The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1968-03-26; Planning Commission; Minutes... " . i * i CITY OF CARLSBAL I ' ' '' ', 9'' i I"""""""""""""""""""-""""""~~m~~~""-~-~-~-~-~ I I I, of e$." < : ,; I I t Minutes of Meet J: PLANNING COMMI 'ON ; ',;,,> -\,, ',+, I : Date of Meeting: March 26, 1968 I '\ 'GI . '.' ' +." I ; Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. :Name ',y,p.,P'&d$Q\( I Place of Meeting: Counci 1 Chambers Qk\Qp\ tf's , - 1, ', '' '\ ',&$.' I I I. I. I. I. I. I' I I I11111 I11111 I11111 111l1l I11111 111111 llllll 111111 I 111111 I llllll I I11111 I I.IIIII : ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, I McComas, Jose, Palmateer, Sutherland, Voorhei s, I I ; and Little.. Also present were City Attorney I Wilson, Civil Assistant Engineer Sprehe, Planning: I Director Schoell, and Assistant City Planner I ,.Johnston. I I ; APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I I I (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of March 12, 1968, were approved as submitted. I I I I I I I I I I : WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: : There was no written communications. I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: : There was no oral communications. I I I I I I I i PUBLIC HEARING: I I11111 111111 I11111 :sut :Lit 'VOO I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I : (a) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in the : side yard setback on Redwood Avenue from 10 feet I I to 5 feet. Location: Northeasterly corner of Carlsbad Boule* I I I I I I I I I 1 vard and Redwood Avenue. I I I I Applicant: Frank M. Alley. I I I Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certi-: : fied that property owners in the area were noti- I I fied. Letter dated March 6, 1968, from Frank I M. Alley stating that he has submitted his applicf 1 application. It was pointed out that there was I I an error in the application, however, notices I I were sent out with the correct information, as I to the Northeasterly corner instead of the South-l I I westerly corner. I I I Letters of protest were read from H. J. O'Toole, I D. V. Read, the Ford family, Mrs. Jay, W. E. I I Richards, Mr. & Mrs. Beisswinger, Mr. & Mrs. Park;, I and Mrs. Major Rix. I I I I I ation along with the $25.00 fee. -He then read the1 I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I The Planning Director presented a map and explainkd I the location of the property and the zoritng in I 1 : the area and the written report of the facts I I resulting from the staff investigation of the I property.' He pointed out that the 5 feet side , I yard se$back will affect the views of the property I owners to the East on the North side of Redwood I ; Avenue. He also stated access to Carlsbad I Boulevard should not be allowed because of the I unsafe conditions that would be created upon I Carlsbad Boulevard. There is adequate room for I I I I I I access on Redwood Avenue. I I I I I I I ; Mr. Sgrehe read the Engineer's Report and stated ; I that no driveway access should be allowed onto I I Carlsbad Boulevard. Cars backing out from this : I driveway would be very difficult to see due,to I ; the curve in Carlsbad Boulevard. He also pointed: :.out Carlsbad Boulevard is classifia as an arterial: I street and direct access should be restricted as ; : much as possible. : The Chairman announced the Commission would now I I hear from the applicant,or his representative. I ; DONALD P. LOKER, 14 Williamsburg Lane, Rolling I I Hills, California, stated that he has an option I I to purchase the property. He pointed out on the ; map areas that he believed were commerical and ; I that the entire block will eventually become I commerical. He plans to park cars on Redwood I ; Avenue but only on o'ne side of the apartments. I The lot is so narrow that it wa's impossible to I : build a building that would fit correctly. He I I I stated that there will be 4 units on one lot and I 3 units on the corner lot. He is considering to I I build on the 2 lots as 2 separate units. I ; Chairman Little stated.that the photographs I : indicate that the traffic will be coming out ; directly onto Carlsbad Boulevard. I The Planning Director stated that there is a i double line on Carlsbad Boulevard making a legal I I left turn into the driveway impossible. They I I ; Ourn. i Mr. Loker stated that the fro.nt of the lot is mor$ I valuable because it is facing the ocean. So I : of the property to automobiles. This corner lot ; 1 will have the cars in back so that the bottom ; ocean view frontage. I I Chairman Little announced the Commission would I I I now hear from any others wishing to speak in I favor of this applicatton. I ; As there was no one present wishing to speak in I I favor, the Chairman announced the Commission would I now hear from anyone wishing to speak in opposi- I ; tion. I : MRS. MINARIK, 3824 Carlsbad Boulevard, Caklsbad, I corner lot then there will be other requests for : this same type of variance. She stated she was ; I not against the apartments being built but she ; I felt that this reduction would cut up the corner I completely and would affect the views of the I 1 property owners who live on the North side of ; Redwood Avenue. She would like to keep the amound ; of space that was properly asked for in,.the begin" ; ning. 