HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-04-26; Planning Commission; MinutesI I I‘ ,.., *‘. I I
I
I I I I I
t ’ ‘\ 8.4 I
s i CITY OF CARLSBAD I 8\ ’, ’, ‘, ’8, ’, \, ’\ \\ \, ‘. ’*,
\ blinutes of: PLRMNIidG co3;~IIssIi)i;J I I ’8, ’%, ‘., 8\, ’,,‘,, I
+Lo\+ $+8 :
I i::;:; @I*
: Date of i4eet.i ng : April 26, 19S6 N a me ’8, ‘\%, ’\, \$>, i i Time of i’lecting: 7:30 P.i.1. : of ‘S(?+, ‘ %*, I
I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, I t::
: P1 ace of i*lec.ti rig : Cou9c.i 1 Chambers I Member ~$fJ*p‘.~~p\,o~, )“““”“““““-I-””- “_“”””“”””_””“”“””””””““”..“””””“”“”~ ”““”-
I I 9 lq
1:::::
I :;;:::
I I I :::;:I
I :::I::
I : Smith i : : : :xi
I I I McCarthy I : : :x:
I i Lamb ;x: :i : :
I : Freistadt: : i xi : :
I
Palmateer, i.4cComas , JcCarthy, Lamb and Freistadt.! II,;I’ Commissioner Sutherland .was absent. Also present: !:I::: were City Attorney CJilson, Planning Director i Sshoell, Building Inspector Osburn, Ass’t City i :::::I : Enginzer Thornton and City danager John Namaux. :::::: 11
I APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 4 I ::::::
i (a) Jinutes of the regular meeting of April 12, Palmateer: :xi % i I i 19GG, were approved as submitted. : 1,fcComas : I : x: I
11
I
00 I1 I
I I
111
I
I
I
I *
1:‘
I1
f l*!RITTEi; COi4l~~U!4ICATIONS: : (a) Council Action on Planning :‘.tatters was noted.:
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 t I I I I I I 1 I I L I I * I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I
i ORAL COi4NUNICATIOi4S: 1 I i Chairman I4cComas welconed Mr. Rollin iyl. Smith
I as a nen member of the Planning Commission.
: PUBLIC HEARINGS:
i (a) RECLASSIFICATIOii, continued. Applicants: : Kanar Ccnstruction Co.
i (b) PRECISE PLAN, continued - Applicants: i Planning Comt;lission Resolution P10. 426.
i TEdTATIVE SUBDIVISION AAP, continued - LAGUNA : RIVIERA SUEDIVISION.
: Letter dated April 25, 1956, from Jerry L. i Romhotis of Kamar Construction Co., requesting i i cGntinuance of the above i tems until studies ; Smith
F
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
: are concluded in regard to the elementary school r. : site on this property.
I I i A motion was made to continue these hearings.
I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I
The Chairman explained this hearing was continued! : from the last meeting in order for Ilr. Holly to i i contact the property owndrs regarding the moving ;
; of the rear lot line to modify the request for : i reduction in lot area, and asked if the applicant: : or his representative and any others wished to i i speak in favor of Wese variances. I I
i MR. HARRY PRIGG, 690 Elm Ave. stated he represent;
: present at the last meeting. The property is in i
: themselves to stub out 3 different service connecF-
0
I I
/ 1 b
ed the owners and Geyer Real Estate, and vias not : :i::;; :I:#
1:;I;l
a 7500 sq. ft. zone and the City took it upon I I I::::: 11:1:
ions and required that 19 ft. be taken off their : 11 l;4::
i::;:;
I i:::::
I I l@::l:
I I I ;:h:l I 1;;::;
I I i:ll;;
I I :!!l!l ::Il
I I I I I
I 1 I I
I
I
I
r
r
I 1' I
I 1 I
I I I
I I s, ', '\, '\ '\ '8, I
I I 8,' '\, '\ '\ '\ '' I
I -2- I 8 ' '\ '\,'*, I
I : of 'IS a'\ '\ \p, I
................................................. -"":.""J
I I I i::::: i property on Knowles for street dedication. The i 1:::;: : owners feel this might be a multiple zone in the i iI:;;i
I future and it w uld be .better to have the 140 d:;ll
;::I:: : feet deep IO* ,al knowlei t'dther than to dove the [ 4:p; i line back from Stt-atfohh Lane. He pointed out, : ; there are :npnj lots though exclusive areas such i as the SeaCreSt Estates which have approximately : : the same depth as being requested. I I
: The o:'lner of the property did not request the culi i de-sac and there were no objections raised from : : the property owners in the area against these I i variances. The owners of the property reques tingi I these variances have been contacted and they do :
, \, '\ \ ' '
I I I
8, '8 ' \
I I / Na me '8 '\!$$, \, +$), /
I : Member '?de\ $@.$\d@ 9'4 +&,,
'\ '8.p'
I
I I I 1,
not wish to move the depth of the lot line.
