Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-03-08; Planning Commission; MinutesYwrch a, 1960 1- The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Stringer. Present besides the Chairman were Cmissioners Netka, Ward, Thomas and Jarvie. Absent, Commissioners Zahler and Miller. 2- Minutes of February 23, 1960. Commissioner Thomas moved, seconded by Com- missioner Ward that the minutes of the February 23* 1960 meeting be approved 6s submitted. All ayes, motion carried. 3- Oral Communications: There were no oral comnunications. 4- Written Communications: There were no written comrmnications. 5- HEARING - Variance 0 Request of Robert Talbot for reduction of minimum frontage from 60 feet to 50 feet to allow a lot split. Notice of hearing was read, The Secretary certified as to the publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property Owners in the area. The Secretary then read the application submitted by the owner setting forth the reasons for requesting the variance, and stated that no written corres- pondence had been received on this matter. (Commissioners Zahler and Miller were present at 7r35.) No one present desired to make any comment. The public hearing was closed at 7t40 P.M. After some discussion by the Coatmission, it was moved by Commissioner Jsrvie and seconded by Commissioner Thomas that Resolution No. 151 be adopted granting the variance as requested by ilobert Talbot for reduction of minimum frontage from 60 feet to 50 feet for the following reasons: 1. To deny the request would be discriminatory, since there are several 50' lots already established adjacent to this property. 2, There were no oretl or written protests. 3, All other requirements of Ordinance No. 9060 are complied with. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Stringer, Cmfssioners Netka, Zahler, Ward, Thomas, NOES : None . ABSENT: None. Miller and Jamie. Resolution No. 151 adopted. - 6- HEARING - Reclassif iccition Notice of hearing; was read. The Secretary certified as to the publication of notice of hearing And the mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The application was read by the SeCretary, setting forth the reasons for requesting the redlassffication, There was no written correspondence. JOHN WILTERDING, 4040 Sunnyhill Drive, stated that he wished to protest this reduction of lot area. He expected the area to remain the same when he pur- chased his property. The deed restrictions for the Highlands places a 20,000 sq. ft. minimum on their lots. H. A, MOORE, 4100 Sunnyhill Drive, stated that that area was zoned for people who wanted more land and yard area for their homes. He feels that many of the people want it to remain that way and that it would not be helpful to the City to have an area of smaller homes established. GILBERT R. BALL, 4145 Sunnyhill Drive, stated he sq. ft. lots should adjoin their larger lots, as value of their homes. DR. MERKLE, 4225 Sunnyhill Drive, brought up the this area. Perhaps a strip consisting of 15,000 established below the 20,000 sq. ft. lots to act did not believe that 10,000 this would depreciate the possibility of a compromise in sq, ft. lots could be as a buffer zone. This, he felt, would be more proper planning, He also brought up the question of what provisions were being made for streets and sewers coming out of the area in question. He feels that there should be some help from the City in the form of professional consultation. MRS. A. C. MORGAN, 4039 Sunnyhill Drive, stated that she did not understand why this matter had to be brought up again. If this reclassification is allowed, eventually all the area would be reclassified and subdivided. WILLIAM HOUTS, 4043 Sunnyhill Drive, stated that they bought in this area because it was restricted to 15,000 sq. ft. lots. GEORGE WADE, 4050 Sunnyhill Drive, wanted to go on record as preferring the classification to remain as it is. C. B. GEISE, 4070 Sunnyhill, stated that his lot is .52 acre and he feels that the lots in the area in question should be kept near that size. He asked what plans there were for streets and sewers, too many houses would overload the sewer, MRS. ALMA HAYLINGS, 4025 Park Drive, stated she felt this was a different type of land than the Highlands, and was in favor of the reclassification. ' DONALD A. BRIGGS, pointed out that on the east of the area in question the lots are 15,000 sq. ft. and on the west, 7,500 sq. ft, He sees no reason why a section of 10,000 sq. ft. lots cannot be established between these two areas. As for sewers and streets, plans would have to be submitted by an engineer and accepted by the PlmnSnS Commission pncl ?'ne City Council. He does not feel that 5000 Sqn ft. less lot ar:;:i trould interfere with Sunnyhill, when the price of the land will require high building restrictions. The general appearance will be equal or even better than the present homes on Sunnyhill and the Highlands. DONALD BRIGGS, JR. presented a list of restrictions to be enforced in the development and a map of the area. The frontages of majority of the lots are the same as the existing frontages on Sunnyhill. He stated that this new area would not decrease the value of the surrounding property, since it would not be necessary to go through this area to get to Sunnyhill Drive. The restriction; on this