HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-10-24; Planning Commission; MinutesI I I f CITY OF CARLSPJI I Minutes of: ; Date of Meeting: October 24, 1967
:Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M.
Place of Meeting: Council Chambers
I ', b., * I ,* I ',, '\\ ',, ', ,,'%. b I
; *f \$'*$:. ', e> ; +?$$$,$J,+..Ly, I :""""""""""""-"""""""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~,"" : Member *.o ~~..pp+,o', 9
I ii::;; 'I::;;
::I:::
I ;:I:::
e l 1;:::;
I I I :::I:# : :x! x: i ;
I Palmateer i : !X: : ;
I : Little I : :xi : ;
I i Jose I I : : !x: i ; ;: I1
I I I ::e 1::;:
I I ::#@*I ;:;:
a I ::;:::
I e :;::i;
I I I ;*::;;
I :::;;:
I i!:;::
I I :;::;;
I I I iip::
(a) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - To consider a i i;:::: I zone change from R-P to C-M on Westerly side of i ;;::::
I;8: ; Roosevelt St. between Laguna Dr. and Beech Ave. : ::;I;& : Applicant: Frances M. Peachey Reese. I 1 ::;;;:
I I I!;:::
: Letter dated October 24, 1967, from Russell W. 1,;:;:
I :;;::: i Grosse, Attorney representing the applicant, I 91; : stating that he has filed an amendment to this : ;::;ii application and asked that this hearing be contin-: ;::;I: : ued to the next regular meeting for the purpose of ::::i; ; allowing sufficfbnt" time for publicafion.
PLANNING COMMISSION " I I I
,. *\', . ', ", ', ', s
I '., " '\ ', ",'a, i N 6 me '*, '8%. 'a,, *?% i
1q i ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith.,
:McComas, Palmateer, Little, Jose and Voorheis. I I ::{I;; ; Commissioner Suther1a.nd was absent. Also present: ::I
were City Attorney Wilson, City Engineer Lill, I I I:;::: i Civil Engineering Assistant Sprehe, Building ; Inspector Osburn, and Planning Director Schoell.
I I I I
tr
.I I
I I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I I #@:;I;
@I I@
i (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of October 10; Smith :;I:';
; 1967, were approved as submitted. : McComas :XI :xi : :
I
I
b
I@
: Voorheis : ; ; xi ; : i WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a
: There were no written communications.
: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
: There were no oral communications.
! PUBLIC HEARINGS:
I
I I I
7 I
I
a * I #;~I;:
I I'
I I I I
8 *
I .I I 4::;; ii -4 I il;:
r i A motion was made to continue this hearing until i Smith &+i
I I I Palmateer; i 3( ; i ;
I ; Little : ; j,! ;
I ! Jose ::3;;;
B ; Voorhqis xix
'I
; November 14, 1967. : McComas :xi j, i : i
I
I
I
I
I I 'I i i i (b) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in the i : Northerly side yard setback from 7 1/2 feet to. : i zero at 3800 West Haven Drive, on the Easterly ::;:I: : side of West Haven Drive, South of Skyline Road. ! i:;::: i Applicants: Richard P. and Bernice C. Harris. a :iiiii
8 :*;:;: i Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Palmateer :i;:;:
; certified that notices were sent to property a
I::::;
: owners in the area and then read the application i ;i;:;; i and signatures of 11 property owners in favor of ; ii:::: I1 1 : this application. a I :::i;;
I a;~l~l I I I ; 1.; 1 : The Planning Director stated that the Planning : ::a:;; ::::a: I Department had considered the possibility of the ;: : applicant acquiring additional property to the : ; ; !,I i i i North, however, the lots to the North sFe minimum: ;::;:;
: .sited lots .so no land can .be taken without them i ;::a:;
I:;:;, i .requiring a variance for reduction in .-lot area. ; :II:;;
:e, 1; I When asked if there were any engineering problemsi #:;::I : the C.ity Engineer stated there were no engineerin9 ;'I:*;
i problems. I I :!::I:
:;;I:,
@I :; ;:;: ;:;:
I .I
I4
I
I
I1
e l ::i:;:
:::;;;
l I iii!::
1 a i::;;;
a :!;:I;
e
a I I '1;:
: ! :!I:::
I B
r
1 I 1 I I I I I I
I I
*' 8, ', ", *s ..
