The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1963-07-09; Planning Commission; MinutesI 1 -, I i CITY CF CARLSBAD I Minutes of: : Date of Meeting: I Time sf Meeting: : Place of Meeting: i ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis I was, : Attorney Stuart C . Wilson, and Planning Technician I I i Uhland B. Melton. ! Davis Palmer, Jarvie and Sonnernan. Also present were City I # Ward I Jarvie i were approved a6 submitted. I :WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: i There were no written communications other than than i what was on the agenda. APPROVAL CF MINUTES: : Palmer (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of June 25, 1963, I Soaneman , I I I I I I I s I I * t I * I * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I ! I i (a) There were no oral communications from the audi-1 ence. I I I I I ! (b) The Planning Technician reported that there were i two reclassifications the Council concurred with the Plan-! I ning Commission. Cine was from R-2 to R-3 between * i Madison and the U. 5. 101 Freeway and Palm and Chest- : property from R-1 to R-3 on Chinquapin .bd its second i i reading, The Council took no action and filed the letter ; ; regarding the vacation of a portion of Ocean Street. !Commissioner Grant was present at 7:36 P. M. - i nut, and the reclassification of the Jeffers and Duros I I I * I f I I f I f I .- - I I I I I I I I : PUBLIC HEARING; continued i RECLASSIFICATION - To consider an application for i i change of zone from R-1 (Residential) to R-3 (Multiple- : : family Residential) on property located on the southwest i i corner of the intersection of Chestnut Ave. , and Monroe ; : St. , said property being Portion of Thum Lands, Tract i 250 Map 1681 in the City of Carlsbad, being a portion of ; : Parcel 8, Book 205, Page 230, of the Assessor's Map of i I San Diego County. Owner: Henery Hildabolt. I f I I I The notice of hearing was read. The Acting Secretary ; certified as to publication in the local newspaper and read : i the application stating there were 5 property owners who ; had signed the application in favor of this reclasarification.I Chairman Palmer asked for the applica'ht or his respre- i sentative to speak. .* f I I f I b 8 I I I I I t I I I f I OAKLEY PARKER, 268 E. 16th St., Costa Mesa, Calif., ! stated that he proposes to build multiple dwellings on individual lots which will be 3 or 4 unit buildings on separi ate tots to sell to people who want living units plus rental I units. 'm front unit will be 1250 sq.ft. with 2 bedrooms: for the owner, and the rear apartments will be 900 or : 1,000 sq. ft. Each unit will have a private patio or balcond. They probably would not all be built at once. I I I I I f I I I I I 1 : No one else spoke in favor of this reclassification. .I I l"tl* :;i:t: :;I::: !I!!:! ,I ; wished. I f * 1 ! KATHRYN EINUM, 3820 Monroe Street stated that she wai i opposed to multiple units being built at this location betwe4n : the high school and the elementary school because of i traffic hazzards. They bought their home with tho under- i : standing that it would remain R-1 and did not want it to ; I become a congested area. She felt that the Magnolia Stree? school is already crowded from the impact of children frow : ~~2jdqy Manor. She asked the Commission to protect all i i of their homes and children. I t I I I -2 - .. b I * 1 I 1 I I * 1 I I I I I 4 , I , I I I I I I 8 !"""""""""""~"""""""-" I The following registered objection to this reclassification : on the same grounds as Mrs. Einurn: I I Mr. Moffat, 3840 Park Drive Chas. Brock, 3615 Marjorie Lane t I Grace Thacker, 3810 Park Drive Hollis Lintt , 2040 Chestnut kve, Mrs. Newport, 2020 Karen Lane W. Vir Watkins I 2044 Chestnut Ave. Mrs. Rose Wade, 4050 Sunnyhill Drive Mrs. Nsel Gregory I 2025 Karen Lane Regina ToUenaar , 1885 Chestnut Ave. Naomi Jane Sholt, Westhaven Drive Ann Sohnson, 4065 Sunnyhill Drive Mrs. R. PT. Moffat, 3840 Fark Drive Mr s . Douglas N. Thomas, 1790 Magnolia Ave . Mrs. L. C. Cassada, 2020 Chestnut Ave. Mrs. Hollis Lintt, 2040 Chestnut Ave. Mrs. W. VI. VJatkins, 2044 Chestnut Ave. I I * I I 4 * t I t I I I 8 I I I I I * 4 * * I t 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I t 1 I t I 8 I I I 8 I I 8 The following also registered objection on the same grounds as Mrs. Einum: Larry Cassada, 2020 Chestnut Ave. pointed out that no architectural drawings were presented. P. J. Folz, 2055 Chestnut Ave. , s ted that he was definitely opposed to this zoning as elt it might be a fore; runner for a service station or other business. Mrs. Chas. Block, 361 5 Marjorie Lane stated that she has a nice view now and was afraid the view will be cut off I I I I I