Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-18; Planning Commission; ; ZCA 01-01|LCPA 01-01 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCEThe City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ItemNo.@ Application complete date: N/ A P.C. AGENDA OF: July 18, 2001 Project Planner: Adrienne Landers and Chris DeCerbo SUBJECT: Project Engineer: NIA ZCA 01-01/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-friendly 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 Plaqning 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. II. 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 Item No.@ Application complete date: N/ A P.C. AGENDA OF: June 6, 2001 Project Planner: Adrienne Landers and Chris DeCerbo SUBJECT: Project Engineer: N/ A ZCA 01-01/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-friendly 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 01-01 and LCPA 01-01 based on the findings contained therein. II. 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-friendly 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 fa9ade 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 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -.~NDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELJPMENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pa e2 III. 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: Proposed Action Decision-making Bodies I. A new City Council policy on Livable Neighborhoods outlining the City's City Council vision for residential neighborhoods. 2. Revisions to City Council Policy 44 (Small Lot Architectural Guidelines, City Council now called Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines) to address architectural concerns related to new single-family and two-family development projects (standard and infill); 3. Revisions to the Planned Development Ordinance to address development Planning Commission standards such as lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, private streets, City Council recreational onen snace, etc. 4. Revisions to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan Planning Commission to add new goals and objectives addressing Livable Neighborhoods, City Council Livable Streets and emergency e1rrCss; 5. Revisions to _public residential street standards to narrow street widths, to City Council provide parkways, trees, traffic calming measures, connected streets and off-set driveways. 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. 6. Vision statements in master plans to create unique neighborhoods Master plan review by addressing Livable Neighborhoods and Livable Streets concepts. Planning Commission and Citv Council This project, (ZCA 01-01/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 frequently 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-friendly 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 e~isting Planned Development Ordinance was adopted in 1982, the primary objective at that time was to encourage clustered development--of both detached and attached ownership housing-for ZCA 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELvPMENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pae 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 P]an and the Habitat Management Plan, which more clearly and directly accomplish the citywide 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 functions 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 Amendment/Local 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. Project Objectives 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 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -rtMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELv.t>MENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pa e4 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-friendly 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. Purpose and Intent -The Purpose and Intent section has been revised to distill existing, overlapping objectives 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 yield 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 m 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 ensure 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 orM). • 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 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -r\MENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELvi>MENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pae 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 all planned developments. These general standards address: building setbacks from arterial streets, permitted architectural intrusions into setbacks, visitor parking, street/driveway design standards, landscaped parkways, screening of open parking, common recreational open space and parking, and RV storage. • Table D -Small-lot Single-Family and Two-family Development Standards -includes development standards that apply only to small-lot, single-family and two-family dwelling units. • Table E -Multi-family Development Standards -includes development standards that apply only 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 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELvPMENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pa e6 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. Standard Street Width, Parkways, Trees Existin2 ■ 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 TableX Standards Comparison 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 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -n.MENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELvi>MENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pae 7 Standard Existinf Front • Single-family Yard from a street: 20 Setback ft. with 15 ft. average; 10 ft. for side-loaded garages; • Multi-family from a street: 20 ft. • Single-family/ multi-family from a uroject driveway: 5 ft. Front None Porches, Open Court- yards, Balconies Proposed • Single- family/two- family/ • multi-family from a street: • 12 ft. average, 10 ft. minimum • Front porches 8 ft. • Front-loaded garages -20 ft. • Side-loaded garages -10 ft. • Single- family/two- family/ multi-family from a uroject driveway: • Residence -8 ft. • Garage -5 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 influence 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 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVEL'"'PMENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pa e8 Standard Distance Between Single- story and Two-story Residential Structures Distance Between Multi- family Structures Existin2 • Distance 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. 20 feet Prooosed • This provision has been deleted. Instead, distance between structures bas been addressed by lot coverage and increased side yard setback requirements. Additional design guidelines further reduce building mass and provide fa9ade articulation. 20 feet Justification This provision has rarely been effective in increasing the distance between residential structures (as discussed below) and bas 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 bas been amended to specify that no structures (i.e.; stairwells or balconies) are permitted within this 20 foot seoaration area. ZCA 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -rtMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELvt>MENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pae 9 Standard Existin2 Proposed Justification Garages ■ 20 ft. setback ■ 20 ft. setback for See discussion under 2b, page 13. (Single-for front-loaded front-loaded family and garages Two-■ 10 ft. for side-■ 10 ft. for side- family) loaded garages loaded garages ■ Architectural ■ On a project Guidelines basis, 50% of allow 75% of project garages units to be must be recessed three-in-a-row a minimum of 5 car garages feet behind the front fa~ade of the residence, and25%of project garages must be located on the rear half of the lot or alley-loaded and a maximum of 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. Single-None 15% of total See discussion under 2b, page 12. story Units number of single- family and two- familv homes - ZCA 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELv.t>MENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Page 10 Standard Existine; Recreation ■ 200 sq. ft. per Area unit ■ Mustbe common active and passive ■ 15' x 15' rear yard counts toward 200 sq. ft. ■ 6' x 10' balcony counts toward 200 sq. ft. ■ 10' x 10' patio counts toward 200 sq .ft. • Lots 7,500 sg. ft. in size and greater are exempt from recreation space requirements. Proposed ■ Common Area: more than 10 homes -300 sq. ft. per unit ■ Requires recreation areas to be centrally located and designed for active and passive uses for a variety of age groups ■ I parking space/15 lots or homes located more than 1000' from a recreation lot • Private Area:- Single Family/fwo- family: • 1 -10 homes - 25 ft. X 25 ft. rear yard ■ More than 10 homes -20 ft. x 20 ft. rear yard • Private area: - Multi-family ■ 1-lOhomes- 15 ft. X 15 ft. patio or 120 sq. ft. of balcony area • More than 10 homes -10 ft. x 10 ft. patio or 6 ft. X 10 ft. balcony ■ Lots 7,500 sg. 