Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-02-23; Planning Commission; Minutes.- CITY OF CArELSBAD I I I I I : Minutes of: PLANNING CGMMI SSI ON i Date of Meeting: February 23, 1965 : Time of Meeting: 7: 32 P, M. i Place of Meeting: Council Chambers ; """_"""""""""""""""" * .""""""" 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 I I hOLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Palmateer,: MdCarthy, Sutherland, McComas and Freistadt. Commis sioners Grant and Lamb were absent. Also present were i City Attorney Wilson, Assistant City Engineer C. i2. I I Thornton, and Building Inspector Osburn. - APPROVAL " OF MIN.bPES: - I I I I i 4 i Palmateer (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of February 9, i McCarthy 1966, were approved as submitted. : Sutherland i McComas ; Freistadt I ! : R itITTEN COMMUNICATIONS I I e I I I I I I (a) Council action on Planning matters. I I ( 1 ) South Carlsbad Annexation No. 1 5 - b I appeal of the Planning Commission's decision ; I denying reclassification from R-1 to C-M and i b M, continued. I I 8 I * I I I I 1 Chairman Sutherland asked to have a report from the Corn; ; mittee appointed to study this matter. Commissioner I McComas reported that he had met with Commissioners : Lamb and McCarthy, however, they were not able to come! i to any conclusion on this matter. I l I I a After discussion by the Commission, MR. DCN MITCHELh : Attorney, -asked tdBpeak asbe regreseaw the @ctp+r* -; i wvnem immfved, Mr. Weston, Martineau and several i : others. He reported that he was at the last Council meet-; ing. de explained the terrain and location of the property.! : He pointed out that this was an ideal location for this zon- ; ing because of the access to the railroad and highway for I : trucking. He pointed out that the City should encourage : business and industry to the City and there have been no I : changes in the property. I # : BOB WESTCN stated that he wished to point out that there i i had been one point of confusion at the hearing when Corn- i i missioner Lamb had stated there was no way to get onto : : the freeway. Mr. Weston stated there is an ingress and i i egress onto the freeway without using Ponto Drive, as I # : there is a State interchange there now, s I I t I I I I I I I After further discussion a motion was made, to send a IPalmateer i memorandum to the Council stating the Planning Commis- : McCarthy ; sion considered the matter again and took additional evi- ISutherland i dence into consideration and felt their denial for the re- :McComas :quest for this zoning was correct. I Freistadt I I I 8 * I I (b) John and Jean Fox - re: Overnight camping at I I (c) James €3. Johnson - re: Campsters at Carlsbad i Fox's Snug darbor. I * i Landing, Inc. a I !After discussion, it was the concensus of the Commission :that Mr. Fox and Mr. Johnson should consult with the City; !Attorney in regards to initiating an application for a use i :permit. I I :ORAL CQMMUNICATIUNEt * I I I b b * I I I I I *- ! :There were no oral communications. I l:!l:. I : PUBLIC HEARINGS: I I I I I I " I I I (a) Planning Commission hesolution of Intention NO. i i 51 - Proposed Amendment to Ordinance Na. 9060, contin-! I ued - re: storage space for transit and transportation : : equipment, excepting freight classification yards, and re-i I garding veterinarians, kennels and small animals' hospit-: : als. 1 I ! The Chairman explained that when the Commission turned! i down the change of zone in "South Carlsbad Annexation No; : 1.5" it was opinion of the Commission that the property : i owners could come in for a conditional use permit to opert i ate new businesses. I I I I I I /tlARCJf I ; ed at the Council meeting on -2, 1965 and if the i I Council grants the rezoning, there would be no need for : : action on this proposed amendment, and this hearing i could be continued to the next Planning Commission meet-! ; ing if the zoning is not granted. The City Attorney stated that the zoning would be considerk' I I I I I I I I I I I I (b) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - R-1-6 to C-2 i (General Commercial) on property located at 841 and 869 : ; Tamarack Ave. Applicants: Arthur C. Morgan and I Dorothy D. Morgan. 