HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-04-09; Planning Commission; MinutesI * *\ '. '*. I i CITY CF CARLSBAD PLANNING CCMMISSIGN i Minutes of: )r 1 \, '\ ', '\ 8 ' 1 I : Date of Meeting: April 9, 1963 1 Name '.,'?$ ', x8 'd % I i Time of Meeting: 7:30 F. M. ; of \.+d$?2 ' : Place of Meeting: council Chambers : Member $'Q,p@~,&. 1
~"""""~,,"""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""*~"""""""""~""~~""
I !;*#,I 14
ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, I 1:111
I Ward Grant, Ewald , Palmer Jarvie and Sonneman. Alsd ::I:::
present were City Attorney Stuart C. Wilson, and Planningf *I,+: ::I:::
I Technician Uhland B. Malton, Secretary Price was i absent.
I I I I \\ '.\., 8'. ",". I *, s, 8 *' I ,I \\ ', '\ ', "\'\\ I
\,L .Q', &$! i
I 4
el;@l
II I
I I I I t
I
I ;::;;;
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ! Davis
$ I Ward I (a) Minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of March 4, 1963, were approved as submitted.
I I
I
I I Jar vie
I Sanneman ! :'. (b) George W. Haylings - re: Grading at Holiday I t 1 Manor. I I t t 1 I 4 The City Engineer, Lowell A, Rathbun explained that the i property adjacent to the Haylings property is Lot 42 and : an old drainage channel originally crossed there. Becaus! : the approved plan on Tamarack is to continue through fron) Highland Dr. , to Park Cr. I they are planning to remove i : the entire drainage from there and have been negotiating ; I to get this property filled and expect to accomplish this : : before the subdivision is finalled out. The Tamarack I I extension will put 2.000 yards of fill on their property and: : there is no problem that cannot be solved. When this land+
locked property is finished the Haylings will get 2 addi- i : tional lots when they reimburse the City for the normal : i local improvements of the frontage of their property.
By common consent no action was taken by the Commission
I I I I I I
i since this letter is going before the Council. I I I I 1 I I
I t There was discussion on whether the City would be
I responsible and liable for land slippage under houses and that the Commission be cognizant of this when there are
any problems regarding fills. I I
i The City Attorney stated that the City could only be I I i responsible €or the inspection of the property.
I I I
I
4 I t 91::
I I I I :I:;;:
I I :I:;:;
committee. BY common consent it was agreeme i !!:;::
1::;;:
(c) Board of Supervisors - Re: Special grade lot
I 1 I I I
I Planning Commission make recommendations to the : Council that the City Engineer represent the City.
!
I
i : (a) Audience -bn matters not appearing on the agenda; i There oral communlcations fr6m the audience. : I
I I I i (b) Report of Planning Technician on Council action I
ion Planning matters. The Planning Technician stated that i ;,the Council adopted the amendment to the Master Street ;
': Plan for the extension of Park Drive as outlined in green I i on the map. They approved the final map of Glenview : I Estates Subdivision. The Council requested that the I Planning Commission approve a building site for a resi- ;
dence in an R -3 zone. Mrs. Ross was in to apply for a i
! variance, and the Council asked that the Planning Corn- :
I I I
I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I * 1 I 1
i t TENTATIVE SUBDIVISICN MAP - OCEAN VIEW continueh.
I The Planning Technician stated that the Council reviewed i
:the ingress and egress to this subdivision and referred ;
:this matter to the City Attorney and it is to go to the Coun4il i again and after the City Manager reports on this , it will ;
:come back to the Commission.
iF1NAL MAP REVIEW - SHELTES COVE SUBDIVISION
I : Chairman Zwald stated that he would abstain from voting i i as he had done before and left the "chair".
i Vice-chairman Ward asked the City Engineer to present i
;the final map and asked if he would certify to the map beink I correct.
i City Engineer, Lowell A. Rathbun stated there was non- ; conformance in the front yard width of certain lots. He i
!then rcBd a report to the Flanning Commission certifying ; :that subject to this approval the map conforms to the I
subdivision requirements and State Subdivision Map Act. !
i KEN EBRIGHT 4444 Highland Dr. , pointed out the shortahe
:of the frontages on lots 20 21, 22 and 23. I I
:Commissioners Sonneman and Falmer requested that it
be recorded in the minutes that the City would not be Liabl!
:to soil slipping. t I
: The City Attorney stated that the City would only be liable i if there were negligence on the inspection of the soil tests.!
The City Engineer stated that a licensed engineer would be: ; responsible for the soil tests. He stated that he is making: i his recommendations on the basis of the subdivision ordin4 i ance and read a portion of the ordinance relating to condi-i ; tional exceptions.
Commissioner Sonneman asked what assurance the City ! i would have that the water in the channel will always have 4
;,flow and wilgpot become stagnant and who will keep the i i entrance clear.
