HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-03-10; Planning Commission; Minutes..
i CITY OF CARLSBAD : Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting: March 10, 1964 I 1 Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. i Name Place of Meeting: Council Chambers : of
I I 4
I
I I I
ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis Ward, Grant Palmer Jarvie and Lamb. Commissioner! Someman was absent. Also present were City Attorney : Stuart C. Wilson and City Planner Uhland B. Melton,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: i Davis : Ward p) Minutes of the regular meeting of February 25 i Grant
19 4, were approved as corrected. : Palmer i Jarvie : Lamb WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I :
I
I
I I I I I
There were'no written communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
I I 0 I I I I I
(a) There were no oral communications from the
(b) The City Planner reported that the Council rejected the appeal of Nelson Westree for zone reclassification at ; their last meeting; they approved tho recommendations of:
the Planning Commission for R-3 on property fronting on(
Jefferson; they approved the recommendation of David BaCrd's property to R-T; and approved the recommendations of ; the Planning Commission on the tentative map of Monroe i
Park Subdivision. I I
PUBLIC HEARINGS: k !
audience.
I I
I I I
I :i:
(a) REC LASSIFKATION - To consider a zone change 1 ;::
((1 ;::
I 1:: * ::;
from R -1 to R -T on the South ead of Harbor Drive.
Applicant: Wilbur G. Allen.
I
I
! !ab Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Grant certified to!
publication of notice of hearing and read the application. i
I I There were no written communications on this request. ;;I
I I!!
The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear:
from the applicant and any other persons who wished to ; speak in favor of this reclassification.
W. G. ALLEN, 2688 Jefferson, stated that he had nothind
to add except that 1 l/Z years ago he had made a similar :
application and the reason he was turned down was the City was going to get a Master Plan made and he wanted this reclassification now before the freeway is widened ; so he will be ready when the highway is finished in order I to attract tourists. I I
The Chairman announced the Commission would now hea+
from all persons desiring to speak Ln opposition.
DALE HARRIS, 4080 Harbor Drive, stated that he did : not oppose it but was not completely in favor. He agrees! with Mr. Allen but wanted assurance that access roads would be instituted before plans get too far under way. & felt that Harbor Lane should not be the only accees to thit property and that it is imperative- to have some plan for ; a road along the railroad track included in the Master : Plan.
JACK SOWELL stated that he lives at the corner of
Jefferson and Tamarack which is the only access road to i this development and pointed out there is a traffic problegl there now with the school being across the street. He : felt the program is nice and that Carlsbad needs it but this should not be the only access to this development.
I I I
I
I
I I I I
I I I
D
D
I
I
I
I
1
4
I
8 -2- I I I
I :""""""""""""-""""""""""""""""""""""""":"
I I i The public hearing was declared closed at 7:48 P.M. I I I I I
The City Planner explained the locathn of the property !
and that 15 lots could be put on this land and explained the i i amount of traffic that could come from this property. He blso
also presented a map of the proposed streets to this prop+ ; erty that was adopted by the Planning Commission and i : Council w..Bich is on the Engineering Department's list of i projects, and explained that although the property owners
1 have indicated they would give their property for street :
: It was his feeling that this property would be R-T when the: ! Master Plan is completed. He felt the R-T zone should be i;
! bor Lane and explained where the sewer trunk line lies. : ; ***** I
right of way, they have not come forth to give this propertjt.
at least 60' away from the present R-1 development on Hat-
I I I I I I I 4 t I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I f I I I I I 4 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I !
LOWELL A. RATHBUN. City Engineer, stated that he i would like to review the law as he understands it, as he : does not believe the City has the authority to precise plan i streets other than thnsb that are iu-an Arterial street 1 I
system. The property owners could dedicate their properqy
for street right of way or put in street improvements. He: felt there was a need for a circulation program there withi
a street coming through to Chinquapin which would take the
load off of Harbor Drive. Any plan would include and i 8
Easterly and Westerly street separating the R-1 and R-T.:
This plan was referred back to the Engineering Departme$ for furilrer study but he did not feel the City has a right to : precise plan a private street and there is no public easem4nt at the end of Jefferson Street. He felt the burden would be!
on the property owners themselves to develop this street.
