Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/2007 r B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: Rhonda Smiley Zack Scrivner, Chair Harold Hanson Ken Weir SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the City Council -City of Bakersfield Monday, October 1, 2007 10:00 a.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor -City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT AUGUST 2, 2007, AUGUST 8, 2007 & AUGUST 20, 2007 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Electronic Message Signs -Grady /Movius B. Discussion regarding Temporary Signs -Grady /Movius 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT S:VCot-ncil Comnmittees\2007\0'1 Planning&Development\October 1 Special Meeting\07 October 1 agenda.doc B A K E R S F •~' I E ~"` L ~. D ~-. ~, ~.5 Staff: Rhoda Smiley For: Alan Tandy, City Manager AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Zack Scrivner, Chair Harold Hanson Ken Weir PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, August 2, 2007 -1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room -Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA The meeting was called to order at 1:04:14 PM 1. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Councilmember Zack Scrivner; Chair Councilmembers Harold Hanson and Ken Weir Staff aresent: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; Management Assistant Rick Kirkwood; Assistant to the City Manager Rhomda Smiley; City Attorney Virginia Gennaro; Associate Attomey Michael Richards; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Development Services Director Stan Grady; Civil Engineer Ted Wright; Associate Planning Director Jim Eggert Others aresent: Linda Vernon, Bakersfield Association of Realtors; Cassie Daniel, Home Builders of America; David Bratchon, Automotive Radiator; Jerry Armstrong, City Auto Group, Inc.; Stephen Montgomery, Abate Motorcycles; Kevin Burton, Young Wooldridge, LLP; Steven Teglia, Chamber of Commerce; Vickie Martinez-Tate, Auto Source America; James Geluso, Bakersfield Californian; Bob Decker, McMillin Land Development; Cal Rossi, McMillin Homes; Donna Carpenter, Sikand Engineering; Bart Nieland, City Auto Group; Lyn Espericueta, California Auto Sales; Jay Gauttier, Bakersfield Auto Sales; Dave Dmohowski, Premier Planning Group; Amity Addrisi, KBAK / KBFX; James Bratchon; Dianne Hardesty, Bakersfield Californian; Ron Leavitt, CUDL; James Tate, Auto Source America; Patricia Tate, Value Car; Danette Romero, Camera Ads:; Suzanne Grant, KUZZ; Araceli Herrera, CGA Motors; Carlos Herrara, CGA Motors; Darryl Tucker, SunCal Cos.; Roger McIntosh, McIntosh and Associates 2. ADOIPT JUNE 14, 2007 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. Planning and Development Committee August 2, 2007 Page 2 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Dave Dmohowski, of Premier Planning Group, asked that the Committee refer to staff Senate Bill 375, and requests that the City take a position of opposition. City Manager Alan Tandy advised Mr. Dmohowski that the City has sent correspondence in of opposition on -this bill. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding the Electronic Message Signs -Grady /Movius Development Services Director Stan Grady gave an overview of the memorandum provided by staff which addresses the use of electronic signs. Because of the difficulty enforcing the existing ordinance, staff is proposing that should the Committee allow electronic signs, they would consider set backs in residential areas, and allow only the electronic message pylon signs for shopping centers and stand alone retail stores of 50,000 square feet or larger. City Manager Alan Tandy added that if efforts are made to control the brightness or duration of the electronic signs in the community, it will become very expensive and costly to monitor. Committee member Harold Hanson expressed concerns of lewd or pornographic content that may be displayed on electronic signs. City Attorney Ginny Gennaro advised that the City can not regulate based on content, and suggested that the City continue to enforce the ordinances that are currently in place. City Manager Tandy clarified that with regard to applying the definition of lewd content, the only difference between the existing ordinance and what is proposed would be one has motion and the current sign would be static. Therefore, there would likely be no difference between what might be considered a depiction of a lewd act as defined by the existing or proposed ordinances. Committee member Weir motioned to follow the staff recommendation to allow electronic signs with the conditions noted above. The committee agreed with all ayes. A draft of the ordinance will be provided by staff at the first Committee meeting in September for further consideration. 