HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1989/04/18 Item 14 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item kfr
Meeting Date
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCA-89-1 ; Consideration of various amendments
to the Municipal Code relating to the authority and
jurisdiction of the Design Review Committee and certain
development standards in multiple family zones - City initiated
Ordinance coq Adopting amendments related to the
authority and jurisdiction of the Design Review Committee and
certain development standards in multiple, ;family,✓zones ;.;•
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning
r".
REVIEWED BY: City Manager E°�Li (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
In their annual report to the City Council , the Design Review Committee
outlined several issues and concerns regarding development standards and
jurisdictional and procedural matters related to the design review process.
The Council accepted a follow-up report by staff which recommended that
hearings be set to consider ordinance amendments addressing several of the
issues. These amendments are the subject of this report. The remaining
issues raised by the Committee were recommended for additional study and are
not further addressed here.
The Environmental Review Coordinator conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-59, of
potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the
project. Based on the attached Initial Study and comments thereon, if any,
the Coordinator has concluded that there would be no significant environmental
impacts, and recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration issued on
IS-89-59.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council concur with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On March 22, 1989, the Planning
Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that Council adopt the amendments in
accordance with Resolution PCA-89-1 .
DISCUSSION:
Following is a discussion of the five recommended amendments. The amendments
themselves are contained in Exhibit A.
AAN
Page 2, Item - / 4/
Meeting Date -r -- be
1 . Place a one-year limitation on DRC approvals.
Unlike conditional use permits and zone variances, once a project receives
DRC approval , the approved plans can be built at any time in the future.
The plans supercede any subsequent changes in the City's zoning
regulations or design manual and any changes to the character of the
surrounding area which could have had a bearing on the original design
solutions.
A one-year time limit for approved plans, with the opportunity for
extensions similar to the conditional use permit and variance procedures,
would avoid these problems and provide better control . The master fee
schedule would be amended to include a fee for extension requests in order
to account for noticing and staff hours.
2. Provide the DRC with the discretion to approve a transfer of open space
from the rearyard to other locations on R-3 lots.
The R-3 zone presently requires setbacks of 5 ft. on the sides and 15 ft.
in the rear. Since the configuration of R-3 lots is typically 2-4 times
as deep as they are wide, the largest portions of the building and the
greatest number of units are often oriented to the narrow 5 ft. sideyards,
while the deeper 15 ft. rearyard benefits few if any units at the rear of
the lot. This space could often be more effectively used on the sides or
in the center of a project.
The proposal is to amend the Code to allow the DRC the discretion to
reduce the rearyard by as much as 10 ft. (from 15 ft. to 5 ft. ) provided
the open space is transferred to another more beneficial location on the
lot. The transfer would only be available in cases where the rearyard
abutted a multiple-family, commercial or industrial zone, and only after
consideration of such factors as the size and orientation of on-site as
well as adjacent structures and yards, and the on-site benefits to be
gained by the transfer. The transfer option would not be available for
rearyards abutting single- or two-family zones.
3. Reduce the height limit in R-3 zones from 3.5 stories or 45 ft. in height
to 2.5 stories or 28 ft. in hei •ht, with the ability to increase to the
igher i mi t at tie discretion o t e i' .
The R-3 zones presently allow for buildings 3.5 stories or 45 ft. in
height (although three story projects typically range between 30-35 ft. in
overall height). While three-story projects were not that common in the
past due to the disproportionate cost of adding a third story, the
increased demand for housing and higher land costs have increased
pressures to maximize densities, resulting in more three-story
developments. These projects are often out of scale with the surrounding
area -- both in terms of appearance and also in terms of obstructing light
and air to adjacent properties.
Page 3, Item -lir 4
Meeting Date' 4/// fl/eff
The proposed amendment would authorize projects of 2.5 stories/28 ft. in
height as a matter of right and allow projects of 3.5 stories/45 ft. high
only at the discretion of the DRC. The first item under Principles and
Standards in the City's Design Manual states that "the height, bulk, mass
and proportion of all structures should be compatible with the site, as
well as in scale with adjacent structures on adjourning properties in the
area. " Thus the DRC now has the authority to reject or down-size three
story projects based on issues of scale and compatibility, but the
amendment would have the significant advantage of placing the
responsibility of addressing these issues with the developer rather than
with the staff and Committee.
There are several measures which can be taken alone or in combination to
ameliorate the mass and bulk of three-story structures short of reducing
the height to two stories. For instance, increasing the setbacks, either
overall or for second and third story portions of the building; breaking
the mass into smaller units by using two or more separate structures
rather than one or two large buildings; varying the setback/elevations on
a horizontal plane to suggest less mass than stark, unrelieved elevations;
and roof lines and treatment can also be used to reduce mass and bulk.
4. Provide the Zoning Administrator with the authority to address minor
design review projects.
The DRC presently has design review authority over more than 2,900 acres,
and the current workload is such that it now requires approximately 12
weeks from initial application to DRC consideration. The proposed
amendment would streamline the process for the benefit of applicants,
staff and the DRC by authorizing the Zoning Administrator, with the
applicants concurrence, to act upon minor proposals, including signs,
commercial and industrial additions which constitute less than a 25
percent increase in floor area, and residential additions of two units or
less.
The Zoning Administrator's decisions would be guided by the design manual ,
and could be appealed to the DRC and on to the Planning Commission and
City Council , if necessary. Also, either the applicant or the Zoning
Administrator could choose to forward a minor proposal directly to the
DRC. The master fee schedule would be amended to include a fee for Zoning
Administrator design review.
5. Provide the DRC with the authority to address reductions in sign area.
The City's sign ordinance is very liberal by today's standards. It was
adopted 14 years ago as a compromise between the City and the business
community, and results in signs which are several times too large and
out-of-scale with the building and site. The Design Manual presently
contains general sign criteria which could be used in support of sign area
reductions. But without the stated authority and more specific
Page 4, Item .].g— /474
Meeting Date d silieI y1
guidelines, it would be extremely controversial and time consuming to
attempt to reduce sign areas below that which is authorized by the
ordinance.
It is the intention of this amendment to provide the DRC with the stated
authority to address reductions in sign area. The authority would not be
used, however, until the adoption of the revised Design Manual which would
contain more specific guidelines and criteria under which to address sign
reductions. The revised manual and sign criteria would be subject to
review and approval by the Commission and Council .
WPC 6096P
by the City C:our��il of by the City C^ ., i! of
Chula Vista, CJ.lifornia Chula Vista,
-/8 rn�ja
Dated �` — ��—� Dated �` �l