HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-16; City Council; 3594; Lots with Substandard Width Panhandle LotsV»*^ •' v. <*
Cm OF CARLSBAD
-, s-otJ Initial:
AG.EKDA BI.LL NQ. ^3^7 J
Dept. Hd.jJ
DATE; March 16, 1976 "^
City Atty \)FA
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
City Mgr..
SUBJECT: ZQNE CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING LOTS WITH SUBSTANDARD WIDTH
(PANHANDLE LOTS) ZCA-72
Statement of the Matter _ On July 17j 1975j the city council directed Staff
to develop standards for lots with substandard width and appropriate ordinances and
return them for a workshop session to be discussed by the City Council. Staff complied
with this request and reviewed the draft with the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission has agreed in concept with the draft.
Exhibits:
Staff Report to City Manager dated Feb. 27, 1976
Draft Ordinance dated Feb. 26, 1976
Memorandum to City Manager December 22, 1975
Resolution No. 816/Supplemental Policy #12
Recommendation:
If .the City Council concurs,it is recommended that the City Attorney be directed
to prepare a draft ordinance and set the matter to Public Hearing before the Plan-
ning Commission.
COUNCIL ACTION
3/16/76 Motion -was made that City Attorney be directed to prepare
a draft ordinance and set the matter to Public Hearing before the
Planning Commission.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY MANAGER
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ENGINEER
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: MEETING (City Manager's Office)
2/23/76
9:00 A.M.
ZCA-72 - Panhandle Lots
Planning staff has prepared an ordinance amendment permitting lots
with substandard frontage under certain conditions. This amendment
with full packet of agenda bill and backup information has been
drafted and is attached for your information.
Please review so that at the scheduled meeting we can finalize and
prepare for City Council report.
DA:BP:mdp
Attachments:
Agenda Bill
Memorandum to City Manager
Draft Ordinance
City Council Resolution No. 816
City Council Policy No. 12
Ml
MEMORANDUM
December 22, 1975
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ZONE CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING LOTS WITH SUBSTANDARD
FRONTAGE (PANHANDLE LOTS), ZCA 72
Under the present City Council Panhandle Lot Policy, a Variance is
necessary for approval. By State Law, certain findings are neces-
sary to approve a Variance, which causes problems in processing.
In addition, the Planning Commission felt the present guidelines
are not sufficient in all cases and the standards of development
needs review.
Therefore, the Planning Commission requested that Staff review the
policies to determine if the process could be simplified and the
guidelines improved.
Staff suggested to the Planning Commission that the regulations for
lots with substandard frontage (panhandle lots) be contained in the
zone ordinance with proper reference to the subdivision ordinance.
A draft of this ordinance was prepared based on the following
assumptions:
1) It is generally desirable for each lot to have legal frontage
with access on a public street or private street approved
through a planned development.
2) For normal circumstances this frontage should be adequate to
provide driveways, on-street parking and areas for refuse
pick up.
3) For unusual circumstances such as rough terrains or other out-
side influences, the zone and subdivision regulations should
provide an alternative method to provide access to a lot.
4) Since these unusual circumstances must be discretionally deter-
mined, the decision should be made by the Planning Commission
or City Council.
5) Lots with substandard frontages are appropriate in only the R-A
and R-l zones. All other development zones permit uses that
have more traffic than can be accommodated safely with panhandles
6) Panhandle lots do cause some problems in a residential area and
therefore special requirements are needed to mitigate these
problems.
* ~.
Based on these assumptions an ordinance amendment was drafted that
does the following:
1) Places regulations in the City Code instead of the Council
policy.
2) Deletes the requirement of a Variance for the approval.
3) Approval is to be by the City Council in major subdivisions and
Planning Commission in minor subdivisions.
4) Prior to approval certain findings for the necessity of a pan-
handle must be made.
5) Certain development standards are required for panhandle lots.
6) Panhandles are to be limited to the R-A and R-l Zones.
7) Redefine lot and lot width.
8) Amends Subdivision Ordinance accordingly.
