HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-03-28; Planning Commission; MinutesCI"TY OF CARLWAD Minutes of: Date of Meeting: Time of Meeting: Place of Meeting: .""""""""""""""""
iROLL CALL was answered : Palmateer, McComas , Li i sioner Sutherland was i City Attorney Wilson, :Thornton, Building Ins i Director Schoell .
B e ;APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
a e :(a) Minutes of the re 1967, were approved as
B e
PLAN Marc 7:30 Coun
by c ttl e absen Assis pecto
"""_.
gular subm
I B I I B B B
h
NING COMMISSLUN h'28, 1967 I
cil Chambers I
ommissioners Smith, and Voorheis. Commis- t. Also present were : tant City Engineer : r Osburn and Planning I
.P. M. l I B .-"""""""""""""",-.I-
B I B
B e e
8
B b
meeting of March 14, i
: i tted. B
8
i e
:WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: B
1 i B 8 :Memorandum dated March 28, 1967, from Margaret E. I iAdams, stating that Donald A. Briggs, Jr., on I :behalf of D. B. Jr., Inc., filed 'an appeal con- : jcerning the decision of the Planning Commission t4 :deny the tentative map of Park Manor Subdivision. I !This appeal will be considered by the City Council; :at their regular meeting to be held April 4, 1967:
:The Planning Director asked the City Attorney if : !a member from the Planning Commission should be i :present at that meeting and the City Attorney !stated it miqht be advisable to have a member of :the Commission present.
; Chairman Pro Tempore Palmateer asked Commissioner iMcComas to inquire if the Council would. like * I :representation from the Planning Commission to :
* i attend this meeting. B
r B b
e
a B
BO e e
I I i ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
!There were no oral communications.
b
e
!.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
B I (a) AMENDMENT TO PRECISE PLAN - To consider 0 amendment to Precise Plan PP 6602, for .increase ii size and height of sign on property on the South-: easterly corner of Palomar Airport Rd. and Inter-; state 5 Freeway. b
I *
B b : Notice of hearing was read. Acting Secretary I McComas certified that notice of the public hear-: i ing was published and sent to the property ownersi
;in the area and then read the application reauestt : ing this amendment to precise plan for installatiin i of Denny's Restaurant sign. B
i There were no written communications. I I
.e : The Chairman inquired of-the applicant if he had i : been informed that there were only 5 members of ! i the Commission present and that the approval of -i : 4 members would be required to pass on any amend-: i rnents. B
.The City Attorney stated the Commission needed a I i majority of the total voting members which would ; i mean 4 votes in favor to vote on any zone chanqesj ; amendments or vari.ances. l
'* : 0
I B t e
B *I
e
e I
e b
b B
8
B e
B
b
.
h
i ,. .+ .', .. .
e
b
0
b
b
I I b -
0 -2-
I""""""" "* "- """_. *" - - "- -*-- ." - ." - - "- -. - """_ * "- """ MR. JOHN T. GRANT, representing the applicant, J : Harold Butler Enterprises Inc. #183, questioned i i whether former Commissioner McCarthy .would be J : replaced by the next regular meeting. After e t
further consideration, Mr. Grant requested that
. : this hearing be continued to the April 25, 1967,, i
8' : meeting. 8 #
: (b) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in the i Easterly side yard setback from 9.5 feet to one I : foot, to build a carport at 1385 Yourell Ave. on : I the Southerly side of Yourell Ave., between Olive! i Dr. and Spruce St. Applicant: Robert E. Edgar. :
i Notice' of the hearing was read. The Secretary i ;certified that property owners in the area were i i notified of the public hearing and then read the ; ;application and signatures of 7 property owners : i in the area approving this variance. D b
; There were no written communications.
: The Chairman asked the applicant if they wished i i to continue the public hearing since the.re were : i only five Commissioners present. b
! MRS. EDGAR asked that this hearing be continued i to the next regular meeting on April 11, 1967. e i (c) VARIANCE - To consider reduction in required! ; frontages from 60' to 53.86' on Parcel 1; to B
I and 3 in order to create two "panhandle" lots at i i 3465 Valley St., on the Westerly side of Valley ; : St., between Basswood and Chestnut Avenues.