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 I I I I I would have go. up the next block to make the I .- actually the inside lots are losing the best part: - apartments will be more valuable because of the I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I ; stated that if a variance is granted for this I I I I I -3- I I I ,””””“”””-”””” A ””””””””””-”” 1 I I I I :MRS. RIX, 151 Hemlock Avenue, Carlsbad, stated ishe was hope.fu11y looking for the time when this ; :area is all ‘zoned R-T. She felt that a R-T zone I I would be the best use for this property. If the . : ,Commission were to grant this variance, she felt ; Ithat the entire area should be made a R-T zone I :at the same time. This variance would down€jradt! :all property along th%s area. She stated that I I ;the Commission should have to think of terms of I flexibility and zoning and by granting this vari- ; :ante this would not do it. Spot zoning can net ; :make Carlsbad a handsome community. I IMR. PARKS, 131 Hemlock Avenue, Catlgbad, stated I :that he is located on a key lot on Hemlock and if this variance is granted he would request a :variance on his property also.‘ He pointed out ; :that he would also want to utilize his property I in the same manner. c :MRS. READ, 146 Redwood Avenue, Carlsbad, stated : : that she agreed with Mr. Parks, if this variance ; ;is granted then all the 0the.r key lots would I ;request the same. He also stated that this vari- I lance would affect the views of property owners in ; :the area and that the Commission should take this ; I into consideration. I I MRS. JAY, 152 Redwood Avenue, Carlsbad, stated i that when she built her home in 1952, she requesteb I a variance also and it was not granted. She felt that the newcomers should meet the same require- ; I ments. :As there was no others wishing to speak in opposi-; 1 tion, the Chairman declared the public hearing I : closed at 8:05 P. M. : Commissioner Sutherland stated that he would not I : go along with the variance request. He felt that : ; Mrs. Rix was right, that thfs property would I I eventually become an R-f zone or an R-3 zone. If : ; this particular side yard is changed then the I I Commission would have to change the complete : ordi nance. ; Commissioner Palmateer stated that in the General : I Plan this area is scheduled for some of the most : important developments in Carlsbad. There is aloq : of vacant land along this area, therefore, it is I I very important what is to be done in this area. : He agreed with Commissioner Sutherland that the ; ; ordinance was set up for the good of all the I I people and for the Ultimate development of 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 Carlsbad. After further discussion, a motion was made to I adopt Resolution No. 549, denying application I : for a variance on said property for the purpose ; I of a reduction on side yard setback on Redwood I :Avenue from 10’ to 5’ for the following reasons: I I 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary: ; circumstantes- applicable to this particular I I property. 1 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 11111l 111111 I11111 111111 Illlll :2. That the granting of subject variance would be: I11111 ;materially detrimental to the public welfare. I I I I11111 'preservation and enjoyment of the same substantial: :broperty rights enjoyed by others in the vicinity.l I : 3. Such a variance is not necessary for the I 111111 I 111111 111111 llllll I.IlIlI I I I11111 I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I 1l1111 11 I I I The following resolution was presented: I Resolution No. 549. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD Fmith :CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE ON McComas I PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF hose : CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND REDWOOD AVENUE, was adoptedralmateer ; ; :x: ; ; by title only and further reading waived. 