HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-11-14; Planning Commission; MinutesI I :CITY OF CARLSB-
I ', * '% 8 - I , \ 8 '* '* I
I 1 *\ \,,''. ',, '+, I I
I I I PLANNING COMMISSION
November 14, 1967
I 8. * '' ', ', ',
I . ,, " '
I I
I !ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, I
:McComas, Palmateer, Sutherland, Little, Jose and I iVoorheis. Also present were City Attorney Wilson;
:City Engineer Lill, Civil Engineering Assistant : i Sprehe, Building Inspector Osburn, and Planning : : Director Schoell. I I ;::I,:
I" :;: ! APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
I I I 1
I I 1:: !I:
I 1 ::;:ii
(a) Minutes of the regular meeting of October 241 Smith ::x;::
11967, were approved as submitted.
I
: McComas !x: 3 I I :
I : Palmateer I I i : :
b Sutherland : ; : :xi
I Little I ~XX; : ;
I e ; Jose ::)c::
I I Voorheis : $( I : : I I ::*;I1
i(b) Minutes of the adjourned meeting of November: Smith :::I::
I ; ' : :x: : 3, 1967 ,. were approved as submitted. I McComas :xi !x i I
I : Palmateer I : j, i : I
I I i L'i ttle i ; : ! :xi
I * ; Jose : !x9(; ; :
I i Voorheis i i : ; :xi i WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
::I:::
I :;'IlI
I :;::;;
1 ;e::::
I :::I:,
4;::; ; i :,:
iJII'
e iiii:;
II
11
I
I
I
I.
I I
Sutherland : !x:
r
I I
I I ;:i::i 1:;;::
I 1 e
I #I
Letter dated November 6, 1967, from the Division i ::;; ;of Highways with maps attached of the freeway
;progress was acknowledged. I I ;;;:;; 81, I
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I I 'I,;*; I:;tol
;sl:o:
I I
I *
* I
I
" I :City Manager John J. Mamaux voiced his thanks to I : the Planning Commission for their support during -i i his tenure and expressed the hope that hi's succes-j : sor would get the same support that he had. I :;:I;, :::i
r- : PUBLIC HEARINGS: I ;#Ill;
I I I;*::* i (a) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider a zone change I 'I:;;;
i from R-P to C-M (Heavy Commercial - Limited Indus3
:trial Zone) on the Westerly side of Roosevelt St. : i between Laguna Dr. and Beech Ave., being the East; : erly one-halves of Lots 21, 22 and 23, excepting : Ithe Southwesterly 30' of the Southeasterly 1/2 of:
i Frances M. Peachey Reese, et al.
I Chairman Sutherland explained that this applicatidn
was brought before the Commission at an earlier ; : date and the Commission felt it would be better i
if the whole block was included in the considera-: : tion for a zone change. The attorney for the i applicant has submitted an amended application wiih ,: additional properties included in the zone change.!
i Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Palmateer i certified that publication was given and property: ; owners' in the area were notified of the public i hearing, and then read the' amended application i and signatures of those persons wishing their I I ; property to be rezoned. I
I
I I I e
:Lot 22, Seaside Lands, Map 1722. Applicant: m I
1 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 I I 1
I I I 1 I ." I
I I
8 * I I I 8 I 8 8 I
1 I """"""""""""""*"""""""""""""""""""~"""." A petition was received, dated November 10, 1967, i
;protesting "spot" zoning on this property and i stating that they believed this would aid in the :I
!ultimate devaluation of the surrounding property, i
!and the City should stick to the Master Plan wherd
'possible, keeping under consideration the future i
use of the land, the great need now and the even : greater need for every available square foot of i
land for housing the City's future citizens and i
;tourists, was signed by 28 property owners.
I I
I I I I I b n I A letter was received November 14, 1967, from
Virginia Jackson, owner of units at 2718 Rooseve16
Street, protesting th.e zone change for the same i
reasons given in the above petition,
!
I I I
e i A letter was received dated November 10, 1967, I from Mrs.. Alice Gibbs, owner of Lot 5, Buena Visti
!Gardens, protesting the proposed zone change as i : she felt it would detract from residential values.!
I 8 I
I I I I I I A letter was received from Rose Fredkin, 631
iO'Farre11 Street, San Francisco, asking Colonel i
Southwell to represent her in the interests of 1 I : her property in his remarks to the'Commission. b I
I ! I I The Planning Director explained that the original! i application was for the Easterly half of Lot 21.
The Attorney for the applicants has now contacted : i some of the other property owners in the block to.! : see if they wished their properties to be inclu- .! ; ded in the zone change, He explained that the i Hancock, Borden and Humphrey's properties have i i been included in the amended application. He
then reviewed the written report of the facts
resulting from the staff investigation of the
I I I
I 8 I I I I I I I I
: properties.
!'The Chairman announced the Commission would now I
hear from the applicants or their representatives;
and any others desiring to speak in favor of the I
I
I application.
I I I ! MR. RUSSELL GROSSE, Attorney representing the app: ! licants, stated he felt the Planning Director :
presented the facts mgarding this property very :
well. Mr. Grosse stated the felt the City does i
need more of this zone, and believed this is the i only logical place for the expansion of this zone ! i where it can be expanded. He stated he would be i
; happy to answer any questions. I I I
I I
I I I I I I i The Chairman stated that at the last meeting, i they had informed Mr. Grosse the Commission was : hesitant to consider changing the zone on only I
one parcel of land. I I I
I I I I
I I
I
I I O 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 I I
I
I I I
I I I O I O I
I I
O I
I I I I O * 0 0 I O I I I I I 1 # I I
O I
I .I
I I
* I I
I 1 0 I I I I O t
I I O 0 I
I
I I I
-I
I
,-
owners in the block and that Miss Christopherson ;
had indicated she did- not want to change the zone i
on here property or to improve or develop her I I
ptoperty; the Gerharts have a use that is incom- :
patible with the C-M zone and did not want to do i
anything that would be incompatible with the
existing use of their property.
