Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-12-13; Planning Commission; MinutesDecember 13, 1960 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Jarvie. Present besides the Chairman were Commissioners Davis, Hardwick, Grant, Ward and Hughes. Absent, Cotmissioner Kistler. Approval of Minutes of Minutes of November 22, 1960 and November 28, 1960. It was moved by Conmissioner Ward and seconded by Conmissioner Hughes that the minutes of November 22, 1960 be approved as submitted. All ayes, motion carried. It was moved by Commissioner Hardwick and seconded by Conmissioner Davis that the minutes of November 28, 1960 be approved as submitted. All ayes, motion carried. Written Communications: There were no written comnunications. Oral Communications: MR. KAY KALICKA, 13722 Malena Drive, Santa Ana, asked that the Comnission give consideration to the possfbifity of subdividers having signs other then those on the tract on which they were building. He stated that some streets are hard to find and with everytbing so slow it would be helpful-to have people guided to the tract. There are some tracts where they do not get a prospective purchaser once a week in the area, such as next to the high school. It could be understood that the signs directing people to the tract would be temporary and taken down after the houses were sold. He went on to say that most cities allowed this and that no one liked to break the law, but there should be some way to direct people to the tracts. There was some discussion that the City Council was considering some signs but it was pointed out that these signs were merely directing people from the the Freeway to the business and resort area of town. The Secretary pointed out to the Comnission that in order to permit signs directing people to the tracts that the Commission should decide if it merited a public hearing, that then a public hearing would have to be held and then it would take an ordinance. It was decided to take this matter up further under Item 9, New Business, STREET VACATION: The Secretary stated that the vacation of Garfield Street between Beech and Cedar had been initiated by a letter to the City Council from Henry Mayers Investments, Inc., dated September 14, 1960, requesting vacntion of this section of Garfield Street and ststing that there were only three property owners having frontage on this street and a11 of them also had frontage on other street. That if Garfield Street were ever improved it would cause their lots to have double frontage 8nd this type Of lot is undesirable. They further stated that other portions of this street have been vacated and that only a few hundred feet of this portion is actually improved& They cited other factors such as drainage and grading problems in connection with improvement of it. There were 3 other pieces of correspondence on this matter: Memorandum from the office of the City Manager to the Planning Comnission, dated October Inc. had been discussion by 19, 1960 stating that tk referred to the staff for the Council, it was their letter from Henry Mayer's Investments study and report and after considerable decision that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for further study and report. Memorandum from the City of Carlsbad Fire Department dated November 4, 1960, stating that the closing of Garfield Street would have no bearing on fire fighting either at present or in the future. Memorandum from the Carlsbad Police Department, dated November 4, 1960, stating that after a study made by three shifts of officers, their findings were that the closing of this portion of Garfield would have no adverse effedt on the flow of traff ic. Memorandum from the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department stating that said department had no existing water, sewer mains, drainage structures, street improvements and there have been no requests for above mentioned improvements and they find no conflict with the department's needs for the existing right of way. They had no recmendation for or against the request. Letter from Mrs. Hugh Magee directed to the City Clerk strongly favoring and urging the vacation of this portion of Garfield St. The Secretary stated that at the last meeting of the Bishop's Coanittee of St. Michael's Church, which owns the property on the southeast corner of Beech and Ocean, they had voted unanimously in favor of vacation of the street, based on the grounds that they had no use for ttie street at present and could see no use for it in the future as both of their parcels are corner lots wibh- out considering Garfield, MR. KAY KALICKA, representing Henry Mayers Investments, Inc., thanked the Comnission for continuing this matter from their last regular meeting to this meeting and stated that the vacation of this portion of the street was unex- pected to them as they had not realized that Garfield St. was a paper street. They thought it had been vacated. They own property on both the west side and east aide of Ocean St. and plan to build units all the way from the beach to the church property. Off street parking was a problem and that was the reason they bought the east side property and in that way put as many units as possiblc on the beach side. They also want to put the recreation and pool area on the east side. When the arvhitect started work on this it came to their attention that the street was a handicap. In order to get parking on the property, a decision has to be made imnediately as to what the grade of the street would be if put in. The grade at present is lower than the church property. They had to know how to design it so that it would look desirable from all sides with the street there as they did not like garages all along the street. Then they talked to other people and everyone wanted it vacated. Onn end of Garfield dead ends into the Army-Navy Academy. Recently the Academy has put up a lot of new buildings along there and the oongestion of traffic at closing of classes would be bad for Garfield St., but vacated it would help this. Mr. Kalicka pointed out that there is no public beach north of the State Park. People other than the property ownera are trespassers there and closing Garfield St. will help this. At one time the State had redesigned that area. The church plans to put a rectory on the lot next to them. The church will probably acquire Mrs. Magee's lot and the road would bisect their property also. He feels this street serves no purpose and all the property Owners there feel that way. They all feel that it would do them more good if vacated than improved. x There was no opposition to this street VacPtion. The public hearing was closed at 8 P.M. 6- Cammissioner Hardwick stated that in looking at the map he observed that the section of street was 60 X 400, 24,000 sq. ft. that belongs to the City of Carlsbad about a half a block from the beach.'"Xt' is valuable land. Granted the desire of the present property owners is that it not be improved, but can they talk for the property owners 20 years from now. If it is vacpted, can the city ever get it back? MR ULICKA stated that he thought Comnissioner Hardwick was under one mis- apprehension. That all the city has is a right of way. The Owners have fee title and always have. They may never build on it. The city has no title to it, only its use. He mentioned that there were thousands of streetsput in back in horse and buggy days that would never pass in a subdivision today. The value of a street has always been to the property owners. If a street has no use, there is no reason for it. You cannot talk about 