HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-13; City Council; 13182; Clarification Of Planned Development OrdinanceC+-Y OF CARLSBAD - AGE--IA BILL
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ME PLANNING DEPARTMENT SURVEY ON CLARIFICATION
OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the City Council concurs, authorize the Planning Director to initiate a Resolution of
Intention (ROI) to amend Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to clarify selected
development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance.
ITEM EXPLANATlON
On February 14, 1995 the City Council directed the Planning Department to solicit
comments regarding the need to clarify the standards relating to setbacks, building
intensity, driveways, and other development standards specifically in residential Planned
Developments, including Planned Unit Developments and Condominium projects. The
intent is not to change (increase or decrease) the standards but only to determine if
clarification of the standards or their implementation is needed.
Survey forms (see Exhibit “A”) were sent to the Planning Commission, local developers,
planning consultants, and staff. A total of 56 survey forms were either sent out or
distributed, and 16 responses were received by the Planning Department within a four
week time period. A variety of comments on a wide range of issues were received and
those comments along with staff’s response are provided and summarized on
Exhibit “B”.
A highlight of the survey comments indicates that the respondents are most concerned
about clarification of building separation standards, driveway definition and width
standards, and the distinction between active and passive recreational uses. There were
a large number of survey comments stating that no clarification or changes to the
standards are needed at this time, and there were also many comments that focused
on changes to the existing standards, rather than simply wording clarification.
The Planning Department has reviewed and analyzed the various survey responses in
context to the City Council’s stated objectives. Based on the survey responses, staff
recommends that only the Planned Development Ordinance be amended for clarity in
the following areas:
1.
2.
Section 21.45.09O(b~(5~ Buildinq Separation - Currently this section provides
building separation standards between one-story structures (10 feet), between
one-story structures and two-story structures (15 feet), and between two-story
structures and three-story structures (20 feet), however, there are no standards
for separation between two-story structures, In addition, what qualifies as a one,
two, or three-story structure, and the method of determining what constitutes
more than 10 structures in a row is unclear and not defined.
Section 21.45.090(a) Recreational Requirements/Active and Passive Areas -
This section requires 200 square feet of recreational open space per dwelling unit
to be designated for recreational uses, however, the ordinance does not clearly
specify what types of useable recreation areas can be applied towards meeting
the requirement. For example, can patios, balconies, and roof decks be counted
towards satisfying the private passive recreational component of the standard, \
-
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. )3! /8a
and if so, how much of the 200 square foot requirement can be satisfied with
private passive uses?
This section also needs amending to clarify when common active and private
recreational facilities are required and what constitutes active uses verses passive
uses. For example, the ordinance currently classifies a spa or cabana as an
active use and a children’s play area or horseshoe pit as a passive recreational
use.
3. Section 21.45.090(h) Drivewav Definition and Width - This section of the
Planned Development Ordinance contains width and setback standards which
distinguish between a driveway and a street. However, no definition describing
the difference between a street and a driveway is provided.
FISCAL IMPACT
The amendment to Title 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code will require the
expenditure of staff time and resources to initiate the ROI, revise the ordinance, and
process the changes through the Planning Commission and City Council.
1. Exhibit “A” - City of Carlsbad - Planning Department Survey
2. Exhibit “B” - Summary of Survey Comments and Staff Response
CIT )F CARLSBAD - PLANNING DEk _ ..?TMENT EXHIBIT “A”
SURVEY
On February 14, 1995, the Carlsbad City Council directed the Planning Department to solicit comments
regarding the need to clarify the standards relating to residential setbacks, building intensity and
driveways specifically in Planned Developments (Planned Unit Developments and Condominium
projects). The intent is not to change (increase or reduce) the standards but only to determine if
clarification of the standards or their implementation is needed. Please indicate below if you have any
comments regarding the need to clarii any of the standards relating to the following three items. A
space has also been provided to comment on any other development standards.