COL. GILBERT SOUTHWELL, stated that he owns Lot 41
in Buena Vista Gardens and felt that the petition!
protesting the zone change represented the major-!
ity of those living in the area. Many of those i
persons are in retirement and have bought homes i
expecting it to remain a residential area. He :
stated this zone change would be a deviation from:
the Master Plan and would be "spot" zoning. He
stated this property is in an area that is the i
front vestibule for persons coming from Oceansidei
At the present time you see a machinery yard, the$
commercial and manufacturing areas. He asked I 0
that the property be- beautified rather than de- ;
preciated. He stated he understood an effort had:
been made before to rezone this property before i
another Commission. He stated he believed he was!
correct in speaking for the majority of those with{
in the Circle and those outside the Gardens, that:
this, in his opinion, would be anything but an :
improvement. He referred to the fires he has
seen burning at the Peachey Roofing Yard, which .!
he felt are contrary to the Fire ordinance.
DR. JOHNSON, 2451 Buena Vista Circie, stated he i
had just purchased the Trout property and had no :
knowledge at the. time of this zone change. He
thought the property would remain residential and:
had made a life investment when he bought the prof
perty. He stated he believed the City should
want people living more near the downtown area :
and that an industrial type development is not :
conducive to the development of the downtown area:
He asked if this would be a Planned Industrial i
Park.
The Chairman stated it would not be and the C-M ;
allowed highway-orientated services. 0 I
MR. LOU OLSEN, 2785 Roosevelt Street, stated his
property is not affected; however, he is opposed I
to this zone change. He referred to the Business!
Development Action Committee appointed by the I I
Mayor, composed of Howard Baumgartner, Don Holly :
and himself. He questioned the traffic count on i
'State and Roosevelt Streets and how this would I
affect the Buena Vista Lagoon Park, the people
and children in the area. Mr. Olsen asked that i
t.
1
I I I I I * I I
I
I I I
0 I -1
I
I
I
0 I
8
I
I I 0
I
I e
I I I
. ,.
!
r
ic
I I I I I I I
1 I I
I 8 l a I I I I I I I
I I I I I t
I
I I I I I 1 I I I
,-
I I I I I I I
I I
I
I *, t., 8
I 3, 8, \, '. ' ' t I I I I I
I , \ . 8, '*,",
I I ",'+, ', .:.
I N 2 me b.. *\$&, x,, '3. i
I ; of .qd;. * 2% : I '.O. 8;. ', ;?+\ I :""""""-""-"""""""-"""-""~""""""""""""~""""""""""""~:".";"~ ,o .'6',*.0.,0, :
I ;;e:;;
I I *!!;;
I I I i:;;::
8' -4- ', ', ', 'x. 8, '\
; Member *p';-,+<r *+"e
!zone change be held in abeyance until the Comm- I I i:: , I -!
jittee Can meet on this.
:The Chairman asked those present who wished to i ::;*;: :'I:;: !register opposition to this proposed zone change ; ::::::
:to state their names: 4 4 . +:;; I,;lI
:Julia Southwell Mr. & Mrs. Nelson Gerhart i
:Marie Woolstenhulme Joe Apodaca I I ;;:hl
iGoldie Mulhall Dave Kurner I I iiii:: i Mary Baxley John Bathum I ;*I,,*
4 Christophersons, I I ::;I" 11
I I I :;;I" ;;I::: :;::ii
I 1:;:
I
I !Mrs. Doris Kurner I ;::;::
I I . p;:::
I I I :I:!;: ii: 81
I It
:The Public Hearing was closed at 8:11 P.M. I
i The Commission discussed deferring this matter,
jsince there is a committee appointed to study this:
:in the interests of the downtown area; that this i
:zone change should be either granted or denied; I I
that this hearing should be continued only at the i request of the applicant; that the zone change : should only be considered if the whole block is : included A
:After fhrther consideration.; a moti'on was made to
!adopt Resolution No. 512, denying the application i i for a change of zone as requested for the follow- : ing reasons.
il. That the greater number of residents in the -:
area do not concur in 'changing the R-P zone to .. i C-M Zone.
::4;:
I 8 I l
* I I
I I
I I I
I
I I
I
I
-1
-1
I t
2. That it is not in the best interests of the i
:City of Carlsbad to change the present R-P zoning : I to C-M zoning. I
i 3; That there is no need for the requested zone i
:change at this time. I
The following resolution was presented: I I
I I I
I
I I
I I I b
l
I I I i Planninq Commission Resolution No. 512. A REEOLUi Smith
ON PROPERTY AT THE WESTERLY SIDE OF ROOSEVELT
STREET BETWEEN LAGUNA DRIVE AND BEECH AVENUE, was Jose
adopted by title only and further reading waived. i Voorheis
I
(b) AMENDMENT TO PRECISE PLAN PP 6602 - To consi;
der an amendment regarding signs at the Southeast:
erly corner of Palomar Airport Road and Interstat4
5 Freeway, and the addition of 1 gasoline price i
sign. I I
Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certi-
4 I
.. I I
I
I I
I I I I I 1:::;
rc
l I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I * I I 8 I I I I n I
I * * -5- :"""""""""""""""""""""""""~"-"""""""""""" I
ified that publication was given and that property i
:owners .in the area were notified of the public I I
:hearing, and then read the application.
