Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-09-24; Planning Commission; Minutesc MINUTES OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: September 24, 1968 TIME OF MEETING: 7:30 P. M. PLACE OF MEETING: Council Chambers”----.slmyan ROLL CALL Also present were City Aftorney Wilson, Assistant City Engineer Spano, Planning Director Olinghouse, an1 Assistant City Planner Johnston. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of September 10, 1968, wePe approved as corrected. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (a) Letter dated September 19, 1968, addressed to the Carlsbad Planning Department, from Mrs. G. Troensegaard, requesting that a petition of 20 signa- tures of property owners, attached to the letter, be presented to the Commission requesting rezoning to R-3 in the vicinity of Garfield Street. There are property owners who are also in favor of the rezoning but aee not available for signatures as they are out of town at the present time. The Planning Director stated that there are several property owners involved in this zone cbange and that he has had a meeting with these peeple. He presented a specific plan study map of the proposed zone change He recommended that the Planning Commission initate a zone change and specific plan to control density and to set a date for the public hearing. Chairman Little stated that in the past, the Commis- sionhas recommended zone changes, but only after a specific study had been made. After further consideration, the Commission unanimous agreed that an application be submitted for this zone change. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (a) There wereno oral communications. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - To consider allowing relocation of an existing 5’ x 36’ fin sign, located at 1044 Elm Avenue, between Interstate 5 Freeway and Harding ~- Street. Applicant: Standard Oil Company of California. Secretary Jose read the City Council and Planning Commission Policy for Public Hearings for the benefit of the new Planning Commissioner and the people in the audience. Present Absent Motion Ayes Abstain XlTY OF CARLSBAD - -2- Notice of tiearing was read. The Secretary certified that property owners in the area were notified and then read the application. The Planning Director presented a map indicating the existing location and the relocation of the existing sign. He stated that the sign is being relocated because of the freeway widening and proposes to be located west of the future state freeway. The sign contains approximately 183 sq. ft. in area and 55 ft. in height. It is recommended that the relocation of the sign be approved on condition that it conforms with any new sign ordinance,which may be adopted. The Chairman announced the CoPvPissioa wwld ROY hear from the rppllcrnt or hlr reprerentrtlre. MR. Y. A. SHARPLI~EIS, QOS West. Olynplc, Le8 Angder , stated there is one area .of concern as.to Item 3 in the Planning Department's Report., that the relocation of the sign be approved on condition that it conforms with any new sign ordinance that may be adopted. He stated that in a matter of months the new sign ordi- nace will be adopted and if the relocation of the sign is granted, they could be put into a somewhat difficult position. He questioned if some provisions could be made, at this time, to forestall having to come before the Commission on a variance procedure and repeaking tke so- iaferriwlgioa at a future date. Chrlm~ Llttle ttrted that tbe RW ordlnrnce wlll p~ssfbly affect hefght and sfte. Sfnce the ordlnance is not adopted at this time, the Commission could not make any considerations. The ordinance will have certain period specified, whereby after that period . of time all signs should conform. He stated that . ' there will be a procedure requesting a variance, which will have to be followed at that time. Whe.n questioned how soon they intend to relocate thei sign, Mr. Sharpenberg stated within the very near future. He stated they wouldnot sign the docume.nts, turning the property over to the State, until the outcome of this hearing. There are certain negoti- ations that have to be taken with the State., concern- ing the acquisition and the severance. He stated that it is anticipated that upon conclusion of, these negotiations they will move the sign. It will possibly be within a'Bwo (2) month period. The Chairman ainounced the Commission would now hear from any others wishing to speak in favor of this application. There were no others wishing to speak in favor, so the Chairman announced the Commission would hear from anyone wishing to speak in opposition. As there was no one wishing to speak in opposition, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed at 7:46 P. M. COMMISSIONERS "CITY OF CARLSBAD - COMMISSIONERS c -3- When questioned if the freeway widening would actuallj take place that fast, where it would require them two (2) months time to.move the sign, Mr. Sharpenberg stated he attended a meeting with Mr. Croisant, Right- of-Way Agent for the State of California Highway Department, and was told, at that time, the State is now taking property. He stated that the State is starting now to do certain bridge work, but the actual lane widening will not start until 1970 or 1971. Commissioner Dewhurst stated that he realized there is a need for action now, but wonder if perhaps there could be negotiations with the State, whereby they could delay the moving of the sign in hopes that Carlsbad will have a sign ordinance in the near future. Mr. Sharpenberg stated they were trying to avoid having the State act in their behalf. He stated that if the State wants the property, let them get the permit to move the sign. He remarked that the majority of their business comes from 'the freeway-and if they are unable to identify the station they will definitely lose business. After further consideration, a motion was made to adopt Resolution No. ,569, granting a conditional use permit, for the purpose of allowing relocation of an existing 5' x 36' fin sign for the following reasons : 1. That the proposed conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the public safety or welfare. 2. That the granting of this Conditional use .. permit would not be in conflict with the existing signs in the surrounding area. Resolution No. 569. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOCATED AT 1044 ELM AVENUE, BETWEEN INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY AND HARDING STREET, was adopted by title only and further reading waived. (b) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in the. required side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet on Oak Avenue; and a reduction in the required distance between buildings from 10 feet to 4.5 feet located at 3091 Jefferson Street, on the Northwesterly corner of Jefferson Street and Oak Avenue. APPlicant: Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that property owners in the area were notified and then read the application, including property owners signatures in the surrounding area in favor of the variance. Motion. Roll Call Ayes COMMISSIONERS -CITY OF CARLSBAD - -4- The Planning Director presented a map, referred to as Exhibit "A", showing the property owners in the surrounding area and indicating the proposed reductic in the required side yard setback and a reduction in the required distance between buildings. He stated that the area for the proposed variance is now an existing garage, which is now being considered for a two car carport. It is recommended that if the requested variances are granted, there should be a condition placdwithin the resolution which would prohibit the enclosure of the walls of the carport. This would ensure visibility for anyone backing a car out of the carport. The Chairman announced the Commission would nw hear frOa tb8 8))'llCrRt Or blS ?O)rclS8atrtlW. MRS. DOROTHY TOLLES, 3091 Jcffcraarr Stveet, Cavlsbab, stated they are requesting to replace there old singlc garage, which now sits close to the property line, with a double stall carport. She stated that they have apartments with 5 rentals and have to have off- street parking for these rentals; therefore, there is not room to build a carport which will take care of their own car and also for their tenants. They have one car parked in the street, a truck parked in the back and a car in their garage. By building a 2 car carport would get the car off the street 'and would pclnlt the two cart In the s4da yard .in the carpsrt. NR. LOU OtSfW, a Carlsbad Realtor, stated he WRS net for or against this application. He stated he was in the middle of a tran.saction, where, sometime in the past, the Planning Commission and/or Council approved a garage being built on the property line." He stated that he has had nothing but problems becaus of a condition of this type. They are developed in neighborhood problems, where,the adjacent neighbor would not allow the property owner to get on his land to maintain his building. He suggested to the Commission that when they get a s-ituation of this kind to deny it or to at least maintain enough clearance on the side of the property line so,that the property owner can get adjacent to his building in order to paAnt or maintain the building. The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear from any others wishing to speak in favor. There were no others wishing to speak in favor, so the Chairman aRnounced the Commission would now