Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964-06-09; Planning Commission; Minutes.- ICITY OF CARLSBAD : Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION I , ' , ," I \,',' , ' ' I ''' ' *' :Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. Name ', '?& i Place of Meeting: Council Chambers ; of '$%. $!$. : :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""."-~""""-"""-l" "","" i ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners McCarthy, i ;Ward, Grant , Palmer, Lamb and McComas. Commissionbr f;f::: ISutherland was absent. Also present were City Attorney : : Stuart C. Wilson and City Planner Uhland B . Melton, and i '818f; i City Engineer Lowell A. Rathbun. I l*:l f' 1 ',,'" ',, ',,',,'* . ,\a I I I t Date of Meeting: June 9, 1964 '., '\ \, " ', '1 I : Member .*@ ,o@,* ' A*& ,. QI; * I 4:;:;; !:I If :;:::: :::I:; I I :::;:; * I ji::;; 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ! McCarthy I ; * : :x! I i Ward I i;!Gi: : (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of May 26, 1964, : Grant ;x: ;xi ; : !were approved as corrected on page 3 showing that i Palmer ; i !x: I i i Commissioner Sutherland seconded the motion. : Lamb f :x:xi ; : I i McComas ; ; ix: i ! i WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I I :"::: ::::;; :Letter from Frank DeVore - re: Industrial Study. I * i:;;;: I f ::'I;: :The City Planner asked that this be read under 6 (a) I I ::!::: I 'tl,*; :Industrial Zoning. I * ::lI:f ;;::I: ; Memorandum from the Chairman of the Planning Commis { ;::;I, 8: I sion regardin the location of the Planning Commission : McCarthy i ! bi : i :x: i i 1 I ::;;:; f f I *f:;:! I :;:::: I I :::::, 'I::;; ;ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I f ;:;I/ I :::::: I :::;:: I iii;!: I I lip+ If: ;f:' 1 ;:: ::; I ,I/:@ 1 ;::::: * 1 I:'::: I I :;::I; f I (;::I: t I i:!i:i Of 1 at f f I I * I*()) t I I I f I 'I 1:*1;, !meeting on 3.u b 9, 1964. Ward ; $qx: i ; * I : Grant *I I A motion was made to send this letter to the Council for i Palmer ; : !xi ; I :permission to hold the meeting with DMJM in a larger I Lamb ;x; :x; i : place . ; 1 McComas : ; !xi : i f*lll( :Letter from Carlsbad Landing Inc. and Fox Snug I @I !Harbor requesting permission for camping and recreation&> :!!;:; facilities !No action was taken on this matter. #I 1 I I I I 'f I f I I f 1 : (a) These were no oral communications from the i audience. I (b) The City Planner reported on the Council action on !planning matters at the meeting of June 3 1964. !PUBLIC HEARINGS: i (a) RECLASSIFICATIONl continued - To consider :changing approximately 16 lots from R-1-10 to R-3L-10,OqO !on property fronting on Buena Vista Circle. Applicant: : :Gilbert L. Southwell, et al. I I :Secretary Grant explained that this hearing was re-opened! {and continued to this-meeting in order for the City Enginee :to study and report on the street Lights and the minimum st* !width of Buena Vista Circle. !The Secretary read the following correspondence that was :received since the meeting of May 26, 1964: !Letters dated June 1 and 5, 1964, from Gilbert L. {Southwell re: the streets in Buena Vista Circle. :Memo from the City Planner to the City Engineer re: I :street lighting and minimum street widths in Buena Vista i i Circle. :Letters opposing this reclassification were from: :Ben 0. and Bess W. Best, 2390 Buena Vista Circle , Lot 14 Emma Carpenter (Mrs. Roy Carpenter) 660 Laguna Drive i I I 1 I I I I* I I I s I * I I 1 I b I I D f * I 1 I I I * I I * I I 1 * * * I I * I I 1 I # f t I* i I I I * I I * 1- I I I f I 1- I I I I ;:; 1 I 1::;1, ::!!:! I !Iv I : The following signed a letter opposing this reclassificatiori: i:I~ii ! ::I::: #,.!I1 I I i Chester C. Ward : Ruby W. Ward J Ben 0. Best : Bess W. Best i Marie Woolstenhulme !George H. Parker ;Mary E. Parker : M. A. Baxley i Goldie Mulhall i Marie 0. Yarbrough ; $Mrs. Shirley A, Ea11 i Gmma Carpenter ; Robert G. Phelps I Victoria D. PheLps Lot 8 10 10 16 15 15 11 11 14 Portion of Lot 7 Plat of 3 lots 32 32 a Doris M. Kurner i John D. Kurner ;Phoebe F. Horn Pobert Lohr $Gertrude Lohr t Eleanor Norris lv. R. Bruce !