D
I b
e 0
e
e * I e
b
I e 8
I b
B b
.i 53.85' on Parcel 4; to 12.93' each on Parcels 2
I I e
e
8
Applicant: Rabco Land Corp.
b i Notice of the hearing was read. The Secretary 'i : certified that property owners in the area were i i notified of the public hearing and then read the ; -: application and signatures of 13 property owners i ; in the area approving these variances. 8 l
: There were no written communications. b
; The Chairman asked the applicant or his represen-; tative if they wished to have the hear.ing consid-: I ered and Mr. Don Holly stated that time is of the! ; essence and they wished to have the hearing that : : night.
: The Planning Director gave a staff report of the i i investigation of this property and explained the ; : location of the property and the policies regard-! i ing the "panhandle" lots. e
i The Assistant City Engineer presented. a map of .a
. : block study made by the Engineering Department,. ; i and explained that when Sandalwood Dale Unit 40.1: : Subdivision went in, the Engineering Department i i tried to work with the developer of the subdivi- : ; sion to extend the cul-de-sac southerly in order i i to open these properties also. This was not done:
'8
b 0 b
b l e
e
0 e
b b
,e e' b
B
b #
# l e
l a
e 0
e
b * e e
e b
l
e ;::;:;
e :i::::
.. -~ ~
c
/c
-3
1""""""""""""- """"""".. 1 and access has been cut off from the North to the: ; a.pplicant's property. The only other way to open! : this property would be from a street opening from:
i property, westerly of this property, are not ; interested in opening their property up. When i :.asked if there would be curbs on the "Panhandle" :
: requfres that the "Panhandle" be paved and have i i rolled edges, but does not require curbs.
James Drive, however, the owners of the Davis b D
b
driveway, Mr. Thornton stated that the Policy &
b D D b ! w i MR. DON HOLLY; Licensed Surveyor representing the: ; applicant, stated that any street openings in that i area would present a problem because-of the multib- : ple ownerships. When asked about the drainage, ; i Mr. Holly stated that the water would drain to :
! the rear of the lot. D
1 i MR. RONALD D. BROWARD, Vice-president of Rabco I i Land Corp. pointed out that he developed property! ; on Basswood Avenue below Highland Drive, with two: : "Panhandle". lot splits, that turned out very well:. He reported contacting all the property owners in: : I the area that he could find at home and they had :
8 ! no objections. !
I ; The Chairman announced the Commission'would now : hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. :
: Since no one spoke in opposition, the Chairman ! i declared the hearing closed at 8:lO P. M.
D I
D I
D
D D I ! i When asked if any attempt had been made to con- : D tact the Carter people and combine the two par- ; ; cels to create larger size lots, Mr. Broward : stated that he has the Carter property in escrow,; i and he plans to build just one house on it. It : : is not wide enough to put in a "panhandle" lot o{ that parcel as it is only 62' wide on Valley and i : Chestnut. :
8 -4 I
D
I D D : Points discussed by the Commission were that it is the most reasonable use of the land; that : there would be no objection to this proposed i development if it is similar to the development 1 : on Basswood; that it appears to be the only reasonable way to get access to this property. :
8
D
D I
I I
D
I D
I
D
D
D !
D : The following resolution was presented: !
D i A motion was made to adopt Planning Commission : Resolution No. 495 granting the variances as i requested for the following reasons: ; 1. That granting these variances will open up i .and provide access to desirable building sites. : ; 2. That the granting of these variances does : not conflict with the General Plan in regards to:
D D
l
density in that area. D D i AND that said Lot Splits be.granted on condition: i that all requirements of Ordinance No. 9136 and :
' the City "Panhandle" Lot Split Policies be met i
~ by applicants, and that said new lots shall be' - surveyed and monumented and that reports thereof; shall be furnished'to the City. b
D
i
41
I
I 8 8 4 : (d) RECLASSIFICATION AND PRECISE PLAN - To con- ! I sider a zone change from R-1-7,500 to R-3 and fori ; a precise plan on property on the. Southeaster1.y i i corner of Chestnut Avenue and Monroe Street. I ;Applicants: Marvin S. and Idella R. Humphreys. !
