The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1963-06-11; Planning Commission; Minutesc I : CITY OF CARLSBAD I Minutes of: : Date of Meeting: i Time of Meeting: ; Place of Meeting: I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ! I I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, Warp, Grant, Ewald, Palmer, Jarvie and Sonneman. Also presat were City Attorney Stuart C. Wilson, Planning Technician! Uhland B. Melton and Secretary Price. I 1 : Davis APPROVAL OF MINUTES: i Ward i Grant (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of May 28 1963, : Ewald were approved as corrected. I Palmer : Jarvie WRITTEN COMMUNICATIGNS: There were no written communications. OIiAL COMMUNICATIONS: Sonneman I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I (a) There were no oral communications from the audience. (b) The Planning Technician reported that the Council i had approved the tGntative subdivision maps of Stella MariG i Estates and Chestnut Heights. The Council waived the : : curb, gutters, sidewalks and improvements on Chestnut i i Avenue upon the request by the engineer of Mr. Humphrey$. : The subdivider will be putting in all of the improvements ; i within the subdivision. He reported that the City is in the : : process of annexing approximately 620 acres of property ti, 1,; the south to the Batiquitos Lagoon, fronting the freeway. ; i PUBLIC HEARING: i RECLASSIFICATION - From Zone R-2 (Two-family i : Residential Zone) to Zone X-3 (Multiple-family Residentiat Zone); said reclassification being initiates by the City : : Planning Commission by Resolution of Intention No. 4 1 on i property lying east of Madison Street, between Chestnut : : Avenue and Palm Avenue, to the westerly right of way of i i State Freeway 101, being all of Block 44, Carlsbad ?town- : :site, Map775; Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,10andaportionofLotsI 7 and 11, Block C, Alles Avocado Acres, Resubdivision, i : Map 2027; and Lots 5,6,7 and 11, Map 2027 Block A, t Alles Avocado Acres, Resubdivision in the City of Carlsbip; i County of San Diego, , i The Secietary reviewed the Resolution of Intention and i : certified as to publication of notice of hearing.:-. He stated I jthere was no correspondence on this matter. I I The Chairman explained that this came about upon a I I : request for a change of zone on property on the southwesteb- ly corner of Harding and Palm Ave. The Planning Technician explained that at the time of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I 4 I I I 1 I : compiling the land use of the neighborhood on this particu-i i lar property, it was brought to his attention that there wert? ; several nonconforming uses and pointed out the property 04 Ithose who expressed a desire for the change of zone and of: ithose who had objected. :No one present spoke for or against this reclassification. I I * I I I I I * I I I I 1 4 I I :The public hearing was closed at 7:45 P. M. i The Flanning Technician reported that he had recommendep i that this change of zone be made and felt that the property : ;on the westerly side of Madison had good homes on the avekage i and should remain R-2 at the present time. I I I I I I I 1 I 8 I 6 I I I I I I I I I 8 4 I ! I * I I I I After due consideration, a motion was made approving i this change of zone from R-2 to R -3 for the following rea! sons : I I 1. That it is contiguous to R -3 zoning and will consti: tute an expansion of existing zoning. I 2. That it eliminates the existing nonconforming use$ that are present in that area. I 6 3. That'tt would be in the best interests of public necessity and convenience. I I 1 I * I I I I t 8 I 4. That it would be the best usage of the land and would be compatible with surrounding property. I I I I I I I 5. That such reclassification will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. I s Resolution No. 305. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBATj I I C~~~YOMMISSION RECGMMENDING ~ECL&S- PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, was unanimoG- ly adopted. l a * IFKCATION FROM R-2 TO R-3 OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED I 1 CLD BUSINESS: I I * I I I I , I I Discussion on side yard setbacks. The Secretary presented a proposed resolution of intentiob he had prepared from the Planning Technician's report. ; The Planning Technician explained that he had studied i several ordinances of other cities and a new one that is i being written for San Diego. He stated that he believed ; that 5' side yard setback on lots with 75' frontage was acceptable. He came up with a figure of l5+ setback on ; a corner or reversed corner lot. He wrote his report i and wished he had not written the report as he was in ; error in making it and wished he had only changed Sectio4s 503, 603, 703 and 803. He discussed Item 4 with the City: Attorney and he was told that he was increasing the set- i backs on a corner lot. The Chairman asked about removing the 10% from those i sections of the ordinance. The City Attorney stated this could be done but that they should have a cut off and have a minimum requirement. : The Planning Technician stated that all of the ordinances i that he reviewed had 