The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1966-05-31; Planning Commission; Minutesi I I' I I I I i CITY OF CARLSBAD I Minutes of: I I Date of bleeti ng: i4ay 31, 1966 I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, i JcComas and Little. Commissioner LlcCarthy was : : present at 5:20 P.N. and Commissioner Freistadt i i was present at G:28 P.M. . Commissioner Suther- i : land and Palmateer were absent. Also present !were City Attorney Wilson, Planning Director ; Schoell and Building Inspector Osbirrn. I I I I 4 I I I I I 1 1 I ! Chairman ClcComas opened the meeting to continue ! i study and discussion on the R-T zoning and condi-! : tional use permits in the proposed zoning ordi- : I nance, prepared by Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Hen-! : denhall. : IdR. JUSTUS C. GILFILLAR, Project Flanager, Janss : Corp., 100 Thousand Oaks Blvd., Thousand Oaks, : I Calif., stated they made a special trip to attend; : this meeting as the proposed zoning seriously I i affects their property in Shelter Cove Subdivisioh i and they would like to attend any study sessions : ; that would be affecting their property. I I i Carlsbad, commended City Officials on their work ! :with the Master Plan. He pointed out that Sheltef i Cove Subdivision was approved and improvements were :installed in 1953. The R-T zoning at that time ; i permitted 4,000 sq. ft. lots and required a 800 i i sq. ft. lot for each unit. He also pointed out ; : the various changes in the new proposed zoning i ordinance and the affect they would have on their! : property. He referred to the non-conforming builF- i ings and uses on Page 11 of the proposed zoning : : ordinance, as there are 3 buildings already builti which would be non-conforming. The channel and : : all of the required utility and street improvements i are in. They do not propose to build on the lots: : themselves. This proposed zoning WOUIU cause the: i corporation to suffer the loss of thousands of : : dollars and a cloud would be placed on the sub- i i division that would kill any new sales and re- : tard any development. He pointed out this is the! I first channel built in Carlsbad and is the only : :subdivision in Carlsbad in the R-T zone. The Corb- i oration felt the changes were discriminatory I against them and taking their property without i : justification. They suggested that as a solution: i to this matter the Commission recommend to Counci) : reasonable restrictions on Shelter Cove. I I : The Planning Director requested a copy of the i data that Pir. A1 1 red iead for the records. ii4r. Gilfillan stated they would address a letter i to the Planning Commission containing this data. ; I I I I I I I I I I I I MR. DALE ALLRED, Janss Corp., 4530 Cove Dr., 9 I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I ;The Chairman stated the Commission would give :them every consideration as quickly as possible. !The Building Inspector questioned the City i Attorney regarding the sale of unsubdivided pro- : perty in the present R-T zone, with the under- istanding the buyer would be able to divide the :property into 4,000 sq. ft. lots. I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I h r I I' \8 ', .8, ', '8 '\ I I 88 ', '8 1 I 8 ', \, '\ '8 " I I I I I I I I 1 I I "8 ".\8, ',, .8 \, \, I I I -2- N a me "8 '\%, 8'\:+J, I I : of 8'*%$, ' ,*,, I I : Member $'@,Fd-$d, 1 ~"""""""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""~--"---"-"---"- ----:"--- I l :::;:I IJ i The City Attorney stated the suit would be be- I ::::;: I) i tween the buyer and seller and the City would i :::;;: *I : not be liable. I :::;,I I I I I ::::I; 11 i The Building Inspector suggested a Marina R-T 1 8 ;;:::8 I 1181 ii:::: i Zone and felt that a resolution or ordinance to : that effect would suit this type of development. : 1,:s:: ::I::: i tie pointed out that prior to working for the I I :I: ! they made a study 6f 'Marina Developments along : : the coast of California, and the size of the lots; at that time were 2500 to 3,000 sq. ft. I I i The Chai rman questioned the Planning Director i regarding a Marina Development zone. i The Planning Director stated that it might be i : feasible to