HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-02-13; Planning Commission; Minutes..
.'
r
:r
*
4
.. I I a I I : C-ITY OF CARLSBF. - Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSIC I I :Date of Meeting: February 13, 1968 I
:Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. : Place- of Meeting: Council Chambers . I
i ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, : McComas, Jose, Palmateer, Voorheis, and Suther-- i land. Commissioner Little was absent. Also pre- : i sent were-City Attorney Wilson, Assistant City- i
6 Engineer Holly, Building Inspe-ctor Osburn, and. 8 -,i Planning Director Schoell. 4 8
I APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
I 1 I ,"""-"----""""--""""""."""""""""""""""""""~"" I. 'I I 8
I t
I B
I (a) Minutes of the regular mee,ting of January : 23, 1968, were approved as corrected. f 8 i 1 B f
2 P
i WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 1
: Letter dated January 27,. 1968, from Max W. Young, i : requesting that his letter be accepted as .an app- ; lication to erect a 4' wide and 9' high.lighted ; ; sign advertising his 'business at 2656 State 0 i Street. i The Building Inspector stated the applicants : original sign was damaged and would like to sub- : situte the sig-n with a different sign. The sign i i is not identical, therefore, the Commiss-ion's I : approval is needed before the building permit can i i be issued. *
i The Commission had no objection to the sign as it I i 'complied with the sign ordinance. *
The City Attorney felt that 'the matter should be
* 0
$.'
*
8
.8
I
1
I
8
k
B
I
8
: presented to the City Council be-cause of the i encrouchment of City property. i It was agreed that the application should be 8 ; presented to the City Council for their consider- i : ation.
I I
a 8
I
I
i 0-RAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1 :'Commissioner Jose stated that at his last visit i I : to the Girls Club h.e was amazed at the number of ; i children being instructed in-a single building. ; : If the City has no- plans. for the Council Chambers i : he felt 'that it would be feasible to donate the :
i The City Attorney pointed out that the State will f : probably buy the building and that -the City wduld ; have to make agreements with the State. He also : ; stated that the City could possibly negotiate with: the State.and buy the .building from them.
: Commissioner Sutherland sugguested that Commiss- ioner Jose study the proposed donation of the I : exiting Council Chambers to the Carlsbad Girls i i Club.
i Council Chambers to, the Girls 'Club. 8
1
I' I
I 8
8 I
t
I
1' 8 I I I I
I
I I.
: .
1 I I. I
c .. i I
1
I I 1 1
8 8 - I I 1
1 * 1 1 I
"
8 -2-
:"""""""""""""-"~""""""."""""""".""""""""" 1
1.
1
1. 8 1 8 0 e 8
PUBLIC HEARING: : .. 8 8 i !(a) VARI.ANCE - TO consider reduction in required ; :North side yard from 7.5 feet to 5 feet for garage:
;Street, Northerly of Pacific .Avenue. Applicant: t
. 1. :C. E. Bartley. *
i Vice-chairman Palmateer stated he would disqualify! himself from this hearing as recently he has had : :business dealings involving this property and thati. :he does live in the neighborhood. He then asked ; Commissioner Sutherland to cowduct this part of i the hearing.
I
. . :Commissioner Sutherl'and asked the representative i i of the applicant if they wished to have the matter; iconsidered that night or to postpone the hearing i %t to a' later date, in view of only having four s ;Commissioners present. The representative-agreed i !to have the matter considered that night. B
:Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Jose certi-I f.ied that property -owners in the area were noti- . ; : fied of the public hearing and then read the app- I
:Letter dated February 6, 1968, from Charles E. I )Bartley, to notify the Commission that he will * i not be able to attend the 'meeting and .that * ; Colonel J. G. Richards will attend the meetin-g to ! represent.Mr. 81 Mrs.Bartley. 8
:There was no other correspondence. B
' i The Planning Director presented a map and gave 1 : the staff report of the investigation of this I I property and explained the location of the prop- i i erty. He stated that the property is located I ;within an R-3 zone and the area is presently : developed with small family residences. 8
i Commissioner Sutherland asked .Dr. Palmateer if' i :.his property had a 7.5' yard setback.
