Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-10-09; Planning Commission; MinutesI + % .' 38. I i I I I I I ',",'.,'\'\'. I I I ' '\ '\ '\ '.,'.\ I : CITY OF CAlELSBAD PLANN-WG COMMISSION i Minutes of: I '\, ', 8, '\ * ' I i Date of Meeting Octcber 9, 19C2 I ~a me '\, '$$,, ",, ,p$j Time of Meeting: 7: 30 1'. 13. : of '."o.$, ~+@.9~.4\$. \ .-by, I ' :""-"""""""" Place of Meeting """""""""""""""~"""""*"""-""-~""-*"""~*"""-"~"" Council Chambers : Member $@,*-!@xQ,; I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, i 1111* : U ard, Ewald, Palmer, Jarvie and Sonneman. Commis- i i sioner Grant was absent, Also present was Secretary : ; J. H. Price. I I 1;;4$* i APPLZCVAL OF MINUTES: i Davis i ;i I -; ', '\ '\ \ ' ' ' b' x ' "$8 : I I ill 14 ;::::: ::: :I' Lb: :::I:; i:: *:I t I 11:;: I I !::Ill Ill I ; Ward : :x; 4 i I (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of September 25, I Ewdd ::;I(;; I i Jarvie I4 1 :x ; ; I I I I I 1962 , were approved as corrected. I Paimer i :? : : v1 BITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: : Sonneman {x; i 4 : i I ! l.!h!l 'I i There were no written communications. I i There were no oral communications. I I PUBLIC HEAIVNG: I . I I I I I I 1 1 t I I I I I I 4 I I I ! I 1 I (a) Request for reclassification of certain property i : located westerly of Olive Drive between Forest Avenue I ; Laguna Mesa Tracts, Tract 7, Map 17 19 , it . 0 .. S 3235 : : born Zone 3-1 to Zone R- 3. Appl icant: Thelma A. and Yourell Avenue, said property being a portion of 4 I JI 1 I 1 ! . " i Kelley. 1 I I I ! I : The Chairman announced this was the time and place fixed by this Commission for hearing objections or : protests on the proposed reclassification. : The Secretary reviewed the application for the members I i of the Commission. i The Secretary certified as to proper notice having been i i given to the surrounding property owners, and as to : publication of the notice. i The Chairman requested the Secretary to read all written! i protests or objections that had been filed. The Secretary: : stated up until the time set for hearing no written protesq i or objections had been filed. i The Chairman then announced the Commission would now I : hear from the Applicant or any persons who wished to i J MAZS. TEBLMA A. KELLEY, 2347 Olive Drive, stated i : she has been living at this address for eleven years and operating a nursing home. She was notified that she : would not be able to continue operation of this business as the property is not zoned for this type of business, : and this is the reason for requesting this zone change. i The Chairman asked if any of the Commissioners wished : to ask the applicant any questions. I I i Comm. Palmer asked Mrs. Kelley if she intended to i make further improvements and Mrs. Kelley stated "no". i i Comm. Sonneman asked Mrs. Kelley if she owned the : easement that is the only access to the property. 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I L I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I speak in favor of the proposed reclassification. * I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I t I I I I I I 1 I I I I : The Secretary informed the Commission the records i show that Mrs. Kelley and the Grundrnans own an undivid4d : one-half interest in the 16' strip. : Inquiry wat3 made as to whether or not sewers were : available, and the Commission was informed there were 1 i no sewers avilable for that area. Mr. Leo Nilliams is trying to bring sewers in from the back of Pi0 Pic0 to i : the Gaus property. I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I t I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I I I I I I I 4 Y I I I c- - I -2- c I 1 I I I .- :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-I- I ! t I Comm. Sonneman stated Mrs. Kelley was operating this i : business prior to incorporation, and inquired as to the : i feasibility of granting a conditional use permit to allow i : this type of business in an it-1 Zone. I : The Secretary informed the Commission this type of I I i business is a permitted use in an 11-3 Zone. I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I Mix. dICHAitD GdUNDMAN, 2351 Olive Drive, stated I his place is located east of Mrs. Kelley's property and : : runs from the easement 285' south. His property is "1" i shaped and surrounds Mrs. Kelley's property. The I I 1 reason he signed the application was to get this matter i straightened out once and for all. I I If the applicant is