1 '. '\ 8, , . ' I
I ',, ', ', , \ '
, , . '. '' b I I F - - I . ', '*, ',".,'*' I -
I I ' %'
-2-
I I : Vice-chairman Little announced the Commission I i would now hear from the applicant or his regresen-: ; tative and any others. wishing to speak in favor 06 i the application. *
:MR. RICHARD HARRIS, 3800 West HavaDrive, stated {
he purchased the house from Mr. Kistler, who told ; : him his property went one foot beyond the wall. i
Mr. Harris stated that he built a patio and then ;
i Inspector helped him with the roof. tie stated he i ::/:I
:was in the Marine Corps and other Marine helped a i him build the room. He reported that it took 1 1/$
:years to cut the rock for the fireplace alone. He; ;lI;I: i stated that after having the property surveyed, { lI#;:I
l;;al*
:and after appearing before the Commission with the: ;:;;:: :first application, he' had removed the portion of : I :I::
::I:;; i the roof that extended over the wall. He stated i I' I+;; Ithat the FHA will approve of his house if the e I ::I:;; ; variance- is granted. I 0 4;:::
1 I I *::I::
!MR. CLAUDE RITCHIE, 3849 West Haven Drive, stated i ;lI*o;
;::*:I
:he has lived there for 9 years and was in Mr. I I I:':;:
!Harris' home before and since the family room was i ::ip :::;:: :completed, and felt it is an improvement to his ; :,;;:: i property.and the neighborhood. &*:;
1 I 1:;:::
:The Chairman announced the CommissFon would now { :;;:,:
hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. ; :;I:;: ::;:::
I ::;;:;
!MR. JOSEPH RYPAR, 3771 Skyline Drive, stated that i i::;;; :he was overseas at the time this room was built, : ; i.; : ; ; !otherwise he would have objected to the room being: :;:a 1;;; 0
:built at that time. He stated that if he is inside I his own house he can look over the top of Mr. '. I # :iliii
: Harris' house. If you grant this to o.ne person .; ithe Commission is setting a precedent;. When 4 I I 88
:questioned regarding the distance between his I I :;,:I; i;:::'
jhouse and this property, Mr. Rypar stated there is: ;: I:::
:about 15' or 20'and he wants to remove the ice a I ;;:I:@ i plant and replace it with blocks that can be I I ;:;:
;planted. I I I i;;:;: '(#@I)
No others present spoke in oppositidn. I ;:e:::
I ;;-61 ::::i:
4 I I I
;;I$;
;!'8;:
i;::::
11
:decided to enclose it and the former Building b I 4,:;;; ::I;::
:;;:;:
1,;:::
I :'
I I I I
I
:'@I
-1 ::;a:: i ; i ;-:
,;I:::
I i:::::
I I 1:;:;;
I i::;;;
?
I
I
!The public hearing was closed at 7:52 P. M.
1 Points discussed were that the rest of the area is; ;:ii::
:built up and ShWld not require variance requests; ; b' ;:::;i
. !while non-conforming,. it is in existence and is is: a;:;;;
:not damaging the neighbors properties as evidenced; :;;I;, jby those persons signing the application; that the: *I
:variance be granted for that portion of the house :
jwhere the family room is only. *:;I18
:The following resolution was presented:
:After further consideration a motion was made to i i::;:! :adopt Resolution No. 515 granting a variance on i l;;I;l ; : :.; : ;
:said property for the following reasons: I ;;I:,;
1 :1. That there are exceptional circumstances in I;:::' :that the structure is already built and the rest : @I;:
!of the neighborhood is already built up and no I I :::;i:
:variances will be required.
i2. That wh.ile the present structure is non-
. : conforming it is .in existence and it is not I !;4;!
idamaging their neighbors' properties as evidenced f
!by those signing the application.
I I
:;;::: ;:::
#I ;:;: : : 1 ;.I ; I ;'h:l
I I ::::;:
: ;::::;
l
s I
I
:::;;;
I :::;I;
# :;:;;;
1:;:;; 11
I :I:;:; ;::;:;
1 :::::;
! ::::::
I
I I I I
I *
4
I "
8' 8 I I I I I ', '\ '*' '8, ', '.
I I ', \',',' '' "*. I
I I 't, ', 8, ', 's,'*, I
..
I b a
I I
I ',O.,\',' .
