HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-02-07; City Council; 5322; Appeal Planning Commission Action Regarding Rezoning Highland Ave ZC 186(A)CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: February 7. 1978
DEPARTMENT:Planning
Initial;
Dept. Hd.
City Atty
City Mgr.
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION REGARDING
ZC-186(A) - REZONING HIGHLAND AVENUE
APPLICANT: CITY INITIATED APPELLANT: ROSS WINTON
STA'TEH'ENT OF THE MATTER
On October 5, 1977, the Planning Commission denied the City initiated rezoning
of property generally situated on Highland Avenue, north of the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon. The request was from R-l-15,000 Zone to R-l-10,000. This rezoning
would permit lot splitting of some of the larger lots in the area that are 20,000
square feet or greater that could not presently be split with the present 15,000
square foot lot minimum.
There were a number of supporters to this change of zone. However, the majority
of the people of the area were in opposition, and submitted a petition in protest.
The application has a rather complicated and lengthy history. For your information,
staff prepared the attached memorandum dated January 5, 1978.
Staff recommended approval because it was felt that the area would not be sig-
nificantly changed by the rezone with little potential increase in density.
Approval would add only 11 additional parcels over the present potential.
The application was initiated by Mr. Ross Winton in December, 1977, therefore, it
was processed as an on-going application prior to the planning moratorium of
April, 1977.
EXHIBITS
Letter from Thomas Wood requesting the appeal dated November 18, 1977.
Memorandum to City Manager from Planning Director dated January 5, 1978.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1407
Staff Report dated September 28, 1977
Petition in opposition to request.
Exhibit "A", dated January 5, 1978, Exhibit "B", dated January 5, 1978.
Letter from Thomas Wood,Atty. dated January 27, 1978
RECOMMENDATION
If City Council concurs with Planning Commission, they should refer
matter-to the City Attorney for preparation of documents: rdenyingappeal. If the City Council concurs with staff as contained in staff report
dated 9/28/77, the matter should be returned to the Planning Commission -for
reconsideration. If the City Council wishes to consider the revised application
as suggested by the applicant, the matter should be returned to the Planning
Commission to consider the revised application and then return it to the City
Council
FORM PLANNING 73
AGENDA BILL NO. 5322 -2- February 7, 1978
2-7-78 Following the public hearing the matter was referred to staff
for preparation of documents necessary to deny the appeal.
^R. THOMAS WOOD
ATTORNEY AT LAW
OOO GRAND AVENUE, SUITE C-7
P. O. BOX IS45
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 9t;OO8
TELEPHONE 729-1159
November 18, 1977
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1407
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that, on behalf of Ross H. Winton
and Joanne H. Winton, we hereby notify you of our intention
to appeal Planning Commission Resolution No. 1407 which
was approved on November 9, 1977 and request that said ,
matter be placed on your agenda. Please direct all notices
to Mr. and Mrs. Winton care of my address.
We anticipate that our presentation will present an
alternative to the proposed rezoning area suggested by the
Planning Commission staff.
Yours truly,
R. Thomas Wood
RTW/mk
MEMORANDUM
January 5, 1978
TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager
FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: ZC-186 (A), City initiated - Rezoning Highland
Avenue.
This application was originally initiated by Mr. Ross Winton
for property address at 4460 Highland Avenue. Mr. Winton
owns this lot of approximately 22,000 square feet, presently
zoned R-l-15,000. The lot is developed with single family
residence on the easterly portion and a vacant area on the
westerly side, both portions have frontage along Highland
Avenue. Mr. Winton's ultimate goal is to split the lot for
development of another single family home on the vacant portion.
Splitting the lot however, would create two lots below the
15,000 square foot minimum. Mr. Winton originally requested1
a zone change to R-l-10,000 (ZC-186), in December, 1976.
In staff's -review of this request, it was noted that in the
past similar requests were made- through the variance procedure.
Evidently this was done because it was considered that the
15,000 lot size requirement was a development standard, not
a land use designation. Staff, therefore, requested that
Mr. Winton withdraw his request for rezoning and ask for a
Variance to allow the splitting of his property into two lots
less than the 15,000 square foot minimum.
Mr. Winton did withdraw the request for rezoning, but before
submitting for a Variance, staff further consulted with the
City Attorney. It was then determined that State Law presently
does not permit such Variances, and this was in fact a land
use Variance, which are not permitted.