6. Discussion regarding Temporary Signs -Grady /Movius Development Services Director Grady discussed the memorandum summarizing the workshop held with the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, City staff, and new and used auto dealers. The memorandum divides the issue in two parts: 1) Used car dealers expressed interest in pennants, pole banners, feather banners, flags and balloons; and 2) New car dealers expressed interest in pole banners and balloons. All other Planning and Development Committee August 2, 2007 Page 3 signs would conform to the City's current requirement for special event permit. Staff is suggesting that if the Committee is inclined to modify the ordinance to accommodate some aspect of these types of signs, that the ordinance be amended to allow just the pole banner signs, which will provide for the ability to distinguish the used car lot. All other signs will be required to go through a process to use a special events permit. Committee Chair Zack Scrivner advised that during the meeting at the Chamber of Commerce, a request was made by the manufacturer's dealerships to allow, in addition to the pole banners, a banner or balloon on each vehicle to advertise a sale. Assistant Planning Director Jim Eggert stated the New Car Deafer Association requested the following be allowed: - Large banners of 72 square feet in size; - An 80 square foot banner used between trees and poles; - 16 inch balloons per car; - Extend the event period from five times a year to six times a year; - Increase the advertising days from 45 to 60 days; and - Allow windshield and under hood advertising. Mr. Eggert pointed out that lending institutions and credit unions use banners indicating financing rates. Staff suggested that the dealerships use reader boards that can provide a number of uses for advertising, become permanent, and- have the ability to change out when new promotions arise. Mr. Eggert also noted that pole banners can accomplish the same task. The use of these items would not require a change to the current ordinance. Comments were raised by used car dealers requesting the City to set its objectives and modify, not limit the use of streamers and pendants when amending the current ordinance. Mr. Grady responded that at the time the sign ordinance was written, consideration was given to aesthetics, the amount of clutter, and the image it projected of the City. Mr. Grady also added that the Committee would have to decide whether or not there is a change in circumstances that would warrant amending the ordinance. Several business owners of auto dealerships spoke in favor of the enforcing the City's current ordinance, and suggested that other businesses take into consideration how the signs and banners obstruct views and clutter neighborhoods. City Manager Tandy recommended that staff provide renderings of different versions of intensity, from modest to extreme, and share them with the Chamber and Committee to base a decision. Committee Chair Scrivner concurred with the recommendations and requested the issues Planning and Development Committee August 2, 2007 Page 4 be deferred to next meeting in September. Committee Chair Scrivner also requested a special meeting be held at the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce (facilitated by Steve Teglia) with local auto dealers and staff to review renderings before the next Committee meeting. C. Discussion regarding Motorcycle Parking -Rojas /Walker Public Works Director Raul Rojas reported completion of 14 motorcycle parking spaces, at ten selected locations, for motorcycle riders in the City. The current locations are being monitored to determine if additional spaces are needed. Mr. Rojas advised that the City does not have much on street parking outside of the downtown area. Most other parking is located on private property. D. Discussion regarding County Response to Requested Changes to Transportation Funding Task Force -Tandy City Manager Alan Tandy gave an overview of the County's response to staff's requested changes to the structure and organization of the task force: 1. Staff should perform support function and should not be members of the Advisory Committee. -The County agreed with this request. However, County staff will be present at Committee meetings to facilitate answers to technical questions. 2. Instead of creating a formal Advisory Committee by appointing specific groups to formally participate, invite all citizens with interest in the issues to attend, allowing equal status for all and not excluding anyone. -The County agreed to this suggestion. However, the County will continue to support the participation of directly affected key stakeholders that can serve the dual purposes of being a source of technical information and formal dialogue. 