Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-02-08; Planning Commission; Minutes. I I I I' , \\ ', ' '8 '\ ' i CITY OF CARLSSHD i bli nutes of: : Date of ideeting: February 8, '966 N 3 me *- '\%, '*8:'$+ i I Time of Yeeting: 7:30 P. M. I of '*+&.,;, &* i : P1 ace of i-leeti ng: "~""""""""""""""-"""""""-"~"""~""~""" Counci 1 Chambers 8 Member '&9\+d8$8 "*":.""J I I I ;::I:: I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Nunn, I ;;I:': ! Palmateer, PIcCarthy and Freistadt. Commissioner 1;::;: :I;&;: jsutkerland was present at 7:37 P. M. Commissioneps ;:l:ll : McComas and Lamb were absent. Also present were i llll;; iiii:: i City Attorney Idifson, Planning Director Schoell, ; I:;,,, 18 I Building Inspector Osburn, and C. R. Thorkon, I I ;::;;; 1:;; I I 1;:;: I I;':;: I i Evtunn : : !x: ; : i (a) iilinutes of the regular meeting of January :Palmateer jx:x: I i i25, 1966, were approved as submitted. ;,lcCarthy : ; ixi : : I I iFreistadt 3( i !x: ; ; I 11 11;: 1 I Vice Chairman McCarthy announced for the benefit i ::I:;; ::);It i of the audience that the applicants had requested: ::;:I: ithat Public Hearing (d) RECLASSIFICATION be with-: ::la:: jdrawn tentatively and that Item 6 on the tentativi ll;::l ($111 :map of Laguna Riviera VJould be continued to the ; ::;I:: ::I::: i next meeting for consideration. I I :;:;:; 1 I 18**4; i WRITTEN COMPIUNICATIONS : I I ii:::; I 1 :;::I: r :::::; ! (a) Parks and Recreation - re: Enforcement of i :1:;11 :Street Tree Ordinances dated January 25, 1966, ;;'I:: 1 I;!!:; :Vice Chairman McCarthy stated that since the I :I8 I1 jmemorandum was addressed to the Council, action ! I;;:,: &I8::@ : will be taken by that body. I I ::;::i I I :::;i: I ::; !Commissioner Sutherland was present at 7:38 P.M. i :;I::: 1::: I ,::;I: ; ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: b I ::;;:I i There were no oral communications. i PUELIC HEARINGS: :(a) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in lot i : area from 10,000 sq. ft. to 8471 sq.ft. on pro- i i perty located on the ilorthwesterly corner of I I : Forest Ave. and Crest Dr. Applicants: Marvin S. i and Idella R. Humphreys. I I I i Chairman IVicCarthy asked permission to abstain I I from voting on this request as the applicants are! ;clients of his. 1 I Notice of hearing was read. I I : \, 8\,8'8 '\\ '\,", I I I I I I PLAFJNIMG COPdliZISS IOU I *\, t8 ', 't, 8, \, 'x '.)\ \ 8 I I Ass't City Engineer. APPROVAL OF t4INUTES: I I I@ I I I !L:;: Ot'1* I I 11 I I I I I I t I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $ I 1 I I i Secretary Palmateer certified that proper notlcesi I of the public hearing were mailed to the property: : owners in the area and then read the application.: ! There were no written communications. :The Planning Director gave a report of his find- i ings and explained the location of the property : on the map. He also explained that he had I I i considered the possibi 1 i ty of rezoning the area : i to 7,500 sq, ft. as it does have the qualificatiob : for 7,500 square foot lots. There is adequate i i open space where the house is located. He point-: i ed out that various cities consider easements in I ; two .different ways. Some cities do not consider : I the easement as part of the lot area as the ease-; (ment cannot be built upon. He felt in this case : i it could be considered as lot area since the I I :easement is only serving two lots. I 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 8 ! ! I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I 1 I -2- 1 i Name r I i There was discussion on the difference in time is i element and cost between a zone change and I I variance. I I The Planning Director stated that after study of : i this matter he was not in favor of changing the I i zone on the two houses to the north. He stated : i that the zppl icant is willing to dedicate and i improve the street to the full standard. I : The Chairman announced the Colnmission would now i I hear from tile applicant or his representative ; i and any other wishing to speak in favor of this i : request. I HR. DON HOLLY, Licensed Land Surveyor, stated he i i represented the applicants and if the property i ; was zoned 7500 