Chapt 21.06 Amend PD (1990)ORDINANCE NO. 1802
BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TME
CITY OF CAMPBELL AMENDING TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
21.06 OF TSE CAMPBELL 'MUNICIPAL CODE (TA 90-01).
The City Council of the City of Campbell does ordain as follows:
SECTION ONE: That Chapter 21.06 of the Campbell Municipal Code is hereby
amended as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty'days following its
passage and adoption and shall be published once within fifteen days upon
passage and adoption in the San Jose Mercury News, a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of May, 1990 , by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: KOTOWSKgWATSON, CONANT, BURR, ASHWORTH
NOES: Councilmembers: NONE
ABSENT: Counc ilmembers: NONE
ATTEST:
~ARBARA bLSASKY7 CITY Ct.~f~
PPaOVED:
J. ASHWORTH, MAYOR
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 21.06
PD - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Sections:
21.06.010 Purpose.
21.06.020 Establishment of PD Zoning District.
21.06.030 Permitted Uses.
21.06.040 Planned Development Permit.
21.06.050 Application.
21.06.060 Consideration in review of applications.
21.06.070 Projects which may be approved with a Use Permit.
21.06.080 Action by the Planning Director.
21.06.090 Action by the Site and Architectural Review Committee.
21.06.100 Action by the Planning Commission.
21.06.110 Action by the City Council.
21.06.120 Notification of decision.
21.06.130 Right of appeal.
21.06.140 Development schedule expiration and revision.
21.06.150 Modification of approval.
21.06.160 Permits not to be issued if non-conformance exists.
21.06.170 Inspections by Planning Director.
21.06.180 Follow-up.
21.06.010 Purpose.
The PD District is intended to provide a degree of flexibility which is
not available in other zones so as to allow developments that are more
consistent with site characteristics while creating an optimum quantity and use
of open space and good design. The district allows within its boundaries a use
or development, or a combination of uses or types of uses or types of
developments, which is (are) determined to be in conformance with the General
Plan of the City. It is not the intent of the PD district to allow more
residential units than would be allowed by other residential zoning districts
which are consistent with the General Plan. Ord. 1617 S2 (part), 1986).
21.06.020 Establishment of PD Zoning Districts.
Unless initiated by the City, an application for a zone change to a Planned
Development Zoning District for a specific parcel or area shall include a
development plan as specified in Section 21.06.050. The City may initiate a
zone change to a Planned Development Zoning District for a specific parcel or
area without providing development plans when the purpose of such zone change
is determined to serve the best interests of the City. (Ord. 1617 Si (part),
1986).
21.06.030 Permitted Uses.
Any use or development which is determined to be consistent with the
General Plan of the City may be approved in the Planned Development Zoning
District~ subject to the criteria set forth in Section 21.06.110. Unless
otherwise stated in this Chapter, under provisions for a Use Permit,
development plans shall be approved by the City Council after public hearing.
In order to aid the City Council, the Planning Commission shall also hold a
public hearing and shall transmit its findings and recommendations by
resolution to the City Council.
21.06.040 Planned Development Permit.
Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, no building, structure, or use
shall be created, maintained, established, erected, constructed, enlarged,
placed or installed in the PD District unless and until a Planned Development
Permit is issued.
21.06.050 Application.
Application for a Planned Development Permit shall be filed with the
Planning Director. Ail applications shall be accompanied by a filing fee in
accord with the schedule of fees established by the City Council, no part of
which is refundable.
The Planning Director shall prescribe the form of application and data to
be filed with the application. A development plan shall be required to
accompany the application. If development is to be carried out in stages, each
stage shall be shown on a master plan of development. The plan shall indicate
the site location and planning of all open spaces and structures
to show that the development will be compatible with the General Plan of the
City and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. The
plan shall include proposed buildings or structures with elevations which show
appearance and materials of exterior walls, landscaping, walls or fences used
for screening or separation, design of ingress and egress, and off-street
parking or loading facilities.
A Development Schedule indicating the latest date on which construction of
the project is to begin and the anticipated date of completion is required.
The Planning Commission may also require such other information as it considers
necessary.
21.06.060 Consideration in review of applications.
The Planning Director, Site and Architectural Review Committee, the
Planning Commission,' and the City Council shall consider the following matters
and others when applicable in their review of applications:
Considerations relating to traffic safety, traffic congestion, and
site circulation:
-2-
The effect of the site development plan on traffic conditions on
abutting streets;
The layout of the site with respect to locations and dimensions
of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exit driveways, and
walkways;
The arrangement and adequacy of off-street parking facilities to
prevent traffic congestion;
The location, arrangement, and dimensions of truck loading and
unloading facilities;
The circulation patterns within the boundaries of the
development;
6. The surfacing and lighting of off-street parking facilities;
B. Considerations relating to landscaping:
The location, height and material of walls, fences, hedges, and
screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or
to conceal storage area, utility installations or other unsightly
development;
me
The planting of ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust
and erosion;
3. The unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees;
C. Considerations relating to buildings and site layout:
Consideration of the general silhouette and mass, including
location on the site, elevations and relation to natural plant
coverage, all in relationship to the neighborhood;
Consideration of exterior design in relation to adjoining
structures in height, bulk and area openings, breaks in the
facade facing onto the street.
De
Consideration of the appropriateness and compatibility of the proposed
uses in relation to the adjacent uses and the area as a whole.
21.06.070 Projects which may be approved by a Use Permit.
For projects in an existing Planned Development Zoning District, which have
an estimated construction value to be established by the Building Department of
less than $50,000 or to establish a use in an existing building when no
development plans are required, a Use Permit may be considered and approved by
the Planning Commission in accord with the provisions of Chapter 21.72
Conditional Uses.
- 3 -
21.06.080 Action by the Planning Director.
The Planning Director may review and decide applications for minor
additions or alterations to existing buildings and minor changes in plans which
have previously been approved. Minor changes are limited to modifications in
the site plan and elevations that will not:
A. Change the overall character of the proposed development;
Substantially alter the design or specifications set forth in the site
plans and elevations; or
Result in the creation of a situation or condition contrary to the
intent of the ordinance or resolution by which the development was
originally approved.
If the Planning Director finds that the proposed development ~/~ will have
a substantial effect on the surrounding area, he shall refer the application to
the Planning Commission for consideration.
21.06.090 Action by the Site and Architectural Review Committee.
The Site and Architectural Review Committee (as specified in Section
21.42.030) shall review all development plans (except those approved by the
Planning Director as specified in Section 21.06.080) and make reports and
recommendations on each application to the Planning Commission.
21.06.100 Action by the Planning Commission.
A. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on a Planned
Development application. The hearing shall be noticed as prescribed
in Chapter 21.78 (Public Hearing Notice Procedures).
Following public hearing and within 60 days after the acceptance of
the application for a Planned Development Permit, the Planning
Commission shall report its findings and recommendations to the City
Council by resolution, unless the application is continued with the
concurrence of the applicant, in which case the 60 day period may be
exceeded. The Commission may recommend approval of the proposed
development if it finds that all of the following criteria have been
satisfied with regard to the elements set forth in Section 21.06.060:
1. The proposed development or uses would clearly result in a
more desireable environment and use of land than would be
possible under any other zoning classification;
2. The proposed development would be compatible with the General
Plan of the City, and will aid in the harmonious development of
the immediate area;
3. The proposed development will not result in allowing more
residential units than would be allowed by other residential
zoning districts which are consistent with the General Plan
designation of the property; and
4. The proposed development would not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood or of the City as
a whole.
