The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-02-19; City Council; 11039; COMPATABILITY OF INFILL CONSTRUCTION IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS0 w ., m .rl mu (dm a 4N 00 GU 3 00. u ur\ cm ocda u cu .rl 3 aaG &I b TI N 2 k0.2 3 UaJ ucaJ a -4 rn Ma” cd a km P bou 0 0 arl uuh N 0.4 aJ rnw b+J (d ca ad 0 c.rl dam “4M ad C ,G TI cd uu .rl m m 3 .rl mx cd daJ EN 3c “UO UaJ ,G NN MS a4 0 c) aruo &O w WWG oa(d uu mrn au 3a(d rn as loucl .rl u ah0 aJkC c *rl .rl uaa (d TJaN aJCM ucd uw aJ *n 0 ha -rl rl u 4mo .rl m g uoa Ca u au *rl s cd4 (dug L%? a$g g m2 4 a \ m 4 \ cv .. z 0 5 a 25 4 2 3 0 0 I w UP GAKLSUAU - AUtv BILL DEPT. cc IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS CITY / ?-&I’ AB# ~’dfl39 TITLE: DEPT CITY 1 COMPATIBILITY OF INFILL CONSTRUCTION MTG, 2-19-91 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion item. ITEM EXPLANATION Council Member Eric Larson has requested that the Council discuss the City’s current metl- with infill projects, including grading, building height and building mass concerns. EXHIBITS 1. Memo from Council Member Larson to the City Manager dated 2-4-91. 2. Memo from Planning Director to the City Manager dated 2-11-91. I L w EXHIBIT 1 0 February 4, 1991 TO : CITY MANAGER FROM : Council Member Eric Larson Please prepare an Agenda Bill for the February 19, 1991 Council meeting regarding compatibility of infill construction in single family neighborhoods. To be discussed that evening would be the City's current method of dealing with infill projects. My specific concerns deal with grading, building height and building mass. I w 0 A* FEBRUARY 11, 1991 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM : Planning Director CONSTRUCTION ON INFILL LOTS IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS You have requested information regarding what can be done t address the concern regarding the compatibility of the constructio of single family homes on existing, subdivided (infill) lots in th City. There appears to be two aspects of incompatibility wit existing single family neighborhoods: 1) grading (primarily fill of the existing lots and 2) building intensity (the height an mass) of the new single family homes. Presently, if a lot does not qualify as a l1hillsidel1 lot (15 fee of elevation difference), there is no real restriction on th amount or volume of grading that can be done. Existin restrictions on the height of retaining walls (6 feet on side an only existing standard which would limit the amount of grading 0 a non-hillside property. Presently, the single family zones allo a height of 35 feet (i.e, up to three stories and there is n standard which restricts the square footage permitted forthe home New homes in developed areas are normally exempted fro environmental review under state law. There are several alternatives for amending City ordinances t address this type of situation in the future. Presently, the wa height of buildings are measured in the City is under consideratio by the Planning Commission. Staff has proposed revisions to th height definition to better address compatibility in the sing1 family zones including a reduction in maximum permitted height an building intensity. These revisions will be going to the Plannin Commission in the very near future, Regarding the issue of grading on subdivided lots in existin neighborhoods, several alternatives are available including: 1 requiring all single family homes on existing subdivided lots to g through a discretionary permit process which could include a publi hearing; 2) requiring all single family homes to go throug environmental review which would require a public review process and 3) amending the grading ordinance to restrict the amount o grading that can occur on existing subdivided single family lots Any request to exceed the restriction would require discretionar approval and a public hearing process. If the City Council wishes to further address the issue of gradin on existing, subdivided (infill) lots, staff would recommend th c&<k-$&= Planning Director OLZMILLER rear property lines and 3 feet on the front property line) is th sue the third alternative listed above. FMIC arb CY--- T? VWd 3- Q “b @. Sm 02 . 