Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-02-26; Planning Commission; Minutes, _- t ; 8, '*\ '\ 8, '\ I 1 CITY OF CARLSBAD I '4, ',' 8, '.,'\\8~\ i Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION 1 ',, '88",, 'x, '8,", : Date of Meeting: February 26, 1963 Time of Meeting: 7:30 P.M. : of '*.q$$, '8 .*, : I Flace of Meeting: Council Chambers Member ',b $@.+.$? '$3 ,9',.t'#& d% I ~""~""""""""--"""""""""~"~~""""""""""""""~~""""""""" 8.. "","" *3 I I I I I I I 8 8' i N a me8**. '%*$x ''.:e+, 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 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I i I * I I I I I I I I *: I I k * * I I I I 1 I I I I I I * I 1 I k I I $ I I I t I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, I I Ward, Ewald, 'Palmer, Jarvie and Sonneman. Gommis- i sioner Grant was present at 7:35. Also present were I Planning Technician, Uhland B. Melton and Secretary Price. : Davis i Ward APPROVAL OF MINUTES: : Grant i Ewald 1963, were approved as corrected. Jar vie WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I I (a) Letter from the County Planning Director of San i Diego County in regards to Planning Advisory Committee I meeting to be held in San Diego, March 22 I 1963. I I Commissioner Grant stated that he and *missioner Jarvie had attended a meeting of the San Mego County : Planning Congress and gave a report of the meeting where: they discussed the proposal by the State Planning Officer : to divide the state into regional planning districts. 1 I : (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of February 13, ; Palmer : Sonneman I * I Commissioner Jarvie stated that the County Planning Congress tried to cut the meetings to 3 meetings a year : instead of 4, but he believes they should have panels and i discussion on matters that are of concern to the commun-: ities on the Local Level. I I It was agreed that the Carlabad City Flaming Commission: go on record as opposing the effort of the State Office of : Planning District and that the City be represented at the i meeting March 21 , 1963, to hear the State Office of Plan- : ning representative speak on the matter in the Board of i Supervisors' Office. The Secretary stated that the Planning Technician had bee4 designated at a prior meeting to represent the Commissiorj at the meeting on March 21 , 1963. (b) San Diego County Planning Congress re: - 1963 i Planninneiress DimectOr and Alternate. I s 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I v Y t I There was a discussion about it being well to have the same Director and Alternate continue to attend these meetings as they would be familiar with the discussions. I By common consent it was agreed that Commissioner Gra& and Commissioner Jarvie should be designated as the 1963: I t I I i Planning Congress Director and Alterna6. I I I I I I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I 1 (a) Audience - on matters not appearing on agenda. I I There were no oral communications from the audience. ! : (b) Report of Planning Technician on Council action 1 i on Planning matters. i The Planning Technician reported that the Councit i approved the recommendations of the Planning CommissioG : of adding to the "Panhandle" lot aplit policy. i PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED: I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - TO continue use of ; property as a Rest Home on property located at 2347 Olive! i Drive between Forest Avenue and Yourell Avenue. ; Applicant: Thelma A. Kelley. * ;Congress agreed to having 3 meetings a year instead of 4, : and he and other members felt they should have panels and I I I I I I I I 8 k I I I 1 I I I * I I I I I I * f I I * I L I I I 1 1 I I . 