The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1964-08-11; Planning Commission; Minutes,- ,.- 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I t 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 ; '\\ '8 -*, '. ; CITY OF CARLSBAD i Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION - ;Date of Meeting: August 11, 1964 ! Na me "\,&, '8 '8, '&, %$),, ; ; !Time of Meeting: 7:50 P.M. : of ,C$~,;',;q$ ; Place of Meeting: Council Chambers I Member \$$Q,+?? ,d8' "R'oL~"~~Lwas answered by Commissioners Palmateer,; """""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""~""""-"-"-------"~-"-~ :::;:I Sutherland, Lamb, McComas and Freistadt. Commis- I ::::I; sioner Grant was absent. Commissioner McCarthy ! :::::I ::!I:: $ .. I I I I I * I I I , \ *8'8,'8\ '\ ",88b8, *\, *8,\,. I I I '8 * 'b, ', ', 8 ' was present at 7:55 P.M. Also present were City i i;;:;: Manager Mamaux, City Attorney Wilson, City Engi- I:' 8 neer Rathbun and Building Inspector Osburn. I I 1111 *#;I APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (a) Minutes of the special meeting of July 23bPalmateer I x: : i 1964, were approved as submitted, Sutherlandi ; :xi i ; #' i Lamb hi :xi : i McComas i i !x: i ; : Freistadt I i ;xi : I I ;a::!; (b) Minutes of the regular meeting of July 28iPalmateer ; ixix! : ; 1964, were approved as submitted. : Sutherland; : :x: : ; i Lamb : i ixi ; * :McComas I : :x; i i iFreistadt k i !x: : : I :*I:;! I I :I::;: I I pi::: ,@I:#; I I :i::i; I I ::!I:: 1 I :;;;;: I :::I:, I I :;;I1: I I I:: ::; I I 911;:; v11:: I I *:;;Il I :l;l:l ;:#;I; ::I::: i I i::;:: 11 I I ;:;::: I I $4:: 11 I 111111 I WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: There were no written communications, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS : There wereno oral communications. PUBLIC HEARINGS: I I I (a) RECLASSIFICATION: - R-P (Res idential-Pro-! l!!l!l : fessional) to C-2 (General Commercial) on proper-i : ty located on the easterly side of Roosevelt St., i !North of Grand Ave., being the southeasterly half: :Map 1722. Applicants: C.A. & Georgia L. Richards.: of southwesterly half of Lot 36, Seaside Lands I ! I : Notice of hearing was read. Commissioner Lamb : acting as Secretary certified that proper notice i of hearing was given in the newspaper and to the ; : property owners in the area, and then read the i i application. !There was one letter from the owners stating thati I they would give 8' for street dedication. I Chairman Sutherland asked the City Engineer if he! i had any recommendations to make and the City Engib : neer stated that he had asked for 8' dedication i ; for the intensified use of the property. The Chairman announced that the public hearing i :was open and the Commission would now hear from i i the applicant or his representative and those in : : favor of this request. I No one present spoke in favor of this reclassifi-i i cation. The Chairman announced the Commission would now i : hear from those opposed. I I : FRANK SMALL, 2720 Roosevelt St., stated that he i i owns property north of this property and has a- ; : partments there. He questioned the legal descripk tion and the City Engineer assured him that the : : legal description of the property to be rezoned was correct. He voiced objection to trspotlr : zoning one lot and felt that all of the block : should be rezoned or none of it. He stated that i ; several years ago he had been advised that they : I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 8 I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 -2- :"""""""""""""""""""""*""""""""""""""""~" :would not change the zone until they had an alley: c !running north and south. 'I 1 I I 1 I I :ALBERT E. STEIN, stated that he owns Lot 35 where i :the Mayfair Market is and was neither in favor or: jagainst the reclassification but questioned the i :alley in back of his property as he was told when: it12 had this property rezoned that it was necessar\). :for him to give 10' right of way for an alley I I !with 3" asphaltic pavement before the property I :was rezoned. He stated that he would be opposed ; !if this is public alley, !The City Engineer stated that he had checked the i :files and it is not a public alley, I !The public hearing was closed at 7:47 P.M. !There was discussion on extending the business i jdistrict when there are vacant business lots and i :that this whole block should have an alley before : jconsidering the property for C-2. !MRS. RICHARDS asked to speak and stated that they! lwere perfectly willing to give 10' as they are : !having a bad time keeping the property looking def :cent and they have a buyer who will not buy the : !property unless it is rezoned for a new business i :and had hoped the Commission would look favorably: ion this. !NIR STEIN announced that he was now sDeakina in : I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I s I I I I I I I I I I I :favor of rezoning Mrs. Richard's property is he i :felt it would be the best use of the property. . I t I I !It was pointed out that Mrs. Richards would have : :to give 10' on the south side of her property and i !lo' on the rear for an alley and Mrs. Richards I :stated that they would be willing to do this as ; jthis was discussed with them, I !The City Engineer stated that he had considered i :this but it does not mean anything unless Mr. I :Stein gives 10' right of way and the rest of the i :property owners on that block dedicate property ; ifor the alley, I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 !EMU SALSEN, stated that she is with Nelson Real :Estate and believed the C-2 zone should be ex- ipanded because they get many calls in the office Ifor commercial. property. This would be the high- (5st and best use of 'the property and this would :not be called a real residential area. :After further discussion on up-grading and devel- !aping the commercial property that already exists jand the fact that a commercial lot without an :alley was not a good commercial lot, a motion was :made to adopt Resolution No, 367 denying the :change of zone from R-P to C-2 for the following :re a sons : I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1. That the existing R-P zone allows uses : iwhich blend in with the existing business distric4. jbest place to break the zone physically because ! :the only other place it could be broken would be i !at the end of the block or somewhere in between, : :which would not be desirable. !the district which presently exists. I I 2. The rear of the Mayfair Market is the ; I I I 3. That there is sufficient C-2 property in I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I 1 I -3- I I I I I I jplanninq Commission Resolution No. ITION DENYING CHANGE OF ZONE FROM !TEE DjORTH SIDE OF GRAND Am. ;was adopted by :PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE ; enly and. further reedi'ng waived. I I I I 1 I I I I (b) RECLASSIFICATION - R-3 and R-1-7500 to i I C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) on property located i :on the Southerly side of Tamarack Ave., between : ;Pi0 Pic0 Dr. and Adams St. Applicants: Kamar I I :Construction Co., Inc. I I I I I :Notice of hearing was read. Acting Secretary Mc !Carthy certified that proper notice of public :hearing was given and read the application and ithe signatures of those approving this. !Letter from Orelia Longworth, 2117 Winthrop Dr., i jAlhambra, stating that she owns property on Chin-: :quapin and plans to build and live there and that: jshe is in favor of havinq a market as it would be: : a convenience for those living in that area. !The following letters were read from those oppos- jing this reclassification as they felt that a :super-market in this area would not be conducive i !of further expansion in residential area and :would depreciate their property; and that the pre: i sent shopping facilities are adequate. :le Mrs. Doris Mary Simpson, 1075 Chinquapin Ave. i2. Cecil E. & Charlice R. Dunne, 548 Tamarack Avei :3. Marjorie Wheldon, 1085 Chinquapin Ave. I i4. Mr. & Mrs. G.A. Johnston, 3900 blk. Highland Die i Mr. & Mrs. B.A. Johnston, 3900 blk. Highland DZ. :5. H,T. Oldham & 3.C. Oldham, 1015 Chinquapin !The Chairman announced the Commission would hear i !from the applicant or his representative and 1 I :those who were in favor of this reclassification. I !MIKE FORTUNATI, 956 Tamarack Ave., local repre- !sentative for a local building firm, stated that : :the proposed rezoning will eliminate the mixed i jzoning on this property and that it is not pre- : lsently zoned to its highest and best use. He I discussed this reclassification with all of the : surrounding property owners except two who were I i away. The owners of 15 parcels of property sign-: ied the application as being in favor of this. I :Two property owners wanted to study this further.! :He pointed out that residential revenue is less : jthan commercial revenue and this proposed develop; :merit would permit a view of the ocean where an j iR-3 would not. I JERRY RO!4E3OTISY Kamar Construction Co. , Inc,, : stated that this fits in with the entrance from : I the freeway that will be developing in the future! :It fits the general concept of the proposed Mastef !Plan from DMJM in which they recommend neighbor- : :hood shopping centers at one mile intervals on i :land from 3 to 6 acres in size. This parcel be- : iing about 4 plus acres. He pointed out that the I :property on Chinquapin is not being rezoned and : : introduced Mr. Hunt.Ley. 