I 7 %, '\ ' ', '
I -3- N a me 8.. '8%. '*,"+
I : *f *s'.o:. \\, %2 i I
I : Member ,O'@.$-OW.: ,r,.c Q',+ $& :""""""""~"""""""""""""-"""""""""""""""."""""""""~:"";~,." '81 14 i 3. That the granting of this variance will not i ;;#'8* i be detrimental to the public welfare nor contrary; 1:::
; to the Master Plan. , I I ::::ii ::;#*I
I :"I 1 I The.-motion also included that the variance grante4 ;:I$; : be restricted to that portion of the existing I 1:::ii
: if that room is removed that the required setback: :; I:,
I be met on any future building on this property. ; ;:'I::
: Planning Commission Resolution No. 515. A RESOLU- I Smith :x; :x: ; : I TION GRANTING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY AT 3800 WEST I MCCOR~S : ; :X: ; I1 ; : HAVEN DRIVE, ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF WEST HAVEN : Palmateer i : ;xi ; i i DRIVE, SOUTH OF SKYLINE ROAD, was adopted by tit14 Little ; : !x: ; 81 , : only and further reading waived. : Jose I I' ;x; x! ; : I Voorheis ; !x; i i i (c) RECLASSIFICATION and PRECISE PLAN - R-3L to i I@:;;;
I.; I
; R-3 (Multiple Dwellings) on the Southwesterly I ::;@,I
I ;;I:*: corner of Chestnut Avenue and Monroe Street. I ;;::;: ; Applicant: Jay Lear, Inc. I I !;::I@ 14;;
I :;i:;; ! TENTATIVE MAP - MONROE PARK - 1 lot located at i : the Southwesterly corner of Monroe St. and Chest-:
;;I:::
I I I
la
structure called the den or family room only and i :;*I #,;dl:
;6:i::
I I I ;;!il; I'
I I
I
11
I
$1
I
nut Ave. Owner and Developer: Jay Lear, Inc.
The Reclassification, Precise Plan and Tentative i : Map were considered concurrently. . I I
: Notices of the public hearings were read. The I i Secretary certified that publication was given and : property owners in the area were notified of the ; hearings and then read the application. I I
i Petition with 226 signatures received October 20,'.! ; 1967, was read, stating that they are :in favor of..: : the zone change to R-3 in conjunction with the ; i P1 anned Development. i Letter from. the Carlsbad City Schools dated Octobdr : 18, 1967, stating that the Board of Trustees of I i the Carlsbad Union School District does not objeci ; to the zone change or proposed development as the: i Board has noted that the multiple dwellings to th4 : East have not appeared objectionable. The School i i Board suggested an 8-foot sidewalk on Monroe Stregt.
The Planning Director explained the location of i
I I
I I I
I i I
I '. I
I I I
I I : a
; the property and zoning in the area and the
i investigation of the property. This property was i rezoned to R-3L on January 7, 196P. This land ha4 ; a subdivision planned on it formerly. The present: : applicant brings before the Commission a Precise i i Plan showing the building plans for 53 units. I I ; Wh.ile they have one extra unit -with this Precise i Plan than they had planned with the subdivision, ; :.they will. have more green areas as the former 4 subdivision showed a street in the subdivision. I ; i L: i ; : He explained that the one-story units will be : built near the street at the corner. The OrdinanGe i::::: ; calls for 53 pa'rking spaces, or one parking space i : for each unit, however, they will have a total of ; : 89 spaces which is between 1 1/2 and 2 spaces per:
4 ; unit. The'two story apartments will be in the i i!:;l; 81' ; back. Anything shown in the Precise Plan must i i conform to City Ordinances or be more restrictive; ;:I;:: :I
I I :e* ! ! a! 1 :::--
!
I 8 I T~iTj
I I
. : written report of the f,acts resultihg from staff
i::;:; VI
D ::;:;:
1. I:;*:; I* ii:ii;
I :;:'I:
:#;:;I
::I::: ;e;:
8 I I I ii:;:;
- '7 - : ~ ~~~ a. ::::::
I
..
t I I 1:::
D 4:;:;
.- ;!:::: 2 7.T-
- "~[T. . ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ 2 ~
- 1 ~~~ I . "
D
1 a a Y I
; - ~~ ~" ~ ~ -T ; r-r; 1 0 ~~-
I ! I' I!!#'
r
,-
1 # ', b '. # I # ' b ', b' 'b
I \., '8 b, 8, 8 '
I -4-
1 ; *f \$'\$?:, '
8''
I I I 1 's *b
I
I 8 *' '
I # I I
I
"- - # '\,'*, '*b s ', ', '8 'b #
I I N a me b., '*$&. *.:<#& i
I # :""-""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~,"" ; Member *$$Q.$-p@.* ,'?, ;.,;?+, i
IJ !The Planning Director stated he felt the R-3 use I ii:' 6 I4;;i: :with the Precise Plan is a better use for this I I #*I :;I::! : property than cutting. it up into 13 lots with 4 i units on each lot. He stated that the sidewalks ; ::,:::
::a ;are in on Chestnut Avenue. Since the sidewalks on! ::: +I
: Monroe Street are 5 feet wide, the Planning Dept. ; I:: :!I i does not feel it would be advantageous to go to 1 I:;;!!
