HomeMy WebLinkAboutHandout-Monnig Development
L
o
o
.
MONNIG DEVELOPMENT, INC.
DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MARCH 21, 1991
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE/DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS
A. Effective date of the development code. We feel the
stage at which the code is applied should exempt certain
projects which have obtained entitlements to date yet may
still be mid stream in obtaining final approval.
B. ERC/DRC clarification. We feel it would also be
beneficial to have a neutral chairperson not associated
with a department directly affected in the review
process. Page I-4, 4 and 5.
C. Minimum room/dwelling size standards need to be removed
from the document. This is determined by the supply and
demand of a given area. Page II-19, G and H.
D. Due to the content of the overlay districts, we feel it
is necessary to include maps of the overlay districts
within the Development Code to help accomplish the goal
of reference to one document when res ear chi n 9
development in the city similar to the format of the
general plan.
E. Deed restrictions are not necessary. The necessity to
inform the potential purchaser of a specific
location/condition of the property has been done in the
past through disclosure which has been effective. It
would be unnecessary to cloud a persons property which
will affect the resale value. Pages II-180 and II-204.
F. There is some concern of the additional delays that may
occur when processing a project within several areas of
the proposed code as follows:
1. Mandatory preservation of any area identified
as having a biological significance unless approved
by the city Council. This should be determined on
a case by case basis not simply mandated.
Page II-204, 4a.
2. Submittal of a "landscape concept plan" prior
to submittal of a landscape plan should be optional
as long as the city standards are utilized.
Page III-68, 19.28.020.
;j/~L~
4IJ
o
o
Development Code Concerns
City of San Bernardino
March 21, 1991, Page 2
--------------------------
DESIGN GUIDELINES
There is definite concern in the interpretation and
applicability of the Design Guidelines listed in several
sections within the proposed code. The design guideline
section seems contradicting and confusing and will most
likely be interpreted that way as well. I have attached
a few examples to point out some of the basis for our
concerns.
The definition and applicability of "design guidelines" stated
on Page II-33, 1. (attached) begins as follows, "The following
design guidelines are intended as a reference to assist the
designer in understanding the City's goals and objectives for
high quality residential development."
Although, this defines the city's goals, it also creates the
idea that anything less is unacceptable.
Page II-33 also states in paragraph 1. that this chapter
provides good examples of potential design solutions. The
design examples on Page II-42 (attached) do not leave much
room for alternative solutions.
Page III-3, 4. (attached) shows an example of the confusing
wording of the code in its present form by first stating
4. "DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS", and then, "The following standards
are in addition to the specific desiqn quidelines.....
Also, in this section which is considered a "standard" under
4.A, it reads as follows: "The proposed development shall be
of a quality and character which is consistent with the
community design goals and pOlicies......" Here again, the
"community design goals" are referenced in "standards" and
the "city goals" are referenced in the "design guidelines"
section.
We feel achieving quality is important, however, it is
important to understand that the design of a home is
determined by the market. Both the "residential guidelines and
the "Property Development Standards" are trying to determine
something that marketing personnel, architects and planners
devote their entire profession to in determining the
marketability and affordability of a home.
We strongly suggest the removal of the guidelines from this
document to allow for clarification, structure and adoption
by resolution if necessary at a later date. This will avoid
additional appeals which will most certainly be unavoidable
and costly to both the city and the developer.
-
o
o
Development Code Concerns
City of San Bernardino
March 21, 1991, Page 3
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
There are several "standards" within this section which add
additional cost to the construction while adding little design
improvement, livability or value to a home. Several areas of
concern are mentioned including but not limited to the
following:
1. Architectural treatment of all elevations.
Page III-3, 4g.
2. Architectural treatment of both sides of perimeter
walls. Page III-4, 4i.
~
3. Prohibited non anodized and unpainted aluminum
finish window frames. Page III-5, 7b 1.
4. Wall dictations of height requirements for side
of street yards. Page III-6, 1.
5. Prohibiting chain link fencing. Page III-7, c.
FOOTHILL FIRE ZONE
There are concerns regarding mandatory fire sprinklers in fire
zone A+B and possibly C if abutting wildlands.
Several items need to be considered and should be evaluated
on a project by project basis as follows:
1. Distance from fire station to center of tract.
2. Width of street, access and load carrying capacity of
tract.
3. Location and capacity of fire hydrants.
4. Meeting cuI de sacs turn around requirements.
5. Construction type of proposed housing.
6. Location and number of smoke detecters. Smoke
detecters are early warning devices and save lives
whereas sprinklers are 2nd stage and to save property.
We truly feel the need for sprinklers should be evaluated and
determined on a case by case basis. Under no circumstance
should it become a standard using strictly location of a
particular project as the only determination.
L
o
o
Development Code Concerns
City of San Bernardino
March 21, 1991, Page 4
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping standards seem excessive and in some areas
would not allow the acclimation necessary to survival.
Specifics include the follwing but are not limited to:
1. Setback and Parkway Treatment Standards. Increasing
the landscape area on the exterior of the perimeter walls
~> from 3 feet to 6 feet directly increases the cost of the
maintenance assessment incurred by each homeowner.
Page 111-75 19.28.050.
