HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-03-22; Planning Commission; Minutes1- The meeting was called to order by Vice-chairman Zahler at 7:30 P.M. Present
besides the Vice-chairman were Commissioners Netka, Ward, Thomas, Miller
and Jarvie. Absent, Chairman Stringer.
2~ Minutes of March 8, 1960. Conmissioner Thomas stated that he felt the
comnents made by Conmissioner Miller regarding buffer zones should have been
included in the minutes. (At the tiearing on the request of Don Briggs for a
re-zoning, the possibility of establishing a buffer zone between Sunnyhill
and the proposed development was discussed. Commissioner Miller stated that
he did not like the use of the word "buffer zone" as it carried Un-American
connotations. It seemed to him to imply a sort of "no-man's land" between one
section and another, and he felt we had no such areas in America. The Secretary stated that he had deleted these comments from the minutes, as he
felt they had no direct bearing on the case in point. Comissioner Jarvie
stated he felt the minutes should contain more of the discussions. Com-
missioner Netka said he did not feel these cunments should be included in
the minutes, since they did not have a direct bearing on the matter. Com-
missioner Thomas stated that they did have a great deal of bearing on it.
After discussion, it was agreed that the minutes not be changed, and it was
moved by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Jarvie that the
minutes of March 8, 1960, be approved as submitted. Six ayes, motion carried.
3- Oral comunicat ions:
There were no oral communications. -
4- Written cammunicat ions:
(a) Letter dated March 15, 1960, from Donald A. Briggs, expressing his appre-
ciation of the Commission's action relative to the rezoning of his property,
and declaring his intention to make every effort to satisfy his neighbors
and the City of Carlsbad in,the development of the area. He also stated that
he would consult the Cummission, the Council and the Engineering Department
for criticism and suggestions.
(b) Notice from the San Diego County Planning Congress of their spring meeting
to be held Monday, March 28th at the Mission Valley Inn. Topics for Panel
Discussion will be (1) Subdivision & Grading - Erosion Control and (2) Per-
formance Zoning. Commissioner Thomas as delegate, Commissioner Ward as
alternate, and Secretary Price will be attending. The invitation to attend
was extended to all members of the Commission.
5- HEARING - VARIANCE - ,Request of Eddie H. Vasquez for reduction in required front yard from 20' to 5', East side yard from 10' to 5BL
rear yard from 20' to 10'6".
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 omer setting
forth the reasons for requesting the variance. No written correspondence had
been received on this matter.
No one present desired to make any comment,
The public hearing was closed at 7:50 P.M.
Discussion on the matter brought out the fact that apartments had been built
on each side of these lots, and due to the curve of the road and the fact
that the lots set back in, these lots were blocked as far as view, Mr.
Vasquez stated that in as much as this was zoned for apartments, he had
decided to build apartments also, since they were on both sides of him.
It was moved by Comnissioner Jarvie and seconded by Comnissioner Ward that
Resolution No. 154 be adopted granting the variance as requested by Eddie
R, Vasquez for reduction in required front yard from 20' to 59, East side
yard from 10' to S', rear yard from 20' to 10'6", for the following reasons:
1, Granting this variance would permit the best use of the land.
2. Granting this variance would not adversely affect the comprehensive
general plan or be detrimental to the property and improvements in the vicinity.
3, To deny this request would be discriminatory, since similar variances
have been granted to other property owners in the area.
4, There were no oral or writ ten protests.
The Chairman asked for a roll call vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Zahler, Commissioners Netka, Ward, Thomas, Miller
and Jarvie.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Stringer
Resolution No. 154 adopted.
5.. HEARING - VARIANCE - Request of Clarence A. Roberts for reduction in frontage
from 60' to 56.699 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 read the application submitted by the Owner setting forth the
reasons for requesting the variance. The Secretary read a letter from the
owner authorizing C. D, McClellan of South Coast Land Company to speak for
them. Also a list of supporting signatures of property Owners within a 300'
radius was read by the Secretary. The Secretary pointed out that adjoining lots 15 and 16 of Pacific Terrace have frontages at the set back line of less
than the minimum of 601, so this variance would be in keeping with the surrounding area.
The public hearing was closed at 8:OO P.M.
Commissioner Jarvie stated he felt that granting this variance would be in
keeping with the rest of the area, Commissioner Ward brought out that Chis
would open up two lots for development and complete the development of Redwood
Street. The question was raised as to what the lot sizes would be. Mr. McClellan stated they would be over 6000 sqe ft. each.
Comnissioner Ward moved, seconded by Commissioner Jarvie that Resolution No.
155 be adopted granting the variance as requested by C. A. Roberts for reduction
of frontage from 60' to 56.69' for the following reasons:
1, Granting this variance would allow the ccmpletion of development
of Redwood Street.
2. Similar variances have been granted to surrounding property owners,
and to deny the applicant would be discriminatory.
