Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-10-23; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNXNG COMIJlISSXON UEETZNG October 23, 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. The Secretary introduced Mr. Uhland B. Melton, Planning Technician of the Carlsbad City Planning Commission, and the Chairman and Commission welcomed him. Mr. Melton was formerly with the San Diego County Planning Commission. Approval of Minutes of October 9, 1962. A motion was made by Commissioner palmer and seconded by Commissioner Davis that the minutes of October 9, 1962, be approved as corrected. All ayes, motion carried, Approval of Minutes of October 15, 1962, a special meeting for the purpose of approving the Ymal NLap and Grading Plans of Chestnut Manor Subdivision. The Secretary called attention to Item #10 (a) of the Agenda for October 23, 1962, giving the City Engineer's recommendations for approval of Final Map and Grading Plans of Chestnut Manor. Mr. C. R. Thornton, Assistant City Engineer, reported that Mr. Lowell A. Rathbun, City Engineer, was attending the California League Meeting in Los Angeles and would like the Commission to know of his approval. A motion was made by Commissioner Grant and seconded by Commissioner Ward that the minutes of October 15, 1962, be approved as submitted, together with the recon? mendations of the City Engineer. All ayes, motion carried. - Written Communications. There were no written communications. Oral Communications . There were no oral communications. PUBLIC HEARING: (a) Request of Carlsbad City Planning Commission by &solution of Intention "BuiMing Reight means the vertical distance measured from the ostial sidewalk or property line grade of the highest abutting street at the center of the building structure to the highest point of the roof. 'I No, 35 to amend Ordinance No. 9060, Ami, Section 211. as follows: The Secretary certified as to publication of notice of hearing and reviewed Resolution of Intention No. 35 initiating this amendment. There were no oral or written communications on this proposed amendment. The Chairman asked Mr. Thornton to explain on the blackboard the meaning of this definltion. It differs from the ordinance in that they would use the highest abutting street iine grade to measure from. On an interior lot there is only one street that the lot would be abutting from. On a corner lot they would use the highest official street line grade to measure from. CLARENCE LEE SULLIVAN, 318 Acacia, Carlsbad, stated that he did not under- stand whether this was in all zones and asked if the height limitation was 35'. -2 - The Chairman explained that at present the height limitation is 35' in all zones, No one present spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed at 7:52 P.M. The Commission discussed whether this was in accordance with the City Engineer's recommendations and agreed that it was, except it is more simplified. It was agreed that the present Ordinance No. 9060, Article 11, Section 212 should be amended because it is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. .Resolution No. 267. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COM- "NDING AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 9060, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 212, DEFINING THE POINT OF MEASUREMENT FOR BUILDING HEIGHTi was unanimously adopted on Commissioner Grant's motion, seconded by Comrnisioa Grant's motion, seconded by Commissioner 3a rvie. PUBLIC HEARING: '. (b) VARIANCE - Request of Gerald Bowers and/or Glenn Cheadle for a reduc- tion in rear yard from 10' to 4' on property located on the east side of Block P, Palisades, Map 1747, R.0.S 331 1 of the City of Carlsbad; and being parcel 27, Book 204, Page 150 of the Assessor's Map of San Diego County. The Secretary certified as to publication of notice of hearing and that notices had been sent to property owners in the area. The Secretary then read the application setting forth the reasons for requesting this variance. There were no written communications on this request. Mr. Melton explained on the map where the lot is located on Garfield Street and that it is a vacant lot, which is the 3rd lot north of Acacia, and there is a house on the corner. He stated that he had studied the plans fairly close and that the units will require 5 off -street parking places, and the side -yard setbacks will have 5' on one side and 1 1 I on the other side. Chairman Ewald asked to get back to the normal procedure of hearing and asked to hear from the applicant and those in favor of this variance to speak. GLENN CHEADLE, 195 Acacia, the applicant, explained that they felt by putting the stairway inside the building they will have more room. The lot is 46' wide instead of the normal 50' and in order to make use of the lot to the fullest extent, they wished to extend the length of the building to 38'. The building will be highly attractive with 5tvvo bedmorn units. It will be attractive and benefit the tax roll. No one else spoke. The Chairman asked those in opposition to speak. JOHN R. ME R Rli LL, 3462 and 3460 Garfield stated that he was mistaken in the location of the property and thought the property fronted properfy that came up on his property and since it faces Carfield Street he has no objection. OLIVE LYLE, 3568 Garfield stated that she thought the property was east of her property and since it is not, she did not care what they do to it. C URENCE SULLIVAN, 318 Acacia, stated that he did not understand that the property is on Garfield and misunderstood the letter and is not in opposition to this variance. He also inquired if this variance would include his property and the Chair man explained that it would be on just this lot. The public hearing was closed at 8:13 P.M. The Chairman stated that he would abstain from discussion and voting because he is involved in the sale of the lot. The Commission discussed the off-street parking, and the setbacks of the other property in the area, and that the property owners seemed to be in favor. Commissioner Grant stated that the house that will be the closest is on Lot 33 on the east side and asked if the property owner was present. The Chairman explained that the property in back is in escrow. It was the decision of the Commission that the request for variance be granted for the following reasons: 1. The lot is substandard by about 400 square feet and the granting of the 2. The subdivisi . was in effect prior to zoning. 