HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-08-23; Planning Commission; Minutes,P
:CITY OF CARLSEA11 I \\ '\ \\ '\ '\ '* I :blinutes of: PLAFf! I !!C coil?" 15s I Ob! I \, '\ ' '. '\\8'\ I
!Date of Meeting: August 23, 195G \ '\ \\ '\ \\ "
:Time of Neeting: 7:3n P. M. Name "\ '\$$,"\)?$$$, 1 :Place of fleeting: Council Chambers '\,+ \O' : Of Q,+ ' 8-52 : : Member @,$y?x,d. I
:ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith,
IPalnateer, PlcComas, ?IcCarthy, Freistadt and Littl4.
:Commissioner Sutherland was present at 7:42 P.H. : :Also present were City Attorney Nilson, Building !
:Inspector Osburn and Ass't City Planner Johnston.:
!APPROVAL OF FliIF!UTES:
I '\\'\\'. I
I I
I I I \, ', '\\ '8 s 4 I
I ',b'@\ +,$+ I
I :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-:""""""""" 'Ill;: ""f""
I t ;::a81
1:::::
::a::: ::;I::
::l:bl
::::,I 11::
t
t I
I I !(a> Hinutes of the regular meeting of August : 1966, were approved as submitted.
t I I I I jLi ttle
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
MRITTEN CONMUNICATIONS:
I I :There were no written communications.
I I i ORAL COM~4UMICATIONS~ I I I I I I I I I I
I I :There were no oral communications.
: PUBLIC HEARINGS: I I
:(kYultiple-Residential) Zone on the Mesterly side i of Roosevelt St., Hortherly of f"lagno1ia Ave.
:Applicant: Piiles T. Tolbert.
i(b) PRECISE PLAN, continued - To consider adopt-! !ion of a precise plan on the l+!'ly side of Roosevelt
:St., H'ly of Magnolia Ave. Applicants: Planning:
:Commission Resolution No. 448. I
:Notice of hearing was read.
!Secretary Palmateer read a letter dated August 8,: 1966, from Volney P. Bel 1 , 2044 Neadowlark Ranch i :Lane, San !4arcos9 requesting that the disposition: !of the above matters be continued to a later
/c jrneeting inasmuch as the extent of the right of wai :necessary to be given for State St. has not yet I :been ascertained. I I
ILetter dated August 16% 1966, to t?r. C. R. Thornth
:Ass't City Engineer, regarding the proposed I !alignment of State St. between Elm Ave. and :Tamarack Ave. stating the proposal will be reviewdd
!by the Engineering Dept. and comments will be :shortly forthcoming. They questicned why this :
\particular alignment was adopted to utilize a :portion of the Railway Company's right of way in :view of the licenses for drainage channels, under! :ground and aerial cables, and signal and communi-;
I I
I I I
I I r !(I) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - R-1 to R-3 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
cation lines. I I I I I
I I
:This letter was acknowledged by the Commission. i i !dith the consent of the City Attorney, the I I :Commission agreed to continue the above hearings.:
i (c) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in side i :yard setback from 10' to zero on the Northwesterli
:corner of the intersection of Harding St. and I !Pine Ave. Applicants: Carlshad Union Church. !
!Notice of hearing was read. The SecretaEy certi-i
:fied that notice of the public hearing wag given : !to property owners in the area and ther! read the ! i application. I I
!There were no written communications. I I
I I t
I I I
I I
I I I
t I I I I
I I I I
!
r
r
-2-
I :""""""""""""""""""""""""""-"""""""""""~"
I I ! Flr. Johnston gave a report on the staff investi- I gation of this application.
i Commissioner Sutherland was present at 7:42 P. Y.:
8 I I I I I I
I I I I The Building Inspector explained that the buildiqg i plan submitted to the Building Department that : : \:.!as approved showed the required side yard set- I i back from the property line. The Building plans : : were the same as submitted except the land shown i i on the plan was not the same. The concrete work : : is being done under contract and all of the foun: i dation for the main building is in except the : : main floor. lie explained the buttresses are in .{I i and tied together. I I I I I I I The Chairman announced the Commission would now i i hear from the applicant or his representative : : regarding this request.
I CHAPLAIP! M. J. BOIJTERSE stated that he has been i i the pastor of the Carlsbad Union Church for the past 2 years and the documents were in error as i i they used some plot plans of the first sanctuary : : built. tie believed the Church had given land ; i for street dedication and this mistake was : unintentional. The side chapel would have to be I eliminated completely if this is suppressed. He: stated that the architect and representative of i : the contractor were present.