development are higher than Carlsbad Highlands No. 2, as no livestock will be allowed as it is in the Highlands. Carlsbad Highlands No. 2 requires 1000 sq. ft. of floor space in each home and this development would require 1200 sq. ft. JOHN WILTERDING, 4040 Sunnyhill, stated he had no objections to animals, but the deed restrictions from the Subdivider restricted Sunnyhill to 20,000 sq. ft. lot areas, eventhough the City requirement is 15,000 sq. ft. He would like to see a buffer zone between Sunnyhill and the 10,000 sq. ft. lots of this new development, to avoid dropping from 20,000 sq. ft, lots to 10,000 sq. ft. lots. DONALD BRIGGS, JR. pointed out that Carlsbad Highlands No. 1 does have a deed restriction of 20,000 sq. ft, but that Carlsbad Highlands No. 2 requires 15,000 sq. ft., not 20,000. GILBERT 8. BALL, 4145 Sunnyhill Drive, stated he does not want to block progress, but feels that a buffer zone of 15,000 sq. ft. lots next to Sunnyhill should be provided, as the lots on Sunnyhill are 20,000 sq. ft. or better. Chairman Stringer stated that all the Commission was concerned with are the City's requirements, not any covenants with the Subdivider. ROBERT HICKS, speaking on behalf of the 1st San Marino Corporation which owns 60 acres of land adjoining Sunnyhill Dr. to the south, stated that he would like to see this property re-zoned. He said that San Marino is a highly restricted area where property values run considerably higher than here' and that lot size is not the important thing to be considered. MRS. A. C. MOEGAN, 4039 Sunnyhill Drive, stated that the lot size is important to those who want a large lot, those on Sunnyhill want it that way. As far as animals, where can you buy property where you can have a horse or chickens or other animals? They are allowed to have them on Sunnyhill and this new classification would probably force them to give up their animals. Chairman Stringer pointed out that someone other than the City would have to enforce excluding animals. MRS. MORGAN further stated that she felt granting this reclassification would provide a wedge for the reclassification of other property in the area in the same manner . MRS. ALMA HAYLINGS, 4025 Park Drive, pointed out that Seacrest Estates has 10,000 sq. ft. lots, and it is certainly a very exclusive area. DR. MERKLE, 4225 Suny,,hill, stated that at a r.r,.:r:ots hearing the developer of Seacrest Estates had suggested that a 15,000 sq. ft. minimum be retained. DONALD BRIGGS, JR., stated that he felt a buffer zone already existed in the form of brush on the back of the lots on the West side of Sunnyhill. For informational purposes, the Secretary read a list of deed restrictions to be imposed on the area. These would actually be more restrictive than those of Carlsbad Highlands. DONALD BRIGGS, pointed out that this would not be a tract development. There would be no duplication of styles, DONALD BRIGGS, JL., stated that all lots would be a minimum of $6500, The public hearing was closed at 8:15 P,M. Considerable discussion followed on this matter. The question of establish- ing a buffer zone of 15,000 sq. ft. lots between Sunnyhill and these 10,000 sq. ft. lots was brought up again. Commissioner Zahler stated he felt that this area would be a logical 10,000 sq. ft. lot area, since there were 15,000 sq. ft. lots on one side and 7500 sq. ft. lots on the other side. Donald Briggs, Jr. pointed out that the topography of the land was such that to increase the lot size to 15,000 sq. ft, would in many instances mean increasing the lots to 20,000 sq. Et. C. B. Geise raised the question of sewers and streets again. He did not feel that the traffic should be funneled up onto Sunnyhill, creating a traffic problem up there. With smaller lots you would have more houses and more cars to create a problem. Donald Briggs, Jr. stated they planned to put a street through from Birch to Hillside and that most of the traffic would take this route, since it would be shorter. Donald Briggs stated he had been the developer of Carlsbad Highlands No. 1 and 2, and that this area would be developed in much the same manner, It was moved by Commissioner Netka, seconded by Commissioner Jarvie that Resolution No. 152 be adopted, recommending to the City Council that the property described as a portion of Tax Assessor's Parcel 35-10-4x5, be re- classified from R-1-15 to R-1-10 for the following reasons: 1. That the public necessity requires such a change in zone as there is a lack of area zoned between 7,500 and 15,000 sq. ft, 2. Due to the topographic nature of the property involved, it is more suitable for re-classification to 10,000 sq. ft. than for the present 15,000 sq. ft. classification. 3. There would be no uses permitted in the proposed 10,000 sq. ft. zone that would be detrimental to the surrounding property, and the owner of the property has declared his intention to place res- trictions on the area to be re-zoned which would make the use of the property actually more restrictive than the use on surrounding properties . (4) 4. The type of development the area wi.1.1. he used for will allow the property to retain its full valuation, 5. Rezoning the area would be in keeping with good planning, since it would result in graduated zoning between 7500 and 15,000 sq. ft. areas , 6. The development would be compatible with the surrounding areas. The owner has given ample consideration to those in the immediate area. 7. The owner has expressed a willingness to provide an immediate access from Park Dr. to Sunnyhill. 