6utherland ;x; ;x; ; I I I 3: : : I I Ix: : : : :x:x I I I I poorheis I I IxI I I Little I I x : : 1 I II I I 111111 I 111111 I I 111111 1111l1 Illlll I I11111 I I11111 I .IIIIII I11111 I11111 llllll 1 I11111 I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I I11111 Illlll 111111 I11111 111111 111111 I 111111 I I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 Illlll - I11111 llllll I I11111 111111 I11111 I I 11111l I11111 I 111111 I I11111 I llllll I 111111 llllll I11111 I 1l1111 I 111111 llllll I11111 I 111111 I 111111 I 111111 I 111111 I I11111 I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I I 111l11 llllll I I11111 Illlll Illlll I11111 I I11111 I I I11111 I11111 llllll 1l1111 I I11111 I llllll I 111111 I I11111 I I I11111 I11111 I I11111 I' I11111 I 111111 I 111111 I Ill111 I I11111 : (b) VARIANCE - To consider reduction in the :Northerly side yard setback from 6.7 feet to 3 I ; feet for existing structure. 'Location: 3247 Hlghland Drive, on the Westerly ; :side of Highland Drive, between Pine Avenue and I : Applicant: Joseph Martone. ; Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certi- ; I fied that property owners in the area were noti- I I11111 I fied of the hearing and then read the application.: - I I - lBasswood Avenue. I 111111 I I I I I I I There was no correspondence. I I : The Planning Director presented a map and a writ? ; I ten report of the facts resulting from the staff ' I I zoned R-1-10. The lot has an existing dwelling ; : with a 3 foot side. yard setback for which the I variance is requested. The addition will conform : : to all required setbacks. I 111111 I There was no Engineering Report. : The'Chairman announced the Commission would now I I hesrr from the applicant or his representative. I I I11111 : present, the Chairman announced the Commission I I 111111 ; would now he'ar from anyone wishing to speak in I favor of this application. :-MRS. LORMIS, 3242 McKinley, Cartsbad, stated that I : Mr. Martone must have been notified, as she investigation of the property'. The property is I - I I I I I As the applicant or his representative were not I I received a notice of hearing. I I11111 The Chairman announced the Commission would now I hear from anyone wishing to speak in opposition : I ; of this application. : As there was no one present wishing to speak in ; 111111 I opposition, the Chairman declared the public 1 I hearing closed at 8:20 P. M. I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~~ I Ill1 - rc I I I I I I 111111 I I11111 I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I Illlll 111111 111111 I11111 11l111 I11111 I11111 111l11 1l1111 I 111111 111l11 I I I 1.1 I 111111 11l111 I I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 111111 I 111111 111111 llllll I11111 I11111 I I11111 I 111111 I 1111l1 111111 I 111111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I Illlll I11111 I. I 1. I. I, I* :After due consideration, it was agreed that this I lvariance woujd do no harm to the area and that :it would be a definite improvement. :Chairman Little stated if this variance is granted: 111111 ,that at any time they remove that portion of the ; :existing structure tbat the variance become void. I then if the applicant wants to rebuild he should : :conform to the property setbacks in the area. I :A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 550, I I :granting a variance on said property for a reduc- I Ition in the Northerly side yard setback from 6.7 I :feet to 3 feet for existing structure for the I : fol 1 owi ng reasons : 11. That there are exceptional and extraordinary ; :circumstances which can be rectified by granting I 1 this variance. I 1l1111 :2. That the granting of this variance will not I ;be materially detrimental to the public welfare I lor injurious to the property or improvements in :the vicinity and zo.ne which the property is I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I located. I I11111 I I I11111 I 111111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I Illlll I11111 111111 I I11111 I11111 1111l1 I llllll I I11111 I11111 111111 11l111 I 111111 I I11111 I I11111 I11111 I11111 111l11 I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I11111 I I11111 111111 :3. That the granting of this variance will not I ; adversely affect the General Plan. I :The motion also included that the variance be lgranted subject to the following conditions and I I 1 imitations: I '1 1. That the existing structure, which is 3 feet : I11111 I from the property line, not be extended in the I :Westerly nor Easterly direction. I I I I I I I I I I 12. In the event that the existing structure be ; : removed, that the required setbaxks be met on any I I future building on this property. I I I11111 : The following resolution was presented: I : Resolution No. 550. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD :Smith I CITY PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE ON IMcComas k :x, : i I I 'x: I : PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF HIGHLAND~L~~~I~ : DRIVE, BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND BASSWOOD AVENUE, ,Jose ; : :x: ; ; : 3247 Highland Drive, was adopted by title only :Palmateer I I :x, i : II I I 'x: I I I and further reading waived. I :Sutherl and: x: :x; ; ; I I 'Yoorkeif ; ; ; ; I I I I I I I 111111 I I .IIIIll 111111 I 11l111 1111l1 I I11111 I I I 111111 Illlll I I I 1111l1 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 Illlll I I11111 I11111 1 I11111 llllll I I11111 I11111 I I11111 I 11l111 I I Illlll I I11111 I I I Illlll I I11111 I I I I11111 I Illlll I I I11111 I : 6. Memorandum from City Engineer in re: Jarvie I : Lot Split. IMr. Sprehe-presented a map and stated that Mr. ; Jarvie has submitted a lot split to the Engineer-: ; ing Department and that the Engineering Depart- ; Iment is presenting this to the Commission for their recommendations and comments. He then 1 ; read and explained the memorandum. He explained 1 I the location of the area and the zoning in the I : area. They propose to have three (3) lots 1 divided,one for the existing house, one on c I\ -. . I I I I I. I. I. I. I# I' I 111111 I I I11111 I11111 111111 :Highland Dri-ve, and the other o,n Hoover Street. I I I11111 :The proposed division of land conforms to the zone' I11111 ;requirements, but Parcels ''A" and I'B" have physicai Iproblems. A storm drain discharges into Parcel I I IIIA" I from the East of Highland Drive and meanders llllll lthrough the property down an unimproved channel I Hoover Street. He then read the recommenda- I I I11111 : tions from the Engineering Department. I I11111 lAfter a general discussion, Mr. Jarvie asked I I :permission to speak. Permission was granted. I 1111l1 I Mr. Jarvie stated that the memorandum states that I I i their is problem on Parcel "B". He has lived I I11111 : there for 20 years and he has had no problems with: Ithe drainage. They do have drainage problems I i through Highland Drive but it does not wonder I down through Hoover Street. He pointed out that I I there is over 1600 sq. ft. on lots "A" and "C". :He stated that this water can be controlled and ; I11111 I assured the Commission that no one would build on I I this property unless it is approved by the City I I :Building Standards.. When he bought the property : I that other buildings are being built he-cauld not : I understand why one property owner is asked to I :bear the total cost of the drainage for the extra I : homes that are being built. I I 1111l1 Jarvie stated that he is willing to pay for ; : the street improvements but would like to request ; I a waiver at the present time. :Mr. Sprehe stated that the lot split ordinance I :requires full street improvements.. Any waived I I ;Street improvements are to be granted by the i When questioned. if the City assumes any respon- ; : collects in' streets and is then dumped on other I I I property, Mr. Sprehe stated that the Engineering ; : Department part,icipates when the full improvement I :goes in. In this: case there is an existing C.M.P.: :When Mr. Sprehe stated that there was a definite : Iproblem on Parcel ''A", Mr. Jarvie stated that I the drainage problem on Parcel ''A" has helped I :water his fruit trees. I ,After due consideration, a motion was made that Smith the Planning Commission correspond to the City PcComas :X : :X, Ill I I ICouncil stating that the Planning Commission is indose :accord with subject lot split from a land use Little :standpoint and does concur with Items ''A" thru "DI'Palmateer ; : :X; ; ; 1 recommended by the City Engineer. I I I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 111111 I11111 Illlll llllll I I I I11111 I I11111 I 111111 I11111 I 1l1111 I 1l1111 llllll I11111 Illlll I11111 I11111 1l1111 I 111111 I llllll I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 Illlll I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 l1l111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 I I11111 I 111111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I 111111 I Illlll I 111111 I11111 Illlll I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I 111111 I I11111 Illlll I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 I11111 111111 Illlll I11111 I Illlll I I11111 I11111 Illlll 111111 I 11l111 1l1111 I I11111 I11111 I I11111 I Illlll 1l1111 I I I I I - I " ; 20 years ago there was not.much drain off. Now I I I I 1 I - I City Council. I I11111 7 I sibil ity for the drainage in areas where it I I I I 'pipe pick up whfch is about 20 years old. I' I 1 I I I I 1x1 I I I 'XI : : I Sutherland; ; :x: ; ; I boorhair t IxIxI I I I 1x1 I I Ill I I I I I I I I .I I I I I I I 1 I I11111 I I AIIIII l11l11 I 11111.1 I 111111 I I 111111 llllll I 111111 I I11111 I 11111l I I I11111 1l1111 I llllll I' I 111111 I11111 ~ ~ ~~ ~___~~~~ ~ t I I t I I I I I 1"""~""""""""""""" 1 I I I I L - I -7- I OLD BUSINESS: "- " " I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I (a) New Sign Ordinance. Chairman Little asked the Planning Director if he had extra copies of the California Roadside ; Council Is issue of "Signs Out of Control". He I felt that it was an interesting booklet to read and that it would also help with our sign ordi- ; nance. I I I I I I I I I The Planning Director stated that the Planning ; I Department is a member of the California ,Road- I ; side Council and that' he will order additional I I I I copies fer the Commissioners. . I : Commissioner Jose presented a clipping from the I I San Diego Union stating that the City of San I I Clemente is also have problems with huge signs I r^- i and cluttering of signs. I I The Planning Director presdnted the preliminary I draft of'the sign .ordinance and stated that I I I they reviewed the definitions at the last meeting:. I He asked if the Commission would like to discuss I ; any aspects of the ordinance or to accept it as ; I it is. If the Commission found that the ordi- I ; nance was not exactly what they wanted a work I i session shouad be conducted. I I Commissioner Jose made notations and minor I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I corrections of the sign ordinance. I I Chairman Little called a recess at 9:04. Recon- I I vened at.$;13 P. M. I I I I I I - The Planning Director briefly reviewed the book- I I I let "Signs Out of Control". He pointed out that; I there are two (2) basic problems that the Commis-1 I sion should consider; how are freeway signs to ; be handled, and how are downtown signs to be I I handled. .He explained that the sign ordinance I is to produce readable signs but not signs that are in competition to each other. Also that I 1 the sign ordinance would grant much liberty to I I merchants but try to keep them in proportion to ; I I the building and parallel to the face of the I I building. He then reviewed and explained the I I proposed sign ordinance and stated that he was ; I I ta%king about "On Premise'' signs, which are signs: 1 dealing directly with the property on which they I ! stand. I ; While outtfntng the ordirranesamc pafnts that I were discussed were the general provisions Of I the ordinance which would ban all animated or ; moving signs and would also ban all banners and I I pennants and all simil.ar attention getting I I devices. A temporary permf.t may be issued for I I opening and also political signs and posters, but: I only for a limited period of time. Signs would I I have to be maintained and that no obstructions I I or safety hazards such as a flashing sign which ; I I I I I I I I I I I b I I I I I I I I I I I a merchant .to display streamers during a grand I I I I I I . I may distract from clear vision of traffic and I I I I I I I ~~ . .. I. I. I. I. I. I, 11111l 11l111 I11111 I11111 Illlll I11111 I11111 l~1111 111111 llllll I.IIIII 11l111 I11111 Illlll I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 IllCll 111111 111111 111111 111111 1l1111 111111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 111111 111111 Illlll I11111 I11111 llllll I11111 I11111 Illlll I11111 111111 I11111 111111 I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 Illlll 111111 I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 I11111 111111 I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 Illlll 111111 1l1111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 111111 I11111 111111 111l11 I11111 1111l1 I11111 I11111 111111 I11111 llllll I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 llllll 111111 I11111 11l111 I11111 lillll 111111 JS8lll llllll 111111 11111l Illlll 111111 111111 l1111l Illlll 11l111 1111l1 111111 111111 11l111 llllll I11111 11111l llllll 11111l 11l111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 111111 llllll tt1111 >3 5 11 1 I I I I I I I I . : traffic signals will be permitted. From the 1 effective date of the ordinance, all signs non- conforming -to the ordinance would .be allowed to I rem-ain standing for a period of three (3) y4ars, I : then would be removed. I ; After further discus’sion, it was agreed that the : I preliminary draft of the sign ordinance be. I ! accepted, with the exception of the freeway signs,: I and be presented to the downtown bus-iness men ‘fo-r ; their.reviews and suggestions. I : NEW BUSINESS: I (a) Planned Unit Development. : The Planning Director stated that the Planning I ; Department has been .working on the P1-anned Unit I I Development and should kave a rough draft to I : present to the Commission .in the next few weeks. 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 ADJOURNMENT: I I I I I By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at I : 10:22 P.M. I I I I -I I I I I Respectfully submitted, I TONI J. DERRIGO, I Recording Secretary I I I .. I 1. I