Dona Id A. Agatep
PLANNING DIRECTOR
DAA/BP/cpl
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Ordinanced dated 12-22-75
City Council Resolution No. 816
city Council Policy No. 12
--•<•
ZCA 72
PANHANDLE LOTS
February 26, 1976
CHAPTER 21.04 Definitions
21.04.210 Lot: "Lot" means a parcel legally created by subdivision
map, adjustment plot, certification of compliance, or a parcel in
existence prior to incorporation of the lot into the jurisdiction of
the City of Carlsbad. A lot shall have frontage that allows usable
access on a dedicated public street or a public dedicated easement
accepted by the City. This street or easement shall have a minimum
width of 30 feet.
21.04.265 Lot Width: "Lot Width" means the horizontal distance of
the line constituting the required front yard setback, as required in
certain zone classifications, or for those zone classifications without
required front yards, the lot width is the horizontal distance between
the side lot lines measured at right angles to a line comprising the
depth of the lot at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines.
CHAPTER 21.08 R-A Zone
21.08.080 Lot Width:
A. All lots shall have a minimum lot width as follows:
(1) Lots required to have an area up to 10,000 sq. ft.: 60 feet.
(2) Lots required to have an area of at least 10,000 sq. ft. and
up to 20,000 sq. ft.: 75 feet.
(3) Lots required to have an area of at least 20,000 sq. ft.:
80 feet.
B. The City Council for major subdivisions and the Planning Commission
for minor subdivisions may approve panhandle or flag-shaped lots where
the lot width and yards are determined in accord with this section
if the following circumstances are found to exist:
(1) The property cannot be served adequately with a public street
due to unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topo-
graphy, surrounding land development, or lot configuration.
(2) Subdivision will not preclude or adversely affect the ability
to provide full public street access to other properties with-
in the same block or the subject property.
C. As a part of the approval of a panhandle or flag-shaped lot, the
City Council (for major Subdivisions) or the Planning Commission
(for minor subdivisions) shall determine:
*"
(1) The portion of the lot that shall be considered the buildable
lot. The buildable portion shall be exclusive of any portion
of the lot less than 35 feet wide used for access to the lot.
The width and area requirements of the zone shall be met and
shall apply only to the buildable lot.
(2) Which property lines of the buildable lot are the front, sides
and rear for purposes of providing required yards. Yards
shall be provided as required for interior lots.
D. Such lots shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The area of the buildable portion of the lot as noted above
shall not be less than 12,000 sq. ft.
(2) The access portion of a lot to the buildable lot shall not
be greater than 150 feet for a single lot or 200 feet when
two such lots are adjoining.
(3) A driveway from the public street or public easement to the
parking area on the buildable lot shall be at least 14 feet
wide for single lots and 20 feet wide when serving more than
one lot.
(4) The driveway shall be constructed to accommodate public service
vehicles with a minimum of two-inch thick asphalt concrete
paving on proper base with rolled edges.
(5) Drainage from the lot shall be channeled down the private
access to a public street or special drainage means must be
provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(6) Each lot shall have three parking spaces that have a minimum
turnaround of 24 feet.
(7) A 42-inch high enclosed refuse pick up area not less than
3 feet by 6 feet in inside dimensions shall be provided with-
in the access portion, within 25' of the public street
frontage.
(8) No structures, except trash enclosures, mail boxes, fences,
landscape containers and name plates may be erected in the
panhandle or flag area.
(9) The property owner of such a lot shall be party to an agree-
ment that absolves the City or any other public service agency
from liability of any damage of the driveway when being used
to perform a public service.
(10) Any other condition the City Council or Planning Commission
may determine to be necessary to properly develop such property.
-2-
>
CHAPTER 21.10 R-l Zone
21.10.080 Lot Width:
All lots shall have a minimum lot width as follows:
(1) Lots required to have an area up to 10,000 sq. ft.: 60 feet.
(2) Lots required to have an area of at least 10,000 sq. ft. and up to
20,000 sq. ft.: 75 feet.
(3) Lots required to have an area of at least 20,000 sq. ft.: 80 feet.
Balance of section same as the R-A.
CHAPTER 21.44 Uses Generally
21.44.030 Limitation on issuance of building permit:
No building permit shall be issued for any structure to be erected on a
lot having less than twenty feet frontage on a dedicated public street or a
public dedicated easement accepted by the City or on a lot situated at the
terminus of a street that should be extended. Where the panhandle or flagpole
portion of a lot is adjacent to the same portion of another such lot, the
required minimum frontage of a dedicated street shall be 15' provided a
joint easement gives common access to both such portions is agreed upon.
