The comprehensive sign plan is a program that may allow developers or business owners of a shopping/business center or other such project, to request special consideration of signs that are specifically integrated into the overall architectural style or theme for that project. Because signage can play an important role in the overall site design in order to set it apart from other similar projects a comprehensive sign plan can create an effect both desired and unique that will enhance the overall environment of the development, ltowever, it is not the intent of this section to be used to request relief of the sign regulations in order to circumvent any requirements or purpose of this chapter." As stated in the Sign Ordinance (17.60.010 A.& F), the purpose of the ordinance is to "Protect and enhance the character of residential neighborhoods and property values by prohibiting obtrusive and incompatible signs," and to [e]ncourage a desirable urban character." The community is clearly included in the intent of the ordinance, and surrounding citizens should have been notified all along. Clearly, as the staff has stated several times, we are only talking about four projects a year that "request special consideration," when following the law. I agree with the City in issuing notice for the public hearing regarding the Comprehensive Sign Plan, but I state, for the record, that the City may not make the law a voluntary condition, and this intent must be deleted. $~llei~s~ /~~Sincerely, cc: Bob Wright, attorney at law Media MEMORANDUM April 9, 1997 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE KEVIN McDERMOTT, CHAIR RANDY ROWLES PATRIClA SMITH FROM: LAURA C. MARINO, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The current comprehensive sign plan ordinance is a voluntary (unless imposed as a condition of development) program which permits the developers or business owners within a shopping/business center to request special consideration of an integrated plan for signage for the center. It permits exceptions from the standard sign regulations if the plan is in conformity with the purpose of the sign ordinances and the general welfare. The proposed ordinance maintains all of these attributes and remains voluntary. The proposed change is to the noticing provisions for the public hearing before the Planning Commission. The notices for the hearing pursuant to the current ordinance are sent only to the "applicant, their authorized agent, property owners and operators of the businesses affected." In the proposed ordinance, notice would additionally be sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the shopping/business center site. LCM\bsb S:~PLAN~vlEMOS\COMPSGN.MMO THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Development Committee ~,~ /~acques R. LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager FROM: // DATE: (/' May 5, 1997 SUBJECT: Standards for Utilities in Right-of-Way City staff has been holding a series of meetings with the Local and State Franchise holders regarding the preparation of a new Ordinance for Street Construction Permits (the local franchise holders are Cal Water, PG&E, SoCal Gas, Time Warner Cable and Cox Cable; the state franchise holder is AT&T). The utility companies have made several suggestions for inclusion in the ordinance that staff is considering. Basically, the proposed ordinance requirements are as follows (new requirements are in italics): Anyone wishing to work in the street right-of-way must obtain a permit from the City of Bakersfield. The permittee would be required to apply for a permit, provide a security deposit for the work to be done, pay an additional deposit to cover inspection fees, pay pavement degradation fees and indemnify the City. No permits can be issued, and no work can be allowed (except for emergencies) in pavement moratorium areas (pavement moratorium areas are those segments of streets, alleys or other public right-of-way which have been renovatedwithin the last three years). The Public Works Director wouM have the authority to stop work or revoke the permit shouM the terms of the permit be violated. Additional items that staff requires direction from the Urban Development Committee include: 1. The utility companies have proposed a three level permitting system which takes into account the warranty capability of the permittee. A franchise holder, whose agreement with the City under the Public Utilities Code (§6294), obligates them to maintain their facilities to the standards set by the City, would be considered exempt from payment of the pavement degradation fee due to their agreement obligation (Level 3). A permittee with a long term relationship with the City and who would be willing to warrantee their work for a period of twelve years through a secured agreement would pay a reduced pavement degradation fee (Level 2). A permittee willing to warrantee their work for a period of one year only would pay the full pavement degradation fee (Level 1). Currently, all permittees are required to warrantee their work for one year only. Is this concept acceptable to the Committee? If so, then the Public Works Director will set this forth as a Department policy. 2. The local franchise holders pay an annual fee for the right to use City streets. The State franchise holders do not (AT&T). Does the Committee wish this to be taken into account in the ordinance? For instance, a State franchise holder could be considered to be a Level 1 or 2 permittee. 