I 1 9 I # a In rebuttal, JOHN E. PATTERSCN, attorney in Oceanside stated that he has lived in Carlsbad since 1944 and repre- sented the Hildabolts and Mr. Parker on this matter, and presented an architectural rendering -.of the proposed units He stated that his parents live east of this property and he passes by this property frequently. He called attention to the size of the houses that have been built west of this property and stated that he felt they have reduced the property values m*re than multiple units would. This I piece of land is being purchased at a high price and there i is a substantial amount of money involved, and the change : * I , of zone is necessary in order to- make this pay. He called! attention to the fact that the height limitation is only 35 ; : feet,and that he believed it is the duty of the Commission , ;to allow the owner to make the best usage of the property ; as long as it does not detract from the value or appearancd i of the property. I 4 I* I 6 I 1 I MR. PARKEX stated that he was willing to answer any ; i questions and there would be plenty of off-street parking { ; which will eliminate a lot of cars in front of the buildings. : : Each unit will be fenced and the clothes drying areas will tje i fenced so thare will be complete privacy. Theyplan to put : i in an attractive development otherwise it will not be feasi: ; ble. They plan that part of the building on each lot will be: i two stories but tha#. it will not be a box affair. t I i MRS. HILDABOLT stated that she is the owner of the land! ; and they are just as concerned as the other property ownets i as they plan to continue living there. She felt this would 3 ; be a great improvement to the area as each section will be: : enclosed and it won't be necessary to view clothes on the : I trash and cigarets on this property. I I ; The public hearing was closed at 8:13 P. M. i I I I I line every day as they do now Children have been throw& 1 I I L I I 1 8 I I 1 I I * I ! * I ! -3- .. I I I, ,' \ s. I I I I I I \ \' I I I '\ '+, ', ',,'.' I I I Name '~,'8!8$,'b\~~~+, I I .$s& +;?,$ i 1 I I I I 8. '\ *, '\ '\,", I I ; of 8.+ 0' ~""""""""""""""""-""""""~"""""""""""""""~l""~."""""" 11 --*--:-2--- 1; ;: I I ::::;; #::;I; 11 ;I;;:; 4:;:; 1 ::;I:; I I t I ;I:;:; :::I:: :::;:: '\\\' I 8' '\\\ I I , 8 '\ Member $$P,$+O d,~ I I The Flanhing Technician explained the location of the i property and the streets involved. He stated that the type! i of zoning is far superior in regards to the uses than OUT ; ; R -3 zonitig aLlow s . I I ;;I:': htte9tion was called to the City map dated Oct. 16, 1956 i e;~l;l : which showed the zoning on Monroe Street between Bass- f ::;;(I i wood and Chestnut to be R -1 with R -3 potential at that timb, I::;:: ; but the potential was later removed from all zones. I I ;*Ill; I I l!!l!l I' 1) I I : On being questioned Mr. Parker stated that he proposes i to have 15 lots with a cul-de-sac and that the lots would b4 : approximately 60' by 100'. I I : The Commission and the City Attorney discussed the size ! i of the lots as R-3 zoning indicates 6,000 sq. ft, lots and i i the map indicates that Lots east of the freeway have 7500 : : sc,. ft. minimum. Conditions and precise plans were also i I discussed. I I i Upon being questioned Mr. Patterson stated that it was ; : their idea to develop this property into R -3- 6,000 sq. ft. I lots and build on $%em. If the lots are 7500 sq. ft. they : : would only be able to have 12; if 6 000 sq ft. they could i have 15 lots. I The Planning Technician reported that they already have i i a tentative subdivision map drawn up, but he had advised i 1 t5ern it would be necessary to rezone the property first. : 1 lhere is about 2 1/2 acres of property. I I 1 e l I I I 1 I I * e l I I I 1 I I The Commission discussed whther this would be setting a i i;#~;j !!::!! I 1 precedence and attention was called to the duplexes on : Jefferson Street that were built with the intention of sellink them. Commissioner Sonneman asked if they were going to use 41 this @xoperty for 3-3 at this time and if they will use thisjfor other usage later. MR. PARKER stated that they wouLd use 211 of the proper$ for R-3. I I " 1 I I I t I I I I i i Commissianer Davis believed it would be an improvement! ; to the area but believes it should be a special zone. He ; f asked if they could hold this in abeyance and if it would 1 speed this up to have the applicant put in a precise plan. 0 I 1 The City-mmty stated that the lot size could be stipulated .I and suggested that the applicant be asked if he wished to ; : request this hearing be continued in order to present pre-i cise plans. I I :I ?: MR. PATTERSON stated that they would like to