HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-01-22; Planning Commission; MinutesI : CITY OF CARLSBAD I I
FLANNING COMMISSICN I 1 : Date of Meeting: Jancary 22, 1963
I I
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting: 7:30 F. M. Council Chambers
ROLL CALL was antswered by Commissioners Davis,
Ward, Ewald, Palmer Jarvie and Sonneman. Also present were Planning Technician Uhland B. Melton I I and Secretary Price. Commissioner Grant was absent. i
!
I I I
APPROVAL CF MINUTES: : Davis *l,Il. Id - i i :x; f Ward : ; ;xi ; (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of January 8,1963,; Ewald i ; :x; : i
were approved as submitted. : Falmer : ixix! : i Jarvie ;:;+ 7 ; ; I1 ; WRITTEN COMMUNICATICNS: : Sonneman :x; :xi ; ;
I :!'I!!
Letter dated January 17, 1963, from the San Diego Flanning Department with a map, stating they are in the
final stages of revising the San Mego County Master I I
Flan of Major ind Secondary Highways and they wislied I
.ti, hoperate with tke City in coorc?tr:&ips the Foutes and i streets.
The Planning Technician stated this is in answer to a :
request he made at the Council and that he and the City
Engineer will review this map and report to the Comis- :
sion at the next regular meeting. The County will coordi {
nate their street with the City's Master Plan. Their I I design is based on residential use only and does not include commercial or industrial areas.
I I I
I I 1 I I
.. . - .*
1 I I I I I
There were no oral communications.
PUBLIC HEARING C0NTINWED
I I I I I I 1 8 I t VARIANCE - For reduction in front footage on two :
lots from 90' to 0' in order to create a lot split on prop-
erty on the northerly side of Alder Avenue and easterly :
of Skyline Drive more particularly described as a par - i tion of Carlsbad Highlands, Lot 7, Map 2647 X .C. S. 3558, in the City of Carlsbad. Applicants: Lorin and i 3lga Goodin.
Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as t
to publication of notice cf hearing and the mailing of I I notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary : then read the application setting forth the reasons for i
requesting this variance. I I
Memorandum from the City Attorney, dated January 4, 3 1963 - re: Proposed variance of Lorin and Clga Goodin, ; recommending that this variance be denied in view of the : fact that this variance is contrary to the Carlsbad High- lands deed restrictions and contrary to the City's policy i allowing panhandle lots, I I
* I
I I * 1 I
I 1 I
I
There were no other comrnunicationa.
LGRIN 2. GOODIN, 3815 Alder Avenue, stated that they bought this Lot before the City was incorporated. They i have some avocado trees on the property, but it is too ;
much for them to take care of and they would like to split i the property to make two lots. I I
MRS. GOCDIN stated that at the time they bought the property, people could build on an easement. Several i years later, a law was passed that property owners could: not build on an easement and it left them with 1 1/3 acres!
of land. The property just stands there and it is too muc4 for one family to take care of.
No one present spoke in opposition.
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1
I The Secretary exptained that according to the application, they wished to split the property to make three lots. The : two lots in the back would be in excess of 15,000 sq. ft. , i which requires a minimum frontage of 90l and there is : only a 20' easement from these two lots in the rear to i
Alder Avenue. I I
MR. GOODIN stated that the 20' easement would be deeded i
to the property in the rear. I I
The Planning Technician stated that he has made an ex- i tensive study of "panhandles" and has discussed this with : El Cajon and other cities, and in the future it may be necessary to have two lot splits on a "Panhandle". The ; City should not be so bound by law as to get into a "straight jacket", if we can stay within the covenant that
says no parcel shall be less than 20,000 sq. ft. The Gty i
also has a policy, and he has made a block study of this :
area and there is no other way to get to this back propertyi
except this way. The adjacent property has been split. :
This is a huge piece of land for a City lot and it is pos- i
sible to split this lot into two Lots and to have a panhandle : to the back lot from Alder Avenue, and still be within the i restrictions of the covenant of the Carlsbad Highlands. :
After due Consideration it was agreed that the request for : a reduction in front footage on two lots from 90' to 0' in i order to create a lot split be denied for the following 4 8 reasons: I I
1. That it is against Ordinance 9050 to create a lot i without frontage, and a three lot split would be in abroga- : tion to the Carlsbad Highland deed restrictions in that I they would wntain less than 20,000 sq. ft.