1. Setbacks for Residential Structures (front, rear 81 separation between buildings)
Comments:
2. Maximum Buiidinq intensitv for Residential Structures (height, open space, bulk, etc.)
Comments:
3. Drivewav Standards (need for definition, width requirements, setbacks, etc.)
Comments:
4. Other Development Standards
Comments:
RETURN BY: (2 weeks) to
Planning Department, 2075 Lvls Palmas
Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009.
Attention: Jeff Gibson
Name and Address (Optional)
3
May 2, 1995
h
EXHBIT 3”
TO: CITY COUNCIL
VIA: City Manager
FROM: Planning Director
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT’S DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS SURVEY WITH STAFF RESPONSE
SETBACKS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES:
1. No comment, or no clarification or changes needed at this time - (4 comments);
Staff Response: Comments noted.
2. Clarification on standards for building separation, including what constitutes one, two and
three-story structures, and how is more than 10 structures in a row determined? - (10
comments);
Staff Response: Staff recommends that this section of the PD Ordinance be amended for
clarification.
3. Front setbacks should be consistent with the street line, curb, or edge of paving and not
be related to sidewalks whether sidewalks are required or not - (1 comment);
Staff Response: The ordinance clearlv states that setbacks are measured from the back
of sidewalk, if applicable, therefore, this comment recommends a change in the standard
rather than a clarification of the standard.
4. Enough setback from streets should be provided to allow parking on driveways without
blocking sidewalk - (1 comment);
Staff Response: When oaraoes face a street or drivewav the PD ordinance reouires, either
a 20 foot setback, which is ample room to park lame vehicles without blockino the
sidewalk, or a 5 foot setback which prohibits any parking in front of the aaraoe.
5. Increase building separation standards beyond the minimums currently in the PD Ordinance
- (1 comment);
Staff Response: An increase in minimum standards represents a chanae rather than a
clarification of the standard.
6. Clarify what the minimum setback standards are in the PD Ordinance for front, side, and,
rear setbacks - (2 comments);
Staff Response: Section 21.45.090 clearlv states that a proiect shall complv with the
requirements of the underlvinq zone, in addition to the standards of this section. Therefore,
the front, side and rear vard setbacks of the underlvinq zone would applv. For example,
a PUD in the R-3 Zone would have a 20 foot front vard setback, 10% of lot width side vard
setback, and a 20% of lot width rear vard setback. If a setback standard in the PD
Ordinance is most restrictive then the more restrictive applies.
7. Variances to minimum setbacks should be granted at the administrative level and based
on common sense and lot configuration and orientation. Don’t Cloud the issue w/changing
setbacks for l-story, 2-story, split level etc.. - (1 Comment).
Staff Response: Title 21.50 and 21.51 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code have clearlv
established procedures for Planninq Commission and Administrative Variances. This
request to qrant variances based on common sense does not directlv relate to the
clarification of development standards.
MAXIMUM BUILDING INTENSITY FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
No comment, or no clarification or changes needed at this time - (6 comments);
Staff Response: Comments noted.
Clarify building intensity, especially on hillside lots where buildable pad areas tend to be
small compared to lot size - (1 comment);
Staff Response: Buildinq intensitv is clearlv established bv residential zoninq based on
existinq parkinq, open space, setback, buildinq coveraqe. and buildinq heiqht standards.
For example, a buildinq coveraqe requirement based on pad area rather than lot area
constitutes a new development standard rather than a clarification of an existinq standard.
Require a floor area ratio standard for all residential development and base it on net pad
area - (1 comment);
Staff Response: The addition of a floor area ratio standard constitutes a new development
standard rather than the clarification of an exitinq standard.
With narrow lots and driveway locations sometimes it is difficult for a large vehicle to park
in front of a residence without blocking the driveway partially - (1 comment);
Staff Response: Comment noted, however, Staff is uncertain which existinq development
standard the comment is directed towards clarifvinq?