cooperate: a: with the Commission but this matter was set a month ago i i i and by some mistake that was not their fault the hearing ; ' : had to be continued and they would like a decision as they I . ; have a lot of time and money invested in this and they have I 1 e ,, I - " ; no objection to R-3 -7500 sq. ft. I 41 A motion was made recommending approvar of this reclask- i ification from R-1 to R-3-7500 sq. ft. for the following e ; : reasons: I I ,I ; 1. That the property is across .fm&usy expanding , i high school and that it is at an intersection with 4-way st& 1 I I * : signs on it. I 2. That property is near other R-3 property on : Monroe Street. I I I * .I I I I I 1 e I I I I I I t I t I I I * I l e I I I 1 4 1. " -4 - I I I I I *.x' 8 I. I I I I I I I I ' 88 I I I I %, '\\,, '8, 888'88 I i N a me '8 '$Sp, 8,' ,@+ i I I '.$2+. +,++. : I 3. That the property was formerly zoned R-1 with I :;;::: I 4. That it is the best use of this particular land nod- I '8, '3 '\ '8 '888', I I '*, "\ '\, 'b,, 8,8> I I I I : of ~""""~"""""~"~""""""""*"""""""""""""""~"";""""""""-"""~"-- ; Member 8$f$$\+'08$h4 1;:s;: i potential R -3 on the City Map dated October 16, 1956. : '8 Y'O , I I I I I ;tlaal 81 I I I I I i wise. i Davis I ; Ward I I I I Chairman Palmer appointed a committee with Commissio)ler : Davis as Chairman and Commissioner Grant, the City : Attorney and the Planning Technician to study R-3 zoning: : with more restrictive permitted uses. 1 I 4 :ll' 11 I:#;#; I I :I I I 1::::: '81 1- I I p::: 1;:;;; i VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in side yard set-! : backs from 9' to 5' and reduction in rear yard setback w+ ;::: i from 18' to 10' on property Located on the south side of : 1tl:8; ii:;:: ; Cak between Harding Street and U. S. 101 Freeway, at 951 1,~I:l I Gak Ave., being portion of Lot 1, Carlsbad Lands Subdi-: ;l:ll~ 1::::: : vision, Tracts 114 and 120, Map 1744 in the City of Garld- :;q: : 9 bad; Assessor's Parcel 6, Book 204, Page 040 of the I ip;;: ; Assessor's Map of San Diego County. Owner: Joe M. i 1s: i Apodaca. i The notice of hearing was read and the Acting Secretary : ; certified to the proper notficiation to property owners in ; i the area, and then read the application. I There were no written communications. i The Chairman asked the applicant or his representative PUBLIC HEARING; continued I I' I #I I 1 :::;:; I I ::::;; 1;:;:: I I :;:;:: I I :;:::: lb I i::;:; I I I '8:;:; ;: ;:ii:: to speak. 1 I :il;;; :I1* I :'*l*l HENRY DILLARD, 975 Oak Avenue, stated that these set4 ;::;:; I:;*;; i backs would allow better parking and a better place for i !::{I; : people to turn around. : No one present spoke in opposition. I The public hearing was closed at 9:20 P. M. I I 'I,':, The Planning Technician explained the location of the I ~11'1; : property and that a unit exists exactly Like this across : ':I:;; i the street. This will be a two-story building, and will be! ;I1 1::::: i near a proposed shopping center. I ::;::; I 1'4;: A motion was made granting this request for the followi+ :ii::: reasons: ::::I: 4 I : i:::1; ;::;:' I,:l:b I I I I I I I ? I :i;i:: I # I i;:::i I. 9 ::I::: I I I 1;::;: iq;; It1 I :;::I: :;I::: I I I tl* I I I I lla:;; I I I :::;:I I 1 . That granting a reduction in side and rear yard ; I i setbacks will not be granting special privileges which are: not already granted in the same vicinity and zone. * I I I I I I I 4 2. That the granting of such variance will not be ; : in which the property is located. I I 3. That the granting of such variance will not advers+ly I materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious I the property or improvements in such vincinity and zone ; I I I 1 I I affect the comprehensive general plan. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. .. -5- l I I 1 I 1 4 I I I * I I I ; A recess was called at 9:24. Reconvened at 9:34 P. M. : I PUBLIC HEARING: I I 1 e b * $ I I VARIANCE - To consider an increase in building height : from 35' to 40' on property Located on the southeast corn@ i of Carlsbad Blvd. and Cedar Ave. , being a portion of Blkj : 10, Carlsbad Townsite, Map 775, in the City of Carlsbad;: i Assessor's Parcel 203-173-1. Owners: B.M. and C. F.! i Christiansen. i The notice of hearing was read and the Acting Secretary ! ; certified to the proper notification to property owners in i i the area, and then read the application. i There were no written communications. I e I I I I I I e l I I b I I I * ARTHUR D. ALLARD stated that he is one of the archi- ; tects that designed the buildings. He presented photographs and architectural renderings of the proposed Bavarian : : Village and stated that one of the reasons they asked for I i this was to get the steep pitch for the design of the roof ; 1 to accomplish the feeling they desire. I I ! No one present spoke in opposition. b : It was pointed out that they already have buildings in the I area with over 40' height and that it goes along with the : ; general plan. 6 ! 