Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDI 92-04; Fairways; Discussion Item (DI) (2)JUNE 19, 1992 TO : ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: Acting City Attorney PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 1, 1992 CUP 92-3 PALOMAR SUBSTATION Section 2 of the staff report states that the planning director Ilrecommends approvalf1 of the increased height. Please change this to @@has approvedtg the increased height. Section 21.34.070(1) gives the planning director the authority to approve additional building height up to 45 feet. This is not subject to approval of the planning commission. If the planning commission does not like the decision of the planning director, it can deny the CUP or place a condition on it restricting the height. BDP/PUD/CUP/MS/PALOMAR PLACE Please explain in the staff report the common ownership in this project which makes it subject to a planned development permit, as stated in C.M.C. section 21.47.020. Please explain Finding No. 4 in Resolution No. 3392 which states that the development meets all the standards of the underlying zone, Ilexcept for lot area as demonstrated by the provision of required parking." C.M.C. section 21.47.080 states that non- residential planned unit developments may create lots that do not meet the requirements of Title 20 for the underlying zone. Does this development fail to meet the lot area standard of the underlying zone? If so, please explain this in the staff report. If not, please delete Ifexcept for lot areall in Finding No. 4. Section 2(d), of the staff report states that the code allows the creation of lots without frontage on a public street if a PUD permit is issued. Which building will not front on the public street? Is this a reference to the exception contained in C.M.C. section 21.47.080? If so, the last sentence in section 2(d) which refers to the llunderlying zone" should be changed if the frontage requirement is a requirement of Title 20. Conformance with the underlying zone would only involve conformance with the building height development standard, as stated in the beginning of the paragraph. Resolution No. 3394 should contain a finding that the minor subdivision meets the requirements of Chapter 20.28 and C.M.C. section 20.24.030. The staff report should also discuss this. 1 The procedure for minor subdivisions in Chapter 20.24 states that the city engineer approves tentative parcel maps for minor subdivisions. (C.M.C. S 20.24.120(a).) Revised tentative parcel maps are also submitted to the city engineer. (C.M.C.S 20.24.080.) Is this a revised tentative parcel map? C.M.C. section 21.47.040(3) states that the application for a permit for a planned development shall be accompanied by a tentative map which is filed with the planning director unless the project contains four or less lots or units. If there are four or less lots or units, the map is filed with the city engineer in accordance with procedures in Chapter 20.24 (minor subdivisions). Has the map been referred to the planning commission under C.M.C. section 20.24.090 because there is a panhandle shaped lot? DISCUSSION ITEM 92-41FAIRWAY8 The staff report states that this item is being brought before the planning commission "for information. M However, there is a resolution attached which states that a request has been made and the commission "approves DI 92-4." There is no authority for this approval. The planning director makes a decision whether changes are in substantial conformance with a prior approval. His decision can be appealed to the planning commission. In the alternative, an amendment to the PUD permit can be processed. C .M. C. subsection 21.45.160(a)(2) allows the planning commission to consider the amendment ttminorta in nature, and approve the amendment without a public hearing or council approval. Attaching a resolution stating that the planning commission is 81approving@t something, implies that the planning commission can *ldisapproveN1 the same item. The planning commission does not have authority to do this either. If the planning director merely wants the ltblessingll of the commission, it can remain as a discussion item without a resolution. If the feedback from the commissioners indicates they disagree with the planning director's decision, the planning director can change his mind if he has not already announced his decision to the applicant. An amendment could then be processed. - KAREN J. HIRATA d Deputy City Attorney afd c: Planner Van Lynch Planner Mike Grim Planner Christer Westman Senior Management Analyst, Planning 2