--4-
In recommending approval, the Commission may also recommend conditions
as it deems reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to carry
out the intent of this Chapter and the General Plan. The Commission
may also recommend time limits within which the condition~must be
fulfilled and the proposed development started and completed.
Following the hearing and within 60 days after the acceptance of the
application for a Use Permit, pursuant to Chapter 21.06.070, the
Planning Commission shall make a determination in accord with Chapter
21.72--Conditional Uses. Such Use Permit shall not become effective
unless and until ratification is given by the City Council.
21.06.110 Action by City Council.
Upon the receipt of the report of the Planning Commission, the City
Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing before the City
Council. The hearing shall be noticed as presented in Chapter 21.78
(Public Hearing Notice Procedures).
Bo
For projects which meet or exceed any of the following criteria, the
City Council shall render its decision by Ordinance after the
conclusion of such public hearing:
The project is proposed for development on a land area of more
than 2 acres (Kross area).
The project consists of the construction of more than 20,000
square feet of ~ross floor area.
3. The project involves the construction of more than 20 residential
De
o
units.
For projects which do not exceed the criteria specified above, the
City Council shall render its decision by resolution after conclusion
of such public hearing.
The City Council shall render its decision after conclusion of such
public hearing. The Council may approve the proposed development if
it finds that all of the following criteria have been satisfied with
regard to the elements set forth in Section 21.06.060:
The proposed development or uses would clearly result in a more
desireable environment and use of the land than would be possible
under any other zoning classification.
The proposed development would be compatible with the General Plan of
the City, and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate
areas.
The proposed development would not result in allowing more residential
units than would be allowed by other residential zoning districts
which are consistent with the General Plan designation of the
property; and
The proposed development would not be detrimental to the health,
safely or welfare of the neighborhood or the City as a whole.
-- 5 -
In approving the application, the Council may require such conditions as it
deems necessary and appropriate to secure the purposes of this Title and
the General Plan, and may require guarantees and evidence that such
conditions are being or will be complied with. The Council may impose time
limits within which the conditions must be fulfilled and the proposed
development started and completed.
21.06.120 Notification of decision.
The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall give written notification of
the decision of the Planning Director, Planning Commission, or City Council to
the applicant. In the case of approval,
the notification shall include all conditions and time limits.
21.06.130 Right of appeal.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Director and/or
Planning Commission may appeal within ten days of the date of decision in the
manner specified in Chapter 21.80--Appeals.
21.06.140 Development schedule expiration and revision.
A development schedule indicating the latest date on which construction of
the project is to begin and the anticipated date of completion shall be
approved with the project. A Planned Development Permit shall expire upon
expiration of the Development Schedule A Development Schedule may be extended
or reinstated by the Planning Commission upon receipt of a written request
which includes a new Development Schedule.
Ail applications for an extension or a reinstatement of a Development
Schedule shall be accompanied by a filing fee in accord with the schedule of
fees established by the City Council, no part of which is refundable.
21.06.150 Modification of approval.
Unless approved under Section 21.06.070 or 21.06.080, all application for
modification to approved Planned Development Permits (such as a change in use
or conditions or a modification to the plans) must be approved by the City
Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. Ail applications for
modifications must be accompanied by a filing fee in accord with the schedule
of fees established by the City Council, no part of which is refundable.
21.06.160 Permits not to be issued if nonconformance exists.
No Planned Development Permit, building permit, business license, or any
other type of permit shall be issued for any use in a Planned Development
District where such use does not conform to the development plan as approved by
the City Council. No building permit is to be issued unless it is first
ascertained that a valid Planned Development Permit exists for the use in
question.
- 6 -
21.06.170 Inspection by Planning Director.
From time to time the Planning Director shall compare the actual
development accomplished in the various Planned Development Districts with the
approved Development Schedule and shall report his findings to the Planning
Commission.
21.06.180 Follow-up.
If, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, the owner(s) of the property
in any Planned Development District are failing or have failed to meet the
approved schedule, the Commission may initiate proceedings to remove the
Planned Development District from the Zoning Map or the amendment of the
development plan.
--7--
f: TA 90-01 chap2106
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
City of Campbell, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M, - APRIL 17, 1990
COUNCIL CHAMBER
Note: This Regular Meetin~ was duly noticed pursuant to open meeting
requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54956).
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
14. Introduction of Ordinance 1802 - (Cont'd. 3/20/90) City-initiated Text
Amendment to Chapter 21.06 of the Campbell Municipal Code re Planned
Development Permit approval procedure - TA 90-01
Planning Director Piaseckt - Staff S,3mmary Report dated 4/17/90.
The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to address this issue.
Pat McCullough, 771 Old Orchard Road, Campbell - expressed concern
regarding the referendum process.
M/S: Watson/Conant - to close the public hearing.
M/S: Conant/Watson - to introduce for first reading Ordinance 1802
amending Chapter 21.06 (Planned Development) of the Campbell Municipal
Code to establish thresholds for approval by resolution vs ordinance.
Motion adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES : Councilmembers: Watson, Kotowski, Conant, Burr, Ashworth
NOES : Counctlmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
The City Clerk read the Ordinance title. M/S: Kotowski/Conant - that
further reading be waived. Motion adopted unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 17. 1990
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
14.
Introduction of Ordinance 1802 - (Cont'd. 3/20/90) City-initiated Text
Amendment to Chapter 21.06 of the Campbell Municipal Code re Planned
Development Permit approval procedure - TA 90-01
Planning Director Piasecki - Staff Summary Report dated 4/17/90.
The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to address this issue.
Pat McCullough, 771 Old Orchard Road, Campbell - expressed concern
regarding the referendum process.
M/S: Watson/Conant - to close the public hearing.
M/S: Conant/Watson - to introduce for first reading Ordinance 1802
amending Chapter 21.06 (Planned Development) of the,Campbell Municipal
Code to establish thresholds for approval by resolution vs ordinance.
Motion adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES : Councilmembers: Watson, Kotowski. Conant. Burr. Ashworth
NOES : Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
The City Clerk.read the Ordinance title. M/S: Kotowski/Conant - that
further reading be waived. Motion adopted unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MARCH
20, 1990
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
11.
Public Hearing - Introduction of Ordinance City-initiated Text
Amendment to Chapter 21.06 of the Campbell Municipal Code - re Planned
Development Permit approval procedure - TA 90-01
This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider a proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish thresholds for approval of
Planned Development Permits by resolution vs ordinance.
The Mayor announced a request from Pat McCullough, 771 01d Orchard Road,
to continue this matter for sixty days.
Planning Director Piasecki - briefly reviewed the background of this
matter.
The Mayor declared the public hearing opened. There being no discussion
at this time, M/S: Wat$on/¢onant - to continue this hearin~ to the
regular meeting of 4/17/90. Motion adopted unanimousl7.