0.
* ! W
TENTATIVE MAP - CHESTNUT GARDENS - 2 lots at the i : Southeasterly corner of -Chestn,ut Ave. and Monroe I- ! St. Owner and Developer: M. S. Humphreys. 0 ! 8 8
rn 8
The Secretary asked the City Attorney if they 8 : should ask the applicants if they wishetj to have' i :these matters considered that evening since there; : was considerable correspondence on these matters.: ! I i 0 : MR. WEBER, representing the applicants, stated I i that since there were so many people present who :
i matters considered.
_- : were interested, they would like to have the I
t
0
1 8 I
8
Notice of hearings were read. The Secretary : certified that publication was given and property! i owners in the area were notified, and then read ; : the application with 28 signatures of property i i owners in the area approving these requests. I I
I .8 e : Letter dated 3/20/67 from Leonard L. Beardslee,
; asset to surrounding properties. ' ;s tating that the development will be a definite : I
8
I 8 8 i Letter dated 3/15/67 to Mr. M. S. Humphreys from : Alfred D. Lafleur, District Supt. of the Oceansidi- : Carlsbad Union High School District stating the i
i themselves in a position of not disapproving the i : proposed construction.
*
c i High School Trustees voted unani-mously to place :
8
8 8
7 Letters and a petition with 65 signatures i opposing this zone change were read statl'ng that ; : it would be "spot" zoning, deviation from the i Master Plan, and would create a tremendous traffii : and safety hazard.
8
8 #
8
I
8 . i The Planning Director gave a report on the facts ! i resulting from the staff investigation, explain- : ; ing the location of subject property and locationk : of the schools, the R-3L property across the I street. He stated that the frame dwellings on I : * the Southerly side would be removed if the projec! ; goes ahead. The General Plan calls for low I i densit.y land use in that-area. He stated that if! ; the Commission wished to grant the zone change, ; : that the Commission consider the recommendations I submitted for conditions regarding the precise ; : plan. a I
I I
8 0
I 8
I 8 8
8 8
8 8
I 8
8 I # a 8 0 , I I a 8
6
1. ....
.. a.
8
8- e' - e
8 988* 9s'. 8
8 8 '88'*~8 'S8 '', '8
*, i Na me 'b9'8$e, 8.
8 '8 *, \
'Q '8
% N8 8 a8 8'8
8 '8 - 5" .
8 8, 88 '8 '* '*
8
'8
8 ' +'\c& 8*, '3, e : of *.oJ,*,/\ "'C',
8
8 :MR. JAMES .WEBER, Architect, .stated his .firm was i ::y ."""""""""""-""""""--"-"""""""~""""""""""~"~~"""""""""~ : Member .$&'@.$&'@'%7'.;6. . * I ;--&-.
!retained to represent the applicant and .they fee.1 I 8 q:,, ;there is a need for a high-class townhouse project :I!:: :for middle aged persons in that area. Each unit- i . i i.: i ,I
- !would have private pati.os as well as private park+ ' : : .; ,, ling in the back. This development would act as ai'
- ;buffer between the school -and the sin.gle-family .: !residential area. GIith the.present zoning, 'the ; 8 ;owners can build 5 single-family residences, how-: :ever, due to the proximity of the school and churjh i they felt the homes would have to be. in. the $17 8 :to $18,000. category. They did not feel this nouid. ;be ".spot" zoning since the property across the ; i::;:
. - ;owners plan to invest $180,000. t.0 $200,000. in ;. :this development which would yield a higher tax : . i!;:' 1:: i rate for the City than if the property is developid '1;
:::;: I::;: :;:;: i i.; i i
4;:;
:::;I :::;;
088':
b (4' ::,;I
.... . ~ f - -I street -is- -zoned--fo'r--multipl-e -dwelling.s; The - .e :.': ; ; 1 .'
