The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Statement 1973/10/02 Item 20 Item No. 20 Ordinance No. 1500 October 2, 1973 AGE\D.4 ITEA1 •N0. f 20 J �/ CHULA VISTA CITY COIJNCIL �fEETIfiG OF: OCTOBER 2, 1973 � ITED1 TITLE: Ordinance No. 1500 - Amending Sections 33.502, 33.503, 33.601 33.602 and 33. 1312 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to Planned Unit Development Procedure - Second reading and adoption INITIATED BY: Director of Planning BaCKGROU\D After holding a public hearing on this matter, this ordinance was piaced on first 2eading at the meeting of September 25, 1973 I I I I I ATTACHED: Resolution [ J Qrdinance [ ] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ] See EXHIBITS [ ] No. Financial Statement: Conmission-Board Recommendation: Department Head Recomnendation: Approval City �lanager Recommendation: Approval i-� i� �`� ` CIIULA 1�IS'1'A CIT1' COUt�CIL �IGC:I'I\G OP: OCTOIiCR 2, 7�73 � � ncrnun rrt:�i n�o. [ zo 1 17'I:AI TI"PLE: OrJinancc No. 1500 - Nncnding Scctions 33.502, 33.503, 33.G01 33.G02 and 53. 1's12 of thc Zonin�; Orctinancc rcl�ting Lo , Planned UniC Ucvc]opmcnL Proccdurc - Scconcl reading and adoption I�ITIATED BY: Uirector of Planning BACKGROUXD After holding a public hearing on this matter, this ordinance ' was placed on first xeading at tlie meeting of September 25, 1973 . • . ATTACHED: Resolution ( J Ordinance [ ] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ] � " See EXHIBITS [ ] No. Financial Statement: Commission-Board Reco.,L�end2tion: Dcpartment Hcad Recom�endation: Approval Cit�� dlanager Fccommcndaiion: Approval � S°� . , _ � . . . n��r:nnn �•ri:>> no. �i�;, � b I � c � Cuui.n v�s�rn crrv cau��c:ii, r•u:i�ri��c �r: llugust 7, i973 t a. Public hearing - Consideration of amendment to Zoning Ordinance and ! adoption of Development Policy relating to Planned Unit Developinents � I'I�L�I T!Tl.l:: b. Ordinance - Amending Sections 33. 502, 33.503, 33.601 , 33.602 and : 33.1312 of the Zoning Ordinance relatin9 to P•lanned Unit Uevelopiaent ! proceclure � c. Resolution - Adopting PUD Policy - A Guide for Planned Unit Developments i I�I'�'t,17't:o �3Y: Director of Planning ( A. BACt:GROU\D . � On March 5, 1973 the Planning Commission reconunended that Council adopt a PUD htanual � and certain chan9es to the Zonin9 Ordinance pertaining to the PUD provisions. Council ; considered the Planning Ccnm�ission 's recom�iendation on hlarch 27, 1973 and referred i the item back to staff for additional study of the density bonus features and the minirtum size of d�•:elling unit. Staff prepared revisions to the PUD documents and � Council considered these on t•tay 8, 1973 and referred the matter to the Coinmission i for report and recormnendation. . � B. AP;ALYSIS � . . 1 . Previous PUD Ordinance and t�tanua1 . The modified PUD Ordinance and Manual as � presented to the Planning Conmission on Plarch 5, 1973: �. � � a. Revised the PUD procedure by making it a hiodifying District, I b. Eliminated the 25% density bonus provision but retained tiie borius i resulting from computing density on a gross basis , � . c. Made miscellaneous other changes pertaining to offstreet parking, open I space, lot size, size of d��elling unit; etc. 2. Revised PUD Ordinance and 1•fanual as presented to Council . The revised PUD docu- � ments as submitted to Council on f�iarch 27, 1973 vrere identical to those previously � • �_ _ i' " .. r �":ti.. i . CUfi57C°�'Cd exce,�i. LIIdL 611C Ui'UIIId11CC IIUP7 ]E1C� 11ICJ Ll:al. UIC iJiatlLiiiy Vi d uc�i_ i �.Y bonus is discretionary with the City Council �ref. page 4, par. (f)] and the Policy � [former Planual] describes the amount of the bonus and the methods by �ahich an applicant may achieve it [ref. p. 6, par. 8 of the Policy]. Also, the reduction in minimum floor area per d<<�elling unit is not applicable to dwellings containing 1000 sq. ft. or ATTACfiED: � Resolution (X] Ordinance. (X] Agreement [ ] Plat [ ] Planning Commission Resolutions: [XJ See EXHIBITS [x] PIo. 4b - PCA-72-5 ' ' 4b - 1,2 ' 4c - PCP1-73-4 . Qc - 1,2 Financial Statcmcnt: Commission-eoard Reconunendation: Planning Cotrmission recomtiends : 1 . That the Council amend the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with Comnission Resolution PCA-72-5 • 2. That the �ouncil adopt a resolution approving the P.U.D. Policy Department Hcad Rccom�icndation: COnCUt' . � � � ' ��3 . . � 1 , c�ty ri:�»��,• r,�•��„�„��,a�c�o�,: con��r �rith Dcpartmcitt Ilcad �� I . '� . ��:, � COU�CIL �•1GIi'I'I�G OP: August 7, 7973 ENU T[ . �, , c i - = Supplemental page 2 ! `-_ •iess [ref. it:�_2.