HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 01-01; Amendment to PUD Ordinance; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA)I .
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Adrienne Landers and Chris
DeCerbo
I
Project Engineer: N/A
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 18,2001
Item No. 0
SUBJECT: ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE - A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
repeal and reenact the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: 1) create a user-fiiendly document that provides clear and
detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small-lot, single-
family and two-family/multiple-family ownership dwelling units; 2) modify residential
development and design standards to achieve the development of more livable
neighborhoods; and, 3) modify development standards to ensure that homes are in better
scale to lot sizes.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4982
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and addendum issued by the Planning
Director and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4958 and 4959 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of ZCA 0 1 - 0 1 and LCPA 0 1-0 1 based on the findings contained therein.
11. BACKGROUND
This item was scheduled for June 20,2001, and was continued to July 18,2001.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4982
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4958
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4959
4. Staff Report dated June 6,2001 with attachments
@ The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 6,2001
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Adrienne Landers and Chris
DeCerbo
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE - A Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
repeal and reenact the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code) to: 1) create a user-fnendly document that provides clear and
detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small-lot, single-
family and two-family/multiple-family ownershlp dwelling units; 2) modify residential
development and design standards to achieve the development of more livable
neighborhoods; and, 3) modify development standards to ensure that homes are in better
scale to lot sizes.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4982
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and addendum issued by the Planning
Director and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4958 and 4959 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of ZCA 01- 01 and LCPA 01-01 based on the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposed project entails the repeal and reenactment of the City’s Planned Development Ordinance
(Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The primary objectives of this zone code amendment
are to:
1) Create a user-fiiendly document that provides clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small-lot, single-family and two-family/multiple-family
ownership dwelling units;
2) Modify residential development and design standards to achieve the development of more livable neighborhoods; and,
3) Modify development standards to ensure that homes are in better scale to lot sizes.
Two companion actions are also being submitted along with the proposed ordinance revisions. The first
action includes a new City Council policy outlining the City’s vision for Livable Neighborhoods and its
intent to consider these pnnciples in the review of proposed projects. The second action includes an
amendment to City Council Policy 44, Small Lot Architectural Guidelines (proposed name:
Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines) to add several provisions addressing building mass and
fagade articulation and to apply these provisions to all new single-family and two-family development
proposals. These last two policies are subject to review and action by the City Council and are provided
to the Planning Commission as information. The proposed development standards and Neighborhood
Architectural Design Guidelines are in compliance with all City regulations and fully implement the goals
of the General Plan.
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - .Jv~ENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVEL~PMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Over the past two years, staff has been engaged in an effort to modify existing standards and develop new
standards and guidelines to address several areas of concern expressed by the community. These areas of
concern include: an overall design trend for new homes to look similar and neighborhoods to lack
character; the construction of large homes on small lots both in new subdivisions and in infill areas;
speeding cars in new subdivisions; and the provision of two points of evacuation from residential
neighborhoods. To address these issues, City staff in the Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments
have been preparing a number of revisions to City policies, procedures and standards. These include:
1.
2.
- 3.
4.
5.
- 6.
-
Proposed Action
A new City Council policy on Livable Neighborhoods outlining the City’s
vision for residential neighborhoods.
Revisions to City Council Policy 44 (Small Lot Architectural Guidelines,
now called Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines) to address
arclutectural concerns related to new single-family and two-family
development projects (standard and mfill);
Revisions to the Planned Development Ordinance to address development
standards such as lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, private streets,
recreational open space, etc.
Revisions to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to add new goals and objectives addressing Livable Neighborhoods,
Livable Streets and emergency egress;
Revisions to public residential street standards to narrow street widths, to
provide parkways, trees, traffic calming measures, connected streets and
off-set dnveways. Language is included to address emergency egress from
residential neighborhoods to limit the number of units on cul-de-sacs and
to require residential fire sprinklers and fire resistant construction when
necessary.
Vision statements in master plans to create unique neighborhoods
addressing Livable Neighborhoods and Livable Streets concepts.
Decision-making Bodies
City Council
City Council
Planning Commission
City Council
Planning Commission
City Council
City Council
Master plan review by
Planning Commission and
City Council
This project, (ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01), includes items 1, 2 and 3 above to achieve the development of
more “livable neighborhoods” and home sizes that are in better scale to lot sizes.
Concurrently, revisions to the City’s public, residential streets (items 4, and 5) are also being prepared to
address the issues of speeding cars and emergency egress from residential neighborhoods. These subjects
will be brought forward as proposed amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the
General Plan as goals, objectives and implementing policies and programs. The intent of these
amendments is to provide a clearer vision of these concepts in the City’s primary land use document.
Although last amended in 1994, language in the existing Planned Development (PD) ordinance is often
ambiguous and fiequently does not clearly distinguish between regulations applicable to single-family
detached units and regulations applicable to multi-family attached units. Over the years staff has
developed a number of Administrative Policies to clarify this issue as well as other ambiguous topics such
as the provision of recreation facilities, building separation, driveways, etc. found in the ordinance. As
one of the project objectives, this amendment is proposed to create a user-fhendly document providing
clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of small-lot, single-family
and two-family/multiple family ownership dwelling units.
When the existing Planned Development Ordinance was adopted in 1982, the primary objective at that
time was to encourage clustered development-f both detached and attached ownership housing-for
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVEL~PMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Page 3
the primary purpose of enabling the preservation of environmentally constrained land and the sensitive
development of the City’s hillside topography. Over the past 20 years, the PD ordinance has enabled the
development of many clustered, higher density housing projects through the less restrictive development
standards of this ordinance. Compared to the R-1 zone, the PD standards allow for lots less than 7,500
square feet in size, reduced building setbacks and narrower private streets. Since its adoption, the PD
Ordinance has become the preferred development tool for residential developers within the City.
Approximately 90 percent of all residential development within the City is processed pursuant to the PD
Ordinance as the primary mechanism to achieve higher density housing. However, since adoption of the
PD Ordinance, other City ordinances and plans have been adopted such as the Hillside Ordinance, the
Growth Management Plan and the Habitat Management Plan, which more clearly and directly accomplish
the cimde goals of sensitive hillside development and environmental preservation.
