Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-12-10; Planning Commission; Minutes3 OF CARLSBAD - MINUTES OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: Decembbr 10, 1968 TIME OF MEETING: 7:30 P. M. PLACE OF MEETING: Council Chambers ROLL CALL Commissioner Gullett arrived at 7;37 P. M. Also present City Attorney Wilson, Assistant City Engineer Spano, Assistant City Planner Johnston and Planning Director Olinghouse. . .' " APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of November 26, 1968, were approved as Eorrected. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (a) There were no written communica'tions. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (a) Meeting of December 24, 1968. The City Planner stated that nothing had been scheduled for the meet- ing of December 24, 1968. The City Attorney stated that legally it was not necessary to hold a meeting on that date if nothing was scheduled. Chairman Little Requested the PJanning Director not to schedul any items bdr that meeting. (b) Letter from the City of Oceanside regarding a notice of public hearing. I (c.) ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Election of Chairman Commissioeer Little placed the name of Commissioner JBse for Chairman. By motion of the Commission, the nominations were closed for the office of Chairman. By acclamation, Commissioner E. H. Jose was elected Chairman of the Carlsbad City Planning Commission. Election of Vice Chairman Commissioner Jose place the name of Commissioner- Roy Palmateer for the office o.f Vice-chairman. By motion of the Cornrnissi-on, the nominations were closed for the office of Vice-chairman. By acclamation, Commissioner Roy Palmateer was elected Vice-chairman of the Carlsbad City.Planning Commission for continuance in office. Election of Secretary I Chairman Little placed the name of Commissioner Snedeker for the office of Secretary. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF CARLSAD .. -2- ._ -. COMMISSIONERS By motion of the Commission, the nominations were closed for the office of Secretary. By acclamation, Commissioner Edward Snedeker was elected Secretary of the Carlsbad City Planning Commission. Commissioner Gullett arrived at 7:37 P.". - PUBLIC HEARINGS: Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that property owners in the area were notified and thee read the application and read the following correspondence: b 1. Letter dated December 8, 1968, to Planning Commission from Mr. and Mrs. William Moore stating they are in favor of propesed zone change. 2. Letter dated December 6, 1968 to Planning Commission from Mrs. Dorothy Read stating she felt there is a need for a eane change but felt the density should be medium thru that area. 3. Letter dated Declam-her 2, 1968, from Mrs. Myttly Taylor to the Planning Commission stating her knowledge of what apartment complexes can do to a community and to the surrounding prbperties if careful considera tion is not taken. a zone change from R-1 to R-3. 4. Petition circulated by Milliken requesting The Chairman stated the Planning Director was reques ed at the last meeting to obtain additional informa- tion on this zone change. The Planning Director presented a chart which thru shaded colors indicated those in favor an-d those against the proposed zone change. The Planning Director pointed out specific areas on the ma,p where density etc. would be effected and listed the conditions of Resolution of Intention No. 64. -The Assistant City Engineer indicated'street by stre what improvements would be necessary Ln each street to meet City standards. He stated that probably the most practical way would be to form an improvement district. Commissioner Palmateer inquired if by an improvement district, meant a 1911 act. The Assistant City Engineer answered that 1911 Act would be the normal procedure unless 100% of the property owners in the area were in favor of the improvement district. t Moti Ayes COMMISSIONERS -CITY OF CARLSBAD - -3- A great deal of discussion was given to the streets in the area and the possibility of the traffic patter changed. Commissioner Little stated that he had re- ceived a phone call from a resident in that area who stated 'he objected to a high density area without the proper planning. They are already having troublc with parking in the area. Discussion was also given to the possibility of form- ing an improvement district if the proposed zone char was approved. - -. The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear from anyone wishing to speak on this matter. MR. GEORGE MEESE, SR., stated he was speaking for himself and his son. Mr, Meese stated he was againsl this re-zoning and stated that as fa,r .as improvement5 are concerned, he has paid the entire cost of the sewers and would pay all of the cost of underground utilities in addition to the recent rise in taxes. He felt this rezoning would be of no benefit to the area and stated that he had made a trip to the San Diego County Administration Center and spbke to Mr. Arthur Seltzer in the County Assessor's office. Mr. Seltzer enlightened him on a number of matters regarding a change to R-3 zoning. From these facts