HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-05-12; Planning Commission; Minutes:CITY OF CARLSBAD s ', 8, ** PLANNING COMMISSION : Minutes of: I I 8, ,, ', '8 '\*'*. I
:Date of Meeting: May 12, 1964
:Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. 1 Na me '*.~*$+",)$$ i
8 '
I 8 *a I I I & *, 8, '8 * ' '
1 ' ~8 '8, 8, 'X, '8, S8 8, I
Place of Meeting: Council Chambers ; of 'f.,+ 4
I ; Member *?*p. ,o@\*tp +,& 4, : '
I I i:: lq
I I ::;i::
* :::;:i
I * ::;;:I
:"""""""-"""""""-"""""~"""~""""""""~""""-~""""~"*""""~~"~~"-
:Roll Call was answered by Commissioners Ward, Grant I i #:;#,I
:::
:Palmer and Lamb. Also present were City Attorney ;'I I( i Stuart C. Wilson, and City Planner Uhland B. Melton. 1:::::
I
I *
I I i INTRODUCTION I 4 I I
I I I
I I i (a) New Commissioners.
i James J. Sutherland, Glenn E. McComas and Joseph D. i
:McCarthy were welcomed as new members of the Commis; i sion. I I
I
I I
I I I * I (b) D.M. J. M. Staff
I I
I I
!The City Planner reported that the D.M. J.M. Staff were ! :not able to be present at this meeting and that he had been i I working for the past two days on setting up a meeting with : : them.
:After discussion, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission that they meet with the D. M, J. M. Staff at : :6 o'clock P.M., on Thursday, May 14, 1964, in the Council i Chambers for the purpose of setting out policies and for ;
:discussion. I
: The City Planner explained that in the signing of the i contract the City was only allowed so many joint meetings i with the Council and Planning Commission together. I
!APPROVAL OF MINUTES: i McCarthey
I I I * 9 I 1
* I
I I 1 I I
I * I I 1
I : Ward
(a) Minutes of the regular meeting of April 28, 1964, I Grant
:were approved as submitted. : Palmer
I
I
I *
I i Lamb
I i McComas
I : Suther land I WRITTEN COMMUNICATLONS: I I @ I I I
!Letter dated May 6, 1964, from the San Diego County I Planning Department regarding the adoption of a County- i : Wide Master Pian of Major Highways on April 14, 1964. :
I I I
1 1 I
:The City Planner presented and explained a map on the i above plan.
I I ORAL COMMUNICA TIONS:
I
(a) There were no oral communications from the I audience.
! (b) The City Planner reported on the Council action on I planning matters at the meeting of May 5, 1964.
i PUBLIC HEARING:
I
1 I
I I
(a) RECLASSIFICATION - R-1 to R-3 Resolution of
Chestnut. Applicant: Carlsbad City Planning Commissiol
The Secretary certified that proper notice of public hearin4 i was given in the newspaper and to the property owners in ; ;the area, and then reviewed Resolution of Intention No. 45:
i Secretary Grant read the following items of correspondende i stating they were in favor of this reclassification.from: i
i 1. John D. Angelo, 3790 Garfield Street : 2. Francis McGough, 3441 Buena Vista, Glendale I : 3, Ora R. and Olive E. Alexander, 3218 Eureka Place i 4. Jack Colvin and Susie M. Colvin, 1044 Palm Ave. I I
I5. Florence E. Carlisle, 1264 Pine Avenue
:Intention No. 45 on Eureka Place between Basswood and
I I I
I I I
I I
* 8 I I I
I I t I I I
I 4 I
I I I I I I I * I I 1 I I 1
-2-
i 1 16. James A. Scanlon, 2955 Elmwood i 7. Henry Mayers, 2444 Silver Ridge Ave. , Los Angeles ! ; 8. Arthur S. Lewin 3447 Adams Street I I i 9. Mrs. V. Talbert * 3565 Adams Street ; 10. Robert B. Hogue and Mary C.Hogue ,223 S. Carmelina :St.
I 11. Mrs. R. W. Mahaffey, 3301 Adams Street I I 12. Elsie M. Davenport, 1302 Pine Street : 13. Walter Johnson, 1052 Chestnut Avenue i 14. Joseph E. Spano, 1088 Chestnut Street : 15. Lillian E. Miner 404 W. Oak View Dr. , Oak View, Calif. 16. Russell F. Coleman, 1231 Basswood
Items of correspondence stating they were opposed to this : reclassification were read from: I I
: 1. Alma Smith, 1042 Chestnut Ave.