Now, clustered development is seldom proposed to preserve hillsides or environmental constraints
because those areas are already designated for preservation. Instead, the PD ordinance is predominantly
used to maximize residential density on remaining unconstrained land. This has resulted in a cityscape
that is comprised of mass-graded building pads developed with independently designed residential
subdivisions that are rimmed by project walls or fences and either surrounded by natural open space or
located adjacent to other independently designed (and walled) residential subdivisions. The net effect is
that there is little interconnectivity between each neighborhood. Because many of the new neighborhoods
are physically separated from one another (by walls or open space), the character and “livability” of each
neighborhood becomes that much more important.
“Livable neighborhoods” are defined as neighborhoods that are designed to encourage social interaction
between residents within the neighborhood. Such neighborhoods are designed with a focus on residents
instead of the automobile by providing: pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined streets; walkways to common
destinations such as schools, parks and stores; homes that exhibit visual diversity, pedestrian scale and
prominence to the street with direct access to centrally-located neighborhood gathering places. Over the
last few years, many of the new neighborhoods appear to have been designed without a concern for
livability. Approximately one-third of the City’s residentially designated land remains to be developed.
With this in mind, staff is recommending that the PD Ordinance be revised to improve the appearance and
livability of the remaining, future residential subdivisions.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance also hctions as the implementing zoning for Carlsbad’s Local Coastal
Program (LCP). Accordingly, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is being processed to adopt the
proposed amended zone code as part of the City’s LCP.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this Zone Code AmendmentLocal Coastal Program Amendment
was developed by analyzing its achievement of the overall City Council project objectives and its
compliance/consistency with the Carlsbad General Plan and applicable Local Coastal Program policies.
A. Proiect Obiectives
As mentioned earlier, there are three primary project objectives: 1) a user-friendly document; 2)
development standards and design guidelines to create more livable neighborhoods; and 3) regulations to
address house size and mass. Included below is a discussion and analysis of the specific Planned
Development Ordinance revisions associated with each of these objectives. Reference can be made to
Table X for a detailed review of all text revisions. As compared to the existing planned development
regulations, the new regulations propose the changes discussed below.
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - AENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
1. User-Friendly Document
The format and regulations of the existing Planned Development Ordinance are somewhat ambiguous,
out-of-date, and in need of revision. A number of amendments are proposed to create a user-fhendly
document that provides clear and detailed development standards and procedures for the development of
small-lot, single-family and two-family/multiple family ownership dwelling units.
Pumose and Intent - The Purpose and Intent section has been revised to distill existing, overlapping
objectives
e
e
e
e
e
e
into six more focused and clear objectives. These include:
Recognition of the need for a diversity of housing product types;
Acknowledgment that preserving environmentally or topographically constrained land
precludes achievement of a full density yeld and justifies clustered housing;
Establishment of a process to allow the development of single family lots smaller than 7,500
square feet or as otherwise allowed by the underlying zone;
Development of small-lot subdivisions in existing R- 1 neighborhoods when the project is
compatible with adjacent land uses;
Development of small-lot subdivisions in multi-family zones (R-3, RD-M) as an alternative
product type to attached dwelling units; and,
Recognition that additional community amenities and features should be provided in
exchange for relief from compliance with standard, residential zoning regulations.
These revisions provide a clearer distinction for use of the Planned Development Ordinance versus
standard zoning and more directly relate to the development standards and required findings found later in
the ordinance.
Tabular Format - The ordinance has been reformatted to incorporate six new tables (Tables “A” -
“E”), which are discussed below. The tabular format will be considerably more user-friendly than
the existing, predominantly text format.
Table A - Permitted Residential Uses specifies the types of residential structures (i.e.;
single-family, two-family or multi-family) that are permitted within each residential zone
through a Planned Development permit. This new section stipulates that single-family lots
smaller than 7,500 sq. ft. are only permitted in an R-1 zone when the project site is
contiguous to a higher intensity land use or an existing project of comparable or higher
density. This provision was incorporated to &sure that new, infill development is compatible
with surrounding R-1 zoned neighborhoods. Consistent with the existing R-1 and R-2 zones,
this section also: a) prohibits multi-family uses (3+ family dwellings) in the R-1 zone; and, b)
only allows two-family in the R-1 zone and multi-family uses in the R-2 zone when the
project site consists of no more than one lot nor is more than 90 feet in width, whichever is
less and is contiguous to a lot or lots with a higher intensity zone (i.e.; R-3, R-T, R-P, C-1, C-
2, C-M or M).
Table B - Processing Procedures simply places existing language into a tabular format.
Minor projects of four or fewer units are still reviewed by the Planning Director; projects of
more than four units are still acted on by the Planning Commission; and projects of more than
50 units still have the City Council as the final decision-making body.
Approval of a PD requires specific findings to be made. The number of required findings has
been reduced from nine to two. The new findings require project conformance with all of the
development standards of the ordinance as well as compatibility with surrounding uses. This
reduction in the number of required findings was possible because: a) as discussed earlier, the
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - xMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELUPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Page 5
existing findings relating to environmentally sensitive design are no longer applicable; and, b)
the existing findings relating to project design are no longer necessary in that new
development and design standards that promote the development of livable neighborhoods
have been incorporated into the ordinance.
Table C - General Development Standards - provides general development standards that
apply to &l planned developments. These general standards address: building setbacks from
arterial streets, permitted architectural intrusions into setbacks, visitor parking,
streetldnveway design standards, landscaped parkways, screening of open parking, common
recreational open space and parking, and RV storage.
0 Table D - Small-lot Single-Family and Two-family Development Standards - includes
development standards that apply & to small-lot, single-family and two-family dwelling
units.
0 Table E - Multi-family Development Standards - includes development standards that
apply o& to multi-family dwelling units.
Table F - Procedures and Development Standards for Residential Additions and
Accessory Uses - includes administrative procedures for processing residential additions
(garages, workshops, room additions, and guest houses).
Minor PD Amendments - The existing PD ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to review
and approve minor PD amendments without the necessity of a public hearing, whereas, major PD
amendments require full public hearings. As currently defined, a minor amendment may not change
the density of a project or boundaries of a property, add a new land use or rearrange land uses within
the development, or change approved yards, building coverage, building height, open space or
landscaping more than 10%. This section has been amended to: 1) clarify the existing criteria for
determining whether a project revision qualifies as a “minor” or “major,, PD amendment; and, 2)
establishes a new public notice requirement for minor PD amendments.
