HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-07-15; City Council; 3423; Panhandle lot policy reviewCITY OF CARLSBAD
AGEIJDA BILL NO. » *> __ _ Initial:
Dept.Hd.
DATE: - July 15, 1975 - '. - . - _ C. Atty.'i//X>
DEPARTMENT; Planning Commission _ ; _ C. Mgr.
Subject: Panhandle lot policy review (City Council Policy No. 12, dated 9-19-72)
Statement of the Matter Planning Commission at it's regularly scheduled meeting
of June 25, 1975, requested that the City Council review the Panhandle Lot Policy,
as contained in City Council Policy No. 12 dated 9-19-72.
Planning Commission is of the opinion 'that the application of the policy is in
need of definite Council direction and possible revision.
Exhibits: Memorandum dated July 8, 1975 from Planning Director
to City Manager
Resolution No. 816
Council Policy No. 12
Recommendation
If Council concurs with the Planning Commission, the staff
should be directed to review Council Policy No. 12 and make
recommendations for possible amendment. The Council may
wish to consider this matter in a work/study session after
the report is prepared.
Council action
7-17-75 The Council concurred with the Planning Commission and the
staff was directed to review Council Policy No; 12 and recom-
mend any possible amendments, and that the report be considered
at a-'Council work/study, session.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: JULY 8, 1975
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PANHANDLE LOT POLICY
The Planning Commission has been processing panhandle lot applications as per
City Council policy. Recently however, there has been some question by the Planning
Commission on the applicability and interpretation of the policy in lieu of chang-
ing development needs. Therefore, the Planning Commission has requested the re-
view of the policy by the City Council and in particular consider the following
points:
1) Is the Variance process a proper method for approving panhandle lots?
2) How does the policy apply in the P-C Zone, which does not have lot
dimension requirements?
3) Are the standards for panhandle lots, as contained in the policy, adequate?
4) What is the extent the Planning Commission should consider the future
development of the entire block or area, especially as it pertains
to interior road systems, when considering a panhandle lot?
To answer these concerns a brief review of the policy is necessary. The City
Council first established criteria for panhandle lots through Resolution 816,
(see attached), adopted March 1962. This resolution indicates that panhandle lots
are generally undesirable, except in unusual circumstance by location, topography,
etc., and requires a Variance for approval. The resolution goes on to list some
specific requirements for panhandle.
On September, 1972 the City Council expanded this resolution by adopting
City Council Policy No. 12 (see attached). This policy again listed standards
but also indicates that an extensive study be made of the entire block to deter-
mine if the adjacent land cannot be affected upon the application of a subdivision.
Taking these two documents together we have a policy that generally states:
1) Panhandle lots are undesirable. This is based on the fact that:
a) Public improvements are avoided, especially providing standard
street systems.
b) Difficulty for safety responses, i.e., police patrol and fire
control.
c) Difficulty in trash collection
d) Reduction of onstreet parking areas and the increase in demand.
e) Neighborhood conflicts over the above and maintenance of driveways.
2) The entire block is to be considered. This is necessary to keep open
future options for street systems or adjacent properties. This is
especially important in the older developed areas which lack adequate
street systems.
3) There are minimum development standards. Development standards are
necessary to reduce to within a manageable problem the concerns listed
above.
4) A Variance is necessary for approval. This requirement needs changing
since the State now mandates certain findings for a Variance that are
not necessiarly consistent with panhandle lot policy.
It is requested that the staff ask the City Council for direction on the propriety
of continuing enforcement of the panhandle lot policy, Council Policy No. 12, or
as suggested, place panhandle lot development within the subdivision and zoning
ordinances providing standards of development can be met.
Any questions relating to this matter please contact my office.
Donald A. Agatep
PLANNING DIRECTOR
DAA/vb
Attachments: Resolution No. 816
City Council Policy No. 12
lc.yj.No.' 12
COUNCIL P ICY STATEMENT -
General Subjjct: ADMINISTRATION
• ( Specific Subject: "Panhandle" Lot Polic'ies
. .Issued 9-19-72
Effective Date 9-19-72
Cancel 1 atio.n Date
Supersedes No.* **"«h*'«-i"^V.*.*v-.^iiV/»
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and
Division H'eads., Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, Fi 1 e "
-PURPOSE: ' ' ... •
To.expand the "Panhandle" policy- for not one lot but two lots on" the
end of a "panhandle," provided extensive study is made of the entire
block and that'the following recommendations are met:\ ' ' •
1. That the adjacent land cannot be affected upon the application
of a subdivision. .
2. That all three.lots .created shall-not be less in size -than the
size prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance. ....
3. That the minimum width be. 20' for one split'and an additional
5' or a total of 25' for the twin split, and the roadway
having a twin lot split shall be split equally between two lots
being created by the "panhandle" lot split, and that reciprocal
easements between the owner and/or owners of the lots created
shall be given for the purpose of ingress, egress and public .
utility purposes, and not to be included to determine the size
of lot. .. • . •
4. Each lot shall have its own s'ewer connection to the main Jine
and shall not be the City's responsibility for maintenance.
5. The driveway shall be 20' wide and of 2" thick asphaltic
concrete paving on proper base with rolled edges.
. 6. The present "Panhandle" Policy shall continue on the single
split, with an additional length of 50' for the second split.
6
7
. 8
9
10
11
12
15
14
15
16
17
' 10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
.20
' 29
O
RESOLUTION NO. 81C
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ESTABLISHING A
POLICY" FOR PANHANDLE LOTS WITHIN THE
CITY OF CARLS!JAD."
' WHEREAS, the Carlsbad City Planning Commission recognizes that there
are areas within the City where "dead land" exists in that there is sufficient
lot area to create two lots, but insufficient frontage on a dedicated street to
create two lots with the required frontage as set forth in Ordinance No. 90GO;
*» • -.
and ' • • . •' - -
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad City Planning Commission has made a thorough
study of this problem and has communicated with various other cities in San
Diego County that have the common problem, as to how they handle similar
situations, and the Planning Commission has arrived at certain conclusions;
and "
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad City Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 241 on the 27th day of March, 1962, establishing a policy for panhandle lots
within the City of Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the City Council concurrs with the findings and action of the
Carlsbad City Planning Commission as set forth in said Resolution No. 2'41J
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL"VED that the City Council does
make and establish a.policy in regards to "panhandle" lots as follows:
(1) Thai the creation of such lots is generally undesirable, except
in unusual circumstances by location, topography, etc., but may be
done by variance. •'•.-.•
(2) "Panhandles" shall not be less than 20' in width.
(3) The "panhandle" shall not exceed 150' in length.
(4) In granting a variance to create a panhandle lot, the "panhandle"
ehall not be considered in determining the minimum required lot area.
(5) The driveway shall be at least 14' v/ido and of 2" thici: nr.phaltlc.
concrete paviiifj on proper ba:;c to prevent«.nulsancc:; from dur:t and mud.••
(C) That no .structure of any kind be erected in the "panhandle"
portion of any lot :;o created.
,-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
14
15
16-
17
ID
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
27
20
29
SO
3.1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad at a regular mcciing held on the 3rd day of April, 19C2/ by the follow-
ing vole, to wit: * •
».AYES: Councilman Guevara, Bierce, La Rpche, Sbnneraan and McPhersor
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
.- H. PiUCE, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
•t :<~,fL.C*—Is-'
VVILrLlAAi J. LA UOCHE, IMayoi
of the Citj' of Carlsbad,
Carlsbad,. California