3. City staffis in the process of establishing a long-range planning and coordination committee with the franchise holders. The purpose of this committee would be to coordinate the capital plans of both the City and the utilities to minimize the need for utility cuts in newly paved roads. This committee would meet on a regular basis, with the first meeting scheduled for June. Its membership would consist of City staffand construction representatives from the various utilities who would be responsible for setting their company's capital construction schedule. Shall the City "phase in" the implementation of the pavement moratorium over a period of two years with the understanding that this committee will use this time to coordinate the capital programs of the City and the utilities and minimize future conflicts between expansion of their facilities and the City's resurfacing program? - Our next meeting with the franchise holders will be May 21, 1997. At this meeting we will work further on the ordinance and incorporate the recommendations of the Urban Development Committee. Staff anticipates having a revised ordinance ready for the Urban Development Committee in June or July. M 5PERM1TS ~STREET~ORDI~ANC.E~POLIC Y~UDCUPDAT.WPD R_MR:mpa xc: Reading File Project File Judy K. Skoustm, City Attorney Alan D, Daniel, Assistant City Attorney Jacques R. La Rochelle _ Marian P. Shaw ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12.16 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CONSTRUCTION WORK IN STREETS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that Chapter 12.16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 1. 12.16.010 Excavation in the Public Right-of-way. This Chapter 12.16 shall govern Excavation in streets, alleys, and other public places in the City of Bakersfield under the jurisdiction and control of the Department of Public Works. The Director of Public Works shall be responsible for managing the Public 12.16.020 Definitions. A. "Applicant' shall mean any Owner or duly authorized agent of such Owner, who has submitted an application for a Permit to Excavate. B. "Chapter" shall mean this Chapter 12.16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. C.' "City" shall mean the City of Bakersfield. D. "Department' shall mean the Department of Public Works. E. "Deposit' shall mean any bond, cash deposit, or other security provided by the Applicant. F. 'Director' shall mean the Director of the Department of Public Works or his/her designee, and shall include the term Superintendent of Streets. G.. "EXcavation' shall mean any opening in the surface or subsurface of the Public Right-of-Way. H. "Facility' or 'Facilities" shall mean any and all cables, cabine, ts, ducts, conduits, converters, equipment, drains, handholds, mahholes, pipes, pipelin~-$','Splice boxes, surface location markers, tunnels, utilities, vaults, and other appurtenances or tangible things owned, leased, operated, or licensed by an Owner or Person, that are located or are proposed to I~e located in the Public Right-of-Way. Specifications of the Department, the Design Manual, and any Department orders, regulations, or rules, except where the Director grants prior written approval to deviate from such Standard Plans and Specifications, the Design Manual, orders, regulations, or rules. 12.16.050 Applications for Permits to Perform an Excavation. Applications shall be submitted in format and manner specified by the Director and shall contain: A. The name, address, telephone, and facsimile number, of the Applicant. Where an Applicant is not the Owner of the Facility to be installed or maintained in the Public Right-of-Way, the application also shall include the name, address;:, telephone, and facsimile number of the Owner. - B. A description of the location, purpose, method of construction, and surface and subsurface_area of the proposed Excavation. C. A plat showing the proposed location and dimensions of the Excavation and the Facilities to be installed, maintained, or repaired in connec=on with the Excavation, and such other details as the Department may require. - D. A copy Qr other documentation of the franchise, easement, encroachment permit, license, or other legal instrument that authorizes the Applicant or Owner to use or occupy the Public Right-of-Way for the purpose described in the application. Where the Applicant is not the Owner of the Facility Or. Facilities to be installed or maintained, the Applicant must demonstrate in a form and manner specifie~l by the Department that the Applicant is authorized to act. on behalf of the Owner. E. The Proposed start date of Excavation. F. The proposed duration of the Excavation, whic~ snail include the duration of the restoration of the Public-Right-of-Way physically distumed by the Excavation. G. Written certification that all material to be used in the Excavation, installation, maintenance, or repair of Facilities, and restoration of the Public Right-of-Way will be on hand and ready for use before any portion of the Excavation is begun. :i H: .' Written certification that the Applicant and Owner are in compliance with all termSand conditions of this Chapter, the Standard Plans an~l Specifications, the Design Manual, orders, regulations, and rules of the Department, anti that the Applicant and Owner are not subject to any outstanding assessments,-fees, penalties, or other-Permit · requirements. -- Page 3 of 13 Pages -- 12.16.090 Non-Transferability of Permits. Permits are not transferable. 12.16.100 Emergency Excavation. Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent any Person from taking any action necessary for the preservation of life or property when such necessity arises during days or times when the Department is closed. In the event that any Person takes any action to Excavate or cause to be Excavated the Public Right-of-Way pursuant to this Chapter, such Person shall apply for an emergency Permit withinfour (4) hours after the Department's offices are fist opened. The Applicant for an emergency Permit shall submit a written statement of the basis of the emergency action and describe the work performed. 12.16.110 Moratorium Areas - No Permit Shall Be Issued Permission to excavate in newly renovated streets wiii n°tbegranted for three (3) years after completion of street renovation as shown by the:-filing of a Notice of Completion. Utilities shall determine alternate methods of making necessary repairs to avoid excavating in newly renovated streets. Exceptions to. the above are as follows: A. Emergency which endangerS life or property. B. Interruption of essential utility service: C. Work that;is mandated by CitY;. State or Federal legislation. D. Service for buildings where no other reasonable means of providing service exists. · E.. Other Situations deemed by the City Council to be in the best interest of the general..public. ': .?~i.~:...' :' All permits which:ere issued under A through E above shall be in accordance with the Standards, details'and specifications established by and on file in the office of the Director. '~" 12.16.120 . Liability and Indemnification. A. Liability u.~on Permittee. Each Owner and Permittee is wholly responsible for the quality of the work performed in the Public Right-of-Way and both the OWner and Permittee are jointly and severally liable all consequences of any condition of such work -- Page 5 of 13 Pages -- 12.16.150 Pavement Degradation Fee. A. Except as otherwise required for utility excavators by the Director, no permit shall be issued under the requirements of this Chapter until the payment of a non- refundable pavement degradation fee is made to the Director or his designee. This payment degradation fee shall be imposed as follows: 1. Where the payment .is in "good" condition; cuts are allowed with payment of a pavement degradation fee as established by Chapter 3.70 and by Resolution of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield; 2. Where the pavement is in "fair" condition, cuts are allowed with payment of one-half (I/=) of the pavement degradation fee; : .... 3. Where the pavement is in "poor" condition, cuts are allowed without payment of the pavement degradation fee; 4. Where the pavement scheduled for resurfacing or renovation within the next two (2) fiscal years, cuts are allowed without paymentof, the fee. 5. Where permission:to excavate in newly renovated streets has been granted pursuant to Section 12.16.110, payment of the full pavement degradation fee will be required. B. In all cases, the pavement condition will be based on the "Pavement Index" as established in the City'Public Works Department's Pavement Management System. C....'. In all cases.where cuts. are allowed, the permittee is required to patch their cuts to City standards. All pavement degradation fees received under the requirements of this Section shall be expended solely for the purpose of resurfacing or renovation of City streets. ' - Di' Utility excavators shall post the fee required by the Director or in conformance with a franchise agreement between the City and the utility excavator. 12.16.160 Additional Fees for Excavation. . In inStanCes where administration of this Chapter or inspection of an Excavation is or will beunusually costly to the Department, the Director may require an Applicant to pay any additional sum in excess of any amount charged elsewhere in this Chapter. The additional sum shall be sufficient to recover actual' costs incurred by the DeparthTent and shall be charged on a time and materials basis. Whenever additional fees are charged, -- Page 7 of 13 Pages -- B. Modification to Requirements. Upon written request from the Permittee, the Director, in his or her discretion, may approve in writing modifications to the requirements of this Chapter. C. Incomplete Work and Completion bY the Department. In any case where an Excavation is not completed or restored in the time and manner specified in the permit, this Chapter, the Standard Plans and Specifications, the Design Manual, or the orders, regulations, and rules of the Department, the Director shall order the Owner or Permittee to complete the work as directed within twenty-four (24) hours. If the Owner or Permittee should fail, neglect, or refuse to comply with the order, the Director may complete or cause to be completed such work in such manner as the Director deems expedient and appropriate. The Owner or Permittee shall compensate the Department for.any costs associated with the administration, construction, consultants, equipment;.'.inspection, notifications, remediation, repair, restoration, or any other actual ~,osts incurred by the Department or other departments or agencies of the City made necessary by said work. 12.16.210 Repair by the Department. · A. In the event any Person(s) fails, neglects;, or refuses to repair or restore any condition pursuant to the Director's notice as set forth in this Chapter, the Director may repair or restore, or cause to be repaired or restored;.~ such condition in such manner as the Director deems expedient and appropriate. The PersOn(s) identified by the Director as the responsible pa _rty shall compensate the Department for any costs associated with the administration, construction;~ consultants, equipment, inspection, notification, remediation, repair, restoration,, or any other actual costs incurred by the Department or other departments or agencies of the City made necessary by reason of the repair or restoration undertaken by the Department;:'' B. Repair or restoration by the Department in accordance with this Chapter shall - not relieve the Person(s) fromany land all liability at the site of the repair or restoration, including, but not. limited to, future failures. 