Staff is also recommending that the decision-making authority for a minor PD amendment be
delegated from the Planning Commission to the Planning Director. This recommendation is based
upon the fact that most other City development permits that are proposed for minor revision (and are
substantially the same as the approved project) are administratively reviewed and approved by the
Planning Director. Any proposed permit amendment that does not satisfy the minor PD amendment
criteria will be processed as a major amendment before the Planning Commission.
New Definitions have been added for clarification and understanding. These include: condominium
project, driveway (single-family and project), duplex, net pad area, planned development and
twinhome. These terms are distinguished in the proposed ordinance and, therefore, require definition.
The proposed tabular format will be more user-friendly than the existing document by providing clear
direction on what standards apply to different types of development, how these projects are processed and
what the decision-making body is for each type of project. All Administrative Policies applicable to
planned developments have been reviewed and included in the proposed ordinance. This will provide
clarity for applicants who presently have no access to the policies and may not know they even exist.
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELdPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Page 6
2. Development Standards and Guidelines to Create More Livable Neighborhoods
2a. Development Standards
Through revisions to the proposed Planned Development Ordinance, the City is taking a more proactive
approach to residential design and the development of “Livable Neighborhoods”. Generally speaking,
livable neighborhoods are those that have homes and streets that are in scale to each other and the size of
the lots, those that have streets with parkways and trees, and those that have opportunities for
neighborhood gathering areas. A comparison of proposed revisions in relation to existing standards has
been provided on the following Table X, Standards Comparisons, along with justifications for the
proposed changes.
Table X
Standards Comnarison
Standard
Street
Width,
Parkways,
Trees
Existing
30 ft; 2 lanes, no
parking, 12
units or less
32 ft; 2 lanes
parking on one
side
36 ft; 2 lanes of
parking No parkways
Proposed
34 feet, parking
on both sides
4.5 feet wide
parkways with
trees
Justification
Existing street widths are proposed to be narrowed to a
width of 34 feet (curb-to-curb) to slow traffic, to increase
pedestrian safety and to create a more visually-pleasing
environment for residents. The 34-foot-wide travel lane
also accommodates emergency service providers and
service vehicles such as trash trucks. Proposed
improvements include a 20 foot travel lane, two 7 foot
parking lanes, two 6 inch curbs, two 4.5 foot landscaped
parkways, two 5 foot sidewalks and two 6 inch utility and
access easements (Attachment 6). Staff is proposing to
provide these street features within the same space that
developers already are required to designate for street
improvements. The net effect of this redesign is that land
currently designated as front yard setback is relocated as
landscaped parkways to improve the streetscape while
maintaining the same distance from the house to the curb.
Existing 30 foot (no parking permitted) and 32 foot wide
(parking permitted on one side) streets are proposed to be
eliminated because residents park on both sides of the
streets regardless of regulations, thus creating travel lanes
that are too narrow and cannot accommodate emergency
vehicles. The proposed private street width is consistent
with the public residential street widths proposed as part of
the Livable Streets program concurrently being proposed
through the City Council.
Trees will be selected from the City-approved tree list and
planted with root-guards to prevent lifting of sidewalks.
Parkway maintenance will be provided by the appropriate
HOAs.
ZCA 01-OlLCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELv2MENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Page 7
Standard
Front
Yard
Setback
Front
Porches,
Open Court-
yards,
Balconies
Existing . Single-family
from a street: 20
ft. with 15 ft.
average; 10 ft.
for side-loaded
garages; . Multi-familv
from a street: 20
ft.
9 Single-family/
multi-familv
froma Droiect
driveway: 5 ft.
None
Proposed . Single-
familv/two-
family/ . multi-familv
from a street: . 12 ft. average,
10 ft.
minimum
- 8 ft.
garages - 20 ft.
garages - 10 fi.
. Front porches . Front-loaded
Side-loaded
9 Single-
familvltwo-
familvl
multi-family
from a Droiect
driveway: . Residence - 8 . Garage - 5 ft.
ft.
50% of single-
family and two-
family homes must
provide
~~ Justification
As discussed above, streets are one of the major
components in a Livable Neighborhood because they have
such a major mfluence on motorists, residents and the
overall streetscape. To achieve the proposed street design
within the same designated space, the front yard setbacks
along both sides of a street are proposed to be reduced by
three feet. This reduces the front yard setback from an
average of 15 feet to an average of 12 feet. The net tradeoff
is that an average of three feet of the front lawn has been
relocated as a tree-lined parkway. This relocation softens
the streetscape, contributes to slowing traffic and creates a
more inviting pedestrian environment. However, the
distance from the house to the curb has actually increased
by one foot (from 20.5 feet to 21.5 feet). Front porches are
allowed to encroach a maximum of 4 feet into the average
12 foot front yard setback because front porches are integral
components of livable neighborhoods.
See discussion under 2b, page 13.
ZCA Ol-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVEL~PMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Page 8
Standard
Distance
Between
Single-
story and
Residential
Structures
Two-story
Distance
Between
Multi-
family
Structures
Existing
between single-
story residential
structures: Not
less than 10
feet; . When more than
10 residential
structures in a
row, the
distance
between two
and three story
residential
structures shall
not be less than
20 feet and the
distance
between two-
story and one-
story shall not
be less than 15
feet.
. Distance
20 feet
Proposed . This provision
has been deleted.
Instead, distance
between
structures has
been addressed
by lot coverage
and increased
side yard setback
requirements.
Additional
design guidelines
further reduce
building mass
and provide
faqade
articulation.
20 feet
Justification
This provision has rarely been effective in increasing the
distance between residential structures (as discussed below)
and has always been confusing because: 1) it does not
address two-story to two-story homes; 2) it creates greater
distance between homes in PDs than homes in R-1
developments on larger lots; and 3) it is difficult to
calculate because of the confusion over what is meant by
“10 homes in a row.”
Although originally intended to address the intensity of
development by requiring a greater separation (more than
10 feet) between residential structures, this provision has
instead manifested itself as a “drop-a-lot’’ or as a lot without
a house on the 10th lot. Specifically, rather than increasing
the distance between residential structures, most developers
opted to design residential projects so that 10 structures in a
row do not occur, thereby not requiring an increased
separation between residential structures. This design was
most frequently accomplished by locating small open space
lots as necessary throughout the project.
