Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1958-06-10; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMhtISSION June 10, 1958 1- 2- 3- 4- The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Baumgartnar. Present beside. the Chat- were Commissionera Fennel. Jarvie, Mrsky, Stringer, Hayes and Ebrigbt, abo present were Secretary Price and Planning COMU~tant Gordon WhitMll. Tha Chairman introduced the new member of the Commission, Mrs. Barbara Lang Hayes, to the Commbsion. the correct number of votes in the motion made by Comxxi. Ebright regarding Tho Commisaioa requested tba minutes of May 27, 1958 bo corrected to atmw Mortuaries and Ambulance Service. to read three ayes, three noes, Comm, approved as corrected. Seconded by Comm. Jarvie. All ayes, motion carried. Engelmann absentti Comm. Fennel moved that minutea of May 27, 1958 be HEARING - Conditional Use Permit - Boys Club of Carbbad. Notice of Rearinn was read. Awlication for c;ond€tional Use Permit was read and presenzed to the Commbsion for their review, together with a plat map of the area and the building to be constructed. Mr. Whit~ll was aaked to give a report on this matter and he stated the only reaaon application waa being made would include the asaembly of people and tho parking of car.; from the stand- for a conditional use permit was becaum of the particular type of use which point of parking there is no evidence that thoae attending would come in cars. There were no oral protest. or written proteats. MR. AL BLACIC , reprerenting the Boys Club stated he felt all the information was includeci in tlie application, and the propoaed plan war explnotory; there therefore, he felt the bui ding waa in a location and zone that would allow were commercial buildin s to the south and north and indudrial to the west, building to tho property line. Comm. Stringer asked why tha Commission did not have to recognize a ret back as this is in an R-P zone; according to the plans presented there are bleechers where the public would be watching gamer; the plat map ahows parking area but does not show how many parking spaces. MR. AL BLACIC informed the Commission that the existing building is buiB to tne property line, and there would be more parking facilities than the bank, After considerable discuasion it waa moved by Comm. Ebright and seconded by Permit to the Boys Club of Carlabad as requested. Six ayea, Comm. Stringer Comm. Fennel that Reaolution No. 71 be adopted granting a Conditional Uao voting no. Resolution 871 adopted. f HEARING CONTINUED Albert Ed Stein property - Reclassification. At the previous meeting a tetter was read wherein Mr. stein had reauestedthat his application be clianged to read all but the northerly 40' of his lot, thereby creating a 40 foot buffer strip between Commercial and R-P 7anea. The Commission had requested that Mr. Stein appear at the next meeting and clarify his request as well as submit a written statement of offer for street improvemanta. Comm. Swirsky pointed out that if a 40' buffer strip were created it would create a substandard lot in an R-P Zone. Comm. Hayes R-2. Mr. Stein was asked if he would be willing to state in writing #at he stated that sha felt it was only good planning to have the entire lot rezoned would dedicate the alley to the west, dedicate 8' for street purposes, and at such time as the property is to be put to commercial use he would install sidewalks and curbs. MR. STEIN, stated he had already paid his share for paving the alley to the west, and rthey wished he would put it in writing, and at such time as he improved this property he would install sidewalks and curbs and offer for dedication 8' on the west side of RooseveR Street for street purposes. After coxuideroble discussion Comm. Ebright moved that Resolution Y72 be adopted, recommending to the Ci Council the reclassification of the East 1/2 of 17.20' of Lot 31 and the ea& 1 7 2 of Lot 32, Soaside Lands. from Zone R -P to Zone C-2, based upon the applicant having agreed in writing that the alley applicant would install sidewalks and curbs, and that the applicant offer for be dedicated. and that before a building permit be issued on the property the dedication 8' on the west side of Roosevelt Street, Seconded by Comm. Swirsky. Sewn ayes, ResoLution No., 72 adopted. 5- HEARING - Variance - Dorothy Pexmington. Notice of hearing was read, wxerein the apvlicant reauested a reduction in street frontage from 60' to 56,45' to permit o lot spht of property described as the northeasterly 56.45 feet of Lot 13, Schell and Sites Addition to Carlsbad. Mr. Whitnall reported to the Commission that the lot0 in the area are abnormal lots; if these lots were to be divided each lot would be slightly under minimum; if you required these property owners to retain these large lots it would be denying them tho full use of their proparty; he suggested tbat the Commission take a blanket action to take care of these lots in this area. ~S~ ~ DOROTHY PENNINGTON, stated tbat at one time this property was zoned R .