3. Meetings should be scheduled "as needed'; rather than by set meeting dates. -The County agreed to this request. 4. City and County staff should schedule and allocate time for all agenda items in order to keep the meeting duration reasonable and to keep them on schedule. -The County agreed to this request. 5. The Word "Emergency" to be removed from the title, revising it to `Transportation Funding Task Force': -The County agreed to this request. Planning and Development Committee August 2, 2007 Page 5 6. The purpose of the task force is to identify funding sources for projects, rather than to "author a transportation plan': - The County responded with eight functions they want the Committee to perform which include financial, highway planning, identification of priorities and design standards. 7. Evening times are necessary, not only because City Councilmembers have day jobs, but because it would also allow members of the public to attend sessions. A 6:00 p.m. start time is preferred for those reasons. -The County agreed to this request. Committee member Ken Weir expressed concerns that the County has taken the initiative to assemble a stakeholders group against opposition from the City. While he concurs that the stakeholder group holds an interest in what is going on, he does not concur that this is an all inclusive list and certain people would be excluded. Committee member Weir would like this item to be included on the next Transportation Funding Task Force agenda. Committee Chair Scrivner seconded that motion. In response to item number six, he suggests that the Committee make a recommendation to both the City and County to formally adopt State Route 58. Committee Chair Scrivner asked if an agreement on a specific plan line of the South Beltway to be the Route 58 needs to be adopted by both the City and County. City Manager Tandy advised that whether the roadway is the future Route 58, just the South Beltway or another parkway type of street, is a separate issue. The specific plan line needs to be finalized and adopted by both agencies before aright-of-way can be preserved. The designation of that alignment as Route 58 must go through the City, County, Kern Cog, and ultimately, be adopted by Cal Trans. Public Works Director Rojas added that in the end, Cal Trans will make the ultimate decision on the make up of Route 58 and where it will be. Staff is requesting consideration of an official adoption of Alternate 15 with the South Beltway to be designated as Route 58. Committee Chair Scrivner recommended that this issue be agendized for the next Transportation Task Force Meeting. In addition, he would like to agendize the Advisory Committee, timed agendas, and defining the focus of the Committee. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Transportation Impact Fees -Tandy City Manager Tandy discussed the relation of Item 3, and part of Item 4 in the 9-Point Program that Council adopted to generate highway funding. Item 4 is a broad scale update in the Transportation Impact Fees themselves, which requires that the projection model used by Kem COG Planning and Development Committee August 2, 2007 Page 6 be made functional and up to date. Item 3 was necessary as an interim measure to deal with the General Plan Amendments (CPA's) and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) that are in process. City Council and Kem COG have retained the services of Parsons to provide the model projections. The process may take several months to complete. Base on the adoption of the policies by Council, staff inserted a generic condition on all impacted GPA's and EIR's, with the numbers to be determined. Staff discussed an early collection methodology at the time of mapping, based upon the proximity within two miles of any of the TRIP Projects or the Westside Parkway. Staff received opposition to the idea of an early fee collection, and that the idea would prove problematic from a lending perspective. The City concurred with their position and withdrew this method. The City is currently in the process of notifying each party of the change. Staff's recommendation for the interim fee increase on the pending EIR's and GPA's is to add $2,865 per dwelling unit as an additional fee, and to apply that to commercial, in accordance with the same formula and mechanism used in the current Transportation Development Fee Ordinance (TDF) and process. The fee was calculated by taking the grid of the two mile buffer area, projecting the potential number of lots that will be developable within that grid, and dividing the need by the number of lots. An equivalent commercial rate is based on the current TDF standard number. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) mandates a realistic funding plan and a Logical Termini Cost before monies are allocated for TRIP projects. The funding plan consists of performing preliminary engineering work on all TRIP projects and comparing the projected cost to the earmarked reviews and the matching revenues. FHWA is currently reviewing the City's plan. City Manager Tandy provided the following summary to explain the logic behind the TRIP/Vllestside Parkway Mitigation Fee Program: 1. Beltways Earmark -Represents the four categories of projects and the Westside Parkway. The TRIP money came out as four distinct and separate batches of projects. The monies are dedicated exclusively to those projects and cannot be moved or substituted between earmarks. 2. TRIP Earmark Plus Local Match -Identifies the funds allocated for each project under the four Beltway Earmarks. Planning and Development Committee August 2, 2007 Page 7 3. FHWA Required Logical Termini Costs - A premised upon how FHWA reviews the financial plan, and determines release of funds based on a logical termination point. 4. Additional Costs to Complete Trip System -Represents the monies needed to get the projects to their idealized end termination point. In order to complete these projects to their real end termination point, the City will need a total of $928 million from a combination of $353 million FHWA Required Logical Termini and $574 million in Additional Costs to Complete TRIP System. These two sources include $240 million in right- of-way costs. Committee member Ken Weir asked staff to consider making the fee applicable to development in general instead of the recommended two mile radius. Staff concurred. Several members of the audience opposed the interim measure, and feel staff's recommended model is an arbitrary mitigation measure requiring conditional approval. City Manager Tandy replied that the measure is premised based upon a bond issuance that is paid back by developer fees. Committee Chair Scrivnerproposed atwo-tier system; 1) A fee that covers $353 million for any development that occurs within logical termini point; and 2) A fee that covers $574 million for any development that occurs outside of the logical termini point. Committee member Weir asked the Development community to come back to staff to discuss the fee, and bring back an acceptable proposal to the Planning and Development Committee for a special meeting. The Committee agreed to continue the discussion at a special meeting set for Wednesday, August 8, 2007. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Norse 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:09:36 PM cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council members B A K E R S F I E L D ~ °~ rJ Staff: Rhonda Smi ey For: Alan Tandy, City Manager AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Zack Scrivner, Ghair Harold Hanson Ken Weir SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, August 8, 2007 - 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room -Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA The meeting was called to order at 1. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Councilmember Zack Scrivner; Chair Councilmembers Harold Hanson and Ken Weir Staff present: Alan Tandy, City Manager; John Stinson, Assistant City Manager; Rick Kirkwood. Stinson; Management Assistant Rick Kirkwood; Stan Grady, Development Services Director; Michael Richards, Associate Attorney; City Attorney Virginia Gennaro; Jim Movious, Planning Director Others present: Alex Carrassi, Ryan & Johns Sotherby's Realty; Lois Henry, Bakersfield Californian; James Geluso, Bakersfield Californian; Dave Dmohowski, Premier Planning Group; Roger McIntosh, McIntosh & Associates; Suzanne Grant, KUZZ; Tamara Christian, Eyewitness News; Cal Rossi, McMillin; Dave Packer, Dave Packer Custom Builders; Susan Zimmerman, Griffin Industries; Larry Moxley, Dave Packer Custom Builder; Don Cohen, McMillin; Steve Borneso, Borneso Family; Bob Decker, McMillin; Steve Teglia, Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce; James Nickel, NFLLC; Donna Carpenter, Sikand Engineering; Linda Vernon, Bakersfield Association of Realtors 2. ADOPT AUGUST 2, 2007 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. Planning and Development Committee August 8, 2007 .Page 2 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Transportation Impact Fees -Tandy City Manager Alan Tandy indicated staff had a positive meeting with the development representatives regarding the fees, and was able to clear up many of their questions regarding fees. Staff had four short term work tasks to address prior to the meeting with the Planning and Development Committee. The first was in response to Council member Ken