HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-01-25; Planning Commission; MinutesI
CITY OF CARLSPV
i Date of i;leeting: i Time of Neeting: :"""""""""""" Place of 3eeting: "..
.- idinutcs of:
I I
"
PLANNING COF:WlISSION
January 25, 1966
Counci 1 Chambers 7:30 P.i.1.
,"""""""""""""""""""
I I i ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners !4unn, : Palmateer, McComas, Lamb and Freistadt. Com- - i missioners Sutherland and NcCarthy were absent.
I Also present were City Attorney Wilson, Planning I Director Schoell, Building Inspector Osborn and I R. A. Johnston, Planning and Engineering Dept.
I I
I I
I I. i APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I I 1:i;i:
I I ;:l:b@ 11 i (a) Uinutes of the regular meeting of : Munn ;1:*11
: January 11, 1966, were approved as submitted. i PaImateer : ixixi i I
I I ; : :xi I i
I i tlccomas i i i x; i
I I : Lamb : ; :x: i I
I I i Freistadt i ;xi i i
I I ::':::
I I I :ih,I I::; i MRITTEM COi4MUilICATIONS: I I :::::I
I I I ,I::;;
I I :::i;:
; Designation of the Commission's 1966 County I I :::::'
I ::::I 4; i mnning Congress Director and Alternate. I I :::I::
I I ;lI;ll
Chairman McComas stated he had been the Director i ::;I:: :x;ii : and Commissioner Sutherland was the Alternate I ::@I:: i for the past year and he had enjoyed it, although; 1:;::: :l::la : it is time consuming. Ne explained there was I ::;a,1 11 i four meetings during the year plus a meeting at : ::;::: i the beginning of the year for election of officerb ::/,I ::iiii : and plans are then made for meetings for the I :;:::: i year. I I ::;:::
I ::;;;i i Commissioner Munn accepted the appointment of i :a I l;@l:I
I Director, and Commissioner Freistadt accepted i !::::I the appointment as Alternate for the year 1966. I /::;:
:::;I'
I I ;::;I' I1 I ORAL COP?..lnUPl I CAT I ONS : ;:;;::
I 1 I:~l::
t ;;::;: i There were no oral communications. 1 :I::;:
I I ::ii:: ;I1 : PUBtIC HEARINGS: f I ;:::::
r I 1 :I,:,; a;:::
1 i:iii; I1
: Zone R-T on property on the Easterly side of ParkI I: I Dr. between HIllside and Adams St.¶ on Lots 3 and! 'I::: I:::;: : 4 and portions of Lots 1 and 5 of Block ItF", I I ::;I:: ':::It I Bella Vista, islap 2152; and a portion of tot I, I ;::::I
: Rancho Aqua Hedionda, Map 823. Applicants: A. t ;:::;: i H. Glissman, et al. I I 1:::;: , * I ;:llll ,;:;:
Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Palmateer ! :::;I,
'1;
: certified that notice of Public hearing was I i::::; i published and was sent to the property owners in i I;:a;; :l;$;; : the area, and then read the appl'ication and the : ;:
i names of property owners of adjacent property who! ::I:::
1:;::: : were in favor of this zone change. I I i:iiii
I ::I:;;
: There were no written communications. I t :I!:;:
I I :;;::: i The Chairman announced the Commission would now i:;:::
I:':;: : hear from the applicant and any others who wished: ;l:lII 1::::: i to speak in favor of thJs reclassification. I I :::::: I ::;:::
MR. A. H. GLISSMAN stated he wants to start a I i:::::
: little museum there as he is a collector. He i stated he had a display at the Community Concoursk 1;:;:;
I 8 ;I::::
I I :;:;;;
I I I:;:':
b I :11;*;
I # I :ii:ii
I I I ;I/:; ;:;::I
I # ::;:;:
I ;:::::
I :I::!;
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I (a) San Diego County Planning Congress - re:
?
I
r
I
I
I
1 I
I I
I
I I
I I I I I I'
RECLASSIFICATION - Zones R-1-10 and R-1-15 to I
I
I I
I
I
I I I I
I I
I
I
a I ::,a:; *;:I:
I
I
I
8
1
I I @I8#;* I * I
'1 I
I *
I
I t 1 1
I
?