New development standards are proposed which require
greater side yard setbacks (for single family and two-family
structures). These new development standards in
association with other new building mass and bulk
regulations and architectural guidelines will adequately
address the issue of building intensity.
Although the “drop-a-lot’’ are no longer needed to address
building mass, they have nevertheless become a valued
feature in existing neighborhoods in that they provide visual
relief and opportunities for recreation. With the proposed
amendment, staff has retained the concept of pocket parks
(in the recreation requirements) and allows these areas to be
counted toward the 300 sq. ft per unit recreation
requirement. Although the development community may
believe there is a cost to them for the 300 sq. ft. per unit
recreation space, this is offset by the fact that no longer
must drop-a-lots be provided.
Although existing development standards require 20 feet
between structures, this space is frequently occupied by
stairwells and visually appears much narrower. To address
this, the ordinance has been amended to specify that no
structures (i.e.; stairwells or balconies) are permitted within
this 20 foot separation area.
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - AENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELuPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Pape 9
Standard
Garages
(Single-
family and
family)
TWO-
Single-
story Units
Existing
20 ft. setback
for front-loaded
10 ft. for side-
loaded garages . Archtectural
Guidelines
allow 75% of
units to be
three-in-a-row
car garages
None
Proposed . 20 ft. setback for
front-loaded
garages . 10 ft. for side-
loaded garages . On a project
basis, 50% of
project garages
must be recessed
a minimum of 5
feet behind the
front faqade of
the residence, - and 25% of
project garages
must be located
on the rear half
of the lot or
alley-loaded gx&
a maximumof
25% of project
garages may be
side or front-
loaded provided
that the garages
do not exceed
50% of the total
house frontage. . Front-loaded
garages may
project up to 6
feet forward of
the house. . 12.5% of the
front-loaded
garages may be
provided as
three-in-a-row
car garages that
directly face the
street.
15% Of total
number of single-
family and two-
family homes
Justification
See discussion under 2b, page 13.
See discussion under 2b, page 12.
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVEL“2MENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Standard
Recreation
Area
Existing . 200 sq. ft. per . Must be
unit
common active
and passive . 15’ x 15’ rear
yard counts
toward 200 sq.
ft. . 6’ x 10’ balcony
counts toward . 10’ x 10’ patio
counts toward
200 sq. ft.
200 sq .ft.
. Lots 7.500 SQ.
ft. in size and
greater are
exempt from
recreation space
requirements.
Proposed . Common Area:
more than 10
homes - 300 sq.
ft. per unit
recreation areas
to be centrally
located and
designed for
active and
passive uses for a
variety of age
groups . 1 parking
space/l5 lots or
homes located
more than 1000’
from a recreation
lot
. Requires
Private Area:-
Single
FamilviTwo-
familv:
9 1 - 10 homes-
25 ft. x 25 ft.
rear yard . More than 10
homes - 20 ft.
x 20 ft. rear
yard . Private area: -
Multi-familv . 1 - 10 homes -
15 ft. x 15 ft.
patio or 120
balcony area . More than 10
homes - 10 ft.
x 10 ft. patio or
6 ft. x 10 ft.
balcony
sq. ft. of
. Lots 7,500 SQ. ft.
in size and
greater are
exempt from
recreation space
requirements.
Justification
Current regulations do not recognize the different sizes of
projects in relation to recreation requirements. It is more
difficult for smaller projects to provide common area and
doing so requires the establishment of an HOA, often for no
other reason than to ensure maintenance of these common
recreation areas. The proposed requirements recognize this
issue and do not require common recreation space for
projects with less than 11 homes. However, staff believes
that such recreational space is still important, so for single-
family and two-family projects of fewer than 11 units the
rear yard requirement has been increased to a 25’ x 25’
area. For multi-family projects, the patiohalcony has also
been comparably increased. This provides more space for
the homeowner, may eliminate the need for an HOA and
will eliminate useless recreation space that is never used
because it is too small in the first place.
Present regulations for planned developments with small
lots do not provide adequate common recreation area for
residents and tend to address only the recreation needs of
the healthy young adult. This issue is addressed with
proposed requirements to increase private recreation space
(yard, patio or balcony) and common active recreation
space. Recreation facilities will be provided for a variety of
age groups in easily accessible centralized areas. This will
provide greater accessibility and use of recreation areas
instead of the frequent practice of locating recreation lots in
non-centralized or residual portions of sites. Such central
gathering areas are consistent with the principles of Livable
Neighborhoods to encourage interaction among residents.
New requirements also update the list of recreational types
of uses/facilities and provide greater flexibility. The need
to have some parking available at recreation areas is also
recognized by the new requirements.
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELJPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Standard
Resident
Parking
Visitor
Parking
RV
Parking
Driveways
Arterial
Setbacks
Existing
8 Multi-family - 2
covered per unit
8 No change to
number of
spaces
8 45 % can be
compact
20 sq. ft. for each
home over 10
units
30 ft.
8 Secondary - 30
8 Major - 40 ft.
8 Prime - 40 ft.
ft.
Proposed . Multi-family - 1
car garage and 1
covered or
uncovered space
per unit
8 No change to
number of spaces
8 Single-family -
Credit for 1 guest
parkmg space
when dnveways
are over 40 feet
long
compact and are
only allowed in
multi-family
projects of 25
units or more
For projects of 25
units or more: 20
sq. ft. for each unit.
8 25 % can be
8 24 ft. . No more than 20
single family/
two-family
homes may be
located along a
driveway.
8 50% of setback
closest to
arterial must be
landscaped
8 Setback also
applies to
accessory
structures
8 Homes on
Carlsbad Blvd.
have a 20 foot
setback.
Justification
New standards still ensure that each unit has a garage but
allow the second parking space to be either open parking or
a carport. Thls provides more open space and site design
opportunities. Developers are not precluded from providing
two-car earaees.
Existing parkmg requirements remain the same. A new
standard to encourage recessed garages recognizes that
driveways for recessed garages provide adequate space for
guest parking. This saves space on the overall site design
for other uses.
The reduction in the number of compact stalls permitted
recognizes the larger size of modem cars and that compact
parking should only be allowed when more parking spaces
are available in a lot.
RV parking for small sites is difficult to design and provide
due to the low number of RV spaces required. The
requirement increases HOA fees significantly because there
are not enough homeowners to share the costs. Present
regulations allow only one homeowner to enjoy the space
while the remaining homeowners receive no benefit.