Weir's request to "close the hole in the middle" and making the fee uniform throughout the metropolitan 2010 Planning Area and not just the two mile corridor around the proposed freeway projects. This changed the fee from $2,865 to $2,487 per dwelling unit, and the commercial rate from $0.42 to $0.35 per square foot. The second issue addressed was the right-of-way acquisition cost for the South Beltway, and other areas requiring land acquisition. The recent decline in the housing market prompted staff to evaluate the need to recalculate the existing acquisition costs. After review by staff, it was determined with most acquisitions requiring a minimum 18 month process, and not set to occur for several years, using today's declining property values as a benchmark to set acquisition costs would be inadvisable. Staff recommended maintaining the existing assumptions regarding acquisition costs. The third issue was a response to a concept brought up by Councilmember Scrivner fora 3-Tiered fee concept - a preliminary plan and concept map was described as follows: • 1St Tier -The central city infill area for the transportation impact fee we have now. • 2nd Tier -The logical termini portion of the TRIP program that we know we have the finances to build. • 3`~ Tier -Further outlying developments beyond the current revenue stream that will pay for the roadways and are outside the existing Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. The concept would take the $353 million needed for tier 2 and be divided by the number of lots contributing within the Tier 2 area to establish the related fee. The $574 million needed for Tier 3 would be divided by the number of lots contributing within Tier 3 to establish that fee. The actual computations of fees for this concept would need to be refined and computed by staff since it is a work in progress. Planning and Development Committee August 8, 2007 Page 3 The fourth issue presented was in response to concerns regarding the effect of the interim fee and how it would impact projects currently in process. Questions were raised by developers regarding possible double payment of fees should the interim fee be agreed to now and later be incorporated into the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. Development Services Director Stan Grady provided language to address that issue and explained that in the event the proposed additional interim fee gets merged into the existing Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program, then the developers would only be responsible for the TIF. Several members of the audience opposed the concept proposed by staff of requiring payment of fees upon commencement of development, rather than requiring the fee be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff was agreeable to changing the language so the fee would be collected prior to issuance of a building permit. Several audience members were in favor of a single fee instead of a tiered program. Roger McIntosh of McIntosh & Associates indicated an interest in getting additional information on the cost of construction numbers and expressed concerns that under staff recommendations, new development and home owners would pay for more of the shortfall than their fair share. Staff indicated that additional grant funds and other potential sources of funds such as a '/2 cent sales tax which could potentially offset the funds needed for the proposed projects would continue to be pursued. However, any possible reductions due to these additional funding sources would likely be offset to some degree by future increased construction costs. There was also a discussion regarding possibly bonding against future fee revenue in order to accelerate the construction of projects. The Committee agreed with the staff assumptions regarding property values for right-of-way acquisition remaining the same and implementation of uniform interim fees. Committee chair Scrivner requested that staff come back with the numbers for future consideration of a 3-tier option and a metro-wide policy regarding fees. All members were in favor of submitting the interim fee proposed to Council for approval. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:04:45 PM cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council members B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: Rhonda Smiley For: Alan Tandy, City Manager AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Zack Scrivner, Chair Harold Hanson Ken Weir SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, August 20, 2007 - 2:00 p.m. Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce 1725 Eye Street, Bakersfield CA The meeting convened at 2:08 p.m. 1. INTRODUCTION BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Committee members present: Councilmember Zack Scrivner; Chair Councilmembers Harold Hanson and Ken Weir Staff present: Management Assistant Rick Kirkwood; Public Information Officer Rhonda Smiley; Building Director Phil Burns; Assistant Planning Director, Jim Eggert; Tom Jones, Park Technician Others present: Steven Teglia, Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce,; Elliott Kirschenmann, Carosella Properties; Vickie Martinez Tate, Auto Source America; Jerry Armstrong, Armstrong Motors; Bart Nieland, City Auto Group; Lyn Espericuete, California Auto Sales; Jay Gauthier, Bakersfield Auto Sales; Tamara Christian, KBAK29/KBFX 58 News; Peter Samore, KUZZ Radio; Atif Karnel, Superior Used Cars; Dianne Hardisty, The Bakersfield Californian; Garrett Ming, Jim Burke Lincoln Mercury; Kyle Northway, Jim Burke Ford and Lincoln Mercury; Ted Nicholas, Three-Way Automotive Group; Rafael Salazar, Limited Motors; Araceli Herrera, C & A Motors; Alejanda Elliott, Autoline, Inc.; Alan Elliott, Autoline, Inc. Steven Teglia, Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, convened the meeting and introduced Assistant Planning Director, Jim Eggert. Mr. Eggert explained that the purpose of the meeting was to specifically focus the list of the car dealers' requests regarding the use of pennants to a defined point. He explained that the City Council's direction on this issue will apply to all commercial businesses, not just the auto dealers. He gave a brief slide presentation showing examples of pennant and pole banner displays at various businesses. Planning and Development Committee August 202, 2007 Page 2 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Vickie Martinez Tate presented a letter to the Committee requesting consideration of banners (metallic streamers, also referred to as pennants), balloons, banners (used car sale/credit union banners) and temporary permits to be able to use other sales aids. After informal discussion between the attendees, City staff, and the members of the Planning and Development Committee, Chairman Scrivner brought forward a proposal for the Building and Planning staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney's Office, to study the feasibility of allowing placement of pennants at a relatively low density (specifics to be determined at a later date). In addition, placement of the pennants would be certified in one of two ways: 1) Businesses that use professional banner installers would receive a certification meeting specific criteria (to be determined by the City) with a stipulated time frame for renewal, or; 2) Businesses that install the banners themselves would be certified by the City, for a fee; 3) The existing policy on balloons is to remain the same - 1 per car; 4) Pole Banners /Credit Union signs can be done in two ways: a. Businesses can continue to place banners on poles, or b. Businesses can make banners part of their permanent wall signage. Building and Planning staff will consult with the City Attorney's Office and report back to the Planning and Development Committee with their recommendations. 3. DEFERRED BUSINESS None 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers • B A K E R S F t E L D Development Services Department Stanley C. Grady, Director M E M O R A N D U M September 25, 2007 TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM:~~~~/ STANLEY GRADY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAYS At the last Planning and Development Committee meeting held on August 2, 2007, the Committee directed staff to bring back language concerning use of electronic message displays. The proposal would permit electronic message signs as follows (see Exhibit A): ^ Pvlon signs -limited to large retail developments (defined as containing buildings 50,000 square feet or more), or in shopping centers of 5 acres or more. ^ Monument signs -allowed for both large and small developments (one per street frontage). ^ Changeable copy would be permitted for all of these signs. ^ Permitted on outdoor advertising signs (billboards) -- (see Exhibit B). S:UEgg~Sign ord amendments -electronic displays - PD Committee proposal.doc Exhibit A -Proposed Ordinance Addition Electronic message display: 1. Only large retail developments as defined in Section 17.04.367, or shoppin_g centers encompassing 5 acres or more are permitted use of an electronic message display on a pylon sign 2. On/y one of the allowed pylon signs permitted along a street frontage may include an electronic display. 3. If aL~ylon sign contains an electronic message display and monumenf signs are also permitted for the center, only one of the allowed monumenf signs along a street frontage may contain an electronic message display 4. Pylon signs that contain an electronic message display shall be setback a minimum of 150 feet from any R, PUD, or OS zone, and 50 feet from any interior prope-ty line not within that center. 