Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1959-05-12; Planning Commission; MinutesK"J!lLS OF REGULAR M!i:;TING OF CANSBAD CITY PLArlNING COMT!ISSION let The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.14, by Chairman Swirerky, Present besides the Chairman were Commiasioners Netka, Zahler, Fennel, Stringer, Clisbe and Jarvfe 2- The Oath of Allegicnce vas administsred by the City Clerk to the new member of the Planning Connnissiono Conmissioner George An CTiRbe, The Chdman welcomed Clisbe to the Planning C:onrmission, 3- Minutes of April 28, 19:ge. It was moved by Cm, Stringer and seconded by Corn, Jarvie that the minutes of April 28, 1959, bo approved as submitted, Sewn ayes, motion oarried, Reclassification from R-1 tu R-P of property located on the north side of Laguna Dr. between lhrena Vista Gardens and Madison St, in accordarlce with Resolution Notice of hearing was read of Hearing and the mailing no written correspcmdenc:eo of notices to property owners in the areao There was No one present desired to make q conrment, The public hearing was closed at 7 x42 Y .Mm The Chairman reviewed wtat had transpired on this matter at the previous hearing on April 14, 195g0 Ccym~. Stringer stated that when he had made the motion to adopt Resolution of Intc,ntion No, 8, he had not felt that the property was properly located for an R.P zone, but had made the motion so that the contiguous properties could be considered for rezoning at the same time. It was then moved by CUm. Stringer and seconded b3' Corn, Jarvie that Resolution No, U.5 be adopted recommend- ing to the City Council that the property included in the request of John Do Angelo and Resolution of Intention No, 8, said p-mperty lying on the north side of Laguna Drive between hona Vista Gardens and Jefferson Street, be rezoned from R-1 to L3 far the followjag reasor.8 2 1, In the interest. of good planning and due to the louation, it would be more logical to retane t.he property to R-3, being a more restrictive zone than R-P, 2, Thsrzl is a sufficient amount of R-P eoning in the area" but no buffer zone between Rpl and Rt', '3. The highest anc. best we of the property would be for residential income, Some dihcussian was given this mattor by the Commission, after which the Chairnan asked for a roll calJ. vote Resolution No, 115 adopted. 3- HEARING Variance, Reauest of E. F. Peterson for reduction of front yard sot back from 209 to lStO and reduction of rear yard set back from 158 to lo*, on Lot 5, Knowles Terrace, Notice of'hearing wae read, The Sechtary certified as to the publication of Motice of Hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the areao The Secretary then read the application submitted by the owner setting forth the reasons for requesting the vari,mceo There Waa no written correspondence, No one present desired to make any conmeat, The public hearing was closed at 7:s P.H0 The Secretary submitted the map of Knowles Terrace with the homes plotted in, and a plot plan showing the proposed location of the house on Lst 5 to the Commission, Considerable discussion was given this matter by the Commission during which it w88 painted out that +he variance is necessary as the wner wishes to place his house on the lot so that it fronts on Pi0 Pico, which is technically the side yard, and the request was for Buena Vista, It was moved by Camm. Fennel and seconded by Corn, Zahler that Resolution No, 116 be adapted granting the request of E, F, Peterson for a reduction of front yard set back from 20° to l!jP, and reduction of rear yard set back from l5O to loo, for the following reasons: 1, The variance iu nweseary in order to allow the building to front on Pi0 Pic0 Drive, which ier technically the side yard,, and the set back on Pi0 Pic0 Drive will be 20@, the public welfare, nor will it be injurious to the surrounding property and improvements, 3, Granting this variance will not be detrimental to the comprehensive general plan. 2, Being a corner lot, granting this variance will not be detrimental to The Chairman asked for a roll call vote, AYES: Chairman SwS.rsky, Commissioners Netka, Zahler, Fennel, Stringer, NOE3: None, ABSENT : None, Clisbe and Jarvieo Resolution No. 116 adopted, 60 HJURING .E Variance, &c,uest of My 24. McKinnie for reduction of north aide yard set. back from 10' to Sn on Lot No, 40, Ssacrest Fktatesd Notice of hearing wasx!ad, The Secreixiry certified as to the puaication of Motice of Hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the areao The Secretary then read the application submitted by ths owner setting forth the reasons for requesting the variance, There was no written oorrespondenceo MR. GRAHAM ICEUY stated that he WSB Pfrso l~fcXinnieBs lawyer; the subdividers were called to set stakes along the side yard boundary and the grading was done in aco eordance with the stakes as they then existed; the basic