!There were no written communication on this matter;
!The Planning Director explained that some time ago!
:a precise plan was adopted on this property and i
inow the applicants are asking for an amendment to i
ithe size and height of the sign in the precise n I
;plan. He then reviewed the written report of the i
!facts resulting from staff investigation of the- :
!property. .He pointed out that 50% of the existing!
:service stations in the City do not have price I : signs. I
!MR. RUSSELL GROSSE, .Attorney representing the app-!
i1icatns;stated that it is necessary to have a I
!sign of this size in order for people to see it in:
:time to get off the freeway, and pointed out that
ithe Shell Station at the Northwesterly corner has i
!a sign that is 200 square .feet in size. He then : i introduced Mr. McNichols. I
:MR. WILLIAM McNICHOLS, Engineer for' Mobil Oil Co. ,:
!stated that it has been established that the busi-j
!ness success depends on the size of the sign. He :
!stated they are not asking for a tremendous adver-l
jtising sign; however, they do want to alert the i : freeway public that this business is there and to-!
allow them enough time to get in the proper lane '. -; I i to get to the station. I
:MR. LOU OLSEN questioned the signs that are along! : the Freeway and what effect they would have on the!
;widening of.the Freeway.
I I I I I I I
I I I
4 I
1
I
b
e
b
I
b I
I
I I
I
.I * I I
a
I 8 I
b I 8 i The Chairman announced the Commission would now
hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. i
:MR. JOHN WICKIE, Andrea Avenue, stated he felt the:
City should stick with their ordinance as the pro-! i posed sign is so large and has so much to read I that it will distract a. driver and may cause an i accident. I
i The public hearing was closed at 8:40 P.M.
!When questioned regarding the size of the Shell i
:Sign at the Northwest corner, the Building Inspec-! : tor stated it is 194 square feet. I
i The Planning Director explained that on the North-: i west corner, the ,sign can only be 200 square feet
itota, and if any other businesses go iri that quad-! i rant, the total size of the sizn can only be 200 i : square feet, so the Shell Station would have to :
l l
b
I b
I I 4 I I I b a
I b
b
I I b b
.. I 1.
I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I
/-
I s I I I I I I
0 '.8'"'.
1 0 8 '8 ', '. I *8 1 *, s', 8 *'
I
's,", b 8 ' I I 4 0 I I I
888
I I '8, '*8,88, '88 ",88.
I ; of .;.,.,o:. * *,* i I .OF, ;,,;?& I
I iii* I -J I
4 4 I:::;; ;::lll
I -6- Na me '*. 8$.& '. \, '.$. I
Member ~,o'~~.$wO'~~~,~
i reduce the size of the sign if others are .to be :::,I; ii: i included. J :::;:I
:The Planning Director asked the Commission to be :
{as explicit as they could in their reasons for
:approving or denying this application.
!After due' consideration, a motion was made to I I ;::'::
:adopt Resolution No. 530 denying the amendment to :
Precise Plan PP 6602 as requested for the follow- i ;I( lo I ing reasons:
.c :"""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""~"."~~~-
I
I
I * I :::::i :::I:;
:::;:I
I I /;;Ifl I*
,ol:lI
6 ;:::::
'I:;;
1;:;;; :I
b 1:;:;:
* I . i;:;:; '*;8:l
!!a:::
1J;:
I
I I1
I I k
b
IO
I *I
I
l 8 * 1. That the request is not consistent with the
!policies of the City and County sign ordinances, : i;u;:
i2. That there are no special circumstances in
ithis location which would require a larger or 6 i special sign. I 6
i 3. That this property is 20 feet above the Free- :
way or greater and can be clearly seen from the
Freeway,. and will be visible from properties that
6 I 6 I
I I I 6 I
I I I
;will be in a residential area.
: Resolution.No. 530. A RESOLUTION OF THE i COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DENYING AMEND-
; MENT TO PRECISE PLAN PP 6602, was adopted by
I 1 * I I D I 0
.I
: only and further reading waived.
I 6
I J
-1
i (c) AMENDMENT TO PRECISE PLAN PP 6704 -
' der an amendment regarding signs at the South- I
. :westerly corner of Palomar Airport Road and Inter! : state 5 Freeway, and the addition of one gasoline i : price sign. I
Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certi-
fied that publication- was given and-that property i : owners in the area were notified of the public i ! hearing, and then read the application, *
There was no correspondence. I
. i The Planning Director explained. that this quad- i : rant is opposite the one considered previously ;
and explained the written report of the facts * 8 i resulting from the staff investigation of this i i property. He stated that the resolution adopting:, : the precise plan PP 6704 states there shall be i
; only one pole sign, not to exceed 35' in Ileight, :
; nor 80 Square feet in area. No motels or res- * *
/I
I I 1 6 I *
I b I
I 6
I *
0
.@
taurants were planned for this property. * I I b I I I. i The Chairman announced the Commission would now ; hear from the applicant or his representative and: : any others wishing to speak in favor of the app- i
! lication. I
I I
.I I
I I I I I I I
8 I
J I I I 8 I I I I
P
! .-7-
-. I I I I I I I I i I
I I
I I I 8 I :-""""-""""~"""""""""".""""""-"""""""""""~"
:MR. GROSSE pointed out that a precise plan is no
:bargain; and that rather than to lose the vote for! i the zone change and precise plan when this was
considered, they did not raise the issue of con- !
!testing the size of the sign at that time, He 1 I
:stated that he felt there had been a change in
:the thinking of the Planning Commission and the i i Planning Director as they originally allowed 200 i
square feet signs at freeway interchanges. He I I i referred also to a letter th&was read from the i
iSan Diego County Planning Department regarding i : 200 square foot signs.
