Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-01-14; Planning Commission; MinutesCITY OF CARLSBAD I I I I 1 I I I I i Minutes of: : Date of Meeting: January 14, 1964 i Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. : Place of Meeting: Council Chambers PLANNING COMMISSION I I 1 I I I I * 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I * I 1 I I I I I I I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, Ward, Grant, Palmer, Jarbie, Lamb and Sonneman. Also present were City Attorney Stuart C. Wilson, City i Planner Uhland B. Melton and As$% City Engineer C. R,. : Tho rnton . { Davis APPROVAL OF MINUTES: :Ward i Grant 1963, were approved as cotrectedd : Jarvie i Lamb i Sonneman I I (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of December 10 i Palmer WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: There we& no written communicat~ons. I I I I I I I I I i ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: * I I (a) Audience - There were no oral communications i ; from the audience. i (b) Report of City Planner on Council action on Plan- ! I ning matters : The City Planner reported that the Council upheld the i i decision of the Planning Commission on the Conditional : : Use Permit for a drag strip and denied the appeal by a I i 3 to 2 vote; the reclassification of the Cantarini propertiej) from R -1 -to R-3 was approved on the south side of Lagun4 Drive, easterly of Jefferson; the Oakley Parker property .!, on the southwest corner of Chestnut and Monroe reclassi-I I I I I t @ I * I I I i fication from zone R-1 to R-3L was approved. : PUBLIC HEARINGS: ! (a) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider a zone change i i from R-1 to R-3 on property located on the easterly side : of Eureka Place between Chestnut and Basswood as pre- i i pared and presented as Map 5-A. Applicants: John D. ; : Angelo , et al. : Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Grant certified to I i publication of notice of hearing in the Carlsbad Journal an@ : then read the application. 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 I I I There was no correspondence on this request. I I : Chairman Palmer announced the Commission would now i hear from the applicant and any other persons who wished: I to speak in favor of this reclassification. i No one present spoke in favor of this request. i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear: : from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. I I I I I 8 4 t I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I * I I There were no persons present desiring to speak in i opposition. i The public heariag was declared closed at 7:48 P. M. b 4 I I The City Planner explained the location of the 4 parcels : of property on the map and that the property across the : i street is laid out for a major City Park and that the City : ; library is planned to be built there; and that a Conditionali Use Permit has been issued for a church on property ; : north of the property to be reclassified. He also explaindd the existing uses of the property in the area. The City i ; Planner stated that he felt this property should be zoned : : R-3L. I I ? I I I I I I I I I * I I I I I I : The Commission discussed considering the application i as presented, and adopting a resolution of intention later i : to reclassify the rest of the block to R-3. i After due consideration, it was agreed that the following : 'I facts exist: I I 4 I I I I 4 I I I I I I I 1 1. That the property is next to property that is zoned I ! 2. That it appears to be the most desirable use of the! i R-3. I 1 I I I I I I ! to obtain the full use of their property. I I I I t I 4. That there has been no opposition. ! I I I 5. That it does not interfere in any way with the I t I 1 I 1 l a i general plan. I i The following resolution was presented: I 1 I FROM ZONE R-1 TO R-3, was adopted by title only and : Lamb : further reading waived. I Chairman Palmer requested the City Planner to study the i i balance of the property between Eureka and Adams and : : between Basswood and Chestnut Avenues for reclassificatibn from R-1 to R-3. I I I I I I I I i (b) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction from the i required frontage of 60' to 34 1/2' on property located on : the southerly side of Forest Ave. , between Olive and i Highland as prepared and presented as Map-l,$-B. : Applicant: C. Roy Workman. : Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Grant certified to i the notice of hearing being sent to property owners in the ; : area and then read the application. : The Secretary read a copy of a letter to the City Engineer: i from the City Planner concerning this lot split, and a lettqr : from the City Engineer, Lowell A. Rathbun, recommend- i i ing sl: pr.ekise'-blo& study the Engineering De'partment had : ; prepared with a proposed street opening which would pro-: : and recommending denial of this request for a "Panhandle" i Lot split. I I I I I I l I I I I I 1 * I I I 1 I perly develop and benefit surrounding landlocked properti&; I I I I I t I I I I I There were no other wes%en communications. The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i speak in favor of this variance. DON CREEGER stated that he works with Don Holly, and i was acting as agent for Mr . Workman, and felt the City's I : block study was based on a very large program and would : : be cutting through much property