Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-05-25; Planning Commission; MinutesI I I 1 PLA NNIpaG CC MlVlISSION ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Palmateer,! i McCarthy, Grant, Sutherland, Lamb, McComas and FreH ; stadt. Also present were City Attorney Wilson, Assistan4 i City Engineer Thornton, Planning Director Schoell, and : Building Inspector Osburn. APP80VA.L CF MINUTES: t I I " I - " Lamb I I I I I i Vg RITTEN C@MMUNICATIONS: I- - I I I I 1 I I I I I (a) Council action on Planning Matters was noted. I (b) City Council - re: Conditional Use Permit at Fox'i I Snug Earbor, Report from Councilman Nciswender and i : Councilman Jardine. 1 I : The Chairman pointed out that a great deal of time had : been spent by the Council and the Planning Commission ; i on this request. i The Planning Director reported that the Council took this : appeal under consideration and asked.Councilman Neis- : i wender and councilman.Jardine, to pr-eparg a rqort on this : : matter. He stated that he had gone over tnis with Cmn. i ; Jardine. The Planning Director suggested the Cornmis- i i sion review the report. I I ; There was discussion on whether the Commission should ! : quest. The City Attorney advised them that it was not : i necessary to hear them since the public hearing was clos* : Some of the Commission felt that the persons should be : allowed to speak if they could produce new evidence. I : There was discussion on the report from the Council Comi mittee. It was felt that Item 5 (b) would require more I : man power to police the area. There was discussion on : the State's standards and requirements and the City's, an4 I enforcement; the one that is more restrictive would apply.: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I permit the persons in the audience to speak on this re- I I I I i Particular attention was given to Item 9 in regard to dis- : : playing personnel effects, external clothes lines and bed- i I ding. It was pointed out that if this were made a restric- : : tion a clarification should be given due to the necessity i i of drying wet bathing suits after water skiing. It was felt that Item 13 would be too restrictive. I I ! Secretary Grant read a letter from Eugene U ernigk, 4264 I Highland Drive, objecting to having overnight camping at : this location. I I : The Chairman asked those who felt they had reason why i this request shoukl not be granted to speak. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i K. E:, EBAIGHT, 4444 Highland Drive, called attention to : the unusualness of this situation due to the fact that most 6f the property owners who were notified within 30% feet : live outside the City. ae questioned the need for grant- ! ing this request while DMJM are making a study of this area. He questioned if a Conditional Use Permit had eve ; been revoked in the City. He pointed out that the State i Park will be opening up for this type of facility this sum- ; mer. I I I I I b 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 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I P I ; '\ '\ .\ I I '\ '\ 'b I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I '8 ' 8' *' . I -2- I Name 's I : of I Member ;"""""""""""""~""""~"""""""""""~~.""~""""~~"""""- I MA M. W. JA-RVIE, 1125 Hoover Street, stated that most I i of the 55 or 60 persons signing the petition to appeal the I : decision of the Commission would have been at the hear- I I ing if they had known about it. This would be starting a ; I precedence. He stated that he was on the Planning Com- i i mission when the original conditional use permit was I I granted and there was no overnight camping permitted. Mk : also stated that he has an orange grove and that the people ; police protection. He asked the Planning Commission to i i give consideration and have something less than 3-1-15 I : along the lagoon near the R-T zoning. I I ! MK. PAUL HEINBACK, 1275 Hoover Street, stated that it was their understanding that this would be returned to the I : Planning Commission for a public hearing and he had I I i since heard that it would not be a public hearing. de felt i ; that by granting this, the overnight camping would expand : i and cover the entire area around the lagoon. He stated i i Oceanside before he moved to Carlsbad. would be out taking his oranges and he would ask for I I I I I I that he had lived next to Beach Lake Trailer Park in I I I I I I I I MRS. MYCLTLE BROAM, 3375 Adams Street, asked the i Commission to consider more than just a few persons : around the area, but the effect it would have on the City. ! MA. EUGENE NEdNIGK, 4264 Highland Drive, stated i i that his property overlooks the lagoon and questioned how i : the City of Carlsbad would benefit by this trailer site, I i and why they insist on voting on it. He stated that he likes: : Mr. Fox personally, but pointed out that most of the 1 8 i people living around the lagoon have quite an investment i : in their homes. He stated that Mr. Fox might sell his ; i interest and the next owner may not keep it up as much as i : Mr. Fox has. He stated that cars and boats go by their ; i home and the noise from the motors on the boats on the I ; lagoon is annoying. I I Tne Commission discussed whether they wished to modify i this conditional use permit or leave it the way it is. I I Commissioner McCarthy stated that he was not present i I the night of the hearing. He hoped the lagoon would be a : : major tourist attraction with parks. He envisioned a I I i harbor not as plush as Newport or as commercial as ; Oceanside. He was not sure this would be compatible with: i the other uses in the area. The Commission discussed the parking spaces; the uses i : permited in R-T zone; conservation of the beauty of I i Carlsbad; accepting some compromise for orderly ; development; Rec in R-T; the time limit for this con- i i ditional use permit; ,that this was compatible with boating; i ; enforcing the ordinance; whether the decision was right or; i whether they should add conditions to it; continuing this i : and appointing a committee to study this further. I I : Commissioner McCarthy inquired if he would be able to vote on this and the City Attorney informed him this was I not a public hearing, and was an administrative decision : ; and he would be able to make a report back to the Council. i I I I 1 t I I I I 1 I I $ I I I I I I 1 I I I I I It I I 1 I 1 t 1 I I I I I I I I Commissioner McCarthy stated that he would be on vacation soon, however, he would make a report. I I i The Chairman appointed Commissioner Grant to serve ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I * I I t I I t I * I I I 8 I I * I I I I I I L I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I - - I I I -3- I I I I I I I 4 i ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I i MA, F;EANCIS JOHN FOX stated that it is all private i I property where he has his business and he has had to : i spearhead everything that has been done down there. I I I I I I I i MR. M. W, JARVLE stated that he knew that the applica4 : is suppose to pay for a zone change, however, he thought the R-1-15 zoning on his property is very restrictive and I : the Commission should look this over since there are : commercial uses and R-T zoning nearby. 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 Tne Chairman explained that the Commission are studying this on the Master Plan. I I I I PUBLIC XEARING: I (a) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in the : required lot area from 6000 square feet to 4000 square feet, and reduction in rear yard setback from 16 feet to i 0 feet on property located between 2373 and 2381 * I Jefferson Street, Applicants: Robert A. and Merry J. I Borden. I I Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that proper notice was given to the property owners in i the area and then read the application and the signatures : of those approving the variances. I I I I I I There was no written correspondence on this matter. I I I I I I I i The Chairman asked the Planning Director to give his I : report. I I I I I The Planning Director explained the location of the propeky : on the map and that Mr. Borden had purchased the I : property from Mr. Briggs who sold him 4000 square feet! as Mr. Briggs wanted to retain a portion of the property. i The Planning Director explained that the lot is very I I ; shallow and has a difference in grade of approximately : i 20' between the front and rear property line. A steep i : cliff runs north-south through the property. The rear of i ! the lot fronts on an undeveloped City street which is + i closed to vehicular traffic and which adjoins Buena Vista I ; Lagoon. The lots on each side of subject lot have been i developed to within 2' of the Jefferson Street property i : line and to within 0' of the rear property line in accord- : i ance with a variance granted in 1960, so this property : would be entitled to the 2' front yard setback. The propoied i 4000 sq. ft. lot would have approximately the same usabl4 ; area as the 2 existing lots to the north. A reduction in : i lot area would be reflected in a reduction of dwelling : units allowed on subject property. All R-3 zoning re- I i quirements remain in effect. The Flanning Director : stated that these facts do not fulfill the four requirements! i for granting a variance with regard to the reduction of lot! : size. I I ; The Planning Director explained that the property did ; i meet the four requirements for granting a variance with 1 : regard to the reduction of the rear yard setback. I5e I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 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 l I I I I 8 ! r * I' I I I I I I I I 8, '\ *, 8 b ' . 