slab was laid out and checked by the City Inspector to make sure the- side yard was lou and it was 1OU8'@ at that time; when the house was about 3/16 finished, the subdividers requested the surveyors to recheck. their work, which they did and moved the stakes on the north boundary of this hot, reducing the side yard to 5p, at which time it was too late to make, any change in the house; and that. Mrs. EaCKinnie had been cowpletely MR. ERNEST MEJXA 3&l l~WsonL stated that he was a friend of the f amilyp was speaking on behalf of friends of both his and Mrs. McKinnie's, and they would like to see her get this vartance, JACK KUBOT&,, represrtnting Kamptner and How, submitted a plot plan to the Commission for their information, and stated that it was an exact tracing of the recorded subdivision map on file in the County Recorder's Office; that Lot 40 was shown by a dotted line; the requested variance was on the interior side yard which abutted on Lot 41; and that the actual building location was shown on the cross section, He then stated that this was a reversed corner lot and that they had found there was a qusstf,on on the rear yard; and that, based upon their analysis, he believed it would be in order for the Codssion to amend the request for a variance to include thezeduction in the rear yard requirement from loo to 3O in order to correct the situation of the existing structure as it is now legally monmented. The Chairman stated that as a matter of procedure it would be impossible for the Planning Commission to take action on the rear yard as it had not been advertised and asked if Mrs, McKinnie would like to continue the hearing on the present variance so that it coul-d be considered at the same time as the variance on the rear yard, MR. KELLY stated that the buildina; referred to by Mr. Kubota was a detached garage and it would be better +,o settle one matter at a time, He further stated that apparently the plot plan had been approved, and he had been told that the original plot plan shows on it this specific waiver of restrictions by Seacrest Estates, The public hearing was closed at 8:07 P.14, It was moved by Corn. Jarvie and seconded by Corn, Clisbe that Resolution No, U7 be adopted granting the request of &so 1h-y Iy, McKinnie for a reduction of side yard set baak from 10 ko 5 for the following mason8 x 1, Through no fault of the owner, when the lot was orLginally surveyed the engineering firm made an error in locating the lot boundary and did not discover the error until the house was almost complete, at which time they moved the stakeso 2, The mistake Ln establishing the property line is the result of an unin- tentional humvl error arid not wanton negligmce, 30 Granting this Trarimce will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or improvements in the vicinity, 4, Grating thio vari.mce will not affect the comprehensive general. plan, Considerable discussiatl was given this matter by the Commission during which it was determined that the lot was of legdl size and the house was no larger than could have been built w5thln the building areao Corn. Stringer stated that he was not opposed to this vai.ance, but did not wwt to vote on anything until he had all the information. The Chairman asked for a roll call voteo d Resolution Noo 117 adopted, A recess was declared by the Chainnan at 8:l5 P,M. The meeting reconvened at 6x25 P.M, with all members present, 7- WRINQ - Variance, &cluest of Sterlfna E, and Norma E. Svans for reduction of side yard set back from ?O to Sg on the west side propertx lirm of property located on the south side of Forest Avs, between Hiphlmd I)r, and Olive Dro Notice of hewing was?:ad, The Secretary certified as to the publication of Notice of Hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the areao The Secretary then read the application aubnitted by the owners setting forth the reasons for requesting tbs variance, and read the signatures of adjacent property owners who supported this request., In addition, the Secretary stated that he had checked the property mC, that the house on the CoatsB property, which property abutts the hbans' property on the north, was 5% from the side line, There was no written correspondence, - _. No one present desired to make any comment, The public hearing was closed at 8933 P,M, The Secretary submitted a plot plan showing the proposed location of the house to the Commission for information, It was moved by Corn, Js.rvie and seconded by Corn, Stringer that Resolution Noc 118 be adopted granting the request of Sterling E, and Noma E, Evans for a reduction of side yard set back from 78 to 3' for the following reasons:: 1, Due to the contour of the ground on the east side of the lot, this variance is necessary ir. order to allow sufficient room for a driveway on the east side of the house, of the house in excess of the minimum requirement of 5O0 in the