when laying out the new i street. He did not object to the first block study that was ; i made of this area, but he did not feel this proposed plan ; was fair to the Workmans as it would delete 56' from the : back of the Workman's property for a right of way. He stated they had tried to conform with the City's "Panhandl&" I I : from the applicant and any other persons who wished to I I I I 1 I : lot split policy. ; No one else spoke in favor of this request. I I I c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! i There were no persons present desiring to speak in : opposition. I The public hearing was declared closed at 8:18 P.M. i The Chairman asked Mr. Thornton about this block study! ; and Mr. Thornton explained the location of the properties! of Workman, Hart, Dennison, and the Ramsay property ; which he felt would ultimately be opened up. He stated : that Mr. Hart had been in several times about opening up: : his landlocked property. Mr. Thornton stated that he I felt the best land use would be from this layout and explaibed ; the City Engineer's reason for this study. I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I * : The City Planner stated that the first block study was to J I open up Las Flores Drive to Highland Drive from the : : freeway and the City would receive gas tax funds for i developing this street. Negotiations have already been ; made with the school for openings. He explained that wit+ I the City Engineer's study, the Workman's could have 3 ; : lots instead of the 2 that they would have with a ''panhandl!" i lot -split. t I I I I I I I I I b I I b I I I I I 1 t I Mr. Thornton chlled attention to the second pargraph of i the City Engineer's recommendation, the strongest point I being that the "Panhandle" lot split is the last procedure ; when property cannot be developed in any other way. It was pointed out that several years ago, the Master : Street Plan was amended and Las Flores Drive was desiip nated a secondary street and under this new plan the Wore- man'ls could have two lots facing on Las Flores Drive. : I I I I I I I I Commissioner Sonneman stated that there were trees on : 1;;c;t : the back of this property and it would probably not be 1:;::: developed soon, but felt that many people would like to : i have one large lot, and there would be plenty of room on : this lot to allow for street opening on the back, and felt ; i this would be a good "Panhandle" lot. I I ::;::* i Chairman Palmer stated that he is in favor of any man i :$;: : having a "Panhandle" to a landlocked piece of property i i when he is the only one invoLved and it does not block ; : other property that is landlocked, and felt they should i i::;:: i follow the City Engineer's recommendations. * ;::::; I After due consideration, a motion was made that the : request for said variance be denied for the following : reasons: i i::::: :;:::: ;;:*I '1; ;:;::: I:;:': ;I,::; t I /;: :;I:*; ::::i: ::i::: I 1 I b ;:;#:I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I e I I 1. That this is not in line with the "Panhandle" lot : split policy since there is another possible solution of i i opening up the landlocked property. I I I I I I I I I 2. That the "Panhandle" lot split policy does not appfy : in this fact situation. : The following resolution was presented: Resolution No. 331. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBA$ Davis I m7TXNFFOMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE : Ward FOR REDUCTION IN FRONTAGE TO CREATE A "PAN- I Grant : I-LANDLE" LOT SPLIT ON CERTAIN DESIGNATED i CA LIFORNIA, was adopted by title only and further I I I I I I I I I I : PR.OPERTY IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, STATE OF reading waived. I I I I I I I * I 8 t I ! I I t I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I -4- I (c) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction from the i required side yard from 9' to 5.2' on property on the ; Northerly side of Tamarack between A.T.& S.F.R.R. and I Jefferson St., as prepared and presented as Map 54. i ; Applicant: Lois H. Fry. : Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified to I the notice of hearing being sent to property owners in the : : area and then read the application stating that the properti had been divided and recorded at the County Recorder's i :::;;: : Office but had not been approved by the City. : There was no other correspondence on this matter. : The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i from the applicant and any other persons who wished to i i speak in favor of this variance. b I I I b I I I I 1:;:;: :x:;, ': 1 I !:::I I B i::;:; I 1:;1 ::I;:: ;lit ::I:;: ':::I; :::;:I ' I :::;:I I 4 I I 1::;:; I B I I I !bBna. I I JAMES I. CAIRNS stated that he is a realtor who is licensed in Carlsbad and Oceanside and for the past severil I I I years has acted as agent for Mrs. Fry. Mrs. Fry sold the : houses and lots on the easterly and westerly sides to Mr. i : recently sold to a man in San Diego who asked for monu- : I mentation and wrote to Mrs. Fry who sent back Mr . Weeis', I a Civil Epgineer , report. He read the letter from Mrs. : ; Fry. Mr. Weeks surveyed this property when it was sold : to Mr. Dinius and everybody seemed satisfied, until they i found out through Mr. Dinius when they had trouble with a: : sewer connection that this wasn't recorded with the City I i and they wished to get this cleared up so are asking