These issues are functions of zoning regulations. The City should check that a site
provides for substantial conformance with all regulations. The City should not dictate how
the applicant complies with the standards. Let the architect, engineer, and builder design
the project - (1 comment);
2 5
Staff Response: Comment noted, however, Staff is uncertain which existino development
standard the comment is directed towards clarifvina? Staff level proiect review ensures that
a project meets the minimum development standards of the PD Ordinance and the
underlvina zone, however, manv of the Citv’s land use permits, including the Planned
Development Permit provide the decision maker with discretionary approval authoritv on
site plan issues related to neiqhborhood compatibilitv, visual impacts, site design,
landscapino, street scene, traffic circulation, etc...
DRIVEWAY STANDARDS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
No. comment, or no clarification or changes needed at this time - (3 comments);
Staff Response: Comments noted.
Codify Planning Department Policy No. 24 concerning the definition of driveways/ Define
driveways in the PD Ordinance - (6 comments);
Staff Response: Staff recommends that a definition of drivewav be added to the PD
Ordinance.
Eliminate Planning Department Policy No. 24. Requiring a 20’ setback from a condominium
building with more than 12 units makes it difficult to design higher density (above 12 du/ac)
projects - (1 comment);
Staff Response: Plannino Department Policv No. 24 clarifies an oversight of the PD
Ordinance which provides width and setback standards for private streets and drivewavs,
but does not define the difference. Staff recommends that the policv be eliminated and that
drivewavs be defined in the ordinance.
The “2 lanes, parking on one side” standard is written twice in this section. Remove one -
(1 comment);
Staff Response: The duplication of the standard is a printinq error and Staff recommends
a correction of the PD Ordinance,
Clarify the minimum required driveway widths for multi and single-family housing -
(1 comment); Reduce driveway width to 24 feet for small in-fill PUD’s in the Beach Area
Overlay Zone - (1 comment); Reduce street and driveway width to 24 feet for multi-family
attached housing, and 26 feet for single-family and duplex housing - (3 comments);
Staff Response: Section 21.45.090,(h) Streets,(l) - clearlv states that private streets in
sin&-familv or duplex project shall be at least 30, 32, or 36 feet wide, and private
drivewavs in multi-familv attached projects shall be at least 30 feet wide, therefore, the
above comments recommend chanqes in the adopted standards rather than clarifications
of those development standards.
-
6. Evaluate driveway width for commercial use because some are too narrow - (1 comment);
Staff Response: Drivewav width standards for commercial land uses are not codified in
the zoninq ordinance, but rather a requirement located in the Standard Desian CriterWCitv
of Carlsbad Enaineerino Department Standards approved bv the Citv Enaineer, dated 1987.
Addins a commercial drivewav standard to the zoninq ordinance would constitute the
addition of a new standard, rather than the clarification of an existino standard.
7. Combine driveways, as much as possible, within a project to reduce the number of access
points to roads - (1 comment);
Staff Response: Comment noted. Currentlv there are no quantitative standards that
reoulate the layout of drivewavs and their access points, however, durina proiect review it
is Staffs responsibilitv to evaluate and recommend that proiects provide well designed,
safe, and efficient circulation svstems.
8. Can long driveways be included in guest parking count? if so, what length is acceptable
for standard and roll-up garage doors? If no, why not? - (1 comment);
Staff Response: The Planned Development Ordinance currentlv allows auest parkina to
count on a lono drivewav that leads to a oaraoe for an existina duplex project onlv. The
front setback from the propertv line to the oaraqe (standard or roll-up door) must be at least
20 feet.
9. 3-car garages should require a driveway of 28’ minimum. A 2-car driveway can be used
for three-car garage provided the setback is 150% of the minimum. Beside the fact that it
is difficult to enter a third car garage from a two car driveway with a short setback, the
street scene looks terrible - (1 comment);
Staff Response: Pavino widths for the area of the drivewav leading up to the oaraoe mav
varv from 12 to 30 feet dependino on the width of the openino to the oaraoe. Staff prefers
that the narrowest feasible amount of pavino be used on the drivewav approach in order
to maximize landscapino in the front vard and to maximize street parkinn bv reducina the
size of the curb cut leadina to the street. Addinq a paving width standard to the zoninq
ordinance for drivewav approaches that lead to oaraqes would constitute the addition of
a new standard, rather than the clarification of an existina standard.
OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
1. No comment, or no clarification or changes needed at this time - (6 comments);
Staff Response: Comments noted.
PD Ordinance;
2. Indicate how much active vs. common passive is required. Do all multi-family projects
require common active and private passive, regardless of density - (1 comment); and/
Revise Section 21.45.090(g) to delete the differentiation between active and passive
recreational facilities - (4 comments);
4
4
Staff Response:
clarification.
-
Staff recommends that this section of the PD Ordinance be amended for
3. Clarify the intent and use of the PD Ordinance - (1 comment);
Staff Response: Section 21.45.010 clearlv lists 10 separate items that address the intent
and purpose of the ordinance, therefore, additional clarification is not necessatv.
4. Amend Section 21.45.040(G) by adding the word “within in-fill” areas. This section was
originally added to the ordinance to prevent developers from using the Planned
Development Ordinance to develop a parcel within the older part of Carlsbad with small lots
that would be incompatible with the surrounding standard lots. The requirements of this
section are not realistic for large scale master plans - (3 comments);
Staff Response: This requirement is not onlv applicable to in-fill areas but should also be
applied to plannina areas of a master plan that are desionated R-l sinale-familv. Use of
a planned development for the purposes of achievinq densitv bv reducing lot size below
the 7,500 square foot standard should result in a better site plan and be adequatelv iustified
in all areas desiqnated R-l sinqle-familv.
5. Clarify the amendment section. Example - is the 10% modification based on individual
unit/lot or entire project (overall or average?) - (2 comments);
Staff Response: Approved lot coveraqe, vards, and buildinq heiqht are development
standards that adiust an individual structure or buildinq to a particular lot, therefore,
averaoina proposed modifications to these approved standards on a proiect wide basis
would not meet the intent of a minor amendment.
6. The City should not be in control of marketing! ie. number of single-story homes required,
which lots should have single-story homes. Let the builder or actually the consumer
determine phasing based on popularity of areas or plans. Do not require pm-plotting of
entire projects or a total mix of product - (1 comment);
Staff Response: Comment noted. There are currentlv no development standards in Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code that requlate the number of stories in a building. or the
product mix within a proiect. However, manv of the Citv’s land use permits, includina the
Planned Development Permit provide the decision maker with discretionary approval
authoritv on site plan issues related to neiqhborhood compatibilitv, visual impacts, and site
desian. In addition, the Aviara Master Plan has standards that require a percentaae of
single-storv homes in a planninq area.
7. Clarify Section 21.45.09(e) to state that this section applies to parking space setbacks from
habitable living space, to avoid the interpretation that a 5 foot setback is needed between
a parking space and a garage. The intent of this section was to avoid a design where a
guest parking space would be located directly adjacent to a bedroom window of a ground
floor unit. Requiring a 5 foot separation between an open parking space and a garage
makes it difficult to design higher density projects- (3 comments);
B 5
Staff Response: A 5 foot separation between quest oarkino spaces and oaraoes is a
useful site desiqn standard because it creates an area for landscapino alone the building
wall to visuallv soften and screen the side elevation of the oaraoe, it provides additional
area for pedestrian access (ie. sidewalks), and provides additional space to enter and exit
the vehicle. The 5 foot parkina space separation standard should not affect the
achievement of hiah densitv residential projects because either carports or open resident
parkina spaces (not oaraaes), are tvoicallv used in hiah densitv “stack flat” condominium
or apartment tvoe projects.