12.16.220 Emergency Remediation by the Department A. If, in the judgment of the Director, the site of an Excavation is considered hazardous, constitutes a public nuisance, public emergency, or other imminent threat to the public health, safety, or welfare that requires immediate action, the Director may order the condition remedied by written, oral, telephonic or facsimile communication to the Owner, Applicant, or any agent thereof and shall designate the Owner or Applicant as the responsible party. -- Page 9 of 13 Pages -- E. The Director, or his or her designated representative, is responsible for charging and collecting any penalty or fee assessed pursuant to this Section. The Director shall notify in writing the Person responsible for the violation of the cost of the penalty and fee and declare that such costs are due and payable to the City. If the penalty and fee are not paid within thirty (30) days of this notice, the Director shall pursue collection of the penalty and fee. F. Any Person who has been assessed administrative penalties or fees may seek administrative review of such penalties and fees by filing an appeal with Director that specifies in detail the basis for appeal. Within twenty (20) days-of the receipt of the appeal, unless extended by mutual agreement of the affected parties, the Director shall cause a headng to be held before the City Council. The decision of the City Council. shall be final. '" 12.16.250 Civil Penalties and Fees. A. The Director may call upon the City Attorney to' maintain an action for injunction, summary abatement, or abatement ofany violationof this Chapter, and for assessment and recovery of a civil penalty and attorneys fees for. such violation. B. Any person who violates this Chapter may be. liable for a civil penalty, not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500) for each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue. Such penalty shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought by the City Attorney in any court of competent jurisdiction. In assessing the amount of the civil penalty, the court may consider any one or more of.the relevant circumstances presented by any of the parties to the case, including, but not. limited to, the following: the nature and seriousness'of the misconduct, the number of violations, the persistence of the misconduct, the length of time over which the misconduct occurred, the willfulness of the defendant's misconduct, and the defendant's assets, liabilities, and net worth. The City Attorney may also seek recovery of the attorneys fees and costs incurred in bringing a civil action pursuant to this Section. C. In' unde~taking.~enforcement of this Chapter, the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote:the general welfare. It is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, any obligation for which it is liable in money damages to any person who claims that any breach of duty related to or arising from this Chapter proximately caused their injury. 12,16,260 . "Criminal Penalties and Fees, A. The City may institute criminal proceedings in the enforcement of this Chapter as set forth in the Bakersfield Municipal Code.Chapter 1.40. : ..... -- Page 11 of 13 Pages -- I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield:- APPROVED: BOB PRICE, MAYOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVEDASTO FORM:" JUDY K. SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY~. . . By:. ~.' ALAN D. DANIEL :"i: Assistant City. Attorney ::? :' i: City of Bakersfield ADD:dlr S:'~7.QUNClL~QRD~STREET.ORD-May 1, 1997 - .. · ....... -- Page 13 of 13 Pages -- TO: CITY COUNCIL URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REFERRAL REGARDING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL APARTMENT PROJECTS BACKGROUND: In October 1995. the Urban Development Committee referred two issues to the Planning Commission for consideration. These items were: 1) Definition of elements unique to the project for "small lot" single family subdivisions; and 2) Open space requirements for small lot apartment projects. Item one (I) has been addressed on the Council approved ordinance changes clarifying the requirements for small lot subdivisions at their January 22, 1997, and February. 19, 1997, Council meetings. This transmittal is in response to the second item. The proposal by the Planning Commission Subdivision and Public Services Committee. which consists of Commissioners Bovle (ChairmanL Brady and Hersh. specifically addresses two (2) to tbur (4) unit multiple family developn~ent projects. At its committee meeting of December 16, 1996. the Commission committee members requested that staff provide the Council Urban Development committee with this proposal for input and direction. PROPOSED CHANGE~;: The Planning Commission committee recommends development standards which promote visual diversity, through architectural variation, setback staggering and landscape enhancement. Three options would be available to applicants. These options are as follows: Option A 1) When five or more adjacent lots exist for the purpose of providing multiple family housing, every third lot shall have a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. Urban Development Committee January 16. 