Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/14/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - SS3. oFpR�MSgAJ CITY OF PALM SPRINGS c • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES • �'9��Faae+`p MEMORANDUM Date: September 11, 2006 To: City Manager From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Subject: Planning Commission Discussion of Neighborhood Overlay Zones On August 2, 2006, the Planning Commission dedicated their Study Session to the issue of neighborhood overlay zoning. The neighborhood overlay is a localized zoning designation that "sits on top" of the basic zone district and contains development rules custom tailored to its area. Customized rules are typically used to preserve existing character of a neighborhood (as opposed to introducing some new condition) and are most often sought by established single family homeowners. In Palm Springs, in-fill construction has caused some homeowners to seek more rigorous zoning rules for their neighborhood than the basic R-1 standards. However, neighborhood overlays raise several issues that need to be addressed so that unintended consequences can be identified and avoided. As part of their discussions, the Commission looked at examples from different cities and considered these topics in their discussions: What should be regulated? Examples from other cities included: - Height limits and how to measure height - Color and materials of new construction - Design review for vacant/teardown properties - Average setbacks or heights, based on adjacent development How should the regulates work? Procedures from other cities included. - Neighborhoods propose their own local rules - Local zoning standards (lower height limits, etc.) are reviewed `over-the-counter" - Local design criteria are applied through City architecture review First, the Commission considered if single family neighborhoods should be subject to any localized standards in light of the architectural diversity of many neighborhoods. However, the neighborhood overlay was seen as a useful tool, especially if the neighbors themselves requested the overlay and determined its contents. City Council Memo- September 12, 2006 Planning Commission Discussion of Neighborhood Overlay Page 2 of 3 The Commission concluded that the following eleven issues should be resolved if the City enables neighborhoods to establish localized zoning requirements. 1. Set Soecific Criteria for Overlay Zones -The Commission began with the notion that any overlay needs to include a specific set of criteria in advance -whether height or setback standards, or specific design objectives for neighborhood character. An overlay should not be an open-ended review that leaves applicants uncertain as to the basis for obtaining project approval. However, the specific criteria should be developed from a bottoms-up approach; that is, the neighbors should define what they want to control. 2. Require "Super-majority" of Residents - The Commission believed that a substantial majority (at least 66%) of the residents should be on record in favor of creating an overlay zone prior to any City action. This would force advocates to work out which new standards would gain broadest local support before approaching the City. Additional issues include whether or not a single person could represent a household, the form and content of the petition and what type of publicity and outreach should be required. 3. Involve the Architectural Advisory Committee. the Planninq Commission and the City Council -- The Commission also recommended that any proposed overlay zone be vetted by the AAC, the Planning Commission and the City Council prior to approval. Since an overlay zone is a zoning code amendment, Commission review and Council approval are required. Adding the AAC would be helpful in refining design-based overlays and in evaluating the appropriateness of new setback or height standards. 4. Set a Term for the Overlay Zone -- There was some Commission concern that an established overlay zone should be 'tested' periodically to make sure that neighbors continue to support it. A term (or"sunset" clause) was discussed where every ten years, for example, the overlay was subjected to another super-majority petition. If the petition for renewal could not be successfully submitted, the overlay could expire. The down- side is that, should an overlay expires after some number of years, some property owners will have been subject to tighter rules only due to the timing of their project. 5. Provide an "Opt-out" Provision -When presented with a petition, could a property owner opt out of the overlay zone? The Commission debated whether or not an existing owner could exempt their own property from an overlay's requirements. An opt-out provision might improve the chances of gaining a super-majority at the petition stage, but would also weaken the overlay's effectiveness. If too many people opted out, should the City reject the petition? Also, opting out creates administrative challenges as the City must maintain records of whose "in" and whose "out" of an overlay. 6. Require City-certified Neighborhood Organizations - It was the Commission's opinion that proponents of an overlay zone be established under the City's neighborhood program. This would assure that the advocates were not simply a single-issue group, but were willing to organize for the neighborhood's long-term benefit with by-laws, etc. 7. Require Overlays to be Minimum Size -To avoid creating "spot" zones, the Commission concluded that a minimum size - such as two acres - or clearly distinguishing physical boundaries or other easily-recognized characteristic should be the basis for establishing City Council Memo— September 12, 2006 Planning Commission Discussion of Neighborhood Overlay Page 3 of 3 overlay areas. Staff notes that the City should also consider pre-approving the boundaries of an overlay zone so that the petition is circulated on an acceptable overlay. 