Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962-09-25; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 25, 1962 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by Chairman Ewald, Present besides the Chairman yere Commissioners Davis, Ward, Grant, Palmer Jarvie and Sonneman. Approval of Minutes of September 11, 1962. A motion was made by Commissioner Sonneman and seconded by Cornmissioner Grant that the minute8 of September 11, 1962, be approved as corrected. All Ayes, motion carried. Written Communications. There were no written communications. Oral Communications, There were no oral communications. HEARING - RECLASSIFICA TION -~ B manning Commission by Risolution of ’ Intention No. 33. The Secretary certified as to publication of notice of hearing and that notices had been sent to property owners in the area. The Secretary then reviewed Resolution of Intention No. 33 initiating this reclassification and reported there was one item of correspondence on this from Mr Ronald C. Roeschlaub, Attorney, 2975 Wilshirt Boulevard, Los Angeles, representing Ana B. Lewis , dated September 25, 1962, stating that he favored this proposed action. Mr. Warren Turner of Warren Turner Investments, representing A, W. Lewis and Lido Land Company telephoned from Newport Beach that morning stating that he approved this reclassification. No one present spoke for or against this request. ., Chairman Ewald explained that this property in East Carlsbad Annexation No. 2.2 came into the City as R-1 property. The Secretary presented a map of the proposed zoning of East Catlsbad Annexation No. 2.2 and explained that it would be necessary to have a hearing before the property with a Potential “M” zone could be used for “M”zOne,however, people will know in advance that it could be zoned ”M”. Chairman Ewald stated that due to the topography, the northerly portion of the property to be zoned €3-A with a Poiential "M" zcne, did not lend itself to this, use as it is not the same as the rest of t'uis property. There would be about3006 frontal on El Camino Real that would have Potential M zon;ng. The public hearing was closed at 7:45 P.M. Comrnisuoner Grant stated that the ''Wake Up and Let's Grow Committee" had not considered the property across from this property on the westerly side of Et Camin Real for "M" zoning as the airport may need this property for extending their run- ways. The property considered for "M" zoning by the committee was north of the airport. Mr. C. R. Thornton, Assistant Engineer, explained on the map the property pro- posed for the potential "M" zone. Chairman Ewald stated that he felt this property should be cut off even on the northerly side as the property drops down. Commissioner Grant stated that the Commission should bare in mind that they are just dkxassing Potential "M" and is in favor of Leaving it the way it stands as there are a great many cases where earth moving machinery can level or fill in deep cuts JACK KUBOTA, 2965 Roosevelt, stated the Carlsbad Municipal Water District put a pipe line along this property and they cou1d;not walk back up the northerly portion of this property. The elevation drops down about 100' or more below the rest of the property and there is a lake and summer cottage down there. The mesa area on tot has access to El Camino Real and utilities are available. He stated that his corn.- ments were just a matter of observation. After a short discussion, it was agreed that the fo!bwing facts exist: 1. That such reclassification 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. 2. That it would be the best usage of the land and would be compatible with surrounding property. 3. That it is advantageous to rezone before other development of surrounding property. Resolution No. 262. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COM- -NDING RECLASSIFICATION FROM ZONE R-1 TO R-A, AND CITY OF CARLSBAD, was unanimously adopted on Commissioner Grant's motion, seconded by Commissioner Sonneman. HEARING -AMENDMENT TO MASTER STREET PLAN- This change being initiated by the Carlsbad City Plan- ning Commission by Resole tion of Intention No. 32, und the provisions of Article 8, Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of Califor nia . R -A WITH POTENTIAL "M" ZONE OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN TH; -3 1. 2. 3. 4. Bv deletina the Drowsed extension of - pamarack Ave. , from Pi0 pic0 Drive to kl Gamino Real via West Haven and Chestnut Ave. , as a major street. f3y designating Chestnut Ave from Monrot st. to El Camino Real as a. secondary street with 62' minimum rieht of wav w with a 48' paved curb to curb roadway &marack Ave. from Carlsbad Blvd. to Pi0 Pic0 Dr. remain a major street. That Tamarack Ave.from Pi0 Pic0 Drive w1 at a Doint aDnroxirnateLv 1100' south of . intersection of Park Dr. and Monroe . -. .. Street. be desismated as a secondarv street -with 68' &ht of way with 48'' paved curb to curb roadway width. The Secretary certified as to publication of notice of hearing and that notices had been sent to property owners in the area. The Secretary reviewed Resolution of Intention No. 32 initiating this amendment. There were 2 items of correspondence on this matter. Letter from E. C. Pedley, 3679 Valley, dated September 21, 1962 stating that he opposes proposition #4, as he did not believe it was necessary to widen Tamarack. He does think a street should be opened from Highland to Park Drive. He thought the Commission should ask the State for an underpass at Chestnut, and make Chest- nut a through street from Roosevelt to El Camiuo Real. Letter from Jack R. Estes and Ruth R. Estes, 1199 Tamarack, dated September 24, 1962, stating they were opposed to the widening of Tamarack and felt that if the ..