Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-02-27; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1962 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Grant. Present besides the Chairman were Commissioners Davis, Neiswender , Kistler , Hughes, Jarvie and Ward. Approval of Minutes of February 13, 1962. A motion w2s made by Commissioner Jarvie and seconded by Commissioner Neiswender that the minutes of February 13, 1962 be approved as corrected. All ayes, motion carried. Written Communications: There were no written communications. Oral Communications: There were no oral communications. HEARING - VARIANCE - Request of Everett M. and Claire Pierce for a reduction in required frontage from 60' to 50' in order to create a Esp-property located on the east side of Harding between Oak and Pine, being portion of Carlsbad Lands Subdivision of Tracts 114 and 120, Map No. ~T/44, parcel 17, page 040, book 204, San Uiego County Assessor's Map. 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. The Secretary then read the application setting forth the reasons for requesting the variance. There was no correspondence on this matter. Mrs. Wilda Simpson, 2850 Elmwood stated that she represented her father Mr. Everett M. Pierce, the applicant, and they had had a plot plan and survey made of the property. There is an existing house on the property and the property has been surveyed into two 50' lots. Other property owners in the vicinity have had similar variances and it would make better use of the property. There were no objections to the request. The public hearing was closed at 7:45 P.M. It was agreed that this request was in keeping with the surrounding property, and should be granted for the following reasons: 1. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the zone but which is denied to the property in question. 2. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 3. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehen- sive general plan. -2 - '. The Secretary requested that granting of this variance for lot split be made subject to the approval of monumentation by tke City Engineer. The request was . agreed to. The following resolution was presented for consideration: Resolution No. 238. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING -TING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY LEGALLY DESC,RIBED AS PORTION OF TRACTS 114 AND 120, MAP NO. 1744 OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, was unanimously adopted on Commissioner Jarvie's motion. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP OF HARBOR VIEW. The Secretary certified to the mailing of notices to adjacent property owners and then read the recommendations from the various departments and agencies. The Secretary then read proposed Resolution No. 238 incorporating the recommenda- tions of the various departments and agencies as conditions for approving the tentative map. There was a discussion regarding the set back of the sidewalks as they would have a parkway between the curb and the sidewalk. After further discussion, the following resolution was presented for consideration: Resolution No, 237. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING CFrm7CaSSrCJNmC)"ENDING APPRGVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP OF HARBOR VIEW, was unanimously adopted on Commissioner Jarvie's motion. HEARING - TAMARACK EXTENSIQN - Request of City Planning Commission by Resolution of Intenio. 27 to amend the CarLsbad City wster Street Plan by relocatinn the mroDo"ea extension of - as a maior street. at 'ETkhland Urive to . ~ " I- ~ Park Urive at a pod apGroximately I, 1'00 Eeet South of intersdc'tionor Park and - " l\/lonroe, thence to Bircmenue and on B'lrchtG3iEj2ii mive toXj7iine Koad and then continued easfeyTo El Camino Real southew of Chestniivenue. " " Chairman Grant read a report from the City Engineer, dated February 27, 1962, which set forth the reasons for the proposed amendment to the Master Street Plan. The Secretary certified as to pu.Slication of notice of hearing and that notices had been sent to property owners in the area. The Secretary reviewed Resolution of Intention No. 27 initiating this amendment. There were 46 items of correspondence on this matter. Chairman Grant asked the City Attorney if all of the letters would have to be read and the City Attorney stated that since the letters were not identical, they would all have to be read. The Secretary read the following 45 letters registering protests on the proposed extension of Tamarack. Date 7 Feb. 19, 1962 Feb. 26 , 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 25, 1962 Feb, 24, 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 24, 1962 No date Feb. 27, 1962 Feb. 27, 1962 Feb. 27, 1962 No date Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 27, 1962 Feb. 27, 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 27, 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 Name - Harry A. and Glenn Moore W E. and