The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1964-10-27; Planning Commission; MinutesI !CITY OF CAaLSBAD !Minutes of PLANNI NG COMMI SSI ON :Data of Meeting: October 27, 1964 !Ti me of Meeting: 7: 33 P. M. :Place of Meeting: Council Chambers ~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-"-"-"-"---" i :ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Palmateer,; :Grant, Sutherland, Lamb, McComas and Freistadt. Com- i :missioner McCarthy was absent. Also present were City : !Manager Mamaux, City Attorney Nilson, City Engineer i :Wayne Lill, A.ss't City Engineer Thornton, Robert A. : !Johnston, Engineering Dept. , and Building Inspector Os- { jburn. I I 1 I I I :;i;;: :APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I I :l:It; 8 palmateer : ; ; 8 : : i ixi I (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of October 13, Grant !xi :xi : ; I I Samb I :xixi ; : I &Iccomas ; ; I :xi I Freistadt i i :xi I : *I:: ;::::; I I I '::;:: :::;#I :::::i I I Il964, were approved as submitted. putherlarid i : :X: ; It I I Ill, I I I I I I I I :a !U. RI TTEN COMMUNI CATIONS: I ( a) Mrs. Doris Chalmers - re: Variance to create : !a "panhandle" lot split granted by Ftesolution No. 324. I I ::;::I * I ::!!#I I I *I khariman Sutherland announced this request was continued i ;to this meeting in order to have the legal opinion of the :City Attorney on whether the present Commission were ; 3ualified to take action on this matter. !The City Attorney stated that since this was not a public ! :hearing, each Commissioner could vote on this request, i $tlthough they were not all present at the public hearing. i pecretary Grant read the letter from Mrs. Chalmers, and ! letter from Jack Kubota, 3800 Skyline Road, stating that be and his wife are owners of property to the west and norty bf the Chalmers property and as neighbors had constructed; $.he existing drdveway to serve their properties and its lo- :cation and use had proved to be most effective over the pas{ give years. Under a section of the deed by which they pun- i khased the property to the south of their home, a perman- : knt access easement for the exclusive use of the Chalmers Property was provided for, giving the two lots in question : p legal right to use the driveway even though it may not be hithin their own panhandle area. He and his wife are in : kccord with Mrs. Chalmer's suggestion that the existing i ?riveway be allowed to serve as the access to the two par- pels of land being created. i Mr. Thornton explained the "panhandle" lot split that was i granted by the Planning Commission in November, 1963, : would require removing extensive landscaping on this pro- Ferty, and that the improved driveway they are using is a : pore direct route to these lots. I I kt was pointed out that the Engineering Department could de: hand at anx time that this driveway be changed and that the: !'panhandle portion granted by the Commission be improv-i @d to meet the requirements of this policy. $After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt Re- i Solution No. 380, amending Resolution No. 324 to provide i )hat no paving be required on the "panhandle" portion of the: tots created so long as other paved access to said lots is i kaintained to the satisfaction of the City Engineering De- partment. 'The following resolution was presented: I I I I I I I I I 9. . I I I I I I I # 1 I I I I I I I ,-.I; hesolution No. 380. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING$utherland : : ; g I &ant : jx:x: f EfNFz?z$MzSION RESOLUTION NO. 324 BY DE-&c--+omas : : ;5 : )-,ETING REQUIREMENT OF PAVING PANHANDLE SEC-1 ::t TION OF LOTS, was adopted. Freistadt ;x i !x! i I !ll!: E CITY OF CARLSBAD AMENDINGtamb J::4! i * ! ! ,- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -2- i- - - - - - - -" - - - - - - :The Planning ORAL I COMMUNICATIONS: I $he City Council on Planning WBF&- I I I I I I I I I I I :Secretary Grant reported that Ray Spangler had called him i knd stated that he would be willing to serve on ohe of the : !committees for the Master Plan of the City, preferrably the Fndustrial Committee. I I I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC HEARINGS: I I I I (a)VARIANCE - To consider a reduetion in the re- : iquired rear yard setback from 5' to 4' on Jefferson Street, ! grid overhang of roof from 3' to 1' from alley on property : :at the Southeasterly corner of Jefferson Street and Oak i :Avenue. I 1 I hotice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that i broperty owners