The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1964-02-25; Planning Commission; Minutesi CITY OF CARLSBAD i Minutes of: PLANNING C@dh%XSSION ; Date of Meeting: February 25.; 196-1 : Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. Name '\, '8, \?A "t ! f Member - '"'&?~"~; : Ward, Palmer, Lamb and Sormeman. Also present were ,I::;: ,'IO : Melton. b ! h!!I!: 1 '.\ *\ .'\ ', ', .\ I 4 \8 '\ '\ '. ' I .\ ', '\ *.,''\>, I i """"""""""" """""""""""""""""-"""""""""; """""_ ""$:e"- '"I" I ::':;: I;:::: ;IpI* c I ;:#;I; I ;::::I I I I I 8, '\ '*, '\ '\"\, I I Place of Meeting: Council Chambers : of ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, City Attorney Stuart C. Wilson and City Planner Uhland BI '\,+ .CJ@,.+ \O' * ;?@, ; I I1 I I : APPROVAL OF MINUTES: { Davis I : Ward ! (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of February 11 1964, Palmer i were approved as corrected. : Lamb 4 I i Sonneman WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I I I I I I i There were no written communications. i Corhmissioner Grant was present at 7:33 P. M. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I I I I i (a) There were no oral communications from the I I I I I I I audience. I I : (b) The City Planner reported that the Planning Com- 3 mission granted a variance for a lot split to C. Von Packa<d I and the Council granted him a waiver on the street improvt- : ments on Basswood. The Council had the second reading $f i the ordinance on the reclassification from R-1 to R-3 on : : property belonging to J. D. Angelo, et a1 on Eureka Place!. ! I 1 i PUBLIC HEARINGS: I ! (a) RECLA&IFIGATION - To consider a zone change i i from R-2 to R-3 on property located on the Northwest : corner of Garfield Street and Cherry Avenue. Applicants: i Hugh M. and Ellen W. Mason. I * I I I I i Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Grant certified to i : publication of notice of hearing and read the application. i : Letter dated February 23, 1964 from Salvatore P. Roti , i 3525 Garfield Street, stating that he is opposed to any : : further rezoning of the area on Garfield Street between i i Acacia and Cherry Streets, and felt that multiple dwelling+ i next to a single family residence is an invasion of privacy; I Commissioner Jarvie was present at 7:40 P. M. i The City Planner pointed out on the map the location of : Mr. Roti's property. ; HUGH M. MASON, 10281 Cresta Drive, Los Angeles, stated that he purchased this property and plans to irnpro& : it as the present building is extremely dilapidated. They i i plan to remodel and add to the present house and add two : : units later on, so they need this change of zone. They did: i not feel this was an unreasonable request as it is contiguoSa : to property that is zoned R-3. They plan to live in one of I the units. i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i : from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. : There were no persons present desiring to speak in i opposition. i The City Flanner pointed out the location of the property i : and the zoning of surrounding properties and existing I 3 dwellings. The Commission discussed adopting a resolution to rezoni I a I I 4 I * 1 * I .I I I * I I l 4 * I I l 4 I l 1 D D 8 8 I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I ; the balance of the entire block to R-3. I I I I 8 I I I I ! I I A moti.on was made to ,zdopt Resolution No. 337 recornend4 I ing reclassification of above property for the followis7.g i reasons: I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1. That the property is surrounded by R-3 property i ; and the pattern has been set. I I I I I I 2. That it is in value and the ments which will close to the ocean and the property is up! property owners are putting in nice apart- be an added attraction to the City. I I 3. Thzt there w&Y%e letter of protest. 4. That this reclassification will not be detrimental : I I I I I I I to this neighborhood. I I I I I The fo1lowin.g resolution was presented: I I i Resolution No. 337. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAIj Grant : :xi : $1 i TION OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN THE CI'TY-Jarvie :xi :xi : 1 : OF CARLSBAD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM ZONE : Lamb I i R-2 TO R-3 was adopted and further reading waived. Sonnemani : x: XI I1 I I I:!!:: 1- .I : C~IMMISSION DENYING RECLASSIFICA~ Palmer i jx: : : 1 :x: I1 1 11 I The Chairman requested that a letter be sent to Mr. Roti i i informing him of the action taken on this matter and that the ; other property owner who was not in favor of this reclass! I ification did not come forth; and this will not increase the ; i traffic. I I I I I I I (b) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider a change in I i zone from R -1 to R-3 and M on property located on the ; : South side of Cannon Road between A. T. & S.F.R.R. and : El Arbol Dr. Applicant: W. D. Cannon. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified to thi : publication of notice of hearing and read the application. I i One letter dated February 24, 1964, from Gus Scurlock, i i 794 North Michigan Avenue, Pasadena, who owns Lot No. ; : 115 in Terramar Tract Unit No. 5, stating that he objectet i to any change in zoning in or adjacent to Terramar Tract.: i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i : from the applicant and any other persons who wished to i speak in favor of this reclassification. W. D. CANNON stated there would be a 200' lake between I : the R-3 and M zone. They intend to use the M zone for i light manufacturing. He reported that he has built most of i Terramar and would not jeopardize Terramar as he lives ) ; there and likes it. The industry will be along the railroad i and he will have a 50 years lease on it. The plastic food i i process packaging industry would employ between 30 and : ; 35 people and there would be no odor. The materials wou$c : be shipped in liquid form in barrels. They would be using: I 180 thousand gallons of water daily. The water becomes ; ; salty and can not be put in the sewer or where it would : : jeopardize fresh water. It would not he noisy and would : : be 3 or 4 windows to the west for air circulation in the I i building. I The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i i from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. I I I * I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I be operated by electricity on a 16 hour basis. There wouiia I I I I I I I I I I I RAYMOND S. LA YLAND, 5301 El Arbol, stated he bough# i his home from Mr. Cannon and the first he knew about thi8 1 proposed reclassification was when he read it in the Blade: ; Tribune on Sunday and felt they should have been notified. : He was under the impression that there were many acres i I I I I I I I I I ! I I " I i along the Encinas overpass that are zoned a.cd me not I : being used. He has no objection,-to the plastic plant but onke the zoning is made, it could be used for any of the uses : ; permitted under the M zone. He was under the impressiori i this property across the street from him would be a recre; i ational areal but now it is being considered for a manufac; i turiag area. ELMER MARSHREY, 5330 Los Robles, stated that he onli i ccmes down to his property on weekends and before build-! ; ing there on Los Robles, he had investigzted the area and I : it was his understanding that it was zoned strictly for one ; i family residential. He felt there was plenty of land that : i can be used for manufacturing and that the R-3 zone is jus+ : a figure of imagination. This property has not been avail! i able to the subdivision. It might be a beautiful plant but ; : once the restrictions are broken they may have to fight i industrial plants. He also stated that tiucks will be corn- ; : ing in and there will be an increase in traffic no railroad i spur and he did not feel the matter was brought to the I I : attention of the property owners and the Commission shouqd i continue this for 30 days. He asked the Commission to dew : this request and if they do approve this he will take legal I i action. I I ALICE BROWN, 5021 Shore Drive, stated that she felt wit4 I the Master Plan in the making, it is premature to zone thib before they have made their recommendations, I I i MORRIS EWAL 5370 Los Robles, stated that the Comrnisi i sion has important factors to be considered before reeon- i ; ing this property and that the Commission withhold action : : until the foLLowing are thoroughly investigated: Aromatic i aromas, whether the water will be reusable and it should : : definitely not be discharged in the sewer system. i MRS. JAMES MOORE, 5149 El Arbol inquired as to how I I I I I I I I I 1 I 4 I I I I l t I the R -3 zone would give them protection. I I J. A. HARPER, 5199 El Arbol, stated th& he was opposed! to both zone changes and is in the transportation business i so knows from experience what this would Le End fe1.t that i El Arbol would not be able to handle this traffic. I I i The Chairman asked those who were also opposed to give t their names and addresses. 