I I
I I I I I I I I t I I I I 1
I I I I I
1 -2-
:""..I." "- - """""""""""""""""- * """"" """"_ """"_i """"""_
!in San Diego. He would like to develop one acre :
:of his property for a museum as he is compelled
jCr, do something with the property because of the : :last increase in property taxes. The reason give4
iperty along the lagoon is considered "light jbusiness" property. He felt they should be able I
:to use the property for the use that is being I !charged and hoped to get others to go in with him.! :Hi's collection takes considerable room to display:
:and he has had a number of requests to show his i
jcollection in various parts of the country. He : :would like to give the City something they would i
$e proud of. I I
!The question was asked regarding this use being
:permitted in an R-T zone, or if it should be I I :handled under a conditional use permit.
Ii41R. GLISSMAN stated this is a recreation use and ! :he would not consider a contitional use permit i :because of the limitations on building which !were placed on the permit he had at Whitey's
:Landing. He proposed to have the museum near jwhere his home is. He stated Mrs. Salsen de-
e" :sired her property to be included in this applic-j jation and had planned to be at the meeting this : :evening and would possibly like to build multiple:
:dwellings on her property.
!F?R. JOHN FRANCIS FOX, 4250 Harrison Street, jvoiced hearty approval of this zone change. He i :felt that high density and multiple dwellings are! !in line with the General Plan for the use of the : :land in this area. He believed this museum would:
:be a welcome attraction to the City and reported : :new owners of the Sportsmen's Landing and 1 iCarlsbad Landing may bring in more attractions to; :that part of the City. I
:The Chairman announced the Commission would now Ihear from those desiring to speak in opposition. : jMo one present spoke in opposition. I I
:The Planning Director gave a report of his I I :findings and explained it on the map. He stated i ithis property cuts deeply into an R-1 residential: I area and that many uses allowed in an R-T zone :are not compatable with R-1. He felt it would be: jbetter to handle this under a conditional use I :permit. This was pointed out to the applicant I
jwben he applied for the reclassification. I I I /There was considerable discussion on a conditional ;use permit and a precise plan; the adoption of the
:General Plan as a guide line;, that it would be :enlarging the R-T zone to a greater extent if I :granted; that if the property is zoned R-T the
;applicant would have to come in later to consider! :"Ret" as described in the City Code on Page 338.1: jand Ordinances 9135 and 9146, Sections 1. * *
:The Chairman asked the applicant if be wished to i :speak in rebuttal.
iNR. GLISSMAN stated he had nothing to say in i rebuttal and he did not bring in a precise plan
I
4 I t
I :to '- him for this tax increase was that the pro- I
I I * I
I I 4 I I I *
I I I t I I I l I I
I 1
I I I I I I I
I I I I
F
I t I I b
I I
I I I I
I
I I I 4 I I
I I 1 I 8 t .. . I
I *' ' I
I I I I I
I 1 # I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
I
I I
1 I' , " " t ' ' 8b8 I I I I I I I I ', \ 8 ' ', I I I I '\ 8 I
I
- I ', '\ ', '\ 8' I
I I '8 '%, ',, '\ '\ \\
I Name 8, '+&
I
\, ', '8, 88
I I I I -3- ',&j. .,$k ;
1 : of $g&&?&. i Member ,o~,o~,P$?~,o'~
# i;*181 I ': ; 0: building plans as he was waiting until they 8:::; i have the tone change. They are also waiting for ; ::I ::: : sewers at the present time. ;:~lll
$ ::;::;
I I !::I:: i PIR. FOX pointed out that a copditional use permit? ,:'::: i Iirnits a person on getting a loan. 4 I ;I::;: I 4:::;
I I :::;It 1 The City Attorney stated that it was generally I 4:::: ; true that it is harder to get financing as the : I;::::
lenders are a little more hesitant to loan money !I!;:: I1 : because of conditions placed on conditional use : ;lt@lt ; permits when they are granted. The lenders I :;I$: i always have to conslder that the permits might i :;!::I
; be revoked. I I :i:tll :;:
: The public hearing was closed at 8:07 P.M.
