Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-07-26; Planning Commission; Minutes1- 2- 3- 4- 5- MINUTES OF REGUM PiEETING OF CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING CWfSSION July 26, 1960 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by ChaimMn Jarvie. Present besides the Chairman were Commissioners Davis, Kistler, Hardwick, Ward, Hughes and Grant. Also present was City Attorney Hayes. -4pproval of Minutes of July 12, 1960, St was moved by Connnissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Kistler that the minutes of July 12, 1960 be approved as submitted. All ayes, nlotion carried. Written Communications: There were no written comunications. Oral Communications: There were no oral cmunications. HEXRING - VARZANCE - Request of Donald Briggs 3r. for reduction of required front yard from 20 ft. to 2 ft. and a reduction in rear yard from 20 ft to 0 ft. on the closed road. Property is portion of Tract No. 2, Laguna Mesa Tracts, according to Map thereof No. 1719 in the City of Car 1 sbad 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, setting forth the reasons for requesting the variance. The Secretary pointed out that this case had been before the Planning Commission on May 24, 1960, but had failed to pass due to lack of majority vote. The application was then appealed to the City Council and a hearing held before the Council on June 21, 1960. The Coun- cil then referred the matter back to the Planning Commission fbr kedonsidaE-' ation..,S&nCe there were now only 2 members on the Commission who had attend- ed the original hearing, the City Attorney had advised that another public hearing be held before the Commission. The Secretary then read all of the correspondence which had been received to date on this case which is on file in the office of the Secretary and is a part of the permanent record of proceedings for this case. There was one new item of correspondence received: Letter dated July 19, 1960, from Milton R. Farham, Registered Civil Engineer 11238, stating that he had made a survey of the property in question and found the geological Strata to be suitable for construction of a residence such as the one Mr. Briggs proposed to build. MR. DONALD BRIGGS, applicant, stated that he would just like to review briefly the points included in the petition of protest against the variance: (1) The petition stated that this violates any past variances in regard to setbacks on main thoroughfares, Mr. Briggs stated that on Ocean St. between Oak and Elm, every garage goes to the asphalt paving itself with no parkway or sidewalk allowance. This is 12 to 14 feet closer than the variance he is requesting. (2) The petition stated that there would be a hazard to the occupants of dwellings because of the curve approach. -2- Mri Briggs stated that he had planned to put a carport on that side of the dwelling with a drive-thru so that it yould be unnecessary to back onto Jefferson. Also this carport would act as a barrier or buffer to protect the building. If this is a danger point, perhaps a DgSlowQt sign could be placed on the other side of the bridge. (3) The petition stated that the dwellings on adjoining property was built under County jurisdic- tion several years ago, Mr. Briggs stated that the County jurisdiction is different now than it was then. The County is usually more stringent than the City on lot area and setbacks. (4) The petition stated that the present street usage does not designate the true street and could be mis- leading to future pprchasers. Mr. Briggs stated that the surveyed center- line of Jefferson is closer than almost any street in Carlsbad, it is within 6 inches of being true. MRS. IVA GROBER, 2366 Jefferson, who was unable to attend the meeting personally, sent a representative on her behalf to present a report of protest against the fariance. Thg report called attention to and pre- sented proof to the effect that C rlsbad Road was s vacated, but closed to vehicular traffic only. Mrs, Grober objects particularly to having only a 2 front setback betsuse of the hazard to the occupants of the dwelling, caused by the curve approach. It appears that Mr. Briggs is asking that Ordinance 9060 be changed compctetely in this case. Mr. Briggs had ample opportunity to learn all af the facts before he purchased the property, and it is unfair to expect the Planning Commission to cover up the errors in his deed. There are 6 other lots in the vicinity which may ask for the same variance if this one is granted. If he were allowed to have only a 2 ft. sethack on Jefferson Street, he would be using the street as a private driveway. MRS. MABEL MALTIfl, 1100 Las Flores, stated she wished to protest granting the variance. Ordinance No. 9060 was established to produce an orderly, planned use of land, and to protect those individuals who have built within the provisions of the ordinance. She stated they would not have put the money into thzir homes if they had believed some day these re- quirements would be cast away and an individual allowed to come in and build a house with no back yard, suspended from an eroded cliff on a