Hillside Development Ordinance;
8. Chapter 21.53.230 Uses Generallv and 21.95.030 Hillside Development, both prohibit
residential development on all steep slopes (apparently including manufactured slopes),
Clarification should be included that allows flexibility, including an exemption for master
plans where mass grading may produce manufactured slopes that are planned for
subsequent development. As this section is presently interpreted, all slopes resulting from
mass grading operations immediately become “constrained” even if they are wholly internal
to a created development pad. Without a master plan exemption or additional clarification,
the development resulting from the present interpretation may become a planning fiasco -
(1 comments), and/ The hillside ordinance should also exempt manufactured slopes from
these regulations- (2 comments);
Staff Response: These code sections aoolv to both natural and oreviouslv-araded,
manmade slopes since the ordinance makes no distinction between the two tvoes. In
areas of a mass traded subdivision or master plan where manufactured slopes are created
within the natural topooraphv of the site, it is important that those manmade slopes
conform. to the areatest extent possible. to the natural contours and overall terrain of the
surroundina hillsides. If development and reoradino were to occur on these manufactured
slopes without reaulation. then the natural appearance of the overall hillside in which these
manufactured slopes are an inteoral part. could be lost. Addina lanouaae that exempts
manufactured slopes from development and oradina would constitute the deletion of rather
than the clarification of an existina standard.
9. Current earthwork volumes tend to be arbitrary and encourage development of what would
ordinarily be natural open space. The formula presently used, for instance, would promote
the greater grading of land area to diminish the volume levels on a hilltop or slope. The
formula should be changed to allow flexibility when grading on a hillside - (1 comment);
Staff Response: Chanaina the formula for earthwork volumes would constitute a chanae
in an existino standard, rather than the clarification of an existina standard.
Parking;
10. Update Section 21.44050 to take into consideration shared parking for mixed use.
Currently separate counting of spaces is required assuming no sharing of parking - (1
comment);
-
Staff Response: Section 21.44.05o~a1~4) of the Parkino Ordinance currentlv allows for
ioint use of parkino spaces when land uses aualifv as either primarilv davtime or primarily
niqhttime upon approval of the Plannina Commission.
General;
11. Allow an appeal to the City Council on all Planning Commission decisions - (3 comments);
Staff Response: Chanaina the appeal process would constitute a chancre in the existinq
process, rather than the clarification of an existinq process.
12. Chapter 21.38.030(d) Planned Community needs clarification. This section stipulates that
where conflict between zoning standards and adopted master plan standards occurs, the
adopted master plan standard takes precedence. Planning staff members have frequently
interpreted this section the other way around. We recommend wording clarification which
would assist in clarifying the intent - (1 comment);
Staff Response: This section clearlv states that where a conflict in reaulation occurs, the
reaulations specified in Title 21.38 or the master plan shall control, therefore, no clarification
is necessatv.
13. Lengthen the time frame for master plan offices and signs advertising phased residential
developments that build-out over a lengthy time period - (3 comments);
Staff Response: Lenothenino the time frame for sians and sales offices would constitute
a chanoe in the current standards, rather than the clarification of existino standards.
14. Density - If the designation is for multi-family - require multi-family housing - (2 comments);
Staff Reswnse: The multi-familv residential zones in Title 21, includina the R-3 and RD-M
Zones. are written such that sinole and two familv dwellinas are also a permitted residential
land uses. Eliminatina the lanouaoe that allows other residential lands uses besides multi-
familv would constitute a chanae in the current standards, rather than the clarification of
existina standards.
m Hofman Planning
A s s 0 2 i a t 8 S
0 l l
,J ! #J ,-, 1-1 I-, G 15 -, +5; f.‘ir 1. i :; : , . . ,: f.! : : .
Juno 13, 1995
5. I:. :3?7 I?;:: P. 2
B4xxable Mayor Lawia City af Cprlabod
lZNl C&bad Vilhgo Drive Cuhhd CA. 93008
RE: AGENDA BILL U.182 - Clarification to the Planned Development 0rdinance
Door Mayor L&a AII~ Mamber, of the Counck
Unfortuartsly dub to previous commitments, a rrptesentative of Hofmat~ Y!anning Associates will not be able to attend tonight’s City Council meeting. WC would like to go On record as supporting staff’s rocommondrtloo to clarify portions of Carlsbad’s Plannzcl Dcveiuyu~cr~t Ordiniiu~. Thr: proposes! clarifhtlnns pnd revlrltma ~hmrld make the nrdlnance easier to work with for both staff and members
of the devaopm&nt community.