Proposed regulations remain the same as existing for
projects of 25 units or more but recognize the inherent
difficulties of providing RV parking for small projects.
A reduced dnveway width (from 30’ to 24’) reduces the
amount of hardscape in a project without compromising the
ability for vehicles to efficiently circulate. The proposed
24’ wide dnveway standard is consistent with the City’s
existing dnveway standard for apartment projects. This
revision recognizes that driveways for multi-family condos
and a limited number (20 maximum number) single
family/two-family units function the same as driveways for
apartments. The 24 ft. width has been approved previously
a number of times as master plan amendments for
condominium projects and functions without complaints or
problems. Language allows increased driveway width if
determined to be necessary.
New language clarifies the fact that a landscaped buffer is
required along major roadways providing a visual as well as
spatial buffer. The difficulty in providing such setbacks
along Carlsbad Blvd. is recognized and variance requests
become unnecessary.
-. c
ZCA 01-Ol/LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELuPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Page 12
2b. Architectural Design Guidelines
Two companion policies accompany the proposed ZCALCPA. As City Council policies they are subject
to action by the City Council and provided to the Planning Commission as information. The first policy,
Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods, addresses concepts that the City believes are
major components of livable neighborhoods. They are intended to assist developers, staff and the
community in understanding the concepts of a livable neighborhood and what the City is striving to
achieve through implementation of the design guidelines found in City Council Policy 44.
The second policy is an amendment modifying City Council Policy 44, Small Lot Architectural
Guidelines, to achieve the development of more “livable neighborhoods” by strengthening existing design
policies addressing building mass and articulation. This policy is proposed to be renamed Neighborhood
Architectural Design Guidelines. Both policies are attached as Attachments 4 and 5. Major features of the
revised policy are provided below.
Applicabilitv. The major change regarding applicability of the revised Council Policy is that
these standards would no longer apply solely to Planned Developments but also to all proposed
single-family homes, two-family homes, and residential remodels (that propose to increase the
floor area of the home by more than 40 percent). The amended policy will be applicable whether
the project is located in an infill area or in an undeveloped area of town. The purpose is to
ensure that all new and remodeled (more than 40 percent) single-family and two-family homes
have sufficient building articulation to reduce their bulk and mass. Additionally, the new
guidelines are intended to ensure that homes are in scale to the size of their lots and relate well to
the street and surrounding homes.
In the older parts of the City, there have often been complaints about the lack of compatibility
demonstrated by new, larger two-story homes being developed on infill lots located in
neighborhoods that are developed predominantly with smaller, single-story homes. In these
circumstances as well as with all new R-1 subdivisions, there are no architectural standards that
staff can use to address building mass and articulation. The amended policy would provide such
a tool by addressing building mass and articulation for all new single-family homes and two-
family homes. It will also ensure that older homes proposed for remodeling will be compatible
with surrounding development. Staff believes that implementation of similar design guidelines,
that formerly applied only to PDs, will provide the necessary building articulation to reduce the
bulk and mass of all new and remodeled homes to a more acceptable scale.
Projects of four or fewer units would have to comply with only some of the guidelines. This
recognizes the smaller scale of some projects, provides a high degree of architectural design
freedom and yet ensures adequate building articulation and design interest. Recognizing that
many older homes are likely to remodel, when applications are received to remodel homes by
increasing the useable living space by more than 40 percent, property owners would be required
to comply with the same guidelines established for projects of less than five units. This provision
attempts to create equal treatment for all homeowners and establish compatibility between
existing infill homes, new infill homes and homes that remodel in infill areas.
Single-stow Homes. A new provision has been added to require 15 percent of the proposed
homes to be constructed as single-story structures. This standard is intended to provide an overall
project reduction in building mass through the use of a lower roof line on some of the units.
Varying roof lines improve the stxeetscape by creating additional visual diversity. This issue
becomes even more important when homes are located along ridge-lines and visible from greater
distances.
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - dENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELVI’MENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Page 13
Porches, men Courtvards, Balconies. Another new requirement is for 50 percent of the homes
to provide a minimum area of 60 square feet designed as a fiont porch, open courtyard or balcony
and located at the front of the dwelling. These features provide additional building articulation,
create a stronger relationship with the street and provide additional opportunities for
neighborhood interaction.
Three-car-in-a-row Garages. Existing requirements of Policy 44 allow 75 percent of the total
number of homes to have three-car garages. Such garages are defined as garages having space for
three cars, whether constructed as 3 one-car garages or a two-car garage separated slightly fiom a
one-car garage, all located adjacent to each (or almost adjacent to each other) and directly facing
the street. When used in this design, three-car garages become the prominent feature on a home
and on the street forming a physical barrier between residents and pedestrians. The principles of
livable neighborhoods place the livable space of the home as prominent to the street rather than the
car. This provision also strengthens the appearance of the streetscape as well as the character and
identity of the neighborhood. Making the home prominent to the street is important to achieving a
sense of place in a neighborhood.
Desim Elements. The last major change to Policy 44 is that each dwelling unit must provide a
variety of design elements to add character and interest to the home. A list of sample elements is
provided in the policy but proposed design elements may vary depending upon the chosen
architectural style of the homes. The intent is to strengthen design quality and provide flexibility
but to prevent the construction of flat, featureless boxes.
House Size in Relation to Lot Size 3.
The existing PD ordinance allows for the development of residential lots with a minimum lot size of 3,500
square feet as compared to the minimum of 7,500 square feet required in an R-1 zoned neighborhood. As
the price of residential land within the City has continued to escalate, the development community has
aggressively pursued the development of smaller residential lots; however, the size of the homes has not
been proportionately reduced in size. This has resulted in the development of larger homes (typically, the
same size as those found on R-1-7,500 square-foot lots) on smaller 3,500-5,000 square-foot residential
lots. This has become a citywide concern in that overbuilt residential lots compromise community
aesthetic values and homeowner privacy.
To address this issue, Planning Department staff reviewed bulk and mass regulations fiom other local
jurisdictions in the San Diego and Irvine area in addition to visiting new developments in these
communities for the specific purpose of identifying those development standards that could best address
the issue of overbuilt residential lots. Based upon this research, staff is recommending a number of
revisions to PD Ordinance development standards (i.e.; a new lot coverage standard and increased
minimum lot size, lot width, and side yard setbacks) to ensure that dwelling units are in better scale and
proportion with residential lot sizes, as discussed below.