: The following resolution was presented: I After consideration by the Commission, a motion i i was made to adopt Resolution Ho. 419 denying the I : application for change of zone for the following I
i (1) That this property is bordered on 3 sides i : by property that is now shown as R-1-10 and 1
I (2) This particular area will be extremely : valuable to the beauty of the Aqua Hedionda Lagoo5
(3) This area should not be used for commercial i : or small hotels or motels which are allowed in ;
i (4) There is sufficient R-T zoning in the area. I p::;:
I 4 1:;::: : Planninq Commission Resolution No. 419. A RESOLU-i i;:::: i nor+ DENYING APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZORE FROM I 14unn :xi ;i : i : R-1-10 AND R-1-15 TO R-T ON PROPERTY AT EASTERLY ; Palmateer i : ; 4 i : i SIDE OF PARK DRIVE BETMEEN HILLSIDE DRIVE AND i McComas ; I i 5 ; ': ADAMS STREET, was adopted by title only and I Lamb ::;qii - : further reading waived. i Freistadt: IX~X ;
(b) VARIANCE - To cQnsider a reduction in the :1::1; ::::I;
: required side yard setbacks from 7 feet to 5 fee4 ::I:;; on property on the Southerly side of Laguna Drive;. ;I
: Applicants: Charlotte F. Leftwich and Florence I 1 I ::
I:;::, i R. Zuetell. I I ::;:;:
I I I ::;:;: ::;::: i Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Palmateer $4:: : certified that property owners in the area were i 1'::;: i notified of the public hearing and then read the : :; I' ;;!::I ; application. I I 1:;::;
I I I !:/I1 ;:;: ! There was one item of correspondence from the :I::::
Engineering Department dated January 25, 1966 I :@4;: : which blr. Johnston read, regarding ten feet of i ;:'::I:
;I:::: i street dedication on the Southerly side of I I 1::;:;
Laguna Drive. A petition is Bcing circulated fod :::;I; : 1911 Act Improvements and they have letters on i ;::;:;
,:;:I: I file from property owners who want street 1 I ;14:i
; improvements. I ;:: I, I ;:;!:I ;::::I
:::I:I i hear from the applicant and any others who wished: ;::::: 1:;:::
I to speak in favor of this variance. * I :;;:::
I r:;:::
I i::;:!
I I I ;::;:;
I ;:;1;1
I ;:;:::
I I 6 I :::i:i
I I 4 ;::a:#
I 1 1;::;;
I 'j>;:;
I I ,""~""""~""""""""""~~""-~"""""""""""""-"""-""----""""- ""'1""
I
I I*
I
I
I I I :$::
I I ::;:::
I
I I I
I I I
reasons : I 8 I I 1 I
I R-1-15. I * ,-" I t I I 1 I
I t
t i area when the full development is finished. I 1
I I
I
i R-T. I I
I
11 11
I I @I (14
I
1
111 8
I
I I
The Chairman announced the Commission would now i
1
I I I I I
)1111( I
I
I t
1
I I I
I I
I I
I I I :iIiIi
: I
I i:'l!l
I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I -4-
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 1 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 1
i I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 8 1 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 !4Ri ED LEFTIdICM stated he plans to have six
garden type apartments there and wants to keep i
as much greenery as possible is the reason for requesting this variance. The property abuts the Ross and Richardson properties on the !!est side : and they plan to have the driveway on the West side with the trees remaining between the drive-: way and the Ross and Richardson properties. I I
They also plan to leave the trees in the center : of the property next to the driveway to provide i for a recreational area. If they have to have I 7' side yard setbacks they will have to put the ; driveway next to the property line. He pointed i out they plan to have single story apartments, :
whereas, they could go to three stories. They i plan to have a 5' setback on the East side and : 10' on the Mest side, however, they are asking i for the 5' setback on the \:'est side because of :
the overhang on the second story over the garage: where they plan to have apartments over the garage. He stated that he had been approached bi the Engineering Department regarding street dedication but did not wish to dedicate property! for street improvements.