8.. - I 8, 88 ', 8 N8 8 ' I I ',\ 888 '\, 8 ' ' I s8 \ '88 88,888 I I ; *$NO', ' ~"~""""""""~""""""""~"""""""~""""-"""-----"-;""-"-"------~----~"~---- Ill IJ : recommended that if this is granted that it be subject to ! /;:~l i conditions which he then outlined. I ;L;ii I i;;t#l I The Chairman asked the applicant or his representative i /*::: 1'1 ; and any others desiring to speak in favor to speak. I I 1:;::: I I :::;#I i MR. RGBERT A. BORDEN, 3355 Valley Street, explain+ ii::ii i the amount of property that he legally owns and stated ; @I:%; :::::I that he was asking for this variance to put a home on it. i ;;l:hI I@ i He explained that they would have egress and ingress on ; ;::::: : the lower area and have a cantilevered house and still i :!:: :;I#;: i have yard area below. The road below is concrete and : lo'# I l*;l:l : blacktopped, and they have a permanent easement for bl:;; :'I I access to the lower property. He stated that the propertfb 1::::: 11 : owners own the property to the center of this abandoned i:::;: i road. He knew of this when he purchased the property. : @::It; :+:; i He stated that he has no plans for building on this lot at i :::;,I : the present time. B B :::;:: t I I :::;:: i The Planning Director pointed out that the public right : I::::: 'l:;l I: i of way does not count in the lot area of the land and that i ::'e:: : most of the property in the City was formerly owned by : ::ii:: the property owner to the center of the street but now mobt :::;;: : of it belongs to the City. The abandoned street is closed i i to vehicular traffic but has never been vacated and could ; ::;I:: i MR. DCN BRIGGS, JR., 2381 Jefferson, asked Mr. Bordin ; if he concurred with the Planning Director's recommen-: : dations and explained that he felt there are exceptional ;nl:ll ;::;:I i circumstances. He stated that he had purchased the pro; I:'#:: : perty thinking the road was vacated. The fee title does I : just received a clarification from the City Attorney that i i had checked with the former City Attorney, Mrs. Bar- i ; bara Betts, before putting the improvements in and she : ::ii;; i had stated that he could use this road for their own pri- : ii::ii ; vate vehicles. He pointed out that the properties norther; 1I:;l; i ly of this property are 6000 sq. ft. lots but have this by i :;#I:* : having narrow ends tapering down near the closed road. : :$;:: The Chairman questioned the distance between the Briggsj :I 104:: i house and the heavy property line on the map, and Mr. : Briggs stated they could not come to an agreement on the : I price. Iie pointed out that R-3 only permits 60% lot : coverage. He liked the Planning Director's comments i i regarding ingress and egress. He stated that he would ; 1;:;:; : not be able to develop the property between his home and i : Mr. Borden's without a variance, however, he would pre? ; fer having this for a buffer. I I /iI+ : The public hearing was closed at 9: 35 P. M, I I :-l;l : Points discussed were having a 400G sq. ft. lot with adddl ;:I I1 I parking requirements; the Briggs property could be de- i!:::! : veloped into multiple-dwellings; that the City would like : :::::: i to keep any property around the lagoon for access to the i::::i : lagoon; that the road has not been used for 20 years ; I whether it is better to have a decrease in density with : ::;:I: : traffic control; an easement granted to the County for road I purposes. i The City Attorney stated that this Carlsbad Road could no4 ::I:;: : be counted for the required lot area even though it is not & ll:;l; i travelled roadway. It could be used for a foot thorough- :;:::: : fare. ' I 8*8 I I I I -4- i N a me "8, 88% "*:'$$ i l : Member &&?,-$80 &8' '?&? \a8,.$@ ! 1 'I 4 I I I 1 '*I:;: @I I I I' :I 1;:::; : be re-opened. I I :+:! @I ;:::: I :ii:i; :;!:;: i run to the center of the road. Hz reported that he had : !:l:;l 8: 1:p:: !::;I: I1 ;Il;:: 1::;:; ::;;:; I 1 Id:;: /;I:: I ::,:I: i:::i: ;:'Ill ::;la* I /:: :L:;; 1 ;:4*: I@ I 1;::;; 8: I I 4 ::;i;: I:;::: 1:;::: t I i:: Ill this could not be counted as lot area. He stated that he : 11 I I* O(I ;: I::!! I I I I ;I I parking requirements or 6000 sq. ft. without the added : I ltII I ::;I;: :;I::: I +;:I I I ::ii I ::::;: i!:::; I * I :::::: I I ;#I )Ill I I I I I:;:,: I ;*:'I; I I I ;::::I I I I I ;::::: 1 I I I 1;;::i I I t !+:;I I I I ;::i I !:I!!, I b I t I I ;I/:; ;:::;; I l I . i When asked about the improvements on Jefferson Street, I ::;*:I : Mr. Thornton stated that the City proposes to use a 60' : i right of way on Jefferson Street. I I 1:;::: i The Chairman and Commissioner Lamb stated they felt !!:;;: i there should be precise plans before granting this to 4 I :;: : 4000 sq. ft. , with one ingress and egress on Jefferson I 8 1111 , i Commissioner McCarthy questioned Mr. Borden whether i : he knew this was not a buildable lot when he bought it, i and Mr. Borden stated that he thought the property went 1::::: : to the center of the road but he did not check into it. I I I:;::: : After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt Re-: : lot area for the following reasons: I VI'* I:;::: :::::: 1 1*4ii ::; :::;,I 1 I 1:;;i :::;:; I :::;:I I ;::I:: t I I 1::::: 81 ::::i: :::;:; I I i::::: I 1 ;;!I:: I 1. There are no exceptional circumstances that do : I:;l:: I or zone. I I :;4:; I i:::;: 8 2. The variance is not necessary for the preserva- i i tion of a substantial property right possessed by other ;::;:: 1:;l': : property in the same vicinity. Palmateer : : : ii i s : McCarthy i i : I i AND that the reduction in rear yard setback be denied i Grant i:::q: i because it does not seem to have a meaning without the Sutherland %!