- 3 -
CITY OF CA v PBELL
COUNCIL, .2PORT
Meeting Date:
Category:
Initiating Dept:
Title:
March 20, 1990 Item #
Public Hearing and Introduction of Ordinances
Planning
Public Hearing - City Initiated Text Amendment Establishing
Threshold Levels - Planned Development Zoning District - TA
90-01.
I. PLANNING COMKISSION][ECOt~[NDATIOI~
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following
action:
1. That the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter
21.06 (Planned Development) of the Zoning Ordinance to establish
thresholds for approval by ordin~cev~lution.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 2, 1990, the City Council considered a staff report regarding
the Planned Development Ordinance suggesting "thresholds" be used to
distinguish between types of Planned Development projects which could be
approved by resolution of the City Council rather than by ordinance. The
Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for review and
initiation of a text amendment.
III.
A.
MAJOR ISSUES
Public: While there was no one who spoke in favor of the proposed
~ext amendment, or against it, approval of a Planned Development
project by resolution will speed up the application review process.
The amount of time saved will be approximately six weeks, since a
resolution does not require second reading or a 30-day environmental
appeal period.
Staff: When drafting the text of the proposed amendments, staff
attempted to select criteria that would be easy to administer and
which would identify projects that are of con~nunity-wide significance
due to their size. It is the staff's opinion that the thresholds
recommended by the Planning Commission in the attached draft ordinance
meet both of these concerns.
In addition, the City will not be required to publish resolutions
after a Planned Development has been approved. If approved by
ordinance the City must publish the full text of the ordinance or a
s-mmary of the ordinance.
Plannin~ Commission: In adopting the recommendation for approval of
this text amendment, the Commission considered the following issues:
1. Threshold Level. The Commission was concerned that the threshold
level should distinguish between major and minor projects. Major
projects of community-wide significance will continue to be
approved by ordinance. Projects of lesser significance or impact
TA 90-01 -2- March 20, 1990
(due to their size), will be subject to approval by resolution
of the City Council after holding a public hearing. The
threshold levels recommended by the Commission to define a
major Planned Development project include any one of the
following:
a. The project is proposed for development on a land area
of more than two (2) acres (gross area), or
b. The project consists of the construction of more than
20,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, or
c. The project involves the construction of more than 20
residential units.
Referendum. The Commission considers that the threshold
levels described above will distinguish between projects
having major community-wide significance which should be
subject to the referendum process, and those which do not.
The Commission's recommendation for approval of this text amendment
was adopted by a 7-0-0-0 vote.
The City Attorney also suggests some minor amendments to clarify the
ordinance. These changes do not affect the intent or requirement of the
Planned Development Ordinance.
Approved by the Planning Director:
Approved by the City Manager:
Steve Piasecki
Kevin Duggan
Attachments
1. Ordinance - including text of revised Planned Development Section.
2. Planning Commission Minutes - Meeting of 2/27/90
3. Staff Report to the Planning Commission - 2/27/90
750 RIDDER PARK DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95190
IN THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
City of Campbell
....................... Z ~..5.~ ~L..Gm~t.~..Z..A.v.e~m. .......................................................
Campbell, CA 95008
NOTICE OF HEARING NO (37-4..F~..~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I11 t I ~ ~ ~ ~ed Stale ~ I~ I~ ~ e~l~n ~. I~ ~t a ~y 1o ~ ble~l~ ~
~l~ ~s; i~ ~s at and ~ afl ~ I~ a~ st~ ~ I~ ~ipal c~k of t~ ~tm l~
San ~ ~ ~ ~ty ~ Santa ~ra. State of ~li(~, I~1 ~ hn ~ Me{~ N~ k s~ was
I~ ~ ~t~ 8 ~a~r of ~al ~cu~t~ as I~1 term ~ ~d ~ ~t~ ~ a~
~. al ~ G~e~l ~ of I~ State of ~1~. ~, as p~d by ~id ~t~. ~ ~d I~
~ ~ ~ ~t.~. ~bIN I~ ~ b t~ Mid oily ol San ~ b N ~n~ ~ S~ite
wu MI ~ t~ ~1 ~ l~n ~r~i~ was ~d ~th w~ds ~t~ ~ ~-IaM ~ ~1
NOTICE OF HEARING
~ring M ~ns~er i ~
~ mi~ be amtrenId i
~ ~OUNCIL
CfTY OF ~
CI/Y Ct. BI
t TA ~1.
/
IN THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL
STATE OF CAUFORN~A
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
750 RIDDER PARK DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95190
CITY OF CAMPBELL
pLANNING DEPARTMENT
City of Campbell
75 North Central Avenue
...................... ~.m.e.~.~...~..A...~..5.~ ............................................................... i..
SUMMARY OF ORD. NO. 1802 No (425-3EX)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, \
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA) ss.
The ur~erl~ned, being f~'sl duty swcx"n, deposes and rays: That al all times heleir~her mentioned afl~l~,J.was
&n~ stol i~ · o,t~z~ of the Lk'~ed St·te~. ov~- the ~q;~e of e~hleen yeer~, end not a pady to no~ interested ~-lhe
~,bo.ve enl~ted p~oceedings; ·nd was ·! and during all ~ t~ a~ SI~ ~ t~ pt~ipal c~k o{ lt~ ~ter and
BI Sen ~ ~ ~ ~ty of Snail Oar·. SI·lB BI ~1~. I~1 ~ San Jm Me~cu~ N~ ~ and was
~1 I~ ~[~ ~t~ a ~a~t of ~al ~cu~ti~ as IMf term ~ ~l~d by ~1~ ~ and
I~. of t~ G~e~l ~ of I~ State of ~1~. ~. as pt~d by
~1~ BI ~ ~ te~re~ ~ and ~telti~e BI a ~ral c~aCl~. ~v~ e ~ li~
~1~ wM ~1 ~ 1~ ~t ~ I~n ~r~and was p~e~d ~th w~ds prinl~ ~ ~ck-la~ ~ nol
~1~ I~n ~re~.'~ a~ e~ ~ g~ral terms. I~
~t~ lo ~ ~ t~t I~ c~ of ~h ~ an~x~ ~ a I~ p~led c~y. was
April 25, 1990
D~t~l et S~n ,k:~. Caatomi~
BEING A SUMMARY OF OR-
~DINANCE NO. 1802, ADOPTED BY
OF CAMPBELL AMENDING THE TEXT
'OF THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL
CODE AS IT RELATES TO CH^F'rER
21.06 {pLANNED _D_E_VE_L_OPMEN_T
SECTION ONE: That Chapter 21.06 of
the Campbell Munlctp·l Code be
21.0~.030 Plmllttld Ulll
:This SecUofl indicatet that certain
developmen'm In the Planned Develop.
merit Zoning 17mtn~ may be ap-
~1.0~.040 PIInn~d
Developmenl Permit:
Require. · Plenned Development
Permit for um that ·re to be
malflt~ined, well. created, emab-
Ilehed, ~ected, ~, erd~rged,
fllno Director:
Thi$ eectlon indicete~ the type~
of appllcatlona in the Pl~nnad De-
-~elopm~nt District that may be
·pproved by the PI,tuning CNrector.