neighborhood, 2, Granting this variance would not reduce the side yard on the west side 3, Granting this variance will not be detrimental to property or improvements 4, Granting this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensfve genera3 plan, Some discussion was given this matter by the Commission, during which Corn. Netka stated he felt there was no great need for this variance as there was enough existing space, The Chairman asked for a roll call voteo AYES: Comnissioners Fennel, Stringer, Clisbe and Jarvie, NOES; Chairman Swirsky, Commissioners Netka and Zahler, ABSENT : None Resolution No, 118 adopted denying the variance,, 8- HUARING Varianceo &quest of Lawrence Do and Daisy M. Stone for a lot split WDroperty located QT-I the north side of Chestnut between Adams and Highland, ” with a reduction in frontage f~om the required 609 to 120 Notice of hearing was reado The Secretary certified as to the publication of Notice of Hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the areao The Secretary then read the application submitted by the owners setting forth the reasons for Iequesting the variance, and read the signatures of adjacent property owners who supported this request, There was no written correspondenceo MRS. E. C. YOURELL, 33?6 Adams, stated she understood there is a great deal of landlocked property in the area, and 2 years ago a settlemnt was supposed to have been made which would hwe been to everyoneus advantage so that the property could be used, The public hearing was closed at 8 145 P.Mo Considerable discussion was given this matter by the Commission during which the Chairman stated for the benefit of the new lrembers on the Commission that the City of Carlsbad has numerous long lots with not enough frontage on the street, to create 2 buildable lots ruzcording to the sp3lt lot ordinance, and that both the Council and Comdssion felt that the better use of the land was to require that individuals try to work together to devefup the interior of these lots in auconlance with the suWvlsion ordnance; and explained some of the difficulties which would be encountered by granting access to property by means of a Ue strip, MR, STONE explained that the back part of hie lot was fenced off from the front and not now being used; that the Fire Departmmt had taken their equipment to the back part on 2 occasions when there hacp been grass fires; that dedicating enough property for a street would cut the property dm io almost nothing, not only for him but the adjoining neighbor8 as well. MR, JACK BARTER, 1365 Basswoodp stated that he lives on the adjacent street; there are a lot of long narra. lots where an easement to the back half would not be detrimental to anyone; and he thought some eonsideration should be given to tho matter as there was a question of never being able to open up the property, The Secretary submitted the tentative xnap of fieisler Estates No, 2‘to the Commission for their review and, at the request of the Chdrman, reviewed what had transpired on Heisler Estates Woe 1 subdivision in 14570 The! Secretary then read the Engineer’s Report, a letter from the San Mego Gas and Electric Coo requesting permission to place the poles in the streeto and stated. that the City Zngineer had endorsed this letter recommending approval; and then read a statement signed by various property owners in the area statbg that they- had no objection the sukiivision, MR, MOORE, reprksenting Bresselhavp Sngineers, stated he had no mments on the City EngingerQs Reporto MRS. YOUREU, 3376 AdamE;., stated that the engineering firm had made some state- ments at the hearings on the previous subdivision which they had done nothing abouband objected to the new subdivision because of creating more traffic on Adams St, and adding to the drainage problem in the areao MRS., HEISLER presented a drawing which she had prepared as a suggestion for dividing up the area swrounding her proposed subdivision; she stated that she 2mi contacted the StiUmans, Frames and Coors regarding dividing their property, but that they were not agreeable to going ahead at this time; that she was ready to go ahead with her sutrdivision and abide by all City regulations; that she kuld like to continue on with the guest houses, but would remove them if necessary; and that she could see nothtng detrimental to the neighborhood in her proposed sub division. MRS. YOUU requested khat the portion of the minutes dated October 29 1957, re Heisler Unit No, 1 be read together with the letter from I4rs, Heisler dated October 26, 19570 The Secretary complied with lhe Yourell Y request. "3. HEISW referred to her letter which had just been read by the Secretary and stated that she had tried to purchase the property frau ilro Savage but found she could not finance tk,e situation, A recess was declared by the Chairman at 9:30 PeMe The meeting reconvened at 9 :45 PA