8 I ! I i The Chairman explained that he had discussed this re- : quest with the applicant that afternoon and he had agreed i I to continue the hearing until March 23 after there is a re- ; : port in from Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall.on i their recommendations for zoning this area. The Corn- : ; mission agreed to continue the hearing until March 23,196$ I I 1 I t I I I 1 (c) VARIANCE, continued - To consider a reduction! i in the required frontaqles from 60' to 12 112' in order to : : create two "panhandle lots on property located on the i Southerly side of Basswood Ave., between Adams St. and : ; Highland Dr., and to restore Lot 10 to Chestnut Manor ! Subdivision. Applicant: il. Von Packard. I Commissioner McCarthy stated that he would have to ab- i I stain from voting. I 8 ! The Chairman reported that he and Commissioner Palma-! : teer had spent time studying this request and walked over i : the area and that he had not changed his mind regarding : ! the decision made on January 12, and felt the lots and i i homes should be larger in that vicinity. I I Commissioner Palmateer stated that he was not convinced! ; that the double "panhandle" was the only solution to this : land locked parcel. He felt there should be larger parcel4 : of land in that area, and that if Woodland Way is extended i I to Basswood it would be a better use of the land. i Mr. Thornton explained that when the tentative map of i : Chestnut Manor Subdivision was filed the Engineering De- I i partment made a block study and every endeavor was mad? : to extend a street through to Basswood. Mrs. Coore was ; i not interested and Mr. Biier did not want to go into a : street opening. He pointed out that the applicant request- i i ing this variance can now build 4 houses on the property. I : He explained that the "panhandle" policy was initiated by ; i the Engineering Department in order to develop certain 1 : areas where there was no other possible way to develop : I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I land - locked property. * 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 I I I I 1 I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I 1 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 I I I I I I "" ". -3- I I 1 I 8 I I ,""""""""""""""i" " ,- " "" ."""" I I I The Chairman announced that the Commission would now i : hear from the applicant and those present desiring to 4 I i speak in favor of this request. i H. VON PACKA itD stated that the Planning Commission's i : decision was 3 to 3 at the hearing on January 12. The Goa- ; mission approved a "Panhandle" lot split on November 12,: I 196 3, and by restoring Lot 1 i) to Chestnut Manor and crea!- : ing an additional "Panhandle" lot split, it would be possible I to develop the lot in back for its best and fullest use, l : rather than land locking it. Be stated that he has eight : i children and is building a $40,000. home on a "panhand1e"I : lot now as he did not want his family living on a busy stred i de stated that he felt a "panhandle" lot is desirable for : I many people. I I : DICK GEYER, Realtor, 690 Elm Avenue, pointed out that i they were not asking for a variance for reduction in lot i : area as all of the lots are over 10,600 square feet in lot ; I area exclusive of the "Panhandle". He stated that he had i : just sold 2 "panhandle" lots in Oceanside. He pointed out ; 1 that the Council had adopted this policy to allow the highest : and best use of the otherwise land locked property. The : i property owner has the right to enjoy his property or the : City should change the policy and negate it. He asked Mr. ! : Thornton if this was a logical development for the best use: : of the land. He stated that he believed the homes built on I I these properties will be of higher value than the present i i homes in the area. He asked if the Commission had con- I : sulted the Police and Fire Departments regarding this i variance. I I 4 I I I I t I I I I 1 I I I ! i &ON BitOVC ARD, 2024 Linda Lane, stated that he had I 8 : taken the precise plans for these homes to the Building i i D9gartment and they will cost from $23,00. to $25,000. : : and will have cedar shingles. I I : The Chairman announced that the Commission would now i i hear fron those desiring to speak in opposition. I I i LT. 'COL. IdWN BArlNEY, 3405 Highland Drive, stated i : that he owns a half acre on the corner of Basswood and ; i Highland Dr. He presented, sketches he had drawn of his i : property and the applicant's property. He stated that he : i objected to the frontage being reduced to 12 1 /2' and that i : it would be creating more tnaffic on Basswood and would : 8 I 8 I I I b I degrade the property in the area. JACK BALETEd, 1365 Basswood, stated that the Engineer-: ing Department had asked Mr. Blier, a former property : ; owner, to give 50' of his property for street right of way i : in order to create 3 lots several years ago. It was not : feasible for him to put in the improvements so Mr. Blier : sold