He stated that the City could contact the property owners, X
but felt but felt the request should come from the property!:.
owners themselves. The Engineering Department is alwagz happy to cooperate with any one coming in with a request. i The Commission could instruct the City Engineer to con- I tact the property owners if they wished. I I
I
I I i The City Attorney stated that the Code states they could I : precise plan the street. The City could take what ever is i i offered and the street opening cquld be worked out. Imrne? : diate purchase of the land wauld not be necessary at this I i time. I I
I Davis
A motion was made to send a memorandum to the Council 1 Ward
I recommending that they direct the City Engineer to prepa$e Grant a precise plan for streets to the inner lagoon. ; Palme
I
I I : Jarvie : After due consideration, Lamb : A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 340 recommerjd- i ing reclassification of the property requested in the appli-: : cation from R-1 to R-T with the proviso that a distance of i i 60' on the north portion of the property and the Northwest ; : dog leg portion be omitted from the reclassification and i I remain R-1 and that the following facts exist: t I I I I I I 1 I 1. That the reclassification is compatible with the
: 2. There was no oral or written opposition. I
I 3. That this reclassification will be coz.plimentary to!
I 4. That the already adopted circulation plan be pre-
usage for the lagoon under R-T. I I I I I I
I I I
t I I
I I I 1
the City. I I
b I I I
I I
i cise planned.
' T&gJollowing resolution was ~::esented: :* ! There was considerable discussion by the Commission as ! they were concerned over the delay in action taken by the City to precise plan the Southerly extension of Jefferson St.
afte,r property was offered for dedication of street right Of
I I I I I I I I
I I
i way. a
! I
r
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I 1 I I I I I 4 I t
8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I t 8 I I I I I I t I
I I I I I I I I I 8 *
I t I
!X
i l
I I I I
I 1 t I I I
I
I I I I I e l I t I I I I 4 I f 1 a
I I * I I I I
I I .
I I ', t, ',, ', ... '8 I I I I . '. I I I ", '8, '\, ', ',, s, I
I I ', p, ', ', '\ I
I
'8, '$, '*,'x$, 1 I : Name ',#& \, '$A+ i
I I \.&-:$P, 4. <:y* ;
I I I '\ ' ' ' " I
I I
I ., . ..
-3 - I : cf ;"~"~"""""""""""""~"""""""""""~""""""""-""""""-~"""""-~""~ Me M :f?r *sE"p\.*.$? 'd8
:'&I;:
:: 1::
1 I :x: I ;
Resolution No. 340. A RESOLUTIOE OF THE CARLSBAd Davis ' : i x: 4 -aCf)NiMISSION RECOMPAENDING REGLA$- Ward I ,
! SIFICATXON OF CERTAIN DESfCNk.'TE3 PROPERTY II\T Grant :x: !x: i ; i THE .T;ITY OF CARLSBAD, STATE CF CALIFORNIA FR+ Palmer Ix:x; i i i ZONE R-1 TO R-T, was adopted by title only and further : Jarvie : : !xi : :
reading waived. ; Lzmb I ; :xi i i
* 4 !,!I!:
11
$ *I i tVi;en asked about rezoning everything 2-T from Chinquap4n
! dowr- to the lagoon, the City Planner stated that he did not: I recommend adopting a resolution of intention for rezoning! i this until after a precise plan is made. I 1
! (b) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider a zone change i
from R -1 -1 0 to R -1 -7.5 on property located on the South-: : easterly side of Park Drive. Applicant: Briggs Land i Corporation. I I
I 4 I 1
I I I I I
I I
I I
The Secretary certified to the proper notice of public he& : ing in the newspaper and the reading of the notice of hear -! ing was waived. The Secretary then read the application I : and stated that there were no written communications. 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. I
: DON BRIGGS, JR. , stated that he had a duplicate of the i I application filed and signatures of property owners within i
300' and read the signatures and addresses of those approy- ing this reclassification, and stated thai he had nothing i : more to add at this time. I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I , I : The Secretary read the application as it was not identical I i with the original application.
i DALE WELLBRECK, 419 N. Grand, Monrovia, stated I I that he wanted to develop this property and it was necessaty : to have smaller zoning in order to put cluster type homes i I in, which are put in according to the terrain of the land. : : They may be in a circle or developed on fingers of land i
and would be developed with green slopes, and there would : bego "no man' s land". All of the homes would have their; own garages and they would have wood shake shingle roofs: : They are considering the wbte area for development and i I believe that looking down on it, it will be a nice type of i : development and would be an asset to the City. I I
: No one else spoke in favor of this reclassification.
1 I 1 I I I
I I
, I * I I I I I i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear I : from all persons desiring to speak in opposition.
i There were no persons present desiring to speak in oppos$- : tion I I
: The public hearing was closed at 8:38 P. M.