I:::;
8 :driveways would aggrevate traffic more than single 8 ::;!;
.. 8 i:::;
I ;- . 8 :&i;
8 8:;::
08 : : 8.: 1
.. :for single families. They did not believe the 3 i
:families, as they would be renting to persons .!whose children are grown.
O'II
: tion and pointed out thatElm Avenue will be con- : I!;;! : structed in a few years and will funnel traffic ai :::D "8:; !way from Chestnut Ave. 8 8 :.a;: 8 0 ;. ; .; i
: MR. MARVIN HUMPHREYS pointed out that the sidewalis :p8, :::::
!.that would be built around this property would ; 8. '8::;
; help the traffic safety for the school children, ; i:::;
i and this development would be the highest and best , . .. ::::;
! ; use of the land. 8:ii: 8'
: MR. GORDON BAKER, 2035 Charleen 'Circle, stated i :;::I
ithis development was considered by the Church and: :;::;
;8 members of the Board unanimously approved of ; i:::;
e,::; i this development, and felt it .would be a good use!. :*D 8 , : of the land and would be an- improvement of the : i:!:;
,r :-property. ; 8";: .. e .; : ; ;: i T-he Chairman announced the Commission #auld now 8 I : : : ,.;
::::e hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. ; ;I:*:
8 e :a:;! i MR. PETER FOLTZ, 2055 Chestnut. Street and Mr. : DOUGLAS OBERSHAW, 1265 Yourell Ave. voiced i opposition to R-3 zoning in that area. and questio6ed i the parking spaces for the apartments.. # i::;; '8
: MR. WEBER, speaking in rebuttal, stated the City I :O':;
: have adequate parking spaces for more than one I i::': i space per unit and if the Commission wish they ; 0;;:: : would increase the parking spaces. 8 ::;:;
:.
: Mr. Thornton explained the En-gineering Depart- 8 8' 8 ii;;: i ment's report and their recommendations. When : asked ahout the driveway entering onto Chestnut : i Ave., Mr. Thornton stated that it would be approx; :::4 : imately 200' from Donna Drive. 8 8:;:;
i Mr. Weber and Mc. Numphreys both stated they : approved of the Engineering Department's recom- ! a)'@)' ; mendations.
"@e:
8
. -;MR. DON HOLLY spoke regarding the traffic situa- I " 4:::
8 *8 8
..
'::'b :bb:: 8 1 -8
st
8 *8
O:bb:
8
! 8 :I!:; : : ;-: ;
0 ::;:; .:;;:;
;;'el
8 I :!I:;
Code calls for 1 parking space per unit. They ; 1:;:;
8 e. ::;:: i:::;
-8 ::'*a e;;;:
* ,;:;I: #;I I!:;:
0 : 8 i:;::~
8 o';!!
,. .. ," .. - 8 ij:;;~
8 ::::I; : ;.;;;:
I 0 :;;:;:
e e ::;:;i
8 8 :;;::;
8
8 The public hearing was. closed at 9:16 P. M,
1 8
I'
8
0 '. 8 8
8 D i:;;:: I. I
.
!
rc
e v I
v 'I
I Points discussed 'by the Commission were the
; need for a 'buffe,r between the school and church 8 i and the single-family dwellings; the location and ; nearness of neighborhood shopping centers; the, ; : probability of building more single family v a i residences in that area near the school; town- : tiouse type of development in that area.