I1.0~.1 I0 ~tlon by¢lty Court.Ih
~ eecUon e~tabll~hes thresholds
deflnl the of proje~'~_, in
~ P~ian .n~:l t~velopment District
~ may ~e approved by the City
Council by Ordln·nce ~nd tho~e
which may be ap_proved by the
CI~ Council by Relolutlon. For
prolectl which meet or exceed
~ of the following ~iter~,
~ Council ~hall ren~ler it~ decision
by Ordinance ·fter the
.. ~v~on·~mof
.~ ~,~or~!~!e John
~'.yor, City of Ca~pbel!
wPitlng to requ. e,'_r~ a continus~ce in the ~f~!ic hearing
above :~e~ti~,ned item.
! receiYed i~£or~:~'~tion on the
FPiday an~: find i~, de~:iPeable t~ df_s::: ~::s the i::piic,~tions
of the ~masure to sitaations ia various ere.:~.~ af Zke city
with a number of other i:eopie~
out ,_,f the city at this tiPe.
day co~tin'aance~ but
Pat HoC ul].o:: ~ ::..,
MAR 19 1993
I:]ITY I::]F' CAMPEIE:LL
PLANININr'-I DEPAI~TME::NT
RESOLUTION NO. 2663
PLANNING COMMISSION
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMP[ENDING ~PPROVAL
OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL
CODE, CHAPTER 21.06. TA 90-01
After notification and public hearing as specific by law on proposed amendments
to the text of the Campbell Municipal Code, and after presentation by the
Planning Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, and based upon the following
findings, the Commission did determine that there was a significant need to
amend the Campbell Municipal Code.
The proposed Text Amendment will permit smaller projects in the
Planned Development Zoning District to be approved by resolution
rather than by Ordinance.
The proposed Text Amendment will result in a monetary savings for the
City, and time savings to the applicants since resolutions have a
simpler approval process compared to ordinances.
o
Approval of a project in a PD Zoning District will continue to require
final approval by the City Council.
4. The proposed Text Amendment is in the best interest of the City.
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the
attached Ordinance enacting the necessary legislation to make the proposed
text amendment effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February 1990, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners: Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Wilkinson, Olszewski, Perrine
Commissioners: None
Commissioners: None
ATTEST:
Steve Piasecki
Secretary
APPROVED:
Jay R. Perrine
Chairman
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PAGE 1 OF 2
FEBRUARY 27, 1990
6. TA 90-01
City-initiated
Public Hearing to consider a City-initiated
Text Amendment to Chapter 21.06 of the City of
Campbell's Municipal code (Planned Development
District) establishing threshold levels and an
approval procedure wherein Planned Development
Permits may be approved by Resolution rather than
by ordinance.
Chairperson Perrine read the application into the record.
Principal Planner Phil Stafford offered a brief overview of the proposed Text
Amendment, as outlined in the Staff Report, dated February 27, 1990. He noted
the current procedure for Planned Development Permits and noted the following
changes included in the draft ordinance that would determine thresholds for
ordinance procedure:
- Projects proposed for development on an area of more than 3 acres
(gross area)
- Projects that consist of the construction of more than 30,000 square
feet of gross floor area
- Projects involved in the construction of more than 30 residential
units
Further, he stated that Staff is recommending approval.
Commissioner Fox asked why 3, 30,000 and 30 were chosen and stated that he felt
that a 30 unit project is quite a large project.
Mr. Stafford stated that after review of the ordinance it was felt that a
project of more than 30 units would have city-wide concern rather than a
neighborhood-wide concern. Further, he stated that it would be up to the
Commission to decide on the threshold.
Commissioner Alne queried relative to what the Commission could legally do and
City Attorney Seligman stated that the Commission could establish any threshold
that could be justified.
Commissioner Olszewski surmised that this proposed Text Amendment would provide
the Planning Commission with more authority and reduce the "groundswell" at
City Council level.
Chairperson Perrine opened the Public Hearing on TA 90-01. No one wished to
speak.
Commissioner Christ reviewed discussion relative to this amendment that
occurred two years ago, and noted a concern that was raised relating to
limiting the use of referendums.
Further, he suggested setting thresholds at 2 acres, 20,000 square feet and 20
units since projects larger than that do impact more than residents in the
project neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DRAFT MINUTES
PAGE 2 OF 2
FEBRUARY 27, 1990
Discussion ensued between Commissioners regarding past history of the Text
Amendment. The following topics were discussed: - Retention of the referendum, and
- Limiting the referendum relative to the Planning Co--,ission's ability
to overturn City Council decisions
Regarding the current proposal, the following issues were clarified: - Difference between resolution and ordinance
- Cost of public hearings
- Passing costs for Public Hearings on to the applicants
Commissioners Fox and Alne indicated that they would be supportive of the
proposed amendment set at 3 acres, 30,000 square feet and 30 units, if it was
changed to the 2 acres, 20,000 square feet and 20 units, as proposed by
Commissioner Christ.
M/S: Fox, Wilkinson
Notion to close the Public Hearing unanimously
carried 7-0-0.
M/S: Christ, Meyer
Motion to adopt a resolution, incorporatinE the
attached findings, reco-~ending that the City
Council adopt the Text A~en~nt 90-1. relating to
Chapter 21.06. ~odified to incorporate thresholds
for projects of less than 2 acres, less than 20,000
square feet in floor area. and of less than 20
units per project, be approved by resolution rather
than ordi,~-ce, carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners: t%rist. Yox. Al-e. Meyer. Wilkinson. Olszewski. Perrine
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Coenissioners: None
T& 90-01
City-Initiated
ITEM NO. 6
Public Hearing to consider a City-Initiated
Text Amendment to Chapter 21.06 of the City of
Campbell's Municipal Code (Planned Development
l)istrict) establishing threshold levels and an
approval procedure wherein Planned Development
Permits may be approved by Resolution rather than
by Ordinance.
STAFF RBCO~qDATION
That the Planning Commission take action and ADOPT A RI~OLI~ION,
incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City Council
adopt the attached Text Amendment.
DISCUSSION
}!,acktround: On January 2, 1990, the City Council considered a report from
}~:taff which outlined certain "threshold criteria" whereby certain PD
(Planned Development) applications could be approved by Resolution rather
than by Ordinance. A Planned Development Project approved by an ordinance
is subject to the referendum petition, whereas a project approved by
r~solution is not.
Currently, all Planned Development Permits are approved by ordinance
requiring two readings at the City Council and a 30 day environmental
challenge period before the ordinance becomes effective. This process
results in costly delays and uncertainty for projects which are smallep in
scope and not likely to be challenged in a referendum.
Staff suggested the Council may want to incorporate a threshold for
projects of co~unity-wide significance which should continue to be subject
to a referendum versus projects smaller in scale which could be approved by
resolution.
The Council referred the text amendment to the Commission to consider
thresholds for approval of Planned Developments by ordinance vs.
resolution.
'lhreshold Criteria: Criteria selected should be easy to administer and
should identify projects which are of community-wide significance due to
size. Staff proposes the Commission consider the following criteria which
would limit the number of significant projects requiring ordinance approval
~o (4 -6) projects per year.
Be
Tbs project site exceeds 3 acres in area, or
~he proposed square footage of buildings exceeds 30,000 square feet,
or
Tho proposal involves the construction of 30 or more residential
units.
