Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-04-28; Planning Commission; Minutes<- CITY OF CARLSBAD : '8, '8 '\ 8 8 8, \*' I I I I I \, '.:'., 't8 '\, '8 I I I I I Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION April 28. 1964 I Date of Meeting: ,, , 8, , '8 '8 : Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. Na me 8% '*% 888:*& i 1 Place of Meeting: Council Chambers 8$?$$&,>. @$. : :"""""""""-"""""""*"""""""-*""e- * """"""""- f : """""""""" Member ,d@ 1% f.',o.b, "" \; 8 : ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Ward, Grant, Palmer and Lamb. Also present were City Attorn& :::;:I : Stuart C. Wilson, City Engineer Lowell A. Rathbun City : i Building Inspector Richard S. Osburn and City Planner i : Uhland B . Melton. 9 I 'I:;:! : APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ! Ward ~.:x:xi ; : (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of April 14, 1964, : Paher : :xi i : were approved as corrected. i Lamb : : :x: : : 4 888 ',8 '8 'e8 'S " ; of 'a$.@ I I ;::;:I :::;I; I1 ::::I! I :::;:; :::I:, I i Grant ;x: :x; I ' I I ::.t:: I 818 i;;::: I I I I@ I WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I I I I I I I ! The City Planner presented a letter regarding the confer- I ence at San Diego State College on Saturday, May 2, 1964, : : on planning. The subject to be covered by various speakeis . . is the urban fringe development. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I t 8 I I I I I 1 I I I 8 I I I I 1 L I i (a) There were no oral communications from the i audience. i (b) The City Planner reported on the action taken by the Council on Planning Matters at the meeting of April 21; : 1964. He also reported that the Council accepted the I I resignations of Planning Commissioners Sonneman, Davisi i and Jarvie with regret, and the Mayor instructed the City ; ; Manager to write a letter of appreciation to each of them i : for their services. I I I I I I I I I I 1 I PUBLIC ,HEARINGS: I ! Continued - VARIANCE - To consider reduction of front: i yard setback from 20' to 5' on the North side of Normandy': ! Lane between Garfield and Mountain View. Applicant: I Eddie R. Vasquez. Chairman Palmer announced that this hearing was continu<d I I 1 l a I I i in order to have reports from the Building Inspector and : ; the City Engineer. I Secretary Grant read the report from the Building Inspec-j I tor stating that the applicant has a total of 12,500 sq. ft. : : of land which if combined can be covered with 7,500 sq. ft.; of building. The tentative plans show 7,100 sq. ft of build- : ing. including the present buildings that are already on the ! property on Ocean Street. Tentative plans provide for : : adequate parking facilities and a turn-table installed in th4 i garage area. All requirements of the zoning and building : I * I I I 8 I code shall be complied with, if variance is granted. I * I I I I : The City Engineer presented maps of the area indicating I i the existing dwellings and the proposed buildings and drive!- : ways. He pointed out that Normandy Lane is presently,v-- ! i 20' iki width and Wn k hsed'for 'amz-way traffic with no : parking on either side, or one way traffic with parking on ; one side only. If the Street is widened with a 2 1/2' street: : dedication from each side, it could be used for limited two-way traffic with parking on one side only. The appli- : i cant would have to meet the requirements of the San Diego; : Gas & Electric Company for clearance of any power poles: : He also stated that lots 37, 38 and 39 would be combined : be combined as the proposed building would not be across ; i these lot lines, as shown on the applicant's plot plan. i Additional letters protesting this variance were from: : Carl Vogel, 136 EL Camino Drive, Beverly Hills (Lot 29) i W. E. and Lillian Garrett, 2380 Ocean Street : Harry S. Davis, 851 Third Street, Encinitas * because of the building proposed. Lots 43 and 44 would nqt I * I 1 : I * a 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 1 -2- I The Chairman announced that this hearing had been reopebed .. : and asked if the applicant had anything more to add. ! ! I I I I i EDDIE VASQUEZ stated that he has a sizable investment ! in this and expected to take pride in this development. ; i Most of the houses built there were built before this was 4 ; City and was zoned R-l. The City has progressed and : this is now R-3. The property will be facing on Ocean I I Street with a roof tying the buildings together. I ! MRS. GARRETT questioned the lot coverage as she felt i : this should be considered as one piece of property, and : that Normandy Lane should be made to look like an asset : to the City. ! I I I I I I I I 1 I The public hearing was closed at 8:lt P. M. I I 1 The City Planner pointed out that the property owners in i ; favor of this variance were along Ocean Street and that : i the property owners on Normandy Lane were opposed. I i After considerable discussion, a motion was made to i adopt Resolution No. 352 denying the request for a front ! : yard setback to 5' and granting a variance for reduction I of front yard setback from 20' to 7 1/2' for the following : : reasons: I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I L 1. That there are other similar variances existing in I 2. That granting the variance on the conditions imps I 3. That the lots for which the request is made are i the area. i will reduce