It was agreed that a 'lpanhandle'' lot split be granted to the:
applicauts with the "panhandle" lying parallel with and
contiguous to the easterly property line of said lot 7 and i
not to exceed a length of 150'. Neither of the two lots ;
created, as a result of this lot split, shall be less than :
20,000 sq . ft. in area, and the area of the "panhandle" lot i shall be computed without considering the area contained i in the'kanhandle''. The "panhandle" of the lot so created : shall be not less than 20' in width, and the driveway in the! "panhandle" shall be not less than 14' wide and of 2" thick;
asphaltic concrete paving on proper base to prevent
nuisances from dust and mud, That no structures of any i kind shaLL be erected in the "panhandle" portion of the lot i
so created. That a variance for a "panhandle" lot split : with a "panhandle" to be not less than 20' in width and 150'; in length be granted for the following reasons: I 8
I
I
t
I 8 I
I 4 I
r 8
4
8
I 1 I I
I I
I
1. That the granting of such a lot split woutd not i ti;:;; i:::;: ::I:;:
i the only possible way to create such a lot. * I ::,:I: pi:;; ;:::::
;!:';: :ii;
I abrogate the deed restrictions of the Carlsbad Highlands. i : 2, That it would open up a highly desirable building ; :i;:;: i site in keeping with the deed restrictions, and that this is i :a;::: 1)
: affect the comprehensive general plan. 9 I :::;;:
I ;;#I1:
!to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone i ::;Ill :I,:;: :in which the property is located, I 5. There were no protests.
3, That the grauting of such variance wilt not advend).
4. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious i
I
b ;:::I: 8 I I 1 * * #I:;!; ::p:
I That the tot split be surveyed and monumented, and street! 1:;::: :iwovements constructed in Alder Avenue, in accordance: :with Ordinance No. 9136,
/Resolution No. 280. A RESOLUTXCN OF THE CARLSBADI Ward i : :xi : i ; ~PMMISSION GRANTING A TANHAND@?' Ewald i ; ; IL )T SPLIT ON LOT 7, FORTION OF CARLSBAD HIGH- i Palmer :xi : 1 !L \NDS, MAP 2647, R.C.S.3558,IN THE CITY OF ; Jarvie i ; i : ': i CARLSBAD, was adopted. i Sonnemanixi I x: ; ;
I 4 I ;*/;;
1 t!a:!l
::;:;:
:I I I I :y:i:
I : Davis : !x+: i i
'I
b I @I:*
I I
-3 -
1 I I
I
# :"""""""""~""""""""""-""""""~""~"""""*"""~-
~TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - E-KA KNOLLS 4 I
I I
1 I
!Chairman Ewald excused himself from the "Chair" and i
!Vice-chairman Ward took over the meeting for the tents- ; jtive map since Chairman Ewald is the subdivider.
:The Secretary certified to the mailing of notices to adjam
:cent property owners and then read the recommendations : :from the various departments and agencies.
!The Secretary then read proposed Resolution No. 279 (:incorporating the recommendations of the various depart-
:rnents and agencies as conditions for approving the tenta- I jtive map. I I
;Commissioner Sonneman referred to item 17 and asked if 3' :there would be any extraordinary drainage problems and i
:the City Engineer stated that they did not anticipate any :
:unusual drainage problems and they will be checked out :with the improvement plans. I I
jGUSTAV J. KAMPTNER , 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard,
:stated that he had prepared the map and reported that the i
jsubdivider would like item No. 7 changed. It was imposs-:
:ibLe to get 70' frontage; due to the condition of the land 58' i
:is alL that is Left. They would like this reworded or waived;
{due to a time eLement, the subdivider is committed to a i j loan problem . I I
;The Planning Technician explained the block study and feLt I :the request by the City Engineer was reasonable. The Ci~ :Attorney voiced her opinion that there should be a request : :for a variance submitted, but had made no written request.:
:The Secretary stated the City Attorney bad ruled the Corn-!