Lot Coverage. Traditionally, regulations addressing the bulk and mass of residential units
include building setbacks, building height and lot coverage. The existing PD Ordinance does
include building height and setback regulations but does not include a lot coverage standard. This
has resulted in the development of very large homes that are built to the required minimum
setbacks and maximum building height yet, nevertheless, appear out of scale in a neighborhood
setting.
Lot coverage is a bulk and mass standard that is defined as the total ground area of a lot that is
covered by a building or structure. For example, the R-1 zone allows a lot coverage of 40 percent.
This means that 40 percent (3,000 sq. ft.) of a 7,500 sq. ft. lot may be covered by the dwelling
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - rrMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVEL~PMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Pane 14
unit and accessory structures. In comparison, lot coverage for many of the City’s existing small-
lot, single-family subdivisions is between 50-60 percent. Accordingly, the PD ordinance is
proposed for revision to establish a new lot coverage standard of 40 percent for two-story homes,
50 percent for one-story homes, 50 percent for two-story homes on lots less than 5,000 sq. ft., and
60 percent for multiple family units. The proposed 40 percent coverage standard for two-story
homes is comparable with the general lot coverage standard of the R-1 zone and the 50 percent
one-story home lot coverage standard provides an incentive to developers to build one-story
homes. The proposed 60 percent coverage standard for multiple family units is consistent with
the lot coverage standard of the R-3 and RD-M zones.
Lot Size. As discussed above, the existing PD ordinance allows for the development of
minimum 3,500 SF residential lots as compared to the minimum 7,500 SF lots required in an R-1
zoned neighborhood. Historically, small 3,500 SF single-family lot projects have been proposed
on higher density designated properties (RMH or RH) as an alternative to developing the property
with a more clustered, attached (condominium) project. This has frequently resulted in the
development of small lot single-family projects that appear to be too intensely developed and
frequently not in character with surrounding neighborhoods. Accordingly, the PD Ordinance is
proposed for revision to increase the minimum, single-family lot size fiom 3,500 sq. ft. to 5,000
sq. ft. unless unique circumstances exist.
The proposed ordinance includes a provision that recognizes the fact that at higher density
locations (RMH and RH) and under unique circumstances, lot sizes smaller than the 5,000 sq. ft.
down to a minimum of 3,500 sq. ft. may be appropriate. Unique circumstances could include,
for example, developments proposed near the beach (where lots sizes are typically smaller),
affordable housing projects, seniors housing, or when the site is located within 1,200 feet of a
transit, employment, or commercial center.
Side Yard SetbackBuilding Separation. Existing standards require a minimum 5 foot side
yard setback for single-family units and a minimum building separation of 20 feet between multi-
family structures. The proposed amendment includes revisions to: 1) increase the side yard
setback for single family and two-family structures from a minimum of 5 feet to a combined side-
yard setback of not less than 25 percent of the lot width (with a minimum of 5 feet); and, 2)
prohibit structural encroachment (i.e.; stairs and balconies) within the 20 foot separation between
multi- family structures.
The net effect of these revisions is that there will be more separation between residential units.
For example, as shown in Table Y, page 15, Side Yard Setbacks Comparison, the existing,
minimum side yard setback standard for small-lot, single-family lots (irrespective of lot width) is
5 feet per side yard. In comparison, the revised standard would require a combined side yard
setback of 12.5 feet (50 feet x 25 percent) for a 50 foot wide lot. This means that the combined
12.5 foot total side yard setback can be proposed in a variety of combinations including 6 feet /
6.5 feet or 5.5 feet / 7 feet, as long as no side yard setback is less than 5 feet. When used in
conjunction with the reduced lot coverage standard and increased building articulation, the resultant effect will be a further reduction in building mass. See Table X, page 8 for discussion
related to distance between structures.
t
Width
50 ft.
55ft.
60 ft.
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVEL~PMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Yard Setbacks Side Yard Setbacks
5 ft. 12.5 ft.
5 ft. 13.75 ft.
5 ft. 15 ft.
(25 Percent of Lot Width)*
Table Y
Side Yard Setback Comparison I Lot I Existing Minimum Side I Proposed Combined
*Minimum of 5 feet
B. General Plan
The General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements include a number of community and neighborhood
design objectives and policies. The proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment and associated
City Council Policies on Livable Neighborhoods and Architectural Design are consistent with applicable
objectives and policies of the General Plan as discussed below:
Table Z
ELEMENT
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
Circulation
Element
General PI:
GOAL, OBJECTIVE
OR POLICY
Policy C. 1 1 - Residential
development should provide
pedestrian and bicycle linkages to
nearby community centers, parks,
schools
Policy C.6 - Building architecture
should enhance the character of
each neighborhood
Policy C.7 (Overall Land Use
Pattern) - Buildings should be in
harmony (size, height, and location)
with surrounding neighborhoods.
On and off-site circulation design
should be efficient and promote
traffic safety.
Objective B.2 (Streets and Traffic
Control) - Streets should be
designed to be aesthetically
pleasing.
C. Local Coastal Program
I Compliance
ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY
0 The Livable Neighborhood Policy requires that all
residential projects include walkways to common
destinations such as neighborhood schools,
parks/plazas and transit stops.
0 Projects are required to include centrally located
neighborhood meeting placedrecreational activity
centers.
Revised PD standards/ Neighborhood Architectural
Design Guidelines will require the development of
architecturally interesting homes that are in scale to lot
sizes and strengthen the feeling of community in the
neighborhood.
0 Revised development standards (i.e.; minimum lot
size, lot coverage and setbacks) will ensure that
dwelling units are in better scale and proportion with
surroundmg neighborhoods.
0 Small lot subdivisions in R-1 neighborhoods are only
allowed when the proposed site is contiguous to a
higher intensity land use or an existing project of
comparable or higher density;
Revised development standards will narrow streets,
thereby slowing traffic and increasing pedestrian and
traffic safety.
Revised development and design standards will narrow
streets and require parkways and street trees. These
revisions will provide a more pedestrian-friendly and
aesthetically-pleasing streetscape.