Mr. Meese stated he would not approve of a zone chanc Furthermore, he stated due to the type of land in the area, alot of that area could not even take a multiple building. MR. LOU OLSEN, 3191 Arland Drive, sta:ted he was not for for or against this proposed re-zoning but wishec to express his views on the matter.. Mr. Olson stated that 2/3.1 of the homes .in that area are involved in this proposed zone change. Many of those homes have. not reached their economic lives. What will happen to them if there is a zone change is a good question. He stated chances are they will be eliminated if multiple buildings are constructed. He felt that there are- a tremendous amount of factor! that the Planning Commission should look into. becaust this is a big problem. He stated a lot mus't be largt enough since it takes about 12 units before it can be a succdssful operation and a tremendous- amo.unt of traffic congestion could be caused from a step like this one. Mr. Olsen felt it requires alot more stud; Mr. William Moore, 376 Juniper St., stated he was in favor of the zone change but raised some question! -about low density in the area of the Railroad Tracks He expressed his opinion regarding this matter and pointed out some factors involved. Mr. Royce Bond and Mr.Welch also 'spoke on the matter of this zone change. Commissioner Jose stated he would 1i-ke to once again bring to the attention of the Commission the petitio opposing the zone change which contained some 23 signatures. be \ ~ ~ ~ Chairman Little stated he did not feel at this time he knew enough about this area to make a decision and requested a continuance. He also asked that the Planning Department survey the area b1oc.k by block to determine those in favor and those opposed on a block by block basis. He stated the Maslter Plan calls for this type of development; however, it is the Commissions duty to determine if th'P area is ready for the development at this time. He stated that there were factors involved which must be con- sidered, such as, the width of the streets, parking spaces and the affect it will have on the people in the area that do not want to develop or are unable! to the Planning Department some specific recommendations on the s'ize of areas that could be economically de- veloped. He charged the Commissioners with the task of checking that area to make sure they have all studied it and he requested a possible study session with the Planning Department before a decision is rendered. Chairman Little moved that the Public Hearing be continued until the second meeting in January. evelop the high rise apartments. He requested from * (b) VctBIP.?!CE - To consider a reduction in required frontaae from 75 feet to 25 feet to create a "Panhan- " dle Lot, located at 4400 Park'Drive,.on the easterly side of Park Drive between Hillside Drive and Adams Street. Applicant: A. H. Glissman. ~ ~~ ~ Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that property owners in the area were notified and then read the application. The Planning Director displayed sketches of the par- cel and surrounding area, stating the panhandle is 240 feet in length from Park Drive and that East of Park Drive there is a topographic problem which is the entire frontage is against at least a 20 foot bank. He stated that the Planning Department recommen ed denial of this application and stated the reasons: 1) There are no.unusua1 circumstances which warrant the granting of subject variance due to the. abundance of property under the same ownership and that there are other ways to develop that property. 2) The total property would be best developed as a subdi'vi- sion. 3) The proposed panhandle exceeds the maxi- wa 150' feet length established by the City Council, ?allcv on Panhandle Lots establlshed Aprll 3, 1962. The Assistant Clty Englnrer pr8rrnted the En-gfneerlng Department Report stating that the Engineering Depart- ment reviewed the application for lot split and recommended that any approval of sa4d lot split be subject to the conditions as outlined by the Engineer- ing Department. The Chairma'n announced the Commission would now -from anysne wishing to speak in favor of this 8pp11 C8tlOR. A* H- GLISSUAH, applicant, stated that the hear property is sold pending this-lot sptit. He stated there is a road there which is the only feasible road to this property. COMMISSIONERS toll Call lotion \yes "ITY W OF CARLSBAD -. COMMISSIONERS -5- L He pointed out that when the time comes for this land to be developed by the new owner, the 25' will be deeded back to the developer, This is only a tempor- ary deal making it possible for hhe paoperty to be sold. He stated that they live on parcel 1 and the map which was presented by the Planning Director did not appear to show the'lot split between-the side of . the panhandle.. He stated his home is 1b-cated on the back acre about 400 feet from Park Drive. Discussion ensued regarding the fact that a Lot Split is never approved on a temporary basis. It is a permanent approval. Commissioner Jose stated that there was no indication on the application that this was anything but a request for a permanent lot split. He inquired of the Assistant