The Chairman asked if there were any persons
I I I I 6 I I I 1 I I I I
I I
i wishing to speak in opposition.
i No one spoke in opposition. I I /;:::
I I i;::::
!The public hearing was closed at 7:58 P.I.1. # I I ::::
I I ;i:i;: 11
! It was pointed out that Commissioners Smith and I:;:;:
8lcCarthy would be ineligible to vote since they : ::;:::
:::I:, : Y:CY ~5-t r;rece~t at the beginning of the public i :I1 lh;;; hearing on April 12, 1966. I I lll:;:
I I :::::I
The Planning Director recommended that a 6' min- i :I::::
:;1:11 : imurn side yard be maintained to retain the neigh-! I:::;:
borhood standard if the lot width variance is I I :4:;:
: granted. I ::::;:
1 ::I:::
I :::::: : The Commission discussed the fact this would be i ;::::: 11 ; setting a precedence for other lots in this area.: ::;;:: : The Chairman stated that he saw no reason for :I I
I :::::i i concern on the lot size here as he felt this I 1;;1:1 I is a good size lot to take care of and he felt ::;:::
;llll: : the density would not be affected. I 1 :::;;:
:;:in:
: The Building Inspector pointed out that Nr. I :: :; ;;iii: i Yhitfield, who owns property westerly from this ;11;1; i property was granted a lot split for less than :ii:::
: 7,000 sq. ft. in the latter part of 1956. I 11:: I I I ::::;I
I :::'I: i The Planning Director explained that the size I::::; Il(III 11 of a lot in a new neighborhood indicates the I ! ::I :;: : amount of land that can be used for landscaping .i.:.: ;:;::: i and open space, and is an established set of I ;llJl; I I:;::, : rules for this area. By cutting down on the lot I :;I:;:
width it also cuts down on the side yard setbacks; i:::;: I required. He saw no reason for granting the area: ::;:::
: reduction variances since the reason for the re- i I:::,; ::i;:: i quests do not meet the requirements for granting ; ::,I:: : variances. I 1 :;;:;;
I ll;lll I ;: I ;::: After further consideration a motion was made to i Smith ;I I ; : :xi adopt Resolution ?io. 432 denying the application ~Palmateer /Xixi i : : as requested for the reason that it doe; not meet: NcComas : : i the requirements necessary for granting a variancCAcCarthy : i : :x i
I I
a:811a
I I
I
I I
I I
1)
I
I I I
I
I
I I I
I I I I
11 11
I
*I@
I I
: i $
I 1 I i Lamb k; :xi : ;
I I :Freistadt I *;xi :
I I ;::::I
I ::;:I: ;;4::
1;::;;
::::I, '1;
t I I ::::;;
I I ,::I,,
I I I I ::::::
I ::::::
I I ;~l:l:
I
i The City Attorney stated that even though there i 1:;I;l : were a majori t.y of the votes to deqy) this, it i requires a rnajori ty of 4 votes. He po k7ted out ; I that the owners of the property :Iruuld pl.)t, be able! I:;:;: to get building permits 01: these lots until they : : have 4 votes of the Commis5;ion approving this. I I
I
I
I I I
I #!!+!I
-
I 1 '\ \' ' \', I I I I
I I I I 8 ' \\'
I 1 I I
I I b, '\,", '\,'x, ', I
I -3-
I Na me '\ ',e$, \, \$),
I : of ",+ Q', ' .p, I I +?$%.+,+ * ; I """_"""""""""""~."""""""" """..""""" ""- """ ;""""""""" -:*f-;-2--q
I I ;:@@:I i i4r. Prigg questioned whether this matter would be: I;:!:; : continued and the Chairman stated this would not i:: 1: I
llt::: I be continued. They needed a total vote of four : :::I ;::I:: )I( i and they were only 4 eligible to vote. I 1 1:::::
4 :::;#I
i 17 lots - Zone: R-1-7500 located on the South- * t :;;:::