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 b I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : I :MR. ROBERT HUNTLEY, Ass't to the Vice President I I I I I I ! f b I I I I I I I ! I I s8 %, 'x 8 '8' ' 1 I ', 8, '8 88 '\ '\ I I I '8 88 '8, '8 '\,'\, I I I '. ' ' I I , 8, '8 ', '8 '\ I -4- 8' ''4 I \,& \Q', $ '*' I 08* ;,++$@ : I : Member ;"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-~"""-"""";""-"""""- @$?,.pp ," *"" 'd. 1q :of Alpha Beta Markets, 777 La Habra Blvd., La I I :;;::: !Habra, stated that they planned to have a super :::j:: :market with two or three adjacent stores. It : :;I 1' 1::: !would be a neighborhood shopping center which I 1 i::;;; :would not compete with the downtown area, as it I 1:j:;; +:Il !will be located to serve the southeasterly part II#tl :of the City on a neighborhood basis. He stated : i::;:: jthat Carlsbad is losing about a million dollars j 11~1:1 :;!:;: :a year in food purchases made elsewhere, and the : I::;:: jtwo supermarkets in the City are making good monet ::;::: :and he felt the community could support a third ; ::::ji :by 1966 when they planned to have this market comj :*:;Il :j:::; :pleted. He stated that they had opened the escrow 4:::; !for the purchase of this property contingent upon! :::::; :the rezoning. He explained that the company has I ::'I,, ;;:;I# !a policy of not selling alcoholic beverages. The4 ;;::I' :may have off-sale liquor in a store adjacent to : :: 11;: ;I:;:: Ithe market or in the same center. They expected j ,:::I; :to have a barber shop and beauty shop there also. ; !::;:I !They generally write a stipulation in the leases i 4::d 18 :so that there will not be on-sale liquor. He 1: I 11:;;; jstated that they would have adequate parking in I:::;: :the center. He stated that he had pictures of ; ::I::: :Alpha Beta Markets in other cities if the Commis-i ;I;::: I l11! :sion wished to see them. I I 1::!;1 '1 I i!!;:; :There were no others speaking in favor of this rei ;;/I# I:#; jzoning. I I I ::::;; ::;;#I I i:j;ij :The Chairman announced the Commission would now a:;:;: :hear from those opposed. I I :::::I I I I I I I I I I Na me 88x,'& \8 $$A ! : of ',4 80'8 ' I* I' It 8 I I I I :I I ! l!!l!* I !MRS. FLOYD PACKARD, 3980 Adams St., stated that :she lives across from the proposed center and :would be opposed to liquor being sold there as 8114 :was concerned because of having a large family ' I :with nine children. 8 I :CLINTON PEDLEY stated that he owns property on j :Tamarack Ave. midway between Highland and Adams ! :and felt the entire block would be affected by ; ithe rezoning. He voiced objection to this, stat-: jing that he had bought the property for the view I :and although the property is presently being :farmed, it would make good residential property. : IHe pointed out that markets are ugly with no land; jscaping. Tamarack is a through street without : :sidewalks and this will make one more congested : !area. He felt that these developers were not in- i iterested in the welfare a-nd development of the i !City and felt the citizens have some rights. He ; :that this would devaluate all of the property :around this center although it might increase the i :value of the property in this one area. ;JOSEPH C. SPANO, 1260 Buena Vista Way, stated thai jhe owns markets and feels this property should be ; :for motels because of the lagoons being nearby. I !He felt the Commission should consider this pro- : :perty for beautiful apartments or motels. ;MIKE FORTUNATI, speaking in rebuttal, pointed out jthat Kamar Construction Co. are all local citizen :who have been living here for several years. He jstated that it is true some of the earlier resi- ;dents want to keep the City as it was which was Ialso true of the Pilgrims. Property near shop- ;ping centers have never gone down in value. He :pointed out that this would be cleaning up an un- Ideveloped residential area, and that the petition !was signed by 23 property owners of 15 parcels of :property who were in favor of this reclassifica- 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 I I * .-, ' , *\ -* : '8' '., '. ', y., ' I 0 I I I I I I '\ \' * I I \\ '\ '\\ ', '.\'b8 I -5- I I ! Name '\ '*?