Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-12-14; Planning Commission; MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1977 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER - 7 P.M. ROLL CALL - All present. Commissioner Watson had an excused absence until 7:40 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES (1) A motion was made to approve the Minutes of the November 9, 1977 Planning Commission Meeting (2) A motion was made to approve the Minutes of the November 16, 1977 Planning Commission Meeting with the following changes: Page 3 - third line - change "front ten feet" to Page 5 - Commissioner L'Heureux voted "Aye" on SDP 77-2 motion. "first ten feet." RESOLUTIONS (1) Resolution No. 1422, City of Carlsbad, CUP-144. . A motion was made to approve Resolution No. 1422. 1 _I P: M A A (2) Resolution No. 1423, Bruce Smith, CUP7145.. A motion was made to approve Resolution NO. 1423 With the changes as follows: Page 2 - line 26 should read: "If the approved greenhouse is abandoned and/or no read "fie siding shall be green shade cloth over Clear plastic. I' . . longer used longer than...." Page 3 - line 11 should (3) Resolu'tion Ncj. 1424, Ron Roberts, Amendment to SDp 77-2 A motion was made to approve Resolution No. 1424 with the following addition explaining the changes from the original1y.approved site development plan The size of the building was changed from 10,512. .. square-feet to 9,283 square feet; the design was , . Changed to a more elongated building and .the parking .. was designed as illustrated on the map attached to the resolution. WRITTEN COMMUN.ICATI0NS -* None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Mr. Bud Plender, Assistant Planning Director suggested two additional items to be added to the agenda: (6) Deletion of December 28, 1977 Planning Commission Meeting and (7) A Chairman and Co-Chairman for 1978 for the Planning Comission should be e1ecte.d. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) (1) Case No. C~&146, Otto J. Korver - Request for approval to construct a church building with Suqday School classrooms in a R-1 (7,500) zone., Mr. Bud Plender gave the staff presentation. In answer to Commissioner kombotis' question about the. reason for the wall between the parking lot and the house on Magnolia, Mr. Plender stated that the wall was to protect the home from auto noise nad lights in the parking lot. r! A P b P ? b A I! F F P E L RESENT OTION YES BSENT LOTION ,YES BSENT IOTION LYES BSENT 4OTION ,YES &SENT lOTION LYES BSTAIN BSENT I X CITY -OF 4XRLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1977 Page 2 A general discussion of the tower or spire followed. The highest point of the church will be 29 feet and the spire will be 58'10" to indicate relationship of the spire to the church building. It was determined that the driveway near the intersection of Monroe and Chestnut would be moved 50 feet south on' Monroe as a safety factor. Commission Monroe and making a left hand turn into the parking area at the entrance near the intersection of Chestnut and Monroe .as well as questioning whether or not moving the entrance 50 feet south on Monroe would be sufficient. Mk. Tim signal proposed for that corner for the near future. Commissioner L'Heureux was concerned about the long range outline on traffic and was interested in knowning the histor of accidents at that intersection as well as the traffic count. Commissioner Rombotis noted that street improvements were conditioned for Chestnut and bmoe but not Magnolia. A general discussion on the City policies for underground utilities and ornamental street lights followed. Commissioner mmbotis requested that the word "chain" be deleted in Condition No. 5. Dr. Ron Packard , .3965 MonroeJ s tated that Mr. Korver had become ill and was not able to attend the Planning Commissi meeting. Dr. Packard said he would be addressing his remark to the questions raised by the Commissioners. He stated that the building and parking were on one graded level. - Jose indicated concern about the traffic going north on aaan, City Engineer; explained that there is no traffic i At.the time the parking lot is expanded, the six foot wall will be moved to the outside boundaries separating the parking lot from any residential structures. Dr. Packard explained this is a large building related to church activities and the spire is necessary to identify 'the church. This would require that the spire be above the building height. The church traffic wou,ld be at the times when the normal traffic is less, mainly early Sunday morning and Sunday afternoons. The meetings held during the week. are small groups, often not exceeding more than 100 people and. mariy o'f ~ them will be walking. Dr.. Packard said they '.were willing to. move the entrance on Monroe to accommodate t 'wishes of t6e Commission. They would work with the City to meet the requirements of the City on that'qd all problems. Packard said they were not interested in the parking drea . being a thoroughf.are for other than church related ' activities and would have traffic barriers to control the ' traffic. He explained that the remaining home on Magnolia will remain as long as the present tenant lives and wishes to stay there, and the wall is for protection of the home from unnecessary foot traffic. That property will' be church parking when the house is vacated. The church will not have a school in.the church as that is not their policy. He explained that.thre would be no loudspeaker on the' outside of the building. In answer to Commission L'Heureux Dr. Packard said they would have a reciprocal arrangement wi the high school in that the church would use .their parking and the school would use the church gym. All landscaping will be of a low water use type. There will be no church bells and the large mercury lights which wilclight the ' parking area will not.reflect into the neighboring homes. Mr. William Lewls, architect from Del Mar and member of the church, explained that the spire was kept in low key and simple, yet adequatelyidentified the structure as the church .. i . They' would like to have the utilities underground. Dr. The public hearing closed at 8 P.M. / ... . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1977 PAGE 3 Commissioner L'Heureux requested that mention be made that the Minutes reflect that the Commission had received a letter from Otto Korver'dated November 4, 1977 and is attached to the staff report. Mr. Tim Flanagan stated that there were 6400 vehicles' on Chestnut and 2500 vehicles on Monroe per day that that there have been four accidents at that intersection in the last eight years. He also stated that we do have the authority to require ornamental street lights on all past. He also stated that the ultimate goal is to have underground on all utilities. Mr. Flanagan said that he considers the moving of the entrance 50 feet south on Monroe to be adequate. . half street improvements and the City has done that in the A motion was made to approve CUP-146 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of the staff report with the following changes and or additions to the staff report: conditions: (1) Add similar uses as defined in the letter from (2) Spire height shall not exceed 58'10". (5) Delete "chain" from line three. Mr. Korver dated November 4, 1977. (13) Add Ornamental street lights shall be provided on (15) Street trees .shall be provided on Magnolia as well (19) Shield any adjacent residences from interior lighting. * approval prior to the use of the proposed expansion of the parking lot and block wall which is to be constructed on the outside as shown on Exhibit A. When the parking lot on Magnolia is put in it shouid be reviewed by the City Engineer, Planning Director and Parks and Recreation Director, and the same conditions that apply to the existing parking lot shall apply to the. proposed parking lot. Monroe and Chestnut also. as Chestnut and Monroe. : (20) Require Planning Director and City Engineer Resolution NO. 1426. (2) Case No. -zCA-91 , City 'of Carlsbad - Creation of a .. commercial zone to implement the. Extensive Regional Retail (C-E) category of the .General Plan. . .. . Mr. Bud PLender gave the staff presentahion.. He said that Mr. Bob Knauf who had attended the last Planning Commission felt that the zone code amendment contained everything that he had remembered as being suggested by the Planning Commission from the previous meeting, but made some suggested corrections. Mr. Knauf was not able to attend tonight's Planning Commission meeting. Commission L'Heureux stated that in section .020' it indicate that there will be a minimum of two acres. He said that MeSSrS. Knauf and Allen at the last meeting had indicated , that two acres were too small. Although Commissioner L'Heureux knew tkiat there were other types of uses other than car lots, that for certain uses the minjmum of two acres was too small and not adequate1y.addressed. Commissioner Watson felt the two acres were adequate. Public hearing closed.a'k 8:25 P.M. A mtion was made to approve ZCA-91 based on the staff presentation with the following amended changes : 21.27.030 - Move' Item No. 4' to 21.27.050 and change to read "Auction services, except animal auctions, are prohibited. 'I MOTION AYES %eting I X ; .-CITY OF -5ARLSBAD I* PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1977 PAGE 4, 21.27.170 change last two lines to read: "have no advers.e affects to surrounding properties or cannot readily be seen from a public way." ' Resolution 1427 (3) Case No. V-274 - Chandler Edwards - Request to allow a 10 foot encroachment into the front yard and a non-conforming rear yard setback caused by request to consolidate. Mr. Bud Plender gave the staff presentation. The Zone Code states that if you build over property lines then that lot line is erased. The narrow portion of a'lot is the front yard setback which is 20 ft.' and the side * yard setback is 10 ft. . In combininp these three .lots the frontyard setback was then located on Walnut (20 ft)' and Carlsbad Blvd.became the sidqrard.with 10 ft setback. The request was to have 20.ft. setback on Carlsbad and 10 ft. ' on Walnut. Mr. Plender stated that a petition had just been received with 53 names requesting the Planning Commission to deny the request as it would establish'a precedent on the Scenic' Route that would be undesirable and create a safety hazard for pedestrians and for the proposed bicycle route. Mr. Kenneth Chriss , Architect, 800 Grand Avenue, applicant said that they do accept all conditions in the staff report the neighborhood. 1 This application will maintain the existing status quo of Mr. Mitch Rader ', 3580 Cwlsbad- Blvd , Apt. .A, spok6 in opposition-to the application. He read a letter to the Planning Commission. A copy is attached. The following people spoke in opposition agreeing with Mr. Rader's comments as.wel1 as expressing the concern that at some future time .this action would allow a 10 foot setback onCarlsbad Blvd. when the existing setback on the street is '20 feet: :Mrs Charlotte Civalleri, 3360 Carlsbad Blvd. Mr. Joe Civalleri; 3360 Carlsbad Blvd. ~ ~~ ." ~ ~ and Mr. Daniel Burke, 3374 Carlsbad Blvd, .Mr. 