The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1966-03-08; Planning Commission; Minutes" * I I :CITY OF CARLSBAD jWi nutes sf: PLANIJ I I\JG CQi4i4I SS 101.1 :Date of ideeting: March 8, 1966 :Time of i-ieeting: 7: 30 P.M. :Place of ivleeting: Counci 1 Chambers jRClLL CALL was answered by Commissioners ;?.imateer, ?4cComas, i.lcCarthy, Lamb and :Z:jimlissioner Sutherland was absent. A1 I-.""""""""""- """"""""""""""""". I I .""_. illu n Frei so P ."""". n, s tadt. resent jwc:rne City Attorney ili lson, Planning Di rector l5choel1, Building Inspector Osburn, and Ass't. !:,I ty Engineer Thornton. jl=.FPROVA!. OF MIMUTES:. i :(a) XinuteS of the regular adjourned meeting of :February 21, 1966, were approved as submitted. *-. I I I I I jWRITTEN COMdUNICATIONS: !(a) Council action on Planning itlatters was notec I !(b) Park & Recreation Commission - re: Designa- :ti on of Lake Calaveras as a park. I :The Planning Director reported discussing this lmatter with Xrs. Betty Wollrich from the Park & jRecreation Commission-, and this matter needs legal! jclarification because the land is part of the I f :Carlsbad i4utuaI Water Co. holdings. I I I I 1 1 /The City Attorney explained this property was jbought with the rest of the Carlsbad Mutual Water i :Co. holdings and provisions were made that the i !property can not be sold or mortgaged unless the : :money is turned over for the bonds. He is ex- I ipecting a statement from the bond attorneys, 0' i :E*lelveny and Myers, on whether the designation of jthis property for a park site would jeopardize I :the bonds, however, it would be good to have some ; !statement from the Planning Commission if they :wished to have this property designated as a park i :site before investigating the matter. 8 iblith the consent of the Commission, Chairman jMcComas asked that this matter be placed on the i :agenda for a legal opinion before making any I :recommendations. :DON BRIGGS, JR., was present and stated that he 1 :would give this information to the Park & Recrea-: !ion Commission. :ORAL COMWNICATIONS: :NR. DON BRIGGS,JR., 4115 Sunnyhill Dr., asked to i jdiscuss the planning and alternate routing of I I :Tamarack and the medium density zone in the area i !of Tamarack. He stated they would be coming in ; :with a subdivision map soon and would like to I :present general ideas on what is happening in the/ :area. He would like to bring it before the Com- i jmission for a preliminary study for an alternate :route for Tamarack. He expressed a desire to go : :to DWJEI and work with them on these matters with i jthe sanction or endorsement of the Commission. I I ;On being questioned the City Attorney stated that: :it was not the proper procedure for Fdr. Briggs !to go to DMJM stating the Commission endorsed his: :recommendatfonS. 1 1 I I I I I I I 8 1 t t I I I 1 f I f 1 I I I I f I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I b I I I I I I I I * i I ! ," - 1 I' I I' I I ', 's ',, ', \, '. I -2- ' ,.. I I I I I '\ ,\ 8%' I I I I '\ '.). "\'\,'*\ I I I I Na me '\ '$$, '88'$$), 1 I : of ''*+?$, ' 8?, : I : Member 8.L $'$;3\.*\p\~'~( \o ,a\,+ +$. I 8' 8, ', %, '\ '8 '8 I I :""""~""""~""~""""""""""""""""""-"""""""~"""""""""""-~"" 1': 1 I ::; : It was the consensps of the Commission that they i :::;&I :;: i ,c?uld not give thet-4 endorsement for Hr. 6riggs i ;::::; : t:) go to CHJM but that as a private land owner : ;I: I' l:;8 /I::: : I ,. i' ,- , could act in his own behalf. lit;:: I I 8 I ! t ': -:!