I3, Forrest C. Krueger, 3212 Eureka Place
; 5. Mrs. Virginia Rose White, 216 So.Marengo Ave.,
& a I
I I
I I Los Angeles 49, I
I I I * I I I
I I I * I I
I I
2. Charles E. Tuck, 3374 Eureka Place
4. Gladys H.Medaris (Mrs.F.W.Harris)l251 Basswood
I I Alhambra (former property owner at 3266 Eureka I * -I I :::;;: i The Chairman announced that since the Planning Commission @Ill;;
:;I1 : had initiated this resolution of intention they would now hear :;4:::
I ::::::
I I ::!::: from those opposed to this reclassification.
CHAS. E. TUCK, 3374 Eureka Place, and ROBERT
I
I
I I I
I
i ELRICH, 3470 Adams, both stated that they were opposed I ; to this reclassification as they had bought their homes for i permanent homesites and would sell their homes if this : : reclassification was passed. They both questioned the i R -3 zoning for multiple-dwellings and the sign on the I I ; property near Holiday Park between Pi0 Pic0 and Eureka i Place. I I I I I I There was discussion on whether they would be able to I : build apartments there since this property was adopted under i the Master Plan for a park.
i The public hearing was closed at 8:05 P. M.
i The City Planner explained that certain lots were zoned to! ; R-3 several months ago and the Planning Commission felt ; i the balance of the property on Eureka Place should be i I zoned to R-3 also. 1 I
: The Chairman re -opened the public hearing to allow Mrs. i Broam to speak.
i MYRTLE BROAM stated that she was opposed to having : R -3 on Adams Street, but that she also represented the ; i First Church of Christ and they plan to build on their i property, but questioned the taxes being raised if this is i ; zoned R-3, The Church chose not to vote either way on i : this. 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 8
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I , I I
The public hearing was closed at 8:12 P. M.
After considerable discussion on the easterly line of the
proposed R -3, the lots that were zoned R -3 several month#
ago and the street width and condition of Eureka Place, a 1
motion was made by Commissioner Lamb denying this re-;
' classification for the following reasons: ! I
1. That there is a necessity for improvements on : Eureka Place which should be discussed with the Engineer 4 ing Department. : 2. That this would be a very proper study for DMJM to
i r e commendation s . make , and the Commission could benefit from their
The motion died for lack of a second.
I
I Commissioner Grant explained that the reason he and : Commissioner Lamb were opposed to adopting this resolu: : tion of intention was that they both felt that the entire block
should be zoned R-3 to the middle of Adams Street, and i i stated that he did not feel the Commission should slow up : : on planning because DMJM is working on a plan for the i City.
I I
I I I
I t I
A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. *357, recorn- : ; mending reclassification to R-3 on the property described i I in Resolution of Intention No. 45 for the following reasonsi
i 1. That this property is very near to a busy freeway i : which by 1972 will be expanded to eight lanes. 8 I
2. That there will be considerable noise and traffic on : this road which will not be the most compatible with R-1. :
3. That it will be an extension of R-3 property eastwar? : and adjacent to existing R-3 property. I I
4. That property to the west of the land under consider; : ation is already zoned R-3 and adopted as a park, and there i are tentative plans that a library will be built on this i property. : 5. That both a library and a park generate traffic. i 6. That there were 14 people within 300' in favor and
I I I I
I I I I I I
i 5 opposed.
i The following resolution was presented:
"
I I
!
I * I * I I I I I 8 mmission Resolution No. 357. A RESOLUTIOV McCarthyi
I UING TO COemNGE OF ZONE FROM Ward I : R-1 TO R-3 ON PROPERTY AT EASTERLY SIDE OF : Grant
I
i EUREKA PLACE: ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF CHEST; Paher I ; NUT AVE., AND ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF BASSWOOD Lamb : i BETWEEN EUREKA AND ADAMS STREET; was read by : McComad : title only and further reading waived.
!
-4 I I I *
The motion died for lack of a majority vote. I I I I I I I I I
I I :A recess was called at 8:45. Reconvened at 9 P.M.
I :Commissioner Ward was absent at 9:OO P. M.
I I : OLD BUSINESS:
! : (a) Notifying of property owners within 300'.