: westerly corner of the intersection of Basswood i ::;::; ::::;: Ave. and Valley St. Owners: Harold E. and Ann P.i i:: ::: I Crowe, and John rd. Duty. Subdivider: Bee Cee Co:. #It:;:
I ;;::II
I I I 1 1; i The Secretary read the application and the lette& /::;I
;:I;;:
from the various departments and agencies. He i 4:;;: i certified that notices were sent to the adjacent : ::;::: : property o\:cners of this proposed subdivision and :::I:: i stated there were no other written communications: IIIIt1 ::::I: : for or against this subdivision. I * ::p;i
I I I 1:::::
1::1:1 ! The Planning Director stated he did not make a ::;;;: i separate report as it is entailed in the subdi- i -;I;: ::*;I:
I vision report. I ::::I;
i Ar. Thornton explained the map of the proposed i i!ii)i : subdivision and the block study map made by the i :*:i;: I::
I 11:::
: acd the consideration given them. The Engineer- i i;:;::
i ing Department is requesting that a road be re- I ::;;,I '#:I
: served for a future street for the extension of i ::::i:
i Sandalwood Lane through Lot 13. Ne explained ; :::::: ; the lot to the east has access to Valley through i ::: '(1 ;;: i an easement on other properties from their garage: :::I::
I and has a non-conforming use with two existing i ::Ib 1,;: I dwellings on it that have been there for years. I 1::;::
; The Engi neeri ng department recommended that I I ;::::; II 4:
access to Sandalwood Lane be provided for to re- i ;:::;I
1;;:;: i inove the use of an easernent to Valley Street. 8 I ~ll:l~ The curve of James Drive was the Engineering De- i ::@I;:
i partment's recommendation to provide a future I i:::;:
+ ;::::: : concurrent intersection as James Drive extends i::::: i north of Basswood. I I ;::::!
I I:!;;: 11
i4R- DON ilOLLY, Licensed Surveyor, representing : ((I )I:!
;*1:1* ::;:::
/iiii ;:
'' ' \' '\ '\ 's. '\ '\"\\ \, '\ ' ' I I
I
', "4
: Member ~~~b~O~d.~
I I I I Ill
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION 138P - SAP!DALWOOD DALE - I I :::I::
It
@I
I
I I I I ;:I
Engineering Department of abutting properties I
::I
* I
I
I
the applicants, presented some a1 ternatives for : opening the area. He pointed out that Yr. Jack I II I Ducy is one of the owners, but fs not the sub- ::::;:
I ::I::: : divider, and the property is in escrou now. By I *I ::ii:: opening up the street through lot 13 it would. ; :ti;;: ; work a hardship to the subdivider and they are I i required to have an off-site sew2r extended from : : the subdivision boundary to Chestnut. They would! I not be able to afford to develop 15 lots if they : I::;:; ; have to delete one of the lots for the benefit i of others outside the subdivision. The cost I I :;'I;: I wobld make it difficult to develop this property i I::::: : as R-1 property. He presented an alternative I I : design showing access from Chestnut.
i He felt the "L" shaped street would confuse : traffic. When Elm Avenue extension is complete : i Chestnut Avenue will be the same type of street 1 allll:
: as James Drive as these streets will provide i drainage and sewerage. Elm Avenue will have a :@I 81:
: better connection to the downtown area. Mr. i Holly reqtiested that the fins.1 design of the open!- :::::; : ing be left to the City Engineer's discretion. i :!:;:; @I
I I *;;I:*
I*
I
I'
i::;:: 1;:;:;
4;;;;
I I :::#:I
I I I ;::::I
I t ;:::::
I I $8 11; /:;:;
;::#I@
I:;:;,
I :;::::
0::;;1
I i:::::
I I I 1 i::::!