1Davi.s Ward Grant Ewald Faher Jarvie Sonneman I I Chairman Ewald asked the applicant if she had anything I else to add. I ! I I I I : MRS. THELMA A. KELLEY stated that she had nothing i i more to add. I i No one else spoke for or aeainst this request. I The public hearing was closed at 7:59 P. M. : The Planning Technician explained the location of Mrs. : i Kelley's Rest Home and reviewed his written report to the: Commission, recommending that a Conditional Use Permit i be granted for the present 8 patient capacity for no less thijn five years from the date adopted by the Flanning Commis-: i sion, and at end of the 5 year period the permit be review4d and an additional five years may be granted. The Planning: Technician suggested these terms because he felt that in i :the future this property will be developed as R-T. This : property has a high class residential property potential, : and if not developed in the 5 year period, the permit could! be continued. I I I Mrs. Kelley was asked what her reaction to a five year i ;term would be. I I MRS. KELLEY questioned the Commission about changing business in its present capacity and would like to know if : I I t 8 4 I I I I I I I I I :their mind in that time, as she would like to run her i she can keep this and make her living there. !The Secretary reported that Mrs. Kelley has asked in the I :application that it run with the use of the land and would be: i in perpetuity. I I The Commission discussed the rescinding of a Conditional :Use Fermit and the Secretary read the reasons necessary i ifor revoking a Conditional Use Permit. I I !It was the general feeling of the Commission that Mrs. iKelley has earned the right to continue this use without a : :time limit but this permit should not be transferrable, and i jshe could hire someone to help her as long as the license i * ;is in her name. I I :It was agreed that the request by Thelma A. KeLley for a :Conditional Use Permit be granted to Mrs. Kelley to :continue the use of the property as a Rest Home on I * :property located at 2347 Olive Drivel between Forest :Avenue and Yourell Avenue, but that the granting of this I !permit does not create any vested right or interest, and i lthat the following findings of fact exist: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a I I I I I I I I 4 I I 1 I 1 t 1 ! t : 1. That no opposition has been raised by the public. i 2. The existing use has not created any hardship or i :been detrimental to either the public or the City so far., ; \ 3. The applicant has a sizable investment, has abided! :by all the rules of the City. I I 4. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit i hill not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. ; I : Eavis kesolution No. 282. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD;! $YSrd XJSE PERMIT TO TEELMX A. MELLEY ON FROPERTY : Ewald :LAGUNA MESA TRACTS, PORTION TRACT 7, MAP 1719.4 Jarvie PLA-MMISSION GRANTING A CGNDITICPLfi~Grazxt - $OCliTEC AT 2347 OLIVE DRIVZ, BZING A PCRTICN OF: Palmer iX.0.S. 3235 IN TWE CITY GF CARESBAE, was adopted. i Sonneman I I 1 l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I D I I t r I , c I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1'. I ', '4, '\ I ', \ '. I I' I # I -3 - 4 : of \' t 8, I / Name \*a :""""~"""""""""""""""""""-"""~"""""-.""""!"""""" Member s 1 I I i PUBLIC HEARING: I 4 ! I f I VARIANCE - For reduction in front yard setback i from 10' to 0', and side yard setback from 4' to 3' on : I property located at Shelter Cove Subdivision, between i : Park Drive and Rdams Street, more particularly describeg i as Portion of Bellavista, lots 10 and 11, Block D, Map i : No. 2 152, Resubdivision No. 1 and Fortion Lot I, Rancho ; : Applicants: Pirates Cove, Inc. : Chairman Ewald excused himself from the "Chair" and I the Commission because of business interests and Vice- i : Chairman Ward conducted the hearing. - - ' '* - * i Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as i to publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of I I : notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary then read the application setting forth the reasons for i : requesting this variance. I Agua Kedionda, Map 823, in the City of Carlsbad. I 1 I I I I 1 I I -. I' I I ~~ t- 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 There were no oral or written communications. The Secretary called attention to Section 2201, as variances are only good for one year unless otherwise i specifically