!mission has been handling these matters improperly in the I
:past and substandard items should be handLed separately bx !application for a variance, and submitted at the time of :filing the tentative map; both could be handled simultaneoui- jly. He pointed out that this was a tentative resolution and i :the subdivider was not given notice at the time of filing the ;
:subdivision map. The minimum frontage is 60' on an inter!or
:lot and 70' on a corner Lot. I *
:RUSSELL COLEMAN, 1231 Basswood Street stated that
bhe rear of his lot faces this property and he is happy with i lthe job the Commission are doing. He does not see any ; :way this property could be used to a better use.
:It was agreed that Item No. 7 should be rephrased to :approve Lot 1 with a 58' frontage.
iRiie;'solution No. 279. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD I Ward :CITYOMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE I
!TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP OF EUREKA KNOLLS, ;
:was adopted. 8
short recess was calLed at 9:OO. Reconvened at 9:13 P.4
I I I * I I
1 I I I b 8 I
I I
I b I
I I
I 8 I I I
I I I
* I
I t
I I
8 I f 1 t
I I 4 I
I I
I : Davis
t I 1
l
~PUBLIC HEARING: I I 1
I I v
RECLASSIFICATION - From zone R-A-10,000 sq.ft. i ((Residential AgriculturaL) to R-1-7500 sq. ft. (one-family : !Residential Zone) on property located on the Northerly side:
!of Basswood Avenue between Canon Street and Donna Drive:
:said property being a portion VI. l/t Sec. 32, CarLsbad !Lands, Tract 124, Map 1661, R.O.S. 1709 in the City of t
;CarLsbad. Applicant: Maureen McInerny Rorick.
!Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as to i :publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices :
!to property owners in the area. The Secretary then read t !the application settlng forth the reasons for requesting this!
;zone reclassification. The Secretary reported there was 3
I I I I I
I I
f * $ I I
I I I I I
c
Ismall portion of Land which was not included in an engin- i jeering survey which was owned by Nicholas J.G. Mdnerny : : 3180 Falcon Drive, and he has signed the application for
jthis change of zone, requesting their property be included, :
:The Flanning Technician explained the location of this !property on a Large map and the zoning and explained Ithat there are some steep grades there.
iThe Secretary reported that Mr. Xorick had intended to i :attend the meeting but was unexpectedly called out of town.:
:GEORGE GEIGER, Attorney at Law in Oceanside, stated i that he lives at 3199 Falcon Hiils and represented him - :
self and was not at the meeting to protest the application, i
!but had a number of questions to ask. He qystio d the 1
lnumber of trees that would have to be remov&$%%& if i jthe Lot area is reduced from 10,000 sq. ft. to 7500 sq. i :ft. and felt an effort should be made to preserve the I
:natural beauty of the eucalyptus grove. He asked what ! :attempt had been made to graduate the lot sizes as he 1 {felt the small size lots should not abut the larger size :Lots where there are expensive custom built homes, as the! !smaller size lots are likely to have "tract type" homes i
:on them which would attract young couples with children ; !and increase the traffic which would be too heavy for the !present streets. He questioned the number of power poles; :TV antennas, the sewers and sidewalks, the extension of i : Donna Drive. I 6
: J. E. JARDINE, 3301 Belle Lane stated that his remarks i :and questions would follow closely to Mr. Geiger's i remarks. His home is approximately 1700 sq. ft. and
:believes it is too Large for their 7500 sq. ft. lot. When he!
jpurchased his lot, it was his understanding that this por - ;
:tion of the forest would be developed into "estate size"
:lots. The grove was part of their decision to buy their :home, He felt an effort should be made to preserve the !natural beauty of the forest. In his own personal opinion, ; :he felt that 7500 sq. ft. is too smaLL and that if the forest i
jis destroyed for Lesser square footage, it will be detri- ;
:mental to adjacent and surrounding property.