busy highway. MR. GEORGE A. GROBER, 2366 Jefferson, stated that he had checked one morning on the amount of cars that went by and there was one every minute. He checked again at noon and there was less than one a minute, and again in the evening there was one a minute. These were not only cars, but trucks. MR. BRIGGS stated that at the time he bought the property the title can- pany and everyone else believed that the road was vacated. It was shown on all of the maps as vacated. The road has not been used since 1928 and was closed to Vehicular traffic in 1948, As far as setbacks and street vacation being considered together, Be has never mentioned this. As to traffic, one car per minute is considered extremely light traffic. The public hearing was closed at 8:15 P.3. Conmissioner Davis questioned the advisability of granting the variance on the two lots which were going to be sold and were not ready for building at this time. -3- CConh$g&oRpr&"rt! stask&- tbitthe bdPt2Jgbod pla(a6iag: JB&g~tkhe~~ush~of- vaB- t'fan&eg.I. The zoning ordinance and map would become of no value at all if we allow everyone to change them to suit their particular situation. He does not believe that this is comparable to Ooean St. property which is on a side road with a 15 MPH speed limit. After some discussion by the Commission, it was moved by Conmissioner Hughes and seconded by Conmissioner Grant that Resolution No. 170 be adopted grant- ing the request for a variance as subjlitted, for the following reasons: 1. That granting the variance would permit the best use of the land due to the extreme topography. 2. That similar variances have been granted on beach front property where the topography precludes construction with normal setbacks. 3. That granting the variance would not be detrimental to public wel- fare or injuribur to the property or improvements in the vicinity. 4. This property is located on the outside radius of the curve on Jeffer- son Street, therefore, a dwelling would not cause any additional traffic hazard. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote: AYES: Chaiman Jarvie, Commissioners Kistler, Hardwick, Hughes and Grant NOES: Commissioners W3rd and Davis. ABSENT: None. Resolutdon No. 170 adopted. Conmissioner Dgvis stated that this property is located where there are few other property'owners and the majority of these people have opposed grant- ing this variance. He feels that it is a big mistake not to give consider- ation to the surrounding property owners. 6- HEARING - RECLbSSIFICATION u Request of Edwin M. and Yancye M. Sherman for change of zone of portion of Tract 237 of Thum Lands from R-1 (one-family residential) to C-2 (general commercial). (a) Petition bearing 29 signatures protesting the reclassification, Sev- eral of these signatures were the same as those appearing on the original application as being proponents. (b) Letter dated July 25, 1960, from Igor A. and Gloria D. Mougenkoff, r,equesting the removal of their names from the petition supporting the application and stating that they are definitely against such rezoning. MR. GENE BOLAR of the Mobile Oil Co., representing the applicant, presented a colored picture showing the design of the service station they planned to build at this site. He stated that this represents a $40,000 investment, which would naturally increase the vslue of the surrounding properties, The Master Plan calls for Tamarack to be widened to 84 ft., indicating a future commercial development, not a residential area. When the area does become commercialized, the people can look forwad to greater property values. MR. EDWIN SHERMAN, applicant, stated that there is a definite need for a service station at this location to serve the people traveling the Freeway. He st;lted that many people have come to them for information about a service station, and on two occasions there had been people spend the night there bedause they co,Jld not get any service. He ststed that this is a wonderful place to advertise Carlsbad, that the Freeway is Carlsbad's best supply of potential buyers of groperty and homes. If this change of zone is granted, it would benefit all of Carlsbad by bringing in more business. A station at this point could be seen for blocks up and down the Freeway and would be easily accessible. MR. ROBERT EILERS, 811 Citrus Place, asked that his name be removed from the petition supporting the applicetion. He has given the matter some study and is now opposed to the change. If an automobile needs gasoline, it is not going to hurt anyone to go an extra mile to where there are 3 service sta- tions in a row on Elm, MR. JAMES EWf.iG, 819 Citrus Place, asked that his name be struck from the petition supporting the application, He st-oted that he does not believe this is the time to commercialize this area. MR. THOMAS WMOND, 3928 Jefferson, asked that his name also be removed from the list of supporting signatures, He stated he had posed 3 questions to the applicant which were never answered. (1) Would the design of the station blend in with the sarrounding area? (2) Would it be company owned or leased? (3) If it is