Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-11-12; Planning Commission; Minutes-. MINUTES OF: DATE OF MEETING: November 12, 1968 TIME OF MEETING: 7:30 P. M. PLACE OF MEETING: Council Chambers "- I .rr-~I~~=-.-.,~~~-~~-~ ROLL CALL Also present were City Attorney Wilson, Assistant Cit Engineer Spano, and Planning Director Olinghouse. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : (a)' Minutes of the regular meeting of October 22, 1968, were approved as submitted. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (a) San.Diego County Planning Congress: 1968 Fall Meeting, Friday, November 22, 1968, Chula Vista, Municipal Golf Course Restaurant - Topic: "Past, Present, and Future of the Port of San Diego". The Secretary asked that reservations for those planning to attend be made with the Recording Secretary. Reservations must be made by November 18, 1968. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (a) There were no oral communications. PUBLIC HEARINGS : (a) VARIANCE - To consider a variance for the pur- pose of waiving parking requirements for a home for" the aged; located on the Westerly side of Madison Street, between Lasuna Drive and Grand Avenue. Amlicant: Franklin P. O'Donnell. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that property owners in the area were notified and then read the application. The Planning Director presented a map showing the property owners in the surrounding area and the proposed location of the property. He pointed out that subject property is zoned R-P and stated that th, applicant desires a reduction in the number of requir parking spaces from 4 to 0,'to provide for a recrea- tional area. The Assistant City Engineer presented the City Engineer's Report and stated that the Southwesterly 10 feet of this parcel has recently been added to the parcel, therefore it is recommended that the applican be required to obtain a lot line adjustment from the City Engineer. Lot Eine adjustments are handled by lot split procedure. Vice-chairman Palmateer announced the Commission woull now hear from the applicant or his representative. Present Absent Motion Ayes CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMISSIONERS L -2- FRANKLIN P. O'DONNELL, applicant, stated that it is requested by the State that a certain amount of groun be alotted for the exercising of the elder peopie. He stated that the peoples ages range from 85 to 96 year of age, which is well above the driving age. The only need for parking would be for the two helpers that are on duty at all times, other than that there is no constant off-street parking necessary. He also stated that paving the recreational area would be detrimental, as the elder people could fall or-trip on the hard pavement. But if it were a well-landscap yard it would be more or less for the safety and security of the people. The Vice-chairman announced the Commission would now hear from any others wishing to speak in favor of the application. There were no others wishing to speak in favor, so thl Vice-chairman announced the Commission would hear from anyone wishing to speak in opposition. i. MRS. WIDESON, stated that subject lot is vacant and is being utilized for parking now. She stated that twice last week she found 2 youngsters playing behind a truck that was parked in that lot and she felt this could be dangerous. MR. TOM HARRIS, 722 Arbuckle Drive, Carlsbad, stated that eliminating off-street parking'would be a hazard as the street is very narrow and there is no sidewalk, Vice-chairman Palmateer asked if any others wished to speak in opposition. As there were no others wishing to speak in oppositiol the Vice-chairman declared the public hearing closed at 7:48 P. M. The Planning Director stated that memorandums have been received from the Building Department and the Police Department. He stated that since the applican. request does not meet any of the criteria for grantinc such a variance and due to the importance of off- street parking, the Police, Building and Planning Departments recommend a denial. Commissioner Jose stated that consideration should be given as to the possiblity that this property could be sold at a future date. This could be converted intc a multi-type dwelling, which would require parking spaces. He felt that the information submitted by the City Departments is very valid and felt that the request for a variance should be denied. 2ommissioner Forman stated that he did agree with :ommissioner Jose. He did not feel that the City Zould by-pass the ordinance to meet the minimum park- ing requirements, because conditions could possibly zhange. He would also be in favor of denying this request . S u '17-y OF CARLSBAD COMMISSIONERS -3- Mr. O'Donnell stated that there are 4 parking spaces in the front and also parking spaces in the back. He stated that he has no intention of removing these parking spaces. The question is whether he should pave the recreational area or not. The Planning Director recited from the Parking Ordi- nance, Section 1510 entitled "Off-streek Parking", explaining the req.uirements for parking spaces for each specific land use. After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 577, denying a variance for the pur- pose of waiving parking requirements for a home for the aged, for the following reasons: 1. That the granting of such a.variance would not provide adequate off-street parking. 2. That subject property could be sold and converted into a multi-family use which would requiPe parking facilities. 3. That this type of home has visitors and coul use the required parking for this use. Resolution No. 577. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CI PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF MADISON STREET, BETWE LAGUNA AVENUE AND GRAND AVENUE, was adopted by title only and further reading waived. (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - To consider allowina a 36-square foot sign on building located at 1065-D4 Elm Avenue; located on the Southerly side of Elm Avenue, between Hardina Street and Interstate 5 Free- way. Applicant: Stombock's West Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that property owners in the area were notified and then read the application. The Planning Director presented a map of the proposed sign and also a map showing the location of the building and the property owners in the surrounding area. He explained that the proposed location is within the Poinsettia Shopping Center and will be placed perpendicular against the wall of the building The area of the proposed sign would be 36 sq. ft. The Vice-chairman announced the Commission would now hear from the applicant or his representative. MR. E. J. STINGLEY, applicant, stated that the sign is 3 feet by 12 feet, making a total of 36 sq. ft. He stated that the proposed sign is smaller than the number of signs in the shopping center. He also stated that the sign is decorative and felt that it would be a credit to the area. The fact that the ordinance has not been adopted, it has held up the installation of his sign for 30 days. He stated that he would like to be in the same position as most of the other people in .the area. Motion Roll Ayes Cal L -4- I Vice-chairman Palmateer announced the Commission would now hear from any others wishing to speak in favor of this application. There were no others present wishing to speak in I favor, so the Vice-chairman announced the Commission would now hear from anyone wishing to speak in opposition. As there was no one wishing to speak in oppositon, the Vice-chairman declared the public hearingcclosed at 8:20 P. M. The Planning Director stated that since the last conditional use permit application for the construc- tion and installation of a sign, the sign ordinance has been considered by the City Council. He stated that certain facets of this ordinance have been definitely considered for change. The matter of the square footage, however, at the last public meeting was not considered at that time. He also stated that to be in conformance with the past approvals and the proposed sign ordinance, it is recommended the sign be approved providing it does not contain more than 30 sq. ft. or 1.5. sq, ft. of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage. When questioned, Mr. Stingley stated that the sign is not yet constructed. It will take approximately 2 to 3 weeks to be made. When questioned, Mr. Stingley stated that the sign measurements proposed are what the sign company recommended and that they were proportio'nally designe' for the front of the building. He did not see how the proposed sign ordinance could be used, as it is only recommended and if he had to be held to the 1 1/2 sq. ft, of building frontage, he felt that it would be duly restrictive. He stated that' it should be considered that the perdominate number of signs in the area will not come to 1 1/2 sq. ft, of building f ron$age. Commissioner Gullett stated that at a previous meeting the Commission denied a sign, which the applicant already had made. This would be mere of a hardship. He stated that he could see no reason why a reduction could not be made before this sign is cOns tructed . After further consideration, a motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 578, granting a Conditional Use Permit, for the following reasons: Permit conforms to the proposed sign ordinance. 1. That the granting of the conditional use -5- 2. That the granting of such a conditional use permit would not be detrimental to the surrounding area. Resolution No. 578. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CI'I PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'I LOCATED AT 1065-D ELM,AVENUE, BETWEEN HARDING STREET AND INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY, subject to the condition that the proposed sign contain not more than 30 sq. ft., was adopted by title only and further reading waived. (c) VARIANCE - To consider a variance for the purpos of a reduction in the required front yard setback from 20' to 5'; reduction in the rear yard setback from 15' to 10': reduction of North side vard Anderson. i Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that property owners in the area were notified and then read the application. The Planning Director presented a map showing the surrounding property owners and the proposed loca- tion.and.explained the proposed setback reductions. He stated that subject property is zoned R-3. He explained that the request for the rear yard setback from 15' to 10' is not applicable since that requirec rear yard is 10' by the ordinance. The applicant also request a permit to construct a walk and steps on grade in Grade Avenue. He explained that this request must be handled by encroachment.permit through the Engineering Department, therefore, the Planning Commission should not attempt to discuss or approve this request. The Planning Department recommends that the variances be granted for the front yard, and North side yard setback. He then read the Building Department's Report and stated that the Building Department and Planning Department feel that no side yard should be less than 3' and must recommend that the proposed 1" variance for the South property line be denied. Vice-chairman Palmateer announced'the Commission would now hear from the applicant or his reprssenta- tive. J. NASH ANDERSON, applicant, address the Commission and stated thdt as architect and thinking of the improvements of this site, the first consideration was how much property they had. From investigation he stated he found some of these side yards and setbacks were adjustable to make a more practical situation. He also stated that they have the advantage in having a site that has a nice wide street end that is not improved, which gives them an area affect. His objection to the ordinance is that it requires a 10' setback, which would make this , open unimproved space 