- 8, but at the prssant tlme it was R-1; if this property were divided. and later the area was. soned R-2, could she build on th;s back part of this-prowrty. She was informed that she could. as requested. for the reason that the lot would stili be a larger lot than the Comm. Stringer moved that Resolution ll73 be adopted granting this variance majority of lots in the area. Seconded by Comm. Ebright. Seven ayes. Resolution No. 73 adopted, 6- TENTATIVE MAP - Terramar Unit #6 Subdivision. The tentatiw map of Terramar Unit #b was presented to th and recommendations from the various departments and agencies were read. e Commission for their review. Reports Mr. Whitnall informed the Commission he had reviewed the map and felt the plan fit into the pattern of the area. Comm. Swirsky stated the subdivision ordinance requires easements to the rear of the lot for utility easements, He asked Mr. WhitnaU what power does the Commission h~va to enforce the ordinance? Mr. Whitnall stated that under State law utility companies have a franchise and authoritative right to locate on public streets: they had spent two years with the officials from the utility companies regarding this matter to try and develop a standard throughout the being made by the utility companies. Letter dated June 10. 1958 from the State. Mr. Whltnall explained soma of the technical aspects of such requests wirhing easemento gtanted; they pointed out they operate under the Public San Mego Gas & Electric Co. was read, setting forth their reasons for not Utilities Commisrrion’e requirements, which require6 them to operate at the leas:. cost. Camm. Swirsky stated he did not foe1 that we should require aomething in a subdivision map that is not going to be ueed by the utility companier. Mr. Whitnall pointed out that it is becoming the practice to install joint poles. The Sngineer for the subdivider was asked if he had any questions to aak the Comminsion. Proposed reaolution No. 80 was presentud to the Commieaion for their review, recommending to the City Council the approval therein. Macurdon war glven to the conditions listed in the proposed reeoluq. of the tentative map of Terramar Unit 66, rubject to certain conditions listed tion, which were Q correlation of requirements submitted by the various departmmts and agenciea. Comm, Swirsky moved that Resolution #70 be adopted, with the exception that Item #6 be deleted, substituting therein that the Planning Commission waives utility easements on the rear af the Lots dw to the report of the utility company, and that there be added Item #17, that the street at the aoutherly end of the subdivieion, extewion of Mantano Drive, be dedicated for street purposes to a width of t9’, and that the subdivider grant in fee to the City the most southerly 1’ of the rubdivlsion with the exception of Lot 176. Seconded by Comm. Ebright. Comm. Jarvie quosttoned the newer report submitted by the Health Officer, Comm. Ebright stated he felt this ehould be up to the Council. Comm. Swirrky gave a brief background of the sewage problem in this area when Terramar Unit regarding the sewage ryrtem in the City of Carlebad, and that the City Council #5 waa accepted. He atated that a report ir being made by Brown and Caldwell i8 fully aware of the problem in the area. Seven ayes, Resolution No. 70 adopted. A short recess was declared by the Chairman. The meeting war reconvened at 9:41 P.M. Comm. Ebright was excuaed at recess. 7b GARRETT VARIANCE: The Secretary was asked to bring the Commisrion up to date on the napwwgs since the variance war granted, Letter addresred to the City Council from Mr. and Mrs. Vasquez was read, wherein they objected to the placement of the building as to the rear yard. A copy of a letter from Mr. Radcliff, Building Inspector. addressed to Mrr, Garrett, wherein he informed Mred Garrett the building under conatruction did not conform to the ordinance in regards to the required rear yard rot back. Mr. Whitnall was asked to give hie report. Mr, Whitnall stated the queation before the Commiraion waa “11 the placement matter, and informed the Commission he would submit a typewritten report of the building on the lot valid? ‘I Mr. Whitnall gave an oral report on this to the Commission, Chairman Baumgartner asked Mr. Whitnall if this wi~o a Planning Commission matter? Mr. Vhitnall &atad the issuance of the Stop Order was an administro- ’ tivo problem, howeve.p, the placemeat of the building on the south line is not according to tho o?diuance, and that the applicant would haw to apply for a that an adjuatment be made on th rear portion of the property. variance; the initiative ehould be on tbs part of the applicant; she should ask .