hear from anyone wishing to speak in opposition. the Cha 8:07 P. Commi ss that it carport As there was no one wishing to speak in opposition, irman declared the public hearing closed at M. ioner Gullett stated he agreed with Mrs. Tolle is a very old garage and by latri'ldirig a new would be an advantage to the area. \ 9 p f I I J31W OF CARLSBAD - -5- After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 570, granting a variance for the pur- pose of a reduction in the side yard setback on Oak Avenue from 10 feet to 0 feet and a reduction in the required setback between buildings from 10 feet to 4.5 feet, for the following reasons: 1. That the granting of such variances would no be detrimental to the public welfare. 2. That the granting of such variance would be an improvement to the area. Resolution No. 570. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF OAK AVENUE AND JEFFERSON STREET, subject to the,condition that enclosure of walls be prohibited for the carport, in order to ensure visibility for anyone backing a car out of a carport; was adbpted by title only and further reading waived. (c) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in lot width from 60 feet and reduction in lot area from 7500 sq. ft. on the following: Parcel A, width reduction to 53.4'0 feet Parcel B. width reduction to 53.40 feet area reduction to 7047.2 sq. ft. ~ I area reduction~to 7047.2 sq. ft. ~. Parcel C, width reduction to 53.39 feet Location: Between Stratford Lane and Knowles Avenue, Easterly of Pi0 Pic0 Drive. Applicant Joseph J. Whitfiefd. The Secretary read the notice of hearing 'and certifie that property owners in the area were notified and then read the application. Letter dated September 23, 1968, addressed to the City Planning Commission, from Galen and Tressie Nornhold, requesting that the proposed variance be approved. The Planning Director presented a map of the area showing the proposed request for a reduction in lot width and also indicating the property owners in the surrounding area. He stated that the map illustrates the proposed 4 lots in total. The original property owned by the applicant was split March 22, 1957, into 2. lots, on lot (Parcel 'ID'') being 6,940.70 sq. ft., and the other lot containing 22,490.38 sq. ft., He read and explained the Planning Department's Report of the facts resulting from:the staff investigation and stated that the density shown in the General Plan 3-7 families per net acre, would permit lots as small as 6,200 sq. ft. in this area. He also read the Engineering Department Report, listing their conditio recommended forthe proposed variances. COMMlSSlONERS Motion Roll Call Ayes -CITY OF CARLSBAD -6- When questfoned, the Assistant City Engineer stated presently Parcel 'ID" is a legal parcel, however, it is not the size that is stated on the lot split, so actually the applicant is changing the parcel so it would bo Inclodod la tho lot rpllt. the Chairman announced the Cammlsslam world now hoar from the applicant or his representative. MR. JOSEPH WHITFIELD, 1175 Stratford Lane, Carlsbad addressed the Commission and stated he submitted this application May 10, 1966, which was denied. The primary reason that was given for the denial was that the Commission and staff felt he could secure addiL tional property from his neighbor on the west, Mrs. Hunt. He stated he was the only one that dedicated a full street which is 54' x 106', all the other property owners dedicated only 27 ft. He stated that this property has become a.*hardship for him to carry. He has had several people interested in buying this property, but because of the "L" shaped lot there was no deal. He stated that there could not be a home' brillt on a lot that size. . He felt that the property was an eyekore and saw no reason why the property could not be put to use. The other property owners on the same street have no objections. as they would rather see homes in the area. He stated unless something is done, he is apt to lose his property. The Chairman.announced the Commission .would now hear from any others wishing to speak in favor of this application. There were no others wishigg to speak in favor, SO the Chairman announced the Commission wou.ld hear . : from any one wishing to speak in opposition. As there was no one wishinq to speak in opoosition. the Chairman declared the public'hearing &sed at 8:31 P. M. -I When questioned, the Planning Director stated that the present zone is R-1-7500. The density requires 3-7 familes per net acre, which .would be possible to maintain this density with single family homes. Commissioner Dewhurst stated he had no objectidns to this variance. The existing property as it stands now is an eyesore. He did not see any other way it could