: 8 feet for this small area. * ::;:;:
# I ::I:;;
I Mr. Sprehe read the City Engineer's report. I I i:p::
I 4 I #;;I1: ! When questioned the City Engineer explained that I :;;::; :;;::: i sidewalks on the Easterly side of Monroe Street ; ;I,Ga : will be separated from the curbs by parkways, # ::#:#: I;:;:
i however, on the Westerly side of Monroe the side- :::I:,
; wal ks will be contiguous to the curbs.
I @'t;l; i The Chairman announced the Commission would now ! :a g;!:!:
: hear from the applicant or his representative and! 'I ;:::
I ::I:;;
4 :::;#I ; applications. I ::(I::
I * I ::!I:: ! MR. JAY LEAR, stated he is the developer and they: 'I(##@ p;;:: i have not increased the density except for one l 11;a : additional unit. He pointed out that they have i ;:I:;: ;: (I* : provided. for additional parking and asked the I ;:::::
Commissi.on to consider the large rendering. He ! 1:;:;: i explained that looking down from Monroe Street I!;:::
; the two-story Wmtments would have approximately : ;I;:;: ;:::I: : the same roof level. I I ;;':::
I I I I ;::::: : MR. LEAR stated he felt this development under i i one owner with one maintedance would be bettlp, ; : than 13 lots with different owners and all two- -! I story apartments. He reported circulating the ": : petition himself. They are asking fo? R-3 with a-i ; precise plan and they would not be able to increage ; the density or eliminate any of the parking. The: i buildings and parking would have to be as shown ; on the Prec,ise Plan using a Spanish motif, swim- : i ming pool and recreational area. I I
i MR. CHARLES EYEMANN, 4140 Skyline Road, speaking
for the ABC (Associatjon for Betterment of Carls-: : bad) reported that Mr. Lear had given considerabld i time to them and they enjoyed having discussed ; : this matter. The ABC felt this would be a better: development than the 13 lots with various owners.; : They liked this better than anything that has bee?
.I ; proposed except th.e R-1. They did 'have a questiorf : however, in case Mr. Lear decided to sell would : : the Precise Plan for the R-3 still be valid. I I
: The Chairman questioned the City Attorney regard-i i ing this matter. I I
I The City Attorney stated that they would not be : able to build anything different than the Precise! i Plan. I I
; The Planning Director stated they could not be i i '-issued a bui'ldi-ng permit unless it adh-eres to the: I Precise Plan ,. unless a new Precise Plan were 8 ; brought before the Commission. The Precis.e Plan : i goes with the land. I I
;I*
:#;*@I I
I
I
I
I I :II:;; ;:::;;
I I
I I*
any others desiring to speak in favor of the I
I
I
I
I I I
I I I I
I. I
I I I
I 'I I I ;:;I::
I I I II;:;:
I I ::I:;:
8 4 I I :;i:;:
bl;;; ;;;;;; I I I @ (@I
-. ! !
~" L .__ ~ -
/-
A
I I ', b', 8 '' I I I . ',, .\ '. '. " I
I 1
", 8, 'k, ', ', 'u * . I I '\ ' ' ', y, 4 I ', ', ' \ I
I -5- N a me '\. *\%. '. 8, '.$& I ; *f ~s\\o;\ 8% i
t \,o \*,, , '* 'q. I
I i Member +g\.C.,+,.t;, .o Q+p \',O. * ;"""~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-"".~"""""--"-"---"-,""~
:The Chairman announced the Commission would now : :::i;:
!hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. I I ;::I::
J ;;:!:;
!No one present spoke i-n opposition. l e 'I::;;
I :; :The public hearing was closed at 8:42 P. M. ;i:;j!
:When questioned Mr. Lear stated there would be a ; .a )Ill
:fence on the South and West sides, and there would! 4:;:;
!also be protective fences around the swimming pool! ;;::::
I:!!:: :and recreational area. The building will be approx- 11 18
iimately 76 feet from the West property line. The I ;l:;l;
1:;*:1
:Building Inspector stated that they are required ; l@1:;; !by the Building Code to put in a solid fence be- : ::;;II
:::4::
:tween the parking lot and adjoining residential ;,:1:: :;I;+ !property. 8 * 1:::::
!Points discussed were that this would be an admir-i i::::: *I
:able type development; that the Precise Plan seems; :;;:;: ::;::: !quite attractive; that the R--3 with the Precise :
:Plan would be upgrading the R-3L. I ::::::
8 :I;:;:
!MR. LEAR -questioned the City Engineer regarding i :I;::: ::;;:i !replacing the water main on Monroe St. since their: :::::;
r^ ;frontage is mainly on Chestnut and where they will! !:*1*l
:be getting their water service from and the City ; *J;;: 9.1 I@
!Engineer stated they would be getting their servict Ii:iii
:from the Carlsbad City Water Dept. l e :;::;;
!The following resolutions were presented: I I I 1::;::
:e::;:
!After due consideration a motion was made to adopt: ;::i:i
iResolution No. 524 recommending change of zone on : 1;' ;:;:
:above property from R-3L to R-3 for the following i :!;:I;
jreasons: I I 4';:;: :l. That the zone change from R-3L to R.-3 with a ::;:I; ji;ii;
!Precise Plan will be a general upgrading of the : :::;:;
:area. '. I ii:::;
:2. That it is conducive to good planning in the '.! I:::!:
jarea. *a I ; : ' :.:
:3. That it will create no adverse circumstances ; ::;:::
;as far as planning is,concerned. e e !!;;:!
