HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1973/11/13 Item 01~~
CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING or-: November 13, 1973
AGENDA ITEM N0. [ 1 ]
ITEM TITLE: Public hearing - Consideration of Planned Unit Development Policy
Resolution - Adopting Planned Unit Development Policy
~.
INITIATED BY:
Director of Planning
A. BACKGROUND
On September 25, 1973, the City Council adopted the Planned Unit Development Ordinance
(No. 1500), but continued the Planned Unit Development Policy Manual to enable staff
to clarify several aspects of that policy, as follows:
1. Building separation formulae
2. Street width standards
3. Justification for Density Bonus
4. Removal of one item under density incentive feature
5. Determination as to whether the P.U.D. standards should be adopted by
Resolution or by Ordinance.
Staff has studied each of these items and has prepared the following report for
Council consideration.
B. ANALYSIS
1. Building Separation Formulae
The formulae for computing building separation (setback) distances have been
reviewed and found to be satisfactory as a set of standards. Such standards, being
in policy form have some flexibility and can be varied in cases where circumstances
justify such a variation. Such a waiver is proposed in the "Deerpark East" develop-
ment, a P.U.D. consisting solely of single family detached structures. Some standards,
however, are necessary to ensure adequate separation between buildings in a P.U.D.,
and as a general guide to the applicant as he prepares a P.U.D. plan and as a basis
for guilding the judgments of the staff, Planning Commission and City Council as the
ATTACHED: Resolution [X] Ordinance [ ] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ]
See EXHIBITS [X] No. 1
Financial Statement:
Commission-Board Recommendation: On July 11, 1973 the Planning Commission voted
6-0 to recommend to the City Council that the Planned Unit Development Ordinance and
the Planned Unit Development Policy Manual be adopted.
Department Head Recommendation: ConCUr. (A more detailed recommendation is presented
at the end of this report.)
City Manager Recommendation:
Concur. The technical approach used is sound. Application of the approach as to
rigidity is a policy concern. I feel this proposal is rigid but within the
scope of reasonability. Administratively, this proposal can be implemented.
~v
AGENDA ITEM NO~. 1
Supplemental Page No. 2
plan is reviewed.
2. Street Width Standards
At the September 25th City Council meeting Mr. Jerry Linton of American Housing
Guild brought up the subject of reduced street widths in P.U.D.s. The concerns
expressed by Mr. Linton are shared to some extent by the staff and this has prompted
additional work on possible reductions in street rights of way in certain cases.
However, the matter relates to all hill area development and is not peculiar to
P.U.D.s. Work on this item is continuing and a recommendation will be brought to
Council in the near future.
i 3. Justification for Densit Bonus
Council has requested staff to present the rationale for the granting of a
density bonus. Staff's response is presented in two parts: first, a review of
the practices of other cities; and second, the rationale for a bonus, as developed
~ by this city.
a. P.U.D. Densities permitted by other jurisdictions
(1) City of San Diego: Number of D.U.'s = Square feet of land area
Min. lot size of underlying zone
No bonus provisions existing or contemplated.
(Same method as Chula Vista's "Maximum Density Allowed")
(2) County of San Diego: Same method as City of San Diego. Densities differ
only because minimum lot sizes differ. No bonus.
Also use "PRD - X" method, where X = 1-30 D.U./Acre.
(3) National City: Same density as standard subdivisions. No bonus provision.
(Same method as Chula Vista's "base density.")
(4) ASPO Survey of 300 Planning Agencies - May, 1973:
According to this survey, the largest percentage of agencies responding
allowed a density bonus ranging from 11 - 5%. The breakdown is as
follows:
Bonus Allowed
0 - 10
11 - 25
26 - 50
51 - 75
76 - 100
Total Responses
the density provisions of the proposed Policy appear to be
a large number of other agencies nationwide, as we_1.1 as
of Agencies Respondin
20.7
41.4
27.6
~n_~
100%
This table is slightly misleading, since there is no indication in the
0 - 10% bonus category of how many agencies allowed no bonus (0%) at all.
Generally speaking, however, the above table indicates that most agencies
allow a density bonus. Quoting from the ASPO report (page 27):
"Some local governments consider the PUD approach inherently superior to
conventional developments and therefore grant higher densities to PUDs
as a matter of right in hopes of encouraging developers to choose this
alternative. However, the more common approach is to grant density
increases or bonuses only upon compliance with certain ordinance criteria
whether they be purely subjective evaluations or strict numerical standards."
The report goes on to criticize those ordinances which grant bonuses
based on generalized, vague criteria. The report states:
"Granting prespecified density increases in exchange for some more-or-
less specific project amenities is a more common and a sounder approach
to dealing with density increases."
In summary,
in line with
locally.
~ AGENDA ITEM N0. 1
Supplemental Page No. 3
b. Rationale for staff's recommendation for a density bonus.
Some sort of density bonus for P.U.D.s is appropriate for the following
reasons:
(1) From the developer's standpoint, P.U.D. plans are more time-
consuming and expensive to prepare, landscaping expenses are much higher
than in conventional developments, expenses are involved in setting up a
homeowners .association, and there is uncertainty that the expensive plan
will be approved. A density incentive feature helps an applicant offset
these additional costs.
(2) From the city's standpoint, P.U.D.s are desirable because they
provide a different housing type; they provide common open space at no
cost to the city; and they provide an opportunity to supply housing for
lower income levels. Provision of these benefits is encouraged under a
bonus system.
4. Removal of Item No. 6 Under Density Bonus Incentive
The special building features which tend to maximize comfort and minimize
operating expenses were included as a sixth "density incentive feature" in an
effort to encourage upgrading of the quality of the living units. Although this
section may be somewhat difficult to administer, and although Council expressed
some reservations about it, the concept still seems valid. However, the item is
not crucial to the Policy and if Council desires to eliminate it, staff has no
serious objection.
5. P.U.D. Standards - Adoption by Ordinance orb Resolution
Staff is convinced that the P.U.D. standards should be adopted by resolution,
not by ordinance. The concept of a P.U.D. is that the normal, rigid standards of
the Zoning Ordinance are waived so that a developer has an opportunity to develop +%'
a creative design solution for his project under the "P.U.D. umbrella." Unfor-
tunately, in the past, this lack of standards for P.U.D.s has frequently resulted
in poor site planning and lack of open space. Thus, some sort of guidelines now
appear appropriate, but the standards should not be locked into ordinance form as
that would tend to defeat the purpose of the P.U.D. Rather, the standards should
serve as guidelines by which an applicant can prepare a plan and by which staff,
the Planning Commission and City Council can judge the quality of the development.
Where a developer can show that his design solution results in a project equal
or superior to that which would result from strict adherence to the standards,
Council would be free to approve the development. Adoption of standards by
resolution rather than by ordinance recognizes the difficulty of anticipating
problems relating to a property by virtue of its configuration, topography, or
other peculiar characteristic and places importance on allowing reasonable
flexibility in dealing with individual properties and design concepts. In each
case where a P.U.D. does not fulfill the literal requirements of the Policy, the
staff would report this to Council along with the reasons why a variation may or
may not be justified. Council could then render a judgment on the matter.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the P.U.D. Policy with or without the inclusion of
"density incentive feature" No. 6 as Council may prefer.
~'~~~