-I 1 I :::I:; 4 8 i::::; : "". I It# I:&:;: h:;l; !;:$; ::;;:; 81, I I :e l;l:l~ 11;; :;; 11 1 ::1:t* 11 I I ::i::: I 8 ::I::: I :::::: The Chairman explained this hearing was continued 'I:;;: i from the last meeting and asked the applicant or ; p::;; representative if they wished to speak. I 1 ;::::: I I i::::: I tyEF#qESENJ/*/vb3 I MR. PAUL LEYTON, Getera4 "wga&F May Depart& ;:::;: ;:I::: i ment Stores Co., and representing FAHCO, ET AL, : l:ll@ ::'::: : introduced HR. STEVE NARCUS, who is on the May i :$:: I' i Co, staff in charge of advertising. Mr. Leyton : :;::I: : explained the preliminary site plan for the Hay i ;;:::* I#*' I Co. Shopping Center with the two level concept : ii:::: because people do not want to walk far after I ::::;; 8: parking their cars. The May Company store and : ;:I::: :I4 i enclosed mall area for small shops will be built : first. He explained they have to create differ- I l::a#l *ll:l; i ent ceiling heights and ceilings would be as high! ::;;:I ::SI;: : as 50' from the lower levels in some places. The I :I:::: I Nay Company store also needs considerable height : :i;:;: : for escalators with visibility of the store for i 888; I the patrons. This is an isolated site in terms : i::;:; ; of other property owners. The other property i ::I::: l:ll@l i to the south is considerably higher in elevation : ;4:;; : and will remain so. He presented a colored t iir:l: i rendering of the proposed shopping center and ! ;1:1 i!:::; : explained they have allowed for the possibility i ;:: In1 of a theater and another building southerly from : ,@I::: ;:ll:l : the May Co. for a savings and loan company or ;::;:: i similiar business. I i;:::1 0: I 8 I /::;: ;I ;: ;:;: /::I: I I :;:;;; :::::i :;pi: ::::;: 11( I::::: ::;;:: I I I ii;: I ,I,,:: ::I1 !!:;;; 8 11 . G3.di.iC HEARING: I ! ((7) VARIANCE, - continued - To consider an in- i i crease in building height from 35' to 60' with ; : t:!e applicable exceptions for penthouses and i voc)f structures on the Southwesterly corner of i : State Higfhway 78 and El Camino Real. Applicants:: I i FAWCO, ET At. I ::pi: I I I The Chairman asked the difference in elevation : i between the Edorth and South parking areas. I I ;:;:;: i FIR. LEYTON explained the two levels are I ;I*@a1 : condusive to good circulation because the grading i t:, get equal distribution on foot when the custo-: ; mcrs leave their cars and the department store I i sust have visible merchandising. Canoga Park : Sl:opping Center took level land and created two i ;ill:: I levels by moving dirt for-a..center mall. [ Commissioner Lamb questioned whether this varianie ::::;, : meets the requirements in Item 1, Section 1802, $:::! ! and the Chairman explained the Commission has i i never turned down a request of this nature in ;I;:': : that area. 8 ;:I;:; /I::: i Commissioner Lamb questioned the buildings being i ;;#*;I 4:;::: hui 1 t to the property line with the increase in : i::::: : height limit. * 8 ::::;: 4 b :::::: There was considerable discussion on the point i ;::;:; from where the haight Ilmits would be determined,: ;pi:: I I :l*ll; I :::::; 8 ;::;:: 8 ;::;:I I ;:81:1 * ;:ii:: I I #:@I@: I I :;:::; I 8 :;:::; I I :;i:!: I I I I I 11 881 I( I 8 8 I I 1 1111 I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I 8 ! I :!!:!: ~. I - I I I I I I " s *, 8 '\ * 8 -, ., ', \, '\ '. 8 I .\ '\ , ', *\,'\\ 1 I -3- 1 I \* +\ '\, ', '\ I I i ria me '8, '\$\ '' \Q I 1 ' +$k8 ; I I of "."'s33, 8?&,0 ,a '\ '?$, : 1 : Member $'@,-$&%e, + I 1 I 'Ell;: :;:@*I I I I I I ' * ', ', ~~"""""""""""~""~"""""""""""""""~"~"-""""~~"----""-----"--"~--~"-- I~?P Chairman asked if anyone else would like to i I::::: : .<peak in favor of this variance. I I 1:;iii Ill I :;:::: ! i:'i. dC;d BRIGGS, JR., stated he was not in favor i :@I:;: l::@tl i J,ppased to this request but questioned the :;4;: ; ,,j, ,:,"; .. .. r: 2 planning and stated that as a property : ;1:*1* :::::i i .)+,:nt+,' the City of Carlsbad he would like to k$OW It;::> : ~b?;r.: the south elevation from Carlsbad would be : ii;::: I ! i !; 'j lll:t~ :. 11 I* I I :::::: I:, : (. ,-. I LEYTON stated that as far as he knew, the i :;;I:: i bz.