-,rar.' 3 of the Ordinance]. • j - - � 3. Addit;a�;�l�-Revisions noi•� suoqested by Staff.. At the time of the earlier presenta- tion of�:lie ;�roposed 1'UU Ordinance and Policy to Council , staff �•�as tvorking on open . _ _ s{�ace a�ld-.:'��ck standards applicable to PUDs. This �•rork ti•ias not sufficiently advanced - to present.Lo Council at i:iiai i,i;�ie but is now ready for presentation. The recommended _ stand��;�ds are contaircu on pa9es l , 2 and 3 of the Policy. Chan9es in the Policy are discussed in more •dei:ail in paragraph 4 belom. .The Council should refer to the Policy . _- docum�n�-atsr_lf (copy enclosed) for information on the actual material proposed for -- auoption. -- — � i 4. -' Sigr.�_{icant Chan9e:. in PUD Pnlicy_: Attention is called to the follovring areas ; of-significant change �in the prouosed PUD Policy: i _. i a. . Setbacks [Ref. p. l , �ar. 1 (a) of the Policy] ; - •= i This.�ection has heen ��.:�ised to include formulas �•rhich provide adequate separa- � =�ti�:�;:��veen buildings based upon their orientation to each othcr. These minimum ' _req=:.�%�:��:ents reflect an average setback, giving the developer the flexibility • i - °==�n::ces;�ry_ta_insure a viable project. . � b. Co^!'nG:n Usable Open Space [Ref. p. 2, par. 2(a) of the Policy] � The Co,r.mission is recemmending that 400 sq. ft. of usable open space (5% grade , or.;ess) be rr-yuired for each unit and 10,000 sq. ft. of recreational open space � =for any dc;�e.iopment up to 100 units, and an additional 100 sq. ft. for each unit ! beyond ;�0 units. I c. Density Incentive Standards [Ref. p. 6, par. 8 of the Policy] � :AS�noted earlier, paragraph 8 on page 6 of the Policy sets forth the system of � �ionc;t� hnnncoc_ Cniinril . nn ht�v R. 1973_ asked the Cnmmission to devote so2cial attenticn to this poriion or tiie Policy. The maxir�ium ciensity pei4nitted ui:da�� h� proposed PUD Ptodifying District and Policy is the same as the Planning Commission : previously appro��ed. It is based on the density pe rniitted in the various zoning , � aistricts considering only the minimum lot size per dv+elling unit in the particular r;,;ng district; i .e. , in the P,-E-40 District, the minimum lot size is 40,000 sq. ' ft. , so that l .l units per acre ti•�ould be allowed, '� 43,560 (No. of �s . ft. in an acre) 40,000 min. lot size . The base density, on the other hand, is the gross density which ��rould generally result in each of �the zoning districts considering that a certain amount of land � must be dovoted to streets. Tiie difference bet�aeen the base density and the maximum density represents the amount of the density bonus. This amount varies from 29.4% to 37.5X in the various zones. This system of density bonuses is commonly used in the San Diego area; the proposed PUD Policy simply spells out the system in some detail . 5. Experience in Other Cities. t•tany progressive cities have adopted a density bonus or incentive system in an effort to encourage desirable development. The main problem which has been encountered is that developers have assumed that they have a right to the increased density and cities have tended to be too liberal in granting bonuses. Administration of the system rrill involve some subjective judgements and the density increases available under tlie system are quite liberal . Fairly stringent administra- tion _of the system thus is in order and the value of the bonus conferred upon the developer should be measured against the value to the community tiahich results from the special features provided by.the developer. � 6. hfeetinq �•iith Developers. The staff sent copies of the proposed PUD Policy and Ordinance Lo nine developers and invited them to attend a staff ineeting to discuss the matter. Three persons rep�•esenting two development firms attended the meeting. The more important conenents raised at the meetin9 were: a. The incentives are not large enougli to offset the features required c.f PUDs . �� b. Tlic original ?_5Z bonus in addition. to the "9ross density" bonus should bc �� restored. • � . . � . ' �•AGENDA ITE�4 PJ0. 