the volume of traffic on Normandy Lane which ; is very narrow. ; very small and thus entitled to some special consideratiol I I I I : AND that this variance be granted subject to the following conditions : I I I * I I L 8 1 1. That lots 37, 38, 39, 42 and 43 of Granville Park; : Map 1782 in the City of Carlsbad be combined into a single i lot prior to commencement of any construction. l 2. That any structures constructed meet the clear- i ance from power pole requirements of the San Diego Gas I i and Electric Company. I I I 3. That any construction be so designed and built i : that there be no vehicular access to the property from ; I 4. That all City building requirements be met, I I D I I 8 I I I I Normandy Lane. I I I I : The following resolution was presented: * I * I I Planning Commission Resolution No. 352, A RESOLUTIOI'# Ward AFTTI ** AT NORTHERLY Grant DE OF NORMANDY LANE BETWEEN MOUNTAIN VIEW! Palmer ; DRIVE AND GARFIELD STREET, was adopted by title i Lamb only and further reading waived. The Chairman informed the applicant that he had the right: : to appeal to the Council in writing within LO days but the i Commission had denied the 5' setback in order to avoid ; I creating a nuisance. If the applicant required a side yard I : variance, he would have to apply for it. I I I I I I I I L I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I t t I I I -3- I I I I (a) VARIANCE - To consider a front yard reduction i I from 20' to 14' on property located on the Northerly side : i of Ocean Street between Garfield and Mountain View. : Applicant: Karnar Construction Co. Inc. 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I The Secretary certified that notices of the public hearing { I were sent to all of the property owners within 300', and 1 : read the application. Reading of the entire legal descrip-: I tion was waived. I I I I i 1 i There wer'e two items of correspondence protesting this i i variance: I 8 : Harvey R. Ling, 2424 Garfield Street I I i John F. Doolan, 2425 Mountain View Drive I I I I I I I I I I I I The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear : from the applicant and any others who wished to speak. : I I 11i::: M. FORTUNATI, 1046 Tamarack, stated they did not wfsi 111::: : to saturate the area with structures as their plan has gre+ ::::dl I* i areas and parking areas. They have 51 5' of frontage and t -- ;:;:It ;I:::; ! are only asking for reduction of front yard setback to 14' !:i:l; i at 3 points. This will be a high class rental operation : 41:1; 1':) I that exceeds anything in the City and will add a great deal I I::::; I to the City. I ! l!!l!l 01 18 I 11:;:1 I ;:I/: I I i MRS. GARRETT stated that she was not opposed to this I : as she felt it would be a lovely development , but felt the ; i street definitely needed widening. I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I No one present spoke in opposition to this variance. I I 1 The public hearing was closed at 9:33 P, M. i The City Planner pointed out the points that would require! i the variances and stated that the design is excellent and 1 : can be adopted as a plot plan. It will be developed on i : different levels with the entrance$ under the buildings ; i going down to the parking area. They are waiting for the i : sewer plant to be moved before cbmpleting this. I 1 i JERRY ROMBOTIS stated that the lot split is pending with: i the City Engineer as it will not be approved without the i I street dedication of the property. i After a short discussion, a motion was made to adopt i : Resolution No. 355 granting a variance for reduction in i i front yard setback from 20' to 14' for the following reasor@: I I I * 1 I I I I I I I I I t I I I 1. That there are exceptional conditions of topographi : and street curvature affecting the property. I I i variance applies only to corners of proposed buildings and I I 2. That by reason of the provisions hereof the I I 3. That granting of variance would not injure the i I 4. That granting of this variance will not conflict witb I 5. That the proposed use is the highest and best use: not to their entire fronts. I t I i public welfare. I 1 I the comprehensive general plan. I I I i of the property. I AND that this variance be granted subject to the following: : conditions: t I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. That the variance herein granted shall be only to I i the extent shown on the plot plan attached hereto, marked: : Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, i : and shall not allow the placement of buildings other than : as shown thereon. I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I * L I I I 8 I I I i' \' '\ .* ', -\ " I I I 8, 'b, \, ', '\ I I \\\ '\ " '8 '.,'*, 8 -4 - I *,8 '\\ 8.. '8, '8 '. I I I I ~a of me '*, y+\o, '*$,, '8, ' '@), i I I .?d%.$',&?& ; :""""""""""""",,""""""""-"""~~""""""~"""""~~"""""""~~" p y', I 3 1 I ::;*d l;l;t* I :;I::: A RESOLUTI~N ;;l:t@ : ;xi ; ; 1 ;;:lll 11 l I I ll!!t: I I I I ' ''3 : Member '@'$'\ d\,g, 1 Ill t 11 I*)* ERLY SIDE OF OCEAN STREET BETWEEN GARFIELD : Grant ;x: ;x: ; ! AND MOUNTAIN VIEW I was adopted by title only and { Palmer ; :xi i ; i further reading waived. : Lamb ; jx:x; I I I The following resolution was presented: I T THE NORTI$- Ward I) :: It I I I I : (b) VARIANCE - To consider a side yard reduction from 10' to 5' on property located on the Southeasterly : i corner of Harding Street and Chestnut Avenue. Applicant{ ; Helton Construction Company. I I I I * I I The Secretary certified that notices of public hearing wed sent to the property owners in the area, and read the appli- ; cation. I : There was no correspondence on this variance. i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i I from the applicant or his representative and any others ; : who wished to speak. I I i CLAUD HELTON, 2760 Arland Road, stated that -h~ kouldi i be @ad tu answer asy' queStl"0Qs; ..