HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-08-27; Planning Commission; MinutesI 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 I I I I I I I
I I I I I t 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 I I I I I * I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 8 8 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I 1 1 I I I I I B 1 I I I I I I 4 I I 4 I I
I : CITY OF CARLSBAD
: Date of Meeting: August 27, 1963 i Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. : Place of Meeting: Council Chambers
Minutes Of: PLANNING COMMISSION * 8
I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, Ward, Grant , Palmer, Jarvie, Lamb and Sonneman. Alsb
present were City Attorney Stuart C. Wilson and City i
Planner Uhland B. Melton. *
!
1
Chairman Palmer welcomed Perry Lamb as a new mem- i Davis : : ;x: -11;
ber of the Cornmission. : Ward i Grant !x! APPROVAL OF MINUTES: : Palmer ; ; :x; Jarvie : jxjx: (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of August 13, 1963,: Lamb ::I:
I*:;
! i::!
:e ; : :xi
were approved as submitted. : Sonneman : ; ;
I
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Memorandum from the office of the City Manager , dated i August 27, 1963, regarding the status of Elm Avenue and i
Jefferson Street extensions. The City Council has emploped
outside engineering help in developing a precise plan for i Elm Ave, extension. The precise plan for Jefferson St, ; in the vicinity of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon has been referred to the Engineering Department for acquisition of i
right of way. I I
!
I I
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
(a) There were no oral communications from the i
audience on matters not appearing on the agenda. I I
I I
(b) Report of City Planner on Council action on Pian-
ning matters .
The City Planner stated that the Commission had met the i
new Commissioner Perry A. Lamb who was appointed by i the Council, The Council had instructed the City Attorney to draft up a Resolution of Intention on the R-3L zone, :
(II'
The City Attorney reported that the Council has instructs!
him to prepare an ordinance on R-3L for the next Council;
meeting.
The Chairman stated that he is concerned with condomini$m or clustered type housing and how this would be handled. ; He felt that some of the zoning reclassifications have bee< refused because of the permitted uses in the present R-3.;
The City Attorney stated that this could come under R -3
as it presently stands under Article 7, Section 700, sub- i
paragraph 4, or the ordinance could be amended to includf an additional section as condominium or clustering of i
houses .
Commissioner Lamb asked the City Planner to make a ; report of other cities on this matter. I I
;::I
I:;# I:::
I I 1:;: :;4 I!:: :; ::;;
:;;I :;;; , :;*I I !I!!
I
I
I 8 I
I
I I
The City Planner stated that he felt it would take a specia! ordinance. He has been studying Escondido's zoning and : they are handling it under a special zone. Some cities do: it under a commercial zone and others under apartment : houses. New port Beach did it by R-3 1/2. The firm of DMJM will have it in their report.
;: ;:
1: :; :: ;;
;I I I ::
I ::
I I! I
PUBLIC HEARING: I I I I I VARIANCE - To consider an application for a variant<
for side yard reduction from 7.5' to 7' on Lots 8, 9 , 31 I ; 32 and 34; from 7.5' to 6' on Lot 10; and from 7.3' to 5' on lots 11, 24, 26, 33 and 35' all being on one side only; Front yard reduction from 20' to 15' on Lots 24 and 26, : located on property north of Basswood Avenue between : Donna Drive and Canyon Street known as Falcon Hill Unit!
I"
;:I
;:I
;:; ::;
:;: ;:;:
i'i
1':
1':
,I:'
:!: I
I
I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I 4 I I !
-2-
I I' I I \, ', '* '% 'b .8
I I I \, *.,'-, '., yt, 8
I I I '*, 's,'~,, 'a, '*,"' I
I I Name'*'.:'+ '*.)@ i
4 I : of .$g?& *e d..r.,#+ ', % ; I
I : Member @$$.$-p 4.4
I b I
8 , *'
:"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""."";"":"""""-," """"-
I I 'I*;# i NiD. 2 in We City of Carlsbad, being San Diego County ; :a;;; : Assessor's Parcel 167-020-1. Owner: Karnar Construc; !:;;:; I tion Company, I ;::;::
I I I :::I::
I I 1:;::: i Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Grant certified to! ;::::: : the proper notification to property owners in the area, anH 1::;;: I then read the application. 4 ::;;&I
I ::!I::
I
I I -1 Memorandum dated August 27 , 1963, from the City : Engineer, Lowell A. Rathbun, regarding the proposed ;
variance for front yard reductions from 20' to 15' on Loti
24 and 26, Falcon Hill Unit No. 2 Subdivision. He stated I that he felt the requirements for granting a variance coul4 i not be met on the request for a variance on the above lots! ; according to Section 1801 Purpose of Variance; and Sec? i tion 1802, Required showing €or Varidnces. He felt grant- : ing a variance on these lots would in effect abrogate the : provisions of the ordinance for certain properties and : : recommended that this request for reduction of front yards i for lots 24 and 26 be denied.