!'ro~ect Survey: The attached "Summary of Planned Developments" reviewed
Staff Report TA 90-01 - 2 - February 27, 1990
recent projects approved by the City Council taking the foregoing criteria
into consideration. Major projects, such as the Prometheus Project and the
redevelopment of the Campbell Lumber sites, would still require ordinance
approval. Smaller projects (commercial, industrial and residential) would
be approved by resolution and would not be subject to referendum.
I~ addition to the threshold criteria, the City Attorney is suggesting some
"house keeping" modifications to the ordinance to clarify intent. These
changes do not modify the affects of the ordinance.
Attachments:
1. Findings for Approval
2. Exhibit A - Chapter 21.06 of the Campbell Municipal Code
3. Exhibit B - Summary of Planned Developments
Phil Staff~, P~incipal Planner
Approved by:
~teve Piasecki, Planning Director
RECOMMENDING FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. TA 90-01
C]7~Y-INITIATED
PC MTG: 2/27/90
The proposed Text Amendment will permit smaller projects in the Planned
Development Zoning District to be approved by resolution rather than by
Ordinance.
The proposed Text Amendment will result in a monetary savings for the City,
and time savings to the applicants since resolutions have a simplier
approval process compared to ordinances.
Approval of a project in a PD Zoning District will continue to require
final approval by the City Council.
4. The proposed Text Amendment is in the best interest of the City.
Project
Location
SUMMARY OF PLANNED DEVELOP,...~TS
EXHIBIT B
Lot Area
(Acres)
Bldg. Sq.
Ft. or #
Units
Apprv. By
Ordinance/
Resolution
1. PD 84-03
Prometheus
2. PD 89-03
Vindasius
3. PD 89-05
Mayland
4. PD 89-08
Nadcon
5. PD 89-09
Hunter Prop.
6. PD 89-12
Nadcon
7. PD 89-14
WDT
8. PD 89-16
Nadcon
9. PD 89-17
Ainsley
10.PD 89-19
Myhre
ll.PD 89-20
Lincoln Prop.
900 E. Hamilton
107-129 E. Rincon
219-235 Shelley
480 N. Sunnyoaks
790 E. Campbell
418 W. Sunnyoaks
743 Camden
68-81E. Latimer
63 Page
980-998 Crockett
110 Michael
14.0
0.5
1.4
1.0
0.3
1.4
4.0
0.7
2.7
0.7
2.5
350,000
(Office)
8 Units
16 Units
12 Units
3,400
(Retail)
16 Units
61,000
(Commercial
and R&D)
9 Units
32 Units
4 Units
68 Units
R
R
R
R
R
R
I"'i-~UUI-//ur- I-'UDI_I~.//~ i IUi~I
750 RIDDER PARK DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95190
IN THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
City of Campbell
75 North Central Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
NOTICE OF HEARINGS 214 (2-EX)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA] ss.
T~' urn, t:~img la'St (:k. dy sworn, clepos4~ and rays: ~t at
~tK~ ~s; i~ ~s al and ~ all ~
Sin ~ ~ ~ ~1~ OI Sanla ~are, Slate of ~bl~, I~1 a~ San J~ Me[cu~ N~ · and was
I~. ol I~ G~e~t ~ ot I~ Stale ol ~GI~,
~1~ of ~ ~ Io~ra~ ~ And ~lel~e el
~ ~s ~ ~ta~, ~1~ I~ ~ ~ t~ ~id city oi San ~ ~ ~ ~n~ 8~ 5tote
r~ ~t~l~ I~ ~o t~n ~ year ~ed~ t~ f~st
w~ Mt ~ t~ ~t ~1~ t~n ~a~ wis p~e~ ~th w~ds ~int~ ~ ~-Ia~ ~ not
~t~ to ~ O~ t~l t~ cb~ ~ ~h · a~x~
February 14, 1990
t3~te¢l mi ~ Jc~. C~atomia
16th - ~ February., ~o 90
I (:MOire ~ i;:4e,~lty o4 p~Jury ~t I~ t~ · ~ a~ ~r~t.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
COUNCIL REPORT
Meeting Date:
Category:
Initiating Dept:
Title:
November 7, 1989 Item #
STAFF REPORTS
Planning Department
Use of the Planned Development Zoning District
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council refer the Planned Development Ordinance Text
Amendment back to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation
on the issue of thresholds, in the preparation of a Revised Planned
Development Permit Ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Background: In November 1988, the Planning Commission recommended that
Planned Development Permits be approved by resolution versus ordinance.
This issue was referred to a City Council/Planning Commission Study Session
on March 20, 1989. The City Council requested staff to develop thresholds
for projects in Planned Development Zoning Districts which would require
adoption by ordinance rather than by resolution. The Council was concerned
that larger projects of community wide significance should be subject to a
referendum and therefore should continue to be approved by ordinance.
Threshold Criteria: Criteria should be easy to administer and should
identify projects which are of community wide significance due to size.
The following criteria would limit the number of significant projects
requiring ordinance approval to (2 - 4) projects per year.
1) The project site exceeds 5 acres in area.
2) The proposed square footage of buildings exceeds 50,000 square feet, or
3) The proposal involves the construction of 50 or more residential units.
If the above criteria is used, projects which are of community-wide
significance would require adoption of an ordinance. All other Planned
Development projects would require adoption by resolution.
Project Summaries: A review of recent project approvals, by the City
Council, is outlined below in terms of this criteria. Projects 2, 3, and 4
would require adoption of an ordinance based upon this criteria. The first
project would be approved by resolution and not subject to a referendum.
File Number Location
Acres
Building Sq. Ft. (Units)
1) PD 89-03 107-129 E. Rincon .51 8 townhomes
¥indasius
2) PD 89-14 Campbell Lumber Site 4 61,000
743 Camden Avenue Industrial
City Council Report
TA 88-06
PD - Planned Development District
-2-
November 7, 1989
3) FD 84-03 Frometheus 14 acres 350,000
900 E. Hamilton Office
4) S 84-16 Winchester Drive-In 23 acres 420,000
535 Westchester Drive R & D
Necessity for Planned Development: The majority of Planned Development
Permit applications which come before the City Council involve the
construction of townhome units. Conventional Multiple Family Developments
requires the creation of lots with frontages on public streets. The
Planned Development Ordinance has been used to allow a subdivision mapping
process to permit the creation of individual lots on private driveways/or
streets.
The City Council may wish the Planning Commission to review this issue at
the time they review the Planned Development Zoning District. The creation
of a Townhouse/Condominium Zoning District with development standards could
eliminate the need of the City Council to review smaller residential
projects. A new Townhouse District Ordinance should be placed on the
Planning Work Program for 1990-91 fiscal year, if the City Council finds
this approach is warranted.
Steve Piasecki, Planning Director
Approved by:
Kevin C. Duggan, City Manager
CITY OF CAMPBELL
COUNCIL REPORT
Meeting Date:
Category:
Initiating Dept:
Title:
January 2, 1989
Item #
STAFF REPORTS
Planning Department
Use of the Planned Development Zoning District
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following
actions:
REFER the Planned Development Ordinance Text Amendment to the
Planning Commission for review and recommendation on the issue of
thresholds.
Direct that Staff include preparation of an ordinance to accommodate
townhouse/condominium forms of development in the 1990/91 Planning
Work Program. The ordinance will include development standards.