with all members present MRS. ROBERTS, 3257 Adlama,, stated that her main objection to the subdivision was that their house is directly across Adams from where the proposed road will come out and that their car bad been hit once before by one of the Heisler rentors. MR. JACK BARTER referred to the list of property Owners who had signed the letter stating that they were not opposed to the sthiivision, stating that it was a sizable list, HR. KENNETH BROAM, 3275 Adams, stated that they lived across Adam from the pro- posed subdivision, and his main objection was the drainage; that they had had a civil engineer look the situation over last Saturday who had stated that they definitely had a drainage problem; that with a grove there, apprdmately 03 Of the water falling during a rain would m off, but with a subdivision about o7 of the rain would run off and the water coming down the propoeed street would have enough force to cm85 Adms onto their property, MS. HEISLER stated that the drainage had not been detrimental on other subdivisions and she did not think it would be on her proposed subdivision; and she did not consider Mrs. Robert*s complaint about their car being hit valid as the Roberts leave their car on the street all night Instead of putting it, in the garage or driveway, MR. ROBERTS. 3257 kdams,, stated that their garage would not house 2 cars so his wife keeps her car in the garage and he leaves his car out, but drives it off the street as far as possible; and that 5.n regard to drainage, they did have a problem as their house is 6 below the surface of th8 street and that they catg t even hook onto a s8wero MRS. BROAM. 3275 Adatns, stated that everyone had been pleased with the way the subdivision had been planned in 1957; that creating a traffic problem would necessitate widening the street, and the engineer had suggested the paving te 368 insted of 20 a8 if, is now, which would result in their property line having to be 36" higher and would mean their putting in a brick wall; that she thought the finances of all the property owners along Adans should be considered; that the drainage they were concerned with was the underground drainage; that they were going to have the Health Officer look the situation over the next day who would probably send somttthing into the City on it, MR. BARTER atated that with the turn around on the subdivision street" no one would have to back onto Adams; that this was not a large subdivision, but only had 6 houses; that going out, on Basswood was fharAcidly impractical and that Basswood was a hazardous street t.0 go out on; and he considered the drainage was a problem for the City Engineer tcb solveo m, RROM stated that her husband had figured it would cost them $40 to $50 a front foot to make their driveway over and put in a brick wall if the street were widened: that the brick wall they have now is partially on City property, but that they take care of it and not the City, MRS. YOUKELL stated thai; when her husband had put in a subdivision he had worked aut the drainage problem very carefully and asked who was going to take care of it on the Heisler property, The Chairman stated that, to summariie the situation,' the neighbors were complain- ing about the traffic arui drainage problems that would be ureated by this sub division; that as the P!.anning Corrrmission has 30 day8 to approve the subdivision, and as there were 3 new members on the Commission, it might be better to postpone any action until the rnetlting of May 26th in order that tho matter could be thoroughly investigated, After some discussion by the Commission, it. was moved by Come Jarvie and seconded by Camme Zahler that the tentative subdivision map of Heisler Estates No, 2 be continued until the lsgular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 26, 195g0 7 ayes, motion carried, 10- E_ONTIMJED HEARING - Var$.wce request of Lawrence D, and Daisy M, Stone, MR, STONE stated that ho had purchased the additional U0 strip of land which was a8 wide as any freeway 3.me in order to open up the back part of his lot which seemed to be the only wy to do it without neighbors having to saarifice land, After discussion by the CoRrmlssian, the Chairman asked Mr, Stone if he would be willing to wait until the meeting of May 26th for a decision as the Commission would be working on the Heisler property which was adjacent %O his. Wz, STONE stated that he would be willing to wait and would like for the Colllmission to look his situation overo -7- The Chairman reviewed what had. transpired during the prsvforas hearing and stated that the oornmittee appointed to study the matter had submitted 2 rspOl%80 The report of Corn, Stringer was that no amendment be made to the exirrting ordinance; and tho report of Cod:;sionera Fennel and Zahler recommended amending the existing ordinance Considerable discussion was given this matter by