HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-05-26; Planning Commission; MinutesCITY OF CARLSBAD
Date of Meeting: May 26, 1964
Place of Meeting: Council Chambers
I' ','\' ' 'b 8 ' ' I
I b8 ' '. ', '\ '. I
I 8, '.,", '\, '8,''. I I Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION
: Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M.
1 I
L '' I
I APPROVAL OF MINUTES: :Ward
I Grant I (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of May 12, 1964, Palmer I were approved as submitted. : Lamb
I
I I I I
:Ward
I : C rant
I i Paher
I : Lamb
I
1 I
I I I I I :WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
: There were no written communications.
: ORAL COMMUNICA TIONS:
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
t I I
I
(a) There were no oral communications from the : audience.
i (b) The City Planner reported on the Council action on i planning matters at the meeting of May 19, 1964. t
i PUBLIC HEARINGS:
i (a) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider changing approxi
:imately 16 lots from R-1-10 to R-3L-10,000 on property J :fronting on Buena Vista Circle. Applicant: Gilbert L. :Southwell, et al.
!Secretary Grant certified that proper notice of public haari iing was given in the newspaper and to the property owners : !in the area. He then read the application and signatures 04 :those wishing to have their property included in the rezon-i
1 Lng .
i Memorandum from the City Engineer, Lowell A. Rathbun, I :regarding the application for rezoning of Buena Vista :Gardens, stating that they had reviewed the existing !facilities for access, sewer and water and found that all i jof these services are sub-standard as they now exist.
; 1. Dedicated street right-of-way is now 40' in width i with inadequate drainage, no curbs, gutters and sidewalks! i 2. Sections of the sewer system are 6' diameter on ; : minimum grade. i 3. Water main is 4" and 2" diameter.
; They.recommended that any rezoning which would intensif$ the use be preceded by provisions of facilities as follows: ; : 1. Dedicate additional str e et width to 56' minimum :
width and install improvements to City standards to providb :for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, storm water drainage! i and street cleaning. : 2. Replace sub-standard sanitary sewers and add :manholes as required to provide needed additional capacitd. : 3. Replace sub-standard water main as required for i adequate water supply and add hydrants necessary to pro- ; : vide fire protection. b t
! Letter objecting to this reclassification and desiring to I remain R-1 was signed by: : J. D. Kurner 2461 Buena Vista Circle, owner of Lot 3 1 i
R . G. Phelps 2471 Buena Vista Circle, owner of Lot 32 i : D. M. Bruce forJarneL Thut, 2451 Buena Vista Circle, ;
:Lot 30
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 I I *
I I I I t +
I I I I I
I I I I
I I
I I
I
4 I I
I
I *,\'\*. I I I
I I
I 8 I I 8
\ 8 *, I
I I 1 ', \, '8 8 I '8 I , '3, 8. \\ '*, 8, '88
I -2-
I '$% @\ q',##p : i """")""""""""""" * """"""""""""""""""""" 4 """"""- "v"";""
(*I I*
I i:: 8::
I t I :::(:I
I I :;I:':
i:;:;:
0:;::: ;I:;;; ::i:::
:!;:I: ii:
I,:;:! ;;;;:: :$::
i!::;;
I 1:::::
I I :;ll:: ::i::: i::iii
!;:::! l::I::
I I :::a': If,::;
I :::, I:, ,
from those opposed. I :lbl'I
I ;::;:;
I 4:;:;
J. E. KURNER, owner of Lot 31, stated that Col. I I :::;:;
I Southwell has only lived there a short time and will I I ::;::;
I ::*l'I probably move out. He pointed out that owners of Lots : :;:::a
I 6, 10, 13 and 16 were not in favor of this reclassification/ *'I:: ::!::: Mr. Kurner stated that he had lived there for 14 years i ;lel::
I and that it was a fine residential area until lately. He is ::::::
opposed to the R-3L zone. I ::'l:l
I ::i::: 'I) 1;
RAY N. HALSEY, 2431 Buena Vista Circle, stated that i :::::I I:;::: the street going into Buena Vista Circle was a privately i ;:':I:
owned road. Buena Vista Gardens does not start until ; I::!;I
'I
after the third house. I ;::'I;
:l@s::
MARIE WOOLSTENHULME, 2450 Buena Vista Circle, 8 /I::: : (owner of Lot 16) stated that she was not in favor of the ;;;I:l
1::::: I change of zone, and that a number of the property owners I !;':I: I would not have room to build additional buildings. They ; /:;:;
; would have to pay for the improvements and they would : I:::;;
;::;I' : not benefit from them, and it would lower the value of i :::l&l 1:: i their property to rezone it. Her property is located on a : :::i:: i curve and if they take 8' for 200 plus feet, it wouLd amom+ iz:ii
; to a considerable amount of property. Her front yard setf :::::: i back is presently 25'. I ! ::;::: ;Il:l!