The City Council based on a report from the City Engineer may grant an
exception to the limitations of this section for lots situated at the terminus
of a street that should be extended.
CHAPTER 21.46 Yards
The following section to be deleted:
21.46.220 Lots or parcels containing more than minimum required area.
When any lot in any zone contains a greater area than the required minimum
area of the zone in which it is contained, then each unit of the required
minimum area contained in such lot may be utilized as a separate lot; provided,
that all other requirements of the zone in which it is contained are met;
and further provided, that any such division does not result in more than
four lots and that each such lot thus created complies with the provisions
of the subdivision ordinance governing split lots; and further provided,
that each such lot has frontage upon a dedicated public thoroughfare.
CHAPTER 20.16 Major Subdivision -Requirements:
The following subsections of Section 20.16.010 to be modified as follows:
(4) "Every lot shall have a width specified in Title 21 for the zone
in which the lot is located at the time the final map is submitted."
-3-
***•->
(5) "Except for panhandle or flag-shaped lots approved pursuant to Title 21,
lots whose side lines are approximately radial to the center of a
cul-de-sac or the center of the intersection of two dead-end streets
shall have at least thirty-three feet of frontage measured at the right-
of-way line."
(6) "If permitted pursuant to Title 21, shall have minimum frontage of
twenty feet on a dedicated public street. Where the panhandle or flag-
pole portion of a lot is adjacent to the same portion of another such
lot the required minimum frontage of a dedicated street shall be 15'
provided a joint easement gives common access to both such portions
as agreed upon."
(8) This subsection should be deleted:
"The side lines of all lots shall be at right angles or radial to the
street upon which the lots front with a maximum deviation of up to
ten degrees allowed."
CHAPTER 20.24 Minor Subdivision - Procedure:
Amend Section 20.24.090 as follows:
20.24.090 City Engineer- Duties: The City Engineer is authorized and
directed to carry out the duties assigned to him by this title including
but not limited to the following:
(1) Obtain the recommendations of other City departments, governmental
agencies or special districts as may be deemed appropriate or necessary
by the City Engineer in order to carry out the provisions of this title.
(2) Investigate each tentative parcel map filed pursuant to this chapter
and indicate by written report the kind, nature and extend of improve-
ments required to be installed on or to serve the land to be divided.
(3) Tentative parcel maps containing proposed panhandle or flag-shaped lots
that do not meet the minimum lot width requirements of the zone but
which may be permitted pursuant to Title 21 shall be referred to the
Planning Department for report to the Planning Commission.
(4) Approve, conditionally approve or disapprove tentative parcel maps,
and report as provided in this chapter this approval, conditional
approval or disapproval directly to the subdivider.
(5) Waive the requirement for filing and recordation of a parcel map for
certain subdivisions as provided for in this title.
CHAPTER 20.28 Minor Subdivisions -Requirements:
Amend Section 20.28.020 as follows:
20.28.020 Panhandle-shaped lots.
Other provisions of this title notwithstanding, a panhandle-shaped or
flag-shaped lot, if permitted by Title 21, shall have a minimum frontage of
twenty feet on a dedicated street. Panhandles may not serve as access to any
lot except the lot of which the panhandle is a part.
-4-
Where the panhandle or flaqoole oortion of a lot is
adjacent to the same oortion of another such lot, the
required minimum frontaqe of a dedicated street shall
be 15' orovided a joint easement qiving common access
is agreed upon.
- 5-
MEMORANDUM
February 27, 1976
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: POLICY DECISION - PANHANDLE LOT REGULATION (ZCA 72)
At this time the City Council is being requested to review the
attached draft ZCA 72 to determine if the desires of the Council
have been met. To help you in this decision, the following is
a discussion on major policy decisions that were made and alter-
natives available to you:
1. Policy vs. Ordinance Requirements: The alternatives
are either to continue with the present method of
using policies or to incorporate the requirements
into the ordinance. Staff suggests that require-
ments of this type should always be in an ordinance.