stated in the Resolution. It is reasonable to : assume that not all of the lots will be built upon within a I i year. The variance would run out on all of the lots in one; : year unless granted in excess of one year. He called I i attention to the Commission at this time so they could be : ; thinking about it. t : Vice-chairman Ward asked the applicant to speak. ; KEN EBRIGHT, 4444 Highland Drive, commented on the i various department's remarks in the Planning Technician'$ : written report to the Commission. He questioned the Parks and Zecreation Commission's comments suggesting that : ! Pirates' Cove want the neighbors across the street to i supply the area for trees and shrubs or grass. EIe stated : ; that Pirates' Cove has already spent $5,000. on planting i I trees there. The plantings will be 5' from the curb line I : instead of the property line and the buildings will use the ; maximum area allowed to that space which wili mean more : tax funds for the City. The covenants and restrictions of I the subdivision state that no garbage cans will be in the i open. The streets are not narrow and are wider than ; the streets in Lido Isle. The streets will not be dark as i : they have 67 channel lights burning there now. He stated 1' - that he wished to have this variance continued for ten I I years. I I I 1 I I I I b I I I I I I I 4 I 1 I 1 I I I : MAX EWALD, 33013 Belle Lane, stated that he has been i working with this type of development for many years and : : that shortly after the City was formed, he was on the Har4 i bar committee. He has studied the Newport area as it is k i : closest to what they are trying to attain. They started with 30' lots but found these were too narrow and so they i : have 40' lots with side yard setbacks of 2 1/2' instead of ; i the normal 5'. The front yard setbacks are zero. Shelter i : Cove Subdivision will be a much better development than ; I what they have at Newport and believes these requests ar< reasonable. He pointed out that this is the first develop- : : ment of this type, and that there are 2 1/2 ' side yard i i setbacks on Gcean Street. I ! I I i The public hearing was closed at 8:43 P.M. ! Commissionerhrvie stated that he attends the Council I i meetings and they are all happy with this development; I i and the improvements on Aclams Street by this subdivisio~ ' : have been waived, but will be put in on Park Drive. I I I I + I 1 I I 1 I . ,- -4 - I I I I 1 I I I I :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-""""""~- I 4 The Planning Technician stated that Shelter Cove Subdivi-I ; sion is being developed in a very $kendid fashion and I I i commended the developers. He reviewed a two page i written.report. I I : There was a discussion about whether this marina type i development would be starting a precedent. It was pointeQ i out that this development is between two cliffs and it is at : I sea level. Setbacks and balconies were discussed. The Flanning Technician stated that the Fire Department i would have to approach fires from the neighbor's roof if there are only 2 1/2' sideyard setbacks. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i MR. EBRIGHT stated that he had talked to the Fire ! Department Chief and he had told him this report was not i i what he intended, as they could have shake roofs and woo4 i siding as long as the buildings have fire proof materials ; I The Planning Technician called attention to the off-street i I parking when there is a zero front yard setback as the ; : garage would open onto the sidewalk and the driver of a i car would have difficulty seeing people walking by when he: ; backs out of the garage. He stated that he had talked to i many planning directors about setbacks and he believes : : the Ordinance should be amended from 10% side yard set+ backs on 40' lots to 3 i/2', with a front yard setback of : i 5' for the first floor and a 3' setback for the second floor i i for dwellings in a marina zone. ; MR. EBRIGHT stated that it should not be a matter of i i going half-way and the Cornmission should consider what i i is good for the City and what is