'\ '88 8\8 ',, '> *
I
I I ' 'x*, % 'x& !
I I ' I Name of '8'%$%, '88, '$, : Member 4' C8,**0.b. I
Chairman Palmer announced the Commission would now : :!:!;!
' : hear from the applicant and any others who are in favor 04 /::;:;
I I
'I I
88 I i this reclassification. I t
GILBERT L.SOUTHWELL, 2411 Buena Vista Circle, : stated that he is a newcom'dr to Carlsbad and feels the i lots are of sufficient size to warrant building more units i : on each lot. He felt that it was necessary to have more ; dwellings in order to have more people living in this area: ; He called attention to the property that was recently zone4 i R-T below them where houses can be built on 4,000 sq. f't.: 41: : lots or fingers, and the property that is zoned R-3 to the : i east of them, and stated that he did not feel the 16 lots : : should be restricted. He reported calling on his neighborb i to get their opinions on this reclassification and of those : :::::; i who wished their property rezoned. He stated that he wai i::::; ; agreeable to having the improvements put in and felt the i other property owners would also agree to this, as it woutd 161;81
; increase the value of their properties.
I I :;!!i: :8;18 t*
'I 0)
*I
I1
I*
l':@bJ
I
8
I
I' 81
I
JULI'A . E. SOUTHWELL, 2411 Buena Vista Circle, askee I if it would :wt be wise to put in enough improvements to : ; take care of the R-3L zone in regard to waters, sewers, i
i there as it is very dark.
i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear: :::;:;
ll:Il*
etc, She also inquired if they could have street lights lau
I
t I
I 1
#
I
in favor of widdning and improving the street, but is I I ::;::i
I
I I I I
I
I I 1 I I ;:I /;;:;
I
I I I
OSCAR H. FEDERWISCH, 2431 Buena Vista Circle (Lot i 18) stated that his property is on a curve and he would los! i the most property by giving the 8'. He felt that 40' was ; ; suffi dent for the traffic but was willing to go along with i i the street dedication as he wanted it zoned R-3L. I I I I l MR. SOUTHWELL (speaking in rebuttal) stated that he : would have called on Mr. Kurner and the other two properj- ; ty owners just north of Laguna but was told by proper : I authorities that this was not a part of the subdivision and : 1 was in an area that was zoned differently. He also pointed : out that when you build you build for the future. I I
t
8 . . I I The public hearing waa closed at 8:23 P. M. I
I I I
t
I I
,-
f The City Planner explained that the zoning map of the Cit$
indicated that there was R-P zoning on the first three lots\ and when he went through the files, he found this property:
was zoned R-1-10. This property was zoned R-2 when it f'
was in the County but after the City became incorporated, I it was changed to R-1-10 a and:they ask'eg for R-3L-10 as : some of the property owners did not want Faller lots. felt the street should be 56' and then be 40' on the circle :
itself.
I
I I f 1 I f 1" i After considerable discussion, a motion was made to re- i :ai:;: : open the public hearing and to continue this hearing until tbe 4,::; i next regular meeting of June 9, 1964, and that the City i Ward
Engineer be asked to study this in regards to minimum : Grant :x: !x; : street widths and street lighting, to make a report and be i Palmer I ; ;x: : ; : present at that meeting. ; Lamb f :x: : :
:::;'I ; 8 I , :x;
'f I1
I I I i McComas i I !xi i i
I ; Sutherland: : !xi : : I I I I ! VARIANCE - To consider a front yard reduction from 20' i I to 6'; side yard reduction from 20' to 6'; side yard reduc- I : tion from 10' to 5'; and rear yard reduction from 20' to : i 7.5' on property located on Normandy Lane between : Garfield Avenue and Mountain View Drive. Applicant: i Eddie R . Vasquez.