allowed to have her property zoned R-3: : she could put up an apartment house and then this would ; i cut off his view. The road easement is a dangerous I I : situation because you cannot pass anyone. From Clive i Drive to his place the easement is approximately 5001, i f and if it were rezoned to it-3 this could mean more I traffic, Mrs. Kelly has a circular driveway and when sh$ turns around she has to cross his property. I : The Assistant Engineer was present and stated a study i has been made of this area and access could be provided. i Comm. Palmer asked Mr. Orundman if he was aware i : of this easement at the time he purchased his property : and he stated he was. Comm. Ward inquired of Mr. Grundman if he had made i : any attempt to purchase an additional 5* along side the : { easement from the adjoining property owners, and Mr. i : Grundman stated this would be an expensive solution. * The Chairman declared the public hearing closed at 8:02 : I I I I I I t 1 I b I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : P.M. : Discussion was held by the Commission concerning the I reclassification. Several points were brought out, i. e. , i : spot zoning, isolation of the property, sanitation condi- : i tions and lack of proper access to the property. I I I I I I ! I 1 I I I 1::::: ::;:I: ::;::: ; allow her to continue the operation of her business, they : :::::; ~11;:; I I i::::; i The Commission expressed their sympathy for Mrs. Kellty, : but did not feel they could justify an R-3 zoning of her : i property, and if there was any other means available to i :;:I:: would be happy to consider it. 1 I I l!!*!l i It was the decision of the Commission that the request fori i reclassification of Mrs. Kelley's property be denied for : : the following reasons: I I I I I I I I I t 1 I I I (1) This would constitute spot zoning; I (2) There are no sanitation facilities available at thii I (3) Due to the panhandle, or easement, there is not : I (4) A protest was registered from the adjoining ; time. I ; sufficient access to the property; and I : property owner. : The following resolution was presented for the Commis- I i sions consideration: ! I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 * I b I i Resolution No. 266. A itESGLUTION OF TIlE CARLSBAb I CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING THE &W.WE;s$' Davis /I::; ; jxix: : ; : FOR iEECLASSIFICATION OF CEktTAIN PWPESTY : Viard : ; :x; : ! LOCATED VCESTEALY OF GLIVE DaVE BETFJEEN Ewald 8: i : :x; : ; i FOREST AVENUE AND YOUAELL AVENUE, IN T;IE i Palmer i ;X: I I t I ;::Ill I ;:;::I !ii:i: I1 : CITY CF CARLSBAD, FROM ZCNE A-1 TO ZCNE Jarvie ; ;x:xi I: ' i i3-3, was adoDted bv title onlv and further rendinn wai-red.! Qonncrnan : 1 : xi I!!:!: I I I I I I i OLD BUSINESS: f I 6 t l 1 I I (a) Reports on height limitatio- on buildings, The I i Chairman stated this matter has been held over for some! : time. At the last meeting he requested each member to ; I bring a written report to this meeting as to their thinking! ; on height limitations. i The Chairman called on each member to give their repori. i Several suggestions were made in the reports, such as: i i (1) It is premature at this time for a change from the i : present height limitation of 35' i (2) Property values should be the controlling factor. : (3) If a change is made in the height limitations it should ! I be limited to certain zoned areas and certain boundaries. i : (4) No change should be made without public demand. (5) Professional advice should be had before any change i : is made. I (6) The present limitation is no doubt obsolete. : (7) High rise buildings should be limited to a small area ; at first, then extend the area as land values and building i : necessities increase. (8) Increase in height limitations should be permitted i : only in R-3, R-P, R-T, C-1 and C-2 zones. "MI' zones ; should have individual consideration. I I (9) Kater frontage property should be shown special con-! : sideration. I I : (10) Existing buildings should not be adversely affected. : (1 1 ) Before making any change in height limitations cer- I i tain factors should be considered, i. e. , traffic flow, : parking, lot size, lot frontage and effect on neighboring i properties. : (12) Any change should be limited to the area west of the i Freeway. : (13) The present height limitation of 35' is too high for i i buildings in zone R-1. R-A, &-1 and 13-2 should be I limited to 22'. R-3 and R-T should be 35' east of the i i Freeway. 