The City’s Planned Development Ordinance is one of the implementing ordinances for the Carlsbad Local
ZCA 01-01/LCPA 01-01 - AENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELJPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Page 16
Coastal Program (LCP). Accordingly, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is being processed to ensure
consistency between the proposed amended zone code and the City’s LCP. The LCP amendment will add
the amended version of the Planned Development Ordinance to the implementation portion of all of the
City’s LCP segments. This will accomplish the required consistency between the City’s Zoning
Ordinance and its LCP.
The proposed Planned Development Ordinance amendment is consistent with applicable coastal policies
of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program because the proposed Planned Development ordinance revisions will
not adversely impact coastal resources, obstruct coastal views or otherwise damage the visual beauty of
the coastal zone.
Coastal resources (i.e.; wetlands, or coastal slopes with gradients equal to or greater than 25% inclination
with or without native vegetation) will not be affected by the revised residential development and design
standards. These. revised standards will result in the development of more “livable residential
neighborhoods” on the developable (unconstrained) areas of a property. All projects processed pursuant
to these revised standards shall be required to comply with all applicable provisions and policies of the
certified local coastal program and shall not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources.
In addition, the proposed development standards revisions (i.e.; increasing residential lot size and side
yard setbacks, requiring a percentage of one-story homes and establishing a lot coverage standard) should
enhance coastal views by reducing house size and mass.
Lastly, the proposed “livable neighborhood” design standards will enhance the aesthetic environment and
visual beauty of the coastal zone by creating narrower, pedestrian-friendly, tree-lined streets that slow
neighborhood traffic, and an improved streetscape, by reducing the dominance of garage doors, requiring
front porches, and enhanced front faqade articulation for residences.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this Zone Code Amendmenfiocal Coastal Program
Amendment (ZCA 0 1-0 ULCPA 0 1-0 1) to the City’s Planned Development Ordinance (Carlsbad
Municipal Code, Chapter 21.45) will not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore
issued a Negative Declaration on March 15, 2001. The environmental analysis (EIA Part 11) concluded
that this ZCNLCPA will not result in any physical, biological or human environmental impacts. The
amended planned development and design standards exceed the existing standards, with respect to
environmental protection, in that they promote the development of more livable neighborhoods where
visually interesting homes are prominent to the street and in better scale to lot sizes and narrower streets
(with landscaped parkways) are safer and pedestrian friendly. Therefore, no significant environmental
impacts are anticipated to occur. All future development projects processed pursuant to this amended
Planned Development Ordinance shall be subject to site specific environmental review. There were no
letters of comment received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. An addendum
to the Negative Declaration has been prepared to indicate that that the proposed project will also include:
1) a new City Council policy outlining the City’s vision for Livable Neighborhoods and its intent to
consider these principles in the review of proposed residential projects, and 2) an amendment to City
Council Policy 44, Small Lot Architectural Guidelines (proposed name: Neighborhood Architectural
Design Guidelines) to add several provisions addressing building mass and faqade articulation and to
apply these provisions to all new single-family and two-family development proposals.
ZCA 01-01LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELJPMENT ORDINANCE
June 6,2001
Page 17
ATTACHMENTS :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
AL:cs:mh
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4982 (Neg. Dec.)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4958 (ZCA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4959 (LCPA)
City Council Policy on Livable Neighborhoods, dated June 6,200 1
City Council Policy on Neighborhood Architectural Guidelines, dated June 6,2001
hvate Streets, dated June 6,2001
1 ArrAcMENT 4 JUNE 6,2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
Specific Subject: PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Divi:
olicy No.
ate Issued
ancellation Date uperseded No.
In Heads, Employee
Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
PURPOSE:
The City wishes to establish principles for the development of livable neighborhood. Livable
neighborhoods have a sense of identity and community where residents are encouraged to walk
instead of using their cars; where homes are in scale to the size of their lots; where streets are
pedestrian-friendly with walkways to common destinations such as schools, parks, stores, and transit;
where houses are interesting to look at with strong architectural elements; and where open spaces
form focal points, gathering places, and recreational spaces for a variety of age groups.
1.
2.
3.
Buildinq Facades, Front Entries, Porches
Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual
interest to pedestrians. Clearly identifiable front doors and porches enhance the street scene and
create opportunities for greater social interaction within the neighborhood. Building entries and
windows should face the street. Front porches, bay windows, courtyards and balconies are
encouraged.
Garaaes
Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in
relation to the street. A variety of garage configurations should be used to improve the street
scene. This may include tandem garages, side-loaded garages, front-loaded garages, alley-
loaded garages and recessed garages.
Street Desiqn
An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs when
there are no topographic or environmental constraints. Interconnected streets provide pedestrians
and automobiles many alternative routes to follow, disperse traffic and reduce the volume of cars
on any one street in the neighborhood. Streets should be designed to provide both vehicular and
pedestrian connectivity by minimizing the use of cul-de-sacs.
The street network should also be designed to create a safer, more comfortable pedestrian and
bicycling environment. Local residential streets should have travel and parking lanes, be
sufficiently narrow to slow traffic, provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles and
emergency evacuation routes for residents and include parkways with trees to form a pleasing canopy over the street. Local residential streets are the public open space in which children often
play and around which neighborhoods interact. Within this context, vehicular movement should be
additionally influenced through the use of City-accepted designs for traffic calming measures.
4.
5.
6.
Parkways
Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. Tree species should be selected
to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and
minimize water consumption.
Pedestrian Walkways
Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. Walkways (sidewalks or
trails) should provide clear, comfortable and direct access to neighborhood schools, parks/plazas
and transit stops. Primary pedestrian routes should be bordered by residential fronts, parks or
plazas. Where street connections are not feasible (at the end of cul-de-sacs), pedestrian paths
should also be provided.
Centralized Community Recreation Areas
Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers
should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. As frequently as possible, these
parks/plazas should be designed for both active and passive uses for residents of all ages and
should be centrally-located within the project. Parks and plazas should be not be sited on residual
parcels, used as buffers from surrounding developments or to separate buildings from streets.
ATTACHMENT 5 '
JUNE 6,2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES
Specific Subject: ESTABLISHMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Divi
olicy No. 44
ate Issued 8/26/97
Date 8126197 ancellation Date
buperseded No. 44
Dated 200 1
on Heads, Employee
Bulletin Boards, Press, File.
PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose and intent of the architectural guidelines is to ensure that a variety of architectural elements are
incorporated into single-family homes and two-family structures so that they: a) are visually interesting, b)
have sufficient building articulation to reduce their bulk and mass, c) are in scale to their lot size, and d)
strongly contribute to the creation of livable neighborhoods.