8 dSC0” Uallc 9 Cit of San CDarcos ,9J 105 W. RICHMAR AVENUE SAN MARCOS. CALIFORNIA 92069-169 Doratah 6191744-4020 FAX 61 917447543 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (MOD)/TSM 371 (MOD)/DA 92-07 (MOD) DATE: August 25, 1992 NOTICE OF PROPOSED: Participation Agreement PURSUANT TO THE PROVISION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A PUBLI( HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE SAN MARCOS REDEVELOPMENT AGENC! PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION OF: Questhaven Development, Inc. (know] as University Commons) for review and recommendation of a propose( Development Agreement and Owner-Participation Agreement. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: East side of Rancho Santa Fe Road from Cit] of Carlsbad city limits, north of Questhaven Road, mort particularly described as a portion of Section 29 and a portion o the northeast quarter of Section 32, Township 12 South, Range West, San Bernardino Meridian in the County of San Diego, State o California, APN 223-070-15; 223-030-23, 36, 40, 07 (01-02); 223. 031-03, 04, 05, 17, 18. PLACE OF HEARING: City Council Chambers, 105 Richmar Avenue, Sal Marcos, CA 92069 TIME OF HEARING: 6:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 25, 1992 CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY COUNCIL Sheila Kennedy, City Clerk CASE NO: GPA 90-20 (MOD)/PZ 90-05 (MOD)/R 90-34 (MOD)/SP 90-2: Development Agreement Modification and Ownei CJTY COUNCIL Lee B Thrbadeau, Mayor Mike Preston, Vice Mayor Mark Loscher Pia Harris F 0 CITY OF ENCINITAS PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - v - LEGAL NOTICE OF /- PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Leucadia Community Advisory Board PLACE OF MEETING: City Council Chambers 535 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, CA 92024 It is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on T the 23rd day of May 1991, at 7:OO p.m.! or as soon as possibl thereafter, by the Leucadia Community Advisory Board to discuss th following hearing itern(s): PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CASE NUMBER: 89-014 MUP/DR/TM/EIA APPLICANT : Sport Shinko Co. LOCATION : 2100 N. Highway 101 DESCRIPTION: CAB I Hearing for Major Use Permit, Desic Review, Tentative Map, and Environment; Review for a proposed 130 room hotel wil restaurant and banquet hall facilities. TI proposed project is located in the Limitt Visitor-Serving Commercial Zone. ENWIRONMENTAL STATUS : The Community Development Department wi. complete its review of the Draft Environment; Impact Report, pursuant to the Californ Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , on Monda: May 20, 1991, at 5:OO p.m. On or before May 20, 1991, any interest1 person may present testimony orally or writing to the Community Developme preferred. Department. written testimcny xmuld For further information, or to review the application prior hearing, contact Diane Langager or Chris Durand at the Planning a Community Development Department, 527 Encinitas Boulevar Encinitas, CA 92024, (619) 944-5060. Patrick 6. 94, Q!dD/ J Murphy, Director of Planning and Community Development MB/ 0 3 / PN4 -4 9 Ow5 ( 5 / 3 / 9 1- 1) 1 - -. ------ ' ..,...... - . ... *. -- .- - - -- I - - ..I .. .. -MCfNlTY MAP .- -- TV OF ZNCINITAS PROJZCT SUY-WY 3POSED USE -,---~/=-U-~AL.N;T S;DO~K~ ~hinko (U.S.b.1 CO., Led. JLNEEI? The Austin Bansen Group .L.Si DZSIGNATION ~isicor ~er-~ine Commercial Bote1 3ATE RZC 1 D /!-/7-Y0 i;- I -p 37- -r-a x XZ>-liNG DATE 572- - y/ I- SING USS mGULATION: ZXISTINGvSC PROPOSED VSC .-r234 : 90. OF LOTS 4 NO. OF DWPLLING 'UNITS h'fi - WIFF ELSZENTE-qY - ZNCINITAS Uh'ION EL'~~h'T~~y CY SE3 DIEGUITO mZox ZIGX - --- I' - - - 3cx SCaOOL DISTRICT (S) : NOWK -33 -- DISTXICT ~an ~ieguito ~ater gistrict S.Za2-LZ - - 7 'I= /\I75 IZB DISTIiICT ~eucadiz jz'zter ~istrlct :zsso> SOOX 2 16 "$.GZ 01, 1 FAZCEL, 024 n-- Lr.O?!.S2@S. i'J c-ksz: 4 Y-O/Y 254 04 3 02,03, 604 3E/ 0 5 / FL4 -'V2 4 7.+5 ( : 1 - 15 - 8 9 \3) 2.1