& '\, .4 { ~""""~"""""""""""""""""""""""~"-----"""""";"----------"---- "--'1"" :;I*;: I ;;::;: I I I::: I I I b, 'x ', '\, ', ' I I I : of : tion. The shopping center would draw from the : '8\* \@ '\ +\, I : Member .,~\0,9'4+t. 0 $'$*@@\ \*x : 1 - : evergrowing area to the South. I I I I : ALBERT STEIN stated that he agreed with Mr. Ped- j i ley that the shopping centers were an ugl) sight : I but they cannot do $2,000,000. of business with- : : out people throwing papers and things about, and 1 : felt that Mrs. Packard's property will drop about! i 25% in value. I I b8!j;: 11 I :: I 1s;: I I I The public hearing was closed at 8:44 P.M. I ::::I; I I I I I ::y; :: :::I:: ::::;; 1:;: I There was considerable discussion about how this ! :would fit in with the proposed Master Plan; the i i fact that Alpha Beta Market would not be built : :::::: #I : until 1966 and they might change their mind, whe-: i ther there was a need for another shopping centerg I:#' I the need for a shopping center east of Highland; ; : one of the goals of DMJM is to modernize the i downtown business district; the effect this would: : have on the downtown shopping district; the pop- j ulation necessary for another super-market; the ; :widening of the freeway; an alley, widening of : i the streets; the block wall around the shopping :center; that the Master Plan was strictly a guide: i line. :Upon being questioned Mr. Huntley gave some fact-! :ural figures on the amount of population support-: j ing super-markets and pointed out that the family: :that has more income spend more at the supermar- : i kets. He explained that supermarkets are highly i :competitive and economic studies are kept in I I i strict confidence. Both of the supermarkets here! : are making good money, also some independent mar-: jkets arb making money but there is still a large i :amount of money going out of the City. If they : :population increases; there will be a place for janother market in 1966 according to their studiesi :He stated that their market in Orange has a block: jwall behind plantings and could not visualize thi4 :market as being ugly. I I :;::a: ;;:I:' ::::ii ::;l#l d :::::: 4 ' I I I I I !could capture this outgoing market and as the b I I I I I -:Commissioner Lamb stated that they had talked to :Mr. Norwood of DMJM before the meeting and he did! :feel there was a need for a shopping center in : ithat area on 3 to 5 acres and if the Commission i :goes along with the Master Plan concept, this I I jwould be the best site. :The City Engineer stated that he thought Tamarack i :Avenue and Adams Street should be widened. I I :After further discussion, a motion was made to : :adopt Resolution 110. 370ndenying application for j ::;;j: !change of zone from R-3 and R-1-7500 to C-1 for ! :*I 0: :the following reasons: 1::::s I I ::;::: I I i;;::: I 1. That at the present time, there is no I 4;: !need for such a zone in this neighborhood. 1 ;:;I;* I 2; That the City should not zone an area ! :I1 I*::: !where they cannot control the buildings and plant4 1:;::: ;;lll' :ings. I :;:j:: ' 3. That the property owners on the east and : :I::;: :south of the property proposed to be rezoned would ::::;: ;:::I: :be unduly hurt by the rezone. I I ;:;1:1 I 4. That the streets bounding the area prop+ 1:::;: ::':I: :sed to be rezoned are not present1 wide enough : x :::;:: $0 handle the more intensive use w ich is prOpOSeq. @I( I* I I I ::;::: I I I ::;:I' I,**:: I I ::;:;: I I i:::;: *I1 I 0 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 09 lol:l: I I I' I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I ;:'*I; ! ! l!::!l I I *88'\\'. I I I \8 '8 N8 '8 '8 " I I I 88 8\8 'h 88 8888\, I I .8 88 8 '8 '\ '8 I I : Member $'@\+\9 4% I I I \ 8' I I I I I '8 8 '8 * I I I "6- I I i Name \b8 8\% "8:& I I I ; of '.++$+, ' 8& : I I I:' 13 I I ;: ii:: * I i:;::: ,'I: '$!!so 8 'p",$* I ....................................................................... !The following resolution was presented: hannins Cammission Resolution No. 370. A RESOLU- iPalmateer : i k: ; I) : :TION DENYING APPLICATION FOR CHANGE CIF"~ONE FR~)~A gAcCarthy :xi i i i :R-3 AND R-1-7500 TO C-1 ON PROPERTY AT SOUTHERLY ISutherland: ; x$ i ; ; :SIDE OF TAlVIARACK AVENUE BETWEEN PIO. PIC0 DRIVE :Lamb \. i : m;x; i :AND ADAMS STREET, was adopted by title only and &cComas "-*I I :further reading waived. jFreistadt : : {: i I I :I ),I :A recess.was called at 9:28. Reconvened at 9:33 i I 18 $1 I 1 ;x: : ;::::: I( ii:: IP .M. I :i, #I I I ::;;:: t (c> VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in