right, and asked the underneath. I I t I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 4 I Commission to grant a 3' setback on the second floor. ; FRANK CeVGRE, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, I questioned the zero setback in regards to the cross arms : ! on utility poles and electric lines, I I : MR. EBRIGHT stated that he believes all of the subjects i brought up by the Gas Company are under the building : : department, and that according to the covenants and re - i i strictions on this subdivision, the required rear yard set-: : backs will be 30'. f 1 I Commissioner Davis stated that he believed the Commis- i sion have a very comprehensive repoet from the Planning i Technician and that there is room for the Crdinance to be ; I amended. 4 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I It was agreed the request by Pirates Cove for a variance i : for reduction in front yard setback from 10' to 0'. and I aide yard setback from 4' to 3' be denied for the followingi reasons: I 4 I I I I 4 I 1. It was poor planning to permit residential struc- i I I 3. 3' side yard is too small and could be hazaardous.! i tures to be built to the front property line. : 2. That it would create hazaards to pedestrians and i vehicular traffic in the public right of way. I I I I I I I 1 I After due consideration, it was agreed that a variance be t ; granted to Pirates Cove for a front yard setback of 5' on : i the ground floor and a 3' front yard setback on the second! ; story of a 2 story structure by permitting a 2' overhang : i on the second floor, and side yard setback of 3 1/2' said i : variance to be in effect for three years, and that the fol- i ! Lowing findings of fact exist: I I 1 1' I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I ! I I I 1. These setbacks are in keeping with other marina i 2. It is the feeling of the Commiss,ion that these set- i .. ii;:;; I I ;I::;; l1 1:::;: I ;::';: 1;:::: ;:I::: ::i;:: - ; ; ;x; ; I type developments. backs are applicable to this property as it is located in a ; ::ii:: geographical compartment and is actually separated from: i;::;; ;1;;1* surrounding lands. 3. It i6 in the best interests of the City for this type i ::a::: of development. 4 4. It would not be granting a special priv,&ge not i shared by others.*By action of the Planning Commission ; !:I::; I1 it was agreed Item 4 be eliminated as not having been said. Davis :x; :x; ; ; Eesolution No. 283. A RESCILUTION OF THE CARLSBAP Grant :xi ; : CTTMM-COMMISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE Ward FOR REDUCTIQN OF FRONT YARD AND SIGE YARD i Palmer : :x~x; : : SETBACKS ON PROFEXTY LOC.ATED AT SHELTER Jarvie ; ; :x; I I COVE SUBDIVISION, IN THE CITY OF CAZlLSBAD, was Sonneman ; ; :X; : ; adopted. : Ewald : : 4 :xi :!::., I1 I* I I :: 11 11 II I I A recess was called at 9:54. Reconvened at 10:06 P.M. : ! I I PUBLIC HEARING: I I I I I 1 I VARIANCE - For reduction in front yard setback fro+ 20' to 12', and side yard settmck to 6' on property located; at Eureka Knolds Subdivision, lying easterly of Xureka i : Place, between Basswood Avenue, and Chestnut Avenue, ,; . I more particularly described as Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of I tentative map of Eureka Knolls subdivision, being portion I of Block 2, Mulls Addition, Map 514, portion of Optimo I : Tract No. 2 , in the City of Carlsbad. Applicant: Max 0. : Ewald. I I I 1 I I I I Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as i i to publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of I I : notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary i i then read the application setting forth the reasons for : : requesting this variance. I 1 I ! i i There were no oral or written communications. 