Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-08-09; Planning Commission; Minutes* 1 .,,.\\* * * * 8, '\:',, '\, '\88'z :CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANMINS COW!ISSIOM I '\ '\ *, '8 ''8", * ireli nutes of: * '8' \'\', 'x, ',8, I !Date of Neeting: August 9, 1966 i N a me ", '?&, ", \;$$ '*$ i :Time of Neeting: 7:30 P. M. : of '%'+ .o' !Place of i,!eeting: Council Chambers : Member *%p,**$? 4.4 *?&$.;*,&$& : *"~""""""~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-;"""""-""- :- *"; -,"" * I I' !ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, I I ;:II:: 1:::; IPalmateer, McCarthy, Frcistadt and Little. Com- i li:*l* 1 4:: !missioner Sutherland was present at 7:35 P. ?'I. b * 4::q :Commissioner McComas was absent. Also present I :::*:* :*:::: !were City Attorney I:!ilson, Building Inspector I :Osburn and Planning Director Schoell. * * ;:;:j: D 4:I:: !APPROVAL OF MINUTES: !Smi th : : 1.: I ; :xi ;x: ; , I :Palmateer i : :xi : i I I iLi ttl e : : :xi ; I * * * ::I:;; *I::!; * * * 4 * * !(a) E4inutes of the regular meeting of July 26, iPlcCarthy I i :x: i : j1966, were approved as submitted. :Freistadt ; r :xi : I I ::et a * * :l:D:t ;::I:: * * ;::::I *:I:*: :ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I :* I 1:::;: I * * adi;; I* !There were no oral communications. * *::I#* I* I D :+;;; !PUBLIC HEARINGS: * I** I *: I !/:::; I !:*lo* ;:;: ::;::: I ;::::: * ;:a*:* *;!;:: * ::;::: * * 4:;:: ;b:;:: ;j!:!: * :::;I! r !necessary to be given for State St. has not yet I ;:!::; :been ascertained. * * I*;::: I ;I *;::: ":;: i i ;xi ; I * I iz.icCarthy : ;x: : * I IFreistadt i a :x: I:; : ; I I :Little : ;: * jxi i ; * ***:*; i (c) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - TO consider allowing; ;::::; !use af existing facilities of the Education Dept; ;:I::; :of the Church for a Nursery School on Easterly i *:;*:* !side of Pi0 Pic0 Dr. between Magnolia Ave. and ; i:;::: ;I;:;: :Tamarack Ave. Applicants: First Baptist Church. i 1:;;;: I ;ii:;: :Notice of the hearing was read. The Secretary I ;**:*; jcertified that notice of the public hearing was : :::::; ;::;:; :given to property owners in the area and then 4 ;::;:; i read the application and signatures of adjacent i ;i:*:* :property owners stating they are in favor of this! ,*:::: jrequest. The reading of the legal description.; : ;:;I:* ;:'::: ; was wa i ved. * I ;;:6*: :Commissioner Sutherland was present gt 7:35 P.M. i:;t** 1::: * ::;*;I i:;::: ;:I:;: !from J. Dekema, State Division of Highways, stat-! *::I!: jing that they did not believe the proposed change: i:;* :in usage would adversely affect development of i I:;*:: I the freeway in the area. B i:;::: I I /;:;: ;: I b ::::;: *I * b *;;:;: I I * D I \4RITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: c I * I !There were no written communications. * I I * I * t l*tl** r- * I D * :(a) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - R-1 to R-3 :(Multiple-Residential) Zone on the Uesterly side i :of Roosevelt St., Northerly of Magnolia Ave. !Applicant: Miles T. Tolbert. B pi:; '(8) i(b) PRECISE PLAN, continued - To consider adop- I :tion of a precise plan on the W'ly side of IRoosevelt St., N'ly of Magnolia Ave. Applicants:! i::;:: ;::;:j :Planning Commission Resolution No. 448. !Secretary Palmateer read a letter dated August 84 I 1966, from Volney P. Bell, 2044 Meadowlark Ranch : i:;:;; I)* :Lane, San Ptarcos requesting that the disposition i :::j,:: :of the above matters be continued to a later :meeting inasmuch as the extent of the right-of-wai ;::::: I *I I I * *I* I* * * $1 I * I* I * :A motion was made to continue these hearings to :Smith :the next regular meeting on August 23, 1966. :Palmateer ;x: !x; : 8 * I I I**ol * * 1 * * * *;!