I l
I I I I I t
I I I
I I I I I I
I I I t I I
I I
1 I
I 4
I I
I I
I I I I
I I
$ I I
1 i I 1 I i It was pointed out that the channel is owned by undivided
t interest of owners of the adjoining lots and they would be i I responsible if any nuisance arises and it would be their : : responsibility to keep the channel clear.
: MR. EBPZIGKT stated that they have a contract with the i
San Diego Gas and Electric Go. and the channel gets a : I good flushing twice a day. The channel has been complete! ; over six months and will bear inspection.
i Commissioner Sonneman asked if the City is assured that i i the City will not have to go in and dredge this channel. i
I The City Attorney stated that this property is in private : ownership now and if they wish to fill up the channel, they ; i can do so. If it became a nuisance it would be the owners'i : responsibility.
! The 3' front yard setback on the upper story was i discussed in regard to the wires overhanging the buildings; I
i MX. EBRIGHT stated that the overhang on the upper story: : was of no great importance at the meeting of February 26 ,: : 1983, and the purpose was to allow more room and change! i of design. The poles in the past have been worked out with the Engineering Department and the owner and the Fublic i i Utilities Commission.
1 1 1 6 1 I I 1
I I I I $ I
I I $ I
I I I 1 I I I I I
I I I
I 1
I I I I I I 1
I !
I I
MR. EBRIGHT stated that both the Engineering Departme&
ground utilities, and would like to see the resolution stay ; i and San Diego Gas 8z Electric Co. , hoped to have under -
I the same. I f * b I
I I MR. DeVQRE stated that under the ordinance the City I
! Engineer has the right to state where the poles are to be : i placed. i Davis
I : Grant Afterkue consideration, it was agreed that the 3' front Ward
yard setback on the upper story of this subdivision be : Palmer climhated due to the wires on the utility poles and that i Jarvie
I
: they have a 5' front yard setback to the sky. ; Sonneman
I Ewald
i It was also agreed that the final map of Shelter Cove Sub- [ Davis
I diviston, be recommended for approval with conditional : Grant i acceptance of lot frontage reduction on lots 20, 21 , 22 an4 Ward
I and Secretary of the Planning Commission be instructed t$ Jarvie
t
I 8 1
23 on the knuckle of Cove Drive, and the Vice-chairman : Palmer
sign the final map. : Sonneman
I I I Ewald IpUBLIC HEARING; continued I
'i R -1 -4000 sq. ft. (Water Front one-family residential ; zone) - Re solution of Intention No. 38 of the Carlsbad i
I 9060 to create an R-1-4000 sq. ft. (Waterfront one- i family residential zone). I
: The City Attorney reported that this matter was carried i
over in order for him to define a water front lot. He spent i a great deal of time on this matter until he came to the : : decision that other zones have no definition and if we crea* I a new zone they can apply this new zone to the water front : : area. He believes that it would conform to the other zone4 in the ordinance as they do not say what type of ground ; : other zones are in. This could be handled on an individuaG
basis,
I
I I I
I I City Planning Commission to amend Ordinance No. :
I I
I I I
I I i 1 1 I 1 The City Attorney stated that it would be simple to draft ad
! amendment to the ordinance. 1
I I
I I I
It was pointed out that the proper publication had been i given. I I 1 I I
I 8
The City Attorney stated that he did not realize when they i
J were discussing Chis that it had been advertised and that : ;the whole ordinance had been written We had no serious i : objection to leaving the words ''water front" in the resolu-: : tion. I I 8 t I I I
Commissioner Davis stated that he felt the Attorney has i i given proper guidance on this, I
: The Planning Technician stated that he had found a place i in the ordinance where the definition of waterfront could b! J written under Section 274-1 describing waterfront proper f ; ty as being aubmerged, for example reservoirs, man mad! : lakes, channels, marina built channels. I
I I
b I I
I
I I I I : There was discussion regarding deleting the words water-: J front in the resolution.
I 8 I I
I 6 I I I I !
I
Commissioner Grant called attention to the fact that they I :;:I lii
;;:l:l have an R-T zone and when the permitted uses were dis- i 4' 3. i t.+ $7 c
cussed, they became aware that 4 000 sq. ft, lots could i ..' ;if:Ii
have cocktail lounges. Secretary Price had suggested i ld;;;
this new zone some time ago and if you have this zone 1 :::Ill
;l1118
inland you will lose the whole purpose of this new zone, l;l:+l 18 :;::;: There is an R-1-6,000 sq. ft. zone and he felt if the I ~l;+ll
property is a block back from the water, it should be
6,000 sq. ft. I :a
The Planning Technician stated tht the definition of water': front should be inserted in Section 274-1 like it has been i ::;+:;
done in the past under definitions. I
I I I ;:;:;; t:l*
I 1 1:::::
1 I ::ii::
I It
('1 ::;i::
::;:;:
I :;:;;;
I1
I
The City Attorney stated that this would be a policy matte;, Davis : !x; ; I
if the Flanning Commission feels it wants to do this. It I Ward It, I1 : ; ,x: ; ; was proper to leave the Resolution of Intention as it is and Grant ;$ :x: : : to insert the definition of waterfront under definitions. i Ewald I P !x; I I Falmer i i :x: : : It was agreed that this be held over on the next agenda fori Jarvie i ; Ix; f : the proper definition of waterfront. : Sonneman ; ixix I ; ;
#i'l;#
I1
11
11
I I*..,( I I I I I I ,I I I
OLD BUSINESS:
(a) Height limitations. The Planning Technician stated that he felt it should be amended on an ordinance i
basis and explained the committee's report on the map. ;
He felt they should create a new zone and put some of the i
C -2 uses into the NI-2 zone (Heavy rnanufactur@g) with no; height limitations in the height ordinances. It was the t
committee's recommendation that public utilities and somk
of the uses in the C-2 zone come under this M-2 zone. i
Commissioner Grant reported that the Oceanside Ordin- i ance eliminated all of the height limitations in the City of : Oceanside and has no height limitations at this time in an?