50' wide and would also take 10' off their building area. COMMISSIONERS Motion Roll Cal: Ayes COMMISSIONERS -6- Mr. Anderson also stated that with the exception of the garage, there will not be any walls that will be on the property line. They are planning to have four (4) luxuary units. He stated that they would also like to invision, having something besides sand, and hoped they could come up with something more attrac- tive. Vice-chairman Palmateer announced the Commission would hear from any others wishing to speak in favor of this application. - There were no others wishing to speak in favor, so the Vice-chairman announced the Commission would now hear from anyone wishing to speak in opposition. As there was no one present wishing ,to speak in opposition, the Vice-chairman declar,ed the public hearing closed at 8:52 P. M. Commissioner Jose felt that a reduction in the South side yard to 0'-1" would be a hazard in the invent of a fire. He did not'fee1,in this case, that this warrants a reduction to 1" simply for safety reasons. He stated that he does concur with the Planning Department and other City Departments'recommendations that the front yard and North side yard be granted. The Planning Director stated that as far as a potiential hazard, it should be considered what might happen to that seqment on Grand Avenue. However, in the event that the lot was vacated, being 40' wide, he stated that undoubtedly a building erected at that point might require a reduction in side yard and also the fact that other variances';.have been in the neighborhood to 3 feet and if this were reduce to 1" could possibly be a fire hazard with two walls almost contiguous. He pointed out that the Building Department's Report states that any wall less than 3' in a Number 3 fire zone is not permitted to have any openings in the .exterior wall, thereby making this a solid wall without any openings. He stated that the main reason the Planning Department limited the reduction to 3 feet is to conform to 0the.r request in the same area, which were held to the 3' side yard. After further consideration, a motion was made to adopt-Resolution No. 579, granting a variance reducinc the front yard setback from 20' to 5'; and reducing the North side yard from 15' to 3'; for the following reason : 1. That subject variances conform generally to other variances that have been granted in that area. and to.deny?.a variance on the South side yard from 5' to Pl-l", for the following reasons 1. That it would be detrimental to the adjacent property and to the public welfare. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF CARLSBAD i -7- Resolution No. 579. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20' TO 5': REDUCTION IN THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5' TO 3' ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF OCEAN STREET AND GRAND AVENUE AND DENYING A VARIANCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE YARD FROM 10' TO 0'-1", s'ubject to the condition that the South side yard 'setback be not less than 3 feet, was adopted by title only and further reading waived. Springsteen. IJ ' Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that property owners in-the area were notified and then read the application. The Planning Director presented a map showing the property owners in the surrounding area and also the proposed location of the site. He also presented a map, referred to as Exhibit "A", showing the improvement plan, building location and also a schedule by building expansion showing the off-street parking and landscaped areas. He then read the report of findings to the Commission of the facts resulting from the staff investigation. He pointed out that the proposed post office site would be within the central business district and that it would have easy access to major col.lector streets. The Assistant City Engineer.presented the Engineering Report and stated that both streets fronting this development are local streets. Roosevelt Street has a planned .width of 66 feet and Madison Street has a planned width of 60 feet. He then listed the Engineering Department's conditions recommended for subject conditional use permit. There are 5 legal lot splits involved in this development and would best be accomplished by means of a lot split property line adjustment map and procedure. The Planning Director presented the Police Department Report stating that they can see no valid reason to object to the location of the post office on this site, in fact it will relieve considerable congestion at the present location. Vice-chairman Palmateer announced the Commission woul now hear from the applicantsor their representative. I Motion Roll Ayes Call . 7. . L. c: '* i CITY OF CARLSBAD -8- i COMMISSIONERS MR. LOU OLSEN, 2785 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is speak- ing on behalf of the 6 property owners who have filed their request for this application for a U. S. Post Office. He stated that he will answer any questions that the Commission might have. The Vice-chairman announced the Commission would hear from any others wishing to speak in favor of this application. MR. RICHARD KING, Real Estate Officer for the Post Office Department, stated that they are in initial stages on this project and without the Commission's approval they cannot proceed. He stated that he will also answer any questions that the Commission might have. When questioned if this site appears to meet the requirements from their survey, Mr. King stated that Exhibit "A" was prepared by the Post Office architept which is a feasibility study. He stated that it does meet their requirements for the site and for the projective requirements for the building space. When questioned if any consideration has been given to the future expansion of the post office, if located at this site, Mr. King stated that they look at the future in a 10 and 20 year projection. They have not yet determindexactly