r' :;::I; :Planning Commission Resolution No. 524. A RESOLU- ;Smith ::p;i
:TION RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZONE FROM :McComas i ! :PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF MONROE :Little ;:;d;: !STREET AND CHESTNUT AVENUE, was adopted by title !Jose ; iX$ i
!only and further reading waived. :Voorheis : 1 8 X: 1
:After further consideration a motion was made to ::;I;; jadopt Resolution No. 525 recommending adoption of : ::;:I: :Precise Plans PP 6706 on above property for the i ::;::: !same reasons as above, subject to the conditions ; :listed under Item 4. in the Planning Departments ;
' :Report and Items 1 through 22 of Resolution No.5263 ,y:;:
:Resolution No. 525. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING !Smith ;i:g;i
:COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD RECOMMENDING iMcComas :x:
:x ; ; :ON PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF MONROE ;Little
:STREET AND CHESTNUT AVENUE, was adopted by title :Jose.' i
:only and further reading waived. iVoorheis i i $ ; i :Resolution NO. 525. A RESOLUTION Of THE CARLSBAD !Smith :('I
:CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF :McComas :x; ;xi ; : :THE TENTATIVE MAP OF MONROE PARK, subject to the :Palmateer I i ; :condi-tions recommended by the various City agenciedlittle 8 ;
:and further reading waived. iVoorheis i ; :x: : ;
I I - I 1 I I 8 N8 -
I I
I
'$1 1
e
I I I :I ii;:
:I
#
;a*
14
IR-3L TO R-3 (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) ON iPalmateer ; :x; ; ;x; ; I
;:i;:;
;##:;;
;:;'I1 ;:;:::
:!;:::
:ADOPTION OF PRECISE PLANS PP 6706 FOR MONROE PARK IPalmateer i xi i i
: i :x: 3 ; :
*
jand utility companies, was adopted by title only :Jose ;x; ; i i ixix: i ;
4 I .. 6 I:;#;:
# i:::;:
b ;:;:::
I I ;:::::
* I
I
I
8 b #:;::I
8 8 e 'bb;:: :::;I;
I I ;*I
.- ! ,!I:::
~~ ~~ ~-
.-
..
. ..
..
. ..
r! ; '. ,' ' D 0 : a .- 6 - ; """" 1"""""". e """"""""""""""-"."- i """"""". I .'"(d) 'VARIANCES - To consider reduction.in fro,nti. i, footages from 60 f'eet to' 25 feet minimum on Lots:
;., 18, 38 a.nd.129; and to 20 feet on Lots' 42, 56, ; : 68, 188 and 209; in order to create "pan.hand1e : lots" located tin the Easterly side of Park Drive; : between. Monroe Street and Hillside.Drive. Applit ; cants: Donald A. Brig,gs, Sr., et al.
!'
TENTATIVE MAP -. CARLSBAD MANOR SUBDIVIS'ION - 222I lots Easterly of Park Drive, between Monroe..' Street and Hillside Drive. Owners: Donald A. I .Briggs, Sr., et al. Developer: R. E. Geyler. . 6 e
The' above variances and tentative map were con- ; sidered concurrently.
"0
0
a .. '. D
a
D D I 0 ..
D-
b
D 8
0
D 0
b i I
a 1 Notice of he-aring was .read.. The Secretary cer" J. tif.ied that property, owners ,in the area were
*; notified of the Publ-ic Hearing and then read I
: the applications.
0
8'
e
I
r
i
L'etter from the Carlsbad City Schools dated Oct-i ober 18, 1967, stating that after study of the . : .map and since the school board is primarily con-! cerned with those factors concerning pupil safe-: ty,. particularly the provision of' sidewalks on i all streets, no objections are voi,ced at this : time.