: Dr. Palmateer state.d that he did not have a 7.5'. i setback on his lot; that on the North side of 8 :the h0us.e the setback was about 2' less. His house! :was constructed prior to the Carlsbad incorporation. :He also stated that the Fennel property and the i : Stein property,,which have non-conforming side ;
: poration. 1
Commission,er Sutherland announced the Commission I :would now hear from th-e representative and any ; others wishing to speak in favor of this applic- : : ation. 1
: COLONEL J. G. RICHARDS, representing the applicant!, i gave a brief bac.kground of the applicant. He : pofhted out that.the City Ordinance states that i
, : there be a minimum of 10% of the overall lot width!.. i This percentage does not measure up exactly on the! : North side of the lot but it exceeds the require- ; i ments on the South side. When Mr. Bartley I
4 farea only. Located on the Westerly side of Ocean ;
8' 8
i l
1 1 1
# : 1 ication. 8
1 I 1
1 1 I a
1 #
8
1
# 1
*
8
B
I B
yards, were also constructed prior to the incor-
1 1
B
I I 1
t I
I 0
rc
I t .# 4
I I
I
e -3- e l I i. I
0
I I :""""""""-.""-"""""""""~.""~""""""~~""""""~~~~
#purchased this lpt there was a written agreement i ithat he could not build for the.first 10 feet on !that side yard: 'By adding 5 feet on the North and!, ;10 feet on the South the applicant is giving up : -110% of the overall lot. Only the garage area will ; ;be .in. the setback area. The o.nly reason why they
:are constructing the garage in-this way is becausei
io-f the narrow street along th.e house. The street ; :is about 25 feet wide and if he were to bu.ild his : :garage there it would mean negotiating the street i
:in reverse and during the summer months the traffit :is quite bad. The applicant'would like to build ;' a garage facing to the side rather than the front.;
If the Commission were to insist on the 7.5 feet 1
ion the left side, the garage would be closer to ; :the center of the lot and would make the house I 1 less attractive.
0. : I
'I
8
I
i
e
8
8 t
-.!Commissioner Sutherland announced the Commission
;would how hear.from those wishing to speak-in f I
jopposition to this matter. * t
I No one present spoke in -opposition.. 8
!The public hearing was closed at 8:06 P. M.
Commissioner Smith stated that the proposed
0 I
0 .0 8
I
# 0 I
0 :structure is to have two separate units toward i :the ocean, therefore, par.king for. these units is. : : required. e
!The Planning Director stated that if they were i going to have ,two separate units .they would have I ; to provide the parking for them when they file 0 : for a building permit. I I
! Commissioner Sutherland stated that 'the building : : permit would maintain the control for the parking I i requirements. I
I The following resolution was presented. e
I
b
e *
0 D *
4 8 I
I 8
I After further d+scussion, a mo.tion was made to' :.adopt Resoluti'on No. 544, .granting a variance on
said property for the purpose of reduction in the ; : North side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 5 feet ! i for the garage area only for the following reasons!
nary circumstances applicable on. the present use ; : of the property that do not apply generally to I other properties in the'same area, due to the . ; ; fact of the narrow street and that it is presently: : developed with an R-1 residence in a R-3 zone.
I 0 D
0 1. That there are exceptipnal or extraordi-
I
I I 0 I * I 2. Th*at the granting of this variance main- :
tain the privileges and.rights possessed by others! ; in the same vicinity and zone. I I
8 I
I
I 3. That the granting of this variance will 1
I i I help maintain an aesthetic use in the area. t
I
I 4. That the'granting of this variance will : not be materially detrimental to the public wel- 1 : fare or injuri0u.s to the property. t I
I
1.