&ucinda R. Smith e l' I' b : Chairman Palmer 31 31 12 13 13 17 30 6 for her mother Mrs. V. C . Taylor announced that since this hearing was i $emopened the Commission would give the applicant an iopportunity to speak again. iGILBERT L. SOUTHWELL called attention to the letters I I I I I I I I 4 I * I I I I I I I I I I i I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I * I I I b I b bS :.be had written and stated that since so many of his neighbobs jwere present and would like to have the Gardens improved; :he hoped they could come to some amicable decision to : i better the Gardens, He pointed out that 15 property awnerb :had signed the application desiring a change of zone , and i Ithat he and Mr. Kurner had expressed themselves at the ; !,May 26, 1964, meeting. An anonymous letter had been se+t ;out, one being sent to the City Engineer which caused the : :people to be alarmed and some had withdrawn from the I BThe City Planner reported that 7 of the original signers of! !$he application have reversed their decision. I I I' ' h#plication as they did not understand the situation. I I I I # I $ I PThe Chairman asked the City Engineer to give his report af I :The City Engineer stated that he recommended 36' curb to !curb width with 56' right of way, and improvements installkd !to City standards to provide for vehicular and pedestrian ; !traffic, storm water drainage and street cleaning, with : !proper access, and adequate sewer and water service. H8 : reported that he did not know when the tentative map of i iKremeyer Circle was submitted that it would be zoned i I R-3 or he would have recommended a minimum street ; ;width of 36' ingtead of 34' on the Circle and alleys as required in subdivisions with R-3 zoning. The City has a i ;policy regarding street lights which are installed where th$y :are most needed as a:safety measure according to the peoRle i sffected. 1 When questioned about the width of the street going by the ; Purner property, the City Engineer explained that the ; itreet could be kept at 36' with one -way parking, and not f i require dedication of property from the Carpenters since .;)+* ;$heir property does not face oq Buena Vista Circle. The. : : City would participate to the amount of about 1/3 of the i cost, if the property owners favored having the street ; :Improvemer.ts installed. It would require a petition filed i i with signature8 of 66% of the of the property owners desir + : tng to participate, this time. I I B 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 -3- : of subdivision and the number of property owners who have : ; withdrawn, and the fact that all of the ingress and egress i I would be in front of his property. I The City Attorney stated that in his opinion the later date : of fh signatures would over-rule the earlier signatures i desiring reclassificz.tion. He did not believe they would : : be able to get the 19 11 Act on this. 1 I MRS. SOUTHWELL stated that she has been working with I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I 9 I 4 8 I I I I I i The public hearing was closed at 8:37 Pa M. i The City Planner explained the zoning in the area, and the! : lots that desired reclassification. I I i Points brought out in discussion were that this property : i was not ready for R-3L because of inadequate street width! : and improvements, water and sewer service, drainage, i i and fire hydrants; that there are a number of well established : homes there; a number of people opposed this: that the lot$ would be reduced in size after property is dedicated for : : street width. I I : A motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and i seconded by Commissioner Lamb to adopt Resolution No. i ; 358 denying this reclassification. I I i The City Attorney reminded Commissioner McCarthy that i although he could make the motion, he would not be able to: : vote because he was absent at the last meeting. Gommis-j I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 4 I sioner McCarthy withdrew the motion. A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 358 denying : i application for change of zone for the following reasons: i I dwellings at the present time because of inadequate street i I f I I B I I I I B : 1. That it is not adequate to serve multiple-family I I i width and improvements, water and sewer service, drainage , ; and fire hydrants. : 2, That the majority were agsinst this reclassification.! 3. That the irregular boundaries would serve only part I i of the subdivision and would therefore make it "spot zoning". B I I I The following resolution was presented. I B I I was adopted by title only and further reading waived. Commissioner McCarthy abstained at the request of the ; : Ci@ Attorney and Commissioner Ward abstained because i i of living in the area. I I I I I I I 8 8 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I 8 8 I 8 I I I I I I I I 8 I 8 I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 8 I I I I I 8 I I 1 I I (b) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider a portion of a i lot from R-3 to C-2 on the Northerly side of Cedar Avenu! between Carl'sbad Boulevard and Washington Street. Applicant; Young and Bower. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that .i notice of public hearing was given in the newspaper and to: the property owners in the area. He then read the applicab tion. There were no written communications on this matter. i The Chairman announced the Cornrnissicm would now hear from the applicant or his representative awl any others who are in favor of this reclassification. ROBERT NELSON, realtor, 555 Grand Ave. , stated that ; he was representing the applicants and the new buyers wh<i were present. Mr. and Mrs. Brack pkn to develop this : property in keeping with the "ade Karlsbad" development : by Mr. and Mrs. Christiansen across the street, with : shops and architecture similar to their development. 8 I The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear I I I 8 1 I 1 I I 8 I I I I I I 8 8 I I I i from those opposed. I I I I 8 I I 8 8 I I I * I I 1 I I I There were no persons present desiring to speak in 8 i opposition. ; The public hearing was closed at 9:lO P. M. i The City Planner explained the location of the property an6 i the zoning in the area, and the location of the "Olde : Karlsbad" development. He stated the owner also owns : of this property. The 80' street is in fair crondition. I I I 8 the property to the east but did not request reclassificatio$ The Chairman stated that the Commission could recommeGd 8 I 8 I i reclassification but could not skke what will be on the : property unless a precise plan is adopted. ! Points brought out in discussion were that the expansion 04 i a development that will attract tourists to the City should i : be encouraged; that there is already C-2 zoning in the area 8 8 8 8 8 8 I " I and that all property between Carlsbad Blvd. to the railros/d A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 361 recommedd- i on Cedar Avenue should be zoned C-2. I 8 * I I : ing to Council change of zone from R-3 to C-2 for the i i following reasons: i 1. That it is compatible with zoning in the area. : 2. That it is in an areaKwhere there is a similar : 3. That it is an economically feasible zone change. I I 8 8 8 I 8 1 8 I I I 8 8 8 I 8 8 I I I I I I I I development for attracting tourists to the City. 4. That there was no opposition. i The following resolution was presented: I 1 I ssion Resolution No. 361. A RESOLUTION c; TO C;O~~L-OF ZONE FROM McCarthy i R-P TO c-2 ON PROPERTY AT NORTHERLY SIDE OF : Ward ; CEDAR BETWEEN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND Grant : further reading waived. Lamb I : i (c) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider two lots from ! ; R-1 to R-P on the Southwest corner of Jefferson and : Arbuckle. Applicant: Maurice S. Baird. 8 i WASHINGTON STREET, was adopted by title only and ' : Palmer 8 8 I I I 8 8 I I * 8 1 I 8 8 I 8 * I ! ! I : The City Planner explained that there were some techni- : calities that needed to be cleared up, and he had discussed : this with the owner who was agreeable to having the hear-! i ing on June 23, 1964. I I I I I I The City Attorney advised against opening the hearing at 1 this meeting and that it be considered at the next meeting,! : due to announcing the findings within 15 days. I I I t * I ' I * I I I I I i (d) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider 7 lots from : R-1-10 and R-1-15,000 to R-1-7500 on property on both I I sides of Park Drive between Adzms ?,rid Hillside. I Applicants: Kamar Construc+,lo:l Go. et al. i Notice of hearing was read and the Secretary certified that i notice of public hearing was given in the newspaper and to: : the property owners in the area. He then read %he applicq I tion and signatures of those wishing to have their property: I included in the rezoning. : There was no correspondence on this matter. : The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear I from the applicant or his representative and any others i i who are in favor of this reclassification. i MIKE FORTUNATI, 956 Tamarack Ave., stated that the i : homes they plan to build will be in a price range that will I : sell readily. He called attention to the zoning in the area; I property to the south being zoned R-T and to the north is i i the Briggs' property and Holiday Manor which are zoned i ! R-1-7500, so the zoning would be compatible with the I I i property in the area. The land is undeveloped and vacant: : The development would be an asset to the community. : The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i from those opposed. I I B I B * I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I * I 6 I I I I I I I I 1 i There were no persons present desiring to speak in I I t I I 8 I I I I I opposition. * I : The public hearing was closed at 9:25 P. M. I I 11.. I' The City Planner explained the topography of the area and I reported that he had sent the Commissioners maps of the i ; topographic problems in the area. He explained that the : :::*;: property on Highland has a steep drop off on the easterly Efide, I:':': I and asked that the Commission hold 120' on Lot 20 to the ; : present zoning. On the Briggs' property across the streef i there is a huge bluff and he felt 120' of this property could: : be R-1-7.5. The remainder would not be suitable for : R-1-7.5. He studied this only in regard to the request ; i for reclassification. : The Commission expressed concern over the fact that the i i property is near the lagoon and would eventually be zoned : : differently; and that when Kamar comes in with a request i for reclas'bification, they generally have a subdivision in : : mind. ! JERRY ROMBOTIS stated that they do have a tentative ma+ in their office but did not bring it to the meeting as they : i are waiting until sewers are available. They have done i extensive study on this and their property would not requite I in which they have encountered no great problems. It I would be better use of the land to have this lot size. The I lot size does not dictate the type of home built, as the sanle type of home can be built on 7,500 square feet that can be i built on 8 and 9,000 square foot property. They always : I 1;:::: :;!;I: ::;:;: :;::I: :::i:: ::::;I !:I::: 1:;::: !!iB:: #I: I I * I i I I I I I t a * I I deep cuts and fills. Their engineer has laid out the tentative in wh I I I I I B 4 1 I I' .8 ', 'b '\ ' . 8 '. '* I \\ ', 8 ',, *, 8, I I I I I I I I I I I I I b8 '\,"8, \ 8 ' I 1 I I 8, \ , '\ '\,", -6 - , % '\ I i Name '.% '8 '8& I 4 I ' Of 'y&& 'yf!, Q',$% ; I 4 : Member '9@8+@ ~""""""""~""""""""""""""""""~""""""------"-:--------"------"-"--~--- I I : take topography into consideration before they submit the tentative map. The access would be from Park Drive by i a cul-de-sac street I and they would put in all of the improke- ; ments. When the sewers are available they will file the I i map. The cost of underground utilities is coming down ; : and he believed that within the next 6 or 7 months the I I : underground utilities would be more available. I:I I I I 8 I I The Commission discussed the fact that it is near properti ; zoned R-T and that it is one of the most critical areas in i ! the City, being near the lagoon; does the City want small ; ; lots and small houses; the technical survey being made; I : ing should be continued in order to have a report and i and that Kamar builds homes to be proud of; that this I McCarthy :to have a report by the staff from DMJM on this proposed : Palmer comments from DMJM. I :A motion was made to re-open this hearing and continue : Ward i it until the next regular meeting on June 23 1964 in ordet Grant i zone change. Lamb I ; McComas :MIKE FORTUNATI requested that they receive a copy of i ithe report from DMJM and the City Attorney stated that : jthey could have a copy of the report. I !TENTATIVE MAP - MAGNOLIA GLEN - 7 lots on the 8 I jSouthwest corner of Magnolia Avenue and Adams Street. i :Owner and subdivider: MERJ - a joint venture. I I :Maps were presented to the Commission. !The Secretary read the reports of the various departments i jand agencies. I I :There were no written communications from the owners of :adjacent unsubdivided property who were notified of this miip. !The City Engineer stated that he had received a letter fro4 $he 7iklephone Company