'Burke' did not feel that this lot was disadvantaged and therefore that the variance was not in order. He fee-1s ' that the variance is being.requested so that the structure can be built which will give the owner greater yield as ' the only advantage. Staff explained that the variance is on the resulting one lot and because of its configuratio is disadvantaged.' The compilation of lots for building purposes is not in violation af the City codes. ' ~~ Mr.Joe-, 4 Design, spoke in. rebuttal to the opposition. He stated that one of the conditions at -the' time the building is constructed is to approve a curb cuttii on Carlsbad Blvd. so that sole access to the property would be provided on Walnut which is advantageous 'to all citizens He said his ~1 ient had no problems .with accepting a 20 ft. open space easement along Carlsbad Blvd.. frontage. lOTION LYE S LBSTAIN JOE S jl - . " K "- Public hearing closed at 9:30 P.M; .' CITY OF -5ARLSBAD -. $WING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1977 PAGE 5 A motion was made to approve Variance V-274 based on the findin.gs and subject to the conditions of the staff report with the following additioris: Under Findings state that the compilation of the three lots into one lot creates a uni lot and that the Planning Commission finds that the vehicle traffic diverted to Walnut is the best use of the neighbor- hood. Add the following amendment to Condition No. 3: the CUP will .be recorded with the County Recorder to insure that the 20 ft. open space easement along Carlsbad Blvd. 'will run with the land. Resolution No. 1428 (4) Case No. CUP-9 (A) , Southcoast Asphalt - Request to main tain a temporary trailer adjacent to the existing office building pending construction of a permanent' facility or addition. Mr. Bud Plender gave the staff presenttion. He said the conditional use permit would permit the use dthe trailer for one year and could be extended if the permanent building was under construction. m. Don Bickathier, Vice President South Coast Asphalt stated that he' agreed with the staff report. The public hearing was closed at 10:22 P.M. . A motion was made to approve CUP 9 (A) based on the findings and subject to the conditions of .the staff report Resolution No.- 1429 NEW BUSINESS (5) A motion was made to approve the Planning Copnission Calendar for the ygar 1978. (6) A motion was made to delete the December 28, 1977 Planning Commission meeting. (7) A .mot$on was. made to elect Commissioner Rombotis :. to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the calendar year of' 1978. .(8) . A .motion was made to elect Commissioner ,Woodward to serve as Co-Chaitman of the Planning Commission . for the calendar year of 1978. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. .. 2 MOTION AYES NOES RBSTAIN WTION 4PPFtOVED WSTAIN MOTION AYES MOTION AYES MOTION AYES MOTION AYES ! - - X X X X ! X 3580 Carisbad Blvd Apt# A Carlsbad California 92908 14 December 1977 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad Carlsbad California 92088 Gentlemen: Several years ago a request for a variance was pro- posed to 156 Cherry St, which is just off Carlsbad Blvd; similar in nature to the request at hand. To even the casual observer it.was obvious that there was no need for the variance to en- croach upon the established required setbacks. It was simply particular time every property owner on Garfield, Carlsbad Blvd, and the enclosed East/West streets from Redwood to Chestnut signed a petition to stop that development which in essence was not an improvement but a selfish attempt for personal gain at everyone elses expense. All but 4 property owners signed that particular petition which I would assume is a matter of, record since the petition was presented to our city council. . nice to have for that particular owner/developer. At that Hopefully the matter of unwarranted'and unnecessary variances was -put to rest at that time but human nature heing, what it is, apparantly, the matter never will be closed. , I'm sure I don't have to point out to you gentlemen that Carlsbad 3lvd is developing, and develoFinq very nicek- . - with .the established zoni:q laws. The credit can be"qiven - to men like yourselves and your predecessors who have had the foresight to ensure that zoning ordinaces are fair and adequate and then the intestinal fortitude to ensure that they're complied with. . The Aestheics of conformity do'prevail on and around Carlsbad Blvd. Furthermore there is no need for one property owner to benefit at the expense of another which is clearly the. case here, if the variance is granted. We buy property a-nd pay dearly for the privilege of having views and should be assured of some semblence of order as Carlsbad develops. We . have up to now and this should continue. One simply has to look at our. neighboring city to view the mess that has been created at their beach area by a lack of sound zoning practices. One apt built up to the sidewalk, with another having no side setbacks and so on. . Back to my opening remarks. Our city council resolved the variance request for Cherry St as would be expected.. The request was denied. The plans were then redesigned to conform to the citys zoning ordinances. If you drive by there this evening you'll see an attractive bailding conforming to the " .city3 plans and not some building poking out to satisfy some special interest . . Y. c - . C. Gentlemen I sincerely hope that this request will be denied and to be quite candid all similar special requests denied when there is no real need. There are situations that require special consideration by you from the established zoning ordinaces. The reasons for special consideration are obvious. If a piece of property clearly cannot be developed because of size; location and so on, this would certainly warrent your consideration and in all probabilty your blessing. But this certainly is not the case being considered here this even,ing . . In my opinion we have a very fine looking community going in the right direction. I hope that you gentlemen will continue the trend. Thank you for your attention. .. Sincerely, . '. c.