The Planning Director gave a report on the facts! resulting from staff investigation of this prop-; erty, stating that the extensions of Tamarack : Avenue and Hillside Drive within the subdivision! do conform to the General Plan; that the circu- : lation plan works out nicely; that there are a i few short cul-de-sacs. The "Panhandle" lots as : proposed meet the requirements of the "Panhandlef Lot* Policy. No deviations have been made for 10; area. When the final subdivision map comes be- ; fore the City, calculations will be made'of all : of the lot sizes. The staff and the developer : .and his Engineer studied. this property regarding! schools and parks, and felt that a neighborhood i park would not be required in this subdivision, ; but rather that a payment of fees in lieu of . I land be given to be used for the development of : Laguna,Riviera Park, Va.lley S.treet Park, ayd Holiday Park, as these would be in walking : distance. b 0
The Planning Director p'ointed, out the zoning .in I the area. Properties on the Easterly a%d West- ; erly sides of Park Drive are R-1-7.5. Property I on the south is R1-10 and properties on Sunny- : hill Drive are R-1-15.
Mr. Sprehe read the City Engineer's Report on . : their recommendations for this subdivision. :
'D
D
. ..
.8
I
r
D
D
D f I The City Engineer explained the water drainage, i
0 problems. I : !
D
0 ! 1
0 f
D
8
I
I
6 b 8 b b 6
I
I
l I
-
/- .- -
', f -7- : I
D D ; """" 1 """"--a "" "" "e "" - ""- """""" -" "i 0." -"-"-" "i" ; The Chairman announced the Commission would now i ! hear from the applicant or his representative. ; : and any others wishing to speak in favor of thesi t applications. *
MR. ROY KLEMA, .Civil Engineer & Surveyor, statedi : he had prepared the map and came up with this :
. i .. composite for the subdivision after meeting with! ; the City Staff and discussing the various pro- I : blems at the preliminary conferences; The sub- I
8 I divider will be required to install approximate-: : ly $100,Q00.00 worth of underground facilities ii ' this subdivision. They have been authorized to : come up with something that would. be suitable i
for this property and after working on this for : 1 about 3 months they felt.this was a reasonable :
' . i subdivision.. It does have a few "Panhandle" loti ; which will have fine building sites and be view i
.:. lot-s. The properties will be terraced. Parks ; 'j , were discussed in detail in the conferences and I I they did not feel that a park in this praticular; ; subdivision would be good because of the steep ! I slopes. The fees for parks from this subdivisioi : will amount to approximately $28,000.00. This : I tentative map does not show the particular depth4 ; of the property. The longer lots will .have I I : steep Jlopes'at'the rear and-to develop a large i
flat pad would be q.uite a problem. 400,000 I I * yards of dirt will be required for fill. Every i lot will meet FHA.standards. They felt that 6 : subdivision will be a credit to the community i : D. as well as using this undeveloped land. The D I
6
0
I
?
i
P
: lots will average 8,000 to'9,OOO square feet. 8
:
l I D
l I
6 I
I
I I
e I 6 I * I 6 I 8 I D
i The Chairman inquired if some of the panhandle"^
could be eliminated. I
MR. 'KLEMA stated they had spent many hours bring!
ing the '(panhandle" lots down to as few as they i
have. He pointed out that other jurisdictions ;
consider one out of ten "panhandle" lots on a i
subdivision of this size to be reasonable. He ;
explained the topography.and the reasons for I
having these lots. He stated that it would be ;
impossible to get a street up to Lot 209. One i
third of the property on the Westerly side from ;
Sunnyhill Drive is in a slope bank and making
the lots any larger would be making a waste of ; the land. They felt this was the best design :
that could be worked out for this property. I
When questioned regarding the "panhandle" lot.
off Tamarack, since it is designated as a collect-
or street, Mr. Klema stated there would be one :
advantage in that the drivers would not be back-:
ing out on to the street and would be driving i
out. f I
The Chairman voiced objection to so many 'pan- I
handle" lots and felt the lot size should be in-:
creased so the ."panhandles" could be eliminated.1 He also questioned the splitting of a parcel fr4
the subdivision. I I
Mr. Sprehe stated this would take place before :
the final map is submitted. :
? I
I I
I
t
I
,-
i
h
8
I
t ? 8 8
I I D I
8
- . *. .P - I
,s. -8- I
:
0
t t
b 4
.8 8
8 . ! No others present spoke in favor of these i '.applications. : 8 : ; The Chairman announced the Commission would now
0
8
8 8 hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. i. .: ! *; ; I ; ::;;:
;*I:;! ' : ; ; ;.;
I. t I,;;;:
:::I iii 8
*1**1
i 8 i I i ;.I i
DR. GEORGE MERKLE, 4225 Sunnyhill Drive, stated 1 he had been before the Commission. before .regard-!