8. Require NOA review before City review— It was thought by the Commission that overlay zones should have some form of project review at the neighborhood level prior to any city review. This allows issues to be worked out among neighbors in advance of AAC, PC or CC hearings. Much as happens with larger projects, the more that can be worked out in advance, the better the project and process for all. 9. Determine Who Pays for Creating of Overlay — The Commission considered that the creation of an overlay is both a zone text and map amendment, which carries an application fee of over six thousand dollars. Shall the City require neighbors to pay the application fee or does it wish to subsidize overlay applications from the General Fund? Should the City also set an additional fee to cover the staff work needed to process development projects within an established overlay zone? 10. Determine How New Buyers are Notified of an Overlay -- Once an overlay zone is established, new buyers may not be aware that special rules apply to their property. Presently, the City does not advise new buyers about the zoning requirements for any property, although many real estate agents and buyers will research the City's rules and inquire about special provisions. Should the neighborhood association be obligated to notify new owners about the overlay zone? Should it send a periodic reminder to all residents within the overlay? One option would be to record the overlay with the County, so that it appears on the title report; however, this would not be appropriate if an overlay has a term that causes it to expire (see Issue No. 4, above). 11. Determine How to Deal with Neighborhood Organizations that Fade Out — Based on many of the issues raised in this memo, the successful overlay zone would be dependent on the existence of a strong neighborhood association. Experience tells us that some associations are strong and sustained for many years. Others are dependent on the volunteer work of a few members, and wax and wane over time. Still others are strong for a few years — often organized around one or two issues — but then slowly disappear. In the latter cases, how does the City ensure that the neighborhood remains a steadfast proponent of the special overlay rules? These issues suggest that the concept of neighborhood overlays requires significant additional Council direction before an ordinance can be developed for review. Staff proposes that a discussion item be placed on an upcoming Council agenda so that the Council may focus staffs efforts on this matter. Cc: Tom Wilson, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Lee Husfeldt, Director of Public Affairs ti 4�A�MSw?+y CITY OF PALM SPRINGS c DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES Cq</FO MEMORANDUM Date: February 7, 2007 To: Planning Commission From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Subject: Discussion of Street Widths in New Subdivisions In response to the Commission's direction, staff has researched the City's policies regarding the width of streets in private residential developments. The Commission has expressed some concern during the review of recent development applications that a width of twenty-four (24) feet appears to be the acceptable design standard, whereas the Commission believes that it may be too narrow for the density and site design of many of the projects. Staff has identified three sources of information regarding street width standards, which have been attached to the memo: The Palm Springs General Plan, the Zoning Code and the Public Works' standards sheet. The General Plan has two policies to address private streets, as follows: Policy 7.1.1 states: 7.1.1.a Local streets are streets used primarily to provide access to abutting property, and are any street not indicated on the Circulation Plan Map. Width of right-of-way: Rural, Very-=Low-Density and Low-Density Residential areas— 50'; Other— 60' b. Hillside Area & Private Streets (Local) Width of right-of-way: 36' (emphasis added) Policy 7.1.8 states: 7.1.8 Where private roads are permitted, they shall be developed to the engineering standards of the City both as to right-of-way and improvements. Based on these policies, it appears that the General Plan requires 36-foot right-of-ways for private streets. Planning Commission Study Session February 7, 2007 Street Widths in New Subdivisions Page 2 of 2 Section 9.5.030(3) of the Zoning Code states: (3) Private streets may be permitted if adequate assurance is provided for continued physical maintenance and access to the residents and/or owners of the subdivision. Private streets shall be designed and improved in accordance with the general plan, standard plans and/or specific plans pursuant thereto. (emphasis added) The Zoning Code refers to several sources for private street standards. However, it remains focused on City-wide policies of the General Plan, standard plans or adopted specific plans, of which there are presently two in the City: The Section 14 Plan and the Canyon South Specific Plan. The third source.is called a "standard sheet", which is prepared by the Department of Public Works to assist applicants in designing physical improvements. One such sheet has been developed for "Private Street — Condominium", which shows two acceptable standard widths: 1. An overall width of 32 feet, with two 12-foot travel lanes and one 8-foot parking lane (parking on one side only), 2. An overall width of 36 feet, with two 10-foot travel lanes and two 8-foot parking lanes (parking on both sides) According to the Public Works staff, the practice of using 24 feet for a private street is derived from the first standard, minus the single, 8-foot parking lane. The Commission may wish to consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding clarification of the standard, including revisions to the General Plan, as part of the comprehensive update. Staff will prepare for the next Commission meeting a recommendation to the City Council meeting based on the Commission's direction. Attachments: 1. Palm Springs General Plan Circulation Element, Pages IV— 5 through 7 2. Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 9.6.030 — Standards of Design and Improvement 3. Palm Springs Public Works Standard Drawing No. 302, "Private Street — Condominium"