dated June 3 1964, stating that ; $hey would bury the telephone lines in the rear of the lots. i !The Gas & Electric Company wrote that the present poles ; Sn the street would serve this subdivision but that they woul? hove the poles over if necessary for street improvements.; $fter due consideration, a motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 364 recommending approval of the tentative i )nap of Magnolia Glen Subdivision, subject to the recommed- pations of the various departments and agencies, I The following resolution was presented: 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 8 I I I I I I I I * 1 I I I hesolution No 364. A RESOLUTION OF THE ~TLXXOMMISSION bION, was adopted by title only OF THE TENTATIVE MAP OF !OLD BUSINESS: I I I I I 1 I i (a) Revision of the Industrial Zoning Ordinance (referre4 :to Planning Commission from City Council April 7 I 1964). i :Letter from Frank DeVore, Governmental Right of Way !Supervisor San Diego Gas & Electric Co. re: the IndustriGl :Study. Mr. DeVore requested $lacing generating plants fo$ :public utilities under Section 1200.1 sub-paragraph (a) in ; !order that they would not have to come before the Commis: ;sion each time they built on their property. I I I I b I I I I I I 1 I B I I t I I I I I I ! I ! c I -7 - I I I I :"""""""""""""""""-""""""""""""~""""""""~"""""-"". . ."...". I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FRANK DEVORE explained that they are in the business of building power plants and will be building more, and and would like to have generating plants submitted under the proposed zoning and remove the condition requiring a conditional use permit so they can build without further conditional use permits. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I ! There was considerable discussion about where this shoul4 be placed in the proposed industrial zoning ordinance. I" Iii 1::;l; 8 I :::,:I I 1 I ::;::: ::;::: i Upon being questioned on whether the next unit would be ai ::*::: ; open power plant Mr DeVore stated that he did not know i( ;l:aIfi 1:::;: the plant would be enclosed on Carlsbad Blvd., but felt that @I*;$; : most of the ones in the back country would be open. He i :::I:; ::I:;: i reported that the Company has just completed 3 open powe: :!;:I; : plants in the South Bay area. He stated that the Company ; *,,:I' i pays a high price for gas from Texas and they contract fod ::;;:: : large amounts of gas and use the excess during the summ4r. :I (#I :::::, I !:I::: I ::::I; I I I :::::; I I I They use oil during the winter and gas in the summer. MR. DEVORE asked for comments from EMJM on this i 'I:;: I 4::;; ::;+,I I I : matter . ! A motion was made to have the staff obtain DMJM's opinioks McCarthy i i xi i and comments on whether the Planning Commission shoulg Ward i : :x: : : : give up their conditional use permit control over steam ; Grant : jxjx: i i I plants as outlined in Frank DeVore's letter. : Palmer : : ;x: : : I :;;*:I t I I I Mr. DeVore invited the Commission to go down to see the i South Bay Power Plant after work and to stay and Gee it at: : night as it is a beautiful site. I I i (b) Revision of R-1 zone re: Animals. i The City Planner stated that this is scheduled for a public i : hearing on June 23, 1964. I NEW BUSINESS: : klemorandum from the City Manager re: Appeal of the I Planning Commission's decision in granting a front yard i : variance for Eddie R. Vasquez. I I i Letter from Eddie R, Vasquez asking that this be consideed I at the next regular meeting. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I : McCarthy I i Grant 1 i Lamb A motion was made to consider this matter on June 23,196jQ. Ward I : Palmer I ; McComas i Election of Officers I The Chairman reminded the Commission to consider the ; Chairman and Secretary. I I i Commissioner Ward stated that this would be his last : meeting as a Commissioner after 5 years, and that he had: ; enjoyed serving with the Commission. He reported that hd W" : had sold his property and that it is in escrow. I e ADJOURNMEPJT: I I ! By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P. M. : Respectfully submitted, I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I election of officers at the next meeting for Chairman, VicQ- I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I e I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I : !