2. Corner Treatment Standards are excessive and
unnecessary.
f
!
i
_._-~
i
//~
------~~._._----- j
-~
--
----'
---
" \
o
RESIDENTIAL Q'GN GUlDELINES - GJ9.04
.,-
· The design guidelines are general and 1TI/lY be interpreted with some flexibility in their ap-
plication to specific projects. The guidelines will be utilized during the City's design
review process to encourage the highest level of design quality while at the same time
providing the flexibility necessary to encourage creativity on the part of project designers.
The design guidelines are fOmJQtted into two general categories; 1) single family residen-
tial and 2) multi-family residential. Each category is further divided into architectural
guidelines and site planning guidelines.
2. APPI.1CAB1LlTY
The provisions of this section shall apply to all residential development within the City
except for the CR-2 District (downtown) where large scale, mid to high rise residential
structures 1TI/lY be located.. Any addition, remodeling, relocation or construction requir-
ing a building permit subject to review by the Development Review Committee shall ad-
here to these guidelines where applicable.
3. smr.u:: FAM11.Y SlTEPl.ANNT7\1r.
An important goal of the single family site planning guidelines is to create functional
and visual variety along local streets. It is the intent of these guidelines to discourage
subdivisions where identical homes 1TI/lrch down long, uninterrupted straight streets,
with no variation in building placement or the street scene.
All single family subdivision plans that apply for alternative lot sizes will be evaluated
using the guidelines contained in this section with emphasis on the following criteria:
A. Proportional mix and placement of lots
B. Preserving of 1TI/lture trees and natural fe/ltures
C. Placement of dwelling unit on lot
D. Preserving of views
E. Provision of amenities (subdivision entrance treatment, landscaping, open space,
etc.)
F. Treatment of drainage courses
G. Treatment of walls and fences
H. Other unique amenities
FINAL DRAFT
D.33
I h ")I'JIJO
o
RESJDENTJAI. ~GN GUIDELINES - GJUI
E. MATERIALS
The choice and mix of materials on the ftlClldes of structures and garage doors is
important in prOlJiding an attractive living environment. MAterials should be
consistently applied and should be chosen to work harmoniously with adjacent
materials. Piecemeal embellishment and frequent changes in materials should be
avoided.
MAterials tend to appear substantial and integral when material changes occur at
changes in plane. Material or color changes at the outside corners of structures
give an impression of thinness and artificiality whi&h should be lIf1Oided. Material
changes not accompanied by changes in plane Q/so frequently giT1e materilllan in-
substantial or applied quality.
MAterials to be avoided include; metal or aluminum siding and roofs, reflective
materials and finishes, and unfinished concrete block.
A
e>
c
,',
..
Change In plane wllh
change In maler/al
Recommended
Ma/erial or color change
01 outside corner
NoI recommended
Change 01 malerlaII OIIlG11le
pIaM Nollecommended :
1: VENTS AND DOWNSPOUTS
Roof fl4shing, rain gutters, and tlawnspouts, mats, and otkfr roof protrusions
should be finished to match the adj4cent materill/s and/or colors.
G. EQWPMENT sCREENING
Any equipment, whether on the roof, side of structure, or ground, must be
screened. The method of weening must be architecturally compatible in terms of
materials, color, shape, and size. The screening design should blend with the
building design. Where individual equipment !s prwided, a continuous screen is
desirable.
-~ '-'tI'
'.
___.w _.....~
U-42
/(}:'/I'O _To
"'.11"\
F.
G.
o
o
c.
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS -19.20
8rful/./ """,,"le.!
The maximum overall height for a 'antennae shall be 35 feet above grade.
D.
The operation of the antennae shall not cause interference with any
electrical equipment in the surrounding neighborhoods (e.g., television,
radio, telephone, computer, etc.).
E.
The antennae shall be p~ted a single, Rlwlnl ana non-glossy color (e.g.,
off-white, creme, beigeX )!J r U~ , b t.. c.k, ~".e.y').
The antennae shall be sited to assure compatibility with surrounding
development and not adversely impact the neighborhood.
The installation and maintenance of television antennae shall be
consistent with the provisions of Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code.
. 4. DESIGN CONSIDERA nONS
The following standards are in addition to the specific design guidelines con-
tained in the individual land use districts:
A. The proposed development shall be of a quality and character which
is consistent with the community design goals and policies including but
not limited to scale, height, bulk, materials, cohesiveness, colors, roof
pitch, roof eaves and the preservation of privacy.
B. The design shall improve community appearance by avoiding excessive
variety and monotonous repetition.
C. Proposed signage and landscaping shall be an integral architectural
feature which does not overwhelm or dominate the structure or property.
D. Ughting shall be stationary and deflected away from all adjacent
properties and public streets and rights-of-way. .
E. Mechanical equipment, storage, trash areas, and utilities shall be
architecturally screened from public view.
F. With the intent of protecting sensitive land uses, the proposed design
shall promote a harmonious and compatible transition in terms of &ca1e
and character between areas of different land uses.
G. All structure elevations shall be architecturally treated.
H. Parking structures shall be architecturally compatible with the primary
and surrounding structures.
FINALDRAFJ'
m-3
_ ow_^-