HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-02-13; Planning Commission; MinutesI I I ',8'
.' I : CITY OF CARLSBkD I I S, '\,", "8 '\ " I
I s, % ', '8, 8*,'8, I Minutes of: I '\ ', '\ I I ,, 8, \, '8, " " : Date of Meeting: February 13. 1963 8. '*.i i Na me 'x, '\Sp *, +$+ i i Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. k,+'\Q', * : Place of Meeffng: Council Chambers i of $&y,,$##,++ i :""""""""""""""""""""--"""""""-.""""""""~""""""""" 1 Member \$$$,.e\p "","" &.J
I ;:a*:: i ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, I ;::I::
Ward, Grant, Ewald, Falmer , Jarvie and Sonneman. Alsd /;;;; : present were Planning Technician, Uhland B. Melton and : ::,,It
I Secretary price.
I;;&::
I ::I:*# 11::
I i Davis I i ;xi f i
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: : Ward *I ; : :x: : :
I Grant I I !XI ; I i (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of January 22 : Ewald ; 6 :x; ; ; i 1963, were approved as corrected. i Palmer ; ixixi ; :
I : Jar vie :x; Ix; ; I* ;
I i Sonneman 1 8 i (b) Minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of I I ixi ; I i I January 29, 1963, were approved as corrected. ; Davis
I : Ward
I Grant
I I Ewald
I I # I
I PLANNING COMMISSIGN
I
I
I
A
I
I
I
I I
1 I i Palmer
1 i Jar vie
I
I I I I I # I
I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I
I i I I
# ; Sonneman
i WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
i There were no written communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
i There wereLno oral communications from the audience. i
(a) Report of Planning Technician on Council action 04 I I I I
: Planning matters. r I I
# I I I I I 1. The Council approved the recommendations of the i Planning Commission to precise plan Harrison Street and : : Locust. I I I
I I I I 8 I 2. The location of the branch fire station was tabled i i until budget time and the Council commended the com- I I : mittee that worked on this matter.
: 3. The Council approved the tentative subdivision mad of Eureka Knolls. I I
Commissioner Palmer inquired about retaining walls on : Yourell Avenue as he felt the lots should be supported to prewent erosions. I I
The Assistant City Engineer stated he felt that adequate i i ground cover would take care of this matter. I I
I FUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED
i RECLASSIFICATION - From zone R-A-l0,000 sq.ft. : (Residential Agricultural) to R-1-7500 sq,ft. (one family i i Residential zone) on property located on the Northerly i : side of Basswood Avenue between Canon Street and Donna : i Drive, said property being a portion W. 1/2 Sec. 32, I . 4 : Carlsbad Lands, Tract 124, Map 1661, R.0.S.1709 in thd i City of Carlsbad. Applicant: Maureen McInerny Rorick.
i Notice of hearing was read. T?& Secretary certified as : to publication of notice of bearing and the mailing of i notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary
then read the application setting forth the reasons for : I requesting this zone reclassification. The Secretary res ii : ported there were 20 items of correspondence and read ' : i letters from the following: I 1
i 1 . Don M. Moss, 3302 Belle Lane, Carlsbad
: 3 . Mr. and Mrs. George R. Metzinger, 3324 Ridgecrqsti i 4. G. W. Elliott, 3305 Belle Lane Carlsbad
I I 1
I I I 4
I t I *
I I I I
I I
I I 8 I I
I #
I I I I
'8
* I I #
I I
I I I I I I I I ; 2, Kelly E. Day, 3302 $bnna.Dr. Carlsbad
I I
9:
-2-
I i
I I I I I I I
I I I ?
