Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-05-23; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF May 23, 1961 Comnissioners Hardwick and Hughes. 2- Approval of Minutes of May 9, 1961. A motion was made by Comnissioner Davis and seconded by Comnissioner Kistler that the minutes of May 9, 1961 be approved as submitted. All ayes, motion carried. Comnissioqer Hughes was present at 7:33 P.M. 3- Written Communication: The Secretary reed a letter from Terramar Association, p.0~ Wx 14, Cer1Sbads dated March 18, 1961, addressed to the Planning Cmission, in which they re- quest that the thoroughfare currently known as Terramar Drive be renamed to read Cannon Road. The letter contained the signatures of the nine members Of tht Board of Directors of Terrmr As~ociation. The Secretary pointed out on the map to the Cbnmission that on paper there was an existing Cannon Street running through Hasp Eucalyptus Grove northerly from Basswood. It was agreed that Terramar Drive is the only name ever given that street since the City was in- corporated. The name of Cannon Street would have to be changed and due to the fact that there are homes that have frontage on the improved portion of Cannon Street and have addresses there, that the resulting confusion and inconvenience would not justify changing the street name@. The Secretary was directed to send a letter to Terramar kssociation informing them that since there already was a Cannon St., Cannon Drive could be changed to Terramar Rd. The Secretary then read a Memorandum from the City Attorney which was accompan- ied by a letter to the Planning Comnission, dated May 19, 1961, from Willard D. and Lillian M. Garrett and also an affidavit from Albert N. Kramer and Marianne S. Kaamer, builders of the Garrett's duplex at 2382 Ocean St., Carlsbad, substantiating the fact that the plans for that structure were not changed, The letter from the Garretts requested the Planning Comnission to reconsider their decision to grant a variance of front yard set-back to Eddie R. Vasquez because the Garretts felt that the Clbmnfssion was erroneously informed about existing set-backs on the street and that remarks made by the then Chairman Jervie had been prejudicial to their caser The City Attorney's opinion as stated in her memorandum was that since the request had been granted by the Planning Comnisston at a duly held public hearing and upon appeal to the City Council by the Garretts, the City Council at a duly held public hearing, denied the appeal and upheld the decision of the Planning Commission, their only proper remedy if they desire a further appeal, is to appeal to the Superior Court. CCnTBniSSioner Jarvie stated that he wished to apologize for remarks that he had made at the time of the public hearing on the Vaequez request for the variance; that he had been in error about the facts of the case and should not have said what he did without a knowledge of ell the facts in the Case. MRS. LILLIAN GARRETT, 2382 Ocean St., asked if iit were in the jurisdiction of the Planning Comnission to change their decision on tib Vasquez variance since they were of the opinion that there was a six and a half foot set-back on the street. She felt that the Planning Comnission had the wrong impression of the ret-backs on the street when they made their decision at the time of the hearing. She further stared that people seem to think that this variance is an extension of the previous variance that was granted to Mr. Vasqwz. whereas it is not, and the way the plans are, it would block their view of the beach. The Secretary stated that on the plot plan provided by the engineering depart- ment, the set-back on the lot to the west of the Vasquez property was 7 feet but Mrs. Garrett had the city measure it and bund it to be 8 feet. The Chairman, with comnon consent of the Comnission, instructed the Secretary to file the Garretts' letter in the Vasquez variance file dated March 29, 1961. 4- Oral Comnunications: THOMAS STREUTER, P.0. Box 218, asked if the hearing on the South Coast Asphalt Products, Inc. was being re-opened. The Chairman told him that it was not. 5- TENTATIVE SUUDIVISION MAP - LAGUNA VISTA, Unit #1 The Secretary certified as to mailing of notices to adjacent property owners. He then distributed the tentative mags and copies of Resolution 1209 to the Comnission and read the recsmrendacions from the various departments and agencies. He then stated that there were certain deed restrictions in Carlsbad Highlands, Unit #2 but that it w:ls not the duty of the city to enforce them. Two of the lots in this tentative subdivision are in R-1-15000 sq. ft. zone and lie with- in Carlsbad Highlands, Unit #2 which may have covenants requiring a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. and whether or not these lofs fulg,illed those requirements he did not know. He stated that he was merely cplling this to the attention of the sub- divider in order that he be on notice that there are covenants on a portion of the tentative subdivision. DON HOLLY, 2601 State St., stated that he had discussed this subdivision with the engineering department at some length and tonight when the recommendations of the engineering department were read was the first time he had heard anything about sidewalks being required. Lowell Rathbun, the City Engineer, stated that according to the code, sidewalks are required in subdivisions but are waived in cul-de-sacs. MR. HOLLY stated that there was a 15% grade in part of this subdivision which would not lend itself to putting in sidewalks. Chairman Grant stated that it is necessary for there to be a policy on these matters but it c:mnot always be adtiwed to rigidly. He felt that the matter of sidewalks should have been ironed out with the engineering department before the tentative map was brought before the Planning Comnission. Mr. Rathbun stated that it was not up to the engineering department to approve