*. ,- street is widened, the property should be taken off of both sides of Tamarack and not just the south side as the street would come too close to their house. They objected to the property owners on the north side putting improvements in without having a public hearing. They asked why the City taxed the citizens for a Master Plan and then change it. They asked that the widening of Tamarack be denied and that a long range plan of study be made for streets. Chairman Ewald asked the City Engineer, Lowell A. Rathbun, to explain these proposed amendments on the map. Mr. Rathbun explained that the major streets are in red and the secondary streets are blue, and that at the present time Tamarack is designated as P major street. We then explained the proposed changes to the Master Street Plar Mrs. Frances Armstrong, 3997 Park Drive, stated that she has one of the houcres where the road would come through on Park Drive, north of the bamboo; and is a1 for progress and is in favor of Tamarack extending to Park Drive, if it does not cost her. She explained that she is a widow raising two children. Mr. Thornton reported that the City will require 8' of her property for rights of way and that her house has an approximate 24' setback from the exio.'.ing property line. -4 - Mr. Rathbun explained th2f if the route is authorized, the City Council probably will be willing to offer adequate compensation. This has not been discussed with her as the route has not been adopted. If the projected road benefits the property and opens up landh cked property, the compensation would probably be reduced accordingly. In Mrs. Armstrong's case, she would not be able to get more lots off her property and there should be negotiations after the Commission and Council have precised this plan. H. 0. SYLVESTER, 3546 Highland Drive stated that he was concerned with Item 2, . as he felt that by having additional curbs and gutter east of Monroe Street on Chest- nut that there would be added drainage coming down on his property. Mr. Thornton ez..Glained that Mr. Sylvester's property extends from Highland to the bottom of the hill below Valley Street and to Chestnut Avenue, being L shaped. There is a natural drainage on his property. MR. SYLVESTER stated that every time an additional street is put in easterly of his property on Chestnut that more water drains on his property. His most easterly property line is about 3 blocks below Westhaven Drive and picks up all of that drainage. P. J. FOLZ, 2055 Chestnut, stated that he resides east of Monroe Street, where Item 2 starts eastward, and inquired as to what the improvement costs would be to the property owners there, and where the center line of the street is that they would measure from, and if they would take the rights of way from both sides of the street He also asked the Commission if they felt Chestnut Avenue is wide enough to bare a1 of the traffic by making it a thoroughfare or major street. He feels that the original Master Plan going up Elm Avenue to El Camino R eal is a better through street because of the children and school on Chestnut, and that the extension of Elm Avenue is important to eliminate traffic on Chestnut. Chairman Ewald explained that at the present time this point is designated as a majo street with an 84' right of way but at this hearing the Commission is considering reducing this right of wav to a secondary street from Monroe to El Camino Real with a 62' minimum right of way with a 48' paved curb to curb roadway width. Mr. Thornton stated that the City will pay for 54% of the improvements, which include curbs, gutters, sidewalks and paving. It will cost the property owners approximately $8.54 per front footage, and would include improvements to the centerline of the street. The curbs and gutters will be 24' from the centerline of the street. ALEX WOLENCHUCK, 2034 Chestnut Avenue, stated that he has the house across from Mr. Folz and already has curb and gutter. He asked if they would have to pay for additional improvements. Mr. Thornton stated that they would be credited with improvements that are existing Commissioner Davis stated that the Commission are not considering paving or widening this now and are just establishing a precise plan now. MR. WOLENCHUCK stated that he has to be considering this now so that he can make plans. MRS. ARMSTRONG stated that she is in favor of the street but has to make plans also, Her property is not fronting this street but the side is 200'. Mr. Rathbun exptained that thie street will benefit the property owners and that the City formerly paid 52% of the improvements, but now they pay 54%. This is provided by gas tax monies for major or secondary streets. JACK KUBOTA, 2965 Roosevelt, stated that he was not in opposition to these streets but questiened the width of the various streets, as the Commission has suggested 62' and 68' and the subdivision ordinance states that every street shall have 66' right of way. He stated that Mrs. Armstrong would only sacrifice 2'. He felt that if the City want to maintain some uniformity, they should have 66' right of way. Mr. Rathbun explained that Chestnut already has an existing 60' right of way with sidewalk at curb to Monroe Street and that it was the thinking of the Planning Commission that this same basic design should be continued to El Camino Real. They have considered Tamarack from Pi0 Pic0 to Park Drive with a 68' right of way in order to have parkways between the sidewalks and the curbs as this will be a continuation of what has already been