Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-06-14; Planning Commission; Minutes1- 2- 3- 4- 5- June 14, 1960 Tb meeting waa called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Stringer. Present besides the Chairman were Cormissioners Davis, Zahler, Ward, Thomas, Miller 6 Jarvie . Absent, none . Approval of Minutes of May 24, 1960, Comnissioner Jarvie asked that an addi- tion be made to page 7, making paragraph 4 read as follows: Wmnnissioner Jarvie stated that he had cast a no vote because ha felt the Conmission should act on one lot at a time. Mr, Brlggs stated that he had no objection to having just one lot at a time considered." It was moved by Comniseioner Jarvie snd seconded by Comnissianer Thomas that the Minute$ of the May 24, 1960, meeting be approved as ended, All ayes, mot ion carried, Written Camunications: There were no written comunications. Oral Comnunicat ions: There were no oral commmications. HEARING - VARIANCE - Request of William P. Mulqueen for reduction of lot width - from 60 ft. to 41.92 ftb and tha.reduction of. side yards from 6.97 ft. to S ft. to allow a lot split, property -_a portion of Black 3, Carlsbad Townsite. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified to the publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary then read the application, setting forth the reaaons for request- ing the variancec There was no correspondence on this matter. The Secretary pointed out to the Commission that, as stated in the application, this lot would have 80 feet of frontage at the property line and would have a width of 69,73 feet at the 20 foot firont yard setback line. He also pointed out that lot width of a triangular shaped lot is measured by using the midpoint between the front and rear property lines for the calculation, He pointed out that the formation of this lot would square up this large parcel, allowing future lot spllts to be more standard. MR. WLLLIAM P, MULQUEEM, applicant, stated that nearly all of the lots in this area are less than the minimum required width of 60 feet and that this lot would 8erve to square off the remainder of the parcel. MR. CLAUD 3. HEL+TON, 2760 Arland Road, stated that the problem in this instance, is the point at which lot width Is measured. He is wondering if it would not be wise for the Planning Cmission to consider amending the ordinance so that lot width is measured at the front yard set back, He stated that it is necessary for a person owning a lot of this shape to have a much laaer lot than ordinarily required, in order to meet the lot width requirement, The public hearing was closed at 7:45 P& 6- The Ccmnission discussed the matter and generally agreed that there were no particular problems involved in granting this variance; that this is .a concm- trated area and there is no particular advantage to having any more lend in the lot, It was wed by Comnissioner Jarvie and seconded by Comnissioner Ward that Resolution No. 166 be adopted, granting the request Of william p. hlguern for a variance for reduction of lot width from 60 feet to 41e92 feet and the re- duction of side yards from 6.97 feet to 5 feet as submitted, for the follwing reaBons : 1, The lot created by granting the variance meets all provisions of Ordinance 9060 of the City of Carlsbad with respect to minimum lot area, lot frontage on a dedicated street, and lot width at front yard setback.. 2. The lot created by granting the variance would in no way be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity, a5 majority of the lots in the imnediate area are less than the minimum required lot width. 3, There were no written or oral protests. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Stringer, Comnissioners Davis, Zahltr, Ward, Thornas, NOES: None. ABSENT : None. Miller and Jarvie. Resolution No, 166 adopted. Chairman Stringer stated, in reply to Mr. Helton's question of amending the ordinance, that this was the first lot of this shape which had come up for a variance; most of the triangular shaped lots fan out from the back. If there are many lots like this created, perhaps an amendment can be studied. HEARING VAR LANCE .. Reauest of R, P. and Lois V. Shea for reduction of mini- mum required lot frontage from 60 feet to 25 feet on one lot and from 60 feet to 0 feet on a second lot to allow a lot split; property being portion of Lot 1, Cedar Hill Addition. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified to the mailing and publish- ing of notices of hearing. The application was then read, setting forth the reasons for requesting the variance; the application contained 4 supporting signatures of property Owners within the 300 ft. radius. There were 2 items of correspondence which were read by the Secretary: (1) Letter dated June 13, 1960, signed by Russell Grosse, 2619 Highland Dr., opposing the granting of this variance, as it would tend to change the char- acter of the neighborhood and possibly reduce property values. Also, it would open the way for similar variances permitting construction of rentals to the rear of existing dwellings. (2) Petition presented to the Secretary at the time of the hearing, containing 3 signatures of property owners within the 300 ft. radius, favoring the granting of the variance as requested. -2- MR. Re We SHEA, 3875 Mt, Vernon Ave., itlvcrside, representing the applicant, reviewed the location of rhe subject proFe;-Zy and the r??r"i:tions they were request- ing. He stated that they felt that the provisions af the Zoning Ordinance were being met in that one of the reasons for grant.ing a variance is vhan the?e.sre unusual or exceptional. circumstances which do not generally apply to other property in the same vicinity; this lo& is substantially larger than other lots in the area and is unusually oblong, the depth being more than twice as greet es the width. Alao, the existing dwelling is located approximately in the centet of the parcel, preventing its being split without a variance. He further stated that the subject property is in an R-1, 7,500 sq. ft. zone and this parcel contains over 40,000 sq. ft. They feel that it is unfair to burden one ownership with the maintenance and tax- ation of a lot this size. Another provision of the ordinance for granting a variance is that the variance should not be detrimental to the surrounding proper- ties. Mr. Shea stated that the applicants feel this lot split would be beneficial to the surrounding properties, in that the lots would be more within the maintenance capabilities of one famfly. Also, the development of homes on what is now vacant lot area would certainly substantiate property values and bring in additions]. tax revenue, thus benefitting the community as a whole. The improvements contemplated by the applicant would also have 8 beneficial effect, Their plan is to install a paved driveway along the west property line which would replace the existing dirt driveway, and they also plan to remove an unsightly metal shed and replace it with a modern carport. As to the crdinance's restriction that the variance not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan, the use of this property would remain resi- dential, with the resulting lots in conformance with the minimum lot area and yard setback requirements. This property is not in the path of any proposed road or highway as shown on the Master plan. Mr. Shea stated that the applicants had nof gone about this case in a haphazard fashion, but had considered all possibilities for developing the property within the bounds of the Zoning Ordinance. They made gn attempt to cooperate with the surrounding property owners, however they were not interested, so a variance is the only solution. The applicants further agree to dedicate the additional right-of-way on the north side of Forest St, to provide a more nearly standard width. 9. JOHN PALMER, owner of property at 2635 HighlandE$tSO Yourell stated that the ppplicants had presented their case to him, and that his only interest was not deteriorating any part of the neighborhood, He stated that he would lfke the building standard8 on these 2 lots to be maintained and that the street to bet installed not be used to service the area to the west, thus creating a substandard rental unit area. He was also concerned that all 3 lots be serviced by all Utilitie8, MR. SHEA, in answer to Mr. Pslmer@s question of the road servicing the area to the west, stated that this strip was to provide access to the rear parcels and to pro- vide right-of-way or easement for utilities to the rear parcels. MR. MAX EWALD, 2729 Catlsbad Blvd., raised the question of who would be responsible for these utilities installed on private property? The Secretary called the attention of the Commission to the fact that the applicant acquired the property in May, 1959, and that there have been several applications involving the problem of creating "pan handle" lots out of large deep lotr, and the Compission has set a policy of denying such requests. On the matter of the lot which would be created with no frontage on a dedicated street, the Planning Comnission ha6 no authority to grant this reqJest, as it is an outright violation of Ordinance 9050. If the Conmission feels this request should be granted, then ft can only be accomplished by an amendment to the ordinance, rather than by granting a variance. Mr. Shea stated that they were not umhdful of the history of simifar appli- cations. However, if former applicants or future applicants can demonstrate compliance with all provisions of the ordinance and prove that their request would not be detrimental to the surrounding area, then their requests should be granted also. The public hearing was closed at 8:15 P.M. Comnissioner Zahlcr