HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-04-12; Planning Commission; MinutesApril 12, 1960
Minutes of March 22, 1960. It was moved by Commissioner Jarvie and seconded by
Commissioner Thomas that the minutes of the March 22, 1960, meeting be approved as submitted.. All ayes, motion carried.
Written Communications:
There were no written communications.
gral Comnunicationsr
There were no oral commtnications.
CONTINUED HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION - Request of W. A. Stringer for reclassi- fication of Lots 5 and 6, Block 67,
Carlsbad Townsites from RIP to C-2.
Due to Chairman Stringer's personal interests in this matter, he disqualified
himself and Vice Chairman Zahler conducted the hearing.
Notice of hearing was read. The Recording Secretary certified as to the publi- cation of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Recording Secretary then read the application submitted by the owner setting forth the reasons for requesting the reclassification. There was no written correspondence on the matter.
MK. STRINGER stated that he had been informed that at the previous meeting there had been two ladies present who were interested in the hearing. He talked with one of them, Mrs. Henrietta Rawson, who owns a parcel of ground 50' north of his property. She had attended on an informative basis as much as to protest. She
was concerned that if the eoning on the property in question were changed, it would affect the use of her property. He had gone over the zoning ordinance
with her and answered her questions regarding the change, After reading perti- nent sections of the ordinance, she had M further objections.
Mr. Stringer further stated that Mr. Albert Carne, owner of property west of his
property, had telephoned the City Hall and asked that this hearing be continued to the next meeting as he wanted to protest this zone change and could not attend
this meeting. Mr. Came had come to Mr. Stringer after the publication of the
hearing in the newspaper and stated that he was opposed to the change. He felt
that the zone was fine as it is now and that Carlsbad did not need any more comercia1 zoning. Mr. Stringer said that he had tried to contact Mr. Carne again before this meetiq to see if he still felt the same, but could not get in touch with him.
Mr. Stringer also talked with Dr. Pakard of Carlsbad who owns two lots north of
his. After explaining the uses of C-2 zoningp Dr. Pakard concurred with his application for a rezone. However, his brother, Dr. Pakard of Oceanside, was uncertain as to his stand on the matter. Mr. Stringer stated that he felt the
reclassificatib,' should 5c conyidcred in the ?j::lL -f its benefit to the town, not individuals. Mr, Stringer stated tiiail i.ik Pace owns lots across from
Dr. Pakard and that he was in agreement with this change, and he felt that the area would eventually become a C-2 zone since er4ansion of the business district
would be in that direction,
Mr, Stringer further pointed out that originally all the area between Madison
and Harding and Elm and Grand was to be zoned C-2, going back to the alley East
of Harding. But several people had had objections to this zoning because they
wanted to use the property for residential purposes, so just one tier of lots on
both sides of Herding at its intersection with Elm, were zoned C-2. The zone
change would create Cu2 zoning on the East side of Herding and R-P directly
across the street. However, Mr. Stringer pointed out that these two zones are certainly compatible.
The public hearing was closed at 7:55 P.M.
Commissioner Jarvie stated that he felt It was unfortunate that those people who were interested in the area were not able to attend the hearing and give the Commission their viewpoints.
Commissioner Netka felt that if any of them were genuinely interested in the matter, they could have made an effort to be present at the hearing, file a
formal protest in the form of a letter or make fowl request for the continu-
ation of the hearing to a future date. He did not feel that the Commission was
responsible for considering rumors of opposition to the re-zoning,
Considerable discussion was given this matter and the Comnission agreed that the area bounded by Grand, Elm, Carlsbad Blvd, and the Freeway is potentially C-2
zone area, with possible spreadiq toward Oak, Pfne and Laguna.
It was moved by Comissioner Thomas and seconded by Comnissioner Netka that
that Resolution No. 156 be adopted, reconanending to the City Council that the property described as Lots 5 and 6, Block 67, Carlsbad Townsite, be reelassified from RIP to C-2 for the following reasons:
1. Reclassification of the property would allow the best use for
2. This would be an expansion of an existing zone, rather than spot
3, It is particularly well-suited to C-2 zoning, since there are
4. There were no written or oral protests.
future development .
zoning.
alleys already established,
The Vice Chairman called for a roll call vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Zahler, Commissioners Netka, Ward, Thomas, MilIer
NOES: None,
ABSTAINED: Chairman Stringer.
and Jarvie.