5. Electronic message displays are not permitted on pylon signs located on properties that do not meet the definition of a large retail development or are less than 5 acres. However, one of the allowed monument signs along each street frontage is permitted to contain an electronic message display. 6. Electronic message displays shall not be permitted on building walls or in windows. 7. All other sign regulations that pertain to the particular zone district and specific business shall apply. 8. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) may contain electronic message displays subject to the regulations in Section 17.60.070 E. S:UEgg\Sign ord amendments -electronic displays - PD Committee proposal.doc Exhibit B - Proaosed Ordinance Addition Outdoor advertising signs (billboards): All outdoor advertising signs are regulated as follows: 1. Signs are permitted in the C-2, M-1, M-2 and M-3 zone districts, in addition to that permitted in those respective districts. 2. Signs shall not exceed an area of 300 square feet, excluding cutouts or extensions provided they do not exceed 30 square feet in area. 3. Signs shall not exceed a height of 35 feet in the C-2 district, or 50 feet in the M-1, M-2 and M-3 districts. 4. Signs shall not be located less than 1,000 feet from another such sign, or 100 feet from any other freestanding sign. 5. Signs shall not be located in, nor project over public property or public right-of-way. 6. Multifaced signs are allowed provided the faces are placed back-to-back, are no more than 2 feet apart, and are equal in size and configuration. 7. Signs shall be setback a minimum of 300 feet from any property zoned residential or developed with residential uses. 8. Signs shall not project over or be placed upon any building or structure. 9. Signs shall be setback 25 feet from adjacent property lines except those fronting public streets where no setback is required. 10. Signs may be illuminated provided no lighting is directed onto adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. - 11. Electronic message disv/avs as defined in Section 17.04 547 are vermiffed S:UP.gg\Sign ord amendments -electronic displays - PD Conunittee proposal.doc • B A K E R S F 1 E L D Development Services Department Stanley C. Grady, Director M E M O R A N D U M September 26, 2007 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM:~~~-STANLEY GRADY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS, BANNERS AND PENNANTS The following is in response the Planning and Development Committee's meeting held on August 2, 2007. Special Events: The Committee recommended increasing the number of days for special events from 45 to 60 days. The maximum number of events each calendar year would remain the same (see Exhibit A). Pole Banners: ~- ~- ~~. The Committee agreed with staff's recommendation to allow permanent use of ~ ~d pole banners and staff's recommendation is shown on Exhibit B. The size of ""~". .,.., ,.,.. f these banners (30" x 96") is typical of what businesses are currently using and what the City installs for promotional events. Pennants (streamers): Concerning issues brought forth by the automobile dealers over use of - - -~ pennants (or streamers), the Committee asked that the Chamber of Commerce host another meeting to refine their request. That meeting was held August 20, 2007 at the Chamber offices. The dealer's issues concerned how many pennants should be allowed and long-term maintenance. The dealers recommended use of two strands of pennants around the perimeter of ~ their automobile sales area. S:UEgg~Sign ord amendments - banners~ennants - PD Committee proposal.doc The Committee members asked staff to investigate the legality of issuing annual permits under a two-tiered permit fee. Businesses that provided maintenance certification of these pennants from professional sign installers would be assessed a lower permit fee verses businesses that did not provide certification (non-certification would require inspections by Building staff). The Attorney's office determined that implementation of this two-tiered fee was legal to create. Staff does not recommend implementation of an annual permit program for pennants. An annual permit not only adds more regulatory process to a business but also requires them to pay more fees to support permit processing and inspections. Additionally, such program will be very difficult to enforce since Code Enforcement and/or Building Inspectors will have to monitor that businesses obtained appropriate yearly permits. The ordinance already gives the Building Director authority concerning sign maintenance on a