HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-12-11; Planning Commission; Minutes..
I
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Milrdes of: PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting: December 11, 1962 Time of Meeting: 7:34 P.M. Place of Meeting: Council Chambers
ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, Ward, Grant, Ewald, Palmer, Jarvie and Sonneman. Also present were Secretary Price, Uhland B. Melton,Plan-
ning Technician, and Deputy City Attorney, Stuart Wilson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made by Commissioner Sdnneman and seconded by Commissioner Grant tbt the minutes of November 27, 1962, be approved as corrected. A11 ayes, motion carried.
A short recess was called at 7:40 to permit the City Council to meet and adjourn to
the City Hall. Reconvened at 7:42 P. M.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
The Secretary reported there were two items which could be brought up under Old or New Business.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
There were no oral communications.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VARUNCE - Request by Rudolph H. and Jane G. Sonneman for an extension of the height of a sign from 20' to 56'7", and a sign from 20' to 30'6" high on
property at 1044 EIm Avenue, on the northwest corner of Elm Avenue and U. S.
101 Freeway, being a portion of Tract 117, Carlsbad Lands, Map 1661, R.O.S.
2855, in the City of Carlsbad.
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 thi8 variance.
The Secretary read a letter dated December 7, 1962, from Jane C . Sanneman to the City Engineer statiug that they are buying the Fleming property to the west, which is adjacent to this property, and they will consolidate the parcels at the close of
escrow .
S. M, MAZE, Property Representative for Standard Oil Company, 4450 Monroe Avenue, San Diego, stated that they hoped to be the tenants on the property and was
hete to answer any questions. The application pointed out that the height sign is
nGeded as requested ta prevent its becoming a traffic has ard to U, S. 101 Freeway, because of the elevatiou of the freeway.
No one present spoke in opposition.
The public hearing was closed at 7:50 P.M.
The Planning Technician explained that the .. pplication was €or two signs but after studying the plot plans, he realized that one of the signs would be on the service station building and the building would be built on a portion of the property belonging to the Sonneman's and on property adjacent to this property on the west, which is in escrow. Since the variance on the two signs is on the combined properties, Mr.
Melton asked that the hearing just be on the one sign and at a later date they could
have a hearing on the other sign and consolidate the parcels into one. The one sign
under consideration will be about 20' back from the construction of the station, and an increase in height is necessary in order for the sign to be seen clearly from the freeway, but not a visual obstruction or ha.a.ard.
The Chairman asked if it would be legal to be the hearing on the two signs at this time.
The Secretary rqmrkd that the/Fleming property to the west/is 66' wide and would
increase the number of property owners required by law to be notified.
After due consideration, it was agreed tht the variance on the height of tkria, sign from 20' to 56'7" should be granted for the following reasons:
replied second sign was on the which
the
1. That granting the variance as per plot plan will not be detrimental to propert)
in the same vicinity and zone.
2. That it would be compatible yvitb C -2 zoning and that similar variances have
been granted in the immediate neighborhood.
3, There was no opposition.
4. The sign will be conducive to attracting tourist traffic off of U. S. 101 Free- way into Carlsbad and its business district.
Resolution No. 274. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAIr 'ITY PLANNING COM-
A VARIANCE ON THE HEIGHT OF A SIGN ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHWEST CCRNER OF ELM AVENUE AND U. S. io1 FREEWAY, BEING
A PORTION OF TRACT 117, CARLSBAD LANDS, MAP 1661, R.O.S. 2855, IN THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, was adopted on Commissioner Grant's motion, seconded by
Commissioner Palmer.
AYES: Commissioners Davis, Ward, Grant, Ewald, Palmer Jarvie. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINED: Commis:. :oner Sonneman.
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECLASSIFICATION - Resolution of Intention No, 37 initiated by the Carlsbad City Planning Commission for a change of zone from R-A (Residential-Agricul- tural) to Zone "M" (Industrial) on property known as "East Carlsbad Annexation
2.2", being portion of Lot B , Rancho Agua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad, fronting on the east side of El Camino Real, being Parcels 6, 7, 9 and portion of
8 of Book 209, Page 020 as shown on the County Assessor'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 reviewed Resolution of Intention No. 37 initiating this amendment for zone
reclassification.
The Secretary reported that he notified the adjacent property owners in the County
although they have no legal right to protest.
There were no written communications received.
Mr. Melton pointed out the area to be zoned "M" on a new map, and that it covered an area on top of a plateau andex4uded t5e canyon area at the north. There are two ownerships on this proposed "M" zone, one being Kamar, and they have indicated that they plan to build an industrial type subdivision with all improvements needed
for industrial use.
No one present spoke for or against this reclassification.
The public hearing was closed at 8: 13 P. M.
The Chairman reported that he had a telephone call from the "Tootsie Kt' Ranch wanting to know the area being considered for "M" zone and they were not opposed to this reclassification.
After a short discussion it was agreed that Resolution of Intention No. 37 be approved
as presented and that the following facts exist:
1. That the site is ideal for I'M" zone and witl be beneficial to the City as a whole 2. That it would be in the best interests of public necessity and convenience. 3. That it is located, with good 'rontage, along a major highway and has good
4. That there were no protests.
access to the Palomar Airport.
Resolution No. 275, A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COM- -NDING RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROP- ERTY IN PORTION OF "EAST CARLSBAD ANNEXATION 2.2" IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FROM R-A TO "M", was unanimously adopted on Commissioner Ward's
motion, seconded by Commissioner Jarvie.
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECLASSIFICATION - Request of Bird Islarid Development Company for a change
of zone from R-A (Residential-Agricultural) to R-T (Residential Tourist) and C-3
(General Commercial) on property lying between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jeffer-
son Street and northerly of Laguna Drive# bein a portion of Lot 1 and portion of
Lot2inSec.l,T.lZS.,R5W.;portionS.E. 14inSec.36, B T.llS., R5W.,in
the City t.f Carlsbad.
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 this zone reckss- ification.
There were 5 items of cor *espondence.
Letter dated November 30, 1962, from W. W. Rogers and Louise T. Rogers, 2465 Jefferson Street objecting to reclassification on a portion of this property.
Letters protesting this reclassification were from the following persons:
Don Greame Kelley, Western Regional Director of the Nature Conservancy, 171 1 -A Grove Street, Berkeley 9, California.
-4 - I
Laura R. Shaw , Secretary, Buena Vista Lagoon Association, 2034 Lincoln,Oceansidf
Ruth Coats, Secretary Pro-Tern, Buena Vista Audubon Society.
John G. Tyler, Vice Chairman, Southern California Chapter, The Nature Conserv- - ancy, 603 Alta Avenue, Santa Monica.
STUART WILSON, Deputy City Attorney, stated that this is private property and the owners could fill this land and put it to any use provided for in R-A zone. The question to be considered is whether the lot area should be reduced from 6,000 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft. The correspondence was not pertinent as to whether the lot size should be reduced. The entire property could be filled and built on now.
Mr. Melton pointed out on the map the area proposed for C-2 zoning , and stated there is no street frontage except for the small parcel that is proposed for C-2 zone. He also pointed out the zoning of the Bird Island Development property in Oceanside
and that the C-2 zone is adjacent to C-2 zone in Oceanside.
The Chairman asked the Commission to consider the C-2 zoning first.
It was pointed out that the piece to be zoned C-2 is 108' X 64' X 88'. Part of it is under water and it is contiguous to C-2 property in Oceanside and fronts On Carls-
bad Boulevard.
HAROLD E. BIERCE, JR. , 2950 Ocean Street, representing the Bird Island
Development Company stated they- merety wanted to round out their holdings on Hill Street in Oceanside and Carlsbad Boulevard.
CLAUD J. FENNEL, 2479 Ocean Street asked for clarification of the location of the
property and if the parcel is on Carlsbad Boulevard or State Streets.
MR. BIERCE stated that he believed Lot 19 is the property Mr. Fennel was concerneq
about and is at the intersection of Laguna and State Street.
The Chairman asked those in opposition to speak.
DALE T. WOOD, 637 Cortez, Vista asked for clarification as to whether any other property would be zoned C-2 immediately adjacent to this property, and if this would set a precedent for C-2 zoning of contiguous property.
Mr. Melton explained that property to the south of this is R-A.
CARL SEGERBLOOM, 2535 Jefferson Street stated that he is opposed to this
reclassification. He has 88' of water frontage.
No one else spoke against this.
The C-2 portion of the public hearing was closed at 8:47 f. M.
It was PdaXd out that property across from this on the west side of Hill Street is
zoned R-A and that property to the south on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard is
owned by the Nature Conservancy and is zoned R-A.
A short recess was called at 8:32. Reconvened at 9:08 P.M.
The Chairman stated that they would now continue with the R-T request.