ABSENT: NOM
Resolution No. 156 adopted.
5- New Business:
a. Report of San Diego County Planning Congress m&Ling of March 28, 1960.
Commissioner Thomas, Carlsbad's delegate to the San Diego Planning Congress,
reported that he had been unable to attend the meeting, but that Conmissioner
Ward, our alternate delegate, had attended with the Secretary. A report of
the meeting was given by Comnissioner Ward. The following is a brief summary
of his report, a formal report being on file in the office of the Secretary.
The first panel discussion was on the subject of Subdivision and Grading - Erosion Control. Mr. David K, Spear, County Planning Couanissioner, was the first speaker on this panel, He stated that 60X of San Diego County's area is hill formation and 40% is level arear Since most of the level area is already occupied, it has become necessary for new sites to be established in hill areas. Unless drainage is carefully handled, many problems could arise at theseltes because
of the required cuts and fills.
Mr. Ernest Taylor, of Oceanside, was the second speaker on this panel, He posed several questions for the Panel to consider: (1) What is a City's responsibility in approving a .grading plan? (2) What should be the standard set for slopes3
(3) What height should cuts and fills be limited to? (4)'How should slopes be
drained? (5) Who is responsible for their maintenance, the property owner
below the slope or the owner above the slope?
The third speaker, Mr. Ed Gabrielson, City Engineer for San Diego, gave some
answers to Mr. Taylor's questions, The City of San Diego recommends planting
of ice plant and other plants and terracing to take care of gr8ding and main- tenance of slopes. The City of San Diego limits cuts and fills to a maximum height of 60 ft. Anything over that height is treated as a special variation.
As to drainage on hillsides where new construction is under consideration, the
approved plan by the City makes the City responsible for drainage damage. He recarmended drainage other than natural to be placed underground.
The next speaker was Mr. Thomas V, Essen, Site Engineer FHA. He stated that
data on soil conditions such as up-and-down characteristics and angle of friction
should be included in all soil reports that go through FHA for study. The
standard set by FHA for angle of slopes and cuts is 2-1 for fills and 1-1/2 tO
1 on cuts.
The Land Planner for FHA was the last speaker on this panel. He stated that cuts
and fills should be avoided wherever possible, and that FHA does not approve drainage over a slope, They recommend that the property line of a lot be at the
top of a slope and the lot at the bottom of a slope would take care of the slope,
Mr. Heimlick further stated that FHA standards call for the use of natural earth
as a fill whenever poss ible .
The second panel discussion was, on the topic of Performance Zoning. The
speakers on this panel were Mr. Peter Q. Burton, Mr. Grant Burns, Mr. Gordon La
Edward, and Mr, M. David Smith. They defined Performance Zoning as the control
of noise, fire hazard, dirt, electrical interference, vibration, building
standards, odors, poke, etc, They pointed out that control of these things is
very difficult to establish, since what is acceptable to one person in the level
of noise or odor may be extremely annoying to another. They agreed that cOmnOn sense should be the main controlling factor in establishing restrictions.
6- Old Business:
a. Report and recommendation of the Committee on tt& re-zoning of property
located between Chestnut and Tamarack, East of the A,T. & S.F. Railroad
and West of Magnolia, Roosevelt and Jefferson. Commissioners Jarvie, Miller
- .. -. . and Thomas,
The Committee reported that they had not come to a definite conclusion as to
their recommendation for the re-zoning of this property. The Chairman stated
that it was his opinion that the Commission should consider the best interests
of the City in studying this area.
Commissioner Thomas stated that he had talked with Mr. Koyl recently, and that
his current plan was to file a subdivision map for his parcel, making use of
the present R-1 zoning. He further reported that Mr. Koyl had stated that he
was not in favor of Mr. Dinius's plan for the re-zoning and the proposed street,
Chairman Stringer pointed out to the Commission that Mr. Koyl had not filed a
subdivision tentative map and that the question before them at this time was
whether or not they would recommend any re-zoning of the remaining property
adjacent to Mr. Dinius's proposed street to be considered at the same rime that
his application was heard, thus formulating a plan for the entire area.