Marie B. Hebling Donald J. Ward Mildred C. Hardwick and Gordon A. Hardwick Mrs. Donald A. Briggs a Sr . Glenn R. Feist R. R . Robinson June R. Thurnau John Allan McKaig John S. Lockwood Gertrude E. Lockwood Harvey J. Gallinger C. D. McClellan Arthur L. & Laura 8. Boyer William E. Morehouse Jess R, Guthrie Joseph L. O'Bryan Paula O'Bryan Franklin Mills L. J. Huking Anne S. HuMng Armour A. Sizer Julia D. Sizer Mr s . Elizabeth S. Ge rhard John R. Barreiro, Jr. Erline Barreiro Address 4 100 Sunnyhill Dr. , Carlsbat 3930 Skyline Road, Carlsbad 4 135 Skyline Rd. , Carlsbad Box 302, Leucadia La Granada ,Rancho Sank Ft 2541 State St. ,Carlsbad 4120 Sunnyhill Dr. , Carlsbad 1325 Buena Vista ,Carlsbad 4073 Skyline Rd. ,Carlsbad 4086 Sunnyhill Drive Carlsbad 4252 Sunnyhill Drive Carlsbad 4 120 Skyline Rd. , Carlsba? 4014 Skyline Rd. ,Carlsbad Sunnyhill Drive, Carlsbad 4 134 Skyline Road, Carlsbad 4086 Sunnyhill Drive Carlsbad 4005 Skyline Road Carlsbad 4033 Skyline Rd. ,Carlsbad 4061 Skyline Road, Carlsbad 41 05 Skyline Road, Carlsbad . Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 R. R. Robinson 2541 State Street, Carlibad 4051 Skyline Rd. , Carlsbad 4079 Skyline Rd., Carlsbad Mrs. Ruth M. Mallard Gerald C. McClellan Dorothy L. McClellan Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 27, 1962 Feb. 27, 1962 Feb. 27, 1962 4 130 Sunnyhill Dr. , Carlsbad Myrtle B. Strayhorn Mr.and Mrs.Robert L.Watson The Henleys (Phoebe Henley) 4080 Sunnyhill Dr. ,Carlsbad 4040 Sunnyhill Dr. , Carlsbad John W. Wilterding Minta D. Wilterding Feb. 27, 1962 No date Feb. 27, 1962 George W. Wade 4050 Sunnyhill Dr. ,Carlsbad 4065 Sunnyhill Dr , Carlsbad 4070 Sunnyhill Dr. , Carlsbad Mr,and Mrs.D.R.Johnsoa C. B. Geise Mrs. L. N. Geise Feb. 27 , 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 Feb. 27, 1962 Feb. 26, 1962 John L. Wick 4080 Skyline Road , Carlsbad 4061 Skyline Road, Carlsbad 4004 Skyline Road, Carlsbad Cdr. Otto E. Sporrer McClew Randolph Donald A Briggs Donald A. Briggs, Jr. Briggs Land Corporation Feb. 27, 1962 Feb. 27, 1962 Charmion McMillan 4051 Sunnyhill Dr. , Carlsbad L. Spencer Parkinson Joyce K. Parkinson 4 155 Skyline Rd. , Carlsbad Feb. 27, 1962 Claude G. Browning Maxine Browning 4 150 Skyline Road, Carlsbad Feb. 27, 1962 Feb. 26. 1962 Mr. and Mrs. A. E. Wollrich 4656 El Camino Re al,Cadhd 4060 Skyline Road, Carlsbad Virginia Robertson Elsie Kelly 4040 Skyline Road, Carlsbad Feb. 27, 1962 Mary Ivan McCarthy Joe D. McCarthy 4043 Sunnyhill Drive, Carlsbad 4000 Skyline Road, Carlsbad Feb. 27, 1962 William H. Houts Mrs. William H. Houts Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Streano Feb. 27, 1962 Feb, 26, 1962 Mrs. William B . Goodwin 4027 Skyline Road, Carlsbad -. -5- . The Secretary also read the following letter of approval of the proposed extension of Tamarack: Feb. 27, 1962 Kay Kalicka P. 0. Box 71, Carlsbad The above letters are on file and are part of the record of the hearing. Chairman Grant stated that thi was the first public hearing on the Tamarack Extension and was a very/@%?# mg experience. On April 18 , 1961 the City Council instructed the Engineering Department to prepare a precise plan for the extension of Elm Avenue and Tamarack Avenue as major streets. It is a matter of procedure that the Council direct the work to be done. It could be several years before this goes into effect if this raute.i.9. adopted. The Master'Plan is a guide and has to be put into precise planning. City Engineer, Lowell A. Rathbun, stated that the basic facts were covered in the report but would be glad to answer questions. JOHN WICK 4080 Skyline stated that he congratulated Mr. Kalicka for his courage to write a letter of approval. Mr. Wick state d that if this route were to go through the City would have to make a deep cut in his property which would require an 18' to 20' retaining wall, and would be dangerous. There are lots of children in this area and they run through his property. He could have liability insurance but if these children were injured because of this wall, the City would be morally responsible. He stated that Carlsbad cannot expand to the west or to the north. He thouguthat it would expand to the east but it has not done so even with water avaiLabLe The only land to expand is to the south, and homes will be built there in the future. An east-west road should be given attention before houses are built there south of the lagoon. Mr. Rathbun stated that the engineering department did not anticipate an 18' wall. They would not have a cut that would be dangerous. MR. WICK stated that Mr. Thornton had told him they anticipated a 12' to 18' cut in the street. GORDON HARDWICK, 4135 Skyline Road stated that about 1 1/2 years ago the matter of Tamarack Avenue being a major street came up when there was a hearing for a service station on Tamarack. Most of the people west of Highland were opposed. He stated that Gordon Whitnalt report states that 8 moving Lanes of traffic is a major road. If this were designated