5' setbacks up to 10 , 000 sq. ft. and i then they went to 6' setbacks. He pointed out that CarlsbaP has grading requirements, off -street parking, fairly nice! wide roads, and plenty of light and air that some other cities do not have. I I The Commission discussed having a different ordinance than other cities, and that existing 25'lots were here before the present zoning .ordinance was adopted, but that! property owners would not be allowed Lot splits now to : create 25' lots. Some of the Commission felt a 3 1/2' i . minimum side yard setback is too small and that it is not i needed. A reduction in percentage of the width was also ; dhcussed. The Secretary stated that the ordinance provides for a 2' : overhang of eaves and that with a 3 1/2' setback the eavei will be 3' apart from the building next door. He stated ; that the Building Inspector was present and could enlighteb the Commission regarding fire proof requirements on : placement of buildings. I I I I I I I I I , I I 1 I * I I I I I I I t I I I I I 1 f * I 0 * * I I :"""""""-"""""""""""""- 3- """ 1 Dick Ctsburn, City Building Inspector, stated that it is a i State law that the minimum distance between buildings be required depending on the fire zone. If the distance ; is within 9' in a "H" occupancy (Apartments, hotels and i motels) steel casement is required around the windows I with wire glass and you are required to have one hour : wall fire protection. A one foot parapet wall would be : required if buildings are located closer than 3' to proper& line, He pointed out that one of the biggest arguments : from those comiirg in for building permits is that properti owners do not feel they get to use enough of their land ; because of the present side yard and rear yard setbacks. i '. The land in the old original Garlsbad run every which wag and is all different size lots next to each other. People come in and want the same setbacks as their eiglibor, ; Most cities have a minimdm side yard setbac t of 5'. t I The Planning Techniciatl stated that the only time the set4 back would be less is if the lot is less than 50'. KAY KALICKA, P. C. Box 71, stated that he felt there : should be uniformity, as it is seldom two lots in a row arb the same width and he did not feel the man with a larger i lot area should have to have larger setbacks. * I There was a discussion of 5' setbacks on corner lots and! the Secretary pointed out this would cut down on the visiog at an intersection. Gn a corner lot the narrow part is : considered the front of the lot. MR. KALICKA stated that the people have a phobia here for open areas. In Newport Beach they have no light and ; air control, Oceanside only requires. 15' fron yard setba$k and Carlsbad has a 20' front yard setback. Most of the : ordinance has been enacted on a personal basis and feels I the Commission should analyee this and do what is best : for the City. He has deed restrictions on his subdivisioni. The distance between houses on most of his subdivisions : is 15' between two houses, and the eaves are usually 2 l/+'. The BuiLding Inspector stated that you can only use 40% of the lot area in an R-1 zone and 60% in an R-3 zone. Most of the difficulties that arise are when a man comes with a long and narrow lot. The Planning Technician presented an amendment to the Ordinance of San Diego. They have a 5' setback on 6,004 sq. ft. lots and 6' on 10,000 sq. ft. lots. San Diago and ; some other cities use a tabte as a guide for setbacks. €34 stated that he made a table for the County and they use : this guide. I I Commissioner Davis stated that this is what he had been I trying to get for several months but has not been able to : get the recommendations of other cities. * I Commissioner Palmer stated that he had in mind lots no i smaller than 50' should be 6' as this would separate the : distance between the overhang of the eaves by two feet. He suggested continuing this to the next meeting and havidg the Planning Technician prepare a table, after a more i thorough study is made for the R-I, R-2, R-3 and R-P zcfnes, for minimum side yard setbacks, minimum rear yard : setbacks and lot coverage; not the frontage, in order to i reduce the requests for variances and to have a standard i equitable requirement. I a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I $ I i I I I I 4 I I I I 1 I' ! I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I (""""."""""""""""""""".."""""""""~""""" l I -4 - Commissioner Davis stated that he felt R-I setbacks : should not be the same as R -2 and R-3, : The Chairman asked the PlanniEpg Technician to come back with new recommendations and to disregard his : other recommendations . I I I : ADJOURNMENT: I 1 i By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9:16 P I Respectfully submitted, 1 I lc\u I .- : J. H. PRICE Secretary I I I I I I I I * 4 4 I I I I I I * I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I i I I I I I 1 I t I * I I I I I I * I M!. I I I I I i I I I I I I I t 1 6 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I t e i i * I I 1 k I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I ! i t I 1 I 1 1 1 k 1 * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t * t I I I I