After considerable discussion and study of a map of the area in question, it
was moved by Commissioner Zahler and seconded by Commissioner Netka that
Resolution of Intention No. 15 be adopted to consider a recommendation to the
City Council that the following described property be re-classified as follows:
Reclassification from Zone R-1 (one-family residential) to Zone R-3 (multiple-
family residential) the following described property:
That portion of Carlsbad Acre Tract, Tract 107 and Lots 1 and 2, Sec, 7-124W lying westerly of 8 line drawn S55O27'W from B point on the Southerly line of
2nd Street which is 180 ft. westerly from the most easterly comer of Tract 107
(except the northwesterly 3 acres of Tract 107) and being Tax Assessor's Parcel
10, Book 35, Page 35 of the Assessor's Map of San Diego County, excepting there-
from that portion of said parcel lying southwesterly of a line drawn parallel.
with and distant 235 ft. easterly from the easterly right-of-way line of the
A.T. 6 S.F. Railroad.
That portion of Carlsbad Acre Tract, beginning at the intersection of the East
line of Lot 1, Sec, 7-12-4W and the Northeasterly line of the A.Tw & S.F. rail-
road right of way, thence No.. 0°28'W 115.65 ft., thence N 5S027'E 434.93 ft. to
the Southwesterly line of 2nd Street in Town of Cerlsbad, thence N34O33.W along
Southwesterly line of said street 180 ft., thence S55O27'W 499.74 ft. to the
Northeasterly line of said railroad right-of-way, thence S34O33'E along said
right of way 275.74 ft. to the beginning, being a portion of Lots 1 and 2, Sec,
7-12-4W and portion of Acre Tract 107 and Block A according to Map 535 in the
City of Carlsbad, being Tax Assessor's Parcel 11, Book 35, Page 35 of the
Assessor's Map of San Diego County, excepting therefrom that portion of said
parcel lying Southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 235 ft.
Easterly of the Easterly right-of-way line of the A,Tw 6 S.F. railroad.
That portion of Thum L?n?s, Traqt 231, beginning 8t thc Eortheast corner of
Tract 231, thence So. 2.8°39'OO',E 193.01 ft., thti:t So, 6l021'0(rW 623.77 ft.
to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNIG, thence So. 2Qo39*Ci)!' E 213.88 ft., thence So,
61*21100" W 396.03 ft., thence No, 34O36'00'1 W 215.04 ft., thence No, 61°21'0@*
E 418.32 Et. to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING in Thum Lands Tract 231 and being Tax Assessor's Parcel 7A, Book 35, Page 133 of the Assessor's Map of San Diego
County, excepting therefrom that portion of said parcel lying Southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 235' Eatterly from the Easterly right-
of-way line of the A,T. & S .F. rat lroad.
That portion of Thum Lands, Tract 231, beginning at a point on the West line of
Tamarack Ave. distant thence So, 6lo21'W 708.35 ft, from the Southeast corner of
Tract 231¶ thence No, 28O39'W 226.80 ft., thence So. 61°21'W 107.50 ft. more
or less to a point distant No. 61°21'E 360 ft. from the northeast line of the
A,T. & S.F. Railroad, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, thence con- tinuing south 61O21'W to a point in said Northeast railroad line, thence along said Northeast railroad line No. 34O33IW 521.42 ft, thence No. 5S027'E 200.63 ft., thence So. 3h026'E 104.60 ft., thence No, 61°21'E to intersection with
a line drawn No, 28O39'W from TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, thence So. 28O39'E to
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNIN3 in Tract 231, excepting therefrom that portion lying southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 235' easterly of the easterly right-of-way line of the A.T, & S.F, Railroad, being the northeast
portion of Tax Assessor's parcels 8A and 1oA1, Book 35, Page 133, of the
Assessor's Map of San Diego County.
That portion of Thum Lands Tract 231 beginning at a point on the northwest line
of Tamarack Avenue distant thence So. 6lo21'W 802.35 ft. from the intersection
with the west line of Jefferson Street, thence No. 28O39'W 129.80 ft. to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNXhG, thence continuing No, 28O39IW 97 ft. thence So,
6lo21'W to intersection with Northeast line of A.T. & S.F. Railroad thence along
said Northeast line So, 34O33'E to intersection with B line that bears
So. 61°21'W from TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, thence No. 61°21*E to TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING in Tract 231, excepting therefrom that portion lying Southwesterly of a line drawn parallel to and distant 235' Easterly from the Easterly right-of-
way line of the A,T. 6 S.F. Railroad and being the northeast porticm of Tax
Assessor's parcel. 10D, Book 35, Page 133 of the Assessor's Map of San Diego
County.