DISCUSSION
Background: In November 1988, the Planning Commission recommended that
Planned Development Permits be approved by resolution versus ordinance.
This issue was referred to a City Council/Planning Commission Study Session
on March 20, 1989. The City Council requested staff to develop thresholds
for projects in Planned Development Zoning Districts which would require
adoption by ordinance rather than by resolution. The Council was concerned
that larger projects of community wide significance should be subject to a
referendum and therefore should continue to be approved by ordinance.
Additionally, the City Council has questioned the appropriateness of using
the Planned Development Ordinance for all townhouse forms of development.
Currently, the PD Ordinance is used for townhomes, and the C-PD Ordinance
is used for condominium development.
Threshold Criteria: Criteria selected should be easy to administer and
should identify projects which are of community wide significance due to
size. Staff proposes the Council consider of the following criteria which
would limit the number of significant projects requiring ordinance approval
would be limited to (4 - 6) projects per year.
The project site exceeds 3 acres in area, or
The proposed square footage of buildings exceeds 30,000 square feet,
or
The proposal involves the construction of 30 or more residential
units.
If the above criteria are used, projects which are of community-wide
significance would require adoption of an ordinance. All other Planned
Development projects would require adoption by resolution.
City Council Rep¢
TA 88-06
PD - Planned Development District
-2-
January 2, 1989
Pro~ect Survey: The attached "Summary of Planned Development" reviews
recent projects approved by the City Council taking the foregoing criteria
into consideration. Major projects, such as the Prometheus Project and the
redevelopment of the Campbell Lumber sites, would still require ordinance
approval. Smaller projects (commercial, industrial and residential) would
be approved by resolution and would not be subject to referendum.
Necessity for Planned Development: The majority of Planned Development
Permit applications which come before the City Council involve the
construction of townhome units. Conventional Multiple Family Developments
requires the creation of lots with frontages on public streets. The
Planned Development Ordinance has been used to allow a subdivision mapping
process to permit the creation of individual lots on private driveways/or
streets. Developments are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. On numerous
occasions there has been confusion on appropriate development standards.
The creation of a Townhouse/Condominium Zoning District (with development
standards) could eliminate the need of the City Council to review smaller
residential projects. Staff recommends that development of a new
"Townhouse" Ordinance be placed on the Planning Work Program for 1990-91
fiscal year, if the City Council finds this approach is warranted.
Approved by: ~
Steve Piasecki, Planning Director
Approved by:
Kevin C. Duggan, City Manage
TA 88-06
CITY OF CAMPBELL
COUNCIL REPORT
Meeting Date:
Category:
Initiating Dept:
Title:
November 15, 1988 Item #
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
Planning
Public Hearing - Introduction of Ordinance (1) Text Amendment
to Chapter 21.06 (PD - Planned Development District) of the
Campbell Municipal Code to allow approval of Planned Development
Permits by resolution - TA 88-06.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
1. That the City Council ACCEPT the NEGATIVE DECLARATION which has been
prepared for this Text Amendment; and
e
That the City Council adopt the attached findings, and take first reading
of the attached Ordinance amending Chapter 21.06 to allow Planned
Development Permits to be approved by Resolution rather than by Ordinance,
as indicated in Ordinance #1's Exhibit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
If the Council does not approve the recommended Text Amendment allowing Planned
Development Permits to be approved by Resolution, rather than by Ordinance,
then Staff would recommend the following:
3. That the City Council ACCEPT the NEGATIVE DECLARATION which has been
prepared for this Text Amendment; and
That the City Council adopt the attached findings, and take first reading
of the attached Ordinance #2 amending Chapter 21.06 as indicated in it's
Exhibit which leaves Planned Development Permits to be approved by
Ordinance, but makes some minor clarifications to the PD Zoning
District.
DISCUSSION
The current provision of the Planned Development Zoning District requires that
approval of a Planned Development Permit be by Ordinance. This procedure
requires complicated and expensive noticing in the newspaper. In an attempt to
reduce the printing costs of the entire ordinance, as required by law, the City
Clerk has recently changed to a system which entails the printing of a summary
of the PD ordinance twice. Although this has reduced the printing costs
slightly, the logistics required to meet the law are quite complicated.
Under Exhibit 1, the proposal is that the requirement for approval by Ordinance
be changed to allow approval by Resolution, and that some minor adjustments be
made to the zoning district to reform and clarify the basic procedures. The
change from Ordinance to Resolution would require the same initial public
hearing noticing to the newspaper and to surrounding property owners; however,
it would simplify procedures once the approval is given.
TA 88-06 -2- November 15, 1988
If the Council determines that the Planned Development Zoning District should
not be amended to provide for approval by Resolution, the City Attorney would
recommend approval of Exhibit 2 which leaves the approval by Ordinance but
attempts to make adjustments to reform and clarify the basic procedures.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 25, 1988, adopted Resolution
No. 2565 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance allowing for the
approval of Planned Development Permits by Resolution (vote: 5-0-2, with
Commissioners Kasolas and Dickson being absent).
Attachments 1. Recommended Findings
2. Exhibit 1 - Ordinance with attachments, allowing for approval of
Planned Development Permits by Resolution and making clarifications to
PD Zoning District.
3. Exhibit 2 - Ordinance with attachments, retaining approval of Planned
Development Permits by Ordinance but make clarifications to PD Zoning
District.
4. Planning Commission minutes: 10/25/88.
5. Memorandum from City Attorney, dated 11/30/87.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: TA 88-06
CHAPTER 21.06 PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)
CC MTG: 11-15-88
The proposed text amendment maintains the notification procedures for a
public hearing and notification to surrounding property owners currently
required for a Planned Development Permit.
The City Council is still retained as the decision-making body for projects
involving Planned Development Permits.
The proposed modification from approval by Ordinance to Resolution will
reduce publication cost and Staff time required to produce such publication
notices.
The proposed modifications to the text amendment would make adjustments to
reform and clarify the basic procedures of the PD Zoning District.
RESOLUTION NO. 2565
PLANNING COMMISSION
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL
CODE, CHAPTER 21.06 (PD - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT). TA 88-06
After notification and public hearing as specified by law on proposed
amendments to the text of the Campbell Municipal Code, and after presentation
by the Planning Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, and based upon the following
findings, the Commission did determine that there was a significant need to
amend Chapter 21.06 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
The proposed text amendment maintains the notification procedures for a
public hearing and notification to surrounding property owners currently
required for a Planned Development Permit.
2. The City Council is still retained as the decision-making body for projects
involving Planned Development Permits.
The proposed modification from approval by Ordinance to Resolution will
reduce publication cost and Staff time required to produce such publication
notices.
4. The proposed modifications to the text amendment would make adjustments to
reform and clarify the basic procedures of the PD Zoning District.
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the
attached Ordinance enacting the necessary legislation to make the proposed text
amendment effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October 1988 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Cox~issioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Christ
None
Kasolas, Dickson
ATTEST:
Arthur A. Kee
Secretary
APPROVED:
Ronald W. Christ
Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 25, 1988
TA 88-06
City-initiated
Public hearing to consider City-initiated
amendments to Chapter 21.06 (PD - Planned
Development District) of the Campbell
Municipal Code.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of October 25, 1988.