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I The following stated that they were opposed on the same : i grounds that were mentioned previously: I I I 4 I I Mrs. A.H.Peterson 5335 Los Robles I Mrs. Wm. E. Reed 5335 El Arbol I Wm. 3. Rounsfull 5380 Los Robles : MTS. Mary Pryor Clyde G. Pettett 5167 EL Arbol Mrs. Marie Quisenberry 5140 Carlsbad Blvd. Margaret Harper 5199 El Arbol I I Mrs. Leroy Leffel 5370 El Arbol ,I Barbara Robinson 5390 El Arbol I Ara Jeppson 5101 El Arbol i A. H. Peterson 5335 Los RGbles t M. Caruso 5360 El Arbol i Mrs. Ruth Layland 5301 El Arbol Mrs. Paul Wheaton 5379 EL Arbol i Mrs. Clifford McGee 5410 El Arbol I Wayne Burnworth 5375 El Arbol ! Nick Banche 5156 Garlsbad Blvd. i I Mrs. Ray Leggett 5248 Los Robles . i Richard Blanchard 5249 Los Robles i 4 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 5091 El Arbol I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I t I I- I I I I I I The Chairman asked Mr. Cannon if he ha? anythi.3.S to say: in rebuttal. MR. CANNON stated that he had nothing more to add and i goes along with the people. 1 I I I I I I 4 I I I : The public hearing was declared closed at 8:32 P. M. I I ::;::: I ::r::: I I I I The City Planner explained the location of the property i and the surrounding zoning. The water would be about i I half as salty as that of the ocean and this industrial plant : i has negotiated with the S.D.G. & E.Co. to use this waste i i water. I I I I I I I I I After due consideration, a motion was made to adopt : Resolution No. 338 denying reclassificatim on said prap-i I erty for the following reasons: I I I I I I I I 1 1. That it is a nice residential neighborhood. I ;;;;i; 1 Il*( 1 I ;:!!:I t I I I I I 2. That the applicant has sold many homes to these : I 3. That there were many citizens protesting this i people and promised a recreational park on this property.! I I I 1 I i reclassification. I I I I I I I ;l:'lI I1 * 4. That Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall will i 1:;::: ::I;#: i::::* I I ;;::*: I ;o;l 4l;l; I 5. That this reclassification would be detrimental to : !:;I:; I I 1;:::1 I ::;:;: I 1 :;;:e: 8 ~1,II; ::;:;I : be bringing in reports on the Master Plan and will have { re commendations for zoning. I I I I I I : the surrounding property. I I I The following resolution was presented: : Davis : ; ;xi : I ! Resolution No. 338. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBA4 Ward : : :x; I ; i -CC)"ISSION DENYING RECLASSIFICA; Grant ! :x: ; : TION OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN THE CITY Pamer I i !X; i : i OF CARLSBAD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM ZONE : Jarvie :x: :x! : : R -1 TO R-3 AND M, was adopted and further reading i Lamb : jxix: : i waived. : Sonnema4 : :xi i Commissioner Grant expressed a desire to find a location! I for the plastic industry in the City. i DON DUNHAM, 2822 State St. , stated that he has spent ::pi; ; 8 months working with this group.sf people from this i industry to find a site for them. The Chamber of Comme4ce : would be glad to know of any location for this industry as i ;;:::! I it must have a place to dispose of the water and be near a : I ::ii;: : railroad. i The Chairman informed Mr. Cannon that he had ten days i ii;ii: ! from the time of decision in which to appeal to the Council: I I I ;::' :i I:, 1::; I I:: :I: I ::i;;: I ::;:t: $4; I:# I ::;I:: I i::::: I ,*1:1; :;I::: I ;@i;I; i STEWART WHITE, 2193 Basswood, stated that he felt the: ;::::; /I::; Commission should look at the industries in Anaheim as I ;::;:; i they look like golf courses the way they are laid out bith : ll;llI ;:I::; i beautiful landscaping. I I I*~l;; bi..l! I 114;: I I I I I I I I' in writing if he so desired. I I I I I I +::: B I I ::!;;I i A short recess was called at 8:50. Reconvened at 9:04 P.N. ! : I TENTATIVE MAP HEARING - MONROE PARK SUBDIVIS~ON : - 13 lots located on the Southwest corner of Chestnut Avente i and Monroe Street. Owners and Subdivitlers: Jay Lear ,hp. I The City Planner presented the maps to the Commission and stated that the property is zoned R-3L which permits 4 living units and the proposed buildings are sketched on : the map. I I I L ! -5- DON CREEGER Land Surveyor for Don Eolly, stated tha4 ii: ;lt;le 1;; the buildings will be two stories with 3 or 4 living units ani3 the :i:::; the garages will be under and behind. When asked if they ~ were contemplating any variances, Mr. Creeger stated : they would like 15' front yard setbacks on 3 lots on the cu$- de -sac and explained that he and Don Holly held preliminaty . .. :*. :::::I meetings with the City Engineer and City Planner before : 1:11:: 11;:;; submitting the maps to the Planning Commission. ::;Ill I :14:lt s I!!