MR. BIERCE spoke at length in favor of the zone change and stated that the property
they are now discussing outlines about 44 acres, and the City of Carlsbad now
receives $14.06 taxes for the year on this property. The Tax Assessor places a
low valuation on the property because of it being under water. Picture a developmer
of approximately 20 acres. Less than half of the property will be filled. They pro-
pose to have 185 residential lots that will sell from $8,000.to $10,000.a piece. The
homes built will be between $20,000. to $40,000. each. Mr. Bierce asked the
Commission to imagine the net return on taxes to the City, and presented a large map showing the property owned by the Bird Island Development. They propose to file the same deed restrictions with the City of Carlsbad as they did with Oceanside. All land will be restricted to single family residences and there would be no commerciai- ism. This development cannot help but increase the valuation of the surrounding property. Mr. Bierce stated that they wanted the zone changed at this time but the property will have to be dredged and cured; with time for the soil to dry and it will
have to sit for some time befr ' e they can build upon this property. Soil tests have
been made and there is pure silica sand at the bottom of this lagoon. He explahed the permitted uses allowed in an R-A zone and that they would not be compatible wit4 the surrounding Land. They propose a well to be driven downfd pump water into the lagoon. The water will be kept free of odors, etc, Under the jurisdication of the Nature Conservancy, no effort has been made to clean the lagoon. They are negotia-
ting an access to this property on property owned by Mrs. Betty Ebright. In order to protect the City, if the Commission should grant this application, they could recommnd that the Council hold the hearing open for a zone change until a final subdivision map is submitted for approval with restrictions. The Company tried to
de-annex its holdings from the City of Oceanside because of the lower tax rate in
Carlsbad and because the land is belor; the sewer level at Eaton Street and will
require a pumping station, which costs approximately $20,000. a piece. The reason
they are asking for smaller lot area is to leave a6 much of the lagoon under water as possible. The Buena Vista Creek drains into the Buena Vista Lagoon: the flood gate to the ocean is on the Army-Navy Academy prooerty. They have t..ade an effort to keep the water high in the lagoon by the overflw. They have talked to the Academy and proposed that applicants bqild a control weir there and they will have a safety
factor so that if the water needs to get out, it will take care of this and to make it
possible to bring additional water into the lagoon, as they propose to augment the water supply if necessary as they expect it to be about 10' &ep. Oceanside's ord- inance allows 4,000 sq. ft. lot area in the R -T zone, otherwise it is identical to
Carlsbad's ordinance.
No one else spoke in fava: f this reclassification,
The Chairman asked those in opposition to speak.
DON KELLEY, Regional Director of the Nature Conservancy, 171 1-A Grove Street, Berkeley 9, California statedsat they are concerned with preserving an area for water fowl and was opposed to the sone.
J6CI.N TYLER, 603 Alta Avenue, Santa Monica, California stated that he representec
the Nature Conservancy and spoke against the zone change and handed the recorder
a 7 page letter from which he had read. The letter is attached to and is part of the file.
GEORGE HILLAM, 2035 Lincoln, Oceanside stated that he represented Lagoon Property Protective Society in Oceanside, and spoke in opposition to the change of zone.
-6 *
FATHER PATRICK O'CONNOR, stated that he dwells at the OLd Mission in San Luis
Rey and teaches College there. He has a personal interest in this and is a member
of the Audubon Society, and sp o ke against the zone change.
MLE T. WOOD, Vista stated that he was speaking for himself, although a member
of the Audabon Society, and believes this lagoon is in the right place for nature
lovers and it has the requirements for birds and wi?t&life. People come from across
the United States to see this and thinks cities should plan for the future and reserve
areas for wild life.
The Chairman asked those to speak in rebuttal.
MR. BIERCE stated that Mr. Hillam lives in a 6,000 sq. ft. zoned area, although his property is larger than that required. Mr. Bierce read an article in the Blade - Tribune refuting the beauty of the lagoon.
E. L. McCORMACK, 2101 So. Nevada Street, Oceanside question who had written
the article as there is no such person listed in the directory in Oceanside, and Mr.
Bierce reported that he did not know who had written it.
MR. TYLER asked about the water frontage on the property; if it would wt off the water frontage of the Nature Conservancy.
MR. BIERCE stated tbat it would be 40' back on final subdivision map.
MR. HILLAM asked what guarantee the Company has that they will not have
"Riverside type homes", and Mr. Bierce reported that they would not use expensive land for low priced homes. The minimum house size under restrictions will be
1,000 Taare feet, but all of the plans of the proposed housesshow homes 1400 to
2200 sq. ft. ; this goes into the final subdivision map and will be part of the restric-? tions when the deed restrictions are filed.
The Chairman asked for those opposed to speak in rebuttal.
MR. KELLEY reaffirmed his opposition and stated the adverse affect of development on wild life .
No one &e spoke,
Tbe public hearing was closed at 10:35 P.M.
When asked if they intend to build on all of the lots in the subdivision, Mr. Bierce reported that some of the lots will be for sale for pri,*ate owners, but they have deed restrictions and the building committee would have to approve any individual homes, so there will be complete coverage of every home that goes in.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the Council to hold the hearing open until the final subdivision map is submitted for approval.
Points discussed were the reduction in lot area from 6,000 sq. ft. , to 4,000 sq. ft.; the control of misquitos and insects in the lagoon; the birds and wiM life; that there ;r( were no protests from those living in the Carlsbad area by the Lagoon except W W. Rogers .
Mr. Wilson stated that it would be legal to have one resolution far the two reclass- ifactions .
It was agreed that the request for reclassification by the Bird Island Development
from Zone R-A to C-2 and R-T should be recommended for the following reasons:
For C-2:
1. C-2 land belongs to the applicant in the City of Carlsbad and is contiguous to
2. That this is the highest and best use of the property which property is
3. That granting this reclassification will not be materially detrimental to the
C-2 land in Oceanside.
privately owned.
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and
zone in which the property is hated.
sive general plan.
4. That granting such reclassification will not adversely affect the comprehen-
Fot R-T:
1. That this is the highest and best use of property which property is privately
2. That the granting of this reclassification will not be materially detrimental
3. That this will be beneficial and in the best interests of the welfare of the
4. That such reclassification will not adversely affect the comprehensive
5. That there are exaeptional csnditions within this existing land, some being
6. That this request for reclassification be referred, as is the proper procedure
owned under fee title.
to property in surrounding area.
community (particularly because of the control of insects).
general plan of the City.
above water and some being under water.
to the €.he Council with the recommendation that the Council hold hearing open until
the applicant submits a final subdivision map for approval with restrictions to be
approved by the proper City authorities prior to recording.
Resolution No. 276. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COM-
TY IN THE CITY OF CAHLSBAD FROM R-A TO C-2 AND R-TI was unanimously adqtrd- on Commissioner Grant's motion, seecnded by Commissioner Palmer.
~PJCPGRECLASSIFIGATION OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPEP-
OLD BWSINESS:
(a) Height limitations on buildings.
Mr. Melton asked for an extension of time for his report to December 26, 1962.
(b) Lagoon zoning.
Mr. Melton stated the Council was pleased with the six points of the steering
committee and there are points to work on prior to getting a Master Plan for the
lagoon. It was necessary to acquire maps to study proposed routes.
The Chairman asked the Planning Techniciv if he could have a proposed route for
the extension of Park Drive to El Camino R a1 on the agenda for December 26,1962.
Mr. Melton stated that he would, if he can work out the planning with the County and
the City, as it is necessary to work out the whole network before you can do one
street.
There was discussion about getting into the county when Park Drive is extended to El Camit. Real.
c
The Chairman stated that he is concerned with the property on the north side of the lagoon, and that the extension of Park Drive agproposed, did not involve County
property.
tc) Location of Future Branch Fire Station
The Secretary read a memorandum from the City Manager dated December 5, 1962, to the Planning Commission asking the Commission to make a feasibility study toward the possibility of establishing a Fire Department substation in the vicinity
of the Terramar area.
The Chairman appointed a committee of Commissioners Palmer and Ward to study
this with the staff.
(d) Proposed future lot splits on Highland Drive for Dr. Palmateer.
Memorandum dated December 5, 1962, to the Planning Commission from the City
Manager in answer to Planning Commission's memorandum. It was unanimouslyagraetd
the matter be returned to the Planning Cornmission for their decision, that a public
hearing be held on the matter in accordance with Ordinance No. 9060.
The Secretary reported that according to Section 1805 of the zoning ordinance No. 9060, Notice and Hearing on application for Variance, it would be up to Dr.
Palmateer to apply for a variance for these lot splits.
Mr. Wilson concurred with the Secretary.
The Chairman statedat the time of the Tamarack extension, after some pursuasion, Dr. Palmateer stated be woutd give the property for the street but felt the City should take the initiative for a variance. At the present time he has no problem
but if he gives the property for the street, he will be faced with a problem requiring a variance for lot splits.
that
There was a discussion about waiving the fee; whether the lot split improvements
would be required; and the time Limit on a variance.
The Secretary stated that unless the time limit is epecified, a variance expires one year from the date of adoption.
By common consent of the Commission it was agreed that the Chairman request Mr. Melton to contact Dr. Palmateer and ask him to file an application for a variance with the proviso that the variance, if granted, be for two years.
NEW BUSINESS:
"~ ~ ~.
There was no new business.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 P. M,
Respectfully submitted, *"
J. H, PRICE, Secretary