Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-10-25; Planning Commission; Minutes. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF CARLSB,'. D CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 25, 1960 1- The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P,M. by Chairman Jarvie. Present besides the Chairman were Commissioners Davis, Hardwick, Grant and Ward. Absent, Conmissioners Kistler and Hughes. 2- Appgoval of Minutes of October 11, 196Qb Chairman Jarvie reqbested that a correction be made on kage 5, Paragraph 2, chatging the lrlst sentence tb read as follows: "That th,e matter before the Commission tonight was that there was someone her. with a tentative map and it was properly in order." A motion was made by Cmissioner Grant and seconded by Cmissioner Hardwick that the mintltes be approved as amended. All Ayes, motion carried. 3- WriftM&:CcxlEnunications: The Secretary read a Memorandum, dated October 19, 1960, to the Carlsbad City Planning Commission from the office of the City Manager, the subject of which was the vacation of Garfield Street, between Cedar and Beech Street and attached thereto a letter dated September 14, 1960, from Henry Mayers Investments, Inc. The Memorandum stated thpt the attached btter had been read to the Council at the regular meeting of the City Council, October 4, 1960 and had been referred to the staff for study, After study a report was made to the Council on October 18, 1960, that their decision had been made that it be referred to the Planning Commission for further study and reporf. Attached letter dated September 14, 1960, from Henry biayers Investments, Inc., 2444 Silver Ridge Avenue, Los Angeles 39, California, stated that as property owners adjacent to Garfield Avenue between Cedar and Beech Streets, they were requesting a vacation of that portion of Garfield Ave. as they are preparing development plans for their properties and find the status of Garfield Ave. would be a determining factor. The letter stated that there are only 3 property owners on Garfield Street and they all have frontage on other existing streets and that Garfield !.venue is only a "paper street" in that it has never been approved. Further it stated that other portions of this street have been vacated until now it is just a small segment of this street that is dedicated to road purposes and only a few hundred feet of it is improved. They felt that both public and private interests would be best served by vccation of this portion of the street for other reasons also such as the short distance between blocks and drain- age and grading problems that would arise should it be improved. 4- Oral Communications: There were no oral communications. 5- CONTINUED HEARING - VARIANCE - Request of Iva M. Grober for reduction of front yard from 20 ft, to 2 ft. and reduction of rear yard from 20 ft. to no rear yard on property described as portion of Tract No, 2, Laguna Mesa Tracts, according to a map theeeof No. 1719 of the City of Carlsbad, -2- Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as to publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary reviewed the case briefly and read the application setting forth the reasons for requesting the variance. There was na new correspondence on the matter. MR. G.A. GROBER, 2366 Jefferson St., Carlsbad, was present .to represent the applicant and stated he had nothing further to add but was there to answer any questions the Commission might have to ask him. The public hearing was closed at 7:50. Commissioner Grant stated that he was the one that suggested that all the Commissioners have time to look at the property. The entrance to the garage is impossible now because of the Freeway. There are many places that the garage could be placed without a variance. He referred the Commissioners to Article 18, Section 1802 of Ordinance 9060 which has to do with the requirements to justify a variance. He read the requirements and said he did not feel that this request meets the requirements. Commissioner Hardwick brought out the fact that there seemed to be no necessity for the request for no rear yard. MR. GROBER stated that there was no necessity of putting the garage up against the fence. He contjnued by saying that if he is away from home no one can use the car and that they did not need a variance there at all. They plan to stay away from the property line as they have plenty of space in which to put the garage. Lately they have had to have a nurse at the house and it was hard for them to get in and out. There was considerable discussion as to why they needed a variance when the drive went straight in and they could place the garage there. It was brought out that the variance was needed so they could back and turn. MR. GROBER explained that the garage was not going to be set 2 feet frm the property line, that he was here tonight to straighten it all.out. They are about 20 ft. above the road and way above the hill and they are planning on putting the garage 4 or 5 feet from the Pine not 2 feet. Since they have measured it, they find that it will not have to be that close to the line. Lt will be about 6 or 7 feet from the line. Commissioner Hughes stated that Mr. Grober had shown him where the garage would be and it was 6 feet from the property line. He thought if Mr. Grober would accept this and eliminate the rear yard request, they should grant this. Commissioner Grant asked if it could be in any other place not requiring a variance and Commissioner Hughes to1d:him not if it were to remain in keeping with the architecture of the house. 