i 5. William Arrnbruster , 3390. Belle Lane, Carlsbad
6. Henry P. Bourke, 3410 Donna. Drive, Carlsbad
I I I
I I Margaret T. Arrnbruster , 339Q Belle Lane, Carlsbadi
1 Ethel H. Bourke, I' ??
1 Margaret Marshall, : 7. Lt. Col. T. E. Metzger,WSMC,3590 Ridgecrest Dr. i 8. Marjorie Montague Davis, 413 So. McCadden Place, i
I Los Angeles 5, I i 9. Rosamond S. Prescott, 3303 Belle Lane, Carlsbad i : 10. Col. 81 Mrs. Loren Haffner 2195 Basswood, I I 11. Diane D. Cochran, 3170 Falcon Dr , Carlsbad : 12. Theron T. Herrin, 3311 Belle Lane, Carlsbad
I , - '. Marguerite V. Herrin, 3311 Belle Lane, Csrlsbad i : 13. John E. Jardine,UI, 3301 Belle Lane, Carlsbad 1
: 15. Donald B. Kennedy, 3480 Hillcrest Circle, I
I Edythe Kennedy, I) ti If I1 I ! 16 William Huxman, 3300 S. Belle Lane, Carlsbad
I Rositta Humnan, '' I1 )I tf 1 I : 17. J. €3. Hearn, 3435-Ridgecrest Dr. Carlsbad
J Ethel K. Hearn, I' tl 11 I1 I I : 18 Mr. and Mrs. Don L. Wilson, 3445 Ridgecrest Drive i
I I I
I I I
I
I
II It I
tl tt It
8
8 I I I t
1,
i4. Kenneth Ness 3275 Meadowlark Lane, Carlsbad
I I I 1
I I I
19. Joseph Leon, 3430 Donna Drive, Cg rlsbad I 4 I I I
I
I *
I
~-%&~ McGlynn ,3420 Donna Drive, Carlsbad
I Mrs. John R. Prout, 3440 Donna Drive, Carlsbad i
I John R. Prod, 3440 Donna Drive, Carlsbad I I
I Mrs. Lynn Alexander 3421 Donna Drive, Carlsbad i
8 L. N. Alexander , 3421 Donna Drive , Garlsbad I i 20. Georg Geiger Attorney at Law 1834 So. Will Street,
I Oceanside 4
The above generally protested on the grounds that smaller! : size lots may have "tract type" homes on them which , i would devaluate their property. They felt smaller size ! : lots should not abut the larger lots where there are i expensive custom built homes. Although there are 7500 i : sq. ft. lots in the area next to this reclassification, they I i did not want any more, and felt an effort should be made : : to preserve the beauty of the Eucalyptus trees. I
i DAVID RGRICK stated he represented the applicant who is! his wife and apologized for not being able to be present at : : the last meeting. He stated the Rorick family still owns i i property in the vicinity and so has a personal interest in : : the development of this area. It is their intent to develop i i the property with 7500 rq.ft. lots OD Basswood from Donna : Drive to the west of the grove along Canon Street. They i i intend to leave most of the trees but it will be necessary i : to remove some of them. It is their intent to develop it ;
so there will be light for homes and still be able to see : ; the trees when overlooking this property. That lots t i adjacent to Falcon Hills will probably be in excess of : 10,000 sq.ft. lots, probably 10,500 or 10,600 sq.ft.1ots.i
: not as fine maybe as Seacrest, but will be in keeping with i I the homes on the south side of Basswood and Canon Street:
i KAY KALICKA, P. 0. Box 71, stated that he owns Over
I
I
I 1 I I
I I
I 1
0 6 I
t B I
The proposed subdivision will be a credit to the cornmuzit$,
I I
200 acres of property adjoining this property from the i
Vista Freeway to Jefferson which includes the Hoap : Eucalyptus Grove. This property was zoned R -A -10,000 i
sq. ft. as a temporary interi m zone and it was never i : intended to remain the same zoning. He pointed out that :
most of the opposition came from people living OD 7500 sqi
I ft. tots in "tract" homes, and most of the controversy has; i been over the trees. Children are playing on this propert+ i where the trees are and they are trespassing on it. Nei- ; ; bors go in with power saws and cut the trees. Two weeks: : ago there was a truck in there with men removing the WOO^. i He pointed out that the size of lots has nothing to do with : :the trees being removed a8 it will depend on grading and i i t?x cmtmr nf land. He believes the people have been I I misinformed ab there never has been any question about ; ; the property beiag.developed. Seacrest was developed afttr 'i these 7500 sq-. 6. lots were tmi.lt. upn. Because of the :
I *
I
I
I I
I t i
I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I t
I I I I I I
I
I
. I
1
1 I I
I I I 1 I
I -3 -
:"""""""~"~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
cost of the property, no one would put in a cheap house : there. He feels this property is one of the most costly in the City.