I I I I
1
t
I ..
L : '8' '' *' ' ' - ' \ ', I
I
I
I l 8, 's,", '%, '*, ', t I I I I
c F h *' % 8'.
I .. I
I ',, 'I8''\, ", ", 'I I
-.4 - i N a m e 8,. '+$, *, *;:3< I
a ; of '$3.. '*. ?$, ;
I Membar .?L. .$'Q:%;~~~;o', \g, .-x /';/-> , I
I
*'
~"""~"""""""~~""""""""-~".~"~"~"""""~"""""""~~"""~~"""""""~""~~ I. I 'I
11
I' -I I 5. That the granting of this variance will i .. . !not adversely affect the comprehensive general 3 I
:plan. : :Resolution No. 544. A RESOLUTION.OF THE CARLSBAD !Smith
jC1T.Y PLANNING COMMISSION GRAN.TING A VARIANCE ON
;PROPERTY 'ON THE WEST SIDE OF OCEAN STREET; NORTH :O-F PACIFIC AVENUE, was ado-pted by title only and
I
e '
..
I :further reading waived.
I I
.8 I I 8 !TENTATIVE MAP - PARCEL MAP I. a i
Location: Southwesterly side of El Camino Real at!
[Kelly Drive, being lots 17, 18, and 19 of Laguna f
. . ;Riviera, in the City of Carlsbad. I
!Owners: L. R. Partnership and Harold Bryant.
!Subdivider: L..R. Partnership.
i Notice of hearing was' read and the Secretary certif
. ; fied that property owners in the area were noti- ; ; fied of the public .hearing and then read the app-- i jlication. He also stated the various agencies I
:were notified.
!When questioned if the tentative map is just the ! : changing of lots or if. it was jus.t the parcel th.ati !was not subdivide.d, the Planning Director stated ; ; that. the County established the alignment of -E1 : i Camino Real, then the County changed the align- : ment of El Camino Real and moved -it East, there- : i fore, there was a gap between the end of the sub- ; division and the final' location of El Camino Real.:
!The Assistant City.Engineer presented the tenta- i i tive map. He stated that all subdivision improve-; - : ments were.constructed as part of the development i
. i of Laguna Riviera Subdivision, Unit No. 1. Por- 1 ; tions of parcels 3 and 4 of the tentative map were! : created by street vacation pro-ceedings resulting ,; i from the realignment of El Camino Real after the ;
:'subdivision was recorded. He also pointed out i i that the tentative map proposes to combine the . ; : vaca.t&j: parcels into lots or records, and to I I ! make minor ad.justments in the lines of lots 17, ; : 18, and'19 of the Laguna Riviera Subdivision. I : The park dedication shou1,d be 'p.art of the overall ; i Laguna Riviera park development project. I
When queStioned if the parcels main-tained the I I : original footage which was granted or additional : footage, the .Assistant City Engineer stated that I ; there was '10,000 or more footage in each lot. He ; : also stated that all the lots are larger.
: Letter dated February 1, 1968, from J. B. Askew i
M. D., Health Officer of the City of Carlsbad, I : stating that the Parcel Map will be acceptable i to the Departmen't of- Public Health provided that : the conditions listed in the letter be followed. :
I t 8
I B
'
?
I
'.' I
r # I
' I"
I
8 I
I.
. i This tentative map is to allocate th,at land. 0
I I r I
I
I
I I I I I
I t I I I I
* I. ' t
I ' ' I I I
t I I I
.t
1
I I
f
I
I .a
I' . .t
c
I I *,\e .\*
I 8 \' I I 1
t. - I 8 '' I I
I
I
I ',,'\"'., ', 9, " I
I I ', '3, "\ ', '\"\, I I
I -5- : N a me 8,. *+L *, XQ I
I. I of "Go,,, 2%. ', 4ir, '?<A i I
:""""-""""""-""""""""-"""""~""""""""~""""l"""""""~""""~"~~~l : Member $'Q,.@'%',
: 1:;::
I ." I '*' '\ '\ ", ', '\ I
I
I '& .+, -:;,;.", /A I
I I.