the i pi;;; :required frontage from 60' to 53' and 49' in order( :i;::: !to create a lot split on property located at 3455 i !:::!; adams St. , on the westerly side of Adams St., be- : ;;'8#1 $ween Basswood Ave and Chestnut Ave,, Lot 5 Optimcj :::a:: i:::;: Tract, Map 1805. Applicants: Harry W. and Martha : 4:;:; $3. James. I I :: ;;:::: potice of hearing was read, Acting Secretary Mc i ::::;; :;i::: Farthy certified that property owners in the area I :'IIiI pere notified of the public hearing, and then I ;: 1 'I' gead the application. better from Joseph E. Spano, 1088 Chestnut St., :(Northwest corner of Chestnut and Adams) opposing ; ::;::: kariance because he felt it would devaluate ad- : 3acent properties and would be setting a precedencb !i::g: )€or lot splits in that block. I the Chairman announced the Commission would now ::;:I: hear from the applicant or his representative and ; f: 1'1 ;hose in favor of this request. I I ::;I;: I' @. HARRY JAMES, 3455 Adams St., stated that he i ;::I:; pwns .55 acre and it is too large a lot to take ; '::I:; kare of and he would like to split the lot and i build an attractive house on it or sell it. ;1,11; @I MURRAY M, MATHERS, stated that he was neither i :I1 pn favor or against it. He owns property across i i:::;: $he street and his lot was split when he bought ; :::::: pt. He pointed out that Mr. James knew the size : pf the lot when he bought it. The decision Ghould rest with the Commission. He could ask fori ::;:;j khis on his long narrow lot. I I ;:@#;I hR. JOSEPH C. SPAN0 stated that he was the father! ii::;: :::I bf Joseph E. Spano and would like to protest this ::::;; bn the grounds that it would be setting a prece- : 4::;; 8ence, and he is against small size lots. He I i:: 'I; Gtated that as a builder he felt that a good house! ';::I :;lIll bannot be built on the proposed amount of property! ::I:;: :;I:I: I I :;::;I #I JAMES inquired if the Commission turns this i /;::: tlown, if he could re-apply on a "panhandle1', and : ;:;:;: ;: bhe Chairman advised him that bE would have to i I:::: bake out a new application and each application : :::;;; ii::;; pould be considered on its own merit. I I 11 I I I ::::ii * I I' the public hearing was closed at 9:45 P,M. 1 1 1:::;: I I t i;:::: * I ;:;::: bfter s short discussion, a motion was made to 1 I ;;'I1: kdopt Resolution No. 371 denying the request for : ,:::I ::;;;: variance for the following reasons: I :"I I I I I::;:: I I i:;;:: : 1. That this request does not appear to be I *;:;:: in the best interests of public necessity and I :::;:: gonvenience. I I I ;::::: I I I I /::;: '(I I I I I ip;;; I I I 'I:;:: I I I ::;;:e I I I I I B::Io I I I I I I I I::::: I I I /;::: ;:j;:: I ;:p:: I I I ;:;I:: ::ii:: I ;:;;:; ::;::I I I ;:#::I I I 4:!!; I:::;, II :I;:;: ::;:;: I ;: ;:;: ;: I' ::;::: I( I' 811 1';:;; I I I I I @I!!;: ;: I I I I 8 I I 1 ! I ::!I!: I I I I I * I I I I I 1 -7- I I :""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" I 2. That the granting of such variance will !also adversely affect the general plan of the :neighborhood. I 3. That the conditions required to be shown !by Section 1802 of the zoning ordinance are not i present. :The following resolution was presented: I I I I I .- IPlanninq Commission Resolution No. 371. A RESOL- :UTION DENYING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY AT 3455 i ADAMS STREET, ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF ADAMS ST. :BETWEEN BASSWOOD AVE. AND CHESTNUT AVE, , was a- idopted by title only and further reading waived. :The City Engineer pointed out that a street open- jing was essential to have in this block and it : should be opened from Chestnut Ave. to Basswood i between Qams and Eureka Place. i OLD BUSINESS : imittee. Commissioner Lamb stated that he did not jfeel qualified to make recommendations for this :and felt they should wait for DMJM, as they would i review the ordinance and he felt the Commission I I I 1 1 I I (a) Industrial Zoning - Report from 14-1 Com- should read the contract. I : NEW BUSINESS: I !There was no new business. I I :By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at :9:55 P.M. to Thursday, August 20, 1964, at 7:30 : in the Council Chambers for a study session with i Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall and to ; schedule public hearings on the Master Plan of i the City. i Respectfully submitted, I I t : Recording Secretary I I 1 I I I I * I I I t t 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 * 1 I I I * I I I * I I I I I I I I I