a major road it would be appropriate to mke it a major road. He 'does not. challenge the nee'd for-a through street to El Camino Real. The city to the north has one through street on Short Street, from the ocean to El Camino Real. It is better not to have a through street in order to prevent traffic from building up excessive speed. The Highlands could be avoided completely if a road was extended from Tamarack in a southeasterly direction to EL Camino Real. Mr. Toby Thornton, Assistant City Engineer stated that the alternate route from Highland and Tamarack in a Southeasterly direction to El Camino Real is in direct conflict with the proposed major street from Terramar Drive to El Camino Real. Due to the topograph it would be costly, and it would not be an east-west route. It would create unequal spacing of major east-west streets. The Tamarack route falls within the design criteria both horizontally and vertically for a major street design. $15,000, right-of-way costs predicated on the fact that the undeveloped areas lying within this route would dedicate 60’ of right-of-way, The approximate costs would be based upon a $7,000. per acre right-of -way costs, in addition it would be necessary on this route to buy one buildable lot. Mr. Thornton stated this alignment was adopted to avoid the seven homes that have been built in the path of the proposed Gordon Whitnall plan which was prepared in 1957. Tamarack is now designated a major street from Carlsbad Boulevard to Valley Street by route location, although it has not been precised as such. Mr. Rathbun stated that the reason the homes were built there was because there were no precise plans. Chairman Grant stated that many things were brought out at this hearing that the engineers cannot answer and would require the need of an appraiser. DON BRICGS, SR. , 3978 Park Drive, asked if the original plan could have been wrong. He stated that he does not live in this area but owns property and has an interest in a proposed subdivision in the path of this route. He stated that with 45 letters protesting this proposed route and only one letter in favor of it, the Commission should make a decision on this matter, DON. A. BRIGCS, JR. , 2691 State Street stated that the people on the previous planned route would perhaps object to this as the people are doing tonight. It may be the property owners and citizens do not want any route through the Highlands: that just those that have a commercial interest want this. It is the intention of every one present and those that have written that this should be the end of this proposed route. Many people that buy homes are signing up for mortgages for thirty years, and as far as the City paying for the retaining wall and their part of the cost of this route, the property owners are the City and are the ones that are paying the taxes. He stated that he has wanted to find out about the sewers on Park Drive and the engineers have been too busy. His subdivision has to sta.t before May 9, 1962. Mr. Briggs presented a map showing his ownership of property on the proposed route. He stated that many people have asked for report studies and were denied anything in the way of a preliminary report. CRD. 0. E. SPORRER, 4061 Skyline Road asked if this road is deemed necessary and what are the reasons? Commissioner Jarvie stated that at the City Council meeting several months ago, the Mayor asked that a precise route be prepared so future buyers wouLd know of this route. Mr. Rathbun stated that in any established land there is need for north-south, east - west thoroughfares every mile# 01. so because of traffic being built up by the people living in this area; and it is expected that land east of El Camino Real will be developed in the near future. CDR. SPORER stated that .&. traffic would be caused by other people using this road and asked why the City is wanting to project this road through an area which is already developed. Other cities try to plan to avoid traffic in residential areas. The road should be down on Cannon Drive whi ch is south of the City. MR. MONTY WEAVER, 2200 Chestnut Avenue stated that he agrees with everything that was said in the letters and agrees with tbose in the audience. He lives at the corner of Chestnut and Westhaven and asked if this plan is defeated if the City would go back to the originally planned route. Mr. Thornton stated that the engineering department has considered alternate routes and there will be a hearing on the precise plan as directed by the council. MR. WEAVER asked if this lower route is ruled out, would the original route go through? Chairman Grant stated they would have to hold a hearing on it. GERALD McCLELLAN asked about the procedure considered. Can this be voted on and if turned down, what happens? The City Attorney, Mrs. Barbara Lang Hayes stated that if this is turned down, it can be appealed to the Council within ten days. If it is not appealed to the Council, it would be dead until such time as the