leased, would there be any stipulation for keeping it clean and well-kept? Mr. Hamond asked Commissioner Hughes if the fact that he owned a service station would influence his vote on the case? Commissioner Hughes disqualified himself from the discussion and voting on the matter. Mr. Hammond continued stating that there had been a precendent established of not putting in commercial enterprises along the Freeway. The station would not attract people to the downtown area of Carlsbad, but would only attract transient traffic. It would create a good deal of noise and disturb- ance to the neighborhood. Also, if the property is rezoned and then the Mobile Oil Co. backs down, someone could put in an all-night restaurant or something similar. Mr. Hammond called attention to an article in the Blade Tribune and also the comment by the Secretary on the agenda that the Commis- sion should not overlook the possibility of a trend towards cmercializationn when Tamarack does become a major thoroughfare. He stated that he does not believe it is proper for aypublic official to voice an opinion before a pub.. lic hepring. Mr. H,-mmond stated that he had come to very few meetings, but feels that many of the cases are cut and dried before they come to the floor, MR. IRA NILLER, 828 Citrus Place stated this station would be right in his back yard, and only about 80 or 90 feet from his bedroom window. He does not believe the value of his property will be increased, but rather decreased by the establishment of this station. We statcd he would have no privacy whatwoever. Also, he does not see how this is going to attract so much bus- iness because you cannot put up signs on the freeway. -5- MR. JACK R. SOWELL, 3904 Jefferson, stated thrt when he had bought his home two years ago, he had gone to a reliable real estate person and had told him he wanted to buy in a nice residential area where he could retire. He was informed that a service station was being considered for this location but had been turned down by the Planning Comission. This was an R-1 Zone and it would continue as such. He pointed out that there is another school going in across from Pi0 Pic0 Drive, and children would have to walk up past the station. He stated he he had been in the service station business before he went into the Marine Corps and the detergents used for cleaning are not healthy to have around homes. MR. EDWARD RADZA, 812 Citrus Llace, asked that his name and his wife's name be removed from the list of supporting signatures. MR. DICK PHARR, 956 Citrus Place, voiced his protest against the variance, as it would create a traffic hazard. He stated that there is a great deal of foot traffic going across to Jefferson School and there will be more next year when they move the other grades as contemplated. MRS. BERNICE M. MILLER, 828 Citrus Place, stated that the majority of homes in this area were originally owned by the Shermans. She stated they had spoken to the Shermans about this particular property and they stated they did not wish to sell it because they wanted to retain their privacy. If this service station is allowed to go in here, it will create a real traffic hazard for children going to schoof, it would decrease their property values and eliminate the privacy they now enjoy. MR. JAMES M. SUAREZ, 827 Citrus Place asked thst his name and his wife's name be removed from the petition supporting the application. MR. R.W. EILERS, 811 Citrus Place requested the removal of his wife's name from the supporting petition. MR. JAMS L EWING, 819 Citrus Place, requested the removal of his wife's name from the supporting petition. MR. BOLAR stated that the Commission would no doubt consider this spot zoning and that probably the entire street shouzd be rezoned for cmercial use, This is how the surrounding properties would increase in value, MR. BOEKE of the Mobile Oil Co. stated that the company could do a great deal toward protecting the hom-owners in the vicinity. They could direct the lights toward the center of the s tation, plant trees and shrubs around it to prevent glare and make it more attractive, place provisions in the lease to prevent truck service and automobile repair, etc. He stated that if Carlsbad wanted to grow and develop there would have to be some rezoning to c&mercial zones to bring people in. This type of area is typical through. out the United States and is specifically suited to commercial development. He stated that hi5 company would do everything they could to insure the rights of the property owners, MR. ROBERT M. EILERS, 811 Citrus asked Mr. Boeke if they were truly concerned with the best interests of Cn_rlsbad or the Mobile Oil Co? MR. BOEKE stated that they were providing a public service as well as a profit for their company. c The public hearing was closed at 9:15 P.M. Considerable discussion was given the matter by the Commission. It was generally felt that there is no rush to commercialize this area. It was noved by Commissioner Ward and seconded by Commissioner Davis that Resolution No. 172 be adopted denying the request for reclassification for the following reasons: 1. This would constitute "spot zoningtt. 