We believe that it is impwanr &a; members of tie devdoyuuzat Warwuaily i~alhu~ 1~ bc ir~ulval
In the process of clartfying and tevislng the PIann l3evelopment Ordinance to en$ure that Iha end
muit providw a work&h eolution. .Qllowlng for input from the development community during the
preparation of the revisions would be more effective than getting their input after the revisions are wmplaat and sdmiuled fur II public hatiring.
If a w is utabbhed to work with staff m them revisions we believe that a representative from our of&o could mnke vahubls contributions to the proposed clarificarions. Membcra of our
st&T hAv0 the W&US expericuce of working with the Planned Development Ordinance as City staff, working nlth the Planned Develnpment Ordinance EJ pt1var.e .fexnr employees and llvlng In several
projoct~ d@Velopd under Carlrbad’s Pianned Ilevelopment Ordinance. If a committee is not wablhhcd we would rccommwld that staff he directed to at least make copies of the proposed clnrltlcations rvdlable for review before the Zuno hle Amtndnxnt ir sch~uled fl~r P public
hearing.
Your EoruidATAtion in this matter is greatly appreciated,
Ey*-
Mike Howe4
cc City Council
Royp- MnRy c-e hficliirl Holzrnillec City Cfork
, .’ ! “‘I . . ,..> 2.2 , .:’
***Er,D+*r
BmLDmcHNlms*Y
ASSCXXATXOIV OF ~btcqp,cA9ala3=59!Je
~lDIIuxoco~ (6t¶B~l~~l Fbx (619)8tWlW
UPcoma-
lJ&g~~;-
PhaG Murl#tMirrianVaHey y.!w.!wo San Dkgo Drive
3~:~xuul-~Iuprlrcting FredIhuuser~l3umaa~oc
lhw#da pm43 t&1995 NOl!k!dkO~BREAKpAGT Plaix!z Loma8santaR!countrvc3ub LooSan~Fe&HigtjondAvc
Time l spccrker: CauqSuperv~rBUHam
wi&~luu5
Arae:
TImei
;H&e’ &“Lgn& Roja
5:3 HOStdi %a z”$” The m-7: Opm cific Hcritafe Company caltimlp Traditbnr, Inc. Bravado Designs
F!dd&&w 16,199s
PIatE! YGolsTo~T $t Canyon Golf &Country
ThW: 1&3Oam - Rq@tmtlon 12.S@pm - Tee time space is Iimited to 216 players, so l-cmrvc
youa cpriyl
Ez Sanded InAM 9 WOpm- ?3Opm
~~&l~w~~cn fmF&ywLTOuRNAMENT
rime: bbbndd (OomnBcach) 7z3Om - Continental &c&fist 8:oDam - Tourwnt
FAX ‘IYRANSWSION COVER LETTER
cmnpany: ci+l nF PW.l.S -iula
hlx #: 720 - +w
Tocal Pages (it~hdin~ coycT): b,
Please call 450-1221 if you have any problems with this ik
. . . . .
I- .- JUN-13-'95
m
PRESIDENT DamlAckoth
--7!zzE
VICEPREUPPCT Ian M. Qll
Hl#Wwl PaMmhIp. Inc.
l’REA3URER
chrir J. Chnmbem conthmm-
SECRETAFk
Mark 0. Lerulllh
McMilkrcGmmunitias
vGEmEsloENr Paul A Tryon
TUE03:55 -:
BUILDINGINDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
TELNO: - #a17PEi2
I
hll8 13,199s
Hoaorablt Claude “Bud” Lewiq Mayor city of Carl&ad
12ooc!arkhdvillagcRoad
carlsbad, carnia 9200%
RE; Clariii~ation of We&al Dcvdopment Standards
Dear Mayor Lewis and Honorabl0 City Councilmembws,
It is with great pl- that I writ6 to you today on bchFllf of the BLliltikl$j
Industry Association of San Diqo County in aqpcxt of your review and intent
to initiate a&n on th8 review ofCarlsbad’s reside&al development standards.