There are many reasons for this; namely:
a) Developed regulations are contained in one docu-
ment —the Zoning Ordinance.
b) Relief is provided through the Variance process
or Planning Commission interpretation of ambiguity.
c) Ordinances are administered evenly to everyone,
while there is no legal binding requirement on
policies.
2. Administrative vs. Discretionary Approval: Under
administrative approval the applicant would make
application to Staff who would determine if findings
are met. However, determining findings requires a
certain amount of discretion that should properly be
made by the Planning Commission or the City Council.
If the requirements are met, the request is approved.
Discretionary approval would require Planning Commission
or City Council action. This is more time-consuming,
.X
Administrative vs. Discretionary Approval (Continued):
but it does place the discretionary decisions with
the proper bodies; therefore, Staff is suggesting that
final action be taken by the Planning Commission and/or
the City Counci1 .
Vehicle for Approval: Presently the policies require
a Variance as the approval vehicle. This and other
alternatives are discussed below:
a) Variance: Poor method since State law indicates
a different use for Variance and requires certain
findings, which are not appropriate to panhandle
lot request.
b) Panhandle Lot Permit: This would be a new applica-
tion which would add to the City's already long
list of applications and differing processes. The
advantage would be that the applicant would get
a decision prior to engineering costs. However,
many times the City has difficulty making decisions
due to the lack of proper engineering data, i.e.:
can site be sewered, drainage problems, etc.
c) Subdivision and Parcel Map Process: Any creation
of a panhandle lot will require a subdivision or
parcel map sooner or later. Staff suggests that
these processes be used in approving panhandle lots.
There does not seem to be much difficulty with a
subdivision since processing requires Planning
Commission and city Council action. In addition,
modifications can be made if the panhandle is not
acceptable. This does not exist for smaller land
divisions that are approved by parcel map, since
parcel maps are approved administratively and there
is less ability to modify requests.
Staff suggests that the present subdivision and parcel
map processes be used in approving panhandle lots.
This will simplify the process too and give the City
the necessary information to make proper determination.
-2-
Vehicle for Approval (Continued):
This will mean, though, that the parcel map process
will need to be modified to provide for City Council/
Planning Commission review of parcel maps with panhandle
lots.
Limitations of Zones: The present policies do not
limit panhandle lots to certain zones. Staff is
suggesting that panhandle lots be limited to the R-A
and R-l zones. (Panhandle lots have always been
allowed and will continue to be allowed by right in
the C-l, C-2, C-M, Mr 0-S, P-M, P-U, P-C and
the L-C zones since these zones do not contain minimum
width requirements.)
This means that panhandle lots will not be permitted
in the E-A Zone. This will preclude large tracts of
land being divided without adequate public streets.
Also, panhandle lots will not be permitted in
multiple-family residential zones. It is not desirable
to have intensive uses, such as apartments, without
sufficient street frontage and access. The problems with
apartments —i.e., parking, safety, etc. —are increased
without proper public access.
Separate vs. Multiple Access: There are at least 3
alternatives regarding this matter:
a) Easement Instead of Lot Access: This is commonly
done in the County and in Vista. It does work
fairly well in certain situations where the ease-
ments are short and do not serve many properties.
However, even here, there are problems of jurisdic-
tion over the control and maintenance of the
easements.
b) Separate and Individual Access for Each Lot: This
gives complete control and maintenance responsibility
to the user/owner. However, in some cases it does
add to the number of driveways out to the public street,
-3-
Separate vs. Multiple Access (Continued):
c) Separate Access but Reciprocal Easements for
Driveways: This is the method suggested by Staff.
Each lot will have a separate access. Each access
for adjoining panhandle lot will be 15' for a
total of 30' of access. The actual driveway will
be a combination 10' on both accesses for a total
of 20' of usable driveway. This will ensure mutual
maintenance and control responsibilities and reduce
the number of driveways out to the public street.
Twenty feet of drive will provide 2-way traffic
and some parking. The two 5' strips on both lots
will provide for landscaping, fences, trash refuse
areas, etc.
Donald A. Agatep
PLANNING DIRECTOR
DAA/BP/cpl
ATTACHMENT:
ZCA 72 (Draft)
-4-