My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0331.003 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 0331.003 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 6:12:58 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 5:42:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
0331
Point
003
Author
Christopher Yuen
Communications - Referred To
PC
Comments
Presented: PC - 5/15/07
Document Relationships
AGE PC 05/15/2007 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Plannning Committee (PC)
COM 0331.000 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2006-2008
RES 158 Draft 01 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Resolutions\2006-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Chair <br /> and Members of the Committee on Planning <br /> COMMITTEE ON PLANNING <br /> <br /> Page 6 <br /> May 14, 2007 <br /> We recommend that the council retain the current administrative control over PUD's and <br /> CPD's. They rarely involve issues of overall policy or general public concern. <br /> Generally, PUD's and CPD's contain alternative designs prepared by architects that are <br /> functionally equivalent to or better than the normal requirements of the Zoning and <br /> Subdivision codes. They are an important tool that allows some flexibility and creativity <br /> in the design of subdivisions. To implement what we are hearing about urban design in <br /> the community development plan process, we will either have to greatly increase the use <br /> of PUD's, or build more flexibility into the Zoning Code so that they can be done without <br /> <br /> needing a PUD. <br /> If PUD's and CPD's must go to the planning commission and council, with an open- <br /> ended possibility of various conditions being attached, the time frame for approval will <br /> inevitably be much longer than under the current practice, and worse, the developer <br /> won't know what kinds of conditions will ultimately be placed on them. The result will <br /> be that developers will not apply for PUD's and CPD's. The developer will simply do a <br /> subdivision according to code. Or, the developer will try to achieve the same result by <br /> applying for a series of variances. <br /> If the council wants to tighten up on the planning director's range of discretion in PUD's, <br /> there is one aspect of the current code that gives the planning director an unusual amount <br /> of discretion: the planning director can allow buildings up to 79 in height in a PUD, <br /> regardless of the height limit in the zoning district. (The normal height limit is 35' in an <br /> RS zone, and 45' in a V or RM zone.) The planning director would have no objection to <br /> removing this provision from the zoning code covering PUD's. <br /> I will be happy to discuss these issues more fully at the Planning Committee meeting on <br /> May 15"' when Resolution 158-07 is discussed. <br /> Sincere;y, _ <br /> f/ <br /> Z,.~~ <br /> CHRISTOPHER J. ~EN <br /> Planning Director <br /> CJY:pak <br /> Wpwin60/Chas 07/Pilago -Comm. 331- Res. 158-07 -Subdivision philosophy <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.