As you arc aware, this a&m me about last Fdxuary during a kuiug
regarding some of the city% pIanning policies. Youf action today will begin the
process of clarification which we believe, witl ultimately better m your
wnstitucnts.
TIM Clhhations recommmded by staRin relation to buildi- separa~ ruxa~tiod requirements, and driveway &finiticms me important and should be chaqcd as relkrmced in the titta&d letter of MarGh 27, 1995.
We do, however, believe that a number of the items classified by city staffas ohangca in stwdards rather than c&&ations, should be ad- by the ccnmdI
due to their mtive impact upon the building industry. Primarily, item #5 under the “driveway stand& s&ion, items #S & 9 under the %iIlside development” section, and items #I 1 & 13 under the 4@neml” commmts se&m.
Xn conclusion, we woukl like to thank the council for quiddy and efl?cienUy revi#Jing these irenls and initiating action to GhmjJe them. we aI% 6tlcolkra~ by this positive working reltimship and look fixward to cm&&g this in the
future.
siicerclv, sz? - --.w
Cr . Benexlecta L+cgislative Advocate
.
TELNO: - #El17 Fa3 ,
BUILDINGXNDtismX
ASSOCIATION OP
SBlllQDrnGo COUNTY
. . .
- -
PRE8lDEW
h-
VICEPRESIDENT Ian M. Ql#
HiclhlurdWbInc.
TRE#@lJRER Gluls J. Chmnbmrm
QIdlmnbllltomw
BECRETARY
Mark 0. MoMlllln MeMiUln Comfnunrtiw
QfECUTNE ~mm0~ Paul A. Tiyon
lMarch27,1995
Mem;y. . .
1200 CarIsbadVi&pDrivt
carlsbad,m92008
RE: City Cbd Request fbr Mc&atian From Building Industry (2/M/95)
. . DiluMayorLewis,
At your February 14,1995 meeting, the Carlsbad Cii Council unrnimartJV requested bit the building industry provide needbd paints of clarification in the
citfs zdllg tack
. . ,,
The point should be made that this not an exhaustive liot, merely the most
immediate concerns. In responding to this, it was the consensus opinion that the Zoning Code should be updated to x&ect current conditions, teclmologies, and
0th~ alternatives avaihdk to both the city and our industry which were not
known at the time many of these rq#ations were cs&blkhed.
The tallowing h the conapilatbof r~mm@ations made by builders actually doing work in the City of Carl&ad who have ekpezianced the kind ofdif5culties
the Cauncll alluded to during the hearing.
. Planned DcvdoDm(;gt Ordinanr&
. 1. Section 21.45.040 (6): The word@ “within in-m areas shouJd be
added to this section. This section was or&ally added to prevent abusas &he code In oIdcr parts of Carisbad. The amrent Lange, however, is
not redi& fix large scale Master Plans.
2. Section 21.45.090 (b}(S): Wording should be added to darifj- tho intat
of this ordin-
8. Wording should be inserted to state this secticm only a&&s to dnglc-firmily detached hoqr#r.
b. Wording should be added in the second sentcn~ that stat& this section anly applits ta a rc)w of 10 structures mom than one story.
1
r-’ JUN-13-‘95 TUE Em56 - : TEL No:
. I
#017 P04
c. Third,arowshouldbsdbfinedsramaiShtlineofunaswirholaaFUI~QC-..
meaAd*gtrtea.