70' in other zones west of the Freeway. I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 t I I 1 I I I I a I I * b I I I I I * t a i The Chairman stated the reason for discussing this ; matter now was to iron out the problems. Smner or late] i the Commission will be faced with this matter, and it was : his feeling that they could consider this matter more objectively when there was no pressure being made by an : applicant. From the reports given it seems to be the i concensus of the Commissioners any increase in building i height should be limited to a selected area, namely, west : of the Freeway. I I I 8 I I I I I 1 t I t I 1 I I I I I 8 i The Commission inquired as to height limitations in other: i cities along the Coast. The Secretary stated he had : checked with every city south of Newport Beach. The I height limitation6 varied greatly. Most of the cities have: : a 35' limitation, with the exception of conditional use I permits. ! After further discussion the Chairman requested this ited retained on the agenda until a decision has been made. I (b) Zoning on Adams Street, South of Chin ua in, : i being considered due to the recent rezoning of property i : lying north of Chinquapin and due to its proxixnity to the $ I lagoon and U. S. 101 Freeway. There are approximately i I feeling that before further development is made in this I ; area that a change of zone from 12-1 to 3-3 should be : considered. I I During the discussion by the Commissioners it was agred * 4 I I I I I I 1 I I t I I i The Chairman informed tbe Co~~SiijiieFs-~s gfe_ tem was: two blocks zoned 8-1 at the present time. It was his I I I t I * I 4 I I I I t I t I * t I * -4- I I t I I - I ","""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~~" 1 1 I i that if any change were made lots with frontage on Adams: ; should remain R-1 to conform to the previous zoning to i i the north of Chinquapin along Adams. i In conclusion it was the decision of the Commission that i : the entire area under study be included in the hearing and: i then at the time of the hearing the area could be reduced I : to a lesser area and restrictive zone. I ; The following resolution was presented: I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 4 I I : itesolution of Intention No. 36. A 3ESOLUTION OF THd L ; THEILE INTENTION TO HOLD A HEARING TO CON- : :;I:;: SIDEH THE LtECLASSIFICATION OF CEi3TA.IN PdO- i :$;: PERTY LYING SOUT3 OF CBINQUAPIN, REST OF ! 4:;:; i ADAMS, NOi3TH OF HAiGUSON AND EAST OF U.S. Davis : 101 FREEV.AY, IN THE CITY OF CAgLSBAD, Fi2BM : Vi ard :::4;; I SECPEETAdY TO ADVEitTIZE A PUBLIC HEARING ; Palmer : ; ; I : I i ON SAID MATTE&, was adopted by title only and further! Jarvie ;xi :x ! ; : reading waived. ; Sonneman I :xi 4 i I *I1( :!#I!! ;i;;i; I D CITY PLPNNIN COMMISSION STATING i :::::; 1:::;: i;i$;i 41 111 i ZONE R-1 TO ZONE a-3; AND DIdECTING THE i Ewald *I ::;x/ I ! i (c) La oon Zonin . It was unanimously agreed by : I the Commlssloners -" at this item remain as is. I I I t * I (a) Parks and ""."" Recreation Develo ".. 5- ment Fund. Con- i : sideration was given as to settlng up a armA%crea-; i tion Development Fund. It was pointed out this was pre- i i viously suggested, but some of the subdividers opposed : : this suggestion. i Comm. Palmer stated he met with the Parks and Recrea-i i tion Commission some time ago, and their main topic : : of conversation was the lack of funds to operate with. I t I I I I I I I # I t I I ! Chairman Ewald stated he felt if a recommendation were i made to the Council that the fund should be limited to the : acquisition of land for park purpos&s. I i It was also suggested that any subdivider who is subdivid-I i ing 100 acres or more that he be required to provide park! : facilities acceptable to the city. I ! 1 I I * I I I I I 4 I t I 4 I I I I I I I 4 I I I I ! After further discussion, by motion of the Commission it i i was agreed that a memorandum be sent to the City Counci! : recommending that an ordinance be adopted, amending 1 i Ordinance No. 9050, requiring that each lot created Con- i : tribute $25.00 pcr lot to a Parks and Recreation Develop-: I merit p.,.l~r, for the exclusive purpose of acquiring park ; ln lieu thereof any subdivider may offer to the City : .' rand acceptable for park purposes in such amount as may i i be agreeable to the city Council. I I I I I Davis fi ard Ewald Palmer Jarvie Sonnern I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I ! i Respectfully submitted, I secretary t I 1 I I t e I I I I 1