+: 4* I One letter of correspondence dated August 1, 19665 * I * * * I * *' ! L: : : ; : I i The Planning Director gave a report of the staff! i investigation on this matter. I i A time limit on this school was discussed and I : the Planning Director pointed out that each case: i should be considered individually and that a tin4 : limit can be applied as a condition if the Commij i ssion feels one to be advisable. I I Vice-chairman FYlcCarthy announced that the Commi- i I I 1 I I I I I i sion would now hear from the applicant and any I others desiring to speak. i HRS. JOAN GREER, 1898 Forest Ave. stated this wid1 : not be a profit venture in that the fees for the ; i services are expected to meet the expenses of i I paying for the services of the teachers. They : i are leasing the church facilities and the church I : looks upon it as a con:venience to the community, : i However, any profits that ,did accrue would be i : retained, by the school. They plan to have 3 full : time teach'ers to teach 25 children, with a maxf- i : mum of 30 children. The children will be 2 1/2 I i through 5 year3 old and school will be conducted i I for 3 hours d day from 9 to 12 with 20 minutes of, I outside play period. they would use Hontessori i i Educational Platerials and system and Mrs. Greer : : explained the method of training the children i i by using the sensory training system. She point+ I ed out that there is only one other nursery schoql i in the City, and this would be the first nursery : ; school using this system in this area. San Diegd i has the Jack and Jill Nursery School using this i : system, and there is a school of this type in ; Riverside. She stated there has been a tremend- i : ous amount of interest shown in this proposed : school. I I ! No others present spoke in favor of this request.i I I I I I I I I I I 1 i The Chairman announced the Commission would now i hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. i I I I i No one present spoke in opposition. I I The public hearing was closed at 8:15 P.M. I I Points discussed were placing of a time limit fo4 I this use in order for the Commission to review : : this use at the end of that time; that the church! i is making the application and arrangements will : be made between the church and the lessor; that I i it would be an extension of the present conditio+ : a1 use permit since this use is permitted in an : i R-3 zone; specifying the amount of enrollment i : in the school; that the enrollment would have to ; i meet the State requirements for occupancy of the I : buildings; that this type of nursery school is : i common in Europe and there are some in the Los i : Angeles area. I i Upon being questioned Mrs. Greer stated that the I : timg, limit would not work a hardship on them as i : theis equipment would be movable. They have a i i considerable amount of equipment that would be ; i housed in the church facilities. I I I * 1 I I I I * I I I I I I I I I b 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 r f f f f I f I I I f I I f f I f -3- I 4 f I E4RS. GREER, stated that the church property is I : tax exempt and that she had gone over the entire I I area looking for a location for this nursery sch-: : 001 before making arrangements with the Baptist i i Church. i The following resolution was presented: I I I I 1 I I I I I I I f After further consideration a motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Plo. 453 f I : granting this request for a period of three years; i on the condition that the play area remain as I I : presently shown on the map submitted with the I i application and as presently used, and that the : : following reasons exist: i surrounding area. f I f I I I 1 f f f 1. That it will not be detrimental to the I f 2. That there is a need for a nursery schoo!l i Planning Commission Resolution I TIOM GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE i AT EASTERLY SIDE OF PI0 PIC0 DRIVE BETWEEN 1 I I I f f : of this type in the area. I I f : NOLIA AVENUE AND TAMARACK AVENUE, was I by title only and further reading waived. 8 I f I f i OLD BUSINESS: (a) Laguna Rivi era Subdivision. Letter from th4 : Ctty Council dated August 4, 1966, referring the i precise plan, tentative subdivision map and re- ; : zoning of this property back to the Planning I Commission for further consideration and report. : The Council requested the Planning Commission to i I consider deleting from the proposed tentative : : subdivision, re-zone, and precise, plan maps, the i i five large parcels of property shown on the map : : so that the action by the City oh these,subjects i i would touch only the smaller single-fadly resi- : i dential lots and streets as shown on the map. 1 The Commissibn discussed the fact that these ; parcels had been thoroughly discussed and consid-! i ered previously, and each parcel was to have bee4 : considered as one parcel with one single-family : i dwelling permitted, and if the subdivider wished : to bui Id more than one dwelling on each parcel, i i this matter would have to come before the Planniqg : Commission and Council for an amendment to the i i precise plan. The Commission also discussed I f : eliminating these five parcels from the precise I i plan and subdivision and the improvement and i development of the streets adjacent to these : parcels. i Upon being questioned, i4r. Jerry Rombotis stated: the lot numbers on the five parcels are Nos. 301 ; : through? 