Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-09-11; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 1 1 , 1962 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. , by Chairman Ewald. Present besides the Chairman were Commissioners Davis, Ward, Grant, Palmer, Jarvie and Sonneman. Approval of Minutes of August 28, 1962. A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and sccolard that the minutes of August 28, 1962, be approved as submitted. All Ayes, motion carried. Written Communications. The Secretary called attention to a letter from the Division of Highways, dated June 15, 1962, regarding a "work shop" meeting to be held in Szn Eicgo at the Puppet Theater in Balboa Park on Tuesday, September 18, 1962. They cordially invited the Commission to send one or more representatives to the meeting to assisi in establishing a state-wide system of scenic highways. Upon motion by Commissioner Sonneman, seconded by Commissioner Grant, it was unanimously agreed that the Secretary should attend this meeting. Oral Communications. There were no oral communications. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP OF CHESTNUT MANOR. The Secretary certified to the mailing of notices to adjacent property owners and then read the recommendations from the various departments and agencies. Lowell A. Rathbun, City Engineer, read the report from the Engineering Departmen The Secretary then read proposed Resolution No. 259 incorporating the recommen- dations of the various departments and agencies as conditions for approving the tentative map. DON HOLLY, 2499 State Street, Civil Engineer, stated that they agreed with the Resolution as read by the Secretary. Mr. C. R. Thornton, Assistant Engineer, presented precise block plans of this block that the Engineering Department had prepared, showing the streets as they would have preferred them. Chairman Ewald stated that he was sure Marvin Humphreys, owner and subdivider, and his Engineer, had seen this block plan prepared by the City Engineering Department. LYLE BONN, 2924 Carlsbad Boulevard, stated that he had not seen the map of the "precise block plan" before but that he did contact the adjacent property owners and this subdivision map was the ultimate end since they could not make any negotiations with these property owners. A similar subdivision in this block was defeated several times because of an entrance on Adams Street and, at the present time, there is still no other way to get into this property. -. -2- Commissioner Palmer questioned the fact that "Woodland Way" would intersect Chestnut Avenue, which is a secondary street, and will create a haxzard by having greater traffic entering on it. The Secretary reminded the Commission that there are only 16 lots in this subdivision. The Chairman asked to hear from the adjacent property owners. MRS. OLIVE HEISLER, 3304 Adams Street stated that she thinks this subdivision is a good solution for all of the neighbors and is well satisfied. She has worked 6 or 7 years trying to work something out and this s2ems like the answer to the property owners. Commissioner Sonneman asked about the property south of Frazee's, if they would have a panhandle portion which would come out on Chestnut. Mr. Thornton reported that the Fraeee's new driveway will come in on "Woodland Way" so it would not create more entrances on Chestnut. Commissioner Grant called attention to the first paragraph of the Engineer's report He stated that he thinks this would be a feasible way to go. Mr. Humphreys should be commended,that this will bring dollars into the City, as well as being an asset and improvement to the community as this property has been collecting weeds. Mr. Bonn has exerted effort to get all of the citizens in the block to go together. Chairman Ewald called attention to the fact that all of the lots would have 15' set- backs instead of 20'. Commisdoner Palmer stated that he believes the 15' setback on a cul-de-sac would be sufficient , but not on a main thoroughfare. Commisbioner Ward stated that he feels that since the adjacent property owners cannot work together , that this subdivision should be approved. Chairman Ewald asked if it would be necessary to have a stop sign at Chestnut and that it should be a part of the resolution. DON HOLLY stated that the Stone's property, west of the subdivision, would not grant enough lots to utiLize them as they would be difficult to put together and would not be economical. MRS. HEISLER stated that she had contacted Stone's son and was informed he was not interested in the price. After further discussion, the following resolution was presented for consideration: Resolution No. 259. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING "ENDING APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP OF CHESTNUT MANOR, was unanimously adopted on Commissioner Grant's motion, seconded by Commissioner Sonneman, with the addition of the installation of a stop sign on "Woodland Way" at Chestnut Avenue. -3- HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION - Request of Mary Fuchs to amend Ordinance No. 9060 by reclassification from zone R-i fResiilmR -3 (;',Aultiple -Family Residen - tial) an property Located on t'ne Northvest corne: of tbe intersection of Adams Street and Chinqna- pin Avenue, said property being Portion of Thun Lands, Tract 237, Map 1681 in the City of Carlsbad, being Portion of Thum Lands, Tract - - 237, Tdap lh8l in the City of G'arlsbad, being Parcel 3, Book 206, Page 050, of the Assess- or's Map of San Diego County. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as to 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 reasons for requesting the zone reclass- ification. There were no oral or written communications on this request. It was pointed out that this property is contiguous to property that is zoned R-3 and that the property lying northerly of this property was retained as R-1 for a depth of 105' with frontage on the westerly side of Adams Street, as the Commission felt there should be a buffer zone due to anticipated protests from the property owners on the east side of Adams. Commissioner Grant called attention to the fact that the corner of Pi0 Pic0 and Tamarack was zoned C-l and that Mr. Isaac D. Levine did not feel he war;ted this change of zone and asked if he had been notified. The Secretary reported that he was out of the 300' area, so had not been notified. HOWARD OLDHAM, 101 5 Chinquapin, stated that he did not know if he was for or opposed to:this zone change as he did not know what the rest of the zoning was along there. Chairman Ewald stated that at the present time the Commission are just considering this property at Adams and Chinquapin, but property to the south was recently zonec R-T and there is a block which remains R-1 between Chinquapin and Harrison. MR. MATTESON, 3960 Adams, stated that he owns a home and lot on the east side of Adams (he lives at the old Sainty house) and does not want a change of zone as apartments would obstruct their view and they are taxed for this view. He would not object to apartments in the middle of the block but did not want them across the street from him. The public hearing was closed at 8:35 P.M. There was a discussion on whether they should have a 105' buffer zone on Adams, as this would still leave a large parcel of R-3 on Chipquapin and there is R-3 zoning on Pi0 Pic0 and Chinquapin. There is 506.80 I frontage on Chinquapin and 375.73 ' on Adams. A short recess was called at 8:40. Reconvened at 8:50 P.M. Mr. Thornton asked if they have a buffer zone on Adams, shouldn't they extend this buffer on Chinquapin? If consistert in protecting property on the east side of Adams, shouldn't they protect the property on Chinquapin. Cornmissioner Grant stated that he is in favor of zoning the whole parcel of land to R -3 and not have this strip of 105' zoned R-1 , After due consideration, it was agreed that this property be zoned to R-3, excepting the 105' in depth with frontage on the westerly side of Adams Street which is to remain R -1 , and that the following facts were found to exist: 1. That property is contiguous with property that is already zoned R-3. 2. That it would be in natural development and planning to rezone this to coincide with contiguous property, 3. That it would be in the best interests of public necessity and convenience. It was agreed that the reclassification of the 105' westerly and parallel to the west- erly right of way of Adams Street be denied for the following reasons: 1. The property on the east side of Adams is zoned R - 1 and is being so used and being developed. 2. It is extremely poor planning to have different zones on the opposite side of the same street. Resolution No. 260. A RESOLUTION OF THE GARLSBAD CITY PLANNING "MENDING RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FROM R-1 TO R-3 ON CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY ON ADAMS STREET, was adopted on Commissioner Palmer's motion, seconded by Commissioner Ward. AYES: Commissioners Davis, Ward, Ewald, Palmer, Jarvie and Sonneman. NOES: Commissioner Grant. ABSENT: None. By common consent, it was agreed that a study for zoning on Adams, south of Chinquapin from R-1 to R-3 or R-T, should be on the agenda under Old Business at the next regular meeting and that a study should be made of a uniform width to be zoned along the lagoon as this would be considered as part of the lagoon zone. Old Business. (a) Recommendations of the Engineering Department on height limitations on buildings. The Secretary read a memorandum from the City Engineer, dated September 11, 1962, stating that they had studied the definition of "building height" as set forth in various zoning ordinances and suggested the following definition for clarity and coordination with the Uniform Building Code: "Building height means the vertical distance measured from the official sidewalk or property line grade of the highest abutting street at the center of the building -5- structure to the highest point of the copjr'cof a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitch or hip roof. It The existing ordinance defines this point as the ceiling of the uppermost story. Other ordinances define the high point as the "topmost point of the roof". It appearc that some are intended to limit height of the top of the wall of the uppermost story: others are intended to limit overall height of the building. Since the definition of the high point will limit the building design, they suggested that it be correlated with the intent of changes in height restrictions being proposed. Mr. Thornton explained on the blackboard that on a corner lot the height elevation is measured from the official sidewalk or property line grade at a point in line with the centerline of the building and using the highest abutting street grade. On an interior lot there is only one abutting street to measure from. If the property is below the sidewalk, i. e. , property along the beach, the total height would be measured from the official sidewalk or property line grade. If the property were higher than the sidewalk grade, it would be measured from the official sidewalk or property line grade, and if the property is 25' above the sidewalk, the height of the building could only be 10' when there is a 35' limitation. The Secretary has reportei on the ordinances of other cities, but only one city brought out where it was measme from. It would also be applicable to double reverse corner lots. There will be special cases as nothing is 100% perfect. The average mean would not be deter- mined on the pad (foundation) itself, but from the official sidewalk, or center street if there is no sidewalk, to the topmost point of the roof. Mr. Thornton called attention to Section 212 of the City Code which states that the measurement is taken from the mean of the building, and differs with Article 16, Section 1600. If the street or official sidewalk is higher than the mean of the structure site, it might be possible to gain 5 or more feet in height. Commissioner Davis stated that the revision could be included in the amendment to the ordinance for height limits and felt it was not necessary to take action at this time. Chairman Ewald stated that he thought they should take care of this. After considerable discussion, Commissioner Ward