I There was discussion of 80 square foot signs, a i i request for a Conditional use Pennit on property
:Northerly of the Northwest quadrant coming before i
the Planning Commission and what siie signs would I
I
I I
B 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 I I I I I
0 I I I I I I I
t
I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I I I I I I I
I I 1 l
I I I I I I I I I l a I I I I I I
I 8
I I I I 1 I I I
I I
-
be allowed, and if it would have to be included
in the 200 square foot size sign where the Shell i
Station is, and how this would effect the balance :
of the Ecke property if part of it is sold to I I
another party.
I Mr. Grosse stated that a 200 square foot per use i
sign is necessary for persons travelling 65 to i
70 miles per hour in order to see them in time to!
make a safe exist from the Freeway because of the:
traffic on the Freeway. I I
The Chairman announced the Planning Commission
would now hear from those wishing to speak in .i
I I I .I
opposition, I I
I I I No one present spoke in opposition. I I
No others present spoke in favor of the applica-
tion ,
The public hearing was closed at 9:Ol 'P.M.
Commissioner Smith questioned the Planning Direc-i
tor regarding the County of San Diego allowing i
200 square foot signs for each party in a quad-
rant.
The Planning Director. read the letter from the
County which stated that all the uses in a quad- i
rant shall share a single sign not over 200
square feet in area.
Commissioner Smith pointed out that mostpeople :
today have credit cards and look for stations
where they can use these credit cards, especiallyi
on trips, as well as every day usage.
Points discussed by the Commission were that the :
commission has studied signs for months and the i
I
I
I I I I I I
I
0
I I
l
I I I I I I I I 4
I I I
I I I.
I I
I
,c I * I I I I I I I I I
I I * I
I I I'
* -8-
:should stand on the original precise plan.
!After further consideration, a motion was made to i
!adopt Resolution No. 531, denying the amendment to;
:Precise Plan PP 6704 for the follmimg reasons:
I1. That the granting of this amendment to Precise!
iPlan PP 5704 would not be consistent with the sign:
:policy of the City of Carlsbad and the County of : San Diego.
I2. That there are no special reasons in this sit-:
Iuation for the granting of this request. * I
I3. That this sign will be in full view of a large!
!residential area and is therefore not desirable. i
!Resolution No. 531. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ; Smith
I I * I I
* * I
I I I * * * I
I I I I
I
I * *
I * I * I
1% I I I I I
!COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DENYING AMEND- i
:MENT TO PRECISE PLAN PP 6704, was adopted by title!
:only and. further reading waived. i
I ; Little
* : Jose I
I * I i Voorheis : (d) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in front : yard setback from 20 to 5 I; reduction in side I I i yard setback from 10' to 5'; reduction in rear I yard setback from 20' to 5'; and permission to ..:
;utilize property across the street on the South- i easterly one-half of Block 7 , Map 535,'.for off-
:street parking on the Westerly and Easterly sides i of Ocean Street between Cedar and i3eech Avenues, i
;being Lots 43, 44, 45 and 45, Portion of Block A, ;
Map No. 2, Hayes Land Co. Addition, Map No. 1221; i and the Southeasterly one-half of Block 7, Town i
:of Carlsbad, Map No. 535.
I Applicants: Henry Mayers Investments, Inc. 8
Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certi- : fied that notjces were sent to the property owners i : in the area and then read the application.
i Letter dated November 13 , 1967, from Robert M. an4
Elizzbeth S. Bryant objecting to the rear yard i : variance because the apartment house would block I : their view and the view of others alorq the beach.:
They stated they had no objection to the front : i and side yard variances.
: Letter dated November 13, 1967, from Mr. and Mrs. : Frank M. Bell, 2751 Ocean Street, opposing the i. : rear yard setback and parking on the lot across :
; the street. * *
I
-1
I
I I * I I I I
l * I t
I 8 * I a
*
I * I I * I *
* I
I * I * * * I * I * I I * v * I * * I I * I *
I I ',8'* .*- I ,. %8' I I 1 I
I I
I I I I
, , '\ ", '\ '\ \\ '\ '\ *, \\ '. '8
I I I
I I I 1 't, '\ ', '8 '\ '' 0
I i of . \<. ':p +:. '. +A I * '.~!,#" ' -5'
I : Member ,:> 2 <,',<:+& : :"""""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""""-"--""~;""""""~"""-"-,---~ :G',%'p ",O', 8
i;;I;:
::!:::
:'::;: ;:: 81 1
1 I :.: ; t iI!i:i ::i;;; I1
I I 'I:;;;
s f I I ::::;;
l ip;::
;;:ha
I I *a;;
I , , ', '\ '\ : N 5 me 8, '4% *, 'x+. I 8 - 9.-
I
i The Planning Director stated that all of the ordif 1::::: i nance requirements would have to be met and the : : off-street parking re-quirements would be provided : :;*:;; : across the street the same as was done when Henry;
; Mayers Investments, Inc., requested a variance I ;::::: I for another apartment building on adjacent properf i ty to the North for off-street parking, and they i
: other.
i The Chairman inquired whether there were any engi: ii:;i; all:
neering problems involved on this property, and i ;:I::: : the City Engineer stated that there are lots of : l:I8:: i engineering problems on ocean Street; however,
; there were no particular problems on this propert;.