--= .. i There were no others present wishing to speak for or : against this variance. I I ! The public hearing was closed at 9:50 P. M. ; The City Planner pointed out that Harding Street will be i improved and that the applicant has the required front yarp setback and required off-street parking. Other propertieg i in the aroa have 5' setbacks, He stated there were no i : topographic problems and the plans they have submitted ; i are nice looking. He called attention to Section 161 1 of I : the zoning ordinance as he did not feel that this allowed ; t I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 b I I I I I I I I I I 1 I for hot water heaters to protrude into the side yard setba<k. 1 I 1 I ; The Building Inspector stated that the plans submitted i i indicated that the hot water heaters would be enclosed in ; architectural columns which would be built of non-combus: I tible material in accordance with the State Heating and ; : Ventilating Codewand if they are set on the ground they : I would be considered intrusions but if they are off the groubd : they are not considered intrusions. He pointed out that i I fireplaces are aflowed to protrude into the setbacks. He : stated that this was not ;just his interpretation but the i determination of other building officials and the Commis- : : sion could write to the International Building Code and i find that precedents have been established on this matter.: MR. HELTON stated that the access doorsto the heaters : : would be on the outside architectural wall. He stated the$ I bought the property assuming that they were 50' lots and 'i: ; then they discovered it was a 100' lot. They plan to have! i heaters be added in the application. 6 I : After considerable discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Grant and seconded by Commissioner War? i to adopt Resolution No. 356 granting a variance for side ; ; yard setbacks from 10' to 5' contingent on a legal opinion: : from the City Attorney subsequently statinig whether hot water heaters and enclosures can be closer than 5'. A : definition on whether they are protrusions or intrusions. : They wanted the applicant to have the same privilege as : I others in the City if legal and granted el'9ewhere. This I ; is not granting a privilege not enjoyed by other nearby : property. This does not work adverscly to other propert? i in the area. There was no public opposition. ! I 1 I I 2 buildings. The City Planner requested the hot water I I I I I I 1 L I L I : Name 'b, GARY HELTON pointed out that gas meters are always in the side or front yards and felt this could be considereg the same. After further discussion I Commisiiioner Grant rescinded i his motion, 4 I A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 356 granting i a variance for 5' side yard setbacks for the following : reasons: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. That there was no public.opposition voiced. 2. That there are other setbacks of equal size in the : neighborhood. 3. That it would not be injurious to any neighboring : property. 4. That it is not in conflict with the general compre- : hensive plan 5. That there shall be no intrusions or protrusions : on the sides of the building unless the City Attorney rule4 the same is legal. The following Resolution was presented: I I I I I I I I I I I I I * I I I I ommission Resolution No. 356. A RESOLUTId A VAHIANCE ON LP HOPEHfl AT SOUTHEASP- ERLY CORNER OF CHESTNUT AVENUE AND HARDING : STREET, was adopted by title only and further reading i waived. OLD BUSINESS: I I I I I I I 8 * I # I I I I I (a) Resolution of Intention No. 45 - Eureka Place between Basswood and Chestnut. The City Planner reported that the public hearing was scheduled for May 12, 1964. I I I I I I 1 I 1 (b) Notifying of property owners within 300'. It was the unanimous decision of the Commission that : permission from the Council be asked to allow the Comm&- sion to spend the necessary money to notify property I owners within 300' in addition to advertising in the paper I of proposed zone changes. I I I I I I (c) 'Revision of the Industrial Zoning Ordinance (Referred to Planning Commission from City Council April 7, 1964). The City Planner stated that the new Mayor had asked I him to revise the industrial zoning and felt they should : have a committee set up to study this. ' . '..--- - The Chairman appointed the 4 present Commissioners to study this and to meet when it was convenient, and if time: permitted, this could be discussed at the next regular i meeting. A point brought out in discussion was that the City should; decide what kind of City they want and whether this zonini would be applicable for the next 10 years. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 11:lO P.9. Respectfully submitted, 1 I I I I I I 1 t I 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 f I s I 7- -etLdt/ Y M. SOUSA Recording Secretary . Ward Grant Palmer Lamb