Staff explained this to Mr. Winton and suggested that the
rezoning be re-initiated, but that the application include
additional lots to preclude spot zonings. Staff felt it would
be inappropriate to rezone one lot in this R-l-15,000 zone
district. Mr. Winton agreed and he contacted property owners
in the area and found 9 other property owners that wished the
rezoning to R-l-10,000, (See Exhibit "A", attached for properties
owned by these people).
Paul Bussey
January 5, l'978
Page Two (2)
Since these properties were not contiguous, staff requested
that the Planning Commission initiate a rezoning of an area
that would be logical based on topography and traffic increase. *
The Planning Commission agreed and adopted a Resolution of
Intention initiating the expanded rezoning. The subsequent
report indicated an area that could be rezoned to R-l-10,000,
that in staff's o'pinion would not have an adverse impact on
the overall area or welfare of the City, (see attached Exhibit
"B").
This expanded change of zone application was heard by the
Planning Commission on September 28, 1977, and October 5, 1977.
Many people in and around the subject area attended the meetings
with most of them protesting. The protestors' submitted an
opposition petition representing property owners of 41 properties.
One of the protestor's had also signed the rezoning request,
but had changed his mind. The protestors' were 'primarily con-
cerned with the increase in traffic and the loss of the open
character of the area.
Upon review of the facts, and the request, the Planning Commission
denied the rezone request as per Resolution No. 1407. As per
the Zone Code, the denial of rezonings, Planning Commission
action is final on denials.
The attorney for Mr. Winton has now appealed this decision.
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Wood indicates that they will
present an alternative to the proposed rezoning. It is anticipated
that Mr. Wood will ask the City Council to consider a smaller
area composed of contiguous lots that would lend to the R-l-10,000
izone, and not adversely affect any other'-properties in the area.
Possible:City Council actions are':
1) Uphold Planning Commission action by denying the appeal.
2) Return the item to the Planning Commission to consider approval
of the item as recommended within staff report dated, 9/28/77.
3) Return the item to the Planning Commission to consider a
revised application as suggested by the appellant.
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" dated, 1/5/78 - Petitioners Requesting Zone Change
to R-l-10,000.
Exhibit "B" dated, 1/5/78 - Lots Considered For Rezoning To
R-l-10,000 As Per Planning Commission ,
Initiation
BP:ar
1/5/78
•"•
•*•'
*"
TO*•*•*
21
^
24
**'
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION -'tfO . 1407
RESOLUTION OF THE -PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A ZONE
CHANCE FROM R-l-15,000 TO R-l-10,000 ON PROP-
ERTY ADJACENT TO AND ON THE EAST AND WEST
SIDES OF HIGHLAND DRIVE BETWEEN CHINQUAPIN AND
ADAMS STREET.
' CASE NO: ZC-186(A)
1
2
3
4
5
APPLICANT: ROSS WINTON , ET AL.
6 ~
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to
7
wit :
8
Assessor's Book No. 206, Page 192, Parcels 7, 8, 9, 10,
- 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 36
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the
•m
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
i
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of
OctoLer, 1977, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
•
by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consider-
%
ing the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who
desired to be heard, said Commission considered all factors re-
lating to the Zone Change and found the following facts and
reasons to exist:
1) The present zone is consistent with the General Plan.
»
2) The City needs a variety of residential lot sizes and the
present R-l-15,000 zone represents this variety.
3) The R-l-10,000 would not be compatible with the existing lots
in the area.*
4) The majority of the peo.ple in the area do not wish a zone
change and have submitted a petition stating their request
for denial of this zone change. •»"*
1
i 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT resolved by the Planning Commission
i •of the City of Carlsbad* as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct,
B) That in view of the findings heretofore mads and considering
the applicable law, the decision of the Planning Commission
is to DENY ZC~18G(A).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission held on October 5, 1977,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioner Larson, Rombotis, Fikes, Woodward.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Watson.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner, Jose, L'Heureux.
ERIC LARSON, Chairmai:
ATTEST:
.2
! ' " STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 28, 1977
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
CASE NO.: ZC-186(A)
APPLICANT: Ross Winton, et al
REQUEST: Approval of a zone change from R-l-15,000 to
R-l-10,000 on property adjacent to and on the
east and west sides of Highland Drive between
Chinquapin Avenue and Adams Street. The City
of Carlsbad has initiated a change of zone over
additional properties in the area.
SECTION I: RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Approval of ZC-186(A) based on the following findings:
1. General Plan Consistency: The proposed zone change is consistent
with the General Plan because:
a. The General Plan Land Use Map designates the subject properties
as Low-Medium Density Residential (0-4 dwelling units per
gross acre).
b. The R-l-10,000 zone implements the uses permitted in the above
designation.
c. The subject properties are relatively flat and can be subdivided
into 10,000 square foot lot with a minimum of grading as
recommended by the General Plan.
