Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-01-24; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF CARLSBAD CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 1961 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Jarvie. Present be- sides the Chairman were Commissioners Daui's, Kistler, Grant, Ward and Hughes. Absent, Commissioner Hardwick. Approval of Minutes of January 10, 1961. It was moved by Commissioner Ward and seconded by Comnissioner Kistler that the minutes of January 10, 1961 be approved as submitted. All ayes, motion carried. Written Comnunications: There were no written communications. Oral Communication%: There were no oral communications. HEARING Request of Richard and Audrey Rahe and Richard and Marzaret Pharr for zone change from R-1 (single far!.ily residential) to R-3 (Multiple family resi- dential) on property located on the north side of Tamarack Ave. between Adams and Pi0 Pico, said roperty being a portion of parcel 7x2 and Parcel %3, Pape 136, Book 35 of the f'$ssessor's Map of 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 arep. The Sec- retary then read the application, setting forth the reasons for requestjng the zone change and containing four signatures of the owners of the property on the south side of Tmarack between Yio Pic0 and tTdams in support of it. There were no written comnications on this matter. MR. RIClVXD R.4HE, 2105 Basswood, stated th-t as they had said in the application the property in question was affected by the conditional use permit previously for the Catholic school as far as K-1 use is concerned in that the parcels con- cerned are surrounded on 3 sides by the school site, and also there is need for more R-3 property. The public hearing was closed at 7:40. There was considerable discussion about the use of property in the area and when asked what he planned to do with the property if the zone were changed, Mr, Rahe stpted that he would probably put two units up in the back of the property. He further stated thst he had made 3 offers to the church and they had turned down all of them. They will buy it some day but will not be able to do it for severt.1 years. MR. RICHARD I'HARR, 956 Tamarack, when asked if he planned to put apartments on his property, stated that he did not, but that there was room for an ad- ditional homesite on his property. There was discussion among the Commission as to whether they would be setting a precedent by recomnending this zone change and it w- s decided that these property owners should be given the srlme consideration that the Roman Catholic Church was given on their request for T conditional use permit and that this would not constitute spot zoning. A motion was made by Comnissioner Ward and seconded by Comnissioner Hughes that Resolution No. 193 be adopted recommending request for reclassification from K-1 to R-3 be granted for the following reasons: 1. That there is need for more R-3 property where there is greater lot area required. 2. That the property is completely surrounded on the west, north, east by property on which a conditional use permit was previously granted to the Roman Catholic Church for a parochial school and convent. 3. That all the property owners on the south side of Tamarack Avenue be- tween Pi0 Pic0 and Adams Street endorsed the granting of this reclassifica- tion. 4. There were no objections or protests. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Comissioners Davis, Kistler, Grant, Ward and NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hardwick Hughes . Resolution No. 193 adopted. 6- HEARINC - RECLASSIFICATION - Notice of hearing was read. of notice of hearing and the Request of Peter and Louise D. Aguilar for zone change from Zone R-3 (Multiple family residential) to C-2 (general commercial) on property located between Elm and Oak, more particularly described as a portion of Tract 115, Carlsbad bcre Tract according to a Map thereof No. 775 of the City of CarBsbad; said property beinn Tax Assessorts parcels 1,2.3 and 4 of Page 40, Book 35 of the Assessor's Map of San Dieio County. __ ~~ ~~ The Secretary certified as to publication taailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary then read the application, setting forth the reasons for request- ing the reclassification. There WAS one piece of correspondence on this matter. Letter dated January 21, 1961 frog; Lawrence C. Lockley stating that he and Mrs. Lockley own property directly across Elm Street from subject property and that they do not oppose this change of zone. The Secretary showed the Commission a precise plan for the use of the property as required within the zoning ordinance for translating a parcel from its present zone to the indicated potential zoning. E.W. DAWSON, Seacrest Estates, stated that he was interested in developing more than the Texaco Station and shopping center and would like to develop in a nice way. -3- MAYOR JANE C. SONNFMAN, P.O. Box 223, st2ted thzt she heartily approved the change in zone. JQSEPH P. SPANNO, 1240 Vuena Vista, stated that he thought it was one of the great things that could happen to Carlsbad, as the town sorely needed a modern shopping area and the resulting increase in revenue. C.J. HELTEBRIDLE, 1050 Pj. Hill, Oceanside, representing the Texas Co., stated that the Texas Co. needed a station in C,rlsbad, and that after much study by the company, they had concluded this location ideal. M. NESS, 3275 Meadowlark, stated that there are many things in this shopping area that Carlsbad needs and he thinks it will be a great boon to the town. NOREEN DAWSON, Seacrest Estates, stated that they had solicited some expert advice, Ted Robinson and Fred Elitchell, both having local and national repu- tations as planners for developments, and they feel this is one of the best sites available for this type of development. BRAULXO LOPEZ, 937 Oak AVEI., stated that he was in favor of the rezoning. THE REV. ROY D. BROKENSHIRE, P.O. Box 217, stated that he was in favor of the rezoning, that improvement of that area was long overdue. The public hearing was closed at 8:1& The Secretary pointed out that a public alley does exist on the westerly line of this property and improvement of the alley will have to be made according to Engineering Department plans and Specifications. Also that Oak St. is shown as a 60 ft. right of way but is actually an 80 ft. right of way, however the City Council is considering vacating 20 feet of Oak and any final improvement plans bordering Oak would have to coincide with the Oak Street development plans resulting from the vacation. The openings to Elm and Oak Streets would be subject to the Engineering Departments approval. There was some discussion among the Commissioners on this. A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Kistler that Resolution No. 194 be adopted approving the tentative precise plan subject to the following: 1. That the public alley on the westerly property line be improved according to the plans and specifications of the City Engineering Dept. 2. That all street openings in the final development Plan be $abject to the approval of the City Engineering Department. 3. That final improvement plans for the development of that portion of the subject property fronting on Oak St. be subject to the outcome of the pending vacation of a portion of Oak St. and recamnending the request for reclassificetion from R-3 to C-2 be granted for the following reasons: 1. This is the best use to which this land could be put. 2. There is a need for a shopping area and it is to the best interests of c the City of Carlsbad. 3. There were no protests or objections to it andmany people were in favor of it. The Chairman called for a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Conmissioners Davis, Kistler, Grant, Ward and NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hardwick. Hughes Resolution No. 194 adopted. 7- Old Busineq: .. There was no old business. 8- New Business: The subject of "panhandle8' or i*snorke18* lots wes discussed and it was the consensus of opinion that in some cases there was merit to these lots, however each case would have to be judged individually on its own merits. 9- Adjournment: By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted,