Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-06-27; Planning Commission; Minutes"R 6 Jgne 27, 1961 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Grant. Fresent be- sides the Chairman were Cmfssioners