have 4,000 sq. ft. lots in the R-T : i zone along the water but only upon submitted I I i approval of a precise plan of development. The : : standard lot size not requiring a variance or 0 i precise plan should be kept large enough to allow; : for adequate light air, and planting spaces be- ; J tween the individually developed lots. He report& : cd having a lengthy discussion with 14r. Paul i.!eali i that afternoon, and Nr. Neal recommended 7500 sq.: ' ::::I; : ft. lots throughout the R-T district to encourage! ::::i; : flexibility of development. The Planning Directof i:::;: : stated that as a solution Shelter Cove might come: i:;:;: 1:;::: i in as a separate zone with regulations similar to! :::::: : those under which the property was originally I ;llll; i subdivided. 8 I l:~:;l I 11:::: I I I I :::::; ! There was discussion on what the proper side yard: i:::;: setback should be and the Commission should agree: ::::I; ; on this and then not make allowances. The Plan- :;;::; i ning Director in discussing the light and air I i::::: $ e:;: : between buildings suggested an additional setback! ;:::I; i area be required for each additional story. I 1:;1:1 I :::::: : He stated that it is hard to put a well planned ::I::: :::::: ',:@I8 : have a few more restrictions on small lots to I ::;::: i encourage larger developments. He stated the :*I:;: 4:::; i Commission should have a study session soon on 0 : ::::;I : side yard setbacks. a I ::+I :: 1 I I I/::: i The Building Inspector stated he is in favor of i ::::I; i::::: I the proposed side yard setbacks except that he : I ::;: : felt they should not be less than 6' as builders ::::I; will try to increase the size of the buildings : :::I:, I-::: : vjhen they know there is a possiblity of getting i ;:::I: I a variance to 5'. He felt this !uould eliminate I :::::: 1;~I:l : 90% of the variances requested. He stated he i agrees on the straight 10% side yard setback on i R-1 property but not oil X-T property. i There was discussion on the 10% side yard set- : :'::;: : backs. I ((1 11 : Commissioner Freistadt was present at 6:28 p.1~1. i 1:;:: i The size of lot area in the R-T zone was discussea i and the majority of the Commission pi 2;ent were i ;:i::: : in favor of 6,000 sq. ft. minimum IG*.S in the R-T: 1:;::; i zone, i ADJOURNi4EiiT: By proper motion the meeting was ad-; 1:;I:l : journed to Fri. June 3, 1966, at 5:OO p.iJ!. to 1 I:;:;: '8 ' ' I 1 ',&\O, j' +'?t 1 I 1 City he had been on the Harbor Commission and I I I I 1 I * 1 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 development on a small lot and felt they should I I I :I:::; ::;:;: 1 ;:;:;I I 1 4;: ii:::; I 8 :!:;:: I I ;:;::: I I :::::I i:;;:: ;:'I:; I I i::i:: :::::i I I I I I consider an east-west alternate route. Secretary I I I I i:: I:;::, ::i 4 1 1 ! i!:::; I I I ::I::: :1::1: I I ;::;:; I l:a 81 :::! I * I . .- A. Interior lots shall have a side yard on each side of the lot which side yard has a width not less than ten percent of the width of the lots, provided that such side yard shall be not less than six feet in width and need not exceed ten feet. 6. Corner lots and reversed corner lots shall have the following side yards: 1. On the side lot line which adjoins another lot, the side yard shall be the same as that required on an interior lot. 2, On the side street side the width of the required side yard shall he ten feet and said side yard shall extend the full lenqth of the lot. C. Private qaraqes located in a side yard which has access from a side street shall be located so that there is a minimum of twenty (20) feet of driveway in front of a garaae door that opens onto said side street. If the garage is so located that the door does not open onto the side street, the setback as in Section A and B above shall govern. Section 905: REAR YARI): There shall be a rear yard of twice the width of the required side yard, except that in no case shall the required rear yard be required to exceed fifteen (15) feet. Section 906: AREA REQUIREMENT: A. The minimum lot area shall be not less than six thousand (6,000) square feet, except when an application for Site Plan Review as provided in Section 847 has been approved.