4a�'�, councii, r�es•rinc or: n��st �, 1973 � Supplemental pagc No. 3 , c. Density incentive feature No. 6 involves a level of detail �•ihich the Planning Conr�iission and City Council should not be concerned� about. . . Developer's plans_ at the PUD application stage are not sufficiently detailed to address the issucs involved in item No. 6.� d. Utilization of the density incentive features and their incorporation into a plan involves much expense and there is no assurance that Council r�ill ' approve the plan. Staff has considered these comnents but does not believe that any change in the Ordinance and Policy is appropriate at this time. Density bonuses in the magnitude of 30% cannot be considered as small . Generally in .PUDs a developer is able to effect_ considerable savings by virtue of such factors as reduced lot size, comnon wall construction, shorter utility runs and reduced sti•eet improvement costs , even without an increase in the number of units over �ahich costs can be sp!'edd. � . . • ' , ` _ . _.<'� . � . . ' AGENDA ITEM \0. [lg.a ] b c CHULA VISTA CITI' COU\CIL �tEETI\G OF: Seot. 25, �973 a. Public hearing - Consideration of amendment to Zoning Ordinance and adoption of Development Policy relating to Planned Unit Developments ITEat TITLE: b. Ordinance - Amending Sections 33.502, 33.503, 33.601 , 33.602 and 33.1312 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to Planned Unit Developnent procedure c. Resolution - Adopting PUD Policy - A Guide for Planned Unit Developments IvITIaTED BY: Director of Planning p. BaCt�GROUV� This item was continued from the meetings of August 7 and September 11 , awaiting attendance of a full Council . On March 5, 1973 the Planning Commission recorrunended thdt Council adopt a PUD Manual and certain changes to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the PUD provisions. Council considered the Planning Comnission 's recormnendation on March 27, 1973 and referred the item back to staff for additional study of the density bonus features and the minimum size of dwelling unit. Staff prepared revisions to the PUD documents and Council considered these on May 8, 1973 and referred the matter to the Corrunission for report and recorrunendation. B. ANALYSIS l . Previous PUD Ordinance and Manual . The modified PUD Ordinance and Manual as presented to the Planning Commission on March 5, 1973: a. Revised the PUD procedure by making it a Modifying District, b. Eliminated the 25% density bonus provision but retained the bonus resulting from computing density on a gross basis, c. Made miscellaneous other changes pertaining to offstreet parking, open space, lot size, size of dwelling unit, etc. 2. Revised PUD Ordinance and Manual as presented to Council . The revised PUD docu- ments as submitted to Council on March 27, 1973 were identical to those previously considered except that the ordinance now specifies that the granting of a density bonus is discretionary with the City Council [ref. page 4, par. (f)] and the Policy [former Manual ] describes the amount of the bonus and the methods by which an applicant may achieve it [ref. p. 6, par. 8 of the Policy]. Also, the reduction in minimum floor area per dwelling unit is not applicable to dwellings containing 1000 sq. ft. or ATTACHED: Resolution [X] Ordinance [X] Agreement ( ] Plat [ ] Planning Commission Resolutions: [X] See EXHIBITS [X] No. 4b - PCA-72-5- 4b - 1,2 4c - PCM-73-4 4c - 1,2 Financial Statement: Commission-soard Recommendation: Planning Cortmission recorrmends : 1 . That the Council amend the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with Cortmission Resolution PCA-72-5 2. That the Council adopt a resolution approvin9 the P.U. D. Policy Department Head Recommendation: COnCUI' City Planager Recommendation: Concur with Department Head i � � ��d ��v �J COWiCIL MEETING OF:-ept: 25, 1973 AGENDA ITEM N0. 18 �a, b, 'c Supplemental page 2 less [ref. p. 2, par. 3 of the Ordinance]. 3. Additional Revisions now suq ested b Staff. At the time of the earlier presenta- tion of the proposed PUD Ordinance and Policy to Council , staff�was working on open space and setback standards applicable to PUDs. This work was not sufficiently advanced to present to Council at that time but is now ready for presentation. The recommended standards are contained on pages 1 , 2 and 3 of- the Policy. Changes in the Policy are discussed in more detail in paragraph 4 below. The Council should refer to the Policy document itself (copy enclosed) for information on the actual material proposed for adoption. 