GEORG GEIGER, 3199 Falcon Hills Drive, stated that he I has never cut a swath through the trees and does not know I of anyone who has. He pointed out the purpose of zoning. People have relied on the representation that was made tc i them. He purchased his property, not for the ocean view : but because of their interest in the trees. He knew this
area would be developed but thought it would be comparab : to Falcon Hills as he has a copy of the original tentative
plat map of Falcon Hills which shows the developement of
the entire 36 acres. The smallest lot appears to be 9600
I I
i sq. ft. on the original plan submitted. The question has : been raised in the course of conversation with others is : whether any member of the honorable Plan- Commissil
has any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, in'this subdivi. ; sion? He stated that his neighbor Mrs. Dianne Cochran i also wished to go on record as protesting this reclassifi- : cation.
: The Chairman stated that the Commission are all mature I people and the members are fully aware of their obligatio1 : and if they have any financial interest they will act accord i ingly.
/ DAVID FREhTADT, 3325 Seacrest Drive, stated that he : feels relieved with the comments Mr. Rorick made and after hearing his words. He felt that in order to protect i and assure the adjoining property owners, that a definite ; plan should be submitted with this request for reclassifi- : cation.
: J. H. HEARN, 3435 Ridgecrest, stated that he has a
: impressed by Carlsbad and hopes to spend the rest of his
i just for today but for the future years to come.
: DR. JERRY C0LLIN.G 5375 Los Robles Drive, stated that he does not own property close to the area under i consideration but is a resident of Carlsbad and has been ; shopping for a nice lot to build on. It is hard to find an
I area where property values will be preserved. He likes the schools, the town, and the people in Carlsbad and :hopes he does not have to move to Oceanside to find the
home they are looking for.
The following voiced their objections on the same grounds
1 I I
I
I I
letter in against any change in the subdivision. He is ver!
days here and hopes the Planning Commission will not act
4 *
I 1
i that were mentioned in the written correspondence:
8 , DON MOSS, 3302 Belle Lane, Carlsbad : DR. JOHN BURT, 3324 Seacrest Drive, Carlsbad !KELLY DAY, 3302 Donna Drive, Carlsbad : LT.COL. T. E. METZGER, 3590 Ridgecrest Drive i J. E. JARDINE, 3301 Belle Lane, Carlsbad
:CARL BERNHARDT, P. 0. Box 22, Carlsbad i MRS. PRESCOTT, 3303 Belle Lane, Carlsbad : COL. L. E. HAFFNER, 2195 Basswood, Carlsbad I MRS. HENDRY, 3491 Seacrest Drive, Carlsbad :HENRY P. BURKE, M.D. (retired) 3410 Donna Drive
: DAVID RORICK , speaking in rebuttal, stated that the I reason they had not submitted a subdivision map at the :time of the reclassification is that the cost of engineering
is very high and it was necessary to have this zone change : before submitting a tentative map.
I The public hearing was closed at 9:28 P. M.
I I
1
1
A short recess was called at 9:28 P.M. Reconvened i at 9:45 P.M.
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I "
I I I I I I I I I I
. -4 -
I I L
I t
I * ;"""~""""""""""""""""""-""~""-"""--""""""~;~-
i The Secretary read the permitted uses in R -A and R-1 I : zones,
: It was pointed out that this appljcation had failed to show : ! that there is a need for zone reclassification based on i : public necessity and convenience, or it was for the i kenera1 welfare of the public.
I t I
I * I
I 1 I t I I I I
After considerable discussion, MR. RORICK stated that i i he had sat on the Oceanside Planning Cornmission for 15 : i years and suggested dropping this matter and coming bac6 ; andher day with a better plan. I I I I t I It was agreed that this reclassification should be denied
I for the foUoWing reasons: I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I t
I 1. On the basis that a more specific plan can be I
i protests.
I 3. The applicant failed to show public necessity and i convenience and that the granting of the application i would adversely effect surrounding property.
I 4. The applicant also suggested submitting an 1
submitted at a future date.
I 2. There were overwhelming oral and written
I
I I I I I *
I I I I s
I
amended application.
