HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-08-22; Planning Commission; Minutes*
c
I
D I I D
I PLANNING COMMISSIC I Au ust 22, 1967 7:!0 P. M.
Co.unci1 Chambers : Member
I
;ROLL CALL was answere'd by Commissioners Smith,
;McComas, Palmateer, Little, Jose and Voorheis. ? :Commissioner Sutherland was absent. Also present i :were City Attorney Wilson, Chief Building Inspectofc :Osburn, and Assistant' Planner Johnston. D I
:APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Smith
!(a) Minutes of the regular meeting of August 8, Palmateer : I !xi ; ; j1967, were approved as submitted. : Little : I :x; I II I
D 4 l D
I : McComas i( I :x: I DD I
! ; jx: ; :
I D : V6orheis ; I .;xi D 8' : ;
I D :1;;0 :;':::
I D l;;ll: D I 1.1 : i ;
:(a) .Count,y of San Diego - re: Invitation to I ? :; ii::
!Public Hearing to Discuss Proposed Improvement of i DvD*:D :;
:El Camino Real, September 8, 1967, at 2:00 P. M. :
!in Carlsbad City Council Chambers, was read and i 1.: ; ; I ; {::;:;
:acknowledged. I D :::::D '* I
D ::'Di:
i(b) Preliminary San Diego County Regional .General: ::ii::
!Plan. Memorandum dated August 22, 1967, from the : IDID;: :::DID
:Planning Department stating that Councilman J. E. i !;I:'D Dl
!Jardine, City of Carlsbad delegate to the Policy : ,I::;:
;Coordinating Committee for said General Plan, has i irequested the Planning Commission to study and :I :have available for the September 19, 1967 Council
:meeting, their comments, both positive and nega- ; j;::::
itive, pertaining to said Plan. D
!Discussion was given to the fact the tentative :;::;;
:planning is' very general and should be considered ; !carefully, that comments will have to be made at I :the next regular Planning Commission meeting in ;
jorder to forward them to the Council meeting of : :$;:
:September 19, 1967; and that the-Planning Depar-tmebt :;;;:; !should give a briefing on this matter to the Com- ; i!;:j;
:mission . D D l-:;; ;l:DID
I D ; ; 1.1
!Vice-chairman Little directed Mr. Johnston to studb ,I:@;:
jand report his comments to the Commission as soon ; i:::::
;as possible in order to help them with their deci-i jsions on this matter. D b ;:Ds:l :(*a a:
I Dl!:::
:ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I ;; I' I -/:;q
.I I I ::::i:
:There were no oral communications. t I ::::;I
I ::#:I:
I ::pi:
I ::D::: .: 1 ; : : : D':
I ;,:;:! ::::I;
;!I:;:
:'::I: . the Easterly one-half of Lots 21, Seaside Lands, ; ;::;::
#:;l;l
D l i:::*: ::::i; *::;,;
I:::::
I ;:;:::
I D ;::i:i
D D ;::;:;
D I : : : 1': D
D I 1 ::I:;: *I::o;
D D D ;:;*:a
I 8I;l; I :!!D!I
I1
I 1 I D -'
- Jose #I 11
i WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
3 D
I
;e:::;
I D
i;::::
I ii:: -;i:;;D
D :::i::
i!;;!; :: i i ;-:
I*
DDD#,:
D.::;;;
D
D I
-
':::D:
::ID::
I
D:;:::
::;::: I#:*'
D l
I
D I
. !PUBLIC HEARINGS:
i (a) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - To consider a !
:zone change from R-P to C-M (Heavy Commercial-
!Limited Industrial Zone) on Westerly side of Roose;
iv'elt St. between Laguna Dr. and Beech Ave., being
:Map 1722. Applicant: Frances M. Peachey Reese. i
!Letter dated August 17, 1967, from Mr. Russell .W. I IGrosse, Attorney for the applicant, requesting I I l:::DD ID
; that"th'is h.earing be cont'inuei! .to September 12, i :;I::: 1967.. D D 14":*
D:;I:I
'D '
I
D .; D
I
D
I
I
I
D .. I "lI1
.D I ;l#'ll t D
I
D
I
I
I
'8 I I *.\'\~\'\'\'~\
I
I
I
t
I ., ', ' ', '\ t
I \ .' ', '\ ', '.,'\, I I
I -2- *, ', *\ '\ \ * I : t\: ', 'A?, 'b .* $74.