2. The surrounding property owners registered both oral and written pro- tests and no favorable comments were received other than by the applicant and his agents. 3. Granting this request would be detrin?ental to the immediate vicinity and have a depreciating effect on surrounding property values. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Commissioners Davis, Kistler, Hardwick, Ward and Grant NOES: None ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hughes. Resolution No. 172 Adopted. A 10-minute recess was declared at 9:20 1I.M. Reconvened at 9:30 P.M. 7- HEARING .. VARIANCE - Request of Kobert E. O'Brien for variance for reduction of lot area per dwelling unit from 1200 89. ft. to 974 sq. ft. on lots L & M of Block.1, Palisades. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified to the publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary then read the formal application submitted by the owner, stat- ing the reasons for requesting the variance, There were two items of corres- pondence on this matter: (a) Letter from Pauline E. Wood, owner of propetty on Cherry Street, voicing her opposition to this variance as it would be spot zoning and detrimental to the City as a whole. (b) Letter dated July 19, 1960, from Isabel L. and Niels H. Martin, urging denial of the request in order to keep up the high building standards of Carlsbad, The Secretary presented a set of plans showing the buildings proposed for this site. lie then pointed out to the Commission that as he had commented on the agenda, it is his belief that, should the Commission feel favorable toward granting this variance, consideration should be given to amending Ordinance No. 9060, rather than approaching the case from a variance standpoint. The Secretary also pointed out that Ordinance 9060 states that where there is more than one lot being used for a group of buildings, the total lots are -7- W considered as one. He also brought to the attention of the applicant that the plan shows a screen block wall 5 ft. 4 in. high extending into the required: yard, and that if the wall is retained at this location, it can only be 42 in. high. MR. EDWARD D. O'BRIEN, representing the applicant, presented two sketches of the development proposed, one showing the 16 units they were requesting and the other showing only the 13 allowed without the variance. He stated that these were very deluxe units and much larger than average. One unit is in excess of 1200 sq. ft., several 2 bedroom units with 850 sq. ft., one bedroom units containing 650 sq. ft. and bachelor units containing 380 sq. ft. They had studied the matter thoroughly and found it is not economically feasible to construct only 13 units. They are not trying to crowd the area, but are trying to develop something of which they can be proud and the community can be proud. MR. GLEN CHEADLE, 135 Acacia, stated he owns property on both sides of these lots and feels this represents an advance for the community. MR. RALPH GUEST, 3670 Carlsbad Blvd, stated he would be in favor of granting a variance for this project if it were in his area. MR. GOFF, representing MICHA K"E, 3648 Carlsbad Blvd. stated he is in favor of grmting the variance. MR. O'BRIEN was asked if it is impossible to finance the 13 units, and he stated that it is not absolutely impossible, but very unfavorable. The public hearing was closed at 9:55 P.M. A great deal of consideration was given the matter, and the possibility of amending Ordinance 9060 was discussed. The City Attorney pointed out to the CommLSsion that it can adopt a Resolution of Intention to amend the Ordinance. The Attorney read to the Commission Section 1802 of Ordinance 9060 setting forth the conditions for granting a variance and pointed out that these condi- tionsdo not apply to the case in point and this is why the staff recorranendatior was for an amendment. If this variance is granted the applicant would be receiving a right which other property owners do not have. After further deliberation, it was moved by Cormnissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Kistler that Kesolution No. 171 be adopted granting the re- quest for a variance as submitted, for the following reasons: 1. Granting the varicnce would permit the highest and best use of the land. 2. The requirements of Ordinance 9060 for setbacks are being complied With. 3. Granting the variance would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Commissioners Davis, Kistler Hardwick, Ward, Hughes, and Grant. NOES : None .. 8 ABSENT: None. Resolution No. 171 adopted. By common consent of the Commission the Secretary was directed to make a study, together with the City Attorney, on the requirements of neighboring towns of lot area per dwelling unit and then present a report to the Comnission for their study, 8- Old Business There was no old business. 9- New Business Chairman Jarvie read to the Commissioners, as a matter of information to them, a brief paragraph regarding the conduct of Comnissioners with respect to public hearings. 10- By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Secretary