: MR. H. B. LEAR, representing Jay Lear, Inc., I i stated he came down to this meeting and is very 1 : interested in the proposed development as he owns: the R-3L property across the street. The proper-! : ty is zoned to permit 52 units, and he felt a : ; good planned development would be best for his ; : property also. He stated that he felt it was I i economically unfeasible to build single family i : dwellings at that location. He stated there I I I was a need for a buffer, and if the property : owners nearby had no objection, he thought this i would be a good development. v
i. The Planning Director stated that most of the i : land east of the freeway is designated as low I I
; should consider the following points: Is there a! i need to re-zone this are.a? How does the scale of! : apartment houses fit in with the surrounding I i- single-family residences, and would it be accep- i ; table? Is this the proper place for higher 8 i density R-3 near the school? Is the Precise Plan: : acceptable? What will happen to the rest of the :
General Plan; parking spaces; that there is a
e
l v
t 0
@ 8..
I
6 b I .I
density in the General Plan. The Commission I I
e
- i surrounding area? I
I
I I
6
v
a
* I i The following resolutions were presented:
: Commissioner Smith to adopt Planning Commission i I' Resolution No. 496 recommending a change of zone :. : from R-1-7,500 to R-3 on above prop.erty for the i I following re.asons: : 1. That this property is at a point where it is i i economically unsound to build R-1 homes on the 5 : : lots which could be built as single-family dwell-! i ings. e : 2. That this townhouse type of development,, as i i presented in the precise plan, would act as a I I ; great buffer zone for adjoining properties.
i The motion died for lack of a second. e
After further consideration a motion was made to i : adopt Resolution No. 496 denying application for :
change of zone for the following reasons: : 1. That it does not conform to the G.enera1 P1a-n:: i 2. That there is adequate R-3 zoned property to i : supply the needs -of any additional developments. :
e
After due consideration a motion was made by
v
b I
8 e I v
* a I
I I
D D' . . .. : '8, ', U*. U D. D. I
D 0
0
- *'
D I *','" , * '., 8, 8, ', ', \. '.
I I 8 '8 ", 8, , , ', '8 ", - 7" . D Na me ',*'*$, 8', 'q.
? ; *$ Q. '8, $28
D ::::i
::I;;
# 0'. H. *?;,
!A motion was made to deny the adoption of Precise i
:Plans PP 6703, Exhibit ".A1' and IIB" and to dis-
;approve the tentative map of Chestnut Gardens on i :;I::
:said property because the precise plans and sub- i :::;I I;
!division were contingent upon the zone change to ; ::;;: :R-3 which was denied. D
'*I*;
:Resolution No. 497. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING !Smith I I ;I ;
jCOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DENYING APPLI- :McComas !x; $ i i :;
:CATION FOR PRECISE PLANS FOR CHESTNUT GARDENS, :Palmateer : I 3; : :was adopted by title only and further reading i~i tt7 e I ; ix; i
;waived. IVoorheis I :x%; i 1 Resolution No. 498. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD !Smith I:' 3: :
!CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 'DISAPPROVING THE TEMTATIaE McComas :x; ;: !xi I
:MAP OF CHESTNUT GARDENS SUBDIVISION, was adopted :Palmateer ; i 3; i i by title only and further reading waived. iLi ttle : ! :x: !
: Member '%@*.Po'\,& '.L.01.9 $4 \.;+ :"""--"""""""""""""""--"""""~"""""""""""~~~""""""""~~""~""
D 'D ::;:I
I
I ::::;
0 :' i::;;
I ::::;
OLD BUSINESS:
#
:V
0
I 0
I i (a) Zoning Study - Committee report on R-T and
i that so:: :ction ahs been taken on this study andf
: R-W Stu ocations. Commissioner Little reporte
they expect to have a report at the next regular i :meeting. D
i(b) Required Improvements re: Lots Splits and 1
:.Subdivisions. Commmissioner McComas reported that i the Committee has been studying the matter and : i plan to meet with.the City Engineer and Planning i ; Director on Tuesday at the City Hall. 0
0 I
I 6 b 1 NEW BUSINESS:
D I i There was no new Business.
D i ADJOURNMENT:
1'
By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at i
D
D : 9:55 P. M. D
b : Respectfully submitted,
i DOROTHY M. OSBURN Recording Secretary
D D
D
D
6. ;
6 I
D
D
D l I 6 D D
D
l
D
D D D
D D
l
D
l
D
8
D
oorheis