3. The long, narrow lot necessitatesa long, narrow building. 4. Side yard and front yard setbacks are conforming to Article 7 of the zoning 5. There are no alleys backing the lot. 6. There were no protests. 7. Adequate parking spaces will be provided. variance is not detrimental to the substandard lots in the area. Ordinance No. 9060. Resolution No. 268. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COM- "€ A VARIANCE ON ]PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS POR TICN OF BLOCK P, PALISADES, MAP 1747, R.O.S. 3311 OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, was adopted on Commissioner Sonneman's motion, seconded by Commis done r Palmer. AYES: Commissioners Davis , Ward, Grant, Palmer, Jarvie and Sonneman. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Chairman Ewald. PUBLIC HEARING. (c) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Request of Patrick F. Michaels for Condi- tional Use Permit to allow a radio station, transmitter, and antenna at 3001 Carls- bad Boulevard, located on the westerly side of Carlsbad Boulevard,between Elm Avenue and Oak Avenue , more particularly described as a portion of Carlsbad Land$ Tract 97, Map 1661 in the City of Car'fsbad; Book 203, Page 242, Parcel 01, of the Assessor's Map of San Diego County, in accordance with Ordinance No. 9060. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as to publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property owncrs in the area. The Secretary then read the application setting forth the reasons for requesting the Conditional Use Permit to instatl an FM radio station, including erection of a pre-formed 140' guyed tower by a licensedcontractor. The sik is designated and approved for this I- use by Federal Communications Commission. The Secretary also read tb.e signa- tures of property owners in the area approving this Conditional Use Permit. Letter dated October 23, 1962 from Ben Ward, President of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, stating that at their regular meeting held October 23, 1962, construe$ tion of the proposed EM radio station for Carlsbad was discussed and the Board has always been in favor of a radio station for this City, however, it felt that the matter of location of the station and the antenna should be the decision of the Planning Com- mission after public hearings. Mr. Melton explainec .on the map the location of the tower and that if tl e tower were to fall down it would not fall on any other property. PATRICK MICHAELS, 3001 Carlsbad Boulevard, stated the radio station will provid a service to the area. There slogan is the "Better things of life program station". They will have a public service and announce various civic club meetings and school F .cgrams. MR. ROBERT L. WEEKS, 6035 University Avenue, San Diego staied that he is in charge of constructing the tower. The State Communications Code requires that the tower will stand 90 miles per hour wind and the Federal Aviation requires that the triangular tower be lighted and painted. The <c wer is approximately 12" wide on each side and 140' high plus the beacon on top. Commissioner Palm= asked about the political aspects of the station. MR. MICHAELS stated that Federal Communications does not allow them to express their political views. It will be a commercial station selling time, but since it is a FM station the time will be limited. There will be some music, mostly classical. They will have 1000 watts and are asking to amend this to have 3000 watts. It will not interfere with anybody's TV or radio. MR. WEEKS stated that the government will not permit a radio station to interfere with radio or TV reception. All commercial equipment is designed to meet the Federal Communications Requirements. MR. WM. WEST , 3085 Ocean Street registered objection to having a 140' tower in front of his property as his home is on the west side of Ocean Street. MR. A. W. MILLER, 3001 Oceans Street asked if they would have the present maximum of 6 breaks an hour. MR. MICHAELS stated that normally the breaks would come on the quarter hour time. The commercials will be limited and they would never consider more than 1 1/2 minutes, and normally they would be 30 seconds. MR. WEEKS stated that the Federal Communications is constantly reviewing these stations and licenses. MRS. VALENTINE, 3075 Ocean Street, stated that she is also opposed to having a tower in front of her house. The public hearing was closed at 8:41 P.M. Commissioner Grant asked if it was in an R-3 zone or C-2 zone and if it would fall on a R-3 zone and about the height limits on the tower. Mr. Melton informed him that it is in a C-2 zone and would not fall in an R -3 zone. c - -5- Commissioner Sonneman asked :f" the structure of height Limitations would require a conditional use permit. The Secretary informed her it would not. MR. WEEKS dated that he has constructed about 80 of these towers and these radio towers are the finest pieces of electrical equipment, and the height is speci- fied by the government. DICK OSBURN, Building Inspector, stated that the height Girlitations do not apply to a structure and only applies to buildings and signs. Commissioner Ward asked if it was 140' from the property line, MR. WEEKS informed him that it was and that there will be a studio which will be in the the main building of the Rcval Palms. Commissioner