3. There were no written or oral protests.
The Chairman asked for a roll call wte:
AYES: Vice Chairman Zahler, Comnissioners Netka, Ward, Thomas, Miller
and Jarvie.
NOES : None
ABSENT: Chairman Stringer
Resolut ion No. 1S5 adopted.
6- HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION Request of W. A. Stringer for reclassification of Lots 5 and 6, Block 67, Carlsbad Townsite, from
R-P to C-2.
By cmon consent of the Comnission, the hearing was continued to April 12, 1960, due to the inability of Mr, Stringer to be present,
7- New business:
(a) The Secretary stated that Mr. Dinius has filed for a zone change from
R-1 to M, He has opened an escrw with Paul Swirsky, in which la contained a
petition for a 1911 Act to open a street from Chestnut to Tamarack. When and
if this zone change is passed and becomes effective, Mr. Swirsky is directed
to deliver the 1911 Act street opening petition to the City for proper dis-
position. The application for B zone change is for that area west of the
proposed street.
The Secretary pointed out that if this plan as it stands comes before the
Commission for their consideration, they will be facing primarily the same
problem as before -- that of spot zoning. He brought out the possibility of
the adoption of a Resolution of Intention to include the re-zoning of the Koyl property, perhaps the Acuna property and all of the property lying easterly of
the proposed street. The previous decisions to deny Mr. Koyl's request for re-
zone were mainly based on the fact that there was no plan for the entire area.
-3-
c I 0
(b) Budget for 1960-1961
The Secretary reported that the City Manager has asked for the budgetary
requests by April 15. The budget for last year was broken down as follows:
Salaries and Wages
Professional Services
Travel Expense
Advertising & Publications
Off ice Supplies
Books
Memberships
Equipment
$ 4,764
600
150
200
75
10
10
50
$ 5,859
He felt that all of these items are reasonable except Professional Services.
The amount of $600 means nothing when it comes to professional services. Sf
the Commission feels the need for a Consultant, $300 or $400 a month would have
to be budgeted for one.
Commissioner Netka stated that he felt the Commission should recommend a salary
raise for the Secretary. Mr. Price has been extremely efficient and cooperative
and he believes just recognition for his work should be in the form of
recommending a salary raise. He also pointed out that due to Mr. Price's
education and background in legal work, he has been in a position to offer the
Comnission valuable advice. He suggested that a $400 raise be recanmended,
and by excluding the $600 allowed for professional services (which was not
used last year), the budget would still be cut by $200,
The Secretary st8ted that he appreciated the remarks, but that he felt that j
he should not be a part of the discussion and would prefer that any discussion
relative to a recanmendation regarding his salary be held without his presence.
Connnissioner Jarvie stated he felt it was largely through the efforts of Mr.
Price that it had not been necessary to obtain professional consultation
during the past yearr
After discussion by the Commission, the following amounts were tentatively
considered for the 1960-61 budget:
Salaries and Wages $ 5200 Travel Expense 150 Advertising & Publications 200 Office Supplies 75 Books 10
Memberships 10
Equipment 50
$ 5695
-4-
Commissioner Netka S:.~L::*: th?:.: ::e bellgve $1 ', 3'' : s*.*,.Ad accompany the pro-
posed budget, poirttil:" m?. thr31: tho Cc$&&sion ! : dbla Lo exclude the allot-
ment for professional services due to .the outsluxding work of Mr. Price.
Commissioner Zahler pointed out: that the-present salary for the'Secretary was
established several years ago, and he did not feel a 104. raise wad excessive.
1%
Cmissioner Jarvie reminded the Commission that In the past they had paid a
Planning Consultant $3000 a year, and due to Mr. Price's expert counsel the
necessity for a Planning Consultant had been minimized.
8- Old business:
(e) Cross Street
The Secretary reported that Chairman Stringer had wanted him to make a recam-
mendation on the cross street. He does not see how the Commission can do
anything more than include in the rccamnendation for the budget that the
Council take into consideration the necessity for the cross street and refresh
their memory on what has transpired on the matter.
Commissioner Netka stated that he did not feel the City has an obligation to
put this street through. It seemed to him that everything the City has done
has been for the benefit of the business district, which does not bring the
City that much tax money..
Commissioner Zahler pointed out that the subject of putting Jn a cross street
had been brought up by the Planning Commission before the Merchant's Comittee
was organized.
Cammissioner Netka further stated that he cannot agree that the City should
foot the bill for this improvement. As an example of what he meant, he pointed
out that about the only thing the City had spent money for in Terramar, was
the street sweeper occasionally, and that area certainly provided a great
deal of assessed valuation. He feels that this cross street would only
benefit the business district.
Commissioner Jarvie stated that he felt these points should be brought to the
Council's attention.
By proper motion, the meeting wa8 adjourned at 9:OO P.M.
Respectfully,
J,\ H. Price
Secretary