! Mhen asked if this building could be moved over I to the north, the Building Inspector explained : ; that this would not be possible as all of the : i structure for the pad was in. The Church office; : are in the middle and are joined to the other 4" rectangular building with a covered passageway. :
i f4R. HARRY HINTQIf of Barrington Construction Co, : : stated that he would be glad to answer any I I I questions. He understood the property line was i 6 to 8' from the face of the curb and laid the : : building out 6' from the curb. Idhen he was askec! i to widen the setback and reduce the separation : : between the buildings, the Architect, Otto Korverf, i contacted the City Attorney and Building Dept. :
i The Building Inspector stated Ire never talked to!
I Mr. Korver regarding the plot plan until they i found this error. The Building Inspector pre- : : sented the plot plan that was approved and I stated that he had gone over it with Er. Claude i : Helton, a member of the Building Committee. He i i was never out on the site plan with Plr. Hinton : ; who relayed the information to Architect Korver.! I The Building Inspector stated this error was : found when he was inspecting the footings prior SI i to the pouring of more concrete. Pine AV~. has i i a right of way of 60', and the amount of land : : that was dedicated for street improvements was i i not properly recorded on the plot plan.
/ MR. HINTON stated that the existing curb could bi
I CHAPLAIN BOUTERSE stated he would like to assume: i some of the blame as he was formerly a Navy I I : Chaplain and not familiar with bllilding churches{ i and should have given better leadership. He I : stated that he did not have tbe property surveyed.
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
: off. I I
I I
I I
h
r
r
I I
I I I
I 1 ',\'\ \\\ \..
I I I X' '. '\ \, " ', I
I I ' '\ '\ \, ', '\ I
I I '\\ '\\ '8 . * ' I
I -3- I \ \ *' '\ '. 's
I i Name ".,'\?+ 8, *",
I : Of ',h$\9',4+ I Y+ 0 \O'\ .It. '\ .p, : I" - _"" - -" """ - - -" - - -" - _" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -" -" - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - +" - - - - -" -"" -" - -11'_.;- - "J i::::;
$OIlt 1:;;
I I I :::::;
I :::::: )I I
it@:::
1 I ::::it
1:i:::
/t::: 4:::: t:;;:t
i \,!hen asked if they had any alternate building ::; ";# I plans, Mr.Korver stated that it would mean com- : ;::iii
I plete elimination of the prayer chapel and the : I@~l;;
;;:;lo i architecture of the sanctuary would be off-balante. ;lt:lh
: The prayer chapel would house 40 people and I I i:ll;: i would be used as a pastoral and wedding chapel t 1r:i:;
:t:4:1 : with provisions for baptism emersion. The belli ::I;;:
I I It I I tower will be in the patio. I I ;1::::
I t 4:::; : DR. JERRY COLLINGS, stated that he was the I I :::;:: I Chairman of the Building Committee, and that the! I::;;:
:::Ill ; main sanctuary will be for large congregation i ;;':I* ::I' 11 : meetings and will hold 400 people. The small : ii:;;: i chapel will be used for smaller groups and I 4:;11 i weddings. Two sets of restrooms will be in the i ::@I;:
: projection between the chapel and sanctuary. In: pi::; ;: 1:::: the contract with the architect, th2 Church was I i:;:::
t to supply the survey of the property, however, i :::ill 4: i the architect believed that with 3 sets of plans: 411;::
t that the dimensions of the property would be I ::::i: i accurate. They heard the street was widened I I !:p;;
: sometime ago for diagonal parking. I 41::;
I I ::::I*
I 1 !:ll;: :::I::
@:I1+ I I I ::1111 ;:::
::I::: ;;I:;; !!::I!
I I
I I
'8 '\4, i
; Member $@f \6\\dx1 ! If this building had to be relocated there would: '11,1(
: be approximately $10,000. in concrete work that : :::::I i would have to be removed and redone. The con- i i struction started about the middle of July.
: 3 sets of plans that were submitted to him to ! i get the plot plan from. The original church : building is located within 12" of the property i line on Pine Ave. This new building will not i : obstruct the view of traffic. There will be an : open patio at the corner.
I1
I I
I*I( Ill
hRCt1ITECT OTTO KORVER reported that there were i ::: 81 I
I I I I I * I ;ii;:; ItIII
Ill
11
I*II
I I
I
I
I
IJo others present spoke in favor of this request;
I The Chairman announced the Commission would now ! hear from those who wished to speak in oppositiot).
i P!o one spoke in opposition to this application. :
I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
The public hearing vas closed at 8:17 P. P4.
