WEST BERKELEY PROJECT Master Use Permits (MUP) May 15, 2012 Response to Concerns & Issues.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING December 2, 2008.
Advertisements

Smart Growth Update VCARD May 23, Growth Management & Schools during 2005 Volusia County Council adopts new school impact fee. School Board of Volusia.
City Council Hearing March 3, 2008 SIERRA POINT BIOTECH PROJECT.
PARKS: Major Policy Topics  Park development guidelines  Joint use of park and recreation facilities  Park accessibility  Park acquisition priorities.
Planning & Community Development Department Amendment to Fuller Master Plan 135 North Oakland Avenue Predevelopment Plan Review City Council Meeting June.
Zoning Ordinance Update Planning Commission February 25, 2015.
Proposed Modification of Policies for Rural Employment Centers Policy 6.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive plan CPA
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission ZOS Location Map Feet.
Implementing State Density Bonus Law in Berkeley November 13, 2014 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Department.
City Council Meeting January 18, Background  Staff receiving increasing number of inquiries regarding installation of wireless telecommunications.
Noel H. Kaplan, Senior Environmental Planner
Community Development Department COBBLESTONE VILLAGE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Application #2241.
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING December 2, 2008.
Navigating SB 375: CEQA Streamlining and SB 743 Transportation Analysis 2014 San Joaquin Valley Fall Policy Conference.
BCC Public Hearing for consideration of an Agreement to Offer Donation of Real Property -and- a Solid Waste Management Permit Renewal APPLICANT: Hubbard.
Consistency Determination: City of Seaside Local Coastal Program FORA Board Meeting March 15, 2013 Agenda No: 8a.
Butterfly Village (PLN080209) Monterey County RMA- Planning Director July 30, 2008.
Preliminary Development Plan – Continuation of August 28, 2012 BoCC Hearing Board of County Commissioners September 18, 2012.
New Brighton Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 2006 Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Section Regarding Commercial/Industrial Park.
Planning and Community Development Department Housing Element City Council February 03, 2014.
Updates to Title 8. Anticipated Timeline… July - December 2013 Ideas Compiled Research and Drafting January 2014 Planning Commission Worksession Review.
Subcommittee on Heights, Massing, and Alternate Standards    Third Report – January 20, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission.
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING September 1, 2009.
Rulemaking for Central Florida Coordination Area Coordinated Rulemaking by the South Florida, St. Johns River and Southwest Florida Water Management Districts.
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING June 23, 2009.
Horizon West Village Planned Development Code Update Adoption Public Hearing Board of County Commissioners February 11, 2014 Chapter 38, Article XIII,
Planning & Community Development Department Conditional Use Permit #5029 and Other Land Use Entitlements: Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement.
Community Development Department APPLICATION #2457 GRAND HAVEN PUD AMENDMENT APPLICATION #2411 GRAND HAVEN NORTH: SMALL SCALE FLUM AMENDMENT APPLICATION.
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING September 22, 2009.
Department of Sustainable Development and Construction DCA Application to Amend Cell Tower Regulations – Temporary Towers and Height Restrictions.
Community Development Department COUNTRY CLUB HARBOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-2 AND PARKS & GREENWAYS ZONING DISTRICTS REZONING APPLICATION #2511.
1 Completing the CEQA Checklist Terry Rivasplata.
The Three Levels of Development Planning 1 Small Area Plan Zone / CDD DSP / DSUP.
Planning and Zoning Division Jefferson County RZTo amend the existing Planned Development (PD) zone district to allow for mini-warehouse storage.
Secondary Dwelling Units Orchard Park/Sherwood Forest Ratepayers Association Community Meeting January 29, 2014.
EASTSIDE ACTIVITY CENTER DRAFT MASTER PLAN Board of County Commissioners January 22, 2008.
Board of County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING June 22, 2010.
Community Development Department Special Exception Vehicle Rental and Leasing St. Joe Plaza.
Redevelopment in the Resort Housing District To the Sanibel- Captiva Chamber of Commerce Nov. 29, 2011 Prepared by: Planning Department.
Eagle Heights Development Proposal Consists of two sets of development applications and two property ownerships: Paletta and Taylor lands. Paletta is applicant.
Planning & Community Development Department Board of Zoning Appeals: Hillside Development Permit # Hillcrest Place City Council March 14, 2016.
Prepared by: Alex Fisch Planning Services Division.
Community Development Department Rezone Application #1783 Parcel ID No RPOF-0031.
Planning & Community Development Department 3202 East Foothill Boulevard (Mixed Use Project – Space Bank) City Council May 16, 2016 Predevelopment Plan.
Town of Chapel Hill | 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. | Land Use Management Ordinance Update Planning Commission September 1,
4650 Alhambra Circle Building Site Separation. Request: The applicant is requesting consideration of a building site separation in accordance with Section.
Planning & Community Development Department Olivewood Village Project (530, 535 E. Union St., 95, 99, 119 N. Madison Ave. and 585 E. Colorado Blvd.) Predevelopment.
ITEM 6.a AT GREEN BUILDING ORDINANCE City Council – August 25, 2009.
Small Town Service ~ Community Stewardship ~ Future Focus ALBRIGHT OFFICE PARK Planned Development PD Architecture and Site S Environmental.
City of Portland Bureau of Development Services Staff Presentation to the Portland Design Commission Design Recommendation LU MS Conway’s NW.
1 Gables Gateway. 2 1.Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 2.Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 3.Zoning Code Text Amendment 4.Change in Zoning 5.MXD3 Mixed.
Applicant: Robert Ganem Addresses: 7304 & 7312 Black Oak Lane Planning Commission Meeting – August 21, 2015.
Community Development Department MADISON GREEN AND TUSCAN RESERVE MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT APPLICATION #2616.
Planning & Community Development Department General Plan Implementation Strategy City Council February 29, 2016.
Planning and Zoning Division Jefferson County RZ Sevens Residential Memory Care ODP Case Manager: Russell D Clark.
ITEM 6.B ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT AT CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 25, 2009.
Development Permit System. Development Permit System 2 Disclaimer  The information presented is provided as background information to facilitate understanding.
Planning & Community Development Department Appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals’ Approval of Hillside Development Permit # Glen Holly Drive City.
Planning & Community Development Interim Development Process to Implement the General Plan Land Use Element City Council July 11, 2016.
1 Villa Laguna MXD3 Site Plan Review. 2 Request: The applicant is requesting site plan review of a proposed mixed-use project pursuant to the recently.
Department of Sustainable Development and Construction Inclusionary Zoning Housing Committee August 1, 2016.
Animal Care Facilities
Providence Saint John’s Health Center
New Comprehensive Zoning By-law December 12, 2016.
8/23/2016 Luis N. Serna, AICP David, Healey, FAICP
Planning Commission Public Hearing September 9, 2016
Updates to the Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvements Fee (TR/TIF) City Council July 24, 2017.
City Council Meeting April 23, 2018
City Council Meeting April 29, 2019
Board of County Commissioners
Presentation transcript:

WEST BERKELEY PROJECT Master Use Permits (MUP) May 15, 2012 Response to Concerns & Issues

Require Community Benefits Agreement No Housing in M, MM, MU-LI Maintain MU-R Density, Height, & FAR MUP: 75’ General Max. Height & 100’ Max. Height for Industrial Processes Aquatic Park Protections 2 Proposed Ordinance Revisions to Address Community Concerns

No MUP approvals until CBA approved. Independent consultant. Binding. Resolution prepared for CC to refer to Planning Commission: – Specific and concrete community benefits applicable to MUPs. 3 Community Benefits Agreement

Benefits – Ordinance Changes New Language (proposed ordinance, lines ): 23B Community Benefits Agreement Required for Approval. No MUP may be approved until the City Council has adopted specific and concrete Community Benefits Agreement requirements to implement the benefits requirement of this Chapter. 4

Benefits – Ordinance Changes 23B Master Use Permit Application — Process (lines ) 3.A proposed benefits package that is consistent with 23B B, and addresses one or more of the three types of benefit categories specified therein. The proposed benefits package must include benefits beyond what would otherwise be provided and must specify the types of benefits, the method of delivering and guaranteeing these benefits, and their net present value. In addition, the proposal must demonstrate how the proposed benefits are a reasonable exchange for the requested changes in development standards for the proposed project, recognizing that the zoning ordinance does not require the benefits to equal or exceed the full value to the developer of such modifications to development standards. The City may require the applicant to pay for an independent consultant to provide technical assistance to the City in reviewing the information provided. Measures to mitigate the land use impacts of the proposed project shall not be considered benefits under this Chapter; and 4.the applicant’s commitment to enter into a binding Community Benefits Agreement that meets the City’s requirements to guarantee provision of the proposed benefits if the application is approved. 5

Benefits – Ordinance Changes 23B Findings (lines ) B. For alterations of development standards and permitted uses under Section 23B A or B, the Board must find that the proposed project would confer measurable community benefits that affirmatively advance the purposes of this Chapter or the West Berkeley Plan in accordance with the requirements adopted by the Council per Section 23B , and that the applicant has agreed to enter into a binding commitment to do so. one or more of three efforts to directly benefit residents and businesses in Berkeley: 1.Retain and provide affordable work space for artists 2.Provide transportation demand management measures consistent with the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan Report; or 3.Provide access to and participation in jobs training programs designed to advance employment prospects for Berkeley residents, especially those living near or below the poverty line. 6