! The City Planner explained the location of the property an4 I the zoning; and that he had made a report to DMJM on a : ; Planned Development Policy. He felt the City should havei condominium in single units for individual homes before ;
! ado ting a condominium ordinance.
: DON BRIGGS, Jr. , stated that this property is not in
escrow but they have been made an offer. They had an ! i engineering firm in before making a study of this propert? ; and their escrow wxr3c continge:n.t getting the condominiutn
I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I 1 I
p***g 1 I I I I I
b&gg$opmen-i, I I
Commissioner Lamb stated that he took exception to this view and believed that all types of housing, including clustier homes, town houses and apartments should be included ;
I when discussing Planned Development. !
1 * I I
rc
I I
I $ 1 I I I I I I I 9 L I I I !
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I
When asked if this could be approved contingent upon it being developed as a condominium, thc Ciky Attorney sta.tc$i! that the City does not have a condcmkliun? development policy and if you place a condition or restriction on rezon {
ing it would not hold up in court.
MR. WELLBRECK stated that you could not call this con- !
dominium as it is cluster housing type development. Each: individual basically buys a smaller lot and owns a deed tu ; this. A corporation is set up to take care of the green areas.
A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 341 recornme&- ing reclassification of said property for the following reasins:
I. That the adjoining large piece of property is zoned
2. That the nearness to the lagoon warrants a smaller:
I
I I
a
I I I 1
* I
R-1-7.5. I I
i lot size. : 3. That there was no opposition. i 4. That it would allow the proper development of the : ::::;; : property due to the topography.
I The following resolution was presented:
! Resolution No. 341. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAG Davis i CMMISSION RECOMMENDING RECLAS- Ward : :x;xi : : : SIFICATION OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN I' Grant i ;x: i I i THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM Palmer I : ;X: : :
i R-1-10 TO R-1-7.5, was adopted by title only and further! Jarvie i !x: i I reading waived. : I Lamb :x: :x; It
1I;l~
I
I I ;:iji:
I I I:;*;;
::;I I
I I :;1:1:
I I I ::::::
::I:):
11
I I I I 411;:; ii:;::
I I I tI
t
: ; ix: I ;
I 8
I
I
I
I I :;:I;:
I ::;I:: ::::;:
:;l:I;
;;::I@
I I I :::;;:
:::;:I !::::!
I I I :;I::: :dl:@
I I ;;;:i: II
I I I:::::
::SI::
:;:;I'
from the applicant and any other persons who wished to speak ::::;; 0:
t I i;:;:;
I I :;pi:
:bl*l; I1 I:: ;:; 81
I:;:;, !:i:ii
* :#I::: :/;;::
1:;1;;
I I :;:i::
I I ;::ll:
I I ;;;::I .. . 1:;::: I I ::;::: : The City Planner explained the location of the property I :;;:::
and stated that he had asked for R -3 on the totaJ. of the : ::I:;: : property since they were not sure of the boundary of the :;:::: i R-3 zone. It was originally one lot and since then Kamar : ;::::I I has asked for approval of a legal. lot split on this property: ::;It:
i MR. ROMBQTIS stated that the reason the 1.0t split is I :;;:;: : taking so long is that there arc: easements OE the vacation i :::::: i of the street and the City Engineer wmted this clarified ; ::I:::
; before approving the lot splits. It has been pending for : :;::I:
I :I;I i some time and the dedication of property for widening the i ;;
: street would be ap to the City Engineer. It is a confusing i *l)l'
:;;I;:
Ill*((
I ::;::: ! ! ::!:!:
(c) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider a change in zon4 ; from R -A to R-3 on the North side of Ocean between Garfi$ld i and Mountain View. Applicant: Kamar Construction Inc .;
The Secretary certified to the proper notice of public hear!
I,'*:,
*11:
: ing in the newspaper and read the application.
: There was no correspondence on this matter.
: The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear
i in favor of this reclassification.
: JERRY JDMBOTIS , President of Kamar , stated that they
are asking for a zone change on the lower portion of the : ; land. Part of the property has been changed to R-3 and i this zoning will be compatible with the zoning across the : ; street and will enhance the value of the property.
: The Chairman announced the Commisbion would now hear i
I 81 I
I I I I
I
I I
I
I I
I:,I
9 8 I I I ;81;1'
I I 11
from all persons desiring to speak in opposition.
There were no persons present desiring to speak in opposi!- I Ol1I1 i::;:: : tion I t :::I:;
The public baring was closed at 9:25 P. M,
I
I
I I ., I
(*()I(
))I
I I I QII;:: i::::;
;;:;:!