asked Mr. Shea if it would not be porsible to make this proposed 25 ft. street into a 50 ft. street, since all of the proposed lots are large enough to 8CCompliSh this and still meet the 7,500 sq. ft. requirement. Mr. Shea stated that they have investigated this possibility, but found that it would not be economically feasible. They had also contacted the adjoiniw property owner to the west to see if he would be willing to dedicate 25 ft. for the street, but he was unwilling to cooperate. The Comnission discussed this matter at great length. The pos8ibility of an ordinance amendment was discussed also. The comnissiofi generally agreed that an ordinance amendment permitting lots with no frontage on a dedicated street would be detrimental to the community. Such an amendment would all- narrow little roads on private property as the property*s only access and make it impossible for police and fire protection as well as other services. It was moved by Commissioner Hiller and seconded by Comnissioncr Thocaas that Resolution No. 165 be adopted denying the request of R. Po and Lois V. Shea for the following reamons: 1. The lots created by granting the variance would not meet the require- ments of Ordinance 9060 of the City of Carlsbad, and would be in direct violation of the provisions Of Ordinance 9050 of the City of Carlrbad, 2. The Planning Conmission could not properly grant the applicant 8 lot split to create a lot with no frontage on a dedicated street; md if 6uuh permirsion were desirable, it could only be achieved by amend- mefit CO Ordinance 9050 of the City of Carlsbad and not by granting a variance. 4. The property was acquired by the applicant in May, 1959, and it is pre8med that the applicant was aware of the zoning restrictions on the property at the time of the purchase. The Chairpran asked for a roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Striqer, ~cnrmiraioners Davis, Zahlcr, Ward, Thomas, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Miller and Jarvie. Resolution No. 169 adopted. - 7- HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PEWIT Request of Alice Ma Wilhelm and Vera C, Sinnott for Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a telephone answering service at 545 Tamarack' Ave. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified to the publication and mailing of notices of hearing. The Secretary then read the application as submitted, setting forth the reasons for requesting the Permit. The Secretary then pointed out that Ordinance 9060 makes no provision for an answering service. He also pointed out that Ordinance 9060 does allow maintaining a mil address for 8 business in an R-1 Zone and one motor vehicle, together with the equipment and tools, wherein the vehicle is ,.used as a means of trans- portation by the resident. The Secretary stated that he had not been able to talk with the City Attorney regarding the legality of this request, as she is on vacation. Therefore, he would like to recommend that if this request is granted, that it be granted subject to the apinion of the City Attorney as to its legality. ALICE M. WILHELM, applicant, stated that she and her sister, Mrs. Vera C. Sinnott, were planning to purchase this property, provided the Conditional Use Permit is granted. The telephone company had checked the site and found that it is a suitable location for the installation of their lines into the house. They are hoping to realize sufficient income from the operation of this service to provide them with a livlihood. There is no telephone answering service in Carlsbad at present, and they feel that they can serve the business and professional people of the commrnity who would have occasion to use this service. She pointed out that there are no nuisance factors of noise, traffic, parking, or any other objectionable factor, MR. MAX EWALD, 2729 Carlsbad Blvd., representing the applicant, stated that there was no provision in Ordinance 9060 covering telephone answering service, that this is the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit--to take care of unusual conditions.. He stated that he had talked with the City Attorney and that she had ruled that this service could only be established by granting a Conditional Use Permit. This would certainly not be detrimental to the neighborhood in any way, and it is a service needed by the connnunity. He stated that if the Commission should grant it subject to the approval of the City Attorney, this was certainly satisfactory to the applicant. The public hearing was closed at 8:40 P.N. After discussion by the commission, it was moved by Commissioner Jarvie and seconded by Comnissioner Ward that Resolution No, 167 be adopted granting a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a telephone answering service at 545 Tamarack, subject to an opinion from the City Attorney as to the legality of the request, for the following reasons: 1. That allowing the establishment of a telephone answering service at this location would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties, as there would be no nuisance factors such as noise, vehicular traffic, walking traffic or parking. 