*I '(8
I
I
cannot sell one piece of property without the * I :: @(I
I
I I :; 4:: ;;ii::
I I i:;eol 1:;:::
The Chairman announced the Commission would now i :::;,I I1
hear from the applicant or his representative and : i:: 1;:
; any others wishing to speak in favor of this app-: ;;'I:: : lication. 11) It
I MR. TONY HOWARD-JONES, representing the applicant$, ;: :;::q 8.1 i stated their requests for front and side yard I I :$!;
l18;l;
! perties. He pointed out that private beach prope2- iii:ii I ty is very costly and every square inch is very i I:::::
valuable. He stated there is no real rear yard a4 i the Pacific Ocean goes for miles. They want to : ::;;;: : get close to the bottom of the beach in order to i I build another building. They would have more thad i 10 feet between the buildings. As far as the vie$
I I;!::;
r I I I I I ::;:::
I l a';:;:
I setbacks are in conformance with neighboring pro- i ::;;:I
1:::::
:I;::,
;:/I!
l;*:;l
;I:;I;
I::!:: II ; : : ; ;.; I*
c ::;::: : of this size on the beach if they did not feel it ::;:::
I I:;:;!
; tying in the lots on the Easterly side of Ocean .{:;;:{ '0
:::i;i :;::I!
I I !:::I:
I I I ii'##I ::;:
I situation is concerned,iftk building had been I ii:;;:
. i built farther back, it would have obstructed thei; ;l:;I; i view. The applicants would not put a development! :!!;!:
! would hold up. They have gone to considerable
:;/I' 1;:;: i expense to develop this beach property for the i I!::;; 11' i greatest use for residential tourists, and they : :::;:: @I I would have an excess amount of parking spaces. I ;I1 i They did have a covenant and agreement recorded i ;:*:;I :';:;:
Street to the lots to the North on the Westerly i l;a6#l
side of Ocean Street. There is no way they could : ;l:;l;
. I possibly sever this property. He pointed out tha4 :;I1 i the over-all parking is one of the greatest pro-
; blems on beach property.
i Commissioner Palmateer questioned Mr. Howard- i Jones regarding the depth of the property and the : :::;SI 11 8: :- western boundary of the lot and the fact that RocG- 'I:;:; : Haven and Henry Mayers Investments are the only : apartments extending out toward the ocean. I
i Mr. Howard-Jones stated their lot is 140' deep. ! * : This area was surveyed; however, the City never ii;;:: : signed the agreement with the State, sotthe City i I recors d
I I b ::;;
I :;;#/
I :;I:::
ii:;:;
1:;:;:
I I ::;:;: I !:;:I:
/I:::
,:;;:I
I I((
* I
I 8
I I I :::q d::;,
I :;I ;;;:;;
I I I :a::;:
I I I ;ii:;:
1 I i::!:!
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I I * ;i:;;:
r
* I I I
I' , ... . *. I * I
\,'\' , " , .', ' "
. \' , b I I I I 6 8, 't, ', '\ '. '\ I I , . ', 8' '.
I - 10- i pis me b, *,$, '*, **Q. i
I .i *, '.+$$:, '\ +& ;
I ; t.jember .,d~"'h':
'.?+&y, ;, ;;+;, I :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""."""""",""~ 'p ..e 9 \iok, : i;:;;;
I I I I
t, '\ '\ . ' 1
I
records do not show that this property goes to I i the mean high tide line. Their deeds do state ;::;;; II
'I:'*I
that they own the property to the Pacific Ocean : 4::'l i with the exception of any land under the Pacific I::::: : Ocean. The mean high tide line is approximately ! 30 or 40 feet beyond the 140' depth of the proper: ;;#;:I
ty. He pointed out that most of the homes that i :;4:!! I are built along the ocean in that area are privat4
!.residences and have been built for 10 or 15 years: i and were built without the concept of beach pro- I : perty. The Master Plan calls this prime beach i i property and there is very little in the City. i This property has a terrific potential for pull- : i ing people in from all over the United States. I I
: The Building Inspector, as a matter of clarifica-i : tion, stated that the roof area of the apartment I
that is already built is 14" above the crown of : i the road. a a
: The Chairman announced the Commission would now i
; hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. i
: No one present spoke in opposition. I I ::;:::
I I (I,' 1
; The public hearing was closed at 9:35 P.M.
i Points discussed were that the parking area is a :
very large parcel of land with covered parking : i facilities; that it would not be detrimental.
: After due consideration, a motion was made to I i i ! i ;,: i adopt Resolution No. 532 granting the Variances i iiii:: requested for the following reasons: I 'I:;:;
:II:BI
II
'::;I1
::!:I; I1
;;::I' I, 8'
;u:;;
;:*'&I
I I I
I
a I I I I
I
I l a 8
I I I
I I l a:;:;:
I I I :;I::;
I :I!:!;
I ;://
I I I ;:'::: 4::;;
'1;:;: 10
I I I I$:: I'
I I 8 I i::::;
;;aI;l :I::;: ;'I*
I ::;I::
I I ::::;; I' ;i:I': ;i;:::
I I ::;:
I I I I ::I:;; a;i::: I'
.$ : to the public welfare. :;::I: I I :$;i
9 I !ial;I
1 I :;*I ::;;
I I :'@I *:;;;:
I I ;::::!
';;I;* ::*:;:
I I :I:'6: I:;:;,
I :;::': #Ib':;
!;'::I ::;:
i::;1:
i:::::
t ' I ::::*;
I b I I :::;;;
I I :::I 'I
I I I ;:::;
I I I I:;:!