subject is brought up again. CDR. SPORRER asked how many people were notified of this hearing? JOHN BARREIRO, JR. , stated that he was informed at the City Hall that notices had been sent to property owners within 300' of this street, but his notice had been sent to National City and was returned to the City Hall. He felt that more people should have been notified as the people do not want another meeting on this street extension The Secretary reported that notices are sent to the title owners of record as of March 15, 1961. These are the assessment records that we work with. Many people will buy property and record it and then move without notifying the County Recorder's Office of their change of address. Several letters were returned and are on file but whenever it was at all possible to find their new addresses, additional notices were sent to them. Discussion was given by the Commissioners as to whether they should make a decision at this hearing. The City Attorney stated that if the public hearing is closed, they would not be able to continue the hearing to a later date. The public hearing was closed at 10:40 P.M. It was pointed out that a precise plan should have been prepared after the adoption of the Master Street Plan years ago. After further discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Neiswender, it was unanimously agreed that the amendment to the Master Street Plan relating to the extension of Tamarack Avenue be denied for the following reasons: 1. Overwhelming objections by the citizens affected. 2. The result of heavy noise, traffic, fumes and dirt through a residential area would have a detrimental effect on the values of property in the affected area. -8 - 3. The plan to realign Tamarack along the proposed realignment route should have been established and precised prior to the development of the area concerned. Old Business. Panhandles. Chairman Grant requested the Secretary to make a study of "panhandles" and the way other cities handle this situation, and to place this matter on the next agenda for March 13, 1962. New Business. kequest from *he Engineering Department that the Planning Commission grant variance on lot splits subject to the City Engineer's requirements on monumenta- tion. The Secretary stated that the Resolution granting a lot split should be subject to the City Engineer's requirements on monumentation. The Chairman suggested that a study be made for commercial zoning on Roosevelt, south of Oak. There is a million dollar development going in on Roosevelt and Magnolia for the Senior Citizens and commercial zoning should be considered. Chairman Grant appointed a committee of Commissioners Hughes and Ward, with Commissioner Hughes as chairman, to make an immediate study of this and to consult with the citizens on Roosevelt Street to get their opinions on this matter. The Chairman suggested reviewing the Master Plan and bringing it up to date. Chairman Grant stated that there had been many changes made since the Master Plan had been prepared, e. g. , tine Hosp Eucalyptus Grove and the City Hall Site. The Master Plan is an essential guide but should be revitalized. Chairman Grant appointed a committee, with the concurrence of the other members, to begin a Long -range study of the Master Plan in order to bring it up to date. Appointed to chairman the committee was Commissioner Jarvie, to be assisted by Commis-' I sioners Ward and Hughes. It was the opinion of some of the Commissioners that the Master Plan was not followed closely the first few years. Although there are four members of the Commission seeking public office, the Commission agreed that it was well to begin the study now to provide continuity regardless of the makeup of the next Commission. Commissioner Jarvie stated he would be glad to chairman this committee with the help of the Secretary and the others. Chairman Grant stated that Terramar Road (commonly known as Cannon Drive) is in a position now to be studied under the long range plan for extending this street. He stated that the Secretary has the capacity and ability to supervise this project. Mr. Thornton suggested that the committee start at the beginning of the Gordon Whitnall book and go through the book bringing up to date the changes that have been made. -9 - Commissioner Hughes asked Commissioner Neiswender what the objections would be from Terramar Road. Commissioner Neiswender stated there/will never be an off ramp at U. S. 101 and Cannon overpass. The houses are built within 10’ or 15’ of this road so the road width would have to be taken off of the Gas Company property. probably The Secretary stated that a report should be sent to the Council of those that do not plan to serve on the Commission again. Commissioners Davis and Kistler stated that they do not wish to serve any Longer on the Planning Commission after their terms expire. Adjournment: By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 11 :10 P. M. Respectfully submitted, J. If. PRICE, Secretary