I I ' '?$. ;
I : of '*,..%:, '.\ y;;,, ; ;@'vv.,
! bternber .$:<p,?;.q:&~ I ,"""""""""""~"".""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""",""~ .o **o ..e\? ",d\ I : : ;x: ; ;
I i Palmateer I :x: : ;
I I : i ;x; ; :
I : Jose I ;x: x; ; :
1 { Voorheis z: I i ; ;
I 4 ::,I:: IS#
L b I
I I I
I 1 I
-
1
?I
:A motion was made to continue the hearing on this I Smith 1::
:application to September 12, 1967. : McComas :a ; ;x: I I
1::
I : Little
'SI
I
1
I1
I
I
b i(b) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in the I t4;::: ;ll;la i Northerly side yard setback from 7 1/2 feet to one! 1 1 ; ;foot at 3800 West Haven Drive, on the Easterly i ::I::: :side of West Haven Drive, South of Skyline Road. ; 1:: :.;;
:Applicants: Richard P. and Bernice C. Harris. :. :dl ,*l;tA ; ;.; 1 I I
I I 11;:;: i Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Palmateer I:::::
I certified that property owners in the area were ; ;:::I: I notified of the public hearing and then read the : 1 :-; i ; :
:application and signature of an adjacent property lsl~:: :;!::: :owner approving this variance. A picture taken b$ :;*::: :the Planning Department was presented to the Corn- : ::::;; i mission. * 'I!;+
I I I +*::
I e. I:'::: !Mr. Johnston explained the location and size of ! ::I(::
1 ;'I1
:the property and the variance requested. He then : 0:i:;; reviewed his written report on the facts resulting! :;I;;; ;from staff investigation of the property. I. 8. ~;:;l~
IIII#l
I I ;la: I I ;:#;:; !The Chairman questioned the Building Inspector i l:;t;' iregarding the building permits. :;t:e*
I 1 ::;;:1 e:
I i::;;; 18 :The Building Inspector explained that up to 1956 i ithere were practically no records kept of building: :a*:;; : permits issued, 'and that between that time and th6 ;::;I; !time he went to work for the City only part of the: I:,::;
::;;:I :records were found. The former building inspectoe ::;I:: was hospitalized and died before they could go : ::;::: ;over the records. I I *'I;:
;l.a;l*
e I :!!;:;
!The Chairman announced the Commission would now : i::.;: 1;::: : hear from the applicant or his representative and i !i;;:; i any others wishing to speak in favor of this app1i:- 'I I 1 ; cation. ; ; :,I : :
I *I; I b ::i::,
1 i ;.: ; : :MR. RICHARD P. HARRIS, 3800 West Haven Drive, D l '4ii.I i stated he was in the Marine Corps at that time, ::;* : and had a friend present at the hearing to verify: .. II*;ii ill .i that the former building inspector, Mr. Ratcliff,: i;p:: : had checked the building construction from time td ;I;::I 1;' 1; i time, which was built piece by piece according to i ":;: ; when they had money available. He beljcved the i ::;;;;
:::;,I
'I : family room was finished around 1960. 8 :';I::
I I I ;;I *:I;#; I : When questioned regarding the drainage from the i I I ; : ;.: ::::{! roof and depth,bf the wail, Mr. Harris stated that;
tthe water drains towards the Bratton property to i I::;,; ::;;:; the south, and that he had to dig out about 15" ; ;::;:; : from the retaining wall in order to install a -. * 1 ;::*:I
: 1;;:;: sprinkling system. I I :;::::
I ::;:;: i No others present spoke in favor of this variance.! ii@i.