I The Secretary certified that proper notices were sent to : i property owners in the area, and then read the application:
I I I I I I 1 I I 1
I I
I I : Items of correspondence in favor of this variance because
i were from:
I Col. We C. Atkinson, Rresident of the Army & Navy : Academy.
I Capt. David Stoll, Commandant of the Army 8t Navy I i Academy
they felt this development would be an asset to the commu4ity .:.'.! ..
I I I I I
I I
I I I
1 I
Robert and Audry Kolb, 2480 Ocean Street
I I I I I I I I I I I t I
I I Letters opposing these setbacks were read from the following: I
I Mrs C. M. Demott, Meadowlark Farm, Apple Valley i Harvey R. Ling and Vivian G. Ling, 2424 Garfield
t Hazel B. Robinson
I f I
I I I W. D. and Lillian M. Garrett, 2382 Ocean
John F. Doolen, 2445 Mt.View Drive opposed the reducti& ; of setbacks except the rear yard setback to 7.5'. ! C . W. Downey, 2425 Mountain View Drive (corner of i Normandly Lane) opposed front yard setback greater than ; lo', objected to spot variance. I I
I The City Planner reported that he had a copy of a letter i from the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. to Mr. Vasquez i i stating that they would move the poles over so they would ; not interfere with the building plans. This letter was made i a part of the records. I f
: The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i
from the applicant and any others who are in favor of thesg I variances .
I EDDIE VASQUEZ explained that the reason he had to ask i ; for a side yard setback var.iance was because he was i granted a 7 1/2' front yard variance oh April 28, 1964, i ; instead of 5' because of the pole wires, and the power I i company would move the poles at the builderls expense, : ; so they would not interfere with the building plans. He : i pointed out that the size of the 50' lots makes them problelj? ; lots, and that the property is expensive and they have to I utilize the most of it Parking will be in the basement, ;
I I b I
I I I
t t I
I I I I I I
f I
I * I &
I I I I I , I I I b I ! !
I I' .,..' I
I : '.\"\, ', '\\ \\ '\\
I I '\ \\,'*,, '\, '\,'\, I
* I Name '\ '*% '\:'?b i
I : of "+@ ' 4$&, ;
I $3 \@. +\+ * I ~"""~""""""""~"~"""""""""""""~~~"""""""""~;"~""""---"-- : Member \% Q.*\O --*--?---- 4'i
I I #I,!:* : with a turn wheel for turning the cars around, and they : !:;I::
will be able to house 18 cars. They plan to have 2 stories! ,. I":;: ;:I :{I! : above the basement and there will be a roof over the drive! ;!
I::!:l way t ying the buildings together. He pointed out the set- ; 'Il,I;
1 backs already granted in the area and that this will be one : i:::!: of the nicest apartment buildings in the City, which will I ;:::I*
1:'s;: : bring in more tax money for the City. I I :::;:: I*II
I a r:;;:i : The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear : :::*:I ::;:::
I I I :I#;;; :;I::: :;I:::
::,::I
:;;la;
I !I!!:*
,* I \, \' * I I I I I 1
I -4 - I ', \ \ *\"
'#I I I
I
t I
from those persons present who were opposed. I I
I l:;l I MR. W. D. GARRETT, 2382 Ocean Street, stated that he I owns houses at 219 and 221 Normandy Lane and that he is: ;)'I : definitely opposed to this request, and that he felt that i i building in this manner would congest the area.
i MR. VASQUEZ, speaking in rebuttal, stated that he : neglected to mention that Kamar Construction is putting in: i 50 apartments within 150' of this property.
I I $ ;:4:::
0 t * t
I
I I I I I 8 I
I I b I
The public hearing was closed at 9:25 P. M.
The City Building Inspector, Richard S. Osburn* stated : that one of the conditions set forth in a previous resolution: i was to join all of Mr. Vasquez' property together, so it I
:made it necessary to ask for these variances; and that ; parking would be provided according to the number of unit! : built. I I
I I a I : Commissioner McComas asked to be excluded from the voting on this request as he had discussed this with Mr. i Vasquez earlier.
i There was considerable discussion on the front yard set- : back and the fact that the decision of the Planning Commis i was appealed by the Garrets, et al; and on continuing the : hearing.