I i Points discwssed were that the building could be: i an asset to the community; that the Commission : I denied an earlier request for a variance for I i reduction of off-street parking spaccs and the ! : Church had complied with the requirements and I i purchased additional property; that the Commissikn believed this rras an honest mistake made by the i Church; and the building would not extend the : i full length of the sidewalk. I I
!
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
Mr. Johnston stated that the nap drawn for the Commission to review the location of the propert$ and buildings was taken from the Assessor's Book$ and did not show the location of the sidewalks. i
The Building Inspector explained that the whole : wall on the southerly side would be of decorated: stone. tie stater! he knew there were 2 sets of : plans that were approved and a survey was made i sometime ago. I I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 * P
: The following resolution was presented:
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 :""""""""- :After furth adopt Resol :for that pa !the plan be
I I I I I I I I I I
I I 1 I I
I I I 1 I
- -1- """""" er consi uti on 1,iO rt of th ing with ng rcaso
""" dera . 45 e bu in t ns :
""" tion
4 gr ildi he r
""""""~""""-""""-- a motion was made to anting the variance ng only as shown on equired setback for
!l. That there are extraordinary circumstances i :existing on this property. I2. That "an honest mistake" was made in the plan4 :submitted to the City and it is too late now to : !correct the error. :3. That such variance is necessary for the enjoy; jment of the property rights possessed by other I :property in the same vicinity and zone but which : :is denied to the property in question. I jrl. That the granting of such variance will not ! :be materially detrimental to the public welfare.
i5. That the granting of such variance will not I :adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. ; I
I I
I I
I 1
!Planning Commission Resolution 140. 454. A RESOLU-: Smith i : :x; ; I
:WESTERLY CORFiZR OF THE INTERSECTION OF HARQING : Palmatecri : :x: i
jand further reading waived. : lqcCartl?y ;xi x i : :
I ; Little t I : : I I ;:#:le
I 1:;d: i(d) CRNDITIOWL USE PERMIT - To consider the use i ;It::; :of family home to care for up to 4 mentally re- I
I::::'
Itarded girls over the age of 16 on property locat$d 1:;:::
:at 4260 Skyline Rd.; on SE'ly terminus of Skyline;
iRd. Applicant: Joyce Dunker. I I
iEotice of hearing was read. The Secretary certifiIed :that notice was given to property owners in the : !area and then read the application and signatures !of 4 property cIwners nearby approving this appli-: :cation. I I
:Nincfrum, 4230 Clearview Dr., objecting to this i irequest as she felt this would be a business I :operated for profit and sbauld not be in a fine :residential area. I *
:Petition received AU~. 23, 1~66, with 40 signaturgs
:opposing this proposed use in that residential arqa.
iNr. Johnston explained the location of the prop- I jerty and gave a report of the staff investigation : :and that under the Requirements fcr Qperation of : :Private Institutions taken from the California I I $d.ministrative Code, Title 3, there are several : :categories listed by the Department of Mental I I :Hygiene and this fits in the catagory for Family i !Homes (Mentally Retarded) and that the existinn : :house is clean 1 ight and airy and has a large :yard, and would have to meet all the state and :local health, building and fire safety regulations! !before occupancy is allowed.
!The Chairman announced the Commission would now :hear from the applicant or her representative and : :any others who wished to speak in favor of this I :application. I I
:The applicant was not present and no one spoke in :her behalf or in favor of this request.
-.I. I@
;TIO!V GRAftTIMG A VARIAFICE OPi PROPERTY AT MORTH- : Sutherland i :x I ; I1
r /STREET AGD PINE AVENUE, was adopted by title only i YcComas I : :x: ; :
' Freistadt: Ix!x i ; ; 1
I
11
I
I
I I * I
1 I I I r :Card dated Aug. 17, 1966, from Mrs. George I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I I 8 I *
I I I *
I I I 8 I I I l- I 1; I I I!