8. The owner has presented a sound, orderly plan for the area. The Chai-man called ,for a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Stringer, Commissioners Netka, Zahler, Ward, Thomas, NOES: None, ABSENT: None. Miller and Jarvie. Resolution No. 152 adopted. 7- HEARING - Proposed amendment to Ordinance 9060 to change minimum frontage on lots having 10,000 sq. ft. to, but not including 15,000 sq. ft. to 75@, and lots required to have 15,000 sq. ft. or more, 90’ as pro- vided for in Planning. Commission Resolution of Intention No. 14. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as to the publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary read a letter from the Carlsbad aealty Board supporting this proposed amendment. They stated that they felt this would do much to in- crease the desirability of the larger lots, which now tend toward long, narrow lots. No one present desired to make any comment. After discussion by the Commission, it was moved by Commissioner Zahler and seconded by Commissioner Jarvie that Resolution No. 153 be adopted recamending to the City Council that Ordinance NO, 9060, Article 5, Section 507 be amended in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution of Intention No. 14 as follows: (2) “Lots required to have a minimum lot area between 10,000 square feet to, but not including 15,000 square feet, 75 feet.” (3) I’Lots required to have 15,000 square feet or more, 90 feet.@’ for the following reasons: 1, This amendment would lead to better development of property within the 10,000 square feet and 15,000 square feet zones. 2. This amendment would eliminate unnecessarily long and narrow parcels, (5) The Chairman asked fclr a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Stringer, Commissioners Netka, Zahler, Ward, Thomas, NOES : None . ABSENT : None. Miller and Jarvie. 8- Report of Planning Congress Meetinq. Commissioner Thomas reported that he, Commissioner Ward and Secretary Price, attended the February 29, 1960 meeting of the San Diego Planning Congress, at the Mission Valley Inn. Briefly, the meeting was conducted as follows: The meeting was called to order at about 1:00 P.M. after the delegates had enjoyed a luncheon. A cment was made from the Chair that Carlsbad was well represented, After a formal business meeting and the introduction of new members, the meeting was opened for suggestions and plans. Many topics were brought up and discussed, the major ones being, (1) uniformity in zoning for all metropolitan areas in San Diego County; (2) presence of City Attorney at Planning Commission meetings, to handle legal questions; (3) work required by the Commissions when colleges and other large developments are brought before them. It was decided that during 1960, four meetings would be held between now and Christmas. The first three meetings will be designated as panel meetings and will consist of several specialists. The fourth meeting will be known as the Yearly or Annual meeting and will be supplemented by a well known speaker. At each of the first three meetings, two subjects will be brought up and dis- cussed by the panel. The following are the dates for these meetings: (1) March 28, 1960, 12:OO - 3:OO; (2) May 23, 1960, 12:OO - 3200 P.M.; (3) September 26, 1960, 12:OO - 3:OO P.M.; (4) November 18, 1960, in evening. All Planning Commissioners in San Diego County are invited to attend these meetings , Chairman Stringer requested the Secretary to include reminders of these meetings in the agendas, (A formal report of the meeting is on file with the Secretary). The Secretary reported that he had attended the first meeting of the Regional Planning Group of San Diego County. The San Diego County area has many complex problems and the planning for the area needs to be carried out on a broader scope, since these problems are regional rather than local. This new regional program will be conducted as a cooperative project which will in no way infringe on the independent authority of the several cities or the County. All the planning directors in the County will be invited to serve on a Regional Plan Technical Committee. Representatives of recognized agencies and organi- zations will be asked to serve on special Regional Plan Advisory Committees. 9- New business: There was no new business . 10- Old bus.iness: (a) The question of the cross street from Roosevelt to Madison between Grand and Laguna was brought up again. The Secretary stated that the only way he sees to get this item in the budget is to reqnest the City Council to have an appraisal made of the property and then allocate funds in the budget, based on the amount of the appraisal. Chainnan Stringer stated that there is a City group working on this matter, and that he is quite disappointed that this group has not made any effort to consult the Planning Commission as to their plans. (b) The Chairman inquired of the Secretary if any problems on house numbering had come up. The Secretary stated there had been none. 11- By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully, J. He PRICE Secretary