8 : A motion was made that this request for a variance be * 6 I I ,- 1 e I I granted for the following reasons: I I I * I 1 I I 1. That such variance is necessary for the preservaj I tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right possesspd ; by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which! i is denied to the property in question. I I 4 I I I I I 2. That the height will be in line with other buildings ! : in the area. I I " I I D I I I I 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimentar to the public welfare or injurious i ! to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zon4 i in which the property is located. I I I I I I I 4. That it would be in the best interests of public ! ; necessity and convenience. * i Davis I I : PUBLIC HEARING: I I : VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in side yard set-! i backs from 7' to 5' and reduction in rear yard setback : ; from 14' to 5' on property located on the east side of Pi0 I Pic0 Dr. , between Palm Ave. , and Magnolia Ave. , at 3640 Pi0 Pic0 Dr. being portion of Lot 12 Block B, Avocado i AcresI Resub. Map 2027 of the City of Carlsbad; San Die$o : County Assessor's Parcel 204-222-4. Owner: Robert P.; I Jones. i The notice of hearing was read and the Ading Secretary : : certified to the proper notification to property owners in i I b I I I I I I I I I the areal and then read the application. I There were no written communications. I 1 b I 1 I * e I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ! -6 - " The Chairman asked the applicant to speak. PAT JONES, 3640 Pi0 Pic0 Drive, stated that everybody! in the block would have signed in favor of this request if he had contacted all of them. He plans to have 3 units on: top and one below; a sun deck on existing garage; and a { space 30' by 60' for a play yard and patio. By allowing : him these setbacks it would allow him to build more desi{- able apartments. The neighbors' homes were built in : 1956 and 1958 and none of them were built for R -3 develob - ment. No one present spoke in opposition to this request. The public hearing was closed at 9:54 P. M. The Planning Technician expLained the location of the : property and that there would be a breezeway and stair- case between the existing garage and the new apartments: He pointed out that there is an avocado grove in back of t$e Baldwin property which abuts the rear of this property; i and that this is the first R-3 building to be built on Fio ; Pico. There was discussion about this setting a precedence. I The City Attorney stated that granting a variance is a : matter of discrimination and you can grant to one and : detly the next person and it would not be a violation of the! Law. MR. JONES called attention to the 15' off -set south of hi4 property, plus the proposed widening of the Freeway at ; some time in the future. There was considerable discussion about the Ptnning i Technician's written report. I I MR. JONES stated that he would like to get the maximum: use of his property and there will be one staircase for i the units upstairs. He has a nice work shop as well as a: place for his car in the garage and wil 1 have to take parti of the garage for a bedroom. He has a large family and : wants to keep them off of the street as well as having a : place for the rentors also. He will have . built-in launddy- dryer facilities. I I Upon being questioned, BILL BALDWIN stated that he ; plans to build apartments on his property with garages in! the rear and did not see how this will interfere with his I plans for building and was in favor of this request. A motion was made that this request be granted for the : following reasons: I I I . It will be a hardship to the property owners if I denied as it is a certainty that much of his frontage will : be taken by widening of the Freeway. I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t I I I I I , I l I I I l a 2. That granting the variance would allow the prope*y owner to create larger units I which create a greater : value to the C&ty than would requirement of usual setbac*. I I 3. That the granting of such variance will not be i materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious i to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zonv in which the property is located. I I I I Resolution NO. 310. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARL=& CMMISSION GRANTING A VARIANC~ Ofi"PmPFKZ1!'ITESCRIBED AS PORTION OF LOT 12, : BLOCK B, AVOCADO ACRES, RESUB. MAP 2027 IN TIfE CITY OF CARLSBAD, was adopted. I I I Davis Ward Palmer Grant Jar vie Sonnem . -7- I I ', \, .,, '\ ', .s, I I I I I I I I I * I 1 f I I 8- '*, '\, '\, ', ', '\ I *, \. 8 " , ' \ '\ '','\, *, '\ '\ I I i Name '\ '~?$,'*~~'$$++ ! I of ''$\@, +b\o. +,&$$e ' i I : Member %e@.*?? 'd.4 .................................................................... '81 I ::;::: : PUBLIC HEARING: 1 I :::I:: 1 I !::I:: ! CANON STREET - To consider an amendment to the <v I::;:! i Master Street Plan by changing the name of Cazon Street : :::1:1 I to Strornberg Street; this being initiated by Resolution of : ::;::: ::;::: : Intention No. 43 of the Carlsbad City Planning Commissini. :::i;i I i':;::: i Notice of hearing was read. The Acting Secretary certifiid *ll::; i to the publication of notice of hearing in the paper and by I ::::;; I being posted on C;?;ion Street, on which 8 pieces of property ::::;; :::,I; i face on CaXion Street. I :::::I I I :::I:: ::; I A letter was read from the City Manager regarding the I ::a::: ::: : Council's wishes that this street be changed to Stromberg ; IO 11;i:: i Strezt to avoid confusion with Cannon Road. I ;::;l~ I #:::I, 8: I GTJSTAVE G. KAMPTNER, 3175 Canon Street, stated thag ::::i: ;:::I : he was opposed to any change in the name of this street : ,,,4: i::::; i ter.tat%ve subdivision map d Falcon Hill Unit No. 2, and : 4::;; i!!;;: ; the matter had come up of changing the name of Cson ::;;:i : Street to Stromberg Street. The recommendation had beed ::l8:1 i made on the spur of the moment without forethought. He I ;I::I; l;;8:1 i ohjccted to the changing of the name for technical and lega! :st::; t r~c'),sc~s, and business and personal reasons and to the : ;::;I* ::'I:: i a::.pznne to ?&e City of changing signs and the legal proced-: I$:: uras. Cazon Street has been a dedicated Street since 1908!, !::;;; i while Cannon Road is not. He stated that anyone can sugg4st : a cE.ange of name but felt the property owners on the street i ECould initiate the action and pay a fee for this. i DON HICKETT, 3275 %ndy Place stated that he wishes to j ;go 03 record as opposing any change in the name of Canon : i Street as it can be pronounced in Spanish and there are I :oth.er Spanish pronouced names in the City. He stated : ithat he does not Live on Ca;'ion Street but enters Sandy PLacb :from it. : FI?ANK DEVORE, Governmental Right of Way Agent for i i t5.e San Diego Gas and Electric Company stated that Canno4 :Road is a dedicated street and that Cannon Overpass has : ial.ways been known as Cannon and the interchange will be i : knngm as Cannon. He pointed out that they have the same ! !names in San Diego used as streets, roads, avenues and I !places and they do not interfere. :A motion was made that the Commission take no aztion to : :approve this amendment to cJhange the name of Canon Stre+ :and to leave the name as Canon for the following reasons: : : 1. No necessity for making a change was shown. : 2, Changing the name of the street would result in i !incon venience to residents fronting thereon,and to residen4s ion Sandy Place and other streets in close proximity. I I I I lslIll t I I I I) I I I I a1T.d was at the meeting when Kay Kalicka presented his * 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *: The public hearing was closed at 11:12 P.M. I I I I I I I I I * I I I I 3. It would be time consuming and of some cost to the $ity ; Davis I I I * I I I I :The Commission had no objections to the City naming !another Street or a new street in a subdivision Stromberg ! ;Street. :By common consent it was agreed that a memorandum be !sent to the Council reporting that no action was taken on : jthis matter. * !Commissioner Sonneman suggested changing the name to I : Canyon Street. 1 ! I I I I I I I 1 1 . -. -8 - OLD BUSINESS: I I (a) Street Vacations - The Council took no action on i : this matter, : (b) Election of Secretary. ! I I * I I I I I I I * 4 : Lettcr from the City Manager regarding appointing a i ! Secretary from the Commission. i Cornmissioner Jarvie moved that Commissioner Gmt be! i elected Secretary of the Commission. 1 Commissioner Sonnemn. moveathat the nominations be i : closed. Ccimmissioner Grant was unanimously elected ; I 1 I k I I I t t I I I Secretary of the Commission. I I I s 1 I I I Respectfully submitted, I I I I I I : Recording Secretary I I I I I I 1 $ 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 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I b I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I 1 I I I I I I I b I I * I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I !i;!i!