I I
::;
I -1 I
I
I -a :;I(;:
I'
! 1. That there are no special or extraordinary I : circumstances on the property which would prevent! :$:: : the granting of this variance.
i 2, That this is the highest and best use of the
I I I I
beach front property. I
! 3. That these variances will not be detrimental i !!;:::
#
I I 4. That it is in accordance with the General : Plan.
i The motion also included that the variances be : :::::; I granted subject to the following conditions and i
I
limitations: I
* I I
I I : 1. The property owner shall execute an agreement:
approved by the City Attorney, providtirg that the ; -
Southeasterly one-half of Block 7, Town of Carls-i 1:::::
bad, Map No. 535 be combined into one building IIIIt
I
I ,#I:;(
I *I'
I ;!I;:
I I
I ~~
I I 1 I I I I I I I
I
I
I ', 8 .. * .,
I I. .\ ', " '\ '. '
I \ % 8 ', ', '\ I s.8 ,** I '\ ', ', ' * ', I \, " '\ ",'.,*, 1
I -11- : N 5 me b,, '*$\ \, '3. i
I : of ,.$*?$:, '\ -** I ',@.\',>. ' %?4, ; .>py-.+ .+\ , :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""~,""""""".""""""":""~~";~:~ :,,< . p'o "', ; ; I I , I-\ ::::ii
I 1 ::::I,
I ;:::,I I1
I I I I I
: Member
I ; site with Lots 43, 44, 45 and 46, Block A, Map No.!
! 1221, for the life of. any structure built on said : 4;::; I Lots 43, 44, 45 and 46 to the end that off-street! ;;:SI; :'#I : parking requirements of said structure shall al- .,')I '01::; i ways be provided on said Southeasterly one-half 04 *;;It;
':,;:I i Block 7. :IIiii ;:: *::
I ;:::,a i Planninq Commission Resolution No. 532. A RESOLU{ Smith' : :x+4 ; ; i TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A VARI- i McComas :x! : $ : ANCE ON PROPERTY AT WESTERLY AND EASTERLY SIDES o$ Palmateer ; y! ; :
OCEAN STREET, BETEEEN CEDAR AND BEECH AVENUES, wa: Sutherland ; 4 i i i adopted by title only and further reading waived. : Little : : ; 4 ; : :I
2, The Hayes Land Co., Inc. Addition, Map No.
I @@I I I I I &
II
14
I I I i Jose .; ':!>ai; I
k i Voorheis' ; i I $ i
I :;I* I i;;;:: * I*;:
I :::;I; I TENTATIVE MAP - CAPE AIRE ESTATES SUBDIVISION - i :;.;;;I : 10 lots on the Easterly side of Adams Street be- i!:;:!
: tween Harborview Lane and Hoover Street. e ::i::: I ::':::
I I 4:::;
I iil
I I ::!;I: I'
I I ;: ::;i I ;:* ;:::::
1 1:;:::
I ::*:;:
e: .. I 6 :a::;; I;!::: I'
I I ;:;:::
I : A recess was called at 9:42 P.M. The meeting was! ;!I:::
reconvened at 9:50 P.M.
I
I
,/"
II'*;I I
I I I k .;I::;; Owner: Hazel D. George. I I ::::I;
Subdivider: Ronald Broward Construction Co. I #,;i:i 1 -*
*.
I I
I
I
I The Secretary read the application and certified i i that owners of adjacent property were notified of;
this subdivision.
1 l
; There were no written communications other than .! :;'::: i the recommendations from the various departments i i ; i ;-: i and agencies. I ,:I 1'
i The Planning Director explained the block study
map and that every lot is at least 7500 square i i feet and explained the development of properties i i next to the proposed subdivision, and stated the ; I only way the properties on Hoover Street can dev-: i elop the rear portions of their properties would : be by "panhandle" lots.' The one' foot barrier : along the Southerly side of the cul-de-sac is a i
; legal barrier in case the properties to the South:
.I : wish to develop their properties. #
: When questioned, the City Engineer stated that i : full improvements will be required on Adams and i : on the cul-de-sac. There is no sewer service I
there at this time; however, a 1911 Act Sewer
District proceeding has been initiated, and have
; been approved by the City Council. I
; The Chairman discussed the engineering require- i i .merits with the developer.
i MR. DON HOLLY, Licensed Surveyor, referred to
I
I l a;;::: 'I'
I
I 1 I
1 I
I I I
:
: I I
I
I
I I I I I 111'1: ::;!;I
I. !::;:!
I :I:;:;
I I I I:::;:
I 'I:':: I I ::;::I
I I :::::'
I 1 I i::: 1:
8
I
I I I !:ii;i I:
I I I
@I
Item 9 regarding the easement toqen UP the I :;I:@: i sewer and drainage. I
I
I
I
I
.- h
I I I I
I I I 1
I* , .', ' I *, '\ 8 ', 's 'b
I , 8, '\ '8 ', '.