I * * 81 I
boundary. . I I
.-
I I I' , -.* " ' ' I
I 1 '\ \ '\ *'' ', I' I I .,'.' ' .'
I -5-
I 1 I I 4 I
I I + ', -,,'., '., '."*. '\ \ ' 8'
I i Name '. '*!&".,"$ I
I ; of '4$+ ", .Q i
I I Member '? @Q,@xd. d'92,+4% 1 I
I I
:"""-""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""I..""""".."""".":""
I '(1 14 i RICHARD S. GSBURN , Building Inspector, pointed out ! 11
! that most of the homes in that area were built before off- I ::: 1:;:
1' ::: I street parking was required. Anything built now would 1::::; : require off -street parking. I :;@I;;
'I;:;;
I ::; $11
Commissioner Grant stated that he felt that all of the 4 :;I:::
property west of the railroad should be zoned R-3 and thd ,,:*,a
I there would not he any question of where the R-3 property: ill::: : 1s. I $;;:I1 1)
I I
I I I I
ii: 4::
1.
I
,
I ;o/ I!!:!!
I i A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 342 recornmeiding : reclassification of the property requested for the following i reasons:
I 1. That it is a continuance of the R -3 zone.
I 2. That there is a need around the lagoon for this I i zoning. 3 : 3. That it would clarify the meandering line which presently exists.
I I 1 I I I I
I I I I
I
I 1 I I I 4. That it is the best usage of the property. ; 5. That it would not be detrimental to the welfare of I i the community. I I ; 6. That there was no opposition. I I I I ! ' : The following resolution was presented: I ! i Resolution No. 342. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAB Davis i CITYMMISSION RECOMMENDING RECLAQ- Ward : SIFICATION OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN : Grant
R-A TO R-3, was adopted by title only and further readin$ Jarvie
i THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRO^ Palmer
i waived. : Lamb
I I I t I
I I I I I : (d) VARIANCE - To consider the street frontage reduc; i tion from 60' to 37' for a lot split on property located on
:the South side of Knowles between Pi0 Pic0 and Elmwood.
Applicant: Jane Hunt. 1 I I I I
1 I i The Secretary certfied to proper notice of hearing being i i sent to property owners in the area and read the applica- ; : tion. I I
I I : There were no written communications.
! I I I : The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear I i from the applicant and any other persons who wished to ; : speak in favor of this reclassificaion. I I I 1 I
s I I MRS. DONALD HUNT stated that she represented her : i daughter as she was not here and they have plans to improie : the property.
!.ANTHONY PERAINO, 2890 Pi0 Pic0 Drive, wanted to kno+ i how the property owners would be compensated when the ; ; proposed street is put in.
: The City Planner pointed out that the hearing tonight was ;
not on his property or about the new street, and explained : the proposed street is coming up in the future.
: GALEN NORNHOLD, 2677 Jefferson, stated that he owns i
property on Knowles and wants to know what .the proposed : i street will be.
i DON BRIGGS, JR. , questioned if you give one "panhandle'! : lot why fiot give all of the property owners on that street ; "panhandle" lots so they would not need a street. He vas i not opposed to this but they would be se?L;-l..ing up a precedent.
!
I I I I I
4 I 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 1
I I I I I I I I I I 1
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 I I I I I I I I I 8 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $ I I I I 1 1 I I I 1
I The Chairman pointed out that the bark portion of Miss i
Hunt's property would not be large enough to split her : property if this is granted.
Mks. Hunt stated that she felt the land will go up in value and they will be able to sell a large portion of it. 4 I
MR. NORNHOLD asked for a clarification of this property!,
and it was pointed out to him that Miss Hunt offered part OF
their land to the City for consideration of a street opening:
The public hearing was closed at 9:49 P.M. I I
The City Planner explained the location and design of her
present home and a proposed future home and that he and i
the Engineering Department both recommend this lot split :.,
be denied. Miss Hunt could have 3 lots if the cul-de-sac
goes through, and she would be better off to wait until this:
cul-de-sac is put in. Under the cash program of 191 1 Ac$ and possible 1931 Act, a lot of the property owners have : come in and dedicated their property for stEeet right of way.