:G. W. ELLIOT, 3305 Belle Lane, stated that he came !from San Diego and is new to Carlsbad and is in love with : :the forest. He asked if the City has any plan to save some! i section of the forest. : 4, I
The Chairman stated that an attempt was made by the City :
:to purchase it several years ago but it was considered too i Large a project. I I f !CARL MILLER, 2035 Basswood registered his opposition i :to this reclassification and asked if the Commission could stipulate that a certain number of trees be Left on the lots ; :He stated that he is concerned with a low spot just bediire i i reaching Monroe and Bassw wd.
I I
I I I I I I t I 4 I t I 1 t
I I
I I
I 4 I
I I
I t
I I I I
I I
I b I a 4
I I I
.- A. . . , e: ... ..:' .*. .) .. , . _.... ' ..* x- *
t
I *
I I I I I I I
4 I The Chairman informed him they would not be able to stipulate the number of trees to be left on the lots as it is 3
private property,
i MRS. PRESCCTT, 3303 Belle Lane, stated that she was i : speaking for her husband who is in Okinawa in the service I i and when they bought their property, they had an ocean : i view and the forest was there. They had an ocean viBw ; until the Women's Club put in a dome on their .Clubhouse. f; She felt if they kept the 10,000 sq. ft. Lot area, some of i the trees would be retained.
i DOUGLAS HASSELO, 3482 Donna Drive stated that he 3 i recently purchased property on Basswood and plans to i ; build a home and swimming pool the This property ; i would be backed up to a small lot an P IS definitely against i : this rezoning .
1 I I * I I
b i t I I I
I I I I I
I I
i I '. ' I f I -5-
I I Name '%
I ; of
I : Member
: Others opposed to this reclassification because they felt
~"""""""""""-""""""-""~~"""""~""""""""""""~""~""".
i the property is far too valuable to be zoned 7500 sq. ft. : lots and that 7500 sq. ft. lots are too small for this area : : were: I I
9 ',
I I
I
I
* I I I
1 t I b I I * *
BILL O'MEARk, 20511 Basswood Avenue, Carlsbad I MRS. ELOISE MOSS, 3302 Belle Lane, Carlsbad : NANCY McCLYNN, 3420 Donna Drive, Carlsbad WM. HUXMAN, 3300 Belle Lane, Carlsbad I : DAVID FREISTADT, 3325 Seacrest Drive, Carlsbad, i stated that he is associated with the Avocado Industry i : and questioned the amount of land that will be considered ; i for a cut-de-sac.
i The Chairman stated that the Commission is not consid- :
i ering a subdivision, but are considering a reclassificationf
i MR. FREISTADT voiced his protest for having 5 houses I i per acre in this area and the Lower size of lots will re- I : duce the value of homes already constructed there. I
; MR. GEIGER stated this is an area of Carlsbad of I scenic beauty. At the time he purchased his property, he i : was informed this property would ultimately be sold but i would have 10,000 sq. ft. lots and that the area would re- i main intrinsicly unchanged, and now they are confronted : ; with an inexpensive tract and he is concerned and upset i : over this turn of events. * t
I 6 i
I I I I I
I 1
I I t
I I t
I I I I I
1 1 : MRS. MOSS asked if their protests should be in writing i and the Chairman stated tbAk it is a part of the minutes.
i MR. JARDINE inquired about the attorney's questions.
{ The Chairman repeated that a subdivision is not before thc Commission, just a reclassification and there are Subdivi sion Ordinances available at the City HalL which state the : provisions that are required for sidewalks, street improv i rnents, landscaping and sewers in subdivisions.
i The public hearing was closed at 1 O:05 P. M.
I I
t I
I f
I
I I
I I
I I
I k-
8 6 I
I 8 i The Planning Technician stated he did not know what the : subdivision will be, but he has made an extensive study of i
:the area and had made a layout himself for a subdivision, i i showing the cul-de-sac and streets. He stated that in his : : opinion, the people who inquired about the subdivision i i should be answered.
i The Chairman repeated that the Commission are only
:considering a reclassification and cannot consider two i i things at the same time.
