Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1989/04/11 Item 16 Cc: COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item --t.i:f- /, Meeting Date 4/11/89 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 Adopting amendments rel ated to the authority and jurisdiction of the Oesign Review Committee and certain development standards in multiple family zones SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~) 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 heari ngs be set to consi der ordi nance amendments addressi ng 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 Envi ronmental Revi ew Coordi nator conducted an Ini ti al Study, IS-89-59, of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. 8ased on the attached Ini ti al 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 wi th the recommendati on of the Pl anni ng Commission. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Commission voted 5-0 to recommend accordance with Resolution PCA-89-1. On March tha t Counc il 22, 1989, the Pl anning adopt the amendments in DISCUSSION: Following is a discussion of the five recommended amendments. The amendments themselves are contained in Exhibit A. - Page 2, Item Meeting Oate 4/11/89 1. Place a one-year limitation on ORe approvals. Unlike conditional use permits and zone variances, once a project receives ORC approval, the approved plans can be built at any time in the future. The plans supercede any subsequent changes in the City's zoning regul ati ons or desi gn 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, woul d avoi d these probl ems and provi de 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. Provi de the ORC with the di screti on 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 wi de, the 1 argest porti ons of the bui 1 di ng 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 ORC the di screti on to reduce the rearyard by as much as 10ft. (from 15 ft. to 5 ft.) provi ded the open space is transferred to another more beneficial location on the lot. The transfer woul d only be avail abl e incases where the rearyard abutted a multiple-family, commercial or industrial zone, and only after consi derati on of such factors as the si ze and ori entati on of on-site as well as adjacent structures and yards, and the on-site benefits to be ga i ned by the transfer. The transfer opti on woul d not be ava il abl e 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 height, with the ability to increase to the higher 11mlt at the dlscretion of the DRC. The R-3 zones presently all ow for bui 1 di ngs 3.5 stori es or 45 ft. in height (although three story projects typically range between 30-35 ft. in overall hei ght). Whi 1 e 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 Meeting Date 4/11/89 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 responsibi1 ity 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 ame1 i orate the mass and bu1 k of three-story structures short of reduci ng 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 wou1 d stream1 ine the process for the benefit of app1 icants, 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 1 ess. 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 ORC. 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 reducti ons. But wi thout the stated authority and more specifi c - Page 4, Item Meeting Date 4/11/89 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 guidel ines 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