I I I I ::;::;
I I I I ::;:::
I I I I ::;:::
I I b I ::;:;:
I 1 I I::::;
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I I I ::;::: ::::I;
! I l!!l!l
1 I' .. I
I I I f I I I ',,,",), '\, ', 'k I
I I \\ \, '. ' ' ' I 1 I , \, ', '- '\,"\ I
I -4- I I [ N a me '\\ ''& '. "$>, /
I I : of .?&@,; %$, i
t 8' I
I I ' ,' ',,\'
',&+ ' I :""""""""""""~""""""~-~"-""""""""-"""""""~~""""~""""- : Member ~%\p,.pg~,d.l \e. "",""%I
I i:: 1:: : The developer would like to screen off the sub- l;l;te I1
i standard use of the R-2 use in the 8-1 zone. He i :;::It
t requested a waiver of improvements on Valley St. : ::I:@#
:;l:bl : for lot 17. They did not intend to include lot I ::::I:
: 17, which has the non-conforming use, belonging : :;;:I: I #:;I
to Mr. Ducy in the subdivision, but the City re- 1 :;:i:; #I
i quested this be included for the purpose of the : II)I : legal description. Lots developed in this area I i:::::
i -.re s3bject tc 3 $reat expense because of the : : storm drain area. irlr. Holly stated they objected: ;;us:,
I to the street extension through Lot 13, and did : ::i:;:
:11:::
: not want a "panhandle" lot. He felt it is un- I 1::841 :::::: i reasonable to be charged for a drain that will :::::I
t not be used at this time, as requested in this i ::I::: I resolution.
i MR. LENIS CHASE, one of the proposed'develgpers ::I::: i stated they have extended James Dr. to the bound-: ; ary and lost one lot already.
The Commission discussed the following points: I that the developers are concerned with the finan-: I i;l:I' :#,I ; cia1 part of this, howeverg this is more of a I l(I)
i matter of planning before the Commission; the I lo i developers acquiring additional property to 1 I:#::: i develop with this subdivision; the drainage and I :;::::
I sewer system; the easement to the house with the ;:::::
1:::::
I I ::4;: VI
I I I :::;:: i PIR. HOLLY stated that when they developed Grey- I ::::;: :::Ill court Terrace Subdivision they. had an agreement : ::a;;: : with the Trayers who were part of the ownership, ;l;;l@
/ and they had more cooperation on that subdivision: 1:::::
::::,I I1 : than they have on this one with the owners. I I :::I::
I I ;:::::
: He felt that either one of the proposed streets I 18111; ;:::i: i would be more suitable because of the traffic i ::::;; i problem, and he felt that it would be better to ; ;: J;:;
: keep the street more simple rather than to enter I ii:;ii i a cul-de-sac. I I ::;:::
I ::::;:
i Llr. Thornton explained that part of the land t I :::i::
: belonging to blr. Ducy is being severed and had to; ;:::I; :::::: i be incorporated and part of the subdivision. I I ;:::::
I I :::;i: The Chairman pointed out that the applicant is i :;::I:
: asking for a waiver of street improvements on i I;;;:'
Lot 17 on Valley Street. I ;:
1 I ll::t* #@I I*
I 184:; i i4R. HOLLY stated that i4r. Ducy kept the strip to i 1:;I
:It::;
: the west. Bee Cee Co. wanted to buy this pro- i :I:;:;
i perty in the first place but the owner would not : :::::I
l:;l;l i sell this as he wanted to keep this for an R-2 i ;ll:l@
l;ll:: : use.
i Nr. Thornton stated the Engineering Department I :;:::;
:I::,; i directed them to include this lot in the subdivi-: ;::I:I : sion. According to the ordinance all of the lots: 1:::;:
in the subdivision must be improved to City stan-: ::::;:
: dards.
i No one spoke against this subdivision.
I There was discussion on lot splits :nd of putting: : in the street improvements or pcst: 4g a bond al- i i though the rest of the street wniid not be improv-; : ed.
I I
I 81
I 1)
I1
![Si;; It 1
1 I :;:::;
I I 1 :::::: :;I:::
::::;:
I ;;::/
I 11:::;
I I :I::;, :illl: ::::;:
I
I I
I
I I 1 1 iiiji: 8:
i R-2 US^. 1
I
It
1 I
I I I
I1
I I
I I
I
I I I I:::::
I I I 1;::::
::i:;:
I I I I :;:::: I
I I :;
I :t1:1; I I ::::::
I I 1 t ;::I:,
l:4;:
;I::I:
;:;I;* I:::::
,,,,I:
I t I:;::,
I ::a:;:
I I ;:::::
I I I I i:!:::
1:;:;:
I I I I I;;:':
I I lll::; I I I I i;:l;l
I 1 I ;:I:
I I
I t
I I !