@!: 11 ;;:::: 1;;::: ::;::: :::;:; 01 I I I Secretary Grant read the reports of the City Engineer and! i Fire Department. 1 I : The width of the cul-de-sac was discussed. I I I 1 I I 1 I ! I I lI"Il I DON HOLLY stated that according to the State Highway i i::::: : design standard a 38' radius will handle a truck and trailek ;i:4:: ,I when it turns around. He stated that if there is a greater ; 1:II ;;ll~: diameter on the cul-de-sac, it would require variances a+ :;::i: I:: i would make steeper driveway approaches. #:I I lIl;l; I proposed I s 1:;1:1 1 The Secretary raad/Resolution No. 339 recommending 1,;1:1 I approval of Monroe Park Subdivision incorporating the i :'I:;; I 1::;:: I i::::: I ;::::; i The Commission discussed Item 6 granting 15' front yard I;,:;: ; setbacks on Lots 5, 6 and 7 on the cul-de-sac and whether! ::!::: i it would be legal to do this without a public hearing. 1 I ::;I:: 81 I I ::Dit: (Ill recommendations of the various departments. I I 11 1 I I I I ::::!; 11 ;i:::: !:;: ;:;;:: ::::I: ::i:i: I I ;l:l:~ :::;:I ;:;I:! The City Planner stated that it was a standard procedure I : in 90% of the cities to grant variances for front yard set-j i backs on subdivisions. I * ::'I:: I a I 1 )I:: ::::;I :i I I I *Ii!!: 1:41: The City Attorney stated that variances had been granted i many times on tentative maps in this city and in other i ; cities, but it could be handled by having a public hearing : :!;;:: : at the time the subdivision map is presented. : After due consideration, a motion was made to approve : ::Ill; i the tentative map of Monroe Park Subdivision as presentei i except to delete Item 6. I ,:;:;I i Resolution No. 339. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAG Ward ; I !x: i ; : ~~smfWereBMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPRCX..'.eant ;x: ;x; ; i i VAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP OF MONROE PARK SUB: Palmer : i :x: : I ; DIVISION, was adopted. ; Jarvie : ; ;xi ; ; I: I 'I I I i Davis i : :x! : I I I i Lamb i ixjx: i ; I : Sonneman : I IX: 1 : ;;;*:I 1;;::: I I 1:;::: I I I I::;:; I I ;::;:; ):;I ::;::: I I I:::,: 1 I ::;::I I :::I1 ': I I 1:4:: :;:;I: I I :;I::; I I 5 ::pi: s1:;: I ? 4 I ::::;; :::'I' ;:*:;: 81::: i;::;: 1:;;:; It 0) ;;;::: (;;I:; I I l*l;#; I I ::;::* D 4 'I,,*; :9:# I I Commissioner Sonneman questioned the legality of the sal# : of the duplexes in Magnolia Village Subdivision in regard ; :a1 i to setbacks. i It was pointed out that a person buys an undivided one half! ;I:':; : interest in the duplex with rights of possession of one half: i of the property. I I :'al:: OLD BUSINESS: I I 1 i The City Planner requested Resolution of Intantion NO. 45 i ; study of proposed R-3 on Eureka Place be continued, i NEW BUSINESS: i Letter dated February 25, 1964, from Perry A. Lamb , : i member of the Carlsbad Planning Commission, stating th; ;:i::: : purpose and duties of a planning commission. He felt th&; the following were necessary: A thorough understanding i ::i::: : between the Council and the Planning Commission as to th: :;;:I: : purpose and duties of the Commission; that all planning ; ::::I: 81' matters are referred to the Planning Commission before : ;a1 i any council action is taken; that the utmost of cooperation: i::;:; : from all departmer-ts should be provided; that the CommiS- I sion should have the prime responsibility for encouraging : and coordinating public participatioc in the formulation ::di!; ;81 )I( 1 I I 1 I 11 I 1 L 1 ,*I,;: I -6 - :"""""-""""""""""""""""""""""-""""""""""" ! I I i and maintenance of the master plan and form the citizen'$ i committees to help with the DMJM master plan study. ; ; The Planning Staff should operate under the jurisdiction of I the Planning Commission and should have an important : : voice in any changes or additions to Planning Staff person: : should become active Ex Officio members of the Commisi i sion as required by ordinance; the non-operative Public : : Works Commission should either be activated or abolish4d The Commission should be provided with reasonable fund$ to keep themselves informed regarding current planning i i techniques. He suggested a joint meeting of the Council : : and Commission for the purpose of clarifying the role of I ! the Commission in the forthcoming DMJM master plan : nel. The Building Inspector and the Public Works Directdr : study. , I I I' The Chairman ordered the letter filed as the Council does! not have to be responsible to the Planning Commission. ; I I I I I I I I I I I i ADJOURNMENT: i By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P .NI* I I I I Respectfully submitted I I I I I I ; Recording Secretary I