what size building they will build, but it will either be all of that or some portion of it. The purpose of this is that if they have a 20 year requirement that is greatly in access of their 10 year requirement, they do not want to build toolarge a building and pay rent on space they are not using. When questioned, Mr. King stated that they are very hopeful that Beech Street can be extended, connecting Roosevelt Street and Madison Street. But he also hoped that this could be done without assessing the adjacent property owners. They feel that this will be a great asset to the post office and will provide much better access and egress. MR. GEORGE SAUNDERS, Post Master, addressed the Commission and stated that he thinks this is the site the Commission sent them back to find 5 months ago and hoped that it will not be delayed. The Vice-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 Vice-chairman announced the Commission would now hear from anyone wishing to speak in opposition. SinCelthere was no one present wishing to speak in opposition, the Vice-chairman declared the public hearing closed at 9:21 P. M. 4' CITY OF CARLSBAD -9- After further discussion, a motion was made to adop Resolution No. 580, granting a conditional use perm for the purpose of allowing the construction and us of a U. S. Post Office Building and parking facilit for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed conditional u$e permit appears to be the best location for the.City of Carlsbad Post Office. 2. That subject location would have easy acce to major collector streets. 3. That the proposed post office site would b within the central business district. Resolution No. 580. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOCATED NORTHERLY OF GRAND AVENUE, BETWEEN ROOSEVELT STREET AND MADISON STREET, subject to the conditions listed in the City Engineer's Report fro 'Items 1 thru 5 inclusive and subject to the conditi listed in the Planning Department's .Report from Ite 5A thru 5E, was adopted by title only and further readdng waived. OLD BUSINESS : (a) Planning Commission Resolution of Intention No - 64 - Specific Plan and zone change on properties lying between Acacia Avenue, Olive Avenue, Carlsbad Boulevard and the A. T. & S. F. Railroad rights-of- way. After further discussion, a motion was made to adop Resolution Of Intention No. 64. Resolution Of Intention Number 64. A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DECLARING INTENTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEAR1 ON NOVEMBER 26, 1968, TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL A SPECIFIC PLAN AND CHANGE IN ZONE ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FROM R-1 OR R-2 TO R-3, was adopted. NEW BUSINESS: (a) Memorandum - Roy Sheldon Lot Split The Secretary read a letter addressed to the City of Carlsbad, from Joseph Parisi, stating that by direction of Roy H. Sheldon, and acting as his agen they hereby request that the City incorporate Parce "A" into Lot Split Map No. 54 of Sheldon's Industri, Properties. The Assistant City Engineer presented a map illustr, ing the lot split and explained the location of the area. He then read the memorandum addressed to the COMMISSIONERS Motion Roll Call Aye s qotion Roll Call 4ye s CITY OF CARLSBAD " -10- Planning Co'mmission and stated that the Sheldon Lot Split was previously approved by the Commission for two parcels, being Parcel "B" and Parcel "A". He stated that they now request permission to further divideparcel "A" into proposed Parcels "A" and "C". He pointed out that this would not materially change the condition of this Parcel "A" from the original condition of the property after the State opens Lowder Lane. He stated that the City Engineering Department see,s no new disadvantage to the City in permitting the addition of Parcel "E:" to the lot spli and allowing Parce1"A" to have no street frontage and access only at the end of Lowder Lane. When questioned, Mr. Spano stated that there is no action to be taken by the Commission. It is merely brought before the Commission for their concurence and information. He stated that the Engineering Department sees no objection to granting this additional parcel. b (b) Memorandum - Tamarack Center Subdivision The Assistant City Engineer presented the memorandum addressed to the Planning Commission from the City Engineer and stated that the final map for Tamarack Center Subdivision has been received for checking. He then read the memorandum listing the determination made by the Engineering Department after checking the final map. The memorandum was read and acknowledged by the Commission. (c) Commissioner Dewhurst stated that a two (2) story structure is being constructed on the Southeast corner of Tamarack and Highland. He stated that this structure was moved from Oceanside and used to be a duplex. He understands that the upstairs kitchen has been removed and that the owner intends to use this as a single family dwelling. He stated that he does realize that this probably conforms to the require- ments in 'the city .obdinance, but felt that this structure does not fit into the surrounding area. He stated that he would like to see something that could be done to prevent this in the future. 'He pointed ou that in San Diego when a structure is moved from one location to another, that particular piece of propert: is inspected both at the location were the structure rest and the new location. Even though it might conform to all requirements, if it does not look right on the new property, he felt it should not be moved. Commissioner Palmateer stated that Commissioner Dewhurst should discuss this with the Building Inspector and to bring this matter up at a later date He felt that this was a good point to look into. COMMISSIONERS ’i CITY OF CARLSBAD -11- ADJOURNmNT: (a) By proper motion, the meeting was adjou,rned at 10:02 P. M. Respectfully submitted, A TONI DERRIGO, Recording Secretary COMMISSIONERS I