case-by-case basis. Staff recommends that if the Committee proposes changing the ordinance to allow pennants, that they be regulated as follows: ^ Limit to two (2) strands (as suggested by the dealers) around the perimeter of the outdoor sales area. ^ Permitted on properties zoned C-2 or M zones (these are the only zones where automobile dealerships and outdoor sales areas are allowed by right). S:UEgg\Sign ord amendments - banners~ennants - PD Committee proposal.doc Exhibit A -Proposed Ordinance Additions Special event signs: Special event signs may be approved by the Building Director as a means of publicizing events such as grand openings, carnivals, parades, charitable events, community holiday activities, and other such events. This section does not include events promoted by the City of Bakersfield pursuant to Section 17.60.080 O. Special event signs shall be limited to the following provisions: Special event signs within windows shall be limited to covering no more than 25% of the window area per building elevation of the ground floor only. 'r 2. Signs shall be limited per business to 604~days per calendar year. This time may be utilized in any combination of durations; however, the number of special events shall not exceed 5 per calendar year, and no single event shall exceed a duration of 20 ~b consecutive days. 3. Balloons and inflated devices provided they do not exceed a height of 100 feet, search lights, beacons, pennants, flags, banners and streamers may be allowed subject to approval by the Building Director. Flags for model homes/tract sales offices are not subject to this subsection. 4. Copy shall not exceed a total area of 100 square feet, and may include the name, symbol or logo of the business or sponsor, but in no event shall such name or logo exceed'/4 of the total permitted copy area. 5. Signs may be illuminated upon approval by the Building Director provided the illumination does not adversely affect neighboring properties or streets. 6. Nonprofit organizations, as defined in this title, shall be permitted to advertise a maximum of 5 charitable events per calendar year in accordance with the following: a. Signs shall not exceed an area of 32 square feet and a height of 6 feet. b. Off-site signs may be permitted by the Building Director not to exceed a total of 8 locations within the city for each event. No off-site sign shall be allowed within any residential zone district or project of a residential nature. c. Signs shall not be erected sooner than 14 days before the event being advertised, and shall be removed within 3 days after the event has ended. d. The Building Director may grant no more than 2 additional signs or events if it has been demonstrated that the limits in this subsection place an unnecessary hardship on the nonprofit organization inconsistent with the intent of this chapter. e. No fee shall be assessed for permitting said signs. S:\JEgg\Sign ord amendments - banners~ennants - PD Committee proposal.doc a a v ~ h ~ o. ~. y '> N C O >` ~ ~ :: m ~ W~ C W r: ~ c v~ ~ c~ ~ V N +O W ~ W V 41 ~ N N L C NL 9 O j ~i c ~~ G '= w C ~ V N C O 7 'O ftl y c o ` a w ~~~ ~ 'C C a=~ ' = Y m _ .off. Ev ca N o Ht o .. ! ;o V ~ E°pr~iv~,°'OO~ o ~o~ pE m ~ r cv rC a m w v v ~~ o~ ~ W O ~ N ~ ` m ~a~~o~oZ,E ,D ~ ~ wmo W W m m o W y a ~ '~ o~~ ~ aC « G~ O ,~ O .T~y~.E~Eymo ~ W ~ E ~~ O ~ o Z~ n d .~ m"~ co o G m~ W +„ m W ~ ~~m~a~a~~r v ~+m~ ~e E i l6 a v !0 ~0 4 O ~ .~. p v, ~ V ~ m t ~ ~ t ~y O ~ 41 .` ~ ~ c C ,~ W ` O ~ ~ 3 ~ O ~ O ~ ~ O aGi ~ ~ W ;+ p v W~ e~ y o W8 J v c7 o O b~ g ~tW.. o c o ~• c 3 . ' m a~i > i ?I ~ c ~- ~ Q i V ~ OT ~ m m m V ' ~ _ O~ m '~ p,p p p 'G O ~O E C1 • N 3 o m n m O e W G 'O ... ,~ +. c W p c r. G ~ O ~ O +. t0 = a~ O L V W" _ / ~ V N W O O _ 3 CN ~°O~ N Off y. W ~, C ~ ~~ E ~ C '7 O U t~ .3 ~ ~ k V ~ m ~ V •~ ~+ k ~~Q 0 3 o a'~ _y 0 3• a i uC= ~ N y ~ ~ '' p •W W m 'm t W ~ r ' v E ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p N 'O C ~ ~ CO +. t V ~ t V G .x ~ O ~ ~ v > O m ~ V ' ~) .: W ~ Z p d d iO ~ , a> m ~ G O W N W a~ Q N O N 3 o t/! ~ a~ c c m ~ .~ C ~ a a d ~ ~ o ~ o ~ C ~ _ ~ ~~ d t U i '~ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, October 1, 2007 ATTENDANCE LIST Name ~ Organization ~ Contact: Phone/ E-mail C ~~~o/~~~sc~P~rrrA~tn ~ IbSG~.~a f2~t~hr'~! ~ d ~ ~ JS , ' ~ c,~ ~-~--- / i 1 _ L ~C2~~~ ~-ierre,rC, ~~OS y~// 2,rrer~~ 1'3,~ 1%~ s~~ i'~ ~~~,~ ~a~~sP~/~ Po~~~ies ~~~ ik\~ J~ ~t~(Ir~R .~ G~ O L o~ ~.~~ ~~i~ ~DSI ~~SSoC, J~vl~ ~~- C s A N~ o ~-d -- 5 ~ ~ ~ ~o ~-oY5 ~ ~ z z ~r._ Guc ~..~-- 321 - %`~1/ s~~y/n PdK~~r~~~~.,,~~-, (p3/° Z(o 62 ~r~rfSC~iPn~ann~9Mc~r'l.~o„~ 326 - 3~~v ~~G - ~~~> ~z6 - 3 ~ Z) 3z~- 3-7zi ~ L(Q - 3 ~ 2 / li e~~-~~~~ t~i-~ ~~; p 3~ _`~'~IQG~ ~'~3- `l'2lp'~ (~31~8y1 d (~3~-S`l10 3 77-~.3UC~ 3aa - 70 ~ s -