-a 'a ;a*I II
.. . i No one present spoke in favor of this applica- . , jtion, an.d the Vice Chairman announced the Commiss-; ;ion would hovla hear from those wishing to speak.in ; ;opposition. D I
; ;No one present spoke in opposition. t
i The following resol.ution was .presented.
i After due consideration, a motibn was made to .. : adopt Resolution No.. 545 recommendifig :approval of :. : this Tentative Map Parcel Map,. subject to the # 1 recommendations of the various departments and agencies and under the same conditions of Precise i f Plan PP 6601 approved on August 16, 1966 by the ;
' . : Carlsbad City. Planning Commission. Also subject i 1 to the outline of the proposed dedicated street : : righ.t of way and proposed 20 feet public utility. : I
0
a ..
D 8 4
.I D D D D
8 a I D
b
.I I:
I
I
%8
7
- ,, I NO. 1 , was adopted 'by title only and further : reading waived.
I I I
8 r t I
:OLD BUSINESS: .. I
I I
I D
I I
, i (a) Sign Study. 9,
;Reply was rece+ved from the California Electric : !Sign Association dated. February 9, 1968, stating
. ;that they are enclosing a copy of the Industry D i Guildline Standard for on premise si'gns as c.7
;requested by the Planning Department. I
i Commissioner Palmateer stated the objective of the!
. ; Planning Commission is to have a sign ordinance ; i which will allow adequate and .equitable advertising: ;for the advertiser and yet still retain a policy : consistent with the aesthetic. result desired by : :'the Commission, c restrictive enough to achieve I I : these desires and a.void nuisance. He felt the . : I California Electric Sign Association should be l : asked for their recommendations regarding this to'! : see if a suitable solution. can be fou.nd. I
: The Planning. Director stated he was impressed with: . i the brochure and planned to write California I : Electric Sign Association requesting brochures. i for the Commissioners.
I I ,-
I I I
r
I * I I
8 l * I .I
I 8 I After due.discussion, the Vice Chairman asked the ! Planning Director to discuss the proposed sign i : ordinance.
i The Planning Director pointed out th.at the pro- i .posed new sign ordinance is not completely fin- ; ; ished but he woul'd like to present to the Commis- : sion a reugh draft of what has been completed. 1 i He stated the Planning Department has tried to - conform the sign ordinance as close as possible : to the existing.sign ordinance and would like to ;
I I I I I
I
t
1
I
k I
I I
k
fl
I. -6-
I (""-"------------------------------------.--.------------------------- I. I I
!incorporate the sign ordinance into the zoning !ordinance. A sign should be as small as possible ;that can readily be seen by the passing traffic., !to identify the use of the busines.s and that the ;sign be located properly. This would-help both :the merchant and the people of the town. This jwo.uld also eliminate the problem of competition :between signs rather than busjnesses. He explain !sections of the sign ordinance .draft and discusse ;in detail the definitionsof Fredway Service Facil jities, Animated signs, Freestanding signs, Non- kconforming signs, etc. t lWhen questioned what City located near Carlsbad !htaea good sign ordinance, the Planning Director :stated that the City of Del Mar has a good sign ;ordinance that has been enforced.
;After further consideration, it was agreed that :individual study sessions would be held and to !have the new sign ordinance ready to be presented :to the City Council in three weeks.
b '.@
8
D
:NEW BUSINESS:
B
:There was no Hew business.
i
I
k
8 .*
I
I
k
8
I :ADJOURNMENT: k
I *
fi
8
I
i * :By proper motion, the meeting was. adjourned at :9:26 P. M. . v
I Respectfully submitted, I m
TONI J. DERRIGO, Recording Secretary
I
k
1. I I I
8 I I 1 -