there would be no need for a I I i the lot. I i There were no others present desiring to speak : in favor of this application. I The Chairman announced the Commission would now i hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. i i!lRS. FRANK McKEEGAM, 2440 Lorna Lane, stated that! i she owns property to the north and questioned I I ; how this would affect the access to their propert). i The easement is their only access to their pro- : : perty and she asked about some one parking in the: i driveway and blocking their access. I The Planning Director explained the lot split i :would not affect the easement as they could not : build upon it. I i The City Attorney explained that the rights are i ; still the same whether the property is split or ; I not. The situation would not change as they 1 I :could not build on the easement and they would not have the right to block the driveway. I : Legally the driveway would be considered in the I i lot area. i The public hearing was closed at 8:03 P. M. ;After consideration by the Commission a motion / :was made by the Commission to adopt Resolution ; No. 421 granting the request for a variance for : reduction in lot size for the following reasons: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I # variance as there would be 8471 sq. ft. in I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 $ I I I I 1. That there are unusual conditions appli-i : cable to this parcel that do not apply generally : i to other properties in the same area due to' the i ifact that the applicant will be dedicatfng with : :street improvements for public street purposes i i in addition to an existing easement on the west- : erly portion of the property. I :enjoyment of a substantial property right poss- i :essed by other property in the same vicinity. I :parcels on two sides of this property. I I I I I 1 I I 2. That the variance is necessary for the i I I I I I I 3. That there are 7500 square foot zones i I I I I 1 I I * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I # I 1 :Planning Commission Resolution No. 421. A RESOL- TIOI'J GRANTING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY AT THE IidRTHNESTERLY CORNER OF FOREST AVENUE AND CREST : DRIVE, was adopted by title only and further i reading waived. /YAKIANCE - To consider a reduction in lot area :from 10,000 sq. ft. to 8340 sq. ft. on the Nest- Ierly side of Cameo Rd., Southerly of Chestnut Ave lbeing Lot 2, Chestnut Heights Subdivision, [-lap i5325. Applicants: John C. and Ben Alice blunn. I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 4 1 I I 4 & 4 IUotice of hearing was read. The Secretary !certified that notice of public hearing was given: :to the property owners in the area and then read : I the application. I I i There were no wri tten communi cations. :The Planning Director gave a report of his ifindings and explained the property on the map. i :He stated he felt in the future the Commission ; :ordinance based on density in zone rather than jlot size. This would then allow land to be :divided in the most usable way while still retain; jing desired open space, setbacks, etc. I I I * I t I I 1 I I I I I 4 I I - :should consider recommending adoption of an I I I I I I I I I I IGen. Nunn excused himself from the Commission :and explained that when Mr. Humphrcys built !Chestnut Heights, he saved Lots 2 and 3 for :himself. Gen. Munn stated that when he purchased: i the property he had the garage built on the I I jnortherly side of the lot rather than what was : :originally planned, and he put in a 20 foot re- jtaining wall. He stated he is giving up 1600 I I :square feet of property and is happy to do so. I :The house that is planned to be built will be I I :located on the easterly portion of Lot 3 with a !swimming pool next to the Munn property. I I I I I I I I I 1 ! I :1?1R. DON BRIGGS, JR. , 41 15 Sunnyhi 11 Dr. Iquestioned whether Lot 3 would have legal frontagi. I I I I ! I !MR. HOLLY assured him there would be no change in! :lot frontage on Lot 3. I I :The Chairman asked if any one wished to speak in i jopposi tion. I I I 3 I I I I I !!.lo one present spoke in opposition. 