I I ';::I;:
The Chairman announced the' Commission would now :i:iii i hear from those wishing to speak in opposition to; I ;:;;;: 11 ; this matter. ' I:;,;:
0 I :;;:::
I : ; ; :-; :
l I a I :;:.:;:
I 1 :;;:::
I * :;::;:
I 0 :;;:::
1 1 :;':':
I :t:::;
11
'1
I
I
I
I I
r
I 8
.I
I 1 I
-8 I
t t
b I I ::::;:
I
I
I *
I *
I
I
I
I I l;!l;*
I I I
.-
;MR. JOSEPH RYPAR, 3771 Skyline Road, stated he was: :told by the developer that the retaining wall whic)l ,s*;'I !was installed by the developer, Mr. Gallinger, was: ii::;; 1'4;;
I the boundary line at the time he purchased his I I I 1:::,: ('(1
!property. He stated he was at Twenty-Nine Palms : ;a' !when the family room was built on the retaining :;:::: 11*:8
:wall. Now Mr. Harris is asking him to give up a ; ::':;:
:foot of his property. I I :;::::
1 I I hi:;; : :,,: I ;
:MR. HARRIS stated that right after he purchased thk :::*:I I property, he had 4 large axles and welded an "88" ; :;:::: ::':I: :and pounded them into the ground and knows that thk ;l:'ts i boundary is roughly a foot from the retaining wall!. I,;tI i:::::
I I 3;;B
I It was the consensus of the Planning Commission : 111;:~
!that the exact location of the property line shoulb : :-: ; :
:be known and that this was a legal matter. 1 :;:;;;
I :;;:::
I :::;:; 'I( !The City Attorney stated the variance if. granted i :::;,I i by the Commission would be granted in relation to ; :::I:: :the property line. If the house is over this line: ;;;;I'
:::::I 1: i it would be up to the property owner to correct :::i:: ;this so it would not be closer fo the property 1 ink i::;::
:with the depthof the setback on the side yard. If: ii::;;
:the structure or roof is over the other man's :I::;;
I '::;I; i property it would be a matter for the two property! ::;I;, :owners to settle between themselves. If the struci- .::;:;:
iture is on Mr. Rypar's property, Mr. Rypar could ; :;I:*: i::::: :take action against Mr. Harris or make a lot line i lI:;I' :adjustment. The City Attorney discussed the posslt - 1::::: I'
: bility of the Commission wanting to consider a : iiii;;
i reduction to a zero setback. i:::;: It
1 11~111
I I ;:::;; ! MR. HARRIS stated he did not realize before that i ::i::: the roof was hanging over on Mr. Rypar's property: ::::;; : and would remove that portion if it is on his P I::: neighbor's property. * I !!I 1:;:
I I I I :l'*', ::::*; i When questioned whether there were many non-confoem- I1l';I : ing buildings already in existence, the Building : I : ;.I
;II::: i Inspector stated this was the only one he knew of: ;::*:I
: in that area. It is not u.nusual however, in the ; :;,;,1
::;:
City of Carlsbad, as one property owner puts in a i ::;I):
:#';I' ; patio slab and does not enclose it. Then the 8 I .. ;:'I:: : property is sold and the new owner encloses,the : *I;II'
I:'::: i slab, without a permit. The lot 1 ines of properti -:;::;; : are shown on the San Diego County Assessor's Maps: ::i:::
:;a::: in the City Hall, but the City staff does not go * :;::a:
'I : out to locate the property lines. If the license4 ;;;;:; ; surveyor makes a mistake, the surveyor is held ; ::;;:* : responsible. I ::;I :. i
I I i;**:* :i:i
: The Chairman asked the City Attorney if the vari-f 1:;:;; ! ance could be restricted to the life of the preseit :;I I: ; structure, and the City Attorney stated he felt. ; :;:!:e
I i;::;: *: i that it would be very appropriate. 1 e :::;:;
4 I I I ::::i; #It
I B I:':':. I I I I .":::;
:::I;, 1 ::;:;:
I ;11;*;
I I # ;::;:; I ;:;';I I * : ; ;. * I I :i::,;
I :::;,; I'
I I 1 ;;:;;; 'I
:;I;:' 11
I I I 1,;I':
I I :41:::
~ ~~ I :::!::
i::::; *I* ::: '8 1
I
I'
I I
'1 I
11
I I
.p :than one foot. The Commission i.s only concerned
s I
II
I ::
,-
I ;:
a * I
* I I I I I
*I
I * I
I I b *:;;:I
I I I 1 B
I I
I * I
I
I t
I
I .. I I
\\ *\ ', -.;\;, 1.