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 patio/balcony 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 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELvPMENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pa e 11 Standard Resident Parking Visitor Parking RV Parking Driveways Arterial Setbacks Existing • Multi-family -2 covered per unit • No change to number of spaces • 45 % can be compact 20 sq. ft. for each home over 10 units 30 ft. • Secondary -30 ft. • Major -40 ft. • Prime -40 ft. Proposed • Multi-family-1 car garage and 1 covered or uncovered space per unit • No change to number of spaces • Single-family - Credit for 1 guest parking space when driveways are over 40 feet long • 25 % can be compact and are only allowed in multi~family projects of 25 units or more For projects of25 units or more: 20 sq. ft. for each unit. • 24 ft. • No more than 20 single family/ two-family homes maybe located along a driveway. • 50% of setback closest to arterial must be landscaped • Setback also applies to accessory structures • Homeson 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. This provides more open space and site design opportunities. Developers are not precluded from providing two-car garages. Existing parking 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 driveway 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 driveway standard is consistent with the City's existing driveway 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. ZCA 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELvt>MENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pae 12 2b. Architectural Design Guidelines Two companion policies accompany the proposed ZCA/LCP A. 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. Applicability. 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-story Hornes. 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 streetscape by creating additional visual diversity. This issue becomes even more important when homes are located along ridge-lines and visible from greater distances. - ZCA 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -ru\1ENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELvt>MENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pae 13 Porches, Open Courtyards, Balconies. Another new requirement is for 50 percent of the homes to provide a minimum area of 60 square feet designed as a front 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 from 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. Design 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. 3. House Size in Relation to Lot Size 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 of7,500 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 from 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 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -rtMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELvPMENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pae 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 from 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 Setback/Building 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: I) 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 I 6.5 feet or 5.5 feet I 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. ZCA 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELJPMENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pa e 15 TableY Side Yard Setback Comparison Lot Existing Minimum Side Proposed Combined Width Yard Setbacks Side Yard Setbacks (25 Percent of Lot Width)* 50 ft. 5 ft. 12.5 ft. 55ft. 5 ft. 13.75 ft. 60 ft. 5 ft. 15 ft. *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: TableZ General Plan Compliance ELEMENT GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR POLICY Land Use Policy C.11 -Residential development should provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages to nearby community centers, parks, schools Land Use Land Use Circulation Element 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 ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY • The Livable Neighborhood Policy requires that all residential projects include walkways to common destinations such as neighborhood schools, parks/plazas and transit stops. • Projects are required to include centrally located neighborhood meeting places/recreational 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 nei!!hborhood. • Revised development standards (i.e.; minimum lot size, lot coverage and setbacks) will ensure that dwelling units are in better scale and proportion with surrounding neighborhoods. • 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 -rtMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELJPMENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pa e 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 fa~ade articulation for residences. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this Zone Code Amendment/Local Coastal Program Amendment (ZCA 01-01/LCPA 01-01) 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 II) 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 f~ade articulation and to apply these provisions to all new single-family and two-family development proposals. ZCA 01-01/LCPA 01-01 -AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELvPMENT ORDINANCE June 6, 2001 Pae 17 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4982 (Neg. Dec.) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4958 (ZCA) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4959 (LCP A) 4. City Council Policy on Livable Neighborhoods, dated June 6, 2001 5. City Council Policy on Neighborhood Architectural Guidelines, dated June 6, 2001 6. Private Streets, dated June 6, 2001 AL:cs:mh CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Specific Subject: LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS ATTACI-NENT 4 '1N:6,2001 i~~~s':~~d ___ _ ffective Date. ___ _ ancellation Date __ _ uperseded No. __ _ Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division 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. Building 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. 2. Garages 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. 3. Street Design 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. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT ATTACHMENT 5 • JUNE 6, 2001 i~~~~~~ ~6/97 ffective Date 8/26/97 ancellation Date ____ _ uperseded No. _44'-'------ Dated 2001 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 Division 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 all: 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 1 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. 2. 3. 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 development/building 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. 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. Decision-makers shall determine, on a case-bv-case basis, whether the oroiect complies with the intent of the policy to crgc:1te livable neighborhoods. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES: 1. 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% ). 2. A maximum of 20% of the total number of homes are exempt from the requirement to have a single- story building edge. 3. 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 1 0 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. • 6. 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. 7. 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). a. 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 orches shall be o en exce t for required and/or ornamental uardrails. A varie of - roof elements shall be i,.,rovided over porches. Porches may nol tJe converted to living space. 9. 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. 10. Floor plans in a project shall exhibit a variety of roof ridges within a neighborhood. 11 . 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 fa~de(s) of the home. 15. 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. • Knee braces • Exposed roof rafter tails • Arched elements • Window and door lintels • Towers Table A DESIGN ELEMENTS • Varied window shapes • Dormers • Columns • Exterior wood elements • Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding Note #1: 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. .__-15'--~►I AVERAGE 4.5' 5.5' 12' ►I AVERAGE 4.5' 5' 4.5' Private Streets EXISTING STREETSCAPE 34' PROPOSED STREETSCAPE * Front-loaded garages will be set back 20' from front property line I◄ 1 5' ------ AVERAGE 5.5' 4.5' I◄ 20.5' ►I 1◄ 12' AVERAGE 4.5' 5' 4.5' .... ,◄---21.5' -----►I