Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-10; Planning Commission; Minutes'CITY OF CARLdAD MEETING OF: . PLANNING CONMISSION DATE : March 10, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE : COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF AL'LEGIANCE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Resolution No. 1220, Victory Christian Jr/Sr High School (CUP-116), approved with following additions: Add to findinqs that per fire regulations the numb 48 s faci en ro tota 288, and- r of stuaents ,per classroom-shall not exceed udents or 288 students for the.entire ity (there are currently 100 students led). Add to the conditions that when a student enrollment reaches the maximum of the Planning Commission wil.1 review this CUP ake action for the school to be moved to t larger facilities or close enrollment. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None I PUBLIC HEAR~NGS Case No. V-259, Do.uglas Harwood (Agent) - Request for variance to reduce lot width. Assistant Planning Director Bud Plender stated that this item had been legally noticed, but the staff came to the conclusion there are alternatives the applicant should consider' i.e., public cul-de- sac instead of having a panhandle lot variance. The applicant has been considering the economic and engineering feasibility of such a street and therefore has asked for a continuance till April 14th. The Staff-feels that this would be in the best interest of the City as well as the applicant . and recommends Continuance.. A minute motion was made to cont public hearing on April 14, 1976 inue V-259 to the Case No. V.-258, Michael Straub (Agent) .Request for a variance to reduce lot width. Assistant Planning Director Bud Plender said that the subject pr0pert.y is located at the northwest corner of Monroe Stieet and Park Drive and there are two lots containing two existing homes. The applicant wishes to subdivide this property into 6 lots. The variance request is for two panhandle lots that do not meet .the minimum requirement for. frontage at street property line. In 1974, the Planning Commission granted a varia'nce to the app.licant (Planning Commission Resolution No. 1114). There were three panhandles involved at that time, but part of the property has been deleted as the property owner to the north no longer wishes to be a part of the subdivision and the entire' lot configuration had to be redesigned, therefore requiring a new variance application. This property will be subdivided in two steps 'Present Absent Motion Ayes Absent I X X X -CITY OF CARLdAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : March 10, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: C.OUNCIL CHAMBERS 'Page 2 through lot line adjustment and parcel maps. The staff i.s satisfied this. request meets all of the policies of the panhandle lot policy and meets all 'of the requirements of the variance and staff recommends approval of the two panhandle ;lots. ~n- answer to a Planning Commissioner's question, the City Engineer Tim Flanagan explained that it is the City Engineer's function to require either the improvements or a future agreement as part of .Parcel Map approval. Variances do not normally include conditions which require public improvements if there is another legal mechanism to achieve those improvements. Chairman L.'Heureux read a letter from R. A. Crawford, District Superintendent of Carlsbad Unified School Dis.trict dated March 8, 1976 explain" ing'that the District assures school facilities and services will be available concurrent with need for this development as it is presently ppoposed (this letter to be appended to the staff report). Michael Straub, Agent for the two property owners sh.owed proposed lot divisions on diagrams and ex- plained there will be an intermediate property line adjustment by swapping -a portion of land between Jerry Bowers and Rick Bowers and then proceed with individual parcel maps. In answer to a Planning Commission question Mr. Straub said th.at one of the firxt things that a developer learns is you never move a property line unless you can possibly he1 p it as the City Engimeer has the right to insist on the necessary public im- provements. Brenda and Alfred Mitchell, 3820 Monroe Street, Carlsbad, asked that the Planning Cornmiision continue the hearing for at least two weeks so that they might have an opportunity to talk with Mr. Straub and the owners of the property as to how the land will be developed, what type of housing, etc. -They were primarily concerned with their view possibly being blocked off by a two story dwelling and therefore loss of property value. Mr. Phil Hindman, 1797 Andrea Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he was at the meeting to check on drainage. He lives adjacent to the proposed lot with 13,200 sq. ft. He has a.water drainage problem and he wanted to. know that when additional .houses were built were there be adequate drainage so that it wou1dnI.t drain on his lot (his ,lot is 4 ft. below the subject property). Mr. Straub said that they could work on the drainage problem. The City Engineer advised the Commission that as long as the City kept the water-of Monroe St. and Park Dr. drainage flow off,the property, then it 'is a p.rob1.em between tRe property owners. The City would not maintain a private storm drain because it would be picking up water on one private property and carrying it to another. c CITY CARLdBAD MEETING OF: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : March IO, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS , Page 3 Mr. Straub then addressed himself to the Mitchells and told them that if a two story dwelling were built on the lot across the street from them that was 50 feet by 20 feet, it could affect about 113 of their view. The Mitchell