for : : this variance. Mr. Dinius owns property on either side : belonging to Mr. Fry's mother was built before the propetty i was split. Dinius. This left the property in the center which he I I and is not concerned with it. The house to the east, I I I I I I I I I I I I No others present spoke in favor of this variance. I i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear : : from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. i I I I I ! : The public hearing was declared closed at 9:12 P.M. I b I ! I ; The City Planner explained the location of the property an9 I that Mr. Weeks, a civil engineer had recorded the lot ; *I* : split with the County Recorder but did not record it in the i :::I:: City of Carlsbad. The City did not adopt the present set- : ~:::11 I: : backs until October, 1956, and prior to that time used the! I setbacks required by the County of 5' side yard. i It was agreed to grant the variance as requested for the i B i::;:; I:: 1:;::: :::::; I 1:;1;1 1 I fll:;; I l@l:l: ::::i; G::I; I I ::;:;; B i;;l;l I-:;: I I I;*Ifl I I :::;:i :::;:; :::;I, I;:::; ;::I:; 1::;:: I i::::; I I ;:;I;I ;I1 I I following reasons: I I I I I 1. The setback was in accord with that requested i 2. That it would not be detrimental to homes nearby i : and under the circumstances it was not the fault of the : i applicant that there was not the required side yard setbad. when the house was built. I I I @I IIII I I 9 l~llB: The following resolution was presented: I : Davis ; ix:xi I ; i Resolution No. 332. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAd Ward : : :xi ; 1 : -MMISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE i Grant i : ;x: i ; FOR REDUCTION IN SIDE YARD SETBACK ON CERTAIN: Palmer : : I~i ; : : DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, i Jarvie : : :x; : ; : STATE OF CALIFORNIA, was adopted by title only and : Lamb : * :XI : ; *: ; further reading waived. : Sonneman :xi ;x; i ; 'I 'I' el!!:! 11 :: I 1 I I 1 I I I :;::;: I . :;::I; I I I I I I I I I I I I -5- * I I I I I :""""""""""~".."""""""""-~.""""""""""""""-~"""""""" : Member I I I I i OLD BUSINESS: I I Letter from Perry A. Lamb, dated September 22, 1963, ! : regarding hiring an outside firm to make a Master Plan : I repbrt. He stated that he felt the main task of the PlanniGp : Commission is to advise the City Council on planning i matters and he felt the Commisision has the responsibilityi : to advise the Council on the best ways of insuring the success of the DMJM report in order that this report will i i not be rejected. : The Commission discussed this and felt they should offer I : citizens' participation with committees from such organi-i I sations as the Chamber of Commerce and Realty Board. i i Commissioner Grant suggested that they have a committet i composed of Chairman Palmer and Commissioner Lamb : : to meet with the City Planner and DMJM. The City Planner reported that on January 1, 1964, the i ! 701 program was signed and is in effect. On January 6, f he spent all day with the project planner of DMJM workini on this study and on that day he had gone to San Diego with: : them going into various departments going over this, SUC~ i as the County Planning Department, and the Public Works: : They also met with Jack Kubota, Manager of the Carlsbadj i Municipal Water District that day in the beginning of this : I study. Next week the eugineering firm will have two ; "cruising cars" touring the area to update information : ; about present land use. They have about 4 men working i on this now and in the future they will be setting up corn- : mittees. Before talking to the Commission, DMJM will Gve i to compile all of the data that has happened in the past in : : the City. In the near future they will meet with the Com- i 8 I I I I 4 I I I I I assistance to this firm and perhaps they should have I 8 I t I I I I I 8 I 1 I I I mission and study this. It was pointed out that the contract with DMJM also involvks I I I I I i surveys as to the feasibility of developing an ocean access! : small craft harbor in Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The projecY i is financed through a federal grant and a loan from the ; : State Small Craft Harbor Division. I Commissioner Lamb called attention to the reports that i were made by Whitnall, Patterson, and Brown and Caldweil : which are "on our bookshelves"; and to the "failure" of : i master planning programs in other cities in San Diego Cointy : and the reasons for these "failures". I (b) Resolution of Intention No. 44 regarding reclassifid i cation of certain properties fkvnting on Jefferson Street ; I ::::I, ::;:;; : from Zone R-1 to R-3. 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 The City Planner stated thathe had discussed this with the! City Attorney and it was his opinion that this could be don< I' * : by map and this notice and map would be taken to the papet 1111 on the 27th day of January, for notice of public hearing on: : the 11th of February and a form letter will be sent to the! property owners of the Commission's intention to have a : public hearing to reclassify their property. I1'l;I I I * : NEW BUSINESS: 8 I I (a) Report to the Commission on a proposed Precise I i The City Planner reported that this proposed policy had i : been given to DMJM and they will have a report on it soon! Plan Development Policy. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I 8 L I I 1 !