Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-06-01; City Council; 3672; Subdivision Development StandardsCITY OF CARLSBAD AQENDA BILL NO. DATE: June 1'.' 1976 DEPARTMENT: Planning Commission Initial: Dept. Hd._ City Atty_V> City Mgr.. SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR' CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Statenuint of the Matter The Planning Commission on May 12, 1976 unanimously adopted a motion that requests the City Council to co'nsider developing Subdivision Improvement Standards for Noise, Fire-Retardant Roofs, Landscaping, Open Space Maintenance, etc. It is the Planning Commission's concern that many conditions are applied to tentative subdivision maps and specif ic .plans ' which should be more explicitly defined as a part of a developed set of improvement standards. Exhibits : Staff Report-, May Memo to City Mgr. 113, 1976 from Planning Dir., 5/19/76 Recommendation: If 'the City Council is of the opinion that standards should be developed as outlined in -the Statement of the Matter, it is recommended that the Staff be instructed to report on the feasibility of developing and a schedule for creating the suggested improvement standards. This may be a good item for a workshop after the budget is completed. Council act i oil 6-1-76 It was agreed that a. joir>t meeting with the PJ8;"1"?.^15510"i L v,a* ay ^. ^^^ workshop sessions to discussmeeting should e held at one of subdivision development standards. MEMORANDUM May 10, 1976 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS During the Planning Commission's April 28th public hearing on La Costa Vale #4 (SP-176 and CT 76-3), the Commission, applicant and Staff raised several questions about the City's requirements for newly developing subdivisions; specifically, questions on noise mitigation, fire retardant roofs, land- scaping, open space maintenance and the City's program for various types and kinds of parks and open spaces. The Staff has di scussion: addressed each of those issues in the following Element of the which are within Element. The such projects NOISE MITIGATION; The applicant stated that he felt the City should ensure a noise-free environment through adoption of a Noise Ordinance, as opposed to conditioning individual developments. The City has placed noise mitigation conditions on subdivisions for the last few years. Initially these conditions were adopted to mitigate noise impacts identified in Environmental Impact Reports. Since adoption of the Noise General Plan, Staff has noted those projects the "Noise Corridors" adopted as part of the decibel-level standards Staff recommends for are those required by the Uniform Building Code Chapter 35 of appendix to the 1973 Edition. In lieu of standards adopted in a City Noise Ordinance, these standards have been recommended since they are commonly accepted. *• Inclusion of a noise mitigation condition based on the U.B.C. standard is also meant to alert the applicant to the fact that he may need to take steps in designing his project to lessen noise impacts. Staff would certainly concur with the applicant in his desire for a Noise Ordinance. If the Commission agrees that such an Ordinance is desirable, it may wish to recommend to Council that Staff be directed to prepare a report on the matter. In the meantime Staff feels that the current prac- tice of noise conditioning should continue. FIRE-RETARDANT ROOFS: The applicant felt that, instead of requiri ng i n d i vi dual projects to have fire-retardant roofs, the City should adopt the requirement as part of i.ts fire prevention ordinances. The reauirement of fire retardant roofs.has been placed by the City on various projects. In all cases the City has felt that the fire hazards of the particular project required such roofs. These projects all have in common a location adjacent to fire-prone natural brush areas. A City Policy expressing the City's intent to utilize fire-retardant roofs in certain circumstances may be desirable. It is doubtful however that any all-inclusive policy or ordinance could be adopted since the applicability of fire-retardant roofs is dependent on a given situation. LANDSCAPING: The applicant has requested that the City adopt a landscaping policy or ordinance that may be applied to grading practices on landscaped areas throughout the City instead of conditioning individual projects. Landscaping conditions have been placed on projects since the City's incorporation. They have only become critical in the last few years, as the City has become increasingly aware of vacant graded slopes and other visual nuisances. As the City has become increasingly sensitive, and as Staff has gained experience with the landscaping problem, Staff has recommended increasingly detailed conditions. Staff agrees with the applicant that such an ordinance or policy is necessary. If the Commission agrees, it may wish to also recommend to Council that Staff be instructed to report on the matter. OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE: The applicant has requested that the City standardize its open space maintenance requirements as a uniformly applied policy rather than conditioning individual projects. Open space maintenance conditions have evolved in the same manner as landscaping conditions. Currently the City Manager's Office is evaluating the feasibility of apply- ing Open Space Maintenance Districts from the City's stand- point. Staff is of the opinion that Open Space Maintenance Districts are policy issues which should be determined by Council action. If the Commission agrees, it may wish to recommend to Council that Staff be instructed to report to the Council on the pro- priety of the use of an O.S. Maintenance District in Carlsbad. -2- PARKS AND OPEN SPACES; The applicant stated that the differ- ences between parks' function and various types of and uses for open spaces is not clear, particularly as the City requires Parks and Open Spaces of individual projects without the advan- tage of an overall Parks and Open Space Plan as part of a master development plan. The City's Parks and Open Space program is described in the General Plan. It is specifically described in the Land Use, Parks and Recreation, and Open Space-Conservation Elements. In projects with up-to-date master plans, Parks and Open Space have generally been reserved in conformance with the General Plan's principles. In areas where the adopted Master Plan is not up-to-date, the City has had to take the General Plan principles and apply them to specific individual projects without the benefit of an intermediate planning step. This has also been the case in areas not covered by a Master Plan. Staff concurs with the applicant's intent, that implementation of Parks/Open Space principles through some policy or ordinance would be desirable. Staff feels that defining the ouroose and use of Parks and Open Spaces should be an integral part of a comprehensive City policy/ordinance which would also include hillside development guidelines, landscaping and open space maintenance. These discussion areas are difficult to separate because one policy/ordinance solution to an individual problem could result in an answer for the singular issue but not the best solution for others, thereby leading to additional confusion. It is therefore recommended that if the Commission agrees that the above areas need the City's attention, the Commission recommend to Council that Staff be instructed to begin work which will lead to solutions of the definition and use of parks and open spaces, open space maintenance, landscaping guidel inesand standards and hillside development. DAA:cpl -3- MEMORANDUM Mav 19, 1976 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS The Planning Commission at their May 12, 1976 meeting requested by minute motion the City Council to consider adopting devel- opment standards for noise mitigation, fire-retardant roofs, landscaping, open space maintenance and improvement/landscaping standards for parks/parkways and open spaces. The Commission also instructed the Planning Commission Chairman to present a report to the City Council on June 1, 1976. The City Staff is currently involved with the development of mainy of the subject standards but, as with other projects, completion is subject to legislative and administrative priority. While the Staff admits that these standards are necessary, they should be developed consistent with other Council/City Manager priorities such as revised grading ordinance, open space maintenance program, etc. However, if the Council concurs with the Planning Commission request, I would suggest that the Staff be instructed to prepare a report on the feasibility of developing standards for the aforementioned items as soon as priorities permit. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office. ATTACHMENT: Report to Planning Commission on Dev. Standards, 5/12/76 DAA:cpl