City Attorney Seligmann noted that if this amendment is approved, decisions of
the Commission and/or Council would not be subject to referendum or
initiatives; and, findings would be required for approval of projects in the
Planned Development Zoning District.
Discussion ensued regarding appeal procedures, tracking procedures, and
noticing procedures.
Commissioner Olszewski felt that the time spent tracking the notices for
Planned Developments could be better spent by Staff in many other ways.
Commissioner Perrine asked if this amendment would affect development
agreements - would the resolution have as much power as an ordinance.
Mr. Seligmann responded that challenging an ordinance requires a slightly
higher standard of reasons for making the decision. With resolutions, it is
only required to show that findings were incorrect - this is a slightly lower
standard of proof. If the findings for approval are in order, the difference
is very small.
Chairman Christ expressed great concern about losing any of the legalities
associated with an ordinance.
M/S: Stanton, Perrine -
That the public hearing on TA 88-06 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2).
M/S:
Stanton, Perrine -
That the Planning Commission recommend that
the City Council accept the Negative
Declaration which has been prepared for TA
88-06; and, that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution No. 2565, incorporating
findings as indicated in the Staff Report of
October 25, 1988, recox~ending that the City
Council adopt Staff Recommendation #2 which
reads "Amend Chapter 21.06 so that Planned
Development Permits may be approved by
Resolution rather than by Ordinance, as
indicated in Exhibit A." of TA 88-06. Motion
carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Christ
None
Kasolas, Dickson.
ITF~M NO. 6.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 1988
TA 88-06
City-initiated
Public hearing to consider City-initiated amendments to
Chapter 21.06 (PD - Planned Development District) of
the Campbell Municipal Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Planning Commission RECOMMEND that the City Council ACCEPT the
NEGATIVE DECLARATION which has been prepared for this Text Amendment; and
That the Planning Commission ADOPT a RESOLUTION, incorporating the attached
findings, RECOMMENDING that the City council AMEND Chapter 21.06 so that
Planned Development Permits may be approved by Resolution rather than by
Ordinance, as indicated in Exhibit A.
If the Commission does not recommend that Planned Development Permits be
approved by Resolution, rather than by Ordinance, then
3. That the Planning Commission RECOMMEND that the City Council ACCEPT the
NEGATIVE DECLARATION which has been prepared for this Text Amendment; and
That the Planning Commission ADOPT a RESOLUTION, incorporating the attached
findings, RECOMMENDING that the City council AMEND Chapter 21.06 as
indicated in Exhibit B, which leaves Planned Development Permits to be
approved by Ordinance, but makes some minor clarifications to the PD Zoning
District.
STAFF DISCUSSION
The current provision of the Planned Development Zoning District requires that
approval of a Planned Development Permit be by Ordinance. This procedure
requires complicated and expensive noticing in the newspaper. In an attempt to
reduce the printing costs of the entire ordinance, as required by law, the City
Clerk has recently changed to a system which entails the printing of a summary
of the PD ordinance twice. Although this has reduced the printing costs
slightly, the logistics required to meet the law are quite complicated.
Under Exhibit A, Staff is proposing that the requirement for approval by
Ordinance be changed to allow approval by Resolution, and that some minor
adjustments be made to the zoning district to reform and clarify the basic
procedures. The change from Ordinance to Resolution would require the same
initial public hearing noticing to the newspaper and to surrounding property
owners; however, it would simplify procedures once the approval is given.
If the Cox~ission determines that the Planned Development Zoning District
should not be amended to provide for approval by Resolution, Staff would
recommend approval of Exhibit B which leaves the approval by Ordinance but
attempts to make adjustments to reform and clarify the basic procedures.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: TA 88-06
CHAPTER 21.06 PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)
PC MTG: 10-25-88
o
The proposed text amendment maintains the notification procedures for a
public hearing and notification to surrounding property owners currently
required for a Planned Development Permit.
The City Council is still retained as the decision-making body for projects
involving Planned Development Permits.
The proposed modification from approval by Ordinance to Resolution will
reduce publication cost and Staff time required to produce such publication
notices.
The proposed modifications to the text amendment would mkae adjustments to
reform and clarify the basic procedures of the PD Zoning District.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 1988
Commissioner'Kas°las requested that the issue of PD Zoning be agendized for a
future meeting; specifically, the possibility of reverting back to the previous
method of calculation. Commissioner Kasolas continued that the Commission
should take a close look at what has happened this evening under V 88-03,
particularly at small in-fill lots. It might make a difference on a small
project.
Chairman Christ stated that a more proper forum would be a study session.
City Attorney Seligmann said it was up to the Chair, since we have no rules 'on
it.
Chairman Christ directed Staff to agendize the matter for a light agenda.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
30 November 1987
Arthur Kee, Planning Director
Barbara Olsasky, City Clerk
William Seligmann, City Attorney
Publication of Planned Development Ordinances
Background
Planned Development permits are approved by ordinance
of the City Council. As with most ordinances, the Planned
Development approval would normally have to be published in its
entirety within fifteen days of passage (Gov. Code Sec.
36933(a) ). Due to the fact that a Planned Development approval
includes numerous conditions, maps and plans, full publication
can be very cumbersome and expensive.
Issue
What alternatives exist to full publication of planned
development approvals?
Discussion
A. Publication of Summary:
The City may forego publication of the full text
of the ordinance if the following conditions are met:
(1) A summary of the proposed ordinance
is prepared by an official designated by
the City Council;
(2) The summary of the proposed
ordinance is published at least five (5)
days prior to the hearing on the
ordinance; and a certified copy of the
proposed ordinance is posted in the
office of the City Clerk;
(3) Within fifteen (15) days after
adoption of the ordinance, a summary of
the adopted ordinance shall be published
with a list of those council members
voting for and against the ordinance; and
Memorandum
30 November 1987
Page 2
(4) The City Clerk shal 1 post a
certified copy of the full text of the
ordinance in the Clerk's office (Gov.
Code Sec. 36933(c) (1)).
The prehearing publication required by the
foregoing procedure can be coupled with the notice required by
Government Code Section 65856(b) for zoning ordinances. This
provision requires publication of the date, time and place of the
hearing, as well' as the name of the hearing body, and general
description of the matter to be heard, at least ten (10) days
prior to the hearing (Gov. Code Secs. 65856(b), 65090, 65094).
B. Publication of Display Ad:
In the event that an accurate summary can not be
prepared, the City Council can order display advertisements
published rather than the full ordinance. This procedure works as
follows:
(1) City Council orders a display
advertisement of at least One-quarter of
a page to be published at least five (5)
days prior to the hearing on the
ordinance;
(2) The advertisement shall indicate the
general nature of the ordinance, and
shall inform the public about how to
obtain copies of the complete text;
(3) Within fifteen (15) days after the
adoption of the ordinance, the ~ame
display advertisement shall be
republished, along with the names of
those council members voting for and
against the ordinance.
As with the summary procedure, the preheating
display advertisement can be consolidated with the normal zoning
ordinance hearing notice. Given the costs of a display
advertisement, however, the summary method would probably make
better economic sense.
IIII
Memorandum
30 November 1987
Page 3
Conclusion
The City may avoid publication of the full text of a
Planned Development approval by either publishing a summary of the
ordinance or a display advertisement prior to the hearing on the
ordinance. Of these two alternatives, the summary procedure would
be the more cost effective.