MRS. HOMARD ROSS, spoke for her mother-in-law, MRS RUTH ROSS, 825 Laguna Drive, stating she t I objects mainly to the deviation of the code. She wondered by the variance is necessary and wouldnit involve sanitation or ventilation
problems and how it would affect their insurance: Ers. Ross stated she believed the trees were I I on her side as she had planted them.
MR. LEFTWICH stated that he believed the trees I were on his property, and was assuming this 8 I because of where the fence is, although he has i not had the property surveyed yet. I I I
S1RS. 19. DEANE MERILLAT, 2720 Jefferson, stated she and her sister had bought the former Rich- I ardson property in July, and 3 of the trees are on her side of the fence, with one on the i
Leftwich side. She stated she objects to the : granting of the variance, because when this is granted to one, others may ask for the same type:
of variance, and this can change the whole t I character of the area. She commended the Commission for their actions taken in the past i
and pointed out that the owner just bought the : property and knew the size of the lot, and if it! is not large enough, he should have bought a I larger piece of property.
MR. LEFTYICH stated that he could go to 3 storied an& build within 7' of the property line. He wished to keep the neighborhood up and is trying: to keep the property attractive and will up- I I grade the area. He pointed out this would not I be using the property to the greatest monetary : value; and that the other properties he has built in Carlsbad have improved the area; and if: there were no need for variances there would be no need for a Planning Commission.
1
I I
I I I I I
I 1
I I
I 1 I I I
I
I I
I I
I I I I I
I I
l
I I I
8 * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +
b I I 6
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I t I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1
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 I I I I I I I I I I I
i
*.
/-
F
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 1 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 1 I
I I
I I I I
-
-5-
."""""""""""-""""""""""""""""""""""""" i-
The Planning Director gave his report noting that the property is level, buildable and has i
ease of access.
NR. LEFTVICH stated it was his understanding that trees were considered important when he built other apartments in the City and when he :
sat in on meetings at the school, and could not ! understand why the trees were not considered important now as he could have saved time and i
money by not trying to have the trees.
The public hearing was closed at 8:40 P.M.
Points discussed were that no other buildings in! that area have narrow setbacks; there were no : unusual circunlstances; this would be setting a i
precedent in this area; that the applicants would build a 3 story apartment building and whether or not the second story could encroach I 2' into the side yard; the different size lots i and the setbacks and lot coverage permitted; whether the zoning ordinance should be changed i on the amount of side yard setbacks.
Commissioner Lamb commented on the variances granted for side yard setbacks in the past and stated he felt there was a need for a change in the ordinance for the amount of side yard set- : backs required. He suggested denying the re- quest on the west side and granting the variance! on the east side with the condition that park- ,i
ing would be in the back portion of the property:
The following resolution was presented:
* ? I
I 1 I I I I I 4 I I
I 1
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 A motion was made by Commissioner Lamb to adopt i i Resolution No. 420 denying the request for a I ; variance for reduction in the required side yard] i setback on the west side and granting a variance: : for reduction in side yard setback on the east i I side of said property with the condition that ; : the.'driveway be provided on the west side of the! i property and parking area on rear of the pro- i perty for the following reasons: : 1. That a reduction in side yard setback to 5'! is very common in the City. : 2. That the granting of this variance will not; injure any of the properties in the area. 1 I : 3. That it obviously would not affect the I General Plan and will provide a means of hiding ! : the parking area from t'he street.
: The motion died for lack of a second.
i MR. LEFTWICH asked to withdraw his request for i : a variance as he felt he was trying to do some- : i thing good for the City and had spent time with : the Planning Director on this matter, but could I i build without the variance but it would not be
I as attractive.
: The City Attorney stated he could withdraw the I i request but the money for the application could ; : not be refunded.