these subdivisions and the Chairman pointed out to him that the members of the Conmission were not engineers and could only abide by the tecomnendations of the engineering department, There was discussion about the fact that in order to have the tentative map before the Comnission at this meeting as scheduled, it had been done in a hurry and all the points that should have been discussrd and ironed out had not been covered . JOHN PREWITT, 5021 Tierra Del Oro, stated that there was another matter to be cleared up besides the sidewalks; relocation of where :cAs8 St. comes into Sky- line Drive. The engineering department's recommendation made it necessary for them to buy additional property in order to align the street and they would like enough leeway so that if the party would not sell, they wlll have some other way of working it out. He suggested that perhaps the Conmission could approve the tentative map subject to working out these problems with the engineering department. Cmissioner Grant stated that all the members of the Comnission seemed to agree on the advisability of sidewelks in subdivisions but wondered whether it met with their approval that the intersection of I@Atf St. be changed so that the center lines intersect at approximately a 90" angle on Skyline and that concrete sidewalks be installed on all streets, namely items 6 and 12 of the Resolution, be approved subject to engineering approval. Mr. C.R. Thornton, kssistant City Engineer, stated that although there was a small portion of the subdivision that had a 15% grade, still 85% of this schematie is good for sidewalks, the grade being only 8%. The Secretary then pointed out that as far as item 12 went, it was the responsibility of the sub- divider to acquire the property in any way he saw fit. MR. HOLLY stated that the south end of V3" Street will be a cul-de-sac but it was pointed out to him that the projected end of'.B'' Street was lengthy and a cul-de-sac would not be proper for it. A. E. WOURICH, 4150 Skyline Drive, stated that he would like a clarification on the meaning of the deed restrictions and what they restricted. The restric- tions stated that the lots should not be divided below a certain size. MR. FREWITT explained that the deed restrictions that had been referred to did not have a bearing on most of this property, only two small portions on Skyline which will be useless to build on, MR. GLENN FEIST, Attorney at Law, La Granada at Paseo Delicias, Rancp Santa Fe stated that because of the deed restrictions the city could not;lwear title and that the city could check with Mr. Bob Bottomly of Union Title Ins. Co. The streets would not be able to be dedicated and would revert back to Briggs Land Company MR. HOLLY stated that the fact that the wtreet may or may not be dedicated should have no bearing on this tentative map; it can be taken up at the time of the final map. At the present time they are very anxious to get approval of this tentative map as time is very important in subdividing and he felt that both the sidewalks and intersection cm be resolved between the subdivider and the engineering department. A motion was made by Chissfoner Davis and seconded by Cmissioner Kistler that Resolution No. 209 be approved as eubmitted, recommending to the City Council the approval of the Tentative Map of Laguna Vista, Unit dl Subdivision. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Grant, Commissioners Davis, Kistler, Hughes, Jarvie and yard. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hardwick Resoltuion No. 209 adopted. 6- HEARING - RECLASSIFfCATION - Request of William J. Butters for change of Zone from R-A-10,000 sq. ft. to R-1-7500 sq. ft. on property located between Hiphland Drive and The Secretary certified as to publication of notice and mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary then read the application stating the reasons for requesting the change of zone, There was no correspondence on this matter. No one was present to represent the applicant and no one voiced any objections to the request for change of zone. The public hearing was closed at 8:45. A motion was made by Commissioner Jarvie and seconded by Commissioner Hughes that Resolution No. 210 be adopted recommending reclessificatian from Zone RdA-10,000 sq. ft. to R-1-7500 sq. ft. for the following reasons: 1. That this change of zone is necessary for this property to tie in with the rest of the subdivision. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote. AYES : Chairmm Grant, Commissioners Davis, Kistler, Hughes, farvie and Ward NOES : None ABSENT: Commissioner Hardwick Resolution No. 210 adopted. A short recess was called. Reconvened at 9:OO P.M. 7- New Business: The Secretary read a memorandum from the City Managex concerning the condition- al use permit which had been granted the South Coast Asphalt Products, Inc, and then appealed to the City Council. The memorandum stcnted that the City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Commission but added four condi- tions. The Secretary told the Commission that they could concur, partially concur, disagree, or do nothing about the findings of the City Council, After forty days, if they do nothing about it, it is tacit al-proval of the findings of the City Council. to hear any statements and that he was requesting that they set this matter for a hearing; that it was unfortunate that it was on the Monday before the hearing that they heard about it. They had then appealed it to the City Council and the people he had requested to testify were not able to appear. The City Council had said they would hear no further evidence and he was appealing to the Com- mission for another hearing. He further stated that Thomas Streuter has been in business for a long time and is a good business man, however, Tri-city Hospital will be demaged if he blasts only three times a year. He would like the opportunity to present evidence