in the area were notified of the public i aearing and then read the application. I I :There was one item of correspondence on this variance . I $rom Louis F. and Georgiana Gaus, 3162 Jefferson Street, bbjecting to this variance. I I khairman Sutherland announced the Commission would now: $ear from the applicant and others present wishing to speal# :in favor of this request. I 1 :MR. W1LLIA.M BIGLEY stated that the property owner whh ' :. bbjected to this is about 3 or 4 houses from him and he has i $bout a 3 or 4 foot setback from the street, while his pro- : perty that he is asking for a variance on has a 20' front I pard setback. He pointed out that the adjacent property : pwners did not object. ;The Chairman announced the Commission would hear from bersons present desixring to speak in opposition. I I I :There were no persons present desiring to speak in opposi{ $ion. I I :The public hearing was closed at 8: 15 P, M. I I !It was pointed out that the applicant has a nice apartment $milding with off-street parking and they will put a roof oveQ $his parking area supported by steel posts. I I ,,:,,I :The Building Inspector explained that the carport will be I $ied to the existing building and the bumper guard which is : ;;':I1 I: rive feet from the existing building will be moved allowing i $ larger parking area. He also pointed out that the church : kas granted a variance where they maintain the Sunday kchool classes. $After discussion on the parking and the location of the steel: posts, a motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 378 granting the request for said variance for the following i !reasons: !carport without the requeskd variances, but even without : ;:;I:l ithe carport cars will be parked in the area, so the allowingi nf the building of the carport as reqcested will aid the pre-: I::::: gently existing situation and will place no additional burden6 ;::;:: Dn the owner or any of his neighbor's properties. 1;'I:l !mterially detrimental to the pnhlic welfare OF injurious to! IiI:ii applicant: 'William Bigley. I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I;':;: ::i::: i:: ::: :::;:I :;'I;: ::i;:: I I ::,4:: I I ;l:lI; I 1'~I:l ;::::: I I ;:;i:: 1-I;: ::::;I I 8 :;,:I: I I I h:;!; !::;I' '::;II 8: 1,:::: 41:1; I I I 1)' 61 * I I 1, The presently existing situation will not allow a I I I I ::;::: I I I ::: I:: t 2. That the granting of such variance will not be : :::I;: I I I I ::;::: I I I I ::;:;: I I I ! '11::; i::::: I I I '1,l s I' s \' s s I '\ 8\8*88, ', '8 '* s 1 '8 \ b8 *8 '. I s -3- 88 \*I s s 8 s I s s I ',, '888'8,~8,''8).8 s I s Name '8 ',% ''.:$A i I I ; of 'Y+.O?, ,?A '0 ' +..*\@, ' : I -b#; SJ s s I ::;I:: I s I :::!i: s ~"""""~~"""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""";"""""""-"- : Member 8$ s"p.\+(? "","" P 8 :the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in i ::!i;# 'yhich the property is located. ;The following resolution was presented: !Planning Commission Resolution No. 378; A RESOLUTIOwalmateer i ; ;xi : ; ZX"-A VA -A 3110 - 3130 J E FFERSON prant ; t :x: ; ; bTKEET AT Tm=EA;TERLY CORNER OF JEF- $utherland : !xixi : : :FERSON STREET AND OAK AVENUE, was adopted by Lamb bitle only, and further reading waived. NcComas : ; !xi ; : I Ss!!:: Is I s :::;:: b ::; I:: 1 s ::: Is@ 11 11 ; ; : ;xi i 1 Preistadt :xi :x; I 8 I( s /TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - CARLSBAD COUNTRY i SOMES, continued. I s !The City Attorney stated that they would like to have a meej- fng with Mr. Adler and hie engineer and the City Engineer, I Xhe City Manager and himself to work @ut some problems : $n this subdivision regarding the Elm Avenue street ex- I Xension. s s :The Chairman asked Mr. Adler if it would be agreeable wi& him to continue this to the next mgc&tr meeting since there! pas been a conflict created by this proposed subdivision, : pnd Mr. Adler agreed. s I !The Secretary informed Mr. Adier that the Commission Fook note of the letter he had written and would read it at : $he next regular meeting with their permission. I s *TENTATIVE SUBGIVISION MAP - GRANGE COVE 8 lots. I Zone: R-3, located on the Southerly side of Magnolia Ave., : between Roosevelt and Madison Streets. Owner: Ronald i proward. s s s Vhe Secretary read the reports of the vari rmu.departments bnd agencies. A letter was also read from the Pacific Telq- Phone and Telegraph Co, stating that the telephone lines i will be buried along the rear of the lot lines. s s bON HOLLY, licensed Engineer for the Subdivider, stated: )hat they Etee in agreement with the recommendations made I and would be glad to answer any questions. The substand- ; krd street going into this subdivision was developed by the i Village to the South and they did consider this for a private ; jstreet but felt it would be too bulky and worked out the 'street dedication with the City Engineer. The property in ! $.his subdividwn is owned by one owner and he was not able i Xo purchase additional property to the east or to the south. : $he largest number of units they plan to build would be 4 i &nits per lot and they would fit in with the over all Master : plan of the City. Alleys would not work out well in this bubdivision because of the shwe and size and would be .- breating four openings. The owner wants to put up desirabl$? looking apartments and to up-grade the property and tt is : becessary to meet the buyers market. s I br. Thornton stated the Engineering Department always I bke a block study when a tentative mbdivision map is ; brought in and explained the block study shown that it was : tlifficult to tie alleys in on this subdivision. On the present: layout, the Engineering Department has waived the require: bents of a sidewalk on one side and alleys, There were tm: bther problems and the drainage and sewers are all right. khere was considerable discussion regarding alleys and re: Pucing the number of lots to have larger lots because of it : being such a narrow subdivision; the aesthetic look of the i bubdivision; the fact that the owner cmld build multiple- i bnit dwellings now; the need for special case standard to be: befined. I I s s s s s * s s 1 s I s s s I s 1 s s 4 I s s * 1 s s I s s I I s s s s 3 L I I' I I 4 I 8 , '8 '8 '8 '8 -* I I -4- I of '$08 ' I I 88 8,88b8 'b '8,'*, I I I I '88 '8 ''8 88\, 'S,8*, I a i N a me 888 '8F&8 -t&, i I I ,?d%\ 28 4%. : :::::: IJ 1 I I 88 '\ ', 8 8 ' I I '\ '89 : Member 8$+$<!+9$b8' P motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 379 denying ap-i :""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" -2"""- proval of Orange Cove Subdivision for the. following reasons! i:;:;: I I *I1 ::: I p:;lI I 1. That this subdivision design has been designed topalmateer ; :x !x: ; ; I I Lamb ;x: I I 2. The subdivision does not met the general City $!IcCarnas : i ; I ;:::a* I I I I@ bpecial case standards and the Commission does not be- Grant : ; ; :x: : iieve that these special cases exist in this instance. $utherland I : ;x! I I Itandards, Fresitadt i i : ;XI i phe motion died for lack of a majority. I I I :::;:: :a1 l(I' ! *!!!!I I: I I I I motion was made to adopt Resolution NO. 379 recommend'r ing approval of Grange Cove Subdivision. I Resolution No. 379, A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSkA@rant DmAmG COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APL -' Sutherland PROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP CF ORANGE COVE tamb @JBDIVISION, was adopted subject to the recommendationsMcComas bf the various departments and agencies. treiattzdt. 1. hmateer ! I I 1 t I 18;;;; recess was called at 9:20. Reconvened at 9: 30 P. M. I ;;:::: I I:!::: ! ~LD BUSINESS: ?" i I 0 I I I I I (a) Discussion on requirement of dedication of neced- bary right of way and easements upon granting request for I Fezone. I I )Mr. Thornton explained the necessity of the need for right i pf way and easements in R-3 and C zones and the necessity I pf getting this information to the public. I I phere was discussion on handling this matter by ordinance i t>r policy, atiq the City Attorney stated that he preferred to i bee it handleg as a written policy as it is a very touchy :". I - '- problea if +&en to court. It could be handled by a written. ; bolicf attached to the zoning ordinance and it would be mor4 flexable and could be changed easier. 1 I The Chairman instructed the City Attorney to meet with i Mr. Thornton and to make up a policy to bring to the next : tneeting. I I * I I 1 I I I I I -I 1 I I I I I I I (b) Discussion on zoning property on the Northerly i bide of Adams Street, Southerly of Highland Drive from : R-1-15 to 8-T. I I I I I I rhe Secretary explained that the application of Tolles and I Law for a rezone to R-3 was denied and that it dgkt. be 6 i to 8 months before the Master Plan of DMJM is adopted. ; Zhere was considerable discussion on the size of R-T lots being 4,6 or 15,000 sq. ft. ; the boundaries for R-T along i the lagoon; that the Fox and former Glissman property do : pot have R-T "Rec". ?he Building Inspector explained