Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-09-12; Planning Commission; MinutesI * r- " I' b 1 1 , 8, '\ '*\ 'b , '. '8 I ', '%, '. ', ",'., I .* b 1 8, '\ ', \ 8 ' b 8%' I I :CITY OF CARLSB, :Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION !Date of Meeting: September 12, 1967 i N a me ', '*$. '8, ''& . I :Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. : of '.$.x@:, 8. \f+ !Place of Meeting: Council Chambers ,""-"""~"""""~"--"""""""""""""""~"-~"""""""-~."""""""""""~"" '0 *.P :ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, I ',,,I9 1 ::;;:I :McComas, Palmateer, Sutherland, Little and Jose. ! ::11;: !Commissioner Voorheis was absent. Also present ;l;IIl /1;;1 :were City Attorney Wilson, Planning Director SchoGll, :!::I: ;Chief Building Inspector Osburn, and Civil Engin-: *,:I:: I:'::: ieering Assistant Sprehe. 4 I :!;Ibt ::;; I ::;I;: :APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I 1It;Ia 1 I I i:,:;:! I t:l@,l !(a) Minutes of the regular meeting of August 22, :Smith ;;k;:: I@ j1967, were approved as submitted. :McComas :x: hi ; : I I IPalmateer i ! : I' ; 1 I iLi ttle : ixki : i ;;+I :::;:I I: i Ixbi ; : I :Palmateer i I ; i I I iSutherland; 2 ; : ; I :Little 8 ;xi I I !Jose ixi i: : 8 I I I:'::: i WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I I ;;::;; I I I i:!:;: 1;' 11 !(a) San Diego County Planning Congress - re:1967 i :::;I; 1:;: :Fall Meeting, Friday, September 22, 1967, at the ; ;;:@:e II :Plaza Bowl in National City, on Redevelopment I I 1,:::: :Projects. Chairman Sutherland asked the Commis- i ii4;: ii:: :sioners planning to attend to make their reserva-: ::I I1 : tions. :'I:;; I ;::;I' 1 a t;;1*: ! (b) Parks & Recreation Commission - re: Highland! i:;!:: :Drive. Memorandum dated August 30, 1967, thankinq ;::::; l'@l;l Ithe Planning Commission for their consideration ; :!!:I: :of the status of Highland Drive and for request- : i:;::: 1'1; jing further study of this street, was read and i ::;!;I ; acknowledged. I i:;;:! I :;::I: (c) Oceanside Planning Commission - re: Notice I ;I:':: I of hearing on Change of Zone from R-A (Potential i 1;;:;: ::::;: ; C-2) Zone, Residential-Agricultural , Potential I I i::::: :Service Commercial to ~-2.Zone or a more restric-i 1:::;: I tive zone on property lying at the SW corner of ; :;;:a: :College Blvd. and Vista Way Southerly frontage . _. ;:;;;; i road. The Commission discussed and compared this: p;:: :with the City's General Plan. ,a:::; I 1 I :::;:; 8 I ::::I; :ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I ;;I 4 I:!!;; I I * I :::;:; I ;!;':I :4::: ::::;; I ::;I:!. I d4:;I 1 3 ;:::I; ~ ' .: ;::;:; 1' 4 I iilii: ~ ~~ . i:;:*: ~ ~~ ;:;:I: 11:;; ~~ . .~~ ::;t&# .. . ~ I ::;:;i I I t ::::;; I 'I:;;;" * !I,., ha::; '\, ', '' '\ \ 8 I *?d@, 2\ .I.'$ ; Member *$jc""-L',o$, I * I I 1 I I I Sutherland: : I I :x: I :Jose i(b) Minutes of the Special meeting of SeptemberliSmith :1967, were approved as submitted. iMcComas : :x; :;btlI I I I I@ 1 I I I $;;I1 .r k I I r7 I 8 I I 11*4 .. : I I 8 9 ,liiii ;: *I( There were no oral communications. I ;elI*; PUBLIC HEARINGS: * I;*; (a) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - To consider a 1. I I' b IiIiI: i zone change from R-P to C-M on Westerly side of ; l;;l : Roosevelt St. between Laguna Dr. and Beech Ave. i i Applicant: Frances E9, Peachey~Reese ..+ 8 4 b- 9 ~. 1 I ~. I -~ ~~ ~ t I .. . . ~. ~~ *I, *I ~. .. ~~ a 1 a * .b . ~~ 4 l I b 1 ~~ I' >I; ._ - .~ ~ ~ .