: The City Planner reported that a mlmorandum had been i i sent to the Council and they had given the Commission : i permission to send notices to property owners within 3OO1.j ; in addition to notice of public hearings in the newspaper i : for reclassifications. I t
: (b) Revision of the Industrial Zoning Ordinance i (Referred to Planning Commission from City Council
!April 7, 1964)
I I I I I I I
I I
I I I
I I I I 1 I I I I I The City Planner explained that the Mayor would like to
;have light, medium and heavy industrial zoning in the City I I which would replace Articles 12, 13 and 14, starting on ; : Page 344 in the City Code Book. He reported that he had : : taken the ordinances of various cities and made comparisobs : DMJM were well pleased with Roman Numeral I1 of his i report which was taken from the recommendations of the ; Stanford Research Institute. He stated that the City is conk cerned with new property owners coming in for new zoning:, : but they did not want to put existing businesses out of busif
;ness. i The City Attorney explained that if there is vacant land and : a person wished to put a business in, they would have to i i conform to the new ordinance which would be affective in ; : 30 days after it is adopted. If the business was operating,: i they would have a time limit to conform to the new ordinanke
I I I I b
I I I I
t I I
! 9
. * * * *
I * I * *
I " *, '3, '\ '\ .\ I
I I '\\ '\ ' '' '\ "
* -4-
I *
I I I \\ ',,''\, '\, "\'*' * * * I
I ' \' *
i There was discussion regarding business coming before i
f the Commission for permits for industrial zoning and : i some of the Commission felt they should not have to do i : this. I I
i It vas agreed that the Commission would continue to study: i this zoning.
i NEW BUSINESS:
i (a) Amendment to R-1 Zone re: Horses.
i The Secretary read letters from the following persons ; : registering complaints against horses on nei hboring proier- i ty (one at 1435 Yourell Ave., and 3 (1 in foas at 1439 i : Yourell Ave. , and asking that an amendment be made to :
* I @
* I * I I 1 I I I I I I * * *
* *
* *
I *
the ordinance:
William R. Toner, 1749 Yourell Ave.
I * I 1 * * 8
I *
i Frederick H. Whiting & Claire Whiting, 1420 Yourell Avi. : Christene Bowling, 1425 Yourell Ave. e Mrs. Lorna C. Cummings, 1769 Yourell Ave.
Richard S. Osburn, City Bldg. Inspector , explained that i : one horse in on 14,300 sq.ft.plus, of land, and the other horses are on 87,000 sq. ft. plus, of land. The people : : are using this property without the owners permission an4 they have been served with a notice by an attorney, but : : this is a civil action between the property owners. The i i Health Department has gone over this property twice ,but : : the health ogdinance had not been violated. He also pointGd i out that the property where the three horses are is not I : within Lebarr Estates Subdivision. I
: The following persons registering objection to the four i horses because of the flies and odor, and asking that an : i amendment be made to the ordinance to protect neighboriG ; property owners were:
i Mrs. Isabella Penland, 1778 Guevara Rd. : (Rabuco Development Unit No. 2) i Mr.s.Dan Hall, 1727 Butters Road : D. W. Hall, 1727 Butters Road
Mrs. Cummings, 1769 Yourell
I Mrs. G. R. Van Horn, 1759 Yourell i Frances Best, 1768 Butters Road i W. L. Hill, 1726 Forest protested the horses being ridd4n : on the streets to get to larger areas. : Grace Hill, 1726 Forest, registered objection to horses I
I I I * I
I. I I.
* * I I I
I * I * 1 I * * I * * * I I *
I * I I * *
I *
* I
on the streets.
The City Attorney explained that it would be up to the
* * * * * D B
I I
I Council or Planning Commission to initiate aresolution of! ; intention to make an amendment tathe R - 1 zone regarding! i horses. I 1 The City Planner stated that the Commission could revise! ; the ordinance to have more control on rentals; or re -writ4 I the R -1 zone; or make an estate zone.
After a short discussion, it was felt that due to the urgency ; of the matter, the City Planner should get information fro* : other cities withiti the next two days and have a committee; i meeting on Friday on this matter.
: Chairman Palmer appointed Commissioners Grant and I i McCarthy to serve with him on the committee to study thi? I and to continue this matter on the agenda. I t
'a .M. to Thursday, May 14, 1964, at 6:OO P.M. I 1 ~e~~;?zc8tf~lly submitted, I *
* * I
* I
* * * I
ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion the meeting was adjoubed
I y-+ '
1 . SdU-ecording Secretary -
* I b * 9
I I