2. Environment: The proposed zone change complies with the require-
ments.of the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972
because:
a. A Negative Declaration has been issued for the following
reasons:
i. The predominate land forms and vegetation of the area
have already been impacted by grading and construction.
ii. The potential increase of density in the area will not
significantly affect traffic or public services.
3. Public Fatilities; The proposed zone change is consistent with
applicable City Public Facilities Policies and Ordinances because:
a. No public facility is affected directly by the proposed zone
change. Future-discretionary action will be required prior to
development at which time assurances of public facility
availability, including schools and sewer, will be necessary.
b. This application was
from Ross Winton, et
to the moratorium on
processed by staff because the application
al , was received on April 13, 1977, prior
new planning applications.
SECTION II: BACKGROUND
Location and Description of Property:
The 24 lots are located along both sides of Highland between Adams
Street and Chinquapin Avenue. The lots are basically level at Highland,
and the grade drops slowly in both east and west directions.
Approximately 2/3 of the lots have houses on them with the other parcels
being vacant.
Existing Zoning:
Subject Property:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing Land Use
Subject Property:
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-l-15,000
R-l-10,000
RT & 0-S
R-l-15,000
R-l-15,000
SFR and Vacant
SFR
SFR and Open Space
SFR
SFR
History and Related Cases:
V-250 - Variance approved in 1959 (P.C. Reso'No.112) to allow
reduction of lot area from 15,000 square feet to 11,250
square feet.
V-268 - Variance approved in 1960 (P.C. Reso. No. 157) to allow
reduction of two lot areas from 15,000 square feet to
8,474 square feet and 10,692 square feet.
V-210 - Variance approved in 1971
uction of three lot areas
14,764 square feet each.
(P.C. Reso.
from 15,000
746) to allow red-
square feet to
(2)
Environmental Impact Information:
The proposed zone change complies with the Environmental Protection
Ordinance of 1972 because:
1. The area has already been impacted by grading and construction.
2. The potential increase of density in the area will not significantly
affect traffic or public services.
General Plan Information:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the area as RLM
(Low-Medium Density Residential, 0-4 d.u. per acre)
Pub!ic Facilities: The proposed zone change is consistent with
applicable City Public Facilities Policies and Ordinances
Major Planning Considerations:
What effects will the proposed zone change have on the surrounding
properties?
Section III: Discussion
Staff feels that the character of the area would not be significantly
changed by the rezone because 11 of the existing 30 parcels are already
less than 15,000 square feet. Six (6) of the substandard lots were
approved by variance as previously noted.
Staff also feels the potential increase of density created by the re-
zone in insigni'ficant. Approval of the zone change would add the
potential of only 11 additional parcels over those possible under the
existing R-l-15,000 zone.
Another critical factor in this area is the topography. Staff has
included those parcels within the rezone area that are relatively
level and proviide adequate buildable areas. The adjoining parcels
to the east, west and south were excluded from the rezone area because
of their steep terrain. The attached topo map shows this relationship.
Staff feels that because of the present high percentage of lots
less than 15,000 square feet, the relatively level topography of
lots, and the adjoining R-l-10,000 properties to the north, the
proposed zone change is viable and should have no effect on the
adjoining properties.
Attachment
the
Locat'ion Map
Topography Map
Map showing potential lot splits
(3)
\\Sfefe*tf-i£rt tfi
P&l IM VII•mmil
Case No.:2g~lg60ftDate Rec'd:4/{3/77 'DCC Date: %4/77 PC
Description of Request:jm
Address or Location 'or
.
Applicant:Engr. or Arch>
Brief Legal : -
OF=
a
.Parcel;'Assessor Book: __iGeneral Plan Land Use Description:
Existing Zone: Ef-|-\^".GOO Proposed 'Zone:
Acres: ' No. ot^Tots^^^ DU's
School "District: £-A^-Sg><\C>
Water' Sanitation Di strict: £.rry
Within Coast Plan Area: ——»Coast" Permit Area
FORM PLANNING 52
i. • K*S -v •%«:; '\vw • W mf-'^'F];,»^:SfelSsmMfc«
50 5050Q FEET
Parcel* < ISJ
fi.terft.al * of
ZC-l86(a)
FROM R-l-l5,Oa
R-l-10,000
Case Rec 'd:4//3/77 'DCC Date:
Description of Request: ZoMg: grfflM&g
T~o - •/?-( -
_---__,„-_ - r «- ****^ * i^-li ii 1 _ r * ^**"^ I ^^ V^rAddress or Location of Request:
Applicanit ,^_
Engr. or Arch.