3. There were no oral or written protests. -5- The Chairman asked for a roll call vote: Resolution No, 167 adopted. TENTATIVE MAP OF LONGVIEW PLAZA SUBDIVISION The Secretary certified to the mailing of notices to adjoining property owners, and then read the recomnendetions of the various departments and agencies. The memorandum from the City Engineer pointed out that the Master Plan for the City projects a major street along this Easterly right-of-way line of the railroad. However, it is felt that this is not the most advan- tageous location for a major street, as it would have to bridge the Agua Hedionda Lagoon; and since the Master Plan was drawn up, the San Diego Gar & Electric Co. has bought most of this property, so any such street would run right through their property. He further pointed out that there had never been any precise plan for this proposed street and that there was no binding status whatsoever. If a harbor is developed and Carlrbad Blvd. is cut off, there could be access ramps onto the Freeway installed, with a brldge across the Lagoon. The Secretary also stated that the memorandum fram the Engineering Department: recommended that Lot: 5 of the subdivision, which now contains 5,800 sq. ft. more or less, be brought; up to the required 6,000 sq. ft. The Secre- tary presented proposed Resolution No. 164 incorporating the recomnendetions of tho various departments and agencies as conditions for approving the tentative map. MR. BILL MOORE, of Dresselhaus Engineering, representing the uwner, stated that Lot 5 would be brought up to more than 6,500 sq. ft. on the final map. Also, they had not indicated sidewalks because of the long stretch of Long Place on which there were no houses fronting. There would only be houses fronting on the cul-de-sac. The Secretary pointed out that it is the stated policy of the City Council. to require sidewalks in subdivisions, unless Cttr subdivision is a rural type development with very Large lots. Canmirsionrr Jetvie moved and Canmissioner Thomas seconded the motion that Resolution No. 164 be adopted as proposed, with the addition of one mora condition: 14. Lot #5 to be brought up to 6,000 sq. ft, minimum. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Stringer, Comnissionerr Davis, Zshler, Ward, T~OIIULS, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Miller and farvie. Resolution No. 164 adopted. 9- Business: (a) Report of meeting of San Diego County Planning Congresr held May 23, 1960. -6 w Conmissioner Thomas gave a report of .the panel on Street and Highway Classification, briefly as foflows:.' Conmissioner Thomas stated that this panel was of greater interest to larger cities and that there was not much infor- mation of real interest for Carlsbad, The"discussion had begun with dafini- tions of Local, Collector, Major, Expressways and Freeways, after which some of the fundamental concepts of freeways were explained. One panelist gave a short resume of the historical background of the County Road Classifications and how the standards of construction have changed to meet the population inCT&aSi? Conmissioner Ward gave a report on the panel covering Parks & Recreation. Commissioner Thomas atated that both he and Cmissioner Ward felt that a member of the Park and Recreation Department would have benefitted from this panel, The first speaker on this panel stated that the standards for park and recreations are not too good at the present and that Planning Canmissions are responsible in large measure for this condition, since they can recommend land and set up locations for various facilities to be installed. He pointed out 4 main objectives for parks and recreations: 1. Plan to have playground facilities near each school, 2. Install a community center, swimning pool and games such as shuffle board in a centralized location in the city. 3. A municipal golf course for cities of fifty thousand people or more. 4. Secure location for week-end park where eating facilities can be built, tables, stoves, water, rest roms and an over-night camping area . He stated that there should be one acre of ground for every hundred people in a city. 30th panelists stated that the main problem is that of securing adequate land (Note: More detailed reports of these 2 panels are on file in the office of the Secretary). 10- New Business: (a) The 5ecretary stated that it was time for the Commissioners to be thinking who they would elect for the next Chairman, This will be on the agenda for the next meeting. 11- The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully, Secretary