I I 1 b
* I I I I
1
The City Planner stated that he had not received the mem$-
views , and he had not had time to study it. : randurn until that afternoon and that it differed from his ; * I I I 4
I I I The Chairman asked the proponent to speak if he wished. i
JERRY ROMBOTIS, President of Kamar Construction, i : stated that the front yard reduction would apply to the ; I garage area only. It is actually a long streetand they : i wished to eliminate the long row effect of houses, and thai : they have set many houses back farther than the required! : 20' in order to eliminate this effect. All of the livable ; i areas will have more than 20' front yard setback and therb : will be no cars protruding over the sidewalks as they have I given considerable consideration to this. This is often i : done in Fullerton to vary the look of a long row of houses; There is a long bank in back of these two lots. On the sidk : yard spacing between the houses, they have allowed space: I as the ordinance requires, but have changed the spacing : i so that if it is 5' on one house they would have 10' or mo& : on the next property. ,
I I v
I I
I 1 I MARIO FORTUNATI, Sales Manager of Kamar ConstructGn I i stated that they are discussing bare iand. I I I I I I i No one present spoke in opposition. I I * 1 I I b I DAVID FREI~(~~~ADT, 3325 Seacrest Drive, stated that he i was concerned with the zoning on the property, and asked: ; why he had not been notified of this variance. I *
I I
I I The Chairman explained the zoning and that his property i : was not within 300' of the property on which a variance : is being requested. I I
I I I I I I I
I I i The public hearing was closed at 8:05 F. M.
i The City Planner presented maps of the subdivision with : i the tots labeled that the Commission were concerned with! ; and explained the setbacks on each of the lots. .He stated f. . i that out of the 39 lots, 28 lots do not require variances. ;
I I
I I 1 MR. ROMBOTIS stated that they would agree. to parallel: : parking in front of lots 24 and 26. I I I 1 I I I Commissioner Lamb questioned the topography of the i : subdivision. I I
I I I 1 l I I 1 I
I
I
I
I I I I I I
,
-3-
"
I : The City Planner stated that his opinion differs from the : i City Engineer because of the topography and he feels that i : the variances are necessary for normal use of the lots an6
that this is not detrimental to the property in the vicinity:
i
I I I I i The Commission discussed tha fact that in the past other : subdivisions did not have to come before the Planning : Commission for a variance as they approved the subdivi- : ! sion and allowed for variances in the past at the same ti&, i so this would not be d5scriminating. I I I I I
I 1
Commissioner Grant stated that the City Engineer had
! refreshed the Commission of the objection of front yard ; i setbacks and that he was not opposed to the side yard set%cks. t I I
I
1- I ;:i:;; i Commissioner Davis asked the City Planner if the 20' I I ,:::I: lI#::I
front yard setback is for parking of cars. I I lol#;; I ::!!#I I I [ The City Planner stated that it would allow for parking of i ; one car besides the one in the garage. I I
GEORG GEIGER, Attorney, 3270 Donna Dr. , stated that i i he had just brought in a boat from Newport Beach and :
asked permission to speak for 3 minutes, although the i ; public hearing was closed.
The Chairman stated that he would grant the special allowknce for 3 minutes only. I I
: MR. GEIGER protested this variance as he felt it would i
I I I
I I I I I
I I I
devaluate the surrounding houses in the area. I I I I I I I I I s I I I I I
0 I i It was the general feeling of the Commission that the : requirement for frnnt yard setback of 20' was more applicable to individuals than to subdivisions.
b 0 I Commissioner Ward stated that it would not be discrimin+ting : as there are no houses there and believed that Lot 25 shoqld have a 25' front yard setback. I I I
I
I b I I The City Attorney advised matting a condition that the i i entrance to the garages be parallel to the street.
i Commissioner Grant moved that the request for a variancb : be granted, subject to the condition that Lots 24 and 26 be! i built so that the entrance to the garages are parallel to : : the street, for the following reasons: I
I I I I 4 I
I I I I
I I I
I 1. That the granting of the @ariance for front yard i i setbacks would be consistent with the requirements of : Section 1802 of the Zoning Ordinance in that the unusual i topography and cuts and fills of the land create substantia) : building site and setback problems that are not encounterqd with regard to other property or class of use in the area.