I ing this property, and their main objection was ; ::;;,t
8 to the lot size of 7500 sq. ft. lots since their: ;;@I"
: property is zoned R-1415,000. He stated the . i !:;;;; i area is hilly and is not conducive to R-1-7.5 : p;;i: lot's. He stated the Commission should up-grade i ;:::;; ; th.e area by making these larger sized lots and ; 1:; : the Commission should do something to improve I ;:;I:& 1 the zoning. e D l ;.' : ; : i MR. DONALD JOHNSON, 4065 Sunnyhill Drive, stated! ;:;;:; : he was speaking primarily for the ABC (Associa- i i:::;: i tion for the Betterment of Carlsbad), some of : ::;;:: I;!!;: : them being property owners on the perimeter of i !' this proposed subdivision. When talking this : t subdivision over with the Board, they had con- i . i:*;;: i curred with Dr. Merkle's thoughts. They felt ; @::;I; : that the decision of a previous Planning Commi- i :::;i; i. ssion in reducing the size of the lots was very : ; poor planning. He expressed concern over the i ::'I:: : 8 "panhandle" lots and felt there should be a I D :;::;; ; b-uffer zone between the R-1-7.5 and R-1-15 Zones! ;':;I; : He stated the owner of this property had sold ; I I* ; them their properties. Their covenants for deed! s i restrictions demanded shake roofs. He stated ' : ; they are concerned with the number of dwellings i : and felt the lot size should be increased and ; ; the "panhandle" lots eliminated, which would be : : a better use of the land. He stated .the City : i needs more houses b'ut they want better conditionk. :i;::;
i MRS. CHARLES EYEMANN, 4140 Skyline Road, ques- i :::;:' : tioned the Fire Department being consulted re- ;!!:;: i garding the I'panhandle". lots. I ;*I;@;
i The Chairman repcrted having a report from the ; Fire Department regarding the location of fire i
0 : hydrants in the subdivision. s D ;e:
i DR. CARL BENGS, 4190 Sunnyhill Drive, stated he i ; is a new property- owner and wanted to register i i objection to the zoning of this property being ; :::;I; : different than their'zoning. I ;::;Dl *I
: No others present spoke in opposition.
i . The public hearing was closed at 9:46 P.M. s P I:;:;:
i Points discussed were that many times the ''pan- ; I handle" lots are the most desirable in the sub- I :i;;i; ; division; that many people prefer cul-de-sacs ; iiziii : because of the traffic safety for children; I ;al;I;
i that the "panhandle'l lots in the City have
! caused. no Problems; that the developer has gone l ;p:i
' t i ; i': ; i
:::e:: ::i::;
i:::;;
1;;:;: I#
; :,:;:; *;;i:; :::;:i ;::;:; ;::;:; .i::;i;
;;l:l' ;&:::I
I i:;:::
(@#'I
8 -. bt ..
..
I
*I
I 8 ::::i; :;::;: I* ::i;;:
:;I;;:
I t 1:;::: :;;::: i!;;:i
D-:;:
I b ;::;:: ;::;:;
t D I::;:;
:::ti:
118
'I D
I I 11
8 i ;::i:i I I:;:;:
I ;;:::;
I ::;::;
I ;::I t !;I:;:
I t
I I I I b ,:;;!! -
.- . " h. ..I.
** * , 0 0 e .. b I
8
8 -9- B
I 4 1 I I I I
! the City; that the ''panhandle'' lots provide i safety for small children; that the developer I ! has met the requirements established by the 8 City; that the type of house proposed for the
. : development should be. an attractive .addition to : ; Carlsbad; that the "panhandle" lots would have . I : to be the same size or greater than required; t i that the Engineer for the subdivision has done : a real good job and should be commended. I
When questioned regarding the zoning of tfiis property, the City Attorney stated that the , 1 Planning Commission need not consider anything i
: The applicants are asking the Commission to - : I app.rove the subdivision and variances. The
i the lots and will have no meaning unless'the i : final map is filed. - 0
i When questioned regarding the division of proper: i ty between the subdivision and another parcel, : : the City Engineer stated the property never has i i been split and should be severed some way or made ; a part of the subdivision as there is sufficient: : space there for two lots. 0
MR. KLEhA stated that on those particular lots I ; the City records show they were held by Donald i i Briggs, Jr., which were legal lot splits that ; ; have no concern of Mr. Briggs, Sr. There is ; ; only one parcel which is a problem as Donald I
: could not recognize the lot split. They will ; straighten out the lot split that has not been : : recorded. 8
. The property in question is below Lot 155 in the! i subdivision. D
:- I ; After due consideration a motion was made to b 8 : adopt Resolution No. 527 granting the. variances I i on said property for the following reasons: , ; 1. That a subdivision is being planned on this i i property and the maximum use of the land demands: : "panhandle" lots in these areas because of the i ; terrain being exceedingly difficult to develop. ; : 2. That the granting of these variances is not i i detrimental to the public welfare and is not. ; : contrary to the General Plan.