$ I
I I I I I I I I
r
r
-5- I I I
I 1 I I
I I I :""""""""""""""-""""""""""""""""""""""":- i The Chairman announced the Commission !.;would now i :hear from those desiring to speak in opposition. i
!FIR. C. S. TRAVIS, 4725 Skyline Road, voiced jopposition to this request. He stated that he ! ; came to the West coast 2 or 3 years prior to 19603 and decided to locate in Carlsbad. After looking! :the City over, he purchased a large home on I ! Skyline Road because of the climate and view. : He called attention to the deed restrictions on I Ithe property and stated that if the Commission i i grant this permit, he would like to request per- : :mission to rent out part of his house. I
I DR. JOHM SAFARIK stated he is building a home at i 4230 Skyline Road and it will be the nearest I i structure immediately north of this property. He! stated that he has 3 daughters, (one, three and : ; five years old), and objected to having them gronj i up in the vicinity of girls lacking in social I I
I abilities. He referred to the deed restrictions i on his property which showed that this property i I could only be used for single-family or agricul- : : tural use. He stated that he admired this woman i i for the work she plans to do for these girls but : : questioned her buying this property with deed i restrictions on it and then asking to use the I I :property for a different use.
i PIP,. CHARLES EY;'SANN, 4140 Skyline Road, stated he i
owns Lcrt 41 and agreed with Dr. Safarik's com- f I : ments. He referred to the deed restrictions that! i the buyers were made aware of when they purchased: the property. lie read a report indicating that a: : civil suit could be filed if an infringement on I i the deed restrictions is made on the property I 1 : where the property would revert back to the i seller. A copy of this report was presented to I : the City Attorney.
: MRS. CliARLES EYMANP! stated she phoned Mrs .Dunker I i regarding the fees she would charge. I I
Plo others spoke in favor or against this request.:
I I I 1 I
I I I
I I I I I
I I I
I I
I f
I I I I I I 1
I I f 6 I
1 I 6
I I I 1
i The public hearing was closed at 8:55 P. M.
I The City Attorney stated that the City is not a i part to the buyers agreement which could result ; : in a lawsuit if not complied with. f I
! Points discussed were that there are a lot of I i places in the City \!here this type of care could : : be given; that there is no evidence that the I ! children will be screened; that this care should i : not be in a private house and should be properly': I supervised and fenced; that this form of care was! : considered ideal and Ers. aunker should be corn- i mended for doing this type of work but it would : : be unfortunate to have it at this location; that i i it would be putting a profit-making business in a: i private residential area. I I
t I I
I I I I I
I I I ! i The following resolution was presented: : i A motion was made to adopt Resolution Eo. IF55 : denying this request for a conditional use permit! i for the foI lowing reasons: I I
I I f
t I I # I I I I I I I I f I I f I 1 I # I I ! ! I
r
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I -6-
:1. That the proposed use is not in accord with :""""""""""""-""""""""""""""""-""""""".
ithe adopted General Plan of the City which shows jsingle-family residential use in this area. :2. That there is sufficient property zoned for i such commercial purposes elsewhere in the City :limits. i3. That this would not be in the best interests iof the neighborhood where the applicant proposes ; such use.
:Planning Commission Resolution No. 455. A RESOLU : TION DENYIMG A CONDITIONAL USE PEENIT ON PROPERT !AT 4266 SKYLINE ROAD: 0!4 THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERM1 :BUS OF SKYLIHE ROAD, was adopted by title only a i further reading waived.
1 :Little
i (e) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - To consider an i amendment to the present ConditbB$l Use Permit to: i allow on-sale beer on rac e days only to be sold i ; to raceway spectators in the spectator areas, on : :property located approximately 2 miles East of ; Palomar Airport and North of Palomar Airpcirt Road: Applicant: Carlsbad Raceway Co. I I
: !!otice of hearing was read. The Secretary certi-i fied that notice was given to the property owners: i in the area and then read the application askinq i ; for an amendment to the existing conditional use i i permit, Item 3, of Planning Commission Resolution: : Eo. 321.
: Letter dated August 19, 1966, from United Calif- i i ornia Bank as Co-Trustee under the will of Edith : : Carrillo, Deceased, owners of 838 acres of adja- : i cent property opposing this request on the ground5 : that they originally opposed this permit as they I i felt it would be detrimental to the future develop- : ment of the Carrillo land and similar parcels in ; i this area; and that granting this request would : i compound those objectional features. They urged i ; the Commission to reject this application.
; Letter dated August 27, 1956, from Clarence H. I i Dawson, owner of property contiguous to the drag-: : strip, protesting the sale of alcoholic beverages! i on the raceway and recommending denial of the I I i application as he felt it would make it more of i : an attraction to certain types of people and I I i increase the hazards of accidents and vandalism. i
i The Chairman announced the Commission would now : : hear from the applicant or his reqrescntative and! i any others desiring to speak in favor of this I I : application.