# i : lot reduction. I Lamb :xi ;q I ; I I McComas i I lrd i I The motion died for lack of majority vote. The City i Freistadt I :g ; i Attorney asked that someone else propose an alternate i !:::I; ((1 1 : resolution. I 4:;:; : Commissioner Freistadt questioned Mr. Borden when the I llll;l i property was purchased and Mr. Borden stated that he i t;;1 acquired the property two years ago. I I 1:;::: : After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt i In;*:: i Resolution No. 398 granting the variances for the following I I i Street. 1 I :::I;; !:a 18 I t I solution No. 398 denying the request for the reduction in ::::;; :: I I 11 I not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity i ::;::: I I I I I I :::;I; .:::;:; ;::::I I i::::: :::::: reasons: I i:::;; I I I I!:;: ::I 11 1. That the variance is necessary for the preserva-: :;;::: tion of a substantial property right possessed by other i iiiiii I property in the same vicinity. I :::;:i I 2. That the rugged physical contour of the property I ::::I, #I i::::; i is excepional for an R-3 zone and the open area of the : 1::to1 : Lagoon does provide light and air typically furnished by i :;1:1; i the rear yard setback and larger land area. I 1 :;;;:; I 1;;:: I 3. The reduction of rear yard setback is necessary i i;:::; i to allow sufficient depth of building area which is now : *1::1; : possessed by other property in the same vicinity but whic4 :;;1:1 :::i:: i is denied to the property in question. I I ::;I : I 4. Inclusion of the recommendations listed below will 1:1 iii:;: i provide for a less detrimental use of the property than is i :*I:;; : allowed at present. I ;I:;,; I 5. The granting of such variance will not adversely +:!; : affect the comprehensive general plan. ;lI1l; I I I I ii::;: ;I::;; : AND that this be granted on the following conditions and i ;::;I; I limitations: t ;::::' I ;:'I:: I I I::!;: I 1. In addition to the 1 parking space now required i :;#I1: :I:;:; :::::: :I:::: I 2. Only one means of ingress and egress 22' wide ::/I; ::;:;: I I I ;:;::I I I:;:;: 1 I i:::;: I 1 I ::;:;: I I 1 I :;'I 4;;i; I I l 1 it:::! 1 I 1 I 1:;;:: I I ;I, :; I I 1;;::e I I::!:! I I I 811 I Ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : per dwelling unit, an additional parking space per unit ; shall be required, meeting all the code requirements for required parking with the exception that the additional : :::::; : parking will be allowed in the side yard setback. I 1 ::i:i: I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I rc I I I I I I I I I I -6- : maximum shall be allowed from Jefferson Street. No garhe, i carport or required parking space shall face upon Jeffer- : : son Street. : The following resolution was presented: I I title only and further reading waived. I I i OLD BUSIIWSS: I I (a) DMJM. The Planning Director stated that he had I I 1 I I I I i not heard fromaul Neal and has been trying to contact i ; the gentleman from the State who would call him the next : i day. I I I The Chairman instructed the Planning Director to call : Byron Barnes and asked the Commission to review the : i portion of the report that was sent from DMJM. The I I : Commission felt it was necessary to have a map. I 1 The Planni-irector reported that the County would ; have a hearing that Friday, May 28, 1965, at 2:OO o'clock : i P. M. and stated that he intended to go to it and asked if the Commission would like to attend also. He stated that : he felt they would just discuss and consider the zoning :this time. He reported that he had discussed this with i Mr. Munk, the County Senior Planner, and he had stated : i that the Qunty had many requests for commercial zoning ;but they had narrowed it down, and that most of the I I !Commercial areas were for 30 acre sites except for ; approximately 3 1/2 acres at the Kelly trailer site. He ireported that Mr. Munk made two requests from DMJM i :and had received no reply or map. i The Commission was not in agreement with the County ! !having commercial zoning on one portion of El Camino :Real and at the Southeast and Southwest corners of the lintersection at Palomar Airport Road and El Camino i3eal.i :They were in favor of A-1-8 for a holding zone. I I :The Chairman instructed the Planning Director to speak : ;at this hearing on limiting the Commerical zoning. I I I I I I t I I I I 1 I I I I I (b) Zoning in the County Southeast of Carlsbad. I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I ' t I I I I ADJOURNMENT: I I I I I I :By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P, M, I !Respectfully submitted, I 4 I I I I I * I I I I I 1 I I I 8 I I iDOaoTI3Y M. SOUSA :Recording Secretary I I I I 1 I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 0 * I I I I I I I 0 I I I I 8 I I * I I t I I I I I I I 0 I I t I I t I I I I ' I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I !