:MR. VASQUEZ stated that he would withdraw his request i for a front yard setback to 6'.
I
I
I
rion
I I After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt
! Resolution No. 359 denying a variance for reduction in I
i
I
front yard setback to 6' for the following reasons: I I I I I I I
I I I X. There have been no major changes since the I Planning Commission previously granted a variance reduck ing front yard setback to 7 1/2'. I I
I I 2. Applicant orally at the public hearing hereof with- I !drew his request for a variance reducing front yard setbacb.
i AND granting a variance for reduction of side yard and I rear yard setbacks as requested for the following reasons:;
;ai:;;
I 1. Similar variances some even less, exist in the i 41:;:
;area. I ;:::I: : 2. Small lot size warrants the granting of the request4d $ll;I ,*::;: i side and rear yard setback variances so that the property 1 I:::;;
: may be fully utilized. I ::::I:
t ;:;I:, I 3. The granting of the requested side and rear yard i ;;;:;: i setback variances will not constitute the granting of a 'I:
t * ;:!!;I ; special privilege. :::;:;
I :I::;:
Commission Resolution No. 359. A RESOLUTIO&,Mard !x:%; i i VARI~CE FOH REDUETTONTN FRONT YARD: Grant i ; :xi ; i
:SETBACK AND GRANTING VARIANCES FOR SIDE AND : Palmer ; : :x: ; ; i REAR YARD SETBACKS ON PRCPERTY AT NORTHERLd Lamb :x: :xi ; : : SIDE OF NORMANDY LANE BETWEEN MOUNTAIN VIEW: McComas i : ; :xi ; DRIVE AND GARFIELD STREET, was adopted by title ; Sutherland: I !X! ; i I only and further reading waived.
I I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
I I :;::::
I I I I ;I:::;
I I '\ I I :::I;: 1:;I
I 8 1': I I D t ::;;;I
I I I ::;;!I
I I !:#II;
I ! t:':!$
1:
I I
I I
I : (c) VARIANCE - To consider side yard reduction from I
i7.5' to 6.5' on Lot 22 and 7.5' to 5.63' on Lot 21; and ; ; frcont yard reduction from 20' to 15' on Lots 14 and 19 as I
per precise plan on property in Chestnut Heights Subdivi- : i don. Applicant: Marvin S. Humphreys.
e
I
I I I I I : The Secretary certified that proper notices were sent to i :property owners in the area and then read the applict!tion: 1 I * I I I :There was no correspondence on this request. I I 1 1 i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear &. . . I from the applicant and those desiring to speak in favor of $#: :, :this request. I I
I !
AL CULLENS stated that he is employed by M. S.
Humphreys, and that he lives at 3606 Harding Street. He
explained the peculiarities of the lots and the steep slope
on the back of the lots.
!The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear
:from those persons opposed to these setbacks. I I I I I :IRVIN TITLE, 3906 Skyline Road, stated that he owns the ! :lot west of Humphreys' property next to the Scholink house;
jand that people in the district are complaining about this :
:subdivision. They felt the banks should be planted with ;
!Ivy or Geraniums instead of pickleweed, and that all of the:
:tots should be moved back from the road as cars have goni !off the road on this curve in the fog. He felt the State and : :County should get together with the City in straightening jthis road out, and that there would be more traffic going tq :the old airport in the future. I I
!When asked if he attended the meeting the tentative map of
:Chestnut Heights was considered, and if there were any I :encroachments on his property from the subdivision, Mr. ; :Title stated that he had not attended the meeting and there i jwere no encroachments.
:The public hearing was closed at 10:28 P. M.
:The City Planner pointed out that Lot 19 does not need a i
ivariance but they wanted the entrance from the side street; jwhich makes it necessary to have one.
:There was discussion on moving the house on Lot 22 over 3:": .: '* :toward tlse 12' easement on Lot 23.
!The applicant agreed to amend the application by moving 1 jthe proposed house on Lot 22 towards Lot 23 , with no :variance on easterly side, and having a side yard setback Ion the west side to 5'.