constructed. MR. FOLZ stated that he knows there were extenuating circumstances on Chestnut but feels it would have been better to have moved the poles back from the middle of the sidewalks. MR. WALEENCHUCK asked if there would be parkways on Chestnut or if the side- walks would be contiguous to the curbs as he has curb and gutter in; and has trees planted, which he has spent a great deal of time and water on. He wanted to know if these trees would have to be moved. Mr. Rathbun stated that the Council would have to determine this and that hearings no doubt would be held by the Council. The public hearing was closed at 8:42 P.M. Mr. Jarvie asked about the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Estes as it sounded like they were not notified of this hearing. The Secretary assured him that the Estes were properly notified. Mr. Rathbun stated t? at a considerable amount of improvements have been put in on the no th side of Tamarack and that if the street is widened on that side, these curbs, gu ers and sidewalks and driveway approaches would have to be removed which woul b be very costly to the City as well as creating extemely steep driveway approaches. 8' of right of way would be taken from the southerly side of Tamarack. Mr. Thornton reported that when Mr. Estes came in to build his house, he was told that he was faced with an additional 12' right of way at that time. His house is approximately 24' or 26' from the existing right of way line. The Secretary called attention to the fact that Mr. Estes would be gaining 4' on this new proposed plan. Mr. Rathbua stated that the property owners on the south side feel this is an injustice but in the opinion of the engineering department, this 8' would not cause severe damage to the property owners on the south. Commissioner Grant asked about the drainage on the Sylvester property. Mr. Thornton stated that there are two 30" concrete pipe lines on Chestnut in line with the natural drainage channel. Mr. Rathbun stated that the amount of runoff increases as the tributary area is developed. The second problem is that at times when there is no storm runoff, stagnate water and weeds at the discharge point become a nuisance. This is on the list of projects that have been brought before the Council. There is another case which the property owner is willing to pay 50% of the costs to put pipeline under ground. Holiday Manor Subdivision, to the south, are participating by installing 800' of 48" reinforced concrete pipe storm drain in the same drainage channel. Chairman Ewald pointed out that improvements and sidewalks are in on the north side of Tamarack between Adams and Highland. Mr. Rathbun stated that he anticipates there will be widening on both sic'Ts of Tamarack by the overpass at the Freeway. Commissioner Ward stated that he did not feel that additional curbs and gutters on Chestnut would aggrevate the condition of drainage on Mr. Sylvester's property. After due consideration, it was agreed that the above amendments to the Carlsbad City Master Plan be recommended, that the following facts exist: 1. That it would be most logical to designate Chestnut Avenue from Monroe Street to El Camino Real as a secondary street with 62' minimum right of way with a 48' paved curb to curb roadway width, since Chestnut already is a secLndary strer from Pi0 Pic0 to Monroe. 2. That it is the most feasible and logical solution to the extension of Tamarack to have it extend to Park Drive as a secondary street with 68' right of way with 48' paved curb to curb roadway width. 3. That this is better planning than extending Tamarack to El Camino Real via Westhaven Drive. Resolution No. 263. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNXNG COM- THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, was unanimously adopted on Commissioner Sonneman's motion, seconded by Commissioner Palmer. Mr. Thornton explained that the adoption of these amendments to the Master Street Plan and the recommendations of the Planning Commission would be sent to the City Council and the Council would direct the Engineering Department to precise plan these streets after a hearing is held before the Council and when they adopt these recommendations HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Request of James S. Hanton for Condition- N~TSSINNDING AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER STREET PLAN OF al Use Permit to allow ambulance service at 2956 State Street, located on the easterly side of State St. between Elm Ave and Grand Ave. more particularly described as a portion of Carlsbad Townsite, Map 775 in the City of Garlskd Book 203, Page 292 , Parcel 4, of the Assessor's Map of San Diego County, in accordance with Ordinance No. 9060. -7 - Notice of hr ;.Ling 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 Conditional Use Permit , and explained that this request required a lease of the property to operate an ambulance service with quarters for two men and ambulance, and that this is in the heart of the business district. The Secretary reported that there was one item of correspondence on this matter. Letter dated September 16, 1962, from Roy W. Pace, 2757 Arland Road, stating that he is in favor of this. The Secretary also reported that he had checked with the Police Department and they are in concurrence with this Conditional Use Permit. JAMES HANLON, 971 Highway 101, Encinitas, stated that he was the applicant and feels the City is large enough to warrant an ambulance service and the location of this service is easily accessible to Carlsbad Boulevard, Vista Way and 101 Freeway He has been in business in Oceanside and