possibly be divided into 2 lots. He felt that this is the best way this piece of property could be split. When questioned'if the applicant is willing to conforr with the Engineering Department's recommendations, the Planning Director stated that in order to obtain a lot split the applicant would have to comply with these conditions. Chairman Little stated he was not in favor of reduc- ing lot size, particularly width reduction in this area. COMMISSIONERS ' \' COMMISSIONERS --CITY OF CARLSBAD -. -7- After further--discussion, a motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 571, granting a variance for the purpose of reducti reasons: 1. That the not be detrimental 2. That the on-in lot-width for the following granting of such variances would to the public interest. proposed lot size is in conformance with the General Plan'requirement as to the density in this area. Resolution No. 571. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY BETWEEN STRATFORD LANE AND KNOWLES AVENUE, EASTERLY OF PI0 PIC0 DRIVE, subject to the conditions listed Items 1 thru 6 inclusive recomrnended,by the Engineer- ing Department's Report; was adopted by title,only and further reading waived. (d) VARIANCE - To c0nsider.a reduction in required frontage from 60.00 feet to 15.00 feet on Parcel 3, and from 60.00 feet to 15.00 feet on Parcel 4 in order to create two "panhandle" lots,located on the Northerly side of Chinquapin Avenue, between Long Place and Jefferson Street, &DliCwt; Jw Bouckar4 her: Luefar, Bma. Chalmar, Ltttle stated he would like to decline any participation in this discussion and also abstain from voting as he is a resident in the surroundina d area. He asked that Secretary Jose conduct this bewing. Iotfce of berrlng urs read; The S8cretr?y certified that prU,srty owners fn the area were notified and then read the application. €he Planning Director presented a map of the area and the adjacent property owners in the area. He also presented a map of the proposed lot split showin the 4 parcels. The existing zone is R-1-6000. The proposed "panhandle" lots would provide the- means for the maximum development of the property. He stated that the house on .Parcel 1 must conform to all City ordinancesgoverning parking, setbacks, etc. He also read the Engineering Department's .Report and stated that it is recommended that the property be developed wi-th full subdivision improvements and that a parcel map be submitted as specified in the Subdivision Map Act. The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear from the applicant oc his representative. MR. JON BOUBHARD, 6532 San Diego Drive, Buena Park, stated that they are not creating any illegal lots and that they will comply with any requirements from the City. Motion Roll Call Ayes Noes - CITY OF CARLSBAD- -8- COMMISSIONERS When questioned, Mr. Bouchard stated that development will possibly proceed within the next 2 months. S- ' y Jose announced the Commission would now hear from any others wishing to speak in favor of the application. 'I Ther .wereojn,o,,ot.hers wishing to speak in favor, so the E e-cre.tk+$ a'nnounced the Commission would now hear from anyone wishing to speak in opposition. As there was no one wishing to speak in opposition, the Secretary deklared the public hearing closed at 8:52 P. M. After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 572, granting variances for the purpose of reduction in required frontages from 60;OO feet to 15.00 feet on Parcel 3 and Parcel 4 in order to create two "panhandle" lots, for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed"panhand1e" lots would be the best and proper use of the property. 2. That the proposed "panhandle". lots would provide the means for the maximum development of the property. Resolution No. 572. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING VARIANCES ON PROPERTY AT 446 CHINQUAPIN AVENUE ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF CHINQUAPIN AVENUE BETWEEN LONG PLACE AND JEFFERSON STREET: was adopted by title only and further reading waived. (e) (Ihairman Little welcomed Mr. Jack Forman as a new member of the Planning Commission. The Planning Director also we'lcomed Mr. Forman on behalf of the Planning Department. OLD BUSINESS: (a) Proposed Sign Ordinance The Planning Director stated that the pr.oposed sign ordinance is not yet prepared and would like to request that it.be presented at the next regular meeting of Octqber 8, 1968, in final form. It was unanimou'sly agreed that the proposed ordinance be presented in final form at the next regular meet- ing. (b) U..S. POST OFFICE - K. S. BAKER, ET AL A petition was received by the Planning Commission dated September 24, 1968, from Harry D. Prigg. The majority (313-to 7) do