to that effect, The Secretary suggested to the Commission that they consider the possibility and feasibility of having the City Attorney give them the benefit of her opin- ion as to whether the I-lanning Conmission could hear additional evidence or not. Cmissioner Jarvie stated that he felt they were in the same position with this as with the Garrett-Vasquez case. The variance was granted, then appealed to the Council who had upheld the Connnissi~n~s decision and then it had come back to the Commission. Chairman Grant stated that he did not concur with Conmissioner Jarvie; that this was a different case as it had not been closed because it had been sent bxk to the Conmission for consideration. MR. FEIST stated that the big problem was that his evidence had not been heard; that there had not been sufficient time to present it at the first hearing. In his opinion this is an extremely important matter and will set the site for Vista Way for a long time. He thought Mrs. Hayes would tell them that they have the opportunity to hear this matter. THOMAS STREUTER stated that he wished to thank Mr. Feist for his flattering remarks. He mentioned that he had been before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He had a $250,000 asphalt plant and planned to spend more. He had brought in an expert with 45 years experience in the demolition business and everyone had heard the pros and cons on this matter. If the opposition wanted to reopen this case, he had something to say. He stated that he had a sizeable job in Vista that he was anxious to get started on and he wondered how much longer this case could be dragged out as they were building a businesg, not a pile of junk. What they are building there, in his opinion, was a lot better than what was there before. MR. FEIST stated that he was representing substantial people and they did not want to hold up Mr. Streuter. A motion was made by Cmissioner Hughes and seconded by Commissioner Davis that the Commission reply to the City Council that they concur with the further recommendations of the City Council. All ayes, motion carried. The Secretary read a memorandum from the engineering department, the subject of which was "Improved 20 foot Alley Requirements in Subdivisionsgg, recmend- ing that where practical, alleys be incorporated as a part of the design of subdivisions and stating 9 reasons for this recamehdation. Mr. Rathbun stated that the engineering department felt that good reasoning should be used in backing up these policies and he had sent the memorandum to the Commission for the purpose of finding out what the feelings of the Commissioners were on this subject. 8- Chairman Grant asked Hr. Rathbun if these alleys would take land away from the subdividers that they could ube for lots. That is, would it place a hardship on them. Mr. Rathbun stated thpt that W~S a point against it but there were more points in favos' 0.f it. Canmissioner Kistler stated that in his opinion a de- sirable lot on which to build a house would have to have en alley. It is much safer from all points including that of fire protection. He stated that he was 1007. in favor of alleys. There was some discussion about alleys being required where the topography of the land did not make it practical and it was ' pointed out that the memorandum stated Irin areas that are suited to the concept of having improved alleysti. Camnissioner Davis stated thnt he had lived in a good many cities, most of which required alleys, however in Portland, Oregan there were no alleys and bothtthe city officials and citizens campalined about it. Some city alleys do become dumps and cm be a problem to the city in some ways but there are more arguments in favor of alleys thm agpinst them. It was brought out that alleys are dedicated public property and are kept up by the city and if they are improved initidly with the subdivision they will be kept up. Mr. Rathbun read Section 18.12, Article XI of ordinance 9050 of the City Code. A motion was made by Comnissioner Ward and seconded by Commissioner Jarvie that t the memorandum be approved as a reconmendation of the Planning Comaission and sent on to the City Council for its consideration. All ayes, motion carried. Mr. Rathbun felt that the policy on tentative maps should require that any subdivider., prior to filing of a tentative map, hold a planning conference with the Secretary of the Planning Comnission and the Engineering Department and work together, tben when the map is filed they will have worked out the recom- mendation~. The Secretary stated that if this w~ to be done, the ordinance should be amended because as it stards now, when a subdivider brings in a tentative map meeting certain technical requirements stated in the ordinance, he hns to accept it as long as they pay the filing fee. The Chairman instructed the Secretsry and the City Engineer to prepare a pro- posed amendment to the ordinance on this matter. The subject of sidewalks in subdiviaions, including cul-de-sacs, was brought up and Mr. Thornton, Ass't City Engiwer, stated that in his opinion they were just as necessary in cul-de-sacs 8s on through streets. The Chairmen asked the City Engineer to nake up a policy statement on sidewalks similar to the one presented to the Conmisoion on alleys so that the Commission could con- sider it at the next regular meeting in June. MR. STREUTER asked the Secretary what the next step was in the conditional use pennit for South Coast Asphalt Products, Xnc. and the Secretary informed him that the Commission would send a report to the City Council informing the Council that the Commission concurred with them. Old Business:. There was some discusslon about the Planning Congress Luncheon on May 29, 1961 and the Chairman was informed that paid reservatfonrr had been made for 7. 9- Adjournment: By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9:45. Respectfully submitted, J>H. PRICE, Secretary