I ..
,
.- ,: except the variances for the "panhandle' lots. I
0" '; variances will be subject to the development of I t I
D B
5 8 8.
s
,? i Briggs, Sr. sold off one parcel and the City i
8 0
* 0 ..
0
b I Planning Commission Resolution No. 527. A ; RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES ON PROPERTY AT EASTERLY SIDE OF PARK DRIVE, BETWEEN MONROE ; STREET AND HILLSIDE DRIVE, was adopted by title Little i only and further reading waived. e D I A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 528 I recommending approval of the tentative map of : Carlsbad Manor, subject to the recommendations : of the various City Agencies and utility corn- i : panies as presented in Items 1 through 28. I ! t
* I * * I 1 I I
8
8 t I I v- I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
-I
”””””””“”””“”.””“”””
Resolution No. 528. A RES0
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION R THE TENTATIVE MAP OF CARLS was adopted by title ‘only wai ved.
0-
””””””
LUTION 0
ECOMMEND
BAD MAN0 and furt
-
.”””””
F THE C
ING APP
R SUBDI
her rea
-0.
”””
ARLS
ROVA VIS1 ding
”“”
BAD
L OF
ON ¶
! I Variances in Subdivisions. The Planning Director : pointed out that it is not generally required in a i other cities to hold public hearings for variance; ; when a tentative map is being considered, however{ i the opinion to hold public hearings was establishad : in this City in the last few years.
i After discussion on this matter, it was the ! unanimous decision of the Planning Commission that public hearings -on variances would not be : : required at the time tentative maps for subdivi- i
sions are considered. Such variances would be : : handled -as modifications to the tentative map. W
I I e I e * a S I I
I *
* I I
OLD BUSINESS:
I I i (a) Sign Study. : (b) Planned Industrial Zone.
! I : In discussing the study session planned for the i i above two items for Friday, October 27, 1967, it : : was agreed to have the study session on Friday, I i November 3, 1967, at 1:30 P. M. * I
i (c) Service Station Report. The Bui1d.ing Inspec-i ; tor reported that the Committee did not call him i : regarding this matter. ‘I I
(d) First Baptist Church. The Building Inspectori
* a -I
; presented a copy of a letter addressed to him, : dated October 20, 1967, from Ezra M. Coppin,
: stating they had passed a resolution authorizing i i him to write the City of Carlsbad and its Chief : : Building Inspector advising them that this Church: I will adhere to the by-laws and ordinances as I : required, and that alq City requirements regard- I i ing the setback of their property would be met, : ; no sooner than June 30, 1968, and no later than I : December 31, 1968. They expressed regret in the ;
tardiness shown in expressing their intent. They: : realize that the setback will enhance the appear-: i ance of their prop.erty, and are 1oo.king forward ;
. : to completing the work. *
.I
I e I
8 F i Pastor of the Church at 3780 Pi0 Pic0 Drive, a
I I I NEW BUSINESS:
I
I W I I i (a) Initiation of proceedings for a Pre’ci’se Plan! i - Approximately 1000‘ East of Marin’a ‘Drive. I
i Letter da-ted October 20, 1967, from W. Alian Kelli, ; Manager of Rancho Agua Hedionda, P. 0. Box 463, I : Carlsbad, requesting that the Commission initiate:
the necessary proceedings for a precise plan on ; i .15 acres approximately 1000‘ East of Marina Drivel
: The following. resolution was presented:
a
I I I
I * l e I a e
1 * a I
8
~~ ~~ ~ ~
- 11 - i
l e I I
8 t- """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-
Resolution No. 529. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DETERMINING THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD TO CONSIDER
RECOMMENDING A PRECIS'E PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AND ORDERING NOTICE THEREOF TO BE GIVEN, was adopted by title only and further reading waived.
(b) League of California Cities.
A motion was made that a letter be written to the
League of California Cities expressing the Com- mission's thanks for preparation of a well pre- pared agenda and worthwhile planning program. As
a point for future meetings, however, it is hoped that consideration will be given to having rooms large enough to accommodate all of those persons interested in planning who wish to attend.
I I I I
I I I I I I I *
I ADJOURNM-ENT:
By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at
10:28 P. M. to Friday, November 3, 1967, at 1:30
P. M. for a study session concerning Signs and
Planned Industrial Zone.
Respectf'ul ly submitted,
I I
I
I 8 I I I I I
1/c
DOROTHY M. OSBURN a I
I * I I I I I I I 1 I I
Recording Secretary I I I I I '. I I '. I 8 -1
.I
8 I I I
* I I I
b
i I I s
I I
I *
t
4
8 I
..
* I