APPLICABILITY:
The Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines apply to a: a) new single-family, detached residential
homes and two-family structures and b) residential remodels that cumulatively increase the useable living
area (floor area) more than 40%.
*
* Projects of 5 or more homes shall comply with all of the architectural guidelines.
For projects of 4 or fewer homes, each home shall select and comply with one guideline from
Numbers I through 3 and all of the following Guidelines 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, and 15 to meet the intent of
providing project diversity.
PROCEDURES:
1. Applicants for discretionary project applications or residential building permits shall design
projects/homes so that they comply with the guidelines. Each applicant shall provide documentation
demonstrating compliance with this policy concurrent with the submittal of developmenffbuilding
permit applications, whichever occurs first. If an applicant wishes to propose an architectural style
that complies with the Purpose and Intent of this policy and yet cannot comply with the requirements
of the guidelines, the applicant may request deviations from any of the architectural guidelines to
achieve an architectural design or style of equally superior quality. All such requests shall be fully
justified specifying how the Purpose and Intent of this policy is being achieved.
2. Staff shall review projects/building permits for compliance with the guidelines and provide
recommendations to the decision-makers regarding:
a. Project compliance with the policy;
b. Whether or not any requested deviations are justified; and,
c. Whether or not the purpose and intent of the policy would still be achieved if a deviation is
granted.
3. Decision-makers shall determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the project complies with the
- - intent of the policy to crAe livable neighborhoods.
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
E.
7.
6.
A minimum of 15% (see Note #1 below) of the total number of homes shall be single-story structures.
Single-story is defined as a'maximum plate-line of 15 feet and a maximum building height of 20 feet.
Lofts are permitted subject to CMC Section 21.04.330. To encourage homes with alley-loaded garages: a maximum of 20% of the homes shall be single-story for the front 20% of the home (overall
depth of house times 20%).
A maximum of 20% of the total number of homes are exempt from the requirement to have a single-
story building edge.
The remaining 65% of the total number of homes shall comply with one of the following guidelines:
The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 10 feet and shall
run the length of the building along one side except for tower elements. The roof covering the
single-story element shall incorporate a separate roof plane and shall be substantially lower than
the roof for the two-story element. Porches and porte-cochere elements shall qualify as a single-
story edge. Houses with courtyards that are a minimum of 15 feet wide located along the side of
the house and setback a minimum of 15 feet from the property line are not required to have a
single-story building edge.
The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet and shall run
the length of the building along one side. The roof of the single-story element shall be
substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element of the building. . The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 3 feet for 40% of
the perimeter of the building.
For at least 66% of the homes in a project, there shall be at least three separate building planes on
street side elevations of lots with 45 feet of street frontage or less and four separate building planes
on street side elevations of lots with a street frontage greater than 45 feet. Balconies and covered
porches qualify as a building plane.
The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to, building
walls, windows, porches and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane
and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a minimum of 30 sq. ft. to
receive credit under this section.
Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in Number 4 above for front elevations
except that the minimum depth between front and back planes on the rear elevation shall be 3 feet
Rear balconies qualify as a building plane.
For at least 66% of the homes in a project, one side elevation shall have sufficient offsets or cutouts
so that the side yard setback averages a minimum of 8.5 feet.
At least 66% of exterior openings (door/windows) on every home in the project shall be recessed or
projected a minimum of 2 inches and shall be constructed with wood or colored aluminum window
frames (no mill finishes).
Fifty percent (50%) of the homes shall be designed with a covered front porch, open courtyard, or
balcony (each with a minimum area of 60 square feet) located at the front of the dwelling. The front
and sides of porches shall be open except for required and/or ornamental guardrails. A variety of
P -
roof elements shall be plovided over porches. Porches may no1 de converted to living space.
9.
IO.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
No more than 12.5% of the total number of homes may include three-in-a-row car garages that
directly face the street. Three-in-a-row car garages that directly face the street are defined as
garages having space for 3 cars whether constructed as 3 one-car garages located adjacent to each
other or constructed as a two-car garage separated from a one-car garage with all garages directly
parallel to the street. Garages that are recessed 20 feet back from the forward-most plane of the
house are exempt from this provision.
Such garages may occur only when they do not exceed 50% of the width of the home along the
street frontage. The garages must have a plane change of a minimum of 18 inches between the two-
car and one-car garages. This configuration must also break the roof plane with a design element
such as a gable or trellis. In special circumstances, when lots less than 5,000 square feet in size are
permitted in a planned development, three-in-a-row car garages may not be used. Tandem garages
are exempt from this requirement.
Floor plans in a project shall exhibit a variety of roof ridges within a neighborhood.
Seventy-five percent (75%) of the homes must have a front entry to the home that is clearly visible
from the street. Walkways from the front door to the street are encouraged.
For projects of 30 or more dwelling units, a minimum of 3 different floor plans shall be provided. Each
floor plan should have at least 3 different front elevations and 3 different exterior color schemes.
Chimneys and chimney caps shall be in scale with the size of the home. No more than 2 chimneys
shall be allowed for homes on lots in planned developments having an area less than 7,500 square
feet.
In addition to the previous requirements, a minimum of 4 of the design elements, such as those listed
in Table “A below, shall be incorporated into the front building faGade(s) of the home.
If any elevation of the home is adjacent to and visible from a Circulation Element roadway, such
elevation is also required to include 4 design elements such as those listed in Table “A below.
0 Knee braces
Exposed roof rafter tails
0 Arched elements
Window and door lintels
0 Towers
Table A
DESIGN ELEMENTS
0 Varied window shapes
0 Dormers
0 Columns
0 Exterior wood elements
0 Accent materials such as brick, stone,
shingles, wood or siding
Note #7: Fractional units of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next whole number and located in a
manner to achieve the best project design as determined by the project planner. ‘When a percentage of
units is described in the guidelines, the intent is to have that percentage spread throughout the entire project.
Private Streets
4.5’ 5.5’ 5.5’ 4.5’
EX1 STING STREETSCAPE 20.5’ .-q
I
4.5‘ 5’ 4.5’ 4.5’ 5’ 4.5’
k- 21.5’ -1 PROPOSED STREETSCAPE
$2
83 -ra
* Front-loaded garages will be set back 20’ from front property line