1997 Page 2 No more than two adjacent lots shall be occupied with multiple familv structures having identical wall and roof lines on the street side elevation(s). 3) No more than two adjacent multiple family dwelling units shall have identical wall and rooflines. In the alternative, in addition to required landscaping, the developer shall provide one 24" box size tree in front of each dwelling unit. 4) In addition to the landscaping required in the Citw's site plan review ordinance. every, multiple family dwelling project shall include one "fast-erowinff' (beeins to assume its mature landscape form in I-4 years) 24" box t~ee~vithin~the fr~)nt yard setback for every, 50 feet of linear lot frontage (or portion thereof}. 5) All mechanical equipment, whether on the roof or ground shall be screened from -view from the street. Utility, meters and equipment must be placed in locations which are not exposed to view from the street or must be architecturally screened from view from the street. Option B - 1) Dwelling units subject to the front yard setback shall be designed so that the units front elevation and primary, pedestrian entrance face the street. The garage for such a unit need not face the street. 2) No more than two adjacent lots shall be occupied with multiple family structures having identical wall and roof lines on the street side elevation(s). 3) In addition to the landscaping required in the Ci .ty's site plan review ordinance, everv multiple family dwelling project shall include one "fast-growing" (begins to assume'its mature landscape form in 1-4 years) 24" box tree within the front yard setback for every, 50 feet of linear lot frontage (or portion thereof). 4) All mechanical equipment, whether on the roof or ground shall be screened from view from the street. Utility meters and equipment must be placed in locations which are not exposed to view from the street or must be architecturally screened from view from the street. O_~tion C l) Submission of development plans to the Planning Commission through the Planning Director for review and approval of architecture and site layout on a parcel-by-parcel basis or at the tentative tract stage. Urban Development Committee January 16, 1997 Page 3 Plans shall adhere to city site plan review and ordinance design standards and be designed to meet the intent of this resolution and specifically address setbacks, architectural diversity, landscaping, and shielding of mechanical equipment and utilities. The Planning Commission committee arrived at these options after review of existing development standards and a mobile committee meeting in August of 1996 with City staff and representatives from the Building Industry. Association (BIA). During the field visits to various four-plex development projects, Commissioner concerns focused on the need for architectural diversity, spatial diversity, increased landscaping and the screening of utility meters and mechanical equipment (air conditioners). The committee is of the opinion that there is a lack of architectural diversity in many of these projects because building height, bulk and facades are the same throughout a project, and there is too much hardscape in the projects because concrete pavement between structures dominates the landscape and tree specimens used in landscaping are too-small. Options A and B provide development standards for staggered front yard setbacks, variation in roof lines, increased landscaping and screening of mechanical equipment. These standards would be implemented and enforced during the normal site plan review process. No delays in permit processing would result from selection of Options A or B. Selection by the applicant of Option C would require review and approval of site plans and elevations at an advertised public hearing by the Planning Commission at the tentative tract stage or on a parcel-by- parcel basis. A fee of $330 (current fee) would be charged to process such plans through the Commission. The BIA has been present at Commission committee meetings. The BIA is of the opinion that the Commission committee veered from their appointed course of addressing open space and that the recommended design criteria are unnecessary and cumbersome. JM:pjt m~nudc 12-2 MEMORANDUM April 11, 1997 TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE KEVIN McDERMOTT m CHAIR RANDY ROWLES PATRIClA SMITH FROM: LAURA C. MARINO, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE POLICY On April 9, 1997, the City Council referred the subject of continuances and the need for a policy to address them to the Urban Development Committee. Since that time, we have prepared three versions of the continuance policy resolution. The first, which is the most restrictive, permits continuances only for one of the listed reasons. The second permits one continuance for good cause, and further continuances only for one of the listed reasons. The third permits a continuance for "good cause," as determined by the hearing body. Under all three policies, the party requesting the application must place the reason therefor on the record. Those opposing the continuance must be permitted to speak in opposition to the granting of the continuance. Last, the hearing body must open the public hearing and permit anyone wishing to testify at that time to do so. On April 11, 1997 Roger Mclntosh, representing the BIA, met with City Attorney Judy K. Skousen and myself. Mr. Mclntosh was concerned that the continuance policy was too restrictive and did not cover many good reasons for continuance. Mr. Mclntosh has stated that he prefers the third option. LCM\bsb S:~PLANWIEMOS\CONTIN.MEM