Brief Legal:
<.tP&5
AL a C/TV*
'Assessor Book:Page:Parcel:
General Plan Land Use Description: _ f? | — KA
~Existing Zone:
Acres: ' 'No.
School District^
Water'Sanitation District:
Within Coast Plan Area:
_ — _
Proposed Zone: g»-\>
DU's —— ' DU/AcPe
Coast Permit Area
To: The City of Carlsbad, Ca. Planning Commission
C.i -hv f!rmnr«T 1
_ - +r - —
City Council
and
We, the undersigned, do not desire v-hat the property located
on both sides of Highland Drive between Chinquapin Avenue
and Adams Street be rezoned from R-l-15,000 to R-l-10,000,
as requested by Ross Winton. Re: Zone Change ZC-l86(fi)
/&WJ&..M.yffif? ^o*i\ tJ- fa5 A
7- #"'77
Wr^-^ u 3 7 9 $f$*/$^
A tytiMtitrr/^*^ ftfrujLAiM £Z
W^/^
Kino. /), G^per
I/as" Hoot/ev-
/ / .^s
O. gp 5050QFEET
ZC-186(a)
R-i-i5,a
-1-10,00
EXHIBIT A
1-5-78
PETITIONERS REQUESTING ZONE
CHANGE TO R-l-10,000
O 250 500 FEETi T i
. FROM R-l-15,00
EXHIBIT B :
1-5-78
LOTS CONSIDERED FOR REZON1NG TO
R-l-10,000 AS PER PLANNING COM
MISSION INITIATION
R. THOMAS WOOD
ATTORNEY AT LAW
BOO GRAND AVENUE, SUITE C-7
P. O. BOX ISAS
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 9SOO8
TELEPHONE 729-IIS9
January 27, 1978
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Zone Change ZC-186(A)
Hearing - February 7, 1978
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I represent Ross H. and Joanne H. Winton, the
applicants in the above-referenced request for a change
of zone. I felt that it would be helpful to provide you
with a summary of the background in this matter and to
explain the Wintons1 current request.
The Wintons originally applied to re-zone only their
own property (No. 10 on the enclosed map) from R-l-15,000
to R-1-10,000. In an apparent attempt to avoid a "spot
zoning" issue, the Planning Department staff recommended
that an area comprising 24 parcels be rezoned. At the
Planning Commission hearing of October 5, 1977, there was
a great deal of opposition from residents of the area and
the request was denied. At the hearing, some of the members
of the Planning Commission inquired of staff how many of the
lots involved could actually be split if the area was
re-zoned. Unfortunately, staff was unable to give a precise
answer and, thus the total impact on the area was impossible
to determine.
We are now proposing that only the ten contiguous lots
which are shaded on the enclosed map be re-zoned from
R-l-15,000 to R-l-10,000 for the following reasons:
1. Since four of the ten lots are already under
15,000 square feet, we believe said re-zoning would be
compatible with the surrounding area.
2. Lots 12 and 13 could be currently split into two
lots each and, if re-zoned could possibly be split into
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Carlsbad
Page Two
January 27, 1978
four and three lots, respectively. If re-zoned, lot 10
would be split into two lots. Since all other lots in
the proposed area are less than 20,000 square feet, the
maximum number of lots which could be added, assuming that
the location of existing improvements and the potential of
substandard lots could be overcome, would be four. Because
of the location of existing improvements and the probable
necessity of panhandle lots, I doubt that the maximum
could ever be achieved. Therefore, we feel that the
re-zoning of the ten lots as requested would have very
little impact on the area.
3. The Wintons1 parcel has the physical appearance of
two different lots. I believe it would be helpful for each
of you to personally examine the area in question prior to
the hearing. As you will see, the portion of the Wintons1
property on which they reside is on a higher elevation than
the unimproved portion thereof. Most casual observers
would probably assume that there exists two separate parcels
under the present circumstances.
Therefore, we are requesting that you return this
matter to the Planning Commission with specific directions
to staff to make a determination of the actual impact on
the area if the zone change is granted.
If I can provide you with any additional information
prior to'the hearing of February 7, 1978, please do not
hesitate to call upon me.
Yours truly,
^?
R. Thomas Wood
RTW:mec
Enclosure
Zone change proposed by Ross H. winton and
Joanne H. Winton is shaded area only.