! I! I!,
'C
r
I I I
I' ,\',\*. \ " I I I
I
I
I I \\\ '\\ '\\ ' ' I
I I , \ , \'\ '\ ' '\\''\ I
I I '\' ", '\ '\\ '\''\\ I
I : Member 8% @.+\p a,,! :""""""""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""";""""--""-"~ """"-
I ;;l;ti I1
!City Manager stated that whenever two pieces of :;::::
!property are split the improvements must be made : ;::111 I:,,
:in front and all around the side if it is a corne; jj;:;:
!lot. This was all one piece of property until ; . : :;::I@
11::
jthey split the property. The lot should be im- ; i:::lt
;:;I:: :proved whether owned by Mr. Ducy or the developer.: 1:;::: :From the City staff point, improvements must go ! :::i;: !in as the street improvements are required. I I :;::;;
I I ::p+ :::til Ill :After further discussion, a motion was made to ! l@l:;@ !adopt Resolution Mo. 433 recommending approval of: ::::;j :this tentative subdivision map to the Council sub; :::;,I
:;ll:: iject to the recommendations of the various depart: :a::::
:merits and agencies, with the exception that Items : ::;:::
i7 and 8 be deleted. 1 I ::::;: Ill
I I i:: I:'::: !Planning Commission Resolution No. 433. A RESOLUjSmith I:&;;:
:TION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANIWIG COM~IISSI~\I RE- :Palmateer : ; ; : iCOElEND1NG APPROVAL OF THE TEFdTATIVE MAP OF SAH- iMcComas ii I I k; : :
:DUL!dOOD DALE SUBDIVISION, was read in full and :McCarthy :x: i : : :adopted. jlamb iik::: I1
I I :Freistadt I :xi: I I1 ;
I ::::::
!OLD BUSINESS : I I: 111
I I I :::::; 11::1*
!(a) R-T "Rec" Zoning. Memorandum from the City :::*::
:F.ilanager re: R-T "Rec" Zoning. The Planning Dir- : 11:::
iector stated the Council agreed with the Planning i iCommission and requested that a study be made of : :the R-T zones in the City by the Planning Commis- i jsion, including a study of all R-T water oriented:
:areas for R-T 'IRec" zoning. I I
:Commissioner Lamb inquired if the Council were
:aware that the reason he had requested this study I
:was because of the bar at Carlsbad Landing. I I
:The City Manager stated the Council felt that the i :whole IF-T zone should be*,studied-arid the Planning i :Commission should consider whether to delete the : ~IIRec" from R-T or whether it should be required. I
:The Building Inspector explained that he believed i
!the original intent of the R-T "Rec" zone was in- :
:tended for the area adjacent to the marina and
jhad never been amended. I 1
;The Planning Director stated this could be placed ! :on the agenda for the next regular meeting if the i iCommission wished. t I I
;The Planning Di rector also reported that the City
jaxpects to receive copies of the new proposed I
:zoning ordinances from DMM this Friday and copies: jof the subdivision ordinance the next Friday. I I
i(b) Small Craft Harbor Presentation. The Chair- I
:man reported that the Commission had at the regu- jlar adjourned meeting on Friday, April 22, 1965, : :set the date for the presentation on May 19, 1966,: :at 7:30 P.M. in the i.lagnolia Ave. School, however,!
:some of the representatives from Di4J?4 would not ; !be able to attend the meeting that night so the I
!meeting is being scheduled for Thurcday, May 12, : 11966, at 7:30 P.b!.
I
I
I I -5- [ N a me ', '*$I& '\, "&
I I : of ",-$ +!!@. \O', '\, .p\,.t'$. ++., :
11
IlIIII
I
11
I I1 I
1)
I)
I I I
I
1
I I I I
I I I I
I I t
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 r t I I I I I 1
I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !
r
I I 1
c
I I I I I""""""""""""""-""r-""""""""""""
I I :It was the consensus of the Commissio hate would be satisfactory and th C iqucsted that a memorandum be seht to :notifying them of this date ahtl plhce /Harbor presentation.
I I IADY OURN!lEi,JT :
I L_
:By proper motion the meeting was adjo i9:44 P.i+i.
I I jRespectfully submitted,
I
!DOROTHY i3. OSEURN :Recording Secretary
I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I
I 1
I I
I I I I I I t I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I I I
I
I
-6-
I
I I I I I
I 1 I f 1 I
""""""""""~"
n that tht's hai Pman re- the Counci 1 fop the
urned at
I I I I I .
I I
I
I I I