RESOLUTION NO. A POLICY RESOLUTION ADDRESSING THE GRANTING OF CONTINUANCES BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT AND CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, applicants appearing before the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment and City Council occasionally request continuances; and WHEREAS, continuances, when granted, often create hardships for those members of the public who wish to testify in the public hearing concerning the proposed project; and WHEREAS, it is a policy and goal of the City to streamline all governmental processes and to efficiently process development applications; and WHEREAS, continuances granted without good cause only serve to slow the process and create unwarranted inefficiencies; and WHEREAS, it is not appropriate for requested continuances to be granted without good cause. - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: Requests for continuances of public hearings on development projects before the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment or the City Council may be granted only in the following circumstances: 1. Death or illness of a party whose presence is necessary; 2. Acts of God which preclude the attendance of a party whose presence is necessary; 3. Mutual agreement between all of the interested parties; 4. Where a continuance is legally necessary; 5. At the request of staff. Such continuances may be granted only after those opposing the continuance are permitted to state their opposition, those asking for the continuance have stated a reason for requesting the continuance, and after the opening of the public hearing and the taking of testimony from all those wishing to testify at that time. .......... 000 .......... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED BOB PRICE MAYOR' of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY By: LAURA C. MARINO Assistant City Attorney LCM/bsb S:\COUNCIL~RES\CONTINU 1 .RES --April 11,1997 -2- RESOLUTION NO. A POLICY RESOLUTION ADDRESSING THE GRANTING OF CONTINUANCES BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT AND CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, applicants appearing before the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment and City Council occasionally request continuances; and WHEREAS, continuances, when granted, often create hardships for those members of the public who wish to testify in the public hearing concerning the proposed project; and WHEREAS, it is a policy and goal of the City to streamline all governmental processes and to efficiently process development applications; and WHEREAS, continuances granted without good cause only serve to slow the process and create unwarranted inefficiencies; and WHEREAS, it is not appropriate for requested continuances to be granted without good cause; NOTM, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: Requests for continuances of public hearings on development projects before the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment or the City Council may be granted once, so long as those opposing the continuance are permitted to state their opposition, and those asking for the continuance have stated a reason for requesting the continuance. No continuances may be granted without the opening of the public hearing and the taking of testimony from all those wishing to testify at that time. Additional continuances may not be granted except in the following circumstances: 1. Death or illness of a party whose presence is necessary; 2. Acts of God which preclude the attendance of a party whose presence is necessary; 3. Mutual agreement between all of the interested parties; 4. Where a continuance is legally necessary; 5. At the request of staff. .......... o0o .......... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on ., by the following vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY By: LAURA C. MARINO Assistant City Attorney LCM/bsb S:\COUNClL~RES\CONTINU2.RES --April 11,1997 -2- RESOLUTION NO. A POLICY RESOLUTION ADDRESSING THE GRANTING OF CONTINUANCES BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT AND CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, applicants appearing before the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment and City Council occasionally request continuances; and WHEREAS, continuances, when granted, often create hardships for those members of the public who wish to testify in the public hearing concerning the_proposed project; and WHEREAS, it is a policy and goal of the City to streamline all governmental processes and to efficiently process development applications; and WHEREAS, continuances granted without good cause only serve to slow the process and create unwarranted inefficiencies; and WHEREAS, it is not appropriate for requested continuances to be g-ranted without good cause; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: Requests for continuances of public hearings on development projects before the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Adjustment or the City Council may be granted only upon a showing of good cause. Those opposing the continuance shall be permitted to state their opposition, and those asking for the continuance must state a reason for requesting the continuance. No continuances may be granted without the opening of the public hearing and the taking of testimony from all those wishing to testify at that time. .......... O00 .......... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY By: LAURA C. MARINO Assistant City Attorney LCM/bsb S :\COUNClL\RES\CONTINU3.RES --April 11, 1997 2