I 8, \\ 8, \, ', 8, 4
I ; of <,<- \L ,\ ' 1 .@....,. . ' '7& :
~"""""~~""""""""""""~""""""""""""""~~"~""~~"""""""""""~,"~
I 1 I I I
I
I I 8 s8, 8 b'
I .. - '\ * L '8 '8 '8
I t -12- . i NZ me *~,'~~~+ ',,8F$, i
I : hlernber ..-,\c .~~':'&',~:p~~,, .c: /*.. \ ,
' * I :-<
::::I:
::I :;:::: II
:;I:::
1 I I:: ,;,;:: ;:I
I I 1 :;:;(I I;::::
:The City Engineer stated that the City would have
to know the width of the sewer, drainage and uti- i
ility easements required before the Final Map is : :;Ill:
I(**
: approved. I
: No others present spoke in favor or in opposition.: ' 'I I :.; I 11 I
After further consideration, a motion was made to i ;;::ii
adopt Resolution No. 563, recommending approval oi 4:::
:::;,I : this subdivision, subject to the recommendations I i::::;
of the various City agencies and utility compan- :::::I
ies, with the modification of Item 9 which shall : :::;:; i read, "A sewer, drainage and utility easement ten: :::
;#I 1':
I ;:I ;:I : feet (10') in width or fifteen feet (15') in I ;: :I:: : width, if required, shall be provided along the i 'I
,:i::
i Southerly side of Lot 10, to be determined before i ::i:::
~lI;lI i the final map is approved". I
:I 1:;::; '8
:;::I; i Resolution No, 536. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD :Smith :;;:::
: CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMPIIENDING APPROVAL OF iMcComas ::::I:
lI8;I; i THE TENTATIW MAP OF CAPE AIRE ESTATES SUBDIVI- ipalmateer , ii:;:; I I I I I SION, was adopted by title only and further read- :Sutherland: : : ; , : I
ing waived. :Little !:::I; :ii:;:
I I IVoorheis :I;:;: ; : ; ; : ;
I ::::;:
I I 4 1 ::I;;; ::i:;:
i:::,: ;;p:;
I t I I II
I
I
II
SI
I*
I I I I I
1' I*
I I I :Jose
' : OLD BUSINESS:
i (a) Memorandum RE: EARCO sideyard setback on i i::;::
Westerly side of Ocean Street, from the City Man- i 1:' 6: i ager, dated November 10, 1967, stating that when -! : the appeal of the decision of the Planning Cornmi-.: ::;:;: i ssion in denying a portion of the application fori i!;:;: ' I. 1
. i a side yard setback from 6' to 0' on the Norther- : ::;I;:
ly side for the construction of a garage was con- i ;:;::: : sidered at the public hearing held on November 7, i : 1967, it was the unanimous decision of the City :::;;I : Council that the matter be returned to.the Plann-: :::;;; :;
ing Commission for further recommendation and I I i:, I!::
study, as it was their feeling that most of the i #I
: residents in this area conform to this request. i 6$;;
I Points discussed were that 8 properties have less: ::;Ill i than 1' setbacks on Ocean Street, that 1 building: 'I::;; :;I:;:
: before the City was incorporated; that this is a i : hazard because of the density in the building of
; 6 units, and in the interests of safety, they a I::;:: i should not have a 0' setback; that the applicants: !;!I;!
were granted a 3' setback; that if a 0' setback ii;:i; -I were granted, and the other entrance were blocked! ::::;I : in case of a fire, they could not get the people ::;::: : out; that this would be setting a precedent in :
the area; that some safety factors should be en- : ;*:::; i .forced regarding higher density, air circulation * I:la;l i and light.
I
1:;::: ::::::
' ; :.: I ;i SI1
I f I ;i:;:: ::::
.I : is out in the City right of way, and was built :ii:l: Qll;!: i::;:: ;:::;:
:::::;
I I 'I
I
1
:;a:;:
;;:;I'
;::;:;
I :;::::
I 1 i:::::
I I I I ;:::I; 61) ;::;::
I I :;::;:
I I I ::jy 'I.
I
I * I
I I 1
4 1'1
I I I I ;:I::: 1:;;:
I I I
I I
I
I 11
I I I I I
I I I I I
I
I I I I I
1
8 I I
I I I I I I I I I t I I 0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I 1 I I I
t 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 8 I I I I I I .a I 8
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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
"
,- I I I I I I I I I
I 8, ' '. * .'
I
I I
I
~''~8 \8 , t8 , , 8, 's, ', I, '. I I I I
I
1 '*, ', 8 '8 '\8'\,
I *, ', '*, ', . '
t ; of '<*\b,, 8
8'
I I NZ me **,'*?e., . ', bTA, %y9, 1 ;
I -13- ',O:\,,"\ \p'++,T-.? ' \?& x-;.' ' I :""""""""""""""."""""-"""""""""""~~"""""""""""""""""","" ; Member *.o.g..p ~-,O\,I i;'I;:
I :;:I:: 41
i The Building Inspector called attention to the I /+; i fact that there would be a substantial opening to: I the Henry Mayers Investments, Inc., and it was I ::;::I I necessary to see the whole picture to see this. i
I ::;ll# ; With the consent of the Commission, the Chairman I ::;:::
requested that a letter be drafted to the City ! I Council stating the Commission saw no reason to ; ;;1;1*
'I;: ! change their original decision,
I & I!::!:
::,::I
I I i:: *#:Ti ::I
6 I
b
i:;!:;
8 ::::;:
81
I :I
I I
(b) Memorandum RE: JORDAN zone chanqe, Precise
Plan and Approval of Tamarack Center Subdivision
Map at Tamarack Avenue and Pi0 Pic0 Drive, and to:
study in reqard to service stations in Carlsbad, ;
dated November 10, 1967, from the City Manager, [
stating that it was the decision of the City Coun
cil that the hearing before the City Council be
continue-d, and that a study be made by the Plann-
ing Commission and members of the City Council as
to the number of service stations needed along
Interstate 5 Freeway within the City limits of
Carlsbad,
The Chairman stated'that Councilmen Worthing and
Jardine and Commissioner Little met on Sunday to
study this matter.
I
I The Commission discussed the number of. service :
stations they felt would be adequate at the Free-!
way interchanges.
The Planning Director presented a map of the
existing service stations at Freeway interchanges:
The Chairman and Commission Little stated they i
felt that if service stations were under Condi-
tional Use Permits, the City would have better i
control of them. I I
The Greenwood property, which the City owns, but i
on which Mrs. Greenwood has a life estate, at
the Northeasterly corner of Elm and Pi0 Pic0 was
discussed. 1 I
The Planning Director reported that there had
been several offers for the purchase of this pro-!