Reclassification from R-1 to R-3 that portion of the following described parcel,
lying Northeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 235 ft. Easterly from the Easterly right-of-way line of the A.T. Or S.F, Railroad; and the
reolassificaticm from R-1 to M (industrial) that portion of the same following
described parcel lying Southwesterly of the above described line:
Beginning at a point on the west line of Tract 231, 711.67 ft. south from the
west corner of said Tract, thence North along said west line 711.67 ft,, thence
No. Oo28'W, 115.65 ft. thence No. 55O27'E 330.63 ft., thence So. 8g026'E 280.81
ft., thence So. 23OE 579.24 ft., thence So. 61°21'W 310.82 ft,, thence So.
34O36'E to a point No. 5S027*E from point of beginning thence So. 55O27'W 200.63
ft. to point of beginning (except street closed adjacent) being Tax Assessor's
Parcel I, Book 35, Page 133 of the Assessor's Map of San Diego County.
The reclassification from R-P to R-3 the following described property:
Portion of Carlsbad Acre Tract described as the Southwest 80 ft, of the Northeast
230 ft. of the Northwest 3 acres in Acre Tract 107, and being Tax Assessor's
Parcel 6, Book 35, Page 35 of the Assessor's Map of San Diego County.
4..
Portion of Carlsbad ACT? 'Pract devribed as the STurhrge ... i:erly 70 ft. of the
Northeast 300 ft. of tlic Northwesterly 3 acres it: Azre Tract 107, and being
Tax Assessor's Parcel 7, Book 35, Page 35 of the Assessor's Map of San Diego
County, excepting therefrom that portion of said parcel lying southwesterly of
a line drawn parallel to and distant 235' Easterly from the Easterly right-of-
way line of the A.T, & S.F. Railroad.
The reclassification from RIP to M the following described property:
Carlsbad Acre Tract. That portion of Block D as per Maps 535 and 775 in the
City of Carlsbad and closed alley adjacent in the Northwesterly 3 acres in Acre
Tract 107 and being Tax Assessor's Parcel 9, Book 35, Page 35 of the Assessor's
Map of San Diego County.
The reasons for consideration being given to this recommendation being:
1. That the area is not properly zoned at the present time for its
2, That a comprehensive general plan for the development of the hole
3. Such a rezoning would better suit the comprehensive general plan and
highest and best use.
area is necessary for the orderly development of the area.
further the economic interests of the City and the individual property
owners concerned.
The Chainnan called for a roll call vote:
AYES: Chaimn Stringer, Commissioners Netka, Zahler, Ward, Tbomas,
NOES: None,
ABSENT: None . Miller and Jarvie.
Resolution of Intention No, 15 adopted.
b. Budget for 1960-61,
The Commission reviewed the budget which they tentatively considered at the
March 22nd meeting. After further discussion it was moved by Comnissioner
Zahler and seconded by Comnissioner Thomas that the budget as drawn up at the
March 22nd meeting be adopted as their final budget request, which is ae
f 01 lows:
Salaries and Wages $5200.
Travel Expense 1 so.
Advertising and PubIications 200.
Office Supplies 75. Books 10. Memberships 10.
Equipment so.
$5695. All ayes, motion carried.
The Bommission discussed sending a letter to the City Council along with the
budgetary request stating their feelings regarding their reconmended salary
raise for the Planning Director and Secretary, Mr. Harry Price. A motion was
made by Commissioner Netka and seconded by Commissioner Zahler that the Chairman submit a letter to the City Council in support of thelr recommended'.salary raise.
All ayes, motion carried.
-64-
The subject of a cross s;:zeet between Grand end 1~$rm %.LIS brought up by the
Chairman, who stated thet he would certainly like ta see this street put
through as soon as possible. After considerable discussion by the Commission,
they felt that the financing of the street should be taken care of by a 1911 Act
or a street district, spreading the cost on the owners of the property in the business district. They felt that the only costs the City should be respon- sible for are costs involved in the engineering of it, They felt that the City should take the lead in getting the project started. By cannon consent
of the Commission, the Secretary was directed to send a memorandum to the City
Council that they take into consideration allowing funds in the 1960-61 budget
for the engineering coats of such a cross street and leading the people toward starting the project.
7- By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
Respectfully,
Secretary