305. f I I I * I I f f f f 1 f 1 f I f f I f P l f f 8 f * I f I f f f f I f f f I 8 ! f f k # r' n 4 I I I ',\.\\'. I I I \\'\' , \ ' I I I ', ' ' '\ '\ '\ I I -4- \ b' I I I ', \,,'',, ',,""\ I 1 k I I I I I I I !The Planning Director pointed but that the sub- ! :dividers are agreeable with deleting the above j jfive parcels from the precise plan and map; that : :the amount of park land the subdivider is dedi- j icating is a little less than what the proposed : :ordinance will require and the subdivider would i i be agreeable to dedicating additional land or jfees for parks. ;A motion was made to deldte the five large parcel$ I I I 4 I I I I r I I I I I i (b) Zoninq Study - Committee report on R-T and ! I R-l.I study. Commissioner Sutherland reported that! j he had had two very busy weeks and had been unable : to meet with Commissioners Palmateer and Little. i i (c) Park dedication in subdivisions. The Plan- i ning Director explained the proposed ordinance #ai : based upon the League of California Cities sugg- ; j ested ordinance with a few minor changes. He i : discussed the implementation of the General Plan ; j that was adopted, referring to pages 27, 29 and : I32 specifically. He also presented an overlay of! - I : the proposed park and school sites showing 1/2 i :considered ideal for children and mothers to jwalk. The Planning Director explained that : some cities did have ordinances regarding park i dedication in subdivisions, but they did not have: : the State's enabling ordinance before. He stated: ! that he had tal ked to some of the developers in j :subdivisions. He explained that local and neigh-! I borhood parks of 4 acrePr&commencied for each f I : 1,000 persons. I I I I : Points discussed were that it may be better to I i have some central parks; private parks would not : : be paid by the overall city; the cost of mainten-: j ance of each park in the City; that this ordinancb :would be desirable; additional fees for financing! j the subdivision; the fund that will be built up : ; from the fees collected; whether the Park and J Recreation Commission had studies this ordinance.! The Planning Director stated that Mrs. Betty l.Sollrich, fro-m the Park and Recreation Commission! j had been in hdefice and he had given her a copy i i of this proposed ordinance; however, he would I ; call the Chairman of the Park and Recreation and go over it wi ti7 him. The Park and Recreation! : Commission will meet before the Planning Commis- i i sion's next regular meeting so they could expect : : a report from them at that time. I I I I r jmile radius circles, a distance that would be I I I I I I I the City and they felt it will enhance their I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I s I 1 8 I I I I I -5- r r I I ;"-."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""". It was the consensus of the Commission-that unde !Section 8, on page 4, a maximum of 25% instead : of 50% of the requirement of dedication for Park and Recreation purposes would be sufficient. ! The Planning Di rector stated that the reason i there was a need for immediate actfon on this :ordinance in that the City is being faced with i new subdivisions being submitted. I The Chairman directed the City Attorney to draw :the ordinance up in final form for the Commissio I to take. ..action on this at,.their, ?egt regular i meeting before recommending this ordinance to I I I I I I the Council. I I i NEW BUSINESS: I I There was no new business. 1 ADJOURNIdENT : I I I By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at :9:34 P.I;I. I I i Respectfully submitted, I 1 DOROTHY #. OSBURH : Recording Secretary 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 s I 8 I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I ."" I I ri 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 In; 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 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 8 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 8 I I 8 I I I I I !