moved that Resolution No. 261 be adopted to amend Ordinance No. 9060 to incorporate engineering recommenda- tions as recommended by the City Engineer to clarify the point from where building heights should be measured from, seconded by Commissioner Grant. Commissioner Davis stated that he does not feel we should have two hearings. Chairman Ewald, Commissioner Sonneman and the Secretary stated that they felt they were two definite issues. There was a discussion about determining the point of measurement. Commissioners Grant and Ward withdrew their motions. Chairman Ewald stated that the clarification of the Ordinance should be made and it should be uniform, and thinks engineers' recommendations are equitable. He asked if the Commission wanted to take action that night. Commissioner Davis stated that after giving this matter further thought, it might be some time before arriving at height limitations and it would be better to have clari- fication of the present ordinance in order that the staff would know where to measure from. - -6 - Upon motion by Comrni sip &. r seconded by Commissioner Jarvie, it was agreed to adopt Resolu $8 1 n E. &a3$mend Ordinance No. 9060 to incorporate engineering recommendations as recommended by the City Engineer to clarify the point from where building heights should be measured from. AYES: Commissioners Davis, Ward, Ewald, Palmer and Jarvie. NOES: Commissioners Grant and Sonneman. ABSENT: None. Chairman Ewald stated that other cities have reviewed the subject of height limita- tions and have made changes and felt it would be wise to study this before any appli- cations were made and hearings and debates are held. Study in advance would alleviate this. He would like to keep this on the agenda as most of the action of other cities has been taken on requests. Commissioner Grant asked how much distance there is between each floor. Richard S. Osburn, Building Inspector, stated there are two ways of measuring, from the bottom of floor to the top of the next floor or between floors and it depends on the construction and materials as they vary. It is generally 10' to 11 '; 11 ' would be maximum. The minimum ceiling height is 8' net. In commercial zones it varier as the Carlsbad Hotel has 16' from the ground floor to the next floor. The Uniform Building Code allows 35' maximum height (this does not apply to mechanical devices Commissioner Grant asked if 6 stories would be approximately 70'. He would like to suggest that they have a 70' height limit in all R-3 zones. He can not conceive of any commercial building going in for 6 stories and has in mind something like they have in Laguna Beach. Commissioner Palmer stated that in La Jolla this matter came before the Planning Commission and there were a lot of protests but they compromised and arrived at 50' limit on buildings. When going over 50', they would get a lot of opposition. The Secretary stated that if the height limitations are removed in R -3 zone only, the population density would be increased by considerable degree. If not given to lesser zoned property, would be just compounding the old bedroom community theory and they are not economical. Commissioner Ward stated that he believes height Limitations should be restricted to certain areas and zones in area. Chairman Ewald stated that he believed they would have requests in within the next two years for 50' height limitation. Commissioner Grant pointed out that ocean front property is $700. per foot and the: could get a return on their investment by going up in the air. He is not thinking of a commercial area and thinks it is a progressive move. Chairman Ewald stated that he does not feel we are ready for 50' or 60' east of the freeway and should have a designated area. There is an R-3 zone on Monroe, acrof from the High School and feels that if they had high buildings, they would have a lot of opposition there. Commissioner Sonneman stated that she thinks this matter should really be consid- ered befcre passing this and that some new pGintS.' are brought out at each meeting. Chairman Ew ald stated that a lot of ideas have been brought out and felt that they were at a point where each Commissioner should bring a report back at the first meeting in October. He feels this should be considered by the Commission as a whole rather than having a committee and that each Commissioner should have written pros and cons for their report. He prefers that it be in writing. (b) Lagoon zoning. It was agreed that the Commission was not ready to move on lagoon zoning at this time. New Business. (a) San Diego Regional Objectives and Policies for Recreation. The Secretary reported that there are several committees that prepared these drafts and would like the recommendations of the various planning Commissions of their choice of alternatives. The group who have been working on this hopes that this will be incorporated in the Master Plan. The reports are to be made to the County Planning Department, 044 Civic Centers San Diego 1, California. After a short discussion on whether the City should provide for Parks and Recrea- tions Chairman Ewald stated that he believes they should discuss having a fee of perhaps $25. per Lot for a development fund for Parks and Recreation as it will take money to develop these parks. It was felt they should have a separate fund for this and should be placed on the agenda until they have a chance to discuss this. Commissioner Sonneman read an article from a newspaper on zoning where it was all condensed down and suggested overhauling the zoning laws. The Commission studied a map of the northeast side of the lagoon showing Park Drive as extended in Pirates Cove (Shelter Cove) as a secondary street. Mr. Thornton pointed out the 60' easement on Mr. Phipps' property. Mr. Thornton also presented the final map of Holiday Manor to the Commission. After due consideration, upon motion by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Jarvie, it was unanimously agreed that the Chairman of the Planning Commission be authorized to sign the final map of Holiday Manor. Adjournment. By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, J. H. PRICE Secretary