Del Mar since 1956 and has good equipmehr They will be on call 24 hours a day, and when out of City, they will be covered from Encinitas. Someone wiLl be on duty at all times and they have an answering service. They are always on calL and they have a radio in the ambulance. They will operate the ambulance north to Vista Way and south to the Ponto Overpass but they can go anywhere if called. The Oceanside Police Department knows they are going in here and if McCabbe Ambulance Service is out on call, they will call them. The ambuLancE service will be located between Garcia's Barber Shop and A-1 Garage. The ambu- lance will use the alley and will stop with the red light on when entering Elm or: Grand Avenue when on a call. Hisdriver is 32 years of a e and has had 12 years driving experience. Mr. Hanlon stated that he carries a 8 500,000, liability insurance and the State passed a law requiring that after October 1 , 1962, all ambulance drivers will be required to have a special permit to drive. He has gone to consider able trouble to get this ambulance service set up here and intends to stay. Commissioner Grant explained that Mr. Garcia is putting a new front on the build- ings and is paving the back of this property for this equipment. No one spoke against this request. The public hearing was closed at 9: 12 P.M. After due consideration, it was agreed &at a Condtional Use Permit shall be issued for the following reasons: 1. TL?t there is no ambulance service available in the City. 2. The location is centrally located and is easily accessible to Cartrbad Boulevard, U. S. 101 Freeway and Vista Way. 3. That it would be in the best interests o€ public necessity and convenience. Resolution No. 264. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COM- A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON A PORTION OF CARLSBAQ TOWNSITE, MAP 775, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, was adopted on Commissione Jarvie'a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ward. AYES: Commissioners Davis, datd, Grant, Ewald, Palmer and Jarvio. HOES None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Comrnllrioasr Soamsanua. "8" It was painted out that a Conditional Use Permit is issued on the property and is not transferable. A recess was called at 9:18, Reconvened at 9:28 P.M. HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "To allow Public Utility Operations at Calaveras .Lake, located easterly of El Camino R t.4, being portion of Ea st Carlsbad Annexation 2.2, more particu? larly described as Parcel 2, Book 168, Page 040, and Parcels 11 , 12 and 13, Boo( Book 168, Page 020, of the County Asses - sor's Map of San Diego County, being por- tion of lots E and L, D and I, Rancho Agua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad; and To allow Public Utility Operations at Squires Dam Site, being a portion of East Carlsbad Annexation No. 2.2, more partic ularly described as Portion Lot C, Rancho Agua Hedionda, Map 823 in the City of Carlsbad, Parcel, 9, Book 169, Page 010, of the County Assessor's Map of San Diego County; said request being initiated by Resolution of Intention No. 34 of the Carls- bad City Planning Commission in accord- ance with Ordinance No. 9060 of 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. The Secretary then reviewed Resolution of Intention No. 34 initiating this request for a Conditional Use Permit. There was one item of correspondence on this from Mr. Ronald C. Roeschlaub, Attorney, 2975 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, representing Ann B. Lewis, dated September 25, 1962, stating that he favored this proposed action. Mr. Warren Turner of Warren Turner Investments, representing A. W. Lewis and Lido Land Company, telephoned from Newport Beach that morning stating that he approved this reclassification. No one present spoke for or against this request. The public hearing was closed at 9:37 P.M. JACK KUBOTA stated that he realized the public hearing was closed but that he represented the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and wished to thank the Commission for their cooperation in said situation and hope to be good neighbors to the City of Carlsbad. The Secretary reported that he had checked the uses out with the Carlsbad Municipal Water District attorney and this meets with their approval. It wae agreed that the €allowing facts exist: 1. That the ins?..lLations were in existence prior to the property being annexed to the City. 2. That the granting of this conditional use permit will not be unreasonably incompatible with type of use permitted in the surrounding area and zone. 3. That the granting of such conditonal use permit will be materially beneficial to the public welfare and will not be unduly injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 4. That it would be in the best interests of public necessity and convenience and that it would validate the existing usage for which the properties are being used. Resolution No. 265. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COM- OPERATIONS AT CALAVERAS LAKE AND SQUIRES DAM SITE IN EAST CARLSBAD ANNEXATION NO. 2.2 IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, was unanimously adopted on Commissioner Palmer's motion, seconded by Commissioner Davis. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "0 ALLOW PUBLIC UTILITY Old Business. By common consent this was carried over to the next meeting. New Business. By common consent this was CP :'. ied over to the next meeting. Adjournment. By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9:43 P. M. Respectfully submitted, J. H. PRICE, Secretary