Sonnernan asked if there would be a revolving light. MR . WEEKS, stated there would be no revolving Light but there will be two Lights in case one light goes out for k'rotection from air travel, and there will be cross pieces on the tower for support. He formerly owned an FM station in San Diego which was built in a yard of an exclusive residential area. A TV could be played in a Living room about 20' from the tower without interference from the radio stakio! The government requires that it be installed and maintained in a proper manner Other points that were brought out by the Commission was the frequency and that while 3 citizens objected to this permit, 7 others approve of it and that it fronts commercial property. It was agreed that this Conditional Use Permit should be granted for the following reasons: 1. That it is in a commercial zone and not unusual to have similar towers in 2. It will be an asset to the City and will benefit the whole community. 3. That it will prove in the long run not to be objectionable to anyone. fine residential zones. Resolution No. 269. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COM- LAND, TRACT 97, MAP 1661 IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, was unanimously adopted on Commissioner Davis' motion, seconded by Commissioner Grant. lvmmm GR AmTfm75: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON A PCIRTION OF CARLSBA; OLd Business . (a) Height limitations on Buildings. Chairman Ewald stated that at the last meeting each member of the Commission ?ad given their recommendations for height limitations on buildings. Commissioner Palmer stated that when Commissioner Ward and he attended the San Diego County Planning Commission quarterly dinner meeting in San Diego recently, they had discussed this with other cities and Oceanside has lifted the height limitations in all areas. The Secretary reported that in R-3 and Less restrictive zones, the Oceanside Counc may restrict the height limitations in the district. c -6 - Commissioner Grant suggested that Mr. Melton read each of the Commissioner's recommendations on height limitations. Commissioner Grant stated that he is opposed to limitations on buildings and feels that the cost of land is so high that all limitations should be removed. The Chairman explained to Mr. Melton that by studying in advance the limitations of different cities and gaining a background for these, they would be better prepared to meet the requesyhen they are submitted. They have beeen reviewing the pres- ent Ordinance and it is 35' except in the "hl" zone which is restricted to 2 stories or 35' whichever is the lessor. Two-story buildings could be put in with 22' or 24' height. Mr. Melton stated that they have more restrictive zones within zones and asked if he was right in assuming that they have not adopted a height limitation and was informed that he was. It was the unanimous decision of the Commission, on Commissioner Palmer's motion that it would be beneficial to have a report from Mr. Melton with his views and recommendations on height limitations. The Chairman asked that this be on the agenda for the next meeting. (b) Lagoon zoning. The Chairman explained that the only zoning by the lagoon had been to R-T because of the lack of sewers, and there is R -T and C-2 at Shelter Cove. Commissioner Sonneman stated that she felt they should consider the width along the lagoon similar to Laguna Beach and Long Beach. MR. FRANK DeVORE, Governmental Right of Way Agent of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, stated that he thought it was very important to explain that there would be no roads on the south side of the lagoon. It was pointed out that the Patterson report is a guide and a lot of it is outmoded. Commissioner Grant suggested that the already established committee of Commis- sioners Sonneman and Jarvie meet with Mr. Melton and the Chairman and Secretary to study the zoning along the lagoon. It was agreed that they set a d,&e for a meet- ing at a later date in order to give Mr. Melton time to study this. Commissioner Jarvie asked what has happened to the parks at Hoover Street and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company. He asked that a memorandum be sent to the Council inquiring of the recreational area at the foot of Hoover Street. Tbe Secretary stated that he thought it would be better to go before the Council under "Oral Communications" to get faster action. (c) The Secretary reported that there were two items of correspondence from the City Council which could be brought up under Old or New Business. Memorandum from the City Manager, dated October 18, 1942, regarding the reclas: ification of property kncwn as "East Carlsbad Annexation No. 2.2''. At the regular meeting of the City Council held October 16, 1962, a public hearing was held to consider the reclaseiification of the property known as "East Carlsbad Annexation 2.2'l from R-1 to R-A with certain parcels having a Potential "MI' zone. It was the dec rsion of the Council that all of the property within this annexation be zoned R-A , however, it is the feeling of the Council that ao potential zoning should be placed on the property. This matter is being referred back to the Commission for further consideration and report back to the Council. Commissioner Sonneman asked if it was possible to have the minutes of the last Council meeting before the Planning Commission meets so the Commission would know of anything that pertains to the Planning Commission that come up at the Counci meetings. The Chairman asked if the Secretary or Mr. Melton would give a report to the Commission of the action of the Council relative to Commission matters. He also stated that he felt the Council should have more maps to know of the location of different zonings and streets. C. R. Thornton, Assistant City Engineer, stated that the question that came up on the "East Carlsbad Annexation No. 