I' I I 's '*
I b 1 1 1
- .* ', '\ . ' I
I- I I I I I I
I
- I \, ', 8, 's ,, '\ ', ', \\ . ' ., ', ' ', 'I '- P I -4- I
I 0 I N a me \, ,4;,,-7 .$$, '. '\ '38 2% ' * : of \,-o. .:..:.." . Pip ' I I +;,:+. y;.;;.i.+> : ~""""""""""-""---"""""."""""""""""""""-"""'"""-"""""-""-,-"-~' I Member .o %@'..,?p ",d. I
;;;I:: IMR. JACK KUBOTA, P. 0. Eox 1095, stated he and his! :;;::: :wife were residents who viere notified of the pub- : I::;;: 11 t :1ic hearing, and that he had looked at subject I I :;I1 , !property, and the documents on file in the Planning *1;;:1
11 11:;::
;Office. He was ~ot objecting to the situation or : !::811 11 :one faot setback, but H:,S concerned whether his i 1:;:::
ioxn neighbor could build up to his property line. ; ::::;: :'I:::
Ne was concerned with the eaves dropping on the ; ::;*I4 !neighbor's property if granted a one foot side /I;;@
I ; : 8.1 1 : :yard setback. He was satisfied in his own nind : :*I*
:;I:;: :there was no problem, but would be concerned with i 1I;;lt :::I:: :the omission of facts. He repor,ted doing some I *I1'b* :building within the last six months and that he I ::;I:;
:had to take the plans back and make the changes in: ::I:::
Ill:;; $he manner prescribed by law. ::;I,+
#lo:;;
:The public hearing was closed at 8:26 P. M. I ::;;,I
!Commissioner PalElateer questioned the City Attornei I&:: :on whether the Commission had 20 days to act upon ; **181;
jthis matter, and the City Attorney reported this i !:::;; :was true, and the Commission could ask the appli- ; 'I:;;; !cant to furnish a report from a licensed surveyor,: ::::I;
ithe Commission to consider. He stated there was i ::I::: :the possibility it might be necessary for the ap- ; ::':;: !plicant to amend the application and submit a new : 18)*tl
:application and ask for a side yard setback to i ::;I::
'I#;Il :zero :*It;:
ll:l:; :After further consideration a motion was made to !Smith
:to :continue have the this lot hearing line surveyed in order and for a the report applicant made by: iMcComas Palmateer !< : ! i i !a licensed surveyor showing where the lot line is ;Little !X; , :
!in relation to the building and overhang of the ;Jose :building, footing and wall.
I I iVoorheis I i ('II :x{ ; i
!MR. RYPAR questioned the City Attorney on whether i IiI:ii !new notices \I;ould be sent, and the City Attorney ; i;;::: :stated that if a new application is filed the new i 11#11(
jnotices would be sent. *I#*I(
!OLD BUSINESS: 1 :::;I; ::::I;
:regular meeting. I ;I,
I I .iI ; ; : { I I I .:;;:;:
i(b) Sign Study was continued to the next regular 1 ::I::: Feeting. I i;::1:
kc) Proposed Tree Planting Easements in' Subdivi- i l:;ll isions. Letter dated August 22, 1967, from George ; ii::;: 'I $. Bishop, Governmental Right of +Jay Supervisor of: :::;;: :the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. asking that the I ,::::;: !presentation requested regarding this matter be ; ::'I:: ::;::: ;continued to the September 12 meeting, as Mr. Ted i :Richmond, who initially spoke on this subject, has: . .. i:;:;: e.
been on vacation. ;::;:;
I ;:;@:I
I I a:;:;:
::;:I: %he Commission agreed to cintue this matter to 1 .- ' I::' September 12, 1967, and Mr. Robert Baumgarten, I ::;*;;
:San Diego Gas & Electric Co. representative, I 1 ;:;::I
:stated he would convey this message to his immediate ;:;:I:
;:I:!: !supervisor. 1 I I : : I :.'
I I ::;;::
I" ,:;:::
I 6 I I ;I,::;
I::;:;
b
I
1 I
I
I 1 I 6 ::I::;
I 1 ;I::::
i;:::; 'I1(
- ;if they wished, and present this information to ; :i;;:s
I I 1' 1)
I1 I*
::ii::
1 I * I ;::;I:
; :x :x: i ;
: ; ;xi i : i : :x; i i
I
1:;:::
I :;;:;:
:I.:;;
,-
I I I I I
I I I :: .: . !(a) General Plan R.eview was continued to the next! - .. .. ;i:::1 ' iiii
I .. 6 ;;:::: ;:::i:
I1
8
I I I I ' ' I I iiiiii
I I I I I
:I#@:*
I I I @I4${ :::I
I I
~~ ." !laa*.
I I I c I
. 6
.
,r
I I
I I I I I I (""""""""""""'I"'-'"---"*-."
I -5-
I 1 (d,) Chamber of Commerce Bill - 5. The Secretary read the let .quested at the August 8, 1967 :meeting to Frank Kirk, Presid :Chamber of Commerce, on this jsion unanimously approved the ;and the Chairman directed the
i NE\/ BUSINESS:
:There was no new business.
I I
I I
I I ADJOURNMENT:
I I
!By proper motion the meeting :8:38 P. M.
I I I :Respectfully submitted,
i DOROTHY M. "OSBURN I Recording Secretary
I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I
I I l a I
"""
boar ter
Y p1 ent matt let let
was
I I I I I I
I I I I 8 8 I I I I I
I b I 8 I
I 4 I I 1 I I I * I I * I I I I I I I I I
8 ? I I * D D a I I I I I 8
8 I I
l
I I L