Housing – Ordinance Changes 23B Permissible Alterations of Development Standards and Permitted Uses (lines ) 2. Height Limitations: increases in permitted maximum height up to 75 feet except as provided in paragraph 3 below, and except in the MU-R District, where height is limited by the MU-R District regulations 7

Housing – Ordinance Changes 23B Permissible Alterations of Development Standards and Permitted Uses (lines ) 4. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Restrictions: increases in permitted maximum FAR of up to 3.0 except in the MU-R District, where FAR is limited by the MU-R District regulations 8

General maximum for MUPs (except in MU-R): 75 feet? Maximum for industrial processes, if necessary: 100 feet? 9 Height – Direction Needed

MUP Height 23B Permissible Alterations of Development Standards and Permitted Uses (lines ) Increases in permitted maximum height up to Height Limitations: Increases in permitted maximum height up to 75 feet except as provided in paragraph 3 below, and except in the MU-R District, where height is limited by the MU-R District regulations. 10

MUP Height 23B Permissible Alterations of Development Standards and Permitted Uses (lines ) production buildings may exceed 75 feet, up to 100 feet, if necessary, and only to the extent necessary, 3.On those nine (9) sites identified in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, “Additional Amendments to the Master Use Permit Process, West Berkeley Project,” February 2012, production buildings may exceed 75 feet, up to 100 feet, if necessary, and only to the extent necessary, to permit the establishment of a discrete portion of a proposed production or manufacturing process, subject to the findings in Section 23B H; 11

MUP Building Massing Limit Building Mass within a Master Use Permit Site: –Portions of buildings over 45 feet in height may cover no more than 50% of lot area; –Portions of buildings over 75 feet in height may cover no more than 33% of lot area. At MUP/MU-R Boundaries: –Five foot setback for buildings; – Step back for height over 35 feet. 12

Mitigation Monitoring Program Added to Mitigation AES-2, Change in Visual Character (p 2 of MMP) In particular, building massing shall be limited as follows: Portions of buildings over 45 feet in height, may cover no more than 50% of lot area. Portions of buildings over 75 feet in height may cover no more than 33% of lot area. Additionally, any buildings located on sites that are adjacent to or that confront MU-R designated property (unless the MU-R property is part of the MUP project) shall comply with the following guidelines unless site-specific analysis demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that compliance with these guidelines is not needed to meet the above finding: –MUP projects shall be set back five feet from the property line; and –Buildings may not intersect a 45 degree incline plane starting 35 feet above the ground at the five-foot setback line. 13

40’ 35’ 75’ 45⁰ MUP Boundary 5’ Building Step Back over 35 feet Bordering MU-R Zone MU-R MUP Site 14

Aquatic Park 23B G Findings (line 240) HG. In order to approve a Master Use Permit adjacent to that contains buildings within 100 feet of the boundary of Aquatic Park, the Board must find that the project will not unreasonably create shadows upon degrade the existing visual quality or character of, or pedestrian access to Aquatic Park. Revise above finding to conform with Mitigation SEIR AES-3: Evaluate Shadow Effects for Proposed MUP Structures. Applicants proposing structures within 200 feet of sensitive areas (i.e., public parks, open space, recreational trails, schoolyards and residential uses) shall modify the design of said buildings so that they will not cast a significant shadow on any sensitive areas. 15

Aquatic Park Also protected by Mitigation SEIR AES-2: Project-Specific Visual Simulations Any project that could obscure significant Scenic Views from Aquatic Park and I-80/I-580 shall be required to provide a Site-Specific Visual Analysis as described in West Berkeley Plan Mitigation 1. Any MUP building on a site adjacent to within 100 feet of Aquatic Park and/or over 75 feet in height will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to analyze whether they will obstruct views from Aquatic Park and I-80/I-580 toward the Berkeley Hills and ridgeline. If views are significantly obstructed, the building design will be revised to reduce the resulting impact to the satisfaction of the City. 16

Aquatic Park 23B A.3 Findings (lines ) All new building within the proposed project must comply with the Bird-Safe Building Design Guidelines, as specified in SEIR Mitigation Measure BIO- 1, to reduce the frequency of bird collisions in the area. 17

Recommendations Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the MUP amendments, adopting CEQA findings and the MMP; Adopt a Resolution approving amendments to the West Berkeley Plan, and by reference the General Plan; Adopt the first reading of the Ordinance to repeal and reenact BMC Chapter 23B.36 Master Use Permits; and Adopt a resolution referring to the PC consideration of Community Benefits Requirements. QUESTIONS? 18

75’ % of lot area 45’ 19

45’ 100’ 33% of lot area 75’ 20