20 years from now because the auto may be outmoded by then. Carlsbad was laid out in New York by someone who never even saw it, someone connected with the railroad. Cammissioner Grant felt that the recomnendations of the department heads were important and as long as neither they nor the property owners had any use for the street there was no point in holding it up. It would b@ an addition to the tax rolls if vacated. Conmissioner Ward stated that he was in accord with Commissioner Grant. Garfield Street is now blocked byhotel property and the Royal PRlms Motel and the area is practically useless. He stated that he was in favor of granting the vacdtion. Commissioner Hughes felt that there were no objections to it, the property owners were for it and the department heads had no objections so he was in favor of it as it is no more than a cow path. Chairman Jarvie stated that you may give away streets now and regret it twenty years later. Commissioner Davis felt that the vacation should be approached with caution. He said he would like to have a legal opinion as to the title of streets, because they shottld be careful abut giving away the city's rights. He did not think it was a good enough reason to vacate just because there is no present use and he would not like to say that he was opposed to it: or for it. Commissioner Hardwick felt that any vacation of a street should be approached with caution for the future. Whether streets are considered to be legally owned by Corlsbad or not, it is a street for the use of Carlsbad. It is one of the most serious steps the Commission can take. He personally was not in favor of it at the present. After further discussion of the matter it was decided the matter should be continued to a later meeting of the Planning Comnission. A motion was made by Comnissioner Hughes and seconded by Cmissioner Davis to continue this matter to the meeting of January 10, 1961. All ayes, motion carried. HEAR ING VARIANCE Request of B.C. Schindler for reduction in front yard from 20 ft. to 5 ft. for the purpose of construction of swimming pool bath house and incre,lse in height of fence from 42" to 6' on property described as n portion of Carlsbad Lands Tct 119, according to a map thereof No. 775 in the City of Carlsbad. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as to publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the area. " - - ,h" The Secretary read a petition containing 10 names approving the granting of this request for variance. There were no other items of correspondence on this matter. The Secretary called attention to what he had said in the notes to the Com- missioners about the width of the street at different points. MR. B.C. SCHINDLER, 3098 Highland Ave., w:s present but had no comnents to add to his application. There were no objections or protests to the granting of this variance. The public hearing was closed at 8:25, There was some discussion about the 6ft, fence and it was pointed out that it would not be as high as the existing hedge and therefore would not create a blind corner. MR. SCHINDLER showed a landscape plan of his property showing where the pool and dressing rooms are to be located. k motion was made by Commissioner Hardwick and seconded by Commissioner Ward to adopt Resolution No. 190 granting the request for variance for the follow- ing reasons: 1. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improve- ments in.lsuch vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 2. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. 3. There were no objections or protests to the granting of said variance. The Chairman asked for a roll c.:ll vote. AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Commissioners Davis, Hardwick, Grant, Ward and NOES: None ABSENT: Comnissioner Kistler. Hughes Resolution No, 190 adopted. 0 &quest of John R. Keenan for conditional use permit for use of the property as a con- vent by the Bishop of San Diego of the -: Roman Catholic Church in conjunction with a parechial school to be erected on adjac- ent property, on property described as a portion of Thum Lands according to a map thereof 1681 - -" in the City of Carlsbad. ~~ - _" Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as to publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property Owners in the area. There wa8 no Correspondence on this matter. MR. JOHN R. KEENAN, 1030 Tamar.,ack, stated that he was coming before the Com- mission at a disadvantage since at the previous hearing about the school, he had objected since he had a buyer for his property at the time and when they heard of the proposed school, they decided against the purchase of the property He further stated that another organization was interested in the property at that time and the church contacted him aqd was very cooperative. He has leased the property back from the church for 14 to 18 months as they do not plan to use it until that time as a sister home. MR. RICHARD PURR, 956 Tamarack, stated that he was a property owner in the area but had received no notice of the hearing. The Secir.etary explained to him that the Tax Assessor's book was the source from which the names of the property owners within a 300 ft. radius were taken and if he had purchased the property within the last 12 to 18 months, unless he had come in to the City Hall and notified us, the name of the previous owner would be the name in the Tax Assessor's book and they would be the people who would have received the notice of hearing. There were no objections or protests to the granting of this conditional use permit . The public hearing was closed at 8:45. There was some discussion about the fact that there were a number of people at the previous hearing on the property for the school which adjoins this property and that it appeared to be an excellent use for the property. Mr. Pharr was asked if he had any objections and he stated that he did not. Comnissioner Hughes stated that he had been at the last hearing on the school property and they were short of property on which to have a gymnasium and he thought this would give them more property for this purpose so he was in favor of it. Comnissioner Ward said that it was apparent that the grounds adjacent were rather small for school grounds and he felt that this would be an asset to the school. A motion was made by Comnissioner Ward and seconded by Comnissioner Hughes that Hesolution No. 191 be adopted granting the request for a conditional use permit for the following reasons: 1. That the granting of such conditional use permit will not be mater- ially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 2. That the granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. 3. There were no objections or protests to the granting of this condition- al use permit. The Chairman asked for a roll c~ll vote. AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Cmissioners Davis, Hardwick, Grant, Ward and NOES : None ABSENT: Conmissioner Kistler Hughes. Resolution No. 191 adopted, 8- Old Business: There was no old business. 9- New Business: The subject of Signs dfrecttng people to the subdivisions was brought up and there was some discussion on this matter, it being pointed out that anything the city could do to aid the subdividcra helped in the progress of the city. The Secretary was directed to diucoss this nrstttr with the City Attorney and after an opinion frm her on the matter, the Planning Commission could consider a Resolution of Intention if they 80 des ired . 10- By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9 P.M. J. H. PRICE, Secretary