that these properties were! branted Conditional Use Permits and then were granted R-t Zoning. I bF?,ANK DEVORE, Governmental right of way Supervisoe, ban Diego Gas & Electric Company stated that property : Owners along the north side of the lagoon would be coming in for a zone reclassification for R-T-4 soon for a motel. ; He stated that he thought the property next to the water I front was too valuable to build houses on. )Mr. Thornton stated that the lots in Shelter Cove have 40' i Frontage and that is why they have allowed rolled curbs in i )he R-T zones. The sewers will be available within 8 to 9 : I I I I a I I I I I I a a 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 a I I I I s s I I I I I s b s -5- !""""""""""""""""""-"""""".""" ." ." ." I" I" ." $nonths along the shore line. The property owners on Adarps vi11 have sewers after the petition ig out. They would be : Fllowed inter im.sewer disposals if approved by the Health ! pepartment and Engineering Department. The tentative i !roadway width for Adams is 36' in the area. It will allow ; :limited parking and slow moving traffic. iMR VERCEL TOLLES stated that he would be willing to i pile application for rezoning his property with the others. : bOL. EDWARD HAGEN, 4407 Highland Drive, stated that; he has one acre of property above Altonls and that rezonind $he property will increase the value of his property and in-: :crease his taxes so tkat eventually he will have to move. i k0L. S. F. DUNN, 4379 Highland Drive, stated that he ha4 blked to a lot of people and they do not like to see this pro! per@ rezond. If the Commission has a public hearing, ; $hey will be present to voice their opinions. ;There was discussion on rezoning the Bonnie Casey properb Xo the East of Carlsbad Landing and Mr. Thornton stated ; $hat he has always envisioned the City as buying the Casey i property as it would be ideal for a City park. If zoned to ; :a hlgher use it makes the cost higher to buy. :Commissioner Lamb ducussed changing the R-T zone thati ?as granted on the David Baird property and on the Buena : :Vista Lagoon. iComm. Freistadt asked that the property owners up High- : !land Drive be notified when there is a public hearing on the! :lagoon property. b 8 4 I I I a 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 (c) Report by Commissioner Freistadt on the San I !Diego County Planning Meeting held at the Carlsbad Muni- ; kipal Water District office for a tentative zoning plan for i !"Southeast Carlsbad". He reported that considerable dis- : :agreement was evident. Many owners of parcels evidently i jdesire R-1, C-1 or other zones. Some wihhed unzoned ; :areas to continue, wanting no part of "police state", Dr. i !Willis Miller stressed proposed A-1 48) for a holding zone : :to avoid blighted uses. A few raised the point about prop .,.- iperties being annexed to a city, perhaps Carlsbad, at whic4 :time City zoning would take over. Land owners plan to : :meet, appoint a committee to recommend to Planning Comf :mission their wishes. I s :There was discussion on DMJM doing a Master Plan of i Ithis area for the County. s (d) M-1 Committee. !The Chairman stated that the Mayor requested that the : :Planning Commission reinstitute examination of M zones. :The+Chairman appointed Commissioners Grant, McComas, IFrelrPti8dt and himself to serve on the M-1 committee, re- i :lieving the former committee that was appointed. l :The Chairman inquired about the citizens committees and :submitted a report from DMJM regarding the guidelines i jfor citizens committees. I I !The Chairman asked the Commission to state which corn- i :mittees they wished to serve on and he would take what wa4 I I I I 0 8 I t I I 0 I I I I I I I I I I s I I I I I I $ommissioner Lamb dsicussed the C-2 zoning on the A-1 I :Garage on State Street becoming an M use. He reported : Ithat he had several citizens object to this. He asked if thii I I I I I I I I b I I I I I I 0 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I -6- I l I I I I I I a :""""""""""""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""~" $vas a Planning Commission matter or to whom the com- i plaint should be made. ;The Building Inspector stated that he has investigated this I bn several occasions and this could be brought to the City i Manager's attention. I I l I * 4 I I I I I I I I !ADJOURNMENT: L" I # By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 10: 53 P. M. 1 * 1 I jRespectfully submitted, 1 I I ! I 94' ?&gULA/ bROTHY M. SOUSA :Recording Secretary I I