4. Significant Chanqes in PUD Policv-: Attention is called to the following areas of significant change in the proposed PUD Policy: a. Setbacks [Ref. p. 1 , par. 1 (a) of the Policy] This section has been revised to include formulas which provide adequate separa- tion between buildings based upon their orientation to each other. These minimum requirements reflect an average setback, giving the developer the flexibility necessary to insure a viable project. b. Comnon Usable Open Space [Ref. p. 2, par. 2(a) of the Policy] The Commission is recorrunending that 400 sq. ft. of usable open space (5% grade or less) be required for each unit and 10,000 sq. ft. of recreational open space for any development up to 100 units, and an additional 100 sq. ft. for each unit beyond 100 units. c. Density Incentive Standards [Ref. p. 6, par. 8 of the Policy] As noted earlier, paragraph 8 on page 6 of the Policy sets forth the system of density bonuses. Council , on May 8, 1973, asked the Comnission to devote special attention to this portion of the Policy. The maximum density� permitted under the proposed PUD Modifying District and Policy is the same as the�Planning Commission previously approved. It is based on the density permitted in the various zoning districts considering only the minimum lot size per dwelling unit in the particular zoning district; i .e. , in the R-E-40 District, the minimum lot size is 40,000 sq. ft. , so that 1 .1 units per acre would be allowed, 43,560 (No. of sq. ft. in an acre) 40,000 min. lot size�— The base density, on the other hand, is the gross density which would generally result in each of the zoning districts considering that a certain amount of land must be devoted to streets. The difference between the base density and the maximum density represents the amount of the density bonus. This �amount varies from 29.4% to 37.5% in the various zones. This system of density bonuses is commonly used in the San Diego area; the proposed PUD Policy simply spells out the system in some detail . 5. Experience in Other Cities. Many progressive cities have adopted a density bonus or �incentive system in an effort to encourage desirable development. The main probl�n which has been encountered is that developers have assumed' that they have a right to the increased density and cities have tended to be too liberal in granting bonuses. Administration of the system will involve some subjective judgements and the density increases available under the system are quite� liberal . Fairly stringent administra- tion of the system thus is in order and the value of the bonus conferred upon the developer should be measured against the value to the community which results from the special features provided by�the developer. 6. Meeting with Developers. The staff sent copies of the proposed PUD Policy and Ordinance to nine developers and invited them to attend a staff ineeting�to discuss the matter. Three persons representing two development�firms attended the meeting. The more important comnents raised at the meeting were: a. The incentives are not large enou9h to offset the features required of PUDs. b. The original 25% bonus in addition to •the "gross density" bonus should be restored. 1 �� ^- � - AGENDA ITEM N0. a,b, • • COUNCIL MEETING OF: Sept. 25, 1973 � Supplemental page No. 3 c. Density incentive feature No. 6 involves a level of detail which the Planning Comnission and City Council should not be concerned about. Developer's plans at the PUD application stage are not sufficiently detailed to address the issues involved in item No. 6. d. Utilization of the density incentive features and their incorporation into a plan involves much expense and there is no assurance that Council will approve the plan. Staff has considered these comnents but does not believe that any change in the Ordinance and Policy •is appropriate at this time. Density bonuses in the magnitude of 30% cannot be considered as small . Generally •in:�PUDs a developer is able to effect considerable savings by virtue �of such factors as reduced lot size, comnon wall construction, shorter utility runs and reduced street improvement costs, even without an increase in the number of units over which costs can •be spread. I , {o ��