: NR. LARRY GRISSMER stated he is a partner in the I i Company and asked to go on past performance. He : : felt the opposition two years ago was because the: i people were misinformed, and he was not aware of : i any problems resulting from individuals from the I : racetrack. The Raceway has done their best to : eliminate any problems. tte pointed out that of i : the 16 owners of property that were notified, onlp i 2 protested this application. The Raceway has I : worked and cooperated with the property owners in: i the area to prevent any nuisances. There have : : been no accidents or traffic problems of a serioub
I I
I I I
I t I I I I
I I
I I
I I I I I I 1
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 8 I
! ! b
.
r
I I' I I 1 I
I
',, '\,,'\ ' ' ' . ,..
I '\ '\ ",", I
I I I 'b, 'I ' '*, ',,", I
1 -7- ,'& '\ '.,$ '' '\,"\ '
I i N a me '8, .% 'b, \$), i
1 : of '\* $?%, ' .4/' : ' I '?b \,o ' s.,+q-& I
; l--;-;--r-q I::::;
I 1:::::
I 1 ::::;: 11
I I I I I
I
I
Member $@.&?~b,~ :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-l"""""""""
!nature. He stated that he would like to point : !out that there are a lot of people attending the i 8::~11 :races from other cities that otherwise would not i ll@;ll
:;'I;:
;come to Carlsb ad and they may be future home ill I
:owners in Carlsbad, especially the teenagers.
I I ::!!,I
11
I
I
I
:!lo others spoke in favor.
!The Chairman announced the Commission would now i !Rear from those wishing to speak in opposition. :
jf4R. VERNAL G. HUMPHREYS, Attorney representing ! I Mrs. M. A. C. Delpy, Box 363, San Marcos, owner I [ of 138 acres of land, was a recorded owner and : :was not notified by the City but did get notice : from the Bank. He stated they felt the Racetrack: i is detrimental to the development of a residential !area. There have not been many seriijus acc"ietjtsi
; them? Ile voiced objection to enlarging upon : : the present conditional use permit to sell beer, I !as he felt that since the racetrack is open until: : midnight and the rqi*s are narrow , it could lead to accidents. He reported having several I I clients turn down buying the property which they I i hoped. to sell and requested that the application I : be denied. I I
4 t
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I
-1-1 I I :::;:I
!The public hearing was closed at 9:23 P. P1. I I !I:::!
I I 111;8
I ::::I; 1::;::
:the owners of the Raceway volunteered originally ! :::::I
:to not have liquor. I I :::::I
I :::I:: i It was pointed out that notices were mailed to i :::I::
! owners of property according to the Assessor's ! :::::: ::I::: i E4ap Eooks. I I ::;:::
I I :::::: i Points discussed were that most sporting events :::I:: ::I : do have beer; that the roads and policing were i ::i i not ready for this; that there would be an uncon-: I;:;:;
I trollable use of the beer by the teenagers; that i :;I:;;
::::I; i in consideration of the adjoining land owners the! :Id;;: i manager should forego selling beer until there is: ::;;I: : better policing and the County has wider roads; i :::a::
i that while the raceway is a first class raceway, : ii:l:4 1:l;
: the roads in the area are not first class. :01:1;
I ;I::!;
I I 11;4" : The following resolution was presented: b I ::;::: ' I ::;::: ::
1 I ;I:: : After consideration by the Commission a motion : was made to adopt Resolution PJo. 456 denying this: ::;I :
181 ::;
I request for an amendment to the present condition! ::;I1#
:11::; I a1 use permit, Item 3, Resolution P!o. 321, for : 1::I;l
: the following reasons: lll:;:
I I I ::::;: !I::;:
i 1. That it is not in the best interests of the iii::: : communi ty . I I I:;#:: I?. That no evidence as presented indicating I I :::I::
I ;:;t:; I there is a demand for this request which would i :;1:1;
be in the best interests of the community. I :;::;;
I I :;:::;
I 8 '#::I; Planning Commission Resolution [do. 456. A RESOLU-!Smith i i ;xi i i : TIOR DENYING A CONDITIOPJfl,L USE PERMIT ON PROPERTY: Sutherlandb : ;x; : ; i AT APPROXIMATELY e ?ILES EAST OF PALOMAR AIRPORT Palmateer i ixi i : AND i'iORTH OF PALrJW,R AIRPORT ROP,D, vas adopted by! rtcComas i : :x; i title only and further reading waived. i: : FlcCarthy :xixi ; :
I i Freistadt i i :x: I :
I ; Little : ; ;x: : i
:II::;
I I ,@I,:, I I I I ::::I;
I I 1;;1:1
I I I i;:::;
t :; ;ii!
I F-iF!. GRISSMER called attention to the fact that
I I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I 1
I
11
I
I I
I I I
I I 11 I I I
I !I!#!*
.
r
r