zone. This was done as a public necessity and convenienck
and ail of the things in the ordinance determine the limitai
tions of height limitations.
It was agreed to thank the committee on Height Limitationb and that the Commission take proper action to accept i these proposals:
I I
I I I I I
I I I I I !. To amend the height sections for R -3; E-P; R -T :
and C -1 zones in that no building shall exceed three 1 k
stories or a height of 35', whichever is the lesser. I I I I I 2. Amend the height sections for C-2; C -A4 and I'M" : zones in that no building shall exceed four stories or a i height of 50'. whichever is the lesser.
It was pafnted'out that Item 3 of the Committee's report i
will require a separate resolution of intention. I I
It was agreed that the above amendments to Ordinance i No. 9060 be adopted for the following reasons:
I 1 I I I
* I
I I I I I 1. That it is necessary for the welfare of the City. i
I I 2, That it is compatible with future building requests; 'I;;;;
I ::;;:; !I..
I 3. That it would be detrimental to the City not to hav< this height limitation. 5 1 I
Resolution of Intention No. 41. RESOLUTION OF INTEN'fb$?Bavis' ON OF THE PLA-MISSION DIRECTING THE! Ward i ;x:%; I i SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ; Grant ; ' :x; ; : 6DVERTISE FOR AN AMENGMENT TO CRDINANCE NO; Ewald ; ; :x; : : 9060,, ON BUILDING HEIGXT LIMITRTICNS IN TEiE CITY Palmer I ; :xi : : 8:
OF CARLSBAO, AND DECLAPING FINCINGS OF TACT Jarvie ; i :x; i I
WMCIX RESUIRE TEE PLANNING CGMMISSICaN TO ADCPTSonnernan : : :xi i i THIS RESCLUTICN. was adopted. 1 111,1:
::!::I
1.Jl.I :x: :xi i :
1:
I * ::;&;I
I. .
L
-5-
I I I
I I
I
I * I
I (b) La oon zoning. The Planning Technician stated i : that he ha + no reporno make at this time. I
I I
I 1 I 8 1 I I I
: NEW BUSINESS:
: (a) San Diego County Regional Plan - Cbjectives and ! ! Policies - Business - Part 5 (presented to Commission on: { November 13, 1962). I
i By proper motion it was agreed that the same form of ! : letter that the Commission sent in for Part 4 be used in approving this. I
i Tho Flanning Technician read the memorandum from the i
! City Manager - re: Street Light requirements in new I i subdivisions.
i The City Engineer stated that he would like to have an ! opportunity to review this and consider this with the I
: meeting with a report. i
i FRANK OeVORE stated that this really does not affect the Company. The tax rate tlxlt is charged a home owner does i i not begin for a year or longer. It is the policy of all I I cities that the City make the subdivider put up a guarantee:
I for 18 months to defray the City paying this out of their i pocket. I
i The Chairman stated that all street lights are put up by !
:the Company with no charge. All lights are paid for out i
of general funds, Any subdivision coming in after March 14
does not come under the tax roll for approximately 18 : months.
MR. DeVORE stated that his company has a very fine
t I
I l
I e l
I I
I I
$ I
I I I I I 1 I
Engineering Department and will come back at the next
I I
I I I
@ 1
I I I
I e I I I
I
I l
i street lighting staff and will locate the proper location for : street lights in subdivisions and give advice. The staff i
:will be more than happy to give copies of all street light :
!ordinances in the territory together with services and i I recommendations. I
i The Planning Technician presented his report 4-9 -63 to i :the Commission stating that he had met with the Trustees
:of the Library Board who wished to put the library buildin4
tin the middle of Holiday Park. I
:It was the general feeling of the Commission that this was i
:not a matter for the Flanning Commis@on, and that if the :
I Commission was asked to pick a new park site then it :would be up to the Commission to give their recommenda-: : tions . 1
I I
1 1 I
I
I I I
I
1 I
,I : AD3GURNMENT:
I i By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9:47 F. M.:
: Xespectfully submitted,
1 I
I I I I I
i UHLAND B, MELTON i Acting Secretary
I
I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I