~~ I "I I I .. .I I 1 I' I I a :;;I** :LI*; 'I I' ' ... I : 'I, '=j, *' , ', , " ' I -2- I i Name '*, , -.$A. 't, 8%. i 1 ;;;I IS ;: 1:;;: I ::::;; $II,* I x: :xi : ; I I :Palmateer : : ;xi : : I I I Sutherlandi i ix: : : 8 :Little 11 ;x: : : I i Jose :: ;:: I : ; :xI ; ; ::,:I; :'I# ::I ;;I;:: i::::; I ::I::; I I :;i:i; :;;::: I ::;::; !::811 1 :;:;:: I 1 ::;I*: @I*;:: :;I 1,;:;: ;;"I' I property line by one inch. I 4;;:: I I 1:;:;; I I::;:: I i::::: I ;a:: I I :I;::: i:;#;l II I ;I:::: I ;:::;: I i;::*: r. I over adjoining property. He stated he could cut i ,:::I: ::;::: 1:::;: 8 I:::(:: I I I ;::;:: :I::!: _. ;::;I; ;::I;l :;;::: 1::;:; I :::;;I 9:::;; I I .;I:;:; I. .; ;': ; ; ; I 'I:;:# 1 ;;i:;; i::::: ; :x; x,: ; : I : Pal.mateer I : ; xi ; : 4 4 I I I I I I I I - I '\ *,, "' I ', ' ', 8, ', I 8 , ', '9 '\,'*, 9 I I I I ; of .$?+ e\\%+ '., c;,q.q+ 'f+ I : I ("""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-,"" I Member '+c''C ' ,o @,.P9 R, I Letter dated September 12, 1967, from Mr. Russell! :::!:I 8: ; W. Grosse, Attorney, representing the applicant, I i::;:: i asking that this hearing be continued to Septem- ; : ber 26, 1967. He also stated he is in the procest I::;:! of obtaining the necessary signatures to change 1:;::: i the zone for the whole block. 4 ;SI #:I A motion was made to continue the hearing to : Smith September 26, 1967. iMcComas I :x :x: ; ; I1 (11 I I 11 I I I I1 f I I I I :;4;: i (b) VARIANCE, continued - To consider a reduc- : tion in the Northerly side yard setback from 7 l/b ::I::; ::i+; : feet to one foot at 3800 West Haven Drive, on the Easterly side of West Haven Drive, South of i : Skyline Road. Applicants: Richard P. and Bernic! i C. Harris. i Chairman Sutherland turned this hearing over to I : Vice-chairman Little since he was not present i when this matter was considered on August 22,1967) i Maps showing the results of the survey of the : property lines were presented, indicating that : ,: the roof on the dwelling extends over the propert) ; line one foot and that the foundation clears the i .I!+; ;I 'II,O I 11 I I 11 I ,- a I I I I I I I I :I 14 i Vice-chairman Little asked Mr. Harris if he : wished to speak regarding this matter. i MR. RICHARD HARRIS stated it was his original i understanding that his property line was a foot i : north of the retaining wall which is also the i footing for the portion of structure in question.! I:*:;: : Results of survey show the roof line one foot ; that portion of the roof off and could do so the : : next night. I Vice-chairman Little pointed out that Mr. Harris i : would need a reduction in setback to zero and it; ; would be necessary to submit a new application i 1:;:;: i for this request. I MR. HARRIS asked to withdraw his request in orde{ I I I I 1 I I I ,. I I I * '8 I I : to re-apply for a new variance application. ; The City Attorney, when questioned, stated that i I Mr. Harris would have to submit a new applicatiorg :;::I; and pay the regular fee to advertise the new hearing if he wished the Commission to consider. ';. I I I :I4 :pi;; I I1 *@a1*;. 