I ! Resolution No. 281. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAd
; TION OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN THE >*' CITY OF CARLSBAD FROM R-A-10,000 SQ.FT. TO R-lf
7500 SQ. FT., was unanimously adopted, I I
I -OMMISSION DENYING RECLASSIFICAL
! I
: PUBLIC HEARING:
I s i CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - TO continue use of proper+ ; as a Rest Home on property located at 2345 Olive Drive, : : between Forest Avenue and Yourell Ave., in the City of ;
i Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as i I to publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of I : notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary I i then read the application setting forth the reasons for : ; requesting the Conditional Use Permit, and reported one i item of coirespondence. I I
i Letter from John Seigel and Rene Seigel, 2304 Pi0 Pico, f : stating they are neighbors of Mrs . Kelley and are in I i favor of granting a Conditional Use Permit to her.
MRS. THELMA A. KELLLEY, 2345 Olive Drive, stated I : that she had asked for the Conditional Use Permit since i the Planning Commission had denied her request for a : i change of zone. This is the only way she has to make a ; living and she has operated this rest home since 1953. i : She has spent nearly $6,000. on improving the property : i in compliance with the City Ordinance. She has had a : i permit to build two additional rooms and was not told that ; she could not operate a rest home there until recently. i
i The Chairman asked who was trying to stop her.
Carlsbad. Applicant: Thelma A. Ketley. s I * *
1 t
I I
1 * I I * I *
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I
I I I I * I 1 I I s
I 1 I I I
I I I I I
I
I
The Planning Technician stated that the City Manager had ! given her notice that the use of this building as a rest ho&
is a nonconforming use of a conforming building and has i to be discontinued by March 1 1963. 1 I
MRS. KELLEY stated that she did not know anything about3 this law and felt the City staff should have notified her :
earlier. She questioned whether anybody would object to her rest home as she has good recommendations. Her i patients have heard of this and are upset over it. 1 I
8
I I 8 8 I I
I I I I
d-
l I
9 '. i
No one spoke in opposition of this request.
The public hearing was closed at 10:40 F. M.
I I I I I I I I I
The time l€mit of a Conditional Use Permit was discussed and whether it goes with the land. I I
I
The Secsietary stated that Mrs. Kelley requested that the!
Conditional Use Permit be used on the land. If granted a:
ConditionaL Use Permit to run with the land, it would be I
in perpetuity. : I I . I The Planning Technician stated the reason he did not :
submit a written report was that he would like additional i
time to study this and would like to have this hearing i continued. He has studied this and found that some
cities allow this and others do not. He has talked this o i
over with the Police and Fire Departments and every :
request has been fulfilled by the applicant and there has i
been no police trouble. He stated that he is not familiar : enough with the zoning ordinance and would like to discus! this with the new attorney.
The Commission discussed the abatement period for I
I I
I I t I
nonconforming structures in'R" zones.
It was pointed out that Mrs. Kelley is operating a fine rest home and those who have been there were very
pleased. It is good for the citizens of the community to i
have this rest home and since she has applied for relief : Davis
from this situation, it was felt she would be able to I Ward continue until after the next meeting, f Grant : Ewald The hearing was r ang6continued to the next I Palmer regular meeting o '&L, 1963 in order to give the: Jarvie Planning Technician time to make a report on this request. Somema1
OLD BUSINESS:
I 8 I I I
I I
I I I I * I
(b) Park Drive Extension to El Camino X#
There was a discussion on whether any Commissioner had any pecuniary Interest in this street routing and the
Chairman reported that he did not have and if anyone did
have they would abstain from voting.
The Chairman stated that the tentative map of Shelter . -
Cove Subdivision has ken adopted and that Fark Drive.' will be dedicated to a point.&&r-
The Secretary read the proposed *tion of Intention f
amending the Carisbad City Master Sheet Plan by
declaring the potential extension of Park Crive from its i southerly terminus in a generally easterly and northerly : direction to a point in El Camino Real County Road Survet No. 682 between stations 55 plus 84.70 and station 59 :
plus 25.32, and designating said extension as a secondari street with a 62 feet right of way, The Secretary reportep that he had prepared, as per instructions of the Commis-; sion , 2t letter for the signatures of the property owners : involved to dedicate their easement as a, secondary street:.