not favor this proposed site. ic -CITY OF CARLSBAD - -9- When questioned if there has been additional sites proposed, the Planning Director stated that there has been several sites proposed. It is possible that these sites may meet the qualifications of the post office, but he stated that there has not been an application submitted for a condition use permit. He stated there is at least 2 proposed sites that have been studied. Commissioner Jose stated that on the basis of the number of people objecting to the proposed site, he asked the City Attorney if the Commission could possibly defer action on this matter until the next regular meeting, even though the 40 days will be up. The City Attorney stated the ordinance states that a failure to report within 40 days may be d'eemed approva by the Planning Commission of any proposed changes. He stated that the Council's report merely reques'ted consideration for any additional sites. If a report is not given by the Commission, the Council would merely conclude that the Commission agreed with their deci s i-on. Commissioner Gullett stated he has conversed with many people in town and has heard nothing but opposition. He felt that the Commission could do nothing but deny this site. The Chairman asked Mr. George Saunders, Post Master, if any additional sites h-ave been considered. MR. GEORGE SAUNDERS :stated they have had one firm proposal for another site, which is located between Elm Avenue and Oak Street, adjacent to the railroad . tracks. He stated that in his opinion this particular site is not operatively feasible. The cost of this site was approximately 50% over the cost of the proposed site on Harding and Chestnut. MR. LOU OLSEN, a Carlsbad Realtor, stated he has heard that the Mayor has appointed a committee Co work on additional locations. He suggested that the Commission utilize the additional time they have to find out whether this committee has been relieved. Mr. Saunders,stated that the Mayor's Committee has not yet been relieved, but a meeting will be held Wedn day. morning. Whether they have somsthing else to propose, he statsd Be did not have this knowledge.. MR. ROBERT NELSON, representing the owners of the proposed site, stated these petitions have been circulated by real estate people. He felt that this was not a true representation of the feeling of Carlsbad. He felt that it should be a feasible site that the post office Can.. use to serve the commun- ity. MRS. WOODS, 3948 Skyline Road, Carlsbad, stated she circulated the petition of 300 signatures and has nothing to do with real estate. CQ"ISS1ONERS ... S- COMMISSIONERS c -1 0- MR. HARRY PRIGG, 3245 Maezel Lane, Carlsbad, stated he is the real estate person who circulated the petition with 313 signatures who do not favor the sit He stated that he has acted as an individual, but that he is also interested in other sites. He pointe out that this petition is ,referred to the Council and not to the Commission. It was presented to the Commission for their information. He stated that the 313 signatures are different from the 300 signa- tures Mrs. Woods presented on a petition. Councilmen Neiswender asked on what date the 40 days would be up. The Planning Director stated it would probably be Saturday, October 5, 1968. Councilmen Neiswender stated if the Council considers this on the 15th of October,it will be 21 days, which is one day longer than they are allowe'd by law. If the Council considers this at their meeting of Octo- ber lst, they will not have. the benefit of the find- ings of the Mayor's committee. He asked the City Attorney what the llegality wou1.d be. The City Attorney stated the Council announces' its findings and decision not more than 20 days followins the termination of the procedings of a hearing. Wher the Council does get the report from the Commission and they are not able to- condlude the.hearing in that one meeting, then there would be nothing wrong in continuing the hearing. After considerable discussion, a motion was made requesting that a letter be sent to the City Council. stating the Commission is still in agreement with their previous decision, that the proposed site is not desirable and that the City Council continue to consider any additional sites that may be recommendec by the committee. NEW BUSINESS.: (a) The Planning Direct0.r presented a book entitled "The Exploding Metropolis". He stated this bo,ok is very critical of what is going on in the country in terms of planning and development. He 'felt that the Commission wou1.d find it quite interesting. ADJOURNMENT: (a) By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:24 P. M. Y"$2 by Respectfully submitted, TONI J. DERRIGO, Recording Secretary lotion loll Call \yes ioes \bstain