I I I I
I
I I
: 8 I 9 I I I I I 8
I I
I I
I I I I I 1 8
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I !
l 1 '\" ''. I I
I I I
\\ ', \, ', '\ '8 i I
4 I I \\ =\., 8\, \\\'\\ I
I I I I I
- 1 '% ', 8, '\ '\ '\ I I 8.3, *"
I I -6- [ Name '\,'%%,'b8:8+&, i
I I : : Member of '*&,,>,,;-+ ?%'$9,+tp\,o'\ ; I
;""~"~"""""""-"""""""-"""""""""""~"""""""~""-"-"--"-"- "",""
I I ' I I I :":
!After further discussion Mr. Leftwich withdrew ! ;:;8&1 :::I:: :his request to withdraw the application. # :::I:; 11
I I :::I:, !A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 420 I I p:;;:
1 denying the request for the variance for the 1 ;i:t:: I fo7 1 owing reasons: I:I'
I I :::;::
)#I 1)
! (1 ) It has not been shown there is any unnecessy i :I;! jary hardship or circumstance to justify the 1 I ::!::: : variance being granted. I 1 :;l:t*
I I ;;::I* 1)
:Planning Commission Resolution No. 420. A RESO*- iMunn ::I;:: : : :xi ; : ILUTION DENYING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY AT 847 :Palmateer i :x !x: i : :LAGUNA DRIVE, or4 THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF LAGUNA I~~cComas I i :x/ : I
!DRIVE, EASTERLY OF JEFFERSON STREET, was adopted !lamb : ; i :xi :
!by title only and further reading waived. lFreistadt jx: :xi : i
!OLD BUSINESS: I I ;,,,,I ::::;:
I I I 1:::::
/(a) Vacation of certain streets in Hosp I I I 8:
:;l:ml
: Eucalyptus Grove. I I !::;:I
I *I(II I I I :::;:i
I I P1;:t
8 1:: !Parks and Recreation Commission - Memorandum I@
jdated January 25, 1966, stating they are in favor! ::::I: !io::: :of the Planning Commission delaying action on the: ::j:
r :vacation of various streets in the Hosp Grove I ::::;:
luntil the Planning Commission has had an oppor- ! i:14tl
1:;Il
::;I:: tunity to study the proposed ordinance that I ::,::: Irequires park and recreation area be set aside, ! 1;:::: :with specific consideration for size and location! :l:;ll *I :in. subdivisions. ;:1181
I I 1 I /::I;
!The City Attorney informed the Commission that i ::::I: 4:::; :the proponents have asked this matter be contin- : :: 1::: jued to:the next meeting. I
:#I #81:8:
I I I I ;:::::
!NEW BUSINESS: 4:::;
I I ::iy;
I I ii 11
il'lanninq Staff. The Planning Director stated tha4 I ji:: ;: ;:ii:: 11 !Mr. Robwt A. Johnston will be uorking with the : :Planning Department 1/2 time now, and will be I ::;::i
r !working in the Engineering Dept. the rest of the ;: 1::;:
:time. The City and Commission are fortunate to i :::I 14: i::::: jhave a man with his abilities and background to I $1 tI :work with. ::;;:I
I ::;I::
I I :;I::: :Buena Vista Lagoon development was discussed. I ::::::
$ommissioner Palmateer reported the Commi t.tee I :!::;; 11 :was empowered by the Council's of the Cities of I ;I:::;
iCarlsbad and Oceanside to consider ways and I ;::::'
!means for the development of the lagoon but I I 1;;l::
I 114:! :they have nothing definite to report at this time.! :::;Il ;::::I
9 1 ;::;::
1 :!;::: :Munn i :xi 4 i i ipalmateer ; : ; 4 i i IMcCornas i 4 : ; :Lamb i::g:: jFreistadt :x: : < : I
I ;::::;
t I ;::;:; 18' I:;::( 11
: I :I!:!:
I I :j:;::
I I :I:;!; ::::::
I I ;::;:;
I I ;::;:;
I :::::;
I :!::;!
I 1 I
I
1
I 4
I I I ij I;:::
11
I 11
I 1
I I I I:;'# I 11
I I
I 1
I
I
I I
I
I
I
1 I
I
I I It
I
I
I
I I I I I
:81:8;
I :1::1: :;:;j:
8 I
I ;11:a:
I I I I I
::;::: @I
I I I:iiii ;:1:1;
I
I I I :i::::
I 1
t IADJOURMEWT: :By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at i9: 28 P. F4.
I I I I I I I jRespectfully submitted,
I
:DOROTHY SOUSA OSBURN
:Recording Secretary
I I I I I