the Commission during which those in favor of amending tho ordinance stated that an R-1 Zone provided better facilitiea and environment for young children than 2-i and X-3 zones; those not in favor stated that it would enr:ourage a business in a restricted residential zone, and that the majority of the residents in Carlsbad who had been contacted and questioned were not in favor af havw a day nursery next door to them, It was moved by Cum, Jarvie and seconded by Cam. Fennel that the Planning Conmiasion adopt a Resolution of Intention to hold a public hearing to consider allowing day nursery echools in R1 Lunes under conditions that will have to be worked out, The Chairman asked for a roll odl vote, AYS: Commissioners Zahler, Fennel and Jamiea b NOESr Chainnan Swllrrsky, Cormni8sioners Netka, Stringer and Clisbeo ABSENT: Nonee The motion died for lack of a sufficient majority, MIS, EONHIK TIiOWSOhT th;lnked everyone for dl the time they had spent'on this matter and asked what action would be talken in regard to children who were being cared for in unlicensed homes, The Chairman stated thn:: if complaint8 were received, it would be a problem for the administrative staf? to take aare of, The Chainnan reviewed what had transpired during the previous hearing on this matter and stated that .the committee had subsnitted a report recommending a change in the sign ordinance. Consfderable d5-8cussion was given this ma.tter by the commission durine which the main points brought out were that there is very little compliance with the present sign ordinance, and thai a change in the ordinance is needed as many businesees in the City cater to tourists, MR. HAROIID BUERCE sugge:3ted that the wording could be based on the State Bill which say8 you can adve:,-t.iee a place of k-usineas but not a product; and atated that if Qceanstde gets .x harbor, it will supplement oursp not hurt it, The hinuan asked for a vote on the motion. 7 ayes, motion carried, 13- Oral Communications: The Seuretary stated ths,t he had been at the Office of the kty Road CormPissfon the past week discussing with them the interchange of the proposed road oonnecting Palamar Airport with U,S, 101, and had fomd that the road to the east from the vicinity of the Ehcina crossing of the Santa Fe Itailroad was in serious jeopardy as the previous plans h6.d been basod on %hat had been the City limits of the City of Carlsbad, and the County has a long standing policy of nct building roads inside of corporate limits,, He further stated that the Highway Department had definitely stated there would be m.ly 1 interchange, arid the second proposed route had been from the Ponto interohax.ge, The Secretary then stated he felt an interchange within the City limits of Carlsbad was most important; that the recawnendations were going to the Board of Supervisors on ThuraQy urd nould probably be on the agenda of the Board of Eupervisors next Tuesday, After some discussion by the Cd~sfon~ it was moved by coplm, Stringer and seconded by Corn, Jarvie that a marnorandm be sent to the City Council recmanding that they take whatever step8 am neceaeary to recormnend and fight for an inter- change within the City 1Wts of Carlsbad,, with the County Road oonnect- Palomar Airport and US, 101, and that a standing committee be appointed to include the Chairman of the Planning Ctmkiesion, 7 ayes motion carried, At the euggestion of Comm, Netka, the Secretary was requested to bring this matter to the attention of the byor prior to the Council meeting on next Tuesday because of the urgency of the situation, 14- Written Cormmicatione: a, Letter from Scotoh Construction Coo The Secretary read a letter from Scotch Construction Coo requesting permission to build a house on a 37*' 'lot on hsevelt St and stated that the ordinanas pro- vides that no building pwmit will be issued on lots with leas than 40 frontage without the pernaission of the Planning Conrmissiona and further stated that there is an old house on the property that will be torn &uno king th8 disouseion by the Conrmiasion, it was pohnted out that granting thie request would Le an imprwement to the property, It was moved by Comm, Fennel and eeconded by Camm, Jarvie that the request OS Scotch Construction Coo to build on the 37* lot on Rooeevelt St, be granted, 4 ayes, Comm, Clisbe voting "NO", and Corn, ffetka abatainbg, Motion aarried, The Secretary stated that the Chairman had rewived a letter from Mre Whitnall in uhich he had terminated his connection with the City of Carlsbad, 1% Election of Vice-chairmano The Chairman stated tha%, in view of the resignation of lks* Hayes, it would be in order to elect a Viue-Clrairnan. Conw, Jamie nominated Comn, Stringer as Vice- Chairman and moved that the nominations be closed, Comma Netka seoonded the motiono Cornon, Stringer was unanQnously elected Vice-Chairmtul, Respttetfully submitted, PRICE,, Seuretary