I '. I I I I -1
I
I I
I I
I I I
0
I
I
perty. I I I
I I Commissioner Palmateer suggested that this properf
ty be beautifully landscaped.
The Commission discussed the property at Tamara&!
and Pi0 Pic0 Drive, Opposition was expressed to I
more gas stations and that other things would be : -
more valuable to the City; that there was room i
for one good motel or one restaurant; that the i
I I
I I I
I I I I I I 1 I I 1
I ,-I111
I I I I I I I I I
I' I. *, '* '*8 *b, '8, '8,
I \,',\ , \ * I I ,, h, 'I ' ' ' I
I , 'b ', *. 't, I ',8b'8 , \, "'\ I : me ', '\$x., '*8 ''3.
t i *f '.+& '\ ' *,s,. : *?& I FF -. + f,' r, : :""~""~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""- : Member ~,o'~g'.~~p~~,~~, I 1 - 'i -\I
:Commission should consider what their values I ::'::; i would be to the City. I :!:;I: )(I I
I ::I :i:: II
!MR. TONY HOWARD-JONES stated that the real crux i ;*,;,I
: from the land use standpoint is that the owners I 'E:# I*:;:; : could not put a motel on a small corner on Tam- i ::;::: i arack. I I ::*::: l:'II
I I :;1:l' l(lI
:::'I1 I( After further discussion, with the consent of the ;I,:,& i Commission, the Chairman directed the Planning ::::ii
I:@@Il : Department Secretary to prepare a letter for his i ::::;:
signature stating that it was the decision of the I ::I::: ;;:I1:
Commission that more time is needed to make a
definite statement concerning the number of ser-
vice stations needed along Interstate 5 within thi
8
I I I
I I
I -14-
I I
I I
I
I I I
'SI
I I I
I*@
It
I1
I
I
I
I
@@I
I 1;:'
:;lI;: ::::::
h;;l*
::I;II I*
,I:;::
4:;;
I
: City; limits of Carlsbad, and the Planning Commi- i ;: I ssion will give their recommendations to the City I :;'I11 11
Council within 60 days. In the interim, the * 1 :::;,I i Planning Commission does not intend to approve i ::.;I,: ~11;~; i any more service stations until they have studied @'1II* :::;;:
i A letter' from Donaid Johnson, representing the I
i their decision of the Jordan application was
; read and the Chairman thanked Mr. Johnson and re- i i quested copies of the letter be forwarded to the i i Council. I 1,;:::
i Chairman Sutherland stated that when he took over! : as Chairman of the Planning Commission, it was .! i with the understanding that it would just be for the remainder of the year. However, he is plann- : i ing a trip to South America. I
: (c) ELECTION OF OFFICERS
i Election of Chairman.,
i Commissioner Sutherland placed the name of Cornmi-! : ssioner Little for Chairman.
: By motion of the Commission, the nominations were! Smith
I1
- : the matter more thoroughly. I I I I ii::;:
I I I .:*;;,I 11@l
;LIlI
;::#I4 IO
I 1:s; I ::::i; :I::;; ii:' ijl I'
ABC Association commending the Commission on I I ;;::::
::
1
I 1 I I
I I 9 I I
I I
I I I
I I I
r
b I
l a I
I
I
1 8 * I
.1 : closed for the office of Chairman. I
I I I I : By acclariation, Commissioner Robert T, Little was !Little : elected Chairman of the Carlsbad City Planning !Jose i Commission.
: I- Election of Vice-chairman. I I
: Commissioner Smith placed the name of Commissioneq i -Palmateer for Vice-chairman. I.
I I I 1 I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
By motion of the Commission, the nominations wereiSmith
I I : closed for the Office of Vice-chairman.
I
l I I l
I I 5
... .
r
I I I I t 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 I 8 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I t 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 1 I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I
I I I I I I I
h 1' * I I
4 I
I I
I 1 * 4 1 D. I
I
-15-
elected Vice-chairman of the Carlsbad City I I
Planning Commission. .
Election of Secretary.
Commissioner McComas placed the name of Commiss- :
ioner Jose for Secretary.
I I I I I I I I 4 4
I I I I I
closed for the office of Secretary.
By acclamation, Commissioner Elmer H, Jose, Jr., i
was eledted Secreitary of the Carlsbad City
Planning Commission.
(d) Application for Buildinq Permit on Future i
I I 8 I I I I I
Street Openinq. I
The Building Inspeckor reported that City Code rei
quires that this be brought before' the Commission; I:;fi;l II
He stated that he has an application for a build-!
ing permit on the North side of Basswood Avenue :
where the future James Drive will go through.
There is no precise plan on James Drive at that I
location at this time.
The City Attorney stated that when there is no
precise plan of a street, the City cannot deny ;
a building permit.
The Chairman requested the applicant to discuss I
this matter with the City Attorney.
ADJOURNMENT :
By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at i
10:48 P.M.
I
I I::;,;
!::;;I ;::::(
i!:;;;
:e::!: :::;;I
4 I ;::;;;
::::I; ::::i;
I I :!{;:; 11
*I :i+*
;!;:I:
I ii:;:;
I
I '. I
I ;Ill
(0 .: ;d;l
I ' 1:::
l;;e;l I
I I I I I I I
I
I
I I I I I
t
4 Respectfully submitted, I
I I I I I
8 I I I I I
I l I I I I I 6
I. 1
s I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I
DOROTHY M. OSBURN
Recording Secretary