- MRS. GARRETT arbd if thia was the time to ark for this variance. Her attorney ta&k she ark that this diecrepancy be corrected, and she was nowasking that thi8 d with tho City Attorney and her attorney had advised that dircropancy be corrected. Mr. Whitaall stated that no d?icrepmey had been commtttod, MRS. GARRETT otated "kt'r face it1 I am in a spot and I am asking that the portion of the lot as the building now standa. tommirrion help me rectify this matter. There is a 5%" set back on the rear Comm. Swirsky stated the Stop Order was an administrative problem that had occurred atnce the granting of the variance, however, if there wan a change in the factual dtwtion a hearing must be held before the Planning Commission could take any action. It war point& out that the City Attornay had talkod to tho City Manager in regards to this matter today. The Secretary was instructed to contact the City Manager as to the City Attorney's opinion. The Secretary reportod the might institute proceedings to order a revocation or modificattnn of thc variance City Manager had been informed by the City Attorney the Planning Commiasion grantd'in accordance with Article 22, (4) and Article 19, Section 1901 (c). MRS. GARRETT stated that at the time the variance was granted slm pointed out tho roar yara' variance and war told it did not matter. MR. VASaUEZ atatad that it war wt their understanding that a 5' vartaace ehould be revobd due to the violation of the variance. yara. It was certainly her underrtonding that thia 5' rear yard war granted. MRS, GARRETT stated that .ha M asked reveral tinea about this 5' rear Thero were othera at the meeting who had the same impreraton. She further stated she would like to ask Mrs. Someman her impression of the motion granted. COUNCILWOMAN SONNEMAN 8tat.d that if thir matter came beforo tho CounciI she whouW naotr It was certainly hor impresdon that this 5* roar yard variance had been o to abatatn if she rubmittad an opinion at this time. granted a6 Mrs. Garrott had spoken of We reverol times, Aftar the Cornmission granted the ride yard variance of 5' that Us automati- Comm. Swirrky dated that it all boils down to the wording of ntatoments. cally placed the br.ck yard requirement at 10'. Comm. Swirsky moved rince the individuals hove been informed as to how this matter should be procesaed, and in view of the fact that the Commission does not wish to revoko the variance tho proper mothod to bring the matter of a rear yard variance bofore the granted, the Secretary is instructed to write the applicant advtstag her that Commission ir by making a formal application for a variance, and that a public hearing will. be aeceraary. Seconded by Comm. Jarvie, Six ayes, Comm. Ebright absent, motion carried. a been granted on the rear portion of the lot. He felt that the building permit 8- Redevelopment Plan for Pi0 Pic0 Drive - Whitnoll. Mr. WhitaaU preaented a reuevelopmerrt pIan tor -0 Hco lJr1 thought this matte- should be presented to tho property owners, and if they are 'PO. c;omm. Hayes stated she certainly . not interested that the Commiaston should tikc no further action as she felt the plan was beyond the #cop of the City to proceed with this type of re- development plan. that it would be turned over to the Redevelopment Authorittea. After con- Mi. Whittall poided out that if th. property owners consented to this plan to attempt to secure a oup of citizens to represent the property ownera in- eiderable discussion Comm. Swirsky moved that the Secretary be directed volved, and turn it om B to them to set whether they are interested in pro- ceeding with thts on the fo~owtng basis: (I) unenimous. corumt of &e property owners, (2) Redevelopmeat Authority., Seconded by Comm. Jarvie. At1 ayea, motion carried. Comm. Ebrigb rb,Emt. 9- Notice of Intention of City Council to approve Reaoluk #%, acept that Ambulance Service and Mortuaries may bc permissible in K + 3 Zon e&' camm. 1958, a. the Commisaio~t haa 40 days in which to act upon d"r. Seconded hvlrslry moved that mi. lnrtZer m conunned until ths nart me JW a, by Comm. Jarvie. All ay.8, motion carried. Comm. Ebright absed. 19- Redevelopment Plan 9- Etnald. .Vr> FwaIO presented a redevelopment ptan for a parcer of land bounded by Basswood. Eureka Place, Adams and Chestnut Street. He informed the Commission he was trying to develop a plan for this parcel to make it possible to develop property that is not being developed, He He wanted to get the consent of the Commission before he went out and tried requested the Commission to consider a 32' street through this parcel of Land. to sell the property owners on tha 1911 Act to develop the property. After considerable discussion Comm. Stringer moved #at the planning Cornmission go on record accepting this requaat for the development of this specific parcel, a precedent, and that every cam would be considered on ita om merit.. '.. boded by Baaswood, Eureka, Aduna and ChestnaC. but in no way to aatablish Seconded by Comm. Swiraky. Four ayes, Comm. Hayes and Baumgarbsr voting no, Comm. Ebrtgkt abd. Motion carried. 11- Street Improvement widths. Th. City Engineer pn8mkd pknr of propoaed cu8aion Comm. Swirsky moved tbrt tsia plrrming Commi8sion recommend to stirat width. for consideration by the Commiaaion. After considerable dia- the City Council the adopttop of typical street crosa MC~~OM, with th. of streets a8 shown on thc croas .actions with the definitioru of atreat8 set recommendation thpt the City Engineer be directed to correlate tb definition# forth in the aubdiviston ordinance. Seconded by Comm. Faanel. sir ayes, Comm. EbrtgW abmmt, By proper motion the medag waa adjoornsd at 11255 P.M. I_ -5-