City Engineer if the 25' to be deeded back to the-developer for a dedicated street would meet the City requirements. T City Engineer stated that it would not. The require- ment would be 56' minimum right of way street. Chairman Little stated that if there are other factors involved in this matter, such as a study on 'adjoining property indicated by someone in the audience, these factors may shed some light on this matter. The City Planner suggested that perhaps hhe problem could be solved if Mr. Glissman subdivided the proper ty and also stated that he questioned the fact that there is a map or that a study was done on the adjoin ing property. He said he was informed by t City Engineer that a map had been presented or shown to him at one time and wondered if th:e applicant had such a map in hlks possession. Mr. Glissman stated that he has such a map not with him tonight. MR. JOE PARIS1 stated that perhaps it would be best to give Mr. Glissman a stay on this matter and give it further study to come up with an application for a lot split calling for an agreement that street improvements, etc. woilld be done when this other portion would be subdivided binding the proposed purchaser. Since there were no ohher pereoes present who wished to be heard, the Chairman declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:15 P.M. Commissioner Jose recommended that Mr.'Glis granted a continuance on-this application t a chance to confer with bhe Planning Depart detemine a different phrase request. for this vari- ance, either by the first or second meeting in Janu- ary. (c) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - To consider an appli- cation for a Conditdonal Use Permit for the purpose of allowing signs on buildings located on the Wester- ly side of El Camino Real & South of Highway 78, at Plaza Camino Real. Applicant: Plaza Camino Real. CITY OF CARLSBAD Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified at propert owners an the area wore notified amd tC -1 the rpp f icrtion. fb8 CIty Planner presented the Plrnnlng Department I Report and displayed a map of the area pointing out where these signs will be located and an illustration showing the size and shape of these signs. All signs are 38 feet on the structure. There are only two aceas which would conflict at all with the proposed sign ordinance. There is a difference of three feet. between the 25 and 38 feet on the signs which is on the structure. The fact that the signs are not that high and because of the type of architecture offered, the Plrratng Wprrtwnt rocomends rpprovrl. The Clty Planner Introduced Mr. Prul- Layton, represen ative of May Company, who was present to answer any questions the Commission might have had. Mr. Leyton stated there are no signs planned for the exterior of the building with the names of the indiv- idual stores. He explained the reason for the arches stating that these arches represent "Entrance" to May Company complexes. May Company prefers the Read-a-board at the entrance to tell the community and those who are passing by, what is going on in the center. The Theatre has the same need. The signs being planned for this complex are no different from those of other signs which are being used in other shopping areas of the same size and type. Those who have planned the size of the signs, etc. have taken into consideration what would be pleasing to the- surrounding area as well as the needs of the complex to operate this shopping center. Since there was no one present who wished to oppose this request for Conditional Use Permit, the Chairman declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:30 P.M. Commissioners Palmateer and Gullett both stated they were very much'impressed with what the May Company has done with these signs. Commissioner Gu-ll'ett stated that after reviewing the plans for signs in the complex, he was pleased that May Company had, gone underneath the size of the signs they were all'oted, which was a compliment to the proposed .sign ordinance .t Mr. Leyton stated May Stores do not allow neon signs or animation in'their complexes because they do not want these kind of signs'for their shopping centers. A motian was made that- the City Planning Commission grant a Conditional Use Permit to Plaza Camino Real conditioned upon the signs being non-animated and the tops of all freestanding signs being not more tha 26 feet high except for the standard 38 feet high, for reasons as outlined in the Planning Department Report. -7 I I COMMISSIONERS v OF CARLSBAD- Resolution No. 587. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBA.D CITY PCAmING COMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOCATED AT PLAZA CAMINO REAL, ON THE WESTERLY ject to the condition that the signs be non-animated and the tops of all free standing signs be not more than426 feet high except for the standard which will be 38 feet high, and for all other reasons as outline by the Planning Department, was adopted by title only and further reading waived. SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL, SOUTHERLY OF HIGHWAY 78, sub- (d) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in required frontage from 75 feet to.,63.46 feet on Parcel ''A" and from 75.00 feet to -20.00 foot frontaae. and 10.000 Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified I that property owners in the area were notified an.d ' then read the applicatian, followed,by a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Spangler, property owners in the area, who objected to the proposed variance. The Planning Director presented the Planning Depart- ment Report and also a transparency pointing out the gepartment recommended approval, subject to certain conditions. arcels of property involved, and stated the Planning The As'sistant City Engineer presented the Engineering Department Report. Commissioner Snedeker inquired what the length of the panhandle is. The City Planner stated it was 140 feet. Mr. Irwin Title, owner of the property, introduced himself to the Commission and stated he was present and available for any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Dewhurst inquired of Mr. Title. i.f he is in agreement with a single story structure. Mr. Title replied that it was his understanding that he could build a structure as high as 38 feet without obstructing the view. Mr. Title stated that the Spangler lot. will be a Tur- ther distance from his structure than the 25 feet they inquired.about, which was their objection so tha he can comply with the wishes of adjoining property owners. Mr. Title stated that the o.wner of the Buell property also would like to see a "panhandle" lot with improvements on it. Since there was no one else present who wished to speak for or against this variance, the Chairman declared the Public Heaping closed at 9:55 P.M. After further discussion by the Commission, a motion was made that the Com'mission adopt Resolution No. .589 'I COMMISSIONERS Roll Cal' Motion Ayes Roll Call Motion Ayes 4 a ,- X X - . . -8- for the following reasons: 1. That this is not detrimental to'surrounding property or property owners evidenced by the'fact that all heard at this hearing are in favor of the variance. 2. The lot is a large lot and in order to develoi it, a panhandle access seems to be necessary in order not 80 cause an unnecessary hardship on the property owners. 3. It does not appear to be in conflict with the General Plan. Resolution No. 589. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING VARIANCES ON PROPEF TY LOCATfD ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE BETWEEN WESTHAVEN DRIVE AND CAMEO ROAD, subject to the conditions as outlined in the P1,anning Departmenl Report, was adopted by title only and further readin< waived. (e) TENTATIVE MAP - Spanish Village - 12 lots locat- ed West of Highland Drive and North of Chestnut Avenl pplicant: Bee Cee Cqmpany. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that all property owners in the area were notified and then read the application. He then read a letter to the Planning Commission from the San Diego Gas & Electric Company stating that gas and electric servic was avail able for this area .. The City Planner presented the Planni,ng Department Report and indicated on a map the area involved in the proposed lot spl it. The Assistant City Engineer presented the Engineering Department Report. The Chairman announced that the Commission would now hear from the applicant or his representative. MR. HOWARD BAUMGARTNER, representative of Bee Cee Company inquired'if the letter requesting the waiving of improvements on Highland Drive was prese'nt at the meeting .. The Assistant City Engineer and the City Planner stated that they did not have the letter in question. The request for tentative map was discussed in length by Mr. Baumgartner and Mr. Lewis Chase who is. also a representative of Bee Cee Company. After censideration, a motion was made to continue the tentative map a9nlication and to address a letter to the City .Council stating that since this request for a lot split with the request for the waiving of improvements on Highland Drive must be acted upon by the City Council, this matter has been referred to tt careful consideration of the waiving of improvements on Highland Drive as there are many practical problen :ouncil.The Planning Commission request the Council's COMMISSIONERS h Roll Cal Motion Ayes Abstainec -CITY OF cARLSE3AC” -9- to be considered, such as, the removal of trees, the effect on the charm of Highland Drive and the trans- portation of a tremendous amount of fill dirt, if thc improvements are not waived. NEW BUSINESS: (a) Sims Proposed Lot Split The Assistant City Engineer presented the City Engineer’s Report and stated that the main reason this is brought before the Commission for their consideration is because the split would recreate a new parcel fronting on Elm Avenue and does reduces the depth of the lot on Highland Drive. He then listed the conditions recommended by the Engineering Department. AFter further discussion, the Commission agreed,that this proposed lot split would not be detrimental‘at this time. ADJOURNMENT : (a) By proper motion, the.meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P. M. Respectfully submitted, NORA K. DANIELS, Recording Secretary c COMMISSIONERS Motion Roll Cal Ayes