MRS. HUNT stated that she was the one who got all of the
I I I I I
I I
I I *
I I I
I * I I I
1 signatures for this new street and felt that denying this i ;:ll:; I request would protect her as she did not know this until ; : tonight and was glad it was pointed out to her. I I 11
: After due consideration a motion was made to adopt I i::;;; I Resolution No. 343 denying this variance for the following! 1:;a
; reasons:
::I:::
I ;:1:11
I 1 ;:::::
I I 1;:;::
l18;::
I I ::@I:: I I !;:ll;
I 1. That the use of the "panhandle" lot split policy doe4 11
I I ::I::; i::::: ;::I;:
I
I
I
I
I I
I
not apply since there is another possible solution. : 2. That there is an indication that a new street is to bk i in back of the lot which will allow the best usage of the ! ;:1::i I property . I I l::::l :::;::
I 3. That %here are no extraordinary circumstances or: 111 ! conditions applicable to the property. I I ;::::; @ll;:;
I:;# i The following resolution was presented: lll;;:
::::
I CITYMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE : Davis ; ; :x; i ; i FOR REDUCTION IN FRONT FOOTAGE IN ORDER TO Ward :x;& :;
: CREATE A "PANHANDLE" LOT SPLIT ON CERTAlN : Grant ; I 1x; ; ; ;:;I::
i DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, i Paher : i :+ ; ; ; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, was adopted by title only and i Jarvie : ; :x: ; i i further reading waived. : Lamb :x: iq ;
I I ,:;I:: i The Chairman informed Mrs. Hunt that she had the right i 81;
:to appeal to the Council in writing within ten days from the! :;:q I;#
!date of decision is she desired to do so. I I ::::I:
I I I I::::: i OLD BUSINESS: I I ;;:;::
I I 111: * :i:::;
:I1 ,*,I:@
:Basswood and Chestnut. 1:; :;:
I I I iI;:::
:The City Planner explained the present zoning on Eureka I ::*I::
ll;:l; i Place and that the balance of the lots facing on the East : ::;I:*
; side of Eureka Place from Basswood to Chestnut should be! ::;:::
:::;Il 81;
zoned to R-3 but he did not believe it should go all of the why I ;::;:; i to Adams. He contacted the church and other property owljers ;::;:;
;on Eureka and the church was in favor of zoning their prop? l:@l@l
;;:I;#
I erty on Eureka Place but not the large piece of property in; back because it would increase the taxes. The City Planndr i stated that he felt they should adopt this resolution of inten: ; tion and then notify the property owners 2 s was done on : : Jefferson Street. I I
:*
I
I I
* I I I 1811:;
1 ::::;;
:::I :;
t I I
Resolution No. 343. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAd *
11
I I
I1
I
I
(a) Resolution of Intention No. 45 - Eureka Place betwekn
I
I 1
111( I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I ! !
I The Commission felt that all of the property owners in :
that block should be contacted first to see if they wished ! this zoning before adopting the resolution of intention. :
I I I
(b) Resolution No. 992 - Signing of contract for I I I I 1 I I
Master Plan.
I The City Planner reported that before the last Council : Meeting the City Manager signed the contract for the i Master Plan with DMJM. I I I I 1 !
(a) Resolution of Intention No. 46 - Reclassification of! property on Garfield between Cherry and Acacia Lots A J B C & D, Blk 1 Palisades Heights from R-2 to R-3.
The Commission discussed how large an area should be I considered at this time and felt the City Planner should I contact the property owners before adopting a resolution ; of intention and should bring in a map for the next meetin4
of this area.
I I
4 I I I
(b) Resolution of Intention No. 47. - Zoning of East
Carlsbad Annexation No. 2.4. I I 1 I I The City Planner pointed out the property that was annexed at the old airport east of Chestnut, and that it i
will be the beginning of a second neighborhood unit of the i
City East of El Camino Real, and the need for a recreaticlnal :;:I;:
area. He stated that one of the owners is planning to brqg 1:::::
in a tentative subdivision map in soon and felt this property
should be zoned R-1-7500.
I @*i:i:
I :::a;l ::*::: :;::;: :I::::
1;::::
I I ::l:l* Ill:
I I :;alll
!I!!:# I
The Commission felt the lots should be larger as they ar4
surrounded by 10,000 and 15,000 sq. ft. lots. I I I !
A motion was made to adopt Resolution of Intention N0.47: Davis ; : :X: : ; ;ll-l;
to zone all of the property known as "East Carlsbad Anne*- Ward ; jx:x: i ; ation No. 2.4" consisting of 155 acres to R-1 -1 0,000 sq. : Grant !x: :xi : ft. and that a public hearing be held on this. i Palmer I :: ; !x: : : : Jarvie ! I ;x; : : 4! i Lamb
1 I
I I I I I ADJOURNMENT: I I' I I
By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 10:52 P. $I. * I I I I I I
Respectfully submitted,
bOR0
Recording Secretary
I l