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Hughes and seconded by Commissioner Davis that Resolution No. 183 be adopted, granting a variance in front yard from 20 ft. to 6 ft. and rear yard set back to remain the same, for the following reasons: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or c 6- conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but 9hich is denied to the property in question. 3. That the grantiqg of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the cm- prehensive general plan. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Conmissioners Davis, Hardwick, Ward, Grant and NOES: Nhe ABSENT: Cornnissioner Kistler Hughes on property located on Pacific of Carlsbad according to a map thereof No. 17 the City of Carlsbad. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as to 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. There was no correspondence on this matter. B.M. CHRISTIANSON, 2479 Ocean St., representing the applicant, stated that what they wanted to do would be an improvement to the neighborhood. They want to move a house in there that will be in line with the house next door to it. This neighbor has given them permission to move it across his property in order to save a tree on the subject property. There were no objections to the request. The public hearing was closed at 8:15. The Cmissianers all agreed that this request was in keeping with the surrounding property. A motion was made by Commissioner Ward and seconded by Commissioner Hardwick that Resolution No. 184 be adopted granting a variance in front yard from 20 ft. to 11 ft. for the following reasons: 1. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoy- ment of a substantial property right possessed by other property -4- 7- in the Same vicinity and zbne but vhich is denied to the property in question, 2. That t&4 granting of sdch variance will not be materially detri- mental, td k$k public welfare or injurious to the property or im- provemedts in such vicinity and zone in which the property is loca- ted. 3. That the granting of such Variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. 4. There were no written or oral protests, The Chairman asked for a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Commissioners Davis, Hardwick, Grant, Ward NOES: None ABSENT: Comnissioner Kistler. and Hughes. Resolution No. 184 adopted. .'A short recess was called at 8: 20. deconvened at 8: 30 .I Request of F. Stevens Macey for rezoning of lots 10 and 11, Block D, Bella Vista Tract and a portion of Lot I, Rancho Agua &dionda, being a part of Tax Assessor's Map Book 35, Page 105, Parcel 7. A portion of lots 10 and 11, Block D. Bella Vista Tract from R-1-15000 sq. ft. to C-1 (service commercial). The southeasterly corner of the entire parcel in Tax Ass- essor's Book 35, Page 105, Parcel 7, from Ri to C-2 (general commercial). The remain- der of lots 10 and 11, Block B., Bella Vista Tract and the remainder of that por- tion of Lot I Rancho Agua Hedionda, as shown in Tax Assessor's Book 35, Page 105, Parcel 7 to be rezoned from R-A-15000 sq. ft. to R-T (Kesidential Tourist). Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as to publication of notice of hearing and the laailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary then read the application, setting forth the reasons for requesting the reclassification. There was no correspondence on this matter . MR. MAX EWALD, 3308 Belle Lane, introduced Mr. Carl Sanborn, who was present to represent the applicant. MR. CARL SANDBORN, 811 N. Broadway, Santa Ana, stated that he was rep- resenting Mr. Placey on this request for zone change on the property on the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. That he would like to show the Commission exactly what Mr. blacey was asking, He showed a map pointing out the restauranr: and cocktail lounge and yacht club and the channel which would give access to the lagoon for the property owners. The lots will be GO' x 120'. On one side of the channel there will be an apartment motel. The lots run the length of the channel and there are 56 lots all together. This is the type of development that would bring in a high type of people, executives and prosperous people. The shopping center would have not more than 4 shops and they would be small shops and mostly for the accommodation of the people living there. He pointed out that they should keep in mind the fact that this type of development raised the value of the property all around it. The developnent of the lagoon would surely bring in guttuner people of the type Carlsbad would want. Also people driving on the Freeway would see the development and it would develop interest in Catlgbad. Ne then asked the Comissioners if they had any questions to ask concerning this development. MR. EWALD stated that he would like to speak in favor of this project. In order for the lagoon to be developed, something should be started and we are now at a point with this that it could get started with this development. He went on to say that the harbor program had just been defeated and this is the area that would be benefited by the project. He could see no other plan that would benefit it more. 18 acres would mean 20 million to the tax rolls of the city. It should be considered very carefully