his property. iIe reported that the people on Bass- : wood did not object to one "panhandle" but they did object i i to 2 "panhandles". I I I The public hearing was closed at 8: 47 P, M, : Points discussed by the Commission were that since it : !was impossible to put a street through at the present time i I that this was the logical solution as the property owner ha$ ;the legitimate right to develop his property; the fact that ; I people do like to live back from the street; whether this : :was a $40,000. home are; the area has dead avocado trees: :and weeds on it and that it would be better to get home own: : ers in to clean off this property and build nice homes on it: I I I 8 8 8 I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I 8 I I 8 I I I I I I I 8 I I 8 I 8 8 I I I 8 8 * I * I I I I . .- I 8 f 8 I I I I 8 I I 8 I I A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 989 as request ed for the following reasons: I I * I 1. In view of the return of Lot 10 to Chestnut Manor Subdivision which is a part of the request for this variancd this "panhandle" lot split will make available a desirable { parcel which otherwise would be land locked. .I I I I 2. That a residence on the newly created lot would i broaden the tax base. 8 I 3. That the granting of this variance will not be mat: erially detrimental to the property woners in the area. I I I 8 I I I i Said lot splits are hereby granted on condition that all re- : : quirements of Ordinance No. 9136 and the City "Panhandl$ i lot split policies be met by applicant and that said new lot$ : be surveyed and monumented and that reports thereof be : i furnished to the City. I * i The following resolution was presented: I 8 I 8 I I I 8 I 8 8 : Plannin Commission Resolution No. ,389. A RESGLUTIGd Palmateer I ~~&%db~-~~C!IT?%l YiZGPFitTY AT THE SCUTHtMcCarthy i ELZLY SIDE OF BASSUOGD AVENUE, BETGEEN ADAMS i Sutherland ; STREET AND HIGdLAND DLZIVE, was adopted by title : McComas i only and further reading waived. i Freistadt 8 8 I I I I I f OLD BUSINESS: I I i Citizens' Committees. The Chairman stated that he would! i me the Commission to go over the reports and study them! : before they are released to the press and others. There ; I were two reports that were not in yet. 1 I i The Chairman asked Mr. Thornton to obtain a condensed i : report from Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall. I I i There was discussion on calling a special meeting in the I 8 8 I 8 I I I afternoon to discuss these reports. I I Planner. The Chairman reported that the present to meet the demands that would be : i required to attract a desirable planner who would meet the! : City's needs. The Commission agreed that they needed : I I 8 8 i professional guidance. I I I I I I 8 8 * I 8 I I I * I * I I * * I t 8 1 I I i Buena Vista Lagoon. After a short discussion it was I !Greed that the Chairman should write a letter to the Couna ; cil suggesting that two members from the Planning Corn- i :mission serve on the Committee with City Manager Mama* :who are meeting with a committee from the City of Ocean-: : side. I :M-zonin Commissioner McCarthy reported that the : :cornmi ee studying the revision of the M zone would like i to study the reports of the Citizens' Committees before : !making recommendations. !The Chairman requested a report from this committee at i ithe next regular meeting. I I I I 8 8 I I I I 8 I * 8 * I $ I I I 8 8 * I I 8 8 8 I 8 8 I 8 $ I b a I I * I I 8 I I * i n 8 8 i!;:;: eb..l! 8 8 8 -5- I I * * 8 * I I 1 :""""""""""""""""~""--""".""""""""""""~""~.. I : NEE BUSINESS I 1 1 8 I : Town House Development. It was pointed out that the : : green belts as no provision has been made for town house : i development and the development of park areas. Dr. 4 * : Palmateer felt that the Commission should consider this ! commission was handicapped with the development of type of zone. The Citizens' Committees also recognize I : the need for this type of zone. I 1 t I * i Mr. Thornton reported that he had just sent to the City of I San Diego for an ordinance that they recently adopted and : the Commission could look at it if they desired. I I I I I ADJOURNMENT I By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9: 18 P. Ma i * Respectfully submitted, I I DOROTHI! M. SOUSA Recording Secretary * * * I 4 * * I * t 8 I * * * I 1 * * 1 I I I I I * I * I I I 4 * I I I I 1 I I * 4 4 * * * I * * * * 1 * I 4 I I I I I I I I I I * * * * I * * 1 * 1 1 1 I * I I 1 I * * I I I I * I * I * I I I * I 1 * I 8 I * * * * I I * * * I I * 1 I * # 1 8 I 1 * I * I I I I I * I * * I * 1 * * t I 1 * I I I I I ! i 8 I * * I I * 8 1 I I .