2.2" was on the Potential I'M'' zoning. The Council had maps of the Annexation and they had a large map that was used to explair the proposed extension of Tamarack Avenue. They do not send maps to the Council on aoning. The Commission discussed the Potenti-..l "MI' zoning of property near the airport. Mr. Thornton reported that the Council did not object to the I'M" zoning but did object to the "Potential". Dick Osburn, Building Inspector, stated that the property there is not feasible for residential development. Mr. Melton stated that the City of El Cajon has Potential zoning and has never had a meeting without having trouble at the meeting when property has a Potential zoning or it. If property has a Potential I'M" on it, the owner will not build a residence on it. The Secretary stated that he has had considerable experience with industrial develop- ment in the area and assured the Commission that they are not going to get any industry where it is not properly zoned, as industrialists would not want to fight City Hall. Mr. Melton stated that if you want to attract industry, you must have the facilities available in adt'ance. There are wonderful facilities available out there and he has maps of the flight pattern of the airport. The Chairman requested that Mr. Meiton bring back a report on industrial zozing on this property of 150 acres bordering El Camino Real. The Chairman stated that he felt if the Commission considers zoning this area to "M' they should get down to the proper area and not have the drop off area, and they will have to have a hearing on it. Since the Council has taken no action on this, a memo- randum should be sent to them concurring with their findings that the entire "East Carlsbad Annexation No. 2.2" should be zoned R-A. The Commission should then initiate action for zoning a portion to "M". Upon Commissioner Grant's motion seconded by Commissioner Soaneman it was unanimously agreed that a memorandum be sent to the Council, concurring with the findings of the Council that all of'%ast Carlsbad Annexation No, 2.2" be zotad R-A. The Secretary read a memorandum from the City Manager , dated October 18 , 1962, regarding the Amendment to the Master Street Plan, stating that at the regular meeting of the City Council held on October 16, 1962 , a public hearing was held to consider amendments to the Master Street Plan as recommended in Planning Com- mission's Resolution No. 263. After the public hearing was closed considerable discussion was had by the Council. It was their decision that this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for further study due to the fact protests were registered by property owners. The main objection regis'b. red by the property owners was the proposed width of the street. The Chairman explained that they had pr0FF:sed a 68' roadway width from Pi0 Pic0 to Park Drive on Tamarack. There was no question about the deletion of the exten- sion of Tamarack to El Camino Real via Westhaven, and the Council is in agreement with the first 3 items of Resolution No, 263 . Mr. Thornton stated that this was correct and they made it very clear. The three Protestants objected to the 8' that would be taken from the south side of Tamarack. The Engineers made it clear and strong that the property owners are presently sut - ject to having 12' taken off the property instead of 8'. and wou:;+.:.dain in right of way action and roadway width. The property owners would gain 4' .: right of way acqui- sition and would have more roadway width regardless of the o"..Gr side of the street. They tried to make it clear they were not precising this and only establishing a route and designation. Commissioner Davis stated that one of theproperty owners opposing this, Jack Estes was fully aware that he was faced with a 12' right of way before he built on Tamarack Mr . Thornton stated that he was working for the City at that time and knows that this was true. The City has approved Holiday Manor Subdivision westerly of Park Drive with a 68' right of way and a 48' roadway width. Mr, Thornton stated that in all honesty he is not trying to sell this, as it is his honest opinion that Tamarack should be a major street, but they have reduced it to a secondary street and have stopped at Park Drive, It might be that the Council feels Tamarack should be a major street. Under the existing Master Street Plan a major street includes 84' right of way. The existing right of way would require 12' taken from the property owners for rights of way, and on a secondary street it would require 8'. He stated that he explained that the City does not take anything without due Legal process. Mrs. DoLahue was one of the Protestants and he went up to her property and explained the situation on the ground itself and she appreciated getting this information as she had only heard one side of this. The Commission reviewed Resolution No. 263 and felt that if the Council understood that there is a 4' reduction of right of way from the property owners than the existbg Master Street Plan indicates , that they would reconsider their findings. The Chairman instructed Mr. Melton to study this and to make a report rith Com- missioner Sonneman's notes. Upon motion of Comr. Grant, seconded by Comr . Jarvie, it was unanimously agreed that a memorandum be sent to the Council stating that the proposed plan is sound and that it will coincide with the alignment of Tamarack east of Highland Drive. It was-a- also pointed out that under the proposed plan there will be 4' less property taken from the property owners on the south side of Tamarack than the existing Master Street Plan provides for. It was further pointed out that when Tamarack Avenue between pi0 Pic0 and Park Drive is precised planned,public hearings will be held and oppoefits to the plan will have further opportunity to raise objections. Adjournment. By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 10:4!5 P. M,