that this would be the best use. Uses for this type of property are scarce and the population here so great. Good planning is the first step. He feels it is wanted and there is the money to do it. There was no opposition to the request. The public hearing w-s closed at 8:45. Commissioner Hardwick stated that due to many circumstances he was unable to go over the ground and therefore he would have to abstain from voting as he had not had time to study the property. Chairman Jarvie blought up the matter of the question of omership of this property and stated that he had requested the City Attorney to be present at the meeting to give an opinion on this, The Secretary stated that he hzd discussed this matter with the City Attorney and she had told him that the question of ownership had no bear- ing on the matter of how the land should be zoned and therefore the Commission should ignore this question of the ownership. The City Attor- ney was unable to be present as she WTS attending the League of California Cities Conference in Los Angeles. MR. SANBORN stated that there would be harbors all the way from Dana Pt. down to Sah Diego, maybe not in his time, but eventually. A development of this type would bring people from Phoenix for the summer months. Commissioner Grant felt that the small shopping area was not a necessity since other shopping areas are quite close and he considered this spot zoning. There was some discussion as to whether the yacht club would be private or not md it was stated that it was planned in the first place to be private but it might not work out and perhaps a high type of restaurant would work out better. It depended on whether the whole area were worked Mr. Jarvie asked whether this whole project hinged on the COmniSSiOn'S making a decision tonight. MR. SANBOKN stated that it did not hinge on their making a deciwion tonight but they had hoped a decision could be made but could go along. He then brought out the fact that restaurants and cocktail lounges went together in Southern Cdifornia andthat only a motel site was asked in the other location. MR. EWALD brought out the fact that the granting of a change of zone was only the first step, then it would go on to a tentative map. They are pushing the master plan for the development as fast as possible, PERRY LAMB, 5171 Shore Drive, stated that he felt this should not be put off. He felt it would be helpful to the city and it was not harmless to put it off. A motion was made by Comnissioner Grant and seconded by Commissioner Hughes that the southeast portion of Tax Assessor's Map Book 35, Page 105, Parcel 7, be changed from R-A to C-2, further that request for rezoning of portion of Lots 10 and 11, Block D., Bella Vista Tract, from 3-1-15000 sq. ft. to C-1 be denied and instead be rezoned to R-T to fit in with the other 56 lots and that the remainder of Lot I, Rancho hgua Hedionda be rezoned from R-A 10,000 sq. ft. to R-T for the following reasons: 1. fiat such reclassification will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 2, That the reclassification will not qdversely affect the comprehensive general plan. 3. A project of this type is the best use to which land of this type could be put. The reasons for denying the request for portion of lots 10 and 11, Block D., Bella Vista Tract are as follows: I,. Several areas in the City of Carlsbad already exist for the ser- vicing of these lots. 2. This appears to be spot zoning in that it would be placing a small comercial shopping center in the middle of very high priced residential lots. . - -7- The Chaiman asked for a roll call vote. FYES: Commissioners Davis, Ward, Grant and Hughes NOES: Chairman Jarvie ABSTAIN: Cmissioner Hardwick ABSENT: Commissioner Kistler Resolution No. 185 denied. 8- Old Business: There was no old business; 9- New Busiinees: Commissioner Hardwick stated th2t he would like to receive the Agenda for the next meeting earlier than the previous Thursday as he did,not feel it gave him enough time to study the subject properties. The Secretary assured him that he would make every attempt to see that they were received as early as possible. Cmissioner Hardwick also stated that he would like an opportunity to study the Comprehensive General Plan. A motion was mgde by Commissioner Hardwick and seconded by Commissioner Grant that the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission by its own motion direct the Secretary to prepare a Resolution of Intention to change from R-A to C-2 the southeasterly corner of the entire parcel in Tax Assessor's Book 35, Page 105, Parcel 7, and to change from R-1-15000 sq. ft. to R-T the following described property, Lots 10 and 11, Elock D, Bella Vista Tract and to chmge the re- mainder of that portion o€ Lot I, iiancho ;*.gua Hedionda, Tax Assessor's Map Book 35, Page 105, Pprcel 7, fron R-A-10000 sq. ft. to K-T and that a public hearing be held on this matter at the regular meeting of the Planning mission on November 9, 1960 at 7:30 P.M. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Commissioners Davis, Hardwick, Ward, Grant and NOES: None ABSENT: Cornmissioner Kistler Hughes. Resolution of Intention No. 18 adopted. MRS. SALSEN STEEN, 4422 Park Drive, stated that she was very pleased that the Cornmission had taken this action as she felt it would be a ristake for this request to be denied. 10- Adjournment: By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 Respectfully submitted,