!After a short discussion a motion was made to adopt :Resolution No. 360 grantin a variance for reduction in I
!side yard setback from 7 1 7 2' to 5' on the west side of : :Lot 22, and reduction in side yard setbacks from 7.5' to
i5.63' on Lot 21; and front yard reduction from 20' to 15' !
:on Lots 14 and 19 as per precise plan, for the following i
!reasons:
!adjustmentswill be benefilcial to the appearance of the sub-!
;division.
!variances. ; 3. That this type of variance has been granted on I jsubdivision in the past where cul-de-sacs and unusual
Lopography are involved.
I I I 1
I I I I t
I I I I I I
6
I I s I I I I
I I I I I b 1
I
I
I I I t s t
I * I I I 8 8 1. That the aihhetic affect resulting from these
I I 8
I I I
2. That no specific opposition was voiced to these
* I I I I * I I I b I 8 e I I ! !
b -6-
I I I 11
I I I I
I I 1
I *
I 1 * I * 8 I i;;:
:;/#I : ; :xi ; :
b : McComas :x:%: I '
1 i * Sutherland !xi i
*:1, ' : OLD BUSINESS: 4 I :;'I;I * I :;i:::
;lI;#' I (a) Revision of the Industrial Zoning Ordinance (Referrdd I;;*:: ii:iii I to Planning Commission from city Council April 7 , 1964) .i '1;:I;
I * ::!!:I
i The following resolution was presented: I I :;;III
8 * I :;+;
ommission Re solution No. 360. A RESOLUTION Ward VARIANGEST~N LOTS 21 22, 14 and 19 IN : Grant !x: I i i CHESTNUT HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, &as adopted by title ; Palmer i I :xi ; i only and further 3eading waived. Lamb '6 8 !x: ; ; I@
I
D * I *
II I*
I
1 I
I I The City Planner explained that there has been some i anticipation of industry coming into Carlsbad and the : Mayor would like the City to be prepared for it. I
I I * 6 I I
I i Points brought out in dicussion were that the C-M zone i i should be left in the ordinance that a provision shold be : ; made in the ordinance so that industry can have an increae I in height without coming before the Commission for a : conditional use permit, that the first page of the City i Planner's report be omitted and that they consider Roman ; : Numeral I1 of his report which was taken from recommeng- i ations of the Stanford Repeach Institute; that 10,000 sq . ft. ; : lots were too small and they should have at Least one acre I for an industrial spot.
I I
b e * 4 I I The City Planner stated that the San Diego Gas & Electric ! ; Company has a copy of this report but he has not discussed i it with them but would do SO.
I It was the unanimous decision of the Commission that : DMJM should review this report aunfazeport their recom- i mendations and views at the nexseeting , and if they : i approve the Commission could adopt a resolution of I I ; intention to hold a public hearing on this proposed amend- i I ment .
l !
I I I I + I I
I I
1
I i (b) Revis4n of R -1 zone.
I i Commissioner Grant reported that he and Chairman Palmdr : and Commissioner McCarthy were on a committee to studi the keeping of horses in an R-1 zone with the City Planner:, i and read the permitted uses of horses in R-1 zones of othek : cities in the County and the size of the tots. He also pointep :out that La Mesa requires that the stable shall be 75' from; ; any window or door of any residence.
i Discussion was given on whether horses should be just i i allowed in certain districts , such as 7500 sq. ft. districts ;, ; or over * and if they should be excluded from property fro? i ing on Highland. I *
MRS. WALTER HILL, 1726 E. Forest , stated that she
thought the City should have a provision about horses tresi : passing, and the City Attorney informed her that it would ; i not be a zoning matter. It would not be very practical and i i wouLd be a penal matter. !
i
*
b I * I *
I I
*
After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt Res; Ward olution of Intention No. 48 of the CarLsbad City Planning : Grant Commission giving notice of intent to hold a public hearind Palmer to consider an amendment to Ord.9060 regarding keeping ; Lamb
It was felt t&$RFPM&'&bJM of horses in emitted uses. McComas ent, Fire and.Building : Sutherland Departments should be present at this hearing. * I
!
X
! * I i ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion the meeting was ad- i ;;:;;; :i:::;
:a:;:;
* I :::;::
I :ii:;:
~ourned.M. to Thursday, June 4,1964 at7:OO PiM.
e I :::;i:
I
, :!I:!;