1 I I Vice-chairman Ward asked if the applicant wished to spa$. I I I I : MAX 0. EWRLD, 3308 Belle Lane, stated that he had I I nothing more to add as he felt the application was self- : : explanatory. : No one else spoke for or against this request. : The Planning Technician stated that it might be wise to I i have the Staff amend the ordinance in the future in regard$ to lots on cul-de-sacs , and questioned Mr Ewald about I 4 I * I * I I I I 1 I I ' I I lot 1. I I 4 I I MR. EWALD stated that lot 1 was not a part of the applici- tion. I I I I 4 1 I I I t 4 : The public hearing was closed at 10:13 P.M.. I I Points brought out in discussion were that front yard set- backs on a cul-de-sac should be less than on a straight : street; if the front yard setback is reduced, it would I I I reduce the side yard setback and the building frontage ; ! would be reduced by having a lessor setback. @n almost every cul-de-sac a variance is allowed and if made a parti i of the ordinance, it could cause extra difficulties. I 1 I I I I I I I C. R. Thornton, Assistant Engineer, stated that the Ordinance requires a 60' frontage minimum at the 20' : ! setback line; if the front setback is reduced to 12' , it ma? . be getting into a 45' arc length at the setback line. On ; : lot 3, with a 20' setback, the frontage would be approxi- i mattly 65' , but with a 12' setback, it would be approxi .* .i : mately 53'. This is a tentative map and when the final : I I I I I ', ,, ., ' . I I \' ,b 8' I I \. I I I I I ', \ ',,", ','\, I I -6- I '. \ ' '\ '\ '.& I I I Name '\,'\%. '. I I ; of ,\i.,.qt, .*:%, i I \,$@'. Q ',+.$ 4 :""""-"""""""""""-""~"-""""""-"-"~~"-"-""""~~"""""""""""*"" i Member ,o @,Fp @'.< * 8 'I) I i map is brought in for approval, the lot areas and frontageb :;I:;: ::!;;: I are checked for the requirements and if found to be sub- i :::;:: : standard are brought to the subdivider's attention for I ;::::: i adjustment to conform with ordinance or variance request;. I:;I:: : Lot 3 may be substandard, but they may be able to create :. ;:I::: a standard lot by adjusting the side lot property lines to i 1;:::: : compty with the ordinance, I I ;:;i;: I 1;;1*1 Its : MR. EVJALD stated that he would Like to keep the lots i:;::: i uniform. I I 1:::;: I I ::;::: I :::::: ;;;::; I 1I;;lt I * I i:;;:; b I ::;::: * 1. There are exceptional conditions with respect to I @:t;t4 r::::: I :;':;I I J :;::;: : 3. Granting the variance is necessary for proper use i :4;q ,:;;:I : of the land and is not detrimental to property in the same : I::;:: I ::st;; vicinity and zone. I I 4. No Master Z lan or Precise Plan is concerned. I ;:;::: I I ::I!;: I : Davis : : ;xi ; ; I Xesolution No. 284. A RESOLUTION OF THE CkRLSBAb Grant !X: : I* ; Cl"-3?3JZI~MMISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE & .!';ard i :x: : I : FOR EEDUCTICN OF FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 201i palmer : I :XI i i i to 121 AND SIDE YARD SETBACK TC 61 ON PROPERTY i ~arvie : :xixi : : : LOCATED AT EUREKA KNOLLS SUBDIVISION, IN THE : Sonnem4 i !x: : i CITY OF CARLSBkD, was adopted. Ewald ; ; !X: I I 111( i ADJOURNMENT: 1 11 1) I I :;I::: i By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 P.Y. :;I:,: :I::!: i to Monday, March 4, 1963, at 7 o'ctock P.M. in order ; ;:::;; ; to clear up some of the 3Ld Business on the agenda. * 8 !::I:; ':::I; I I 1:;::l ; Respectfully submitted, I I :;;I:: I I ::a::: - I 1;:::: I I I:;::: I 1 1;;:;: I I :;:;:: I I ;*;:;; I I ;: I I * I ;y!:! t I I I 1;;::: I I ;,'::: 1 ;:I :::: I t * ;:;:;: I I I I :;:!:I I r I :::I:: I I :::::: I :::::I I 11:1:1 I I :;I::: I I :;::;; I I *1:;1; I I :l;#:l 1 I :::::: I I ;: I ;:l:I; I ;:* I# I I I ::::1: lll::; I I :::I:* I I ::;::I I :;to* I I 'I:::; I :::::; I ::::I; I ::::;I I ::::I; 1 :::;:: * I I ::::I: I I I I I 1 I \ Q, '., \\"\, :;I:,: 1)) I I I I I It was agreed that the request fox a variance for reductio4 :;I:,: : in front yard setback from 20' to 12l and side yard setback i to 6' be granted for the foltowing reasons: 1 I 1 : the design of the lots. I I ::;I:, 2. It is a short cul-de-sac bounded by property I I around it. I I I I I !:l;81 ;::::I I I I I I * I I I I I 9 I I 18 t J t I I I I I I I( Ill I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I '1 ' I I I b I I I I I * I I f I I k *;;::; * I I I I I I I 1 I I I l * I I 6 I 4 I I I I * I I * I I I a :::::; I 1 I I ;iiii; I I IIIIIt I l;;l;l ~lt~:; I I :;;::I 1 * I 8 I I ! ! !'I!#!