3. Section 2l.45.09O(e): The intent oftbis section wss to avoid the plawmcnt of a guest . . partiasspacedirectIyadjacent~abedroamwindow.ofagroundaborunit.Wordiag . - should be added whiqb states that this section applies for bGlding sctkcka ‘between ’ rcaideMial living areas” to avoid the interprttatoq for instancq that a 5 foot set back is ’ . needad between the pdng.~pace and the aide of a detM.gai-agc. ‘. .
4. &t&n 21.45.090(& .= section should be revisad to rccog@ze that there is very little .-~tianbetweerJaa”actiM”onda*passiv~’recreationatwandall~ ’
which state auoh shouId be deleted. For irMaace, a children’s raxaation arua can bc more active than a sauna, The cumnt diimntiation does not ailow fbr maximum flexibNty in
. projoot dewhpmcnt. . . . . . .* . . .
5. settim at$ogo@)i This se&n ahwld be tntx&d for both sin&-Wy strek
r-wpimmants and dti-w altaohcd chiveway mquircrn~ts.
a. IF& sin@0 fe / duplex streeta with 2 lanes and-no parking the width should be 26feMrat~~tban3Ofkct. Whenestablishcd,thirwidthwasarbiiandstafT had recmuuendtd it be 26 feet . . . .
b. ’ For.rrnxhi-Bunily attachad housing, the private drivtway nqrtkqmant should be 24 feet rat& than 30 feet. Currently, apartment projects am only required to have driveway widths of 24 f&t. The change would remedy thiqarbitrary cIitice.
Plamdng Department Policy No. 24 should also be revised to rcfkct this change.
1. Stttion 21.44.050: Should be updated to take into amsideratiw shared parking fkw Axed
uses Currently, sepmtt counting of spaces is rcquircd assuming no share of parking. .
When you have &cd USC which operate at difkrent times of the day, joint use ahtig
should be counted,
2, Section 2153.090 and ZlS3.100: CurTendy allow temporary subdivision real e&at; L&CGB and signs for ody one year. Many prc&!cts take longer than one year to complete. The code should be revised to allow far automatic extensions.
3. Section 2153.230: The intept of this section is to prohibit re$dential development on nfthd hillside slope arcas. The smtio~ has, however, been interpreted to prohiti
development on manufactured slopes as welI. Wording should be added to difikentiate
b&ween the two types of alopes, and normal development should be ahowed on thoao maAu6lw slopes.
2
* .
. .
%
.
* +~-Jl#+~+‘yj NE 83:57 - k: TEL No: ta7 m ,
4. Section 21.54.140: Ihe SubWon I&p Act, allows fix all Hauning Ccnnn&ii deci@ons to be appdable to the City C!oincil, (hmntly, however, this mime appeal 1 pmwss is not applki fo eert& adr&istmti~Plaai~@ R%ector’decieions. All PIam& . . C~IWMWI decisions should be appealable to &e City Council and language should be
addedwhIch6tipuIat~thisintent.
’ - .
5. Section 21.95,060(j): Cum & volmcs tad to be a&&my and mawrage develwt of wliat would OrdiMly be natural open spate The formula presently we&
. fM irmtam, would prompto the #get&r @ading Offfind area to dim&& the vobn~ fw& * cm a hifftop or slope. The f&r&a shou.Id be changed to allow for flaxi&il@ when grading
on a hiltsida .The hiUside ordinmce should akn exempt nwidwtufed dopes from these
rsepllatfom, _. *:. 1 *
~thsnl;youfmtbaopp~toprovidathislistof~~tionsto~Ci;jrCounciL Th!s -
ls an tsdent example of hm the BIA’s new lqfishtiw program worka and we want to’ imtinue
this proactive and hopeMy positive, input to the cauncil’~ de&ions Is, the years to come.
CO: ~emberRamOnaFIllnif&
councihneinht!rMatt~ counciImernberAnnl[wchin
Councibnember JulianneNygaard
by wcha city Manaecr Micbd HohliIer, City PImnin$ Dhctor
AIda Rautenktmtzg City Clerk
3