~!; viI1 look the same as the front as they will: ::::;: :::::: : ~0-t ha~:e P back or front. They will spend a I ;;I::: ccnsiderable amount of money to grade this pro- I ::ii:: ; perty to gat two elevations so it would not be : :i::;: 11 i i II the best economic interests to have trash in I ::!I:: : hack of the buildings. He explained that it is : ::I!:: I important to have the best environment for these I/:;: I1 I stores. lie stated he felt the h9ission Valley : *I::;; i Shopping Center is the best looking center they i i;QI,l ::;: have. The site plans are close to completion : : and will be sL;bmi tted to the City for their 1:::;: i approval. The property will be surcharged and : i::::: 1:::;: t : set for J while. I I :;I::: I I :$:: i !4K. 1. E. LIDDLE, 2475 Jefferson St., stated he I :::;;: :::eu: : is in favor of rais.ing':the"hejght'l#ilit aid ~oifd :l;::: i i i ke the i4ay Company to have a free hand to builq ::I::: : the type of structure they are proposing. t ::;::I I 1 :::i;i i The Chairman announced the Commission would now i *;;Ill :I:::: i hear from those who wished to speak in opposition!. :::;:: 'I::;: No one spoke in opposition. I :::ll; I::::I I I ;l#*l; i The public hearing Mas closed at 8:21 P.N. I I:;::, I * I :::::i !::::I I I I ii:iii i AFtzr due consideration, a motion was made to I *1*1)1 ::::I: i adopt Resolution No. 428 granting a variance on ; 1:;I:l : said property as requested for the following ::;::: 1 ::;:;: : reasons: I I I :::;+ I 1. A department store in a regional shoppin$ ;;:;ol 'I i center requires this extra height limit, I I ;:!::; 11 ::;:i: : area. i::::: I 3. That granting this variance will not ad-i ;::::I :::::i I versely affect the comprehensive general plan. : ;::*I1 I 4. That no property in the same vicinity i ;::::: : and zone is presently denied this height limit. : 1::::: I I ::::Il *I; I ::i:i: i PlanningCommission Resolution No. 428. A RESOLIJ-j Munn ; I' i :xi : : CJESJERLY CORiiER OF STATE HIGHWAY 78 AND EL CAf4INO: r,lcComas ! : i xi I ; : REAI., ;vas adopted by title only and further read-j ilcCarthy ; 1: : jx: : 8: I : ing b:aived. : Lamb ;x; :x; : i (b) RECLASSIFICATION, - continued - Zone R-A-10,: : 000 to K-1-7,000 Sq. ft. Applicants: Kamar i Construction CO. ! (c) PRECISE PLAN, - contini;ed - Applicants: I ;;1:1: Planning Cornmission Resolution Ho. 426. 1 I ;;:;:; I I ;I:;:: I I :::;:: I 1:;1:1 * I I :::::: I :::::: I I :::::: I I I ::;:;: I I I I 18;;l: :!.l!l I -1 I I I I I I I:: 11 1 18 I)* I (I1 @I I I I I I I t I I I 11 I I I I 1 'DI:~: I The following resolution was presented: I b I1 I ," I I 8 2. That the granting of this variance will not be detrimental to any other properties in the: I I I I i RQTCRAtiI~ING A VARIANCE ON PROPEiiTY AT THE SO!JTH!Palmateer ; I :x: : i I I I i Freistadt : :xixi i I :i;ii: I i::;:; I ;;,::: I I :::::, 8: I I ::i:;: I b I 61 I. ; ; I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I -4- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~"""""""""""-"~""""""""""""""""--"-""--"-"-~" i TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION HAP, - continued - LAGUNA i i RIVIERA - 329 Lots. Owners and Subdividers: I I Kamar Construction Co. 'the Secretary read a letter dated ;larch 8, 1966,: I. -?.*x dr. Jerry L. Rombotis, President of Kamar ; i Construction Co., Inc. requesting that the above! : thrze items be continued so that studies which : i efef2ct matters outside of this subdivision may i : be made. I t t common consent of the Commission the request I I 1 I t I I I I I I WQS granted, I I I I I I / TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - PARK i4ANOR NO. 1 - I : 23 Lots 2 Zone: R-1-7500. Located on the I I i Easterly side of Park Drive, between Tamarack i i Ave. and Hillside Dr. Owners and Subdividers: : : D. 6. Jr., Inc. I i A copy of the tentative map was presented. i Copies of the map, reports and resolution re- i commending approval of the tentative map sub- I : ject to the conditions recommended by the varioui departments and agencies had been presented to i : the Commissioners. I I i4R. DON C;RIGGS, JR.) representing D.B. Jr., Inc. I i stated he would go along with the recommendation4 I except he did not want to put in underground I I : utilities along Park Drive since the poles are I I already there and are serving houses across the ; I street. He also objected to the Engineering 1 i Department not wanting the proposed cul-de-sac i : to be named Park Lane. I I : The Planning Director stated that he concurred : i with the Engineering Department's report and thaj the applicant is applying for certain reductions ; i in City standards. I Mr. Thornton stated the applicant 5s asking that i : underground utilities not be required to serve ; proposed Lots 1 thru 5 and Lots 18 thru 33 on i I Park Drive. He pointed out that Ordinance 9173 : : alnending Ordinance 9050 requires that underground i utilities be installed in all subdivisionS"in'thq : City 2nd they see no unusual circumstances for i not having them. He explained that the Police I : and Fire Departments do not want the name Park i i Lane because of the confusion in reporting emer- i : gency calls on streets with similiar names. Ile 1 i stated that it is up to the developer to resubmi! : a name for the street. I I Mr. Briggs stated that he felt the name Park Lani : has a nice ring to it and would be easier to fin! I or describe since it would be off Park Drlve. I i Ha stated he felt that with the low nuinbers on i the street, there would b.e no confusion dnd it : would be easier to find than streets of the I i same name that were separated by the freeway. : He stated he could subdivide 4 lots each year I I without putting in the improvements. I ! I I 1 I I I I I I I I t I I I 8 I I I * 1 I I t * I I I I I I I I I * I I I I 1 I I I I I \ 8' I . I '\ \\ 'x, '\ '\ .' I ", '\\ ', b' '\ 8, I I I I I I I I I -5- I I 8'' y,, ''' 8'\'', I I i Na me \\ '8%. k, %$), : I I ; of '\,+$?.+, +??.O .d.,.t.* ' \$' I : I : Member $f@<+\p\,o',; 1 I I I pll:: I!::: ::I 10 :;1:*0 10 I I ::/;:: I I I :::;:: 1 I ::::tl '\, , %'8 I I I I ', '..+ ~""""""""""""""-""""""""""""~~""""""""""-~"""-"--""--- ""1"" : The Comnission questioned Hr. Briggs regarding : vho drew up the map, and the; existing structuresj i on the property. ! Pir. Briggs stated the map was prepared by a : ~,+o?zssional man but his name does not appear 1 i on t:ie map and Mr. Briggs did not wish to say : ~ko drew up the map. He stated there is a I I lean-to on the vicinity map, and asked that i variances be granted if the Commission determined : .it was proper. He stated this was requested and: I should havp been advertised this way. 'The Commission was informed that no request was : made or mentioned for a variance to the Planning: i Department. 1 The City Attorney pointed out that the Engineeriig I Department was requesting the Hubbard property ; i The Commission inquired if Hrs. Hubbard had sign: ed an application desiring her property to be in+ : cluded in the subdivision and was informed that i / she had not. i iilr. Briggs voiced objection to having the Hub- : : bard property included in the subdivision and to! the street improvements. I I ilr. Thornton explained that the applicant has : I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I be included as a part of the subdivision. I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i had a copy of the Engineering Department's re- : commendations for over a week. i.lrs. Hubbard i owns the property in fee title on the proposed i ::;I:: * I cul-de-sac and uses this for an access to her i p1:;; ;:*#:I ::::I: i property. The Engineering Department feel that : : in the best interests of the City and Mrs. Hub- i :#I: I:::' I bard, this property should be included in the : !::I:: : subdivision, or at least the street should be ! 4::;: (II) i included and have a one foot barrier. If allow-: :::::i : ed to have that part in fee title she has a 52' : /;:::; i frontage, however if just the street is included; ::!:I: : they would have adequate frontage. I ;+i:: I :::;:I I The City Attorney explained that it would be I I :::::I : necessary to have any variances approved before i ;::I:: ;:i:i: the final map is approved. He pointed out that : :;1:8: : many subdivisions do not go beyond the tentative: I::::; i maps being approved. If the Commission desired I : not to include Mrs. Hubbards property, they I i::::: i could state the subdivider shall call this pro- 1::::: : posed street to be improved to City standards. i :*1:1: ;::4* I I I ::~111 11:;; : After further consideration, a motion was made : ::!::: i to adopt Resolution !io. 430 recommending approvai ::I::: : of the tentative map subject to all of the con- ; ;1::1; ::::i; I :::;:; I thru 24, with the exception that Item No. 7 be i ,::::I : changed to read as follows: "The subdivisicn de-: ::;I:: i sign as proposed generally complies with the I i::::: : standards of the City of Carlsbad; however as a ; 1::1:: i condition to approval of the tentative map, sub-: :::::: ::I::: : divider shall cause that parcel, outside the 8 ;::::; i subdivision, now shown as reserved for street i ::::i: : purposes purposes between Lots 21 and 22, to be i ::;:I: i improved to City street standards and dedicated : I:;':: I I I ;/:::: 8 I I ::,;I; :::: I I I :':::; I 8 I :!;:I; I I I 111: I I I I 01 1) I ditions as stated in the resolution, Items 1 I 88 I I 118 11 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 for public street and right of way purposes from I lll:8i i its intersection with Park Drive to its inter- : section with the northerly prolongation of the :::;I: : easterly line of Lot 22." ;::IIt I I I::#:: ::::;: Ill I :::::; 1 :::;:I Rr\solution KO. 430. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD iidunn l1 I :x;)(; : : : rr'ry PLANNING CowmsIor~ RECOMMEMIING APPROVAL : Palmateer [ !xi ; i SION, was read in full and adopted. FYlcCarthy b i :xi ; : 1 : Lamb i i :x: : : I Freistadt : I !xi : ; I I VI8 : OLD BdS Il4ESS : ! (a) Removal of Lagoon Sidewalk Easement on Lots ! :: 11:: : 1 thru 9, Buena Vista Gardens. I I I::::: I ::'::: ! The City Attorney stated this was referred to him; 1::::: I and be had checked with the title company and it I I::,:: : is a public sidewalk. :;:::: I I l@:::: I I itI I : The staff reported that the sidewalk is improved.! I;'::: ;:::I' I Fences presently are built across the sidewalk i 11;: : at various points. I ::,:I: 11 I !::::; After due consideration, a motion was made to havbwnn i : :xi : i : the Planning Director send a memorandum to the Palmateer : /x !x: i : I Council stating that in view of the potential : HcComas : ;: :xi t i : Recreational and park development of Buena Vista IblcCarthy I :x: ; i Lagoon, the Planning Commission considers it : Lamb :ki :xi : : inadvisable to relinquish any public rights to IFreistadt : !xi : i the easement at this time. I I ,I;iii I NEW BUSINESS: I @ $b:l' :::;:; 11 i (a) R-T - "Rec." - Commissioner Lamb called * I :::I;; i attention to the fact that there is a bar started! ;: :i:; : at Carlsbad Landing (formerly Whitey's Landing) ::I,:: II ;:!i:: i and stated he felt this was a violation of the : II : zoning or'dinance and a precise plan should have i I:'::: :I;;:: been presented to the Commission, and he would : $1 1: : like to have somebody give a report on this. I # ::I:* 11 ::::I: t VI1 8: ! The Chai rman asked the City Attorney to report to! :;i:i: i the Commission on this matter. 1 ::::I: I :I;::: (b) Commissioner Freistadt questioned the Counci) ;:I::: 1::;: I :I, I I ;::::: I ::I::: I :::::: I :I:::: I I rvl u n n : :x ; ; I I I 11 I1 : OF THE TENTATIVE i4AP OF PARK I4ANOR NO. 1 SUBDIVI-: kCOmaS I I IX: ; I I 11 11 I I I I I :;I:#' ;;:I:; I I I 1 a::# ::: Ill I I I I I r !:;!:I I I 1 I1 I 4 I ;: :oil it I I I I 1 *':l,l - I I I 11 Ill I t I :Action on the vacation of the street in Hosp :Grove and Mr. Thornton explained this matter. I I I I I Ill ADJOURIIIIENT: I I 6y proper motion the meeting was adjourned at :Palmateer I I !x: ; I :: I: i 9:2Q P.i4. ibjcComas i : '; :Lamb i : :x; ; ; :: :x; I I I I ;HcCarthy I q ;xi : I I IFreistadt : :xi : 01 I 4 :I: I' I I I 4:: I 1::::: I I,:!:: I: I :::::i I I :::::: I ::::I, i @-&ghL9j, &lJf/& 81 I I !::::I I 1::I:: I I !;/I: ;::I I I i;;!:: I 11,a: I !!I::: 3 :::;:; I Il:;:@ I b :::I:: I lIl:l; I :::I:; I :::::: I :I I I I l:!!!t :; I I I I i Respectfully submitted, I I I I I I e i mY OM. OSBURM ; Recording Secretary I 8 I .I 1 I I I I I I I I t t * I I I I I