Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-04-18; City Council; 9982; CONCURRENT PROCESSING OF LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLANS AND MASTER PLANS - ZONE CODE AMENDMENT (ZCA 88-09)NS - ZONE CODE AMENDMENT The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Coun Resolution No. %q e P&,l approving the Negati ve Decl arat i on i ssui Planning Director on November 9, 1988, and introduce Ordinance No. amending Section 21.90.030(c) by the addition of Section 13 which would concurrent processing of Local Facilities Management Plans with Master related actions. ITEM EXPLANATION On September 13, 1988, the City Council considered this Zone Code Amendn would allow for the concurrent processing of Local Facilities Managen (LFMPs) with Master Plans and related actions. At that time, the Cit referred this item to the Planning Commission for review. The Commission, at its November 16, 1988 meeting, considered the proposed cr) Amendment and unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2797 (Exhi bit 2) re( approval of Zone Code Amendment 88-9. An excerpt of the minutes of thi is attached for reference as Exhibit 3. Since adoption of the Growth Management Ordinance on July 1, 1986, received several requests to concurrently process LFMPs and Master P1 ans which have a substantial amount of land designated as Planned Communi The reasoning behind the request is that both documents are required in applications for development to proceed. The two documents serve coml purposes. The LFMP identifies the public facilities impacts whict mitigated, based on certain land use assumptions. The Master Plan givt a specificity to the land use assumptions so that impacts can be more i assessed. Neither the LFMP nor the Master Plan grants any entitlement ti a I rn z a k 0 a 0, L) 3 a 0 Ll U d .d d rd rl hl rl I cn co ro 2 a a, U a 0 a a rl .rl 2 : V cn co co 4 \ -;t 1 I m a Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. c14&1 when appropriate. The major property owner in Zone 12 is presently worl both the Master Plan and a revised LFMP. Concurrent processing of tht documents when completed would be the most logical way to proceed. This Zone Code Amendment will allow the City to ensure that compliance w public facility standards of the Growth Management Program is made an i part of the Master Planning process. This amendment will also require mu detailed planning during the preparation of Local Facility Management P1 will provide the City with a much higher level of detail in its facility Criteria are needed to assure that concurrent processing is used only furthers the overall goals of Growth Management. It is recommendc concurrent processing be allowed only under the following conditions: Concurrent processing shall be allowed only where the overall am intensity of development and its facility needs will not be ii beyond that allowed by the General Plan and the Growth Mal Program. 2. Actions which can be processed concurrently may include LFMPs Plans, General Plan Amendments, and Zone Changes as part of i P1 an. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has issued a Negative Declaration on this Z( Amendment as filed on November 9, 1988. This action will have no adverse on the environment. This action will increase the amount of facility undertaken as part of the Master Plan process. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no direct or indirect fiscal impacts as a result of this Concurrent processing will not change the number of zone plans or mast processed, and it will not change the amount of staff time devoted to the: EXHIBITS 1) Exhibit #1, Ordinance No. 6k4 aJ 2) Exhibit #2, City Council Resolution No. %?-/+$!-( 3) Exhibit #3, P1 anni ng Commi ssi on Resol uti on No. 2797 3) Exhibit #4, Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated November 1Z Q+f’ 9 l B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 n m m 13 28 $% rn ,oZcr 022 I-LW - $282 16 o~ym >5 Q. N gLLzz OW4 14 +e >FO q 2 17 15 u ' -lu t e 0 ORDINANCE NO. NS-63 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.90 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR CONCURRENT PROCESSING OF CERTAIN MASTER PLANS. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, Ca does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Title 21, Chapter 21.90 of the Municipal Code is amended by the addition of subsection Section 21.90.030(c) to read as follows: "(13) Master Plans or General Plan Amend connection with Master Plans which do not increase the re: density or the overall development intensity or facilj established by the existing General Plan provided Facilities Management Plan must be prepared, processed and concurrently with the Master Plan." EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effecti days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certi: adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days E adoption. 0 18 19 20 21 22 23 241 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meetii 1 I I Carlsbad City Council on the 18th day of April and thereafter ... ... ... ... ... ... * PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: None Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux akkzkRQ& ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City' Clerk L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. 89-121 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-9. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad dj , 1989, hold a duly noticed pr hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request: and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing considering all testimony and arguments, examining the in: study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, considc any written comments received, the City Council considerec factors relating to the Negative Declaration including Plai Commission Resolution No. 2796 granting Planning Commi: approval of said Negative Declaration; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council o April 18 City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the Negative Declaration issued by the Pla Director on November 9, 1988 was prepared in compl with the California Environmental Quality Act and 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. That there is no substantial evidence that the proje conditioned may have a significant effect on environment. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad incorpo into this resolution Planning Commission Resolutio 2796 including findings contained therein. j 3. 4. ... ... ... ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of City Council of the City of Carlsbad held on 18th day April , 1989 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Lz NOES: kne ABSENT: None ATTEST: llJhAfA&L ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cith Clerk (SEAL) i 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2797 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBP CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMEN AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 90, SECTION .030(c), OF THE CARL% MUNICIPAL CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTION (13) TO PROVI FOR CONCURRENT PROCESSING OF CERTAIN MASTER PLANS. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: ZCA 88-9 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of Novem' hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to cons request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consid testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be hl Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Code Amendme NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Comi follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public he; Commission recommends of ZCA 88-9, according to Exhibit November 8, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, b; following findings and subject to the following findings. Fi ndi nqs : 1. This Zone Code Amendment is consistent with the General Pla of preserving the public's health, safety, and welfare becar ensure the adequacy of public facilities are made part of P1 an process. 2. This Zone Code Amendment is consistent with the overall in1 City's Growth Management Program. This Zone Code Amendment will not cause any significant adve on the environment because a Negative Declaration was iss Planning Director on November 9, 1988 and recomnended for i the Plannning Comnission on November 16, 1988. 3. //// //// /I// , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e a PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of 1 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the November, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Chairperson McFadden, Commissioners: Schramm, Sc NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus. ABSTAIN: None. Holmes, Erwin and Hall. None. ATTEST: ~V\;t1,,-,Vx hjk\ ) w<;,,v\'-L!k , MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER' P1 anni ng Di rector PC RES0 NO. 2797 -2- Commissioner Schramm would like to see the landscape plan revised to retain the mature trees on the northwesterly frontage. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2790 approving the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and Resolution No. 2791 approving CUP 88-16 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the changed conditions that all mature trees will be retained, that slats may be omitted from the chain link fence, and that pile asters will only be required at the ends of the wrought iron fence. 4) ZCA 88-9 CITY OF CARLSBAD - Request for a Zone Code Amendment to allow concurrent processing of Local Facilities Management Plans and Master Plans. Phil Carter, Assistant to the City Manager, reviewed the background of the request and stated that ZCA 88-9 is being requested to allow concurrent processing of Local Facilities Management Plans and Master Plans. At the present time, the Growth Management Plan ordinance does not allow for Master Plans to be processed concurrently with Zone plans. Although much of the city is P-C (Planned Community), developers are required to prepare a Master Plan as part of their approval process. prepared on an existing General Plan; prepared and brought before the Planning Commission for public hearing and consideration, and then to the City Council for approval, the developer is required to come back In and do a Master Plan on the property which creates a great deal of duplicate work. The City Council specifically allowed the Pacific Rim Master Plan to be included for concurrent processing with LFMP #19. determined that the Scripps Hospital application could be processed concurrently, however LFMP {I18 has since been withdrawn by Scripps Hospital for additional work. Staff is The city currently requires the Zone plan to be once that plan is The City Council also Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm _r- e re MINUTES y requesting that the ordinance be amended to allow for the processing of Master Plans concurrently with the LFMP's. Staff feels that this would allow for a more specific planning document to come forward with the LFMP. At the present time, development entitlements are processed concurrently with the Master Plan but it is felt that if the LFMP and the Master Plan are processed concurrently, then entitlements should come in during the second stage. This would make for a much smoother process since all planning would be done in one stage, with entitlements to follow. Staff recommends approval. Chairman McFadden inquired if this would also trigger an amendment to the General Plan. Mr. Carter replied that the land use would be refigured with the Master Plan. Chairman McFadden doesn't see how this can be done without changing the facility needs. Mr. Carter replied that it will be much easier to ascertain compliance with the performance standard because the LFMP and Master Plan would show a much more accurate projection. LFMP's do not yet have Master Plans in place. Chairman McFadden is worried about processing all of these items together since she feels that planning decisions will wind up being based on development. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that the reason the need for this ZCA came up is that staff has been instructed by the City Council to rereview all Master Plans in the city. It is felt that the concurrent processing would create a more effective planning process and staff cannot legally rereview these Master Plan's unless a LFMP has been completed. Chairman McFadden is curious who pays for the rereview's. Mr. Holzmiller replied that the city would be responsible for the cost because the the City Council has stated that every Master Plan must be reviewed every three years. The cost to rereview a Master Plan is approximately $50,000 each and there are six Master Plans which are waiting for the three year rereview. Commissioner Schlehuber can support the staff recommendation. Chairman McFadden doesn't think this ZCA is needed since there are many zones where a Master Plan already exists; could go along with it on those zones which do not already have a Master Plan. Chairman McFadden inquired if the fees would be recovered. Mr. Carter replied that staff is currently reviewing the fee schedule. However, growth management is somewhat different in the way that costs are established and recovered. It is felt that by allowing concurrent processing of the LFMP and the Master Plan it will enable full recovery of the costs. Commissjoner Schramm inquired if the plans are done concurrently whether it would reopen the Master Plan for public hearing again. Mr. Carter replied that It would. The ZCA does not mandate that a Master Plan will be done concurrently with the facilities plan but allows for the property owner to have that option. Staff believes that it provides a great amount of detail which the zone plan does not always have. He referred to LFMP {/12 which took one year to prepare. The Master Plan was required before the zone plan could be completed; now the Master Plan is back in being revised. He showed on the overhead which she November 16, 1988 PUNNING COMMISSION Page 19 Commissioner Schramm inquired if the city now receives some fees for processing the Master Plan. Mr. Carter replied that the recovery process for a Master Plan is not the same as that for the zone plan, since the zone plan provides for dollar-for-dollar recovery. Much of the staff work is now being duplicated without recovering all of the costs. Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. George Williamson, 702 Fourth Street, Oceanside, the indicated plan preparer for Zone 25. The property owners in that zone have desired to go on record that they concur with the staff recommendation to process the LFMP and the Master Plan concurrently. They have been unable to move their zone plan forward due to an old Master Plan. He feels that the public facilities can be more accurately projected when both plans are processed concurrently. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Erwin asked staff to repeat the cost recovery for new Master Plans and those being rereviewed. Mr. Carter replied that the city is liable for the costs of a rereview if it is city-initiated, i.e. three year rereview. When the zone plan and the master plan are done concurrently, the developer would pick up the fees since it is staff's opinion that it would then be part of the growth management program. Therefore, it could offset some of the costs for rereview of Master Plans and would allow a more efficient way to recover costs. Commissioner Schramm feels that added Subsection (13) in the ordinance is awkward and should read the same as the staff report. Mr. Carter will check with the City Attorney to make sure that it follows the staff report language. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2796 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the'planning Director on November 9, 1988 and Resolution No. 2797 recommending approval of ZCA 88-9. 5) SDP 88-5 HENLOCK - Request for approval of Site Development Plan to develop a four-unit apartment project along the north side of Hemlock Avenue, between Garfield and Washington Streets, in the Beach Area Overlay Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Gary Wayne, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a site development plan to develop a four-unit apartment project along the north side of Hemlock Avenue between Garfield and Washington, however Washington does not exist as a through street at this time. The area is in the Beach Overlay Zone, LFMP lil, and the Coastal Zone. The proposed project is in compliance with the provisions and conditions of LFMP /I1 and also the Coastal Plan. However, the primary issues which staff focused on in its review were the development standards of the Beach Overlay Zone. There are two main issues which were considered. This project consists of two duplex units which forms a four-unit structure. The total structure is three levels high with the garage on the COMMISSIONERS 5 Erwin Hall Holmes McFadden Schlehuber Schramm e e NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZCA 88-9 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of [Carlsbad will hold hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at on Tuesday, April 18, 1989, to consider a Zone Code Amendment to allow concurre processing of Local Facilities Management Plans with Master Plans. If you have any questions, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raisii those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in thii or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Of at or prior to the public hearing. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad PUBLISH : April 7, 1989 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 1) e NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will a 'pub1 ic hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, Cal ifor at 6:OO PM., on Tuesday, to consider approval of a Zone Amendment to a1 1 ow concurrent processing of Local Faci 1 i ti es Management P with Master P1 ans. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to at the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Plan Department at 438-1161. If you challenge ZCA 88-9 in court, you may be limited to raising only 1 issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this nc or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or pric the public hearing. APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLISH: CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL CASE FILE: ZCA 88-9