:It was pointed out that they might be able to have larger : I lots in the upper portion and smaller lots in the lower i !part, and there never is a guarantee of a view lot as a ; person can plant a row of popular trees and cut off a view.:
:The Planning Technician brought forth a map from the I
!Engineering Department and explained the Elm Street
:axtension to %1 Camino Real as shown on the Master Plan.! :The Engineers feel this is the only feasible route, and the Z :route will cross part of this property. Elm Street will w{ jneed greater requirements and few streets should connect : :to Elm. He stated that it is his opinion that Monroe should i be the only street tying in with Elm within the reclassi- i i fication. It has been known for many years that Elm * Street is slated to go through Falcon Wills. The tqmgra-! : phy indicates there wiL1 be very few iots that will be 7500 : sq. ft. and most of them will be 9,000 sq, ft. if developed) Within the next 4 years only a certain portion can be I I i developed, as there is no way of connecting to the sewer I I without extensive cost to the developer. There is uswlly : ; about 30% a€ the area used €or streets and cul-de-sacs i
I 1 b I 1 I t
I I
I I
8 I I
I I I
I I
I I
6 I I I
I 9 b !
I \,\'%*. I I I
I I 8, '.,'', 'I,'"'', I
I I : of '*%$', '8 :
1 I I ',, '\ '*\ , \ * \' I
t 1 ,\ **' I I , 8, \> ', '\ '%
I I I -6 - N a me '*, *\*e& *',:?& i
I
I Member .*a ,d$*\9 .p',.t'*, Q,, ; ;""~""""""""-""""""""""""""~~~"""-.~"""-"""~;""-"-""""-- "",""
:and they never could have 5 houses to an acre and would i :::::,
;probably not have more than 100 houses in this area. A : :::;,I
:large percent of the trees will have to be removed when I
ithis property is built upon. 1
!The Commission felt the applicant or his representative i jshould have been present for the hearing.
:The Secretary advised the Commission that if they so ;decided, by proper motion the public hearing could be re- jopened and continued, in view of the fact that the proceed- : Iings had not been interrupted and that all o€ the protestanti :were still present in the audience when the time and place i
:of the adjourned meeting was announced, and none of the : Davis
iprotestants had left the audience. : Ward
I EwaLd !It was agreed that the public hearing on this reclassifica-
:tion be reopened and continued to the next reguLar meeting
[OLD BUSINESS:
I I I1
1::::
!:;::I $!;;;
t I I ::ti::
I1
I
I I t I I I I
I I
I
ion Wednesday, February 13, 1963, at 7:30 P,M.
I I I I I
I I I !It was agreed that the Planning Commission should adjourn!
$he meeting to Tuesday, February 29, 1963, at 7 o'clock ; !P.M. in order to clear up some of the old business.
!The Secretary presented copies of a Resolution of Intention: $e had pregared for an R-1-4,000 sq. ft. zone to the I I
;Comrnis sion to study
!The Secretary was instructed to notify Commissioner
Grant of the adjourned meeting and to enclose a copy of :
$he Resolution of Intention. I I
t I 1 I I I t
I I I I
I I I
I I
I I 9 I I I
1 I
~DJOURNMENT:
I
I By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P. M<
Bespectfully submitted,
I I * I '18:
I I ii:;;;
a I 1; :!!;
4 I *liII;
I I :;i!::
I I I ::;::: I:+;
1 I I ::I:::
I 0 I :::i;i
1 'b
1
I 11
I 1)
I I I I
I I
t I
I 0 I I I I * 1 I I I I
I I
I 0 I I
0 I t I I I I I I * 0
I
I I
I I I I I 9 4 * I I I I I , t I
b 0 I
I
I 4 I *
I * I I
I I
I I I I I I 4 I
4 I I I I I I I I I I I
I b 1 * t I
I I t I I
I I I 1 I I
I t I
I I
I * I t
I t
I t
I
1
1 I I I I
4 * I I I
I
I
I I b I I
I
I 1 I
b I
, I
b