1 9 :The public hearing was closed at 8:25 P. M. !When questioned why a variance was necessary, :the City Attorney explained that the land could !be deeded to the property owner next door but !in order for the Engineering Department to 'Srant a legal lot split, the variance for reduct-! jion in lot area was necessary. !After discussion by the Commission, a motion was ! :made to adopt Resolution No. 422 granting the I I irequest for reduction in lot area for the follow- i i ng reasons : I I I I I I I 4 I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I ,,- I I I 1. That granting this variance will not be: i materially detrimental to the public welfare. I I I I I 'I' I I I 2. That granting the variance will not be :::1:1 :i:;:r 1::;:: I for Lot 3. ::!l:l I I injurious to the neighborhood and the lot line { i::::: adjustwent will provide a much better rear yard ; ;::::i I I I I I I I 3. That there are peculiar circumstances i applicable to this property. I I I I ;i;;i: i Planning Commission Resolution No. 422. A RESO- isutherland !xi 3( i i LUTION GRANTIldG A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY AT THE y"lunn : ; ;#:x: MESTERLY SIDE OF CAbIEO ROAD, SOUTHERLY OF Palrnateer 1 : S( : : I1 ; CHESTNUT AVENUE, was adopted by title only and hcCarthy ; : 3( I : I i further reading waived. iFreistadt : :x!: i : I I '1,;l) I (c) VARIAFICE - To consider a reduction in lot ;I 1) : area on lot 105 from 7500 sq. ft. to 7186 sq. ft.: i and reduction in frontage on Lot 106 from 50 ft. i ::; I i :': I to 49 1/2 ft. on property located in El Camino : ::,I:: i Mesa Subdivision Unit 3 on Catalina Dr., South i ::i::: I of Chestnut Ave. Applicants: Pacific Vista I ::;;:: I I:* i Estates, Inc. I I :::::: I :::::: : certified that notices of the public hearing I I ;l#;l* 111 81 I t:;;:: : and then read the application. I I ::;I 11;: I ,a: I 1 I ;;;,:I i There were no written communications. I I 1+1::: 111 1 I I ;::::: i The Planning Director gave a report of his I I I :I:: : findings and explained the developers allowed : :;I:;: i for an eleven foot strip along El C.amino Real ;::::: I I ;: #;::I *I : for street dedication when the tentative map I :;I 0: i was submitted. The developer had planned to I I la;!:l : put a ''knuckle" in on the southerly end of I I i:: a:: i Catalina Drive on the westerly side, but since i ,I;::: ;: Ill i it was necessary to dedicate additional I I 1::::: I ::(I:: : right of way for the realignment of El Camino I I !::::: i Real, they would have to put in a "bulb" I I ;:I:$: : cul-de-sac. I 9 t;l:81 11;: !The Chairman announced the Commission would now I :;;11; i near from the applicant or his representative and: ;I!:!; : any others who wjshed to speak in favor of this : i I :-e i application. I:!:;: I I I 1::::: I ::;:;: !FIR. JERRY ROMBOTIS, President of Pacific Vista I :€states, Inc., stated that he felt the Planning 1 ii:i:i i DS rector's report pretty well covered the reasons! ::;I;: I:( 41; i for requesting these variances. I I ;: iii: I I I I $4;: jNo others spoke in favor of this request. I 1::::; I I I ::ii:: I I :#I 1; !The Chairman announced the Commission would now i 1;;;a1 ;I@;:; :hear from those present desiring to speak in s I ;::;:; opposition. I 1 :;::I: 1;~I:I I I :;I:!: i There was no one present desiring to speak in I I::::: :opposition. I I ::+: ;:/I; I b 1;;:*1 :The public hearing was cJosed at 8:35 P. M. I I lll::; 1 I i::::: 1 I ::;;:; I I I ::;::: I 4 I 11 :::;:I I I ;;:::; I* L * :;:;,I I* 1;::;: I I 11 11 I I I i:;;:: I 1) I Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary were mailed to the property owners in the area, I I 1,(1' I I I I I I ;::1:1 ,I:::: I 18 I I ;I# 18 'I1 t I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I :;1:1: I I I 'I:;:; I I #ll:4; !!l!l! 11 1 I I I I I I & :I:;:: ;:;1:1 I I I I t I ! 5 " I I I' I \8 '\ ", 't I I % '8 '\ I I I *,,'\, '\\ ', '\ '\ I I '8 8,' ',, '*8 '8). I I ; *,+',O' \ I .?&\*,g', \?+ ; """_ "" "- "- """- - -"" ""_ ""_" -" "- .. """" -" "*." "" "- ";"- - c - ""_ "" $:&"-, "" I I 11:: t After consideration by the Commission, a motion ! :;:;;; i was made to adopt Resolution No. 423 granting the; i;:;:; :::::: ; request for said variances for the following .' I I I I I I I ,\, 8'8 I I I I I -5- i N a me ''8, '\$& 8\ \, 89). : Member \p'"8,$?$$?,~ I I 1 8 8 I ,$I1 I !;I::: SI I :'I 1::Ik 1) ;::i:i i in that the City required additional street I #;:;:I I ;;11;; 1 dedication which reduced the total subdivision arka 1::::: I and necessitated minor adjustments in lot lines : /:;;: ::c;la : and thus reduced the two affected lots below I 1;;I:: i minimum requirements. I I i;:::: I I ;#I:;; I 2. This will not affect the overall general! ::x;;: I plan. 6 I i:;::: '::;: I !it:;: I Planning Commission Resolution 110. 423. A RESOLU[Sutherlandi :x:xi I : TICH GRANTING VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ON CATALINA ; Munn : ; :xi ; : GRIVE, SOUTH OF CHESTNUT AVENUE. bras adopted : Palmateer I :x; ; 1: ; by title only and further reading waived. : McCarthy I i :xi i i I i Freistadt :x; i x: ; ; I (c) RECLASSIFICATION - Zone R-A-IOJIOO to I * i::::; I ;:;#;I R-1-7,000 sq. ft. on the Westerly side of El I lll:l@ I I I:;#;; i Camino Real, Easterly from Park Dr., being a ::I::: : portion of Lot I, Rho. Agua Hedionda, Map 823. i ;1:;1; ;::;:' i Applicants: Carlsbad 6ay Properties. 8 I ;::;;: I1 I I I I ;::;I; i This application was tentatively withdrawn on I ;;;#:I ;:#:I: : the request of the applicants. I I 1;;::; I I I ::::I 0: ! The Planning Director explained that after talkins ;:;I:: I wi tn the developer and the City Attorney they : :;:I 11;:; I felt this should be precise planned before coming: ;I,;:! :;::;I 81 : before the Commission and that the tentative map,! vi::: ; reclassification and precise plan should be I I ;: 'I 1:::: ! considered simultaneously. I I i:::;: I I I ,,::;: i The Ci ty Attorney presented the Commission with I ;:::I: i copies of proposed Resolution No. 426 and asked ::;I:: :;it;: : the Commission to consider adopting this resolu- : i:;:;: i tion to hold a public hearing regarding a precise! ;::I:: : plan on this property. He stated this would give: ;I:::: (1111) i the Commission an opportunity to advertise the ; 11;1* :;:I;: : public hearing. I I ::;;I; 811 I I t I ;::;:; I 1 ;::::: ; plans have to be initiated by the Planning I I ::;::: i Commission and not the developer according to the! :1::11 11 ; ordinance. I ::;1:1 I I I :e* ':;:!; I 1:;:;: i The Commission questioned why they should initial+ ;I1 ;:: :I; i action for a precise plan and the Planning i I ;:::;I Director explained the zoning that was granted i ;::;:: in the past on Falcon Hill Subdivision and El I I (((1 i Camino Mesa Subdivision. He felt it would be a i ;::;:! 1::;:; i better procedure to make it all one zone with a : ::::I; : precise plan rather than zoning it with small I ;::::; I spots of different zones. This will be a simpler; 4:::: ii:;:: I straightforward way to zone it and the developer ; :;I;:: : will furnish the plan on this which will be on 8: the tentative map. It is merely a procedure map ; ;: ll;l:: : and is more legal. I I ;::I I ;: I I I I fi1:;;; I I I I ;1:;1: :;&I8 * I I I ;:::i: I I 8 I ;::;I: I:;;:I I I !:;I;: I I 1::::: I I I I 1:;;:I I I I I :::;:: 1 I I ::#I;: I # :;:;I: reasons : 1 1 1. That there are exceptional circumstances: 1 I 1111 I I I I 11 I I I 1 I I I I I *Ill The Planning Director explained that precise I 11 I I I I I I I I1 1% I I ;a*:a; I ! !I:!:! I I' 1 I 1 I I I I 8, '\ -', '\, 8, '\ I \\ '\ ', \ \\ ' I' 1 I \, '\ '\ '\\ +, I I -5- ', 'b, 's, ', ', '\ I : of '.&$ '\ ,?&\?. ' -*\ : :""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "","" I I ;;I,;: i The City Attorney sxplained the way the property :::;:I : vas zoned in the past on the two subdivisions and: ::I; felt this would be a better looking zoning map : 11 11 : and more understandable. Mhen questioned regard-: :::::: :::::I i ing the larger lots and that R-1-lr3 might be I :::;,I I1 surrounded by R-17-5, the City Attorney stated ::;;:i i the larger lots would have to be subdivided I I :ii:;; : eventually. I :;I:*# I 1) I ::;:;; : The Planning Director again pointed out the need i ::#:lo (111 It I for a density zoning ordinance and explained I I ::'I:: : that most of the lots would average 9COO and I 1 ;I::;: 1::~41 i would be similiar to R-1-10. He explained the ::;;I: ::;;i: : topography of the land and the need for these 1 i:::;; I1 I sized lots and that land is being set aside for i ll'l(l i parks. I I::::; I I:::,; I i:;;:; The City Attorney explained this method of zoning! :::;:: ; would protect the City and developer. I ()I ::I:,: I :;:::' i After further discussion, a motion was made to :;1:1; I ;#;I I ;:#;I: I 8:;l:l :)I:;; i Resolution 110. 426. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINdSutherland I :xi 4 : : I COi4MISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD OETERbIINIMG i4unn :;:x;: i THAT A PUBLIC HEARING \.JILL BE HELD TO CONSIDER :Palmateer : i $ I i : RECOMMENDING A PRECISE PLAN TO THE CITY COUfilCIL )blcCarthy : i i : i read in full and adopted. I I I( ;::I *I; TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION ?iAP - LAGUNA RIVIERA - 329 i ;:i::; : lots located on the Westerly side of El Camino i :i;::r i Real, EAsterly from Park Drive. Owners and I I :;;::: I Subdividers: Kamar Construction Co. I :1111~ I 1:::;: : The Chairman announced this would be continued I i:::;: llel': .. I I I I I I I i N a me '8. '89 \\, ''$), I Member ,p ,o *,?"t'* p ,pn\!!\tOr\; I I I I I I * I I I I ! 11 I I I I 11 adopt the following resolution: I I ," I* I AND ORDERING NOTICE THEREOF TO BE GIVEN, was jFreistadt !XI p; i i I I b $1 I;:@ 1; I I ;:::;: I I ::!::I I I I $1:;: ;:::I: I I ;::;I: I I ;:::i; I I ::i:;: I I :::::: I I I and considered at the next meeting. OLD BUSINESS: * I I i (a) Vacation of certain streets in, Hosp Eucalyp-: ;:::4, 1;ll:: I tus Grove. i The City Attorney stated that this request had ;:I::: : been continued for some time and that Mr. Paul I ;::;;: ,111;: I S. Swirsky, Attorney for the owners of the I I ::;:;: : property, was present. I I t ::I I' ! ivlR. SNIRSKY explained that all of the Hosp Tract I :I;::: :I;:;: i is owned by the same owners. Uhen they were I ::;::: considering the site for the May Company shoppin$ :i;:;: : center this old subdivision was brought to their: ;:;::: i attention. The streets on the old map were 40' i 1:;::: : and the map was filed in 1907. He explained theijr ii;);! i would be no landlocked property as it is all I I ::I:;: I under one ownership. Group Ten do have access tq all:;: !:x:;; i their property. He pointed out that any future ; ;@I;l; : development would have to come before the 8 I ;I:;:; : Commission, and Jefferson is within the old sub- ;::;:I : division but they wish to have Jefferson as is. i :::;:; :!::I; I I *#:l;t : Mr. Thorton stated there w11J be an agreement i ::;:I: ;::;I; )I* i worked out for drainage, sewer and water for I easements in the May Company Shopping center site:. ::;:I: ;:I;;: I I I I ;::',; I MR. SWIRSKY stated they are close to actual con- l;;i;l : struction and hope'to have the final grading I I I :;;:;: i plan out by July. The street vacation is a I :::;i: 1 :Ill : faster procedure generally then the State Map I ;::;:I i Act. They have no objections to both of them. ; ;:;I:, :::;I, I I I I ::::;: I t ;:;I;: ! ! ,!I!#! I t I I ::i:;; 'b 1 I IIO I I I I *I1 11 81 * I .- r C. I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I -7- : Member I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i There was some discussion on the reports.. The i i Commission commended the Planning Director on I I : his reports, although some of the members felt i i felt he should recommend either for or against : : approval of the application. _' ., I I It was the general cbncern that the Director * I : should continue to list the facts and that the i : Commission would lose their decision upon these : i facts and those presented by the applicant and i i audience at the hearing. I I ADJOURNMENT: I I I I I I I I 9 I I I I I * I 1 I t By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at i 9, 58 P. W. to idonday, February 21, 1966, at I I : 7:30 P. M. due to February 22, 1966, being a I I I I I I I I I I I I I i legal holiday. I I i Respectfully submitted, I I I * I 1 I 1 I I I ! /lTA&aL :q,b 8" I I i DOROTHY M. OSBURN I I : Recording Secretary 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 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I t I I t 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 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 1 I I I I I !