WRS/jar
PLANNING COMMISSION MTG.
NOVEMBER 10, 1987
-10-
OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Dickson requested that Staff research possible alternatives to the
Planned Development Zoning District for development of townhomes and
condominiums.
PLANNING COMMISSION MTG.
FEBRUARY 24, 1987
Staff Report
City Attorney
Planned Development Permits and
Public Hearings.
City Attorney Seligmann provided a memorandum (attached hereto) addressing
this matter.
Commisioner Dickson felt that the issue will have to be addressed on a
point-by-point basis; and, that it is the responsibility of the Planning
Commission to understand the Planned Development ordinance.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this report be noted and
filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MTG.
FEBRUARY 10, 1987
OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSION
Commissioner Dickson asked the City Attorney for a position paper on
Planned Development changes when they pertain to site and architectural
changes on the plans~ Commissioner Dickson believes that the plans are
part of the ordinance; therefore, what determines the point when a new
public hearing should be taking place~ How many changes can be made
before a new public hearing is called?
It was the consensus of the Commission that this issue be agendized for
the next meeting.
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 4, 1985
Review of policy
re: expiration
and reinstatement
of Planned Develop-
ment permits
Councilmember Doetsch stated that zoning on property
for which a Planned Development Permit has expired
should revert back to the original zoning, and that
this policy should be reviewed.
Mayor Ashworth referred this subject to staff for review
and recommendation.
City Manager Duggan stated that staff could explore some
alternative policies and agendize this topic for
discussion at the Planning Commission Study Session.
PLANNING COb~4ISSION
JbLY 9, 1985
Staff Report
Staff Report regarding gross vs. net
area in PD (Planned Development) zones.
Mr. Kee reviewed this report, noting that if the Commission and Council
wish, a policy could be adopted stating that the maximum number of units
allowed under a PD or C-PD cannot exceed the maximum number allowed under
the comparable R-M-S, R-2-S, or R-3-S Zoning District. Mr. Kee continued
that the existing method of calculation was originally for a general plan
speaking for gross acres; however, it differs when applying the method to
one particular site. That difference was magnified when the State
required the General Plan and Zoning to be in conformance, and the
policies in the ordinance have not been changed. However, a new zoning
ordinance is being developed, and this would seem an appropriate time to
address these types of problems.
M/S:
Toshach, Dickson -
That the Planning Commission accept the
Staff Report and refer this issue to the
Zoning Review Committee. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1, with Commissioner
Kasolas having left the meeting).
ITEM NO. 13
STAFF COMMENT SHEET - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 9, 1985
Staff Report
Staff Report regarding gross vs net lot
area in PD (Planned Development) Zoning
Districts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission note and file this Staff Report.
STAFF DISCUSSION
At its previous meeting the Planning Commission requested Staff to prepare
a report regarding gross vs net area in PD Zoning Districts, and the
formulas for calculating density. Listed below are the formulas for
calculating the maximum number of units for non-PD or C-PD zoned
properties. The number of units is calculated on the net lot area (the
area within the property lines after any dedications).
Zone # of Units
Corresponding General
Plan Designation
R-M-S A. 6,000 sq.ft, lot minimum 6-13 units per
Multiple for single family home. gross acre.
Family
District B. 7,000 sq.ft, lot minimum
for a duplex.
C. 9,000 sq.ft, lot minimum
for a triplex.
De
Lots greater than 9,000 sq.ft.
may be developed at a ratio of
one unit for each 3,000 sq.ft.
of lot area.
R-2-S
Multiple
Family
District
A. 6,000 sq.ft, for single family.
B. 7,000 sq.ft, for duplex.
C. 8,000 sq.ft, for the first 3 or 4
units; then 2,200 sq.ft, for each
additional unit.
14-20 units per
gross acre.
R-3-S
Multiple
Family
District
A. 6,000 sq.ft, for single family.
B. 7,000 sq.ft, for duplex.
C. 8,000 sq.ft, for the first 3 or 4
units, then 1,600 sq.ft, for each
additional unit.
21-27 units per
gross acre.
-2-
With the three afore-mentioned zoning classifications, only rental units
could be built. If condominiums were desired, a C-PD (Condominium-Planned
Development) district would be required, and if townhomes were desired, a
PD (Planned Development) district would be needed. Under the C-PD and PD
zonings, the density is based on the General Plan designation for the
property and the lot area is calculated on the gross square footage of the
lot (to the centerline of the adjoining streets). In most cases, the
maximum number of units allowed on a piece of property with, for example,
a General Plan designation of 14-20 units per gross acre would be the same
under an R-2-S or a PD. However, when the property is located on a corner
or the street is very wide, a larger percentage of public right-of-way is
calculated into the gross lot area which may result in more units being
allowed under a C-PD or PD zoning district.
Exhibit A illustrates a typical interior lot with a General Plan
designation of Medium Density Residential (14-20 units per gross acre).
With this lot, the maximum number of units allowed would be 5 under either
an R-2-S or a PD.
Exhibit B illustrates a corner lot with a General Plan designation of
Medium Density Residential (14-20 units per gross acre). The corner lot
with R-2-S zoning again would allow 5 units maximum, however with the PD a
maximum of 8 units would be possible. The difference here is the large
percentage of public right-of-way to the center line of the street (shaded
area) which is calculated into the gross square footage of the lot. In
this case, the net lot area is 10,500 sq.ft, and the gross lot area 18,000
sq.ft.
Although the PD or C-PD zoning may allow more units in some situations,
the Planning Commission and City Council does not have to approve more
units. The General Plan lists a density range and maximum density is not
guaranteed. Staff has made it a habit to advise developers that the
maximum number of units allowed under a PD & C-PD is unlikely when it
exceeds the number which would be allowed if the property were zoned
R-M-S, R-2-S, or R-3-S.
If the Commission and Council wish, a policy could be adopted stating that
the maximum number of units allowed under a PD or C-PD cannot exceed the
maximum number allowed under the comparable R-M-S, R-2-S, or R-3-S Zoning
District.
]XHIBIT A INTERIOR LOT
Comparison between the number of units allowed on a lot with R-2-S
and PD zoning assuming a General Plan designation of Medium Denistv
Residential (14 to 20 units oer eross acre).
I I I I
'7o '
Io,$'oo ~. ft-.
EXHIBIT B CORNER LOT
Comparison between the number of units allowed on a lot with R-2-S
and PD zoning assuming a General Plan designation of Medium Density
Residential (14 to 20 unitS Oer gross acre).
I, w': +g
!
!
PLANNI,'~ C~SSION MEETING
OF AUGUST 9, 19 83
-9-
Co~nissioner Kasolas con~ented that the use of ?D has been an excellent means
of bringing about the development of Apricot Avenue and made this a very
attractive area for people to live in. He felt that the use of PD's should
be continued for the good of the co~nunity.
Co~issioner Dickson stated his agreement t~hat the ?D ordinance is a very
helpful and strong ordinance, but it does provide that what is being done
should be a higher and better use. He felt that the Co~;~ission should be
supportive of zoning requirements, and that if the PD is used, it should be
for less density and better designs.