I I I I I I I I 2. That the City Engineer has not expressed any #
I 3. That the front yard setbacks on Lots 24 and 26 are:
; objection to the side yard setbacks. I
I I I I
feasible with the construction of curved driveways for : I houses on these lots and that the granting of these front i yard seFacks would break up the uniformity of the 20' ; ; setback for all of the houses on the street. I 1 I I b I I I I 4. That the granting of such variance will not be i i materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious : : to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zon4 in which the property is located. I I I I 0 I I I I 5. That the granting of such variance will not adversdfy
; I affect the comprehensive general plan. I I
t I I *
I I
I I
b I
*
I I
I
I I I
I I I I I e e l 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 I I I I I I I e e I l e I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I e l I I e I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I e l 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 I I I 1 I I I I e I I I I I I I I b l e I I I I I I l e I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I
Resolution No, 31 5. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBA!D Ward : !+xi i i iX"ITrm"M1SSION GRANTING A VARIANCE: Grant $I ;x! : : FOR REDUCTICN OF FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD nber 1 I :X: 1 ; SET.BACKS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN A PORTION Jarvie ; : ::11:1 :x: ; ; OF FALCON HILL UNIT 2 SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY Of. Lamb ; : IX: ; : CARLSBAD, was unanimously adopted. : Sotmeman! : ;x: ; 'Ill
I I:.!le
18
I OLD BUSINESS: l
(a) City Manager and Planning Commission Chairman i meeting; re - Planning Staff. I I
e I I
1 I IiiIiI
The Chairman stated that he had an interview with the I
City Manager and the Planning Technician is now the City! Planner and will be a representative of the City at meetings. :p;t;
I t,!!:*
@I I,;:::
:11:;; ;:::;;
NEW BUSINESS:
I
(a) Reservations to San Diego County Planning Congreis September 20, 1963. I l
Those planning to attend are Commissioners Palmer and
Lamb, Commissioner Grant and Mrs. Grant, Commissiober Ward and Mrs. Ward, Mr. and Mrs. Melton.
e I
l e e I I I 4 I I I
(b) Zoning map for Councit Chambers.
The City Planner presented samples of a zoning map he i was working on for the Council Chambers. The Commis-( sion felt they should have a map for the Chambers but should wait to have any printed until after the report of : the firm of DMJM.
The City Planner stated that he would like the Planning : Commission to initiate action for a different zoning on thd Agua Hedionda Lagoon as it is zoned R-A-10,000 sq. ft. and he felt this was not right. He did not feel that they ; wanted marina type development on this lagoon.
After further discussion on this matter , the City Planner i
withdrew his suggestion. I I
Commissioner Grant stated that as Secretary of the
Commission he would like permission to attend the Leagub
of California Cities meetings in order to have more infor4 rnation on planning. He felt there would be seminar meetings at which they could take notes and learn. He had discussdd this at the San Diego County Planning Congress meeting i
and found that this Commission is the only one not attend:
ing . I I
It was felt that the Chairman, Secretary, City Attorney i and City Planner should attend these meetings.
I I I t t
I I I I I
I I I I I
b I
t I b
The Commission voiced objection to not being invited or : having the Chairman represent the Commission at the grobnd breaking ceremonies of Poinsettia Plaza, since the news-!
paper referred to the City Officials being present at this :
ceremony. I I
The Commission felt that there should be better coopera-:
tion between the various departments and that all of the ;
reports should be sent out with the agenda in order for th4m
to study them all at one time.
I
I
I I I ! : The Commission expressed appreciation for the City i Attorney's counseling at the meetings.
I I I I I I I I I * ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion the meeting was ad- i : journed at 9:30 P.M. I I .I -1 I i Respec$fll~ly s-wea,
I
e A, Kecordingv
I I