home is about 14 . feet above this property and they could easily look over a one story house. The City of Carlsbad has ordinances that regulate the division of , land, but we have no architectural ordinances - the only restriction is 35 ft. height restriction. The Flitchells were advised that if the variance were approved it would not be final until. the -March 24th P.C. meeting and they could appeal it at that time to the City Council and it would .. then be a minimum of two weeks before the City Council ,would hear the matter thus giving the Mitchells time to discuss the proposed division of property with both Mr. Straub and the.Bowers. It was moved that V-258 be approved and that staff be directed to prepare the necessary docments per recommendation and conditions and present to the Commission' for approval on March 24,'1976 and to add and ,additional condition stating that the public improvements as required by the City Engineer are guaranteed at the time of de'velopment.'' . variance is granted provided that all necessary Case No. ZCA-70, Residential Care Facilities - Assistant Planning Director Bud Plend,er sa,id for various reasons the City has ha.d requests to look at our provisions for residential and professional care facilities. The County Department of Public Welfare requested that the City's regulations be consistent with theirs since there are problems where an applicant for a care home would comply with the County.'s regulations, set up a home only to .find they were not consistent with City regulations. The County is attempting to have all Cities comply in some fashion with the County's regulations Another request that we have had is from the State - the State has passed laws .that basically tell the Cities how they can, regulate .care facilitie! and therefore the Cities should amend their ordinances likewise. Have had some complaints 'from neighbors of care facilities and have had some requests from people that run the care facilities. The Council directed the Planning Com- mission to do a study and prepare an Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Plender gave a brief synopsis as follows: 1) we have combined all the various types of care facilities that are presently in the Ordinance into two categories (Residential and Professignal Care). 2) Residential care not requiring City approval, not licensed by the County or State and contain four or less people in the total household. 3) A CUP will be required for total people in household inc1uding.supervisor and proprietor. 4) Residen,tial care is limited to a maximum of 6 people in all the R-A, R-1 and R-2 zones. In all multi-family and and C-2 zone , there is no limit to the number of occupants, but the limit would be determined by various conditions such as recreation area and guest parking. 5) Professional care will be permitted only in ' Residential Care if there are more than four Motion Ayes Absent L "CITY OF CARLdAD MEETING OF: . PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : March 10, 1976 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: LOUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 4 multiple family zones and the C-2 Zone by CUP. 6) Boarding houses and lodging houses'will be permitted with a CUP in the R-T zone only as per present ordinance. 7) Residential and Pro.fessiona1 Care are to be permitted by CUP in the RD-M Zone.' 8) Residential and Professional Care facilities will be permitted in the C-2 Zone by CUP, but prohibited in the C-1 and C-M,Zones. 9) With 6 or less patients, the State limits what Ci.ties c'an regulate to those amenities found in regular residential area. Six or greater, we have asked for additional conditions such as more parking, etc. 10) Parking for facilities with over 6 beds to require two spaces plus the present requirement. of one space for each 3 beds. It was brought to the attention of the staff that there were two typographical errors (Page 1, 2nd paragraph - change "pre-emptied to "pre-empted" and Page 6 of Draft Ordinance, paragraph 1, change "nor" to "or"). 'Ii'was moved and approved to recommend approval , . of ZCA-70 for'the reasons outlined in the Staff Report. NEW BUSINESS .. Case - No. CT 75-7, Green Valley Knolls Archaeological Report Planning Director .Do-n Agatep advised the Commission' that pursuant to a condition o'f. approval of CT 75-7, the City Council required the submittal of a report on the archaeological resources of the project site. The applicant has submitted a report in compliance with this .condition and each Commissioner has been given a'copy. The staff recommends that the Commission approve this . report as the mitigations proposed are sufficient to meet the City's requirements: A minute motion was made approving the report as. having adequately mitigated the impacts of develog- . ment on the archeological resources at the'Green Valley Knolls site and instructed ttie staff to inform the Council of the receipt of the report, and the Commission's finding that no additional mitigation measures are necessary. OTHER BUSINESS ' Resolution of Appreciation for Dr. Packard - A . minute motion was made directing staff to prepare a Resolution of Appreciation in the form of a plaque for Dr. Ronald Packard as he,was just elected to the City Council and will be retiring from the Planning Commission and a social gathering date for the presentat.ion to be selected. La Costa Master Plan Amendment/EIR - The staff. suqqested to the Commission that a workshop be heii to discuss this project prior to the hearing on April 14th. The Commission decided not.to have a workshop but go with the regular public .hearing on.Apri1 14th and if additional information or time is needed, continue the item to the next hearing. Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes ' Absent