'I : a reduction to zero setback. : A motion was made that the Commission honor the : Smith i applicants request to withdraw the application. i McComas !x! i I I I I I I I I Sutherland : ; g i I I : Little ;: ::;<;; I I i I Jose :i:::: 1- I I ; ,a:::: : ; I-; I I * I ;I:;:* ;;:;:; I I I I I I I I I I I I * 1 1 ;:;::: I 0;;::: I :;;:;: I ::I:*: ~ ~ ~~~ I:;#:: I 1 1 i (c) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in the : front yard setback from 20' to 5'; reduction in i Northerly side yard setback from 6' to 3' for : construction of an apartment building, and reduc- i tion to zero setback on the Northerly side for : construction of a garage; and reduction in South- : erly side yard setback from 6 feet to 4 feet on I the Westerly side of Ocean St., Southerly of Ceda I Ave. on Lots 47, 48 and Northerly 10' of Lot 49, portion of Block A, Hayes Land Co. Addition Map i No. 2, Map 1221. Applicant: EARCO. : Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Palmateer certified that property owners in the area were I notified of the public hearing and then read the : application. i Letter dated September 12, 1967, from EARCO, by i K. E. Ebright and R. R. Robinson, regarding the ; proposed development on the beach front property. ! a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 4 I I 11. 6f I I 8 I I I I t I I I I I I I t I I I I 4 I I I I I There were no other written communications. The Planning Director explained the variances requested and the written report on the facts i resulting from the staff investigation of the : property.. He stated that if all of the properties! in the area have or need variances, the zone caul$ : be changed to take care of this, but after inves-; tigation of the properties in the area, there t I : were only a limited number of vacant properties I i and felt a change of zone was not needed. 1 I The Chairman announced the Commission would now i ; hear from the applicant or his representative and! i any others desiring to speak in favor of this I I ; application. : MR. R. R. ROBINSON stated they plan to build De i i Luxe apartments on the property. The reduction : ; in setback to zero for the garage was in order to! i have a larger entry to the apartments. The garage : will be 10' from theapartment building and will i i be covered and completely enclosed with one park-: : ing space per unit. The garage will have over- i i head swinging doors which will open automatically: : with electric door openers. He stated that the i i Westerly side of the aprtments will be built back: : approximately 70' from the Henry Mayers Investments, : Corp. apartments, and will be back beyond the I i retaining wall that has been there approximately i i 30 years. Mr. Robinson stated that Rev.Steinhouse ; from the Lutheran Home had phoned him and commendfd i them for saving their view by planning to build ; ; down the bank rather than above. He also stated i that Mr. Tony Howard-Jones, his closest neighbor : i to the north, plans to build another fine multiplb i residential complex immediately adjacent to their: ; development and Mr. Howard-Jones is in harmony : i with their proposed variances. He stated they are ; asking for these variances for which they felt a i : precedent has been established and would permit ; i them to build a development that would be a mutua! : benefit to the community as a whole,as well as to: I themselves. .. I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 - I a l I @ 8 I I a I I 1 r I I 1. I 1 1 I I I I I I t 3 I , ~1 ~~ I. I I I b t *. b 1 1. I I I I I I I I *' I I 1 I I I -? I I 1 I I I -4- 1 No others present spoke in favor of this appli- : cation. I I : The Chairman announced the Commission would now i i hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. i i No one spoke in opposition. i The Chairman inquired if the Engineering Depart- : ; ment had any questions regarding this application!. ; Mr. Sprehe stated there were no problems as the I I Engineering Department is not concerned with the : : opening of the doors as long as they are not in i i the public right of way. I I i The public hearing wa.5 closed at 8:07 P. M. l 1 i Points discussed were the distances between the ; existing buildings on Ocean Street; that if there! i are 6 units there should be access to the proper-; : ty in case of fire; that side yard setbacks were i needed for air circulation and light; that the ; ; Commission would be setting a precedent if zero i I setback is granted; that the sketch of the pro-' : : posed development showed the property to the nortp i as City owned property; that the applicants were ; : under this impression because there are 40' right$ i of way on the northerly sides of Grand and Elm I ; Avenues extending to the beach, and they believed! ; this was the case on Cedar but it is private * I ; property. 1 MR. ROBINSON asked what the difference would be ! : between having a solid wall between the garage i i and the property next to him and a solid wall in .; i business houses; and was told it would not differ! ; if there is a fire wall. When questioned Mr. Robinson stated that if denie(d : the zero setback for the garage it would only giv> them a 5' entrance instead of the 8' entrance a I ::::i; : which they felt was impor-tant to architectural i iiiil' design and would not affect the access to the ; : beach. If a common fire wall is built between th9 -. i two properties he did not believe there would be : : any objection. He reported checking on property i (11 11 at Balboa and Mewport where they are permitted : : to have zero setbacks as the property is valued i i:;::: i at between $15. and $20. per square foot. The ; :I::;; ; property along Ocean Street is valued at between i :::::: I $7. and $8. per square foot which is the highest: 4:4**1 ; valuation in the City. : Mr. Sprehe questioned the Chairman regarding the: i driveway and if the cars would be driven straighd I::::; : into the garage, as the .maximum width for the 1 iii;:: i throat of a driveway in a residential zone is 20 1;11;: : feet. I ; I : ; 1.; I I ;::;:: I #:;l;l MR. ROBINSON pointed out that the apartment build- ,- I::::: 1;:::: i ing will cost $175,000. and felt it was redjculouis : to -get into a discussion on sidewalks at this ti4e ; : i.; I" : i on such valuable and limited type property when ; : there are no plans for improving the street.- , : 4. I I 3 I I I I 4 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I l I l I I I 1 P I I I I I I '';;:: # I ;:;I:: 1I:l; :::;:I :'*I;: :!::I; I 1,:: .. .. :::;:I ;::::: 1:::;; ::*::: ::+: I I 1- . 11 i:::b: I 9 I ;::::: I I I /::i; 4:;:; I ;::I,: 4:i:i I 4 it::;! .I ;:::I: I I I /I::; :a 1:;:;: l I I I I I I I I I ~. 1 . '1 ::;::: I' ;::;:; I ' : ':. ; ; ; : ; ;.I ; I I 4: 1 ~- A r I I -, -. '8 '\ -\ I b ',*, a .\ I '*. -8' a I I I I I .- I \, b8 '\, '\\y*\ -5- I I I i Na me '8, .*$&,'8 '3% 1 ; of \4.L-, '\ +& i I "T,,,,". I -$- .< . .,qp+',,t<. : I"""""""""""""-".""""-"""-"""""""""""""""""""~"""""~~"","" : Member ~$3~..pQ\~,ob.+ I -11 14 :After further consideration a motion was made to :;I;*' I( adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 516 I I ::::;; :granting variances on said property for the pur- ::;::: ::::;: pose of a reduction in the front yard setback froi 4;1*: :20 feet to 5 feat; reduction in 8ortherly side ; !:I::: :yard setback from 6 feet to 3 feet; and reduction: 1::;;; ::;I:: i in Southerly side yard setback from 6 feet to 4 i ::;:;: :feet for the following reascrns: I 884 I 1. That the Variances requested are comparabl4 ::I:;: i to many other developed properties in this area. ; ::::;: ;;1;a0 I 2. That the variances will not be materially i lI:;:i i detrimental to other properties in the vicinity. : ::ll:l *.;;I1 I 3. That the granting of such variances will I ::;I:: ;p:+ not adversely affect the comprehensive general ; ;;I:;; plan. I 1::::: I '1 I 4. That the granting of such variances will ;::;:I i not be materially detrimental to the public wel- i 1::;;; i fare. ::~111 I :1:111 ))I) I I I ;:I;*' ! Planning Commission Resolution No. 516. A RESOLU-:Smith I ; ; :xi ; TION GRANTING VARIANCES ON PROPERTY AT' THE WESTER4McComas ; : ; !xi i LY SIDE OF OCEAN STREET, SOUTHERLY OF CEGAR AVENUeealmateer :xi :xi ; I :was adopted by title only and further reading :Sutherlandi ; :x; ; I I waived. iLi ttle ; :+x: ; ; I :Jose : : ;xi : i I I :; I;( I :;::;; 1 I t :I ll;i;; I 1:Il;: i (a) General Plan Review. 4 I ::::;: i (b) Sign Study, a I :1i:;; I I 1 ;:;::: I ;;:!;! I The Planning Director reported working on the I I : above two items and hoped to have them ready soon.: ;::;I' ;::;I; It i He presented a rough draft of a Planned Industrial :I:;:; ; Zone and discussed the draft with the Commissione.ts. ::i::: I I i I ; 1 :.: i The Building Ins,pector questioned the .,Electric ..! a,*:;: : Substations being under Conditional Use Permits ; i;::l; as there would be 3 substations in the May Companj ;i:::: : Complex, and asked if they would have to come in i i for a -conditional use permit. I I all;:: I I :;:;:; *I L I I I ;:;;:; ::: I /:: ::;::: : study the draft of the Planned Industrial zone i ::i::: I thoroughly before discussing it further. I :;I:': I I :;;::: (c) Proposed Tree Planting Easements in Subdivi-i ;I(::; *:;;:I : sions. Mr. Sprehe presented a sketch of proposed i :::;:i I (S'J-tree planting easements in new subdivisions.; :::;:: $1 : He explained present conflict between underground: ;;:I:* :::: i utilities and trees in the parkway area. After i ii;:;; : discussion on this matter the Chairman called I I ::;:;: i upon the representatives from the San Diego Gas i :;I:;: : & Electric Co. I :lii;: I ::1,1; I ;;::;; i MR. H. E. "TED" RfCHMOrlD, San Diego Gas & Electrik ;#:**I ;:;::: -. Company, commended Hr. Sprehe on his presentation! :::i:i : and presented some charts explaining that the Cit) :I:::: i of. Chula'Vista is acqu3ring a 10' easement, and ; :;:;;: : that t.0 date they have acquired about 75% of the f ::;;i: : some may not want to grant the easements, by i proper spacing of trees they car, get sufficient I 181;:; . : trees planted. Or! existing streets they are pro-: ;::;:; ;:;*:I -1 : posing .to acquire 6' easements. There is a cog- i ;:;:;: I Crete factor of 4 1/2' for the sidewalk, then the: I:':;: I :I;:;: I( ::;::: r I ,;;:I:= :*I::; I 1 1 * I I@ I 1) I 1) I OLD BUSINESS: I I 4 I I I# I * 1::; I:;:': $:*:J f- I I I The Commission discussed this matter. The Commission agreed that they would like to I 4 I 11 'I* I I I il I 8 * i easements from the property owners. Although I I :; ::;I I I i:;i;; I*( I s 0 I I I I 4 I .. I I:!#:# -6- I I ', 8'. '' t I I I I I - I '8'"' I . '8 I 4 I 1 I I 88, "+' '',;,;., I I I '*8 '8 , ' ', \\ 'S,'', I I i *f t$'\D:. I I .?q"'.:. &$&, I ;;;I 19 1 I N 8 me *',, '*p&, 8%. , *$J, ; 1 I I Member 8,0'<d.p9~:6'. I ;""""""""~"""""-"""""~""""""""""""-"-""~""'"""-"""""-"-",-"- !water lines, sewer lines, Gas & Electric lines a13 1'; :running into the homes. He presented a sketch of: ::;I:, ::a::: i trees not quite mature and pointed out that the ;:::I' i root system will grow out to the drip line of the: ;#;I;: 1:;:;: ;tree and will look for soft ground which is around :;:I,' I1 the conduits. t ::;:;: I I :;::'I I /I::: ;The Planning Director asked if some shields could! l:;I:l ::::I: I be placed around the cables to prevent the roots i :::'I: I from wrapping around them, and MR. G. A. BISHOP, : ::;I;: i San Diego Gas & Electric Co. explained that when : :::;:; 'I : roots do go through the wrappings around the cablis ::;::; I electrolysis takes place and deterioration sets i(. I:: 'I:;' 9: I :Sand is placed around the cables and the tree roots I::::! i seek out the soft sand. I I p;i:i 1:: I I :;,::I iThe Chairman requested that this matter be referr+d :;:::I I@ ;to the Parks and Recreation Commission. 'I:::; 1 I I I:::;: I .I:;',I ! (d) Preliminary San Diego County Regional General :;::;: i Plan. The resolution adopted at the Special Meet-: :;I;'; : ing of September 1 , 1967, was read and recommended :::::: 8- ::;;:: i forwarded to the Council in compliance with Cmn. ; i::*:: : Jardine's request that a report from the Commissi4n ;::i:: be made at the September 19, 1967, meeting of the i I:;@:t ; Council .. I I::;,: I ::;I:, ! NEW BUSINESS: I :::::, I (a) Service Stations. The Building Inspector repdrted ::'I:: l;ala that he has received numerous complaints regarding' 'tl;;; ; the appearance of service stations and the way thGy :::##I i are kept. He suggested that the Commission consider :';:;: : placing them under conditional use permits so if"! :;; 6' ithey do not keep the stations up their; permit to :: :::;,, ::: : operate would be revoked and they could be stopped ; ; ; , 1.' sa i from doing business. I I #I::!; :;I:*; I I :::.,: i The Planning Director questioned the City Attornei i;;:;l I regarding this matter and the City Attorney did i :::;:I ; not believe there was sufficient reason to place ; 1111'( ;::;:: them under a conditional use permit. It involves i $:::I: : how much the City is going to get into their busij :::;#I :;:e:: : ness. 1 s !:$:! I ;:::i: :The Building Inspector explained that people corn- :i::;: : plain to him about the trucks with tires stacked : ::::I; !in front of the service stations; the old cars i ;;p;: :that are parked around the service stations that ; :;;I:! !won't run; a 35' trailer with carload sales of I i::::; : tires; selling of used cars, boats, and the numbe( I:;!!: ;elt*' !of vending machines; 3 or 5 towing vehicles parked iiiii: : around service stations when the person in the ga$ 1;; I": i station is not in the major overhauling business. : i:::;,. I:; :He reported having ten phone calls regarding the i ::::I: i big trailer selling tires at the new-Union Oil I I 'I ; I Station. I :iiii: 4 I 1 I I ;'I I : ; ; * I ::;:': ;I*;:; ::::;; :I:::: I * 1 I I I ir- I 8 1 I ;::;t; .. . . .. :I;:!* :::::: I I : ; ;.: I 'a* i *- : I.; ;' -1 ... 1 ;*I I I ,.: : : ::;::: I+ 1 1 :*.::; 1 I t ; I 1.; 1 I. ::: ; : x. t I ::::;; ; : ..:. ; 1 : .t I I i -. 1 I .- *It'l;- ~~ .. .. ~. .. I 1 . 1 I ;i;;;; I 1- i :.i ; :i: , : I' 1- I I I 8 .I I I I *I .~ t I f , .. 11 i -. 4 t I a- I I I .. ~~ ~~ ."...... ~ .~ .. .. I i I 'I 1- .I I I' 4 4 .. I *. .. " . -~~ .. .