As a secondary street, it would be eligible for gas tax ;
funds. He gave the letter to Allan Kelly to get the signatures.
It was agreed to adopt this Resolution of Intention for the : following reasons:
.a, .* ,
I *
4 I I I 8 I I
I I I
1. That it would be in the best Merest of public
2. That it would be beneficial to the area and the
I I I necessity and convenience.
community as a whole.
.'
a* .. .
71
-6 -
;"~""""""~""""""""-""""""""""""------"-----"-*~~-~.~ : Resolution of Intention No. 39. RESOLUTION OF INTEN4 :
i SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO kDVP : TISE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO TEE CARLSBAD CITY ; MASTER STREET PLAN AND DECLARING FINDINGS OF: : FACT IYHECH REQUIRE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION OF INTENTION, was adopted;
i TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CIRECTING THE!
I I I I i It was agreed to hold the hearing on March 12, 1963, I I :i;@i@
1 I,!::: b i NEW BUSINESS:
I I
I I I
I I I I s
I (c) "Fanhandle" Lots.
i Commissioner Grant suggested thtthe Commission have i i an adjourned meeting to get some of the items on the I I ; agenda out of the way. It was agreed that the Commissionj wait to see how much can be accomplished at the next I I ; meeting before having an adjourned meeting.
I The Planning Technician stated that the City has a present: i policy which allows one lot at the end of a "panhandle". ; ; Oceanside allows 3 lot splits on a "panhandle". He explai+ed i on the blackboard the proposed lots and the "panhandle'' : ; which would be described a "common" road, and each property owner would give 12 1/2' making a total of 25'. ;
I I I I 1
I I
I I i FRANK DeVORE, San Diego Gas & Electric Company
; Governmental right of way Agent, stated that if the'pan- I I handle" is 25' and 20' is improved, it would allow room ; :Ciii : for a pole line and would prevent the Company from havind p:!:; i to get an easement for the pole line.
After due consideration it was agreed that the Planning ! Davis i : :xi i i : Technician's proposed policy on "Panhandle" Lots be Ward : : !x: ; : I:
adopted, with the exception of Item 4, which should be ; Grant it! ;xi I I : changed from "common" road to be as the Secretary Ewald ; i :x; I i i suggested, to protect the title of each of the lot owners i Palmer i :x:xj : :
; and reciprocal easements between the parties be given for; Jarvie ; i :X: ; , I: i the purpose of ingress and egress and public utility purpo+es. Sonnemaa : :X! i
I "Item 4. That the minimum width be 20' for one split ! : and an additional 5' or a total of 25' for the twin split, i and the roadway having a twin lot split shall be split ; equally between two lots being created by the "panhandle" i i:;:;: I' i lot split, and that reciprocal easements between the : owner and/or owners of the lots created shall be given fori : : : ;,I ; i the purpose of ingress , egress and public utility purposes i I and not to be included to determine the size of lot. "
: ADJOURNMENT:
i By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 P.M. :;:::i
; Respectfully submitted, I :&I I;
* "I.( & 1 :;:;:I i;:;:!
;;;#:I
I I ;::;I, 8: ;ii:;* I
I
I I I::;*;
::;;:t
!:;I@:
1,;:;
I ';*I,* Ill
: ; ; ;'; ;
::;;:I
t I ::;;:I
;!:I:;
I I *:I:; * I I ::;#:I ::;:;:
::;i::
8 I 1;;:;I
I 1;::::
I I ::;i::
I I *';I;:
1 Q :I;:;: {x!;; I'
I I :!;:;:
I I I :;;:;:
I a e;::;,
I I I :;;:;:
I * I iliiii
I I * ::;:;:
I I I ::;:::
I ;!;;it
I I ::;:::
I t :;;:;:
I I ::;:':
I ;:;1 1;::
I 4 1 ::ala: ';:;I
I * :;I:;*.
I ;; :; f :.. a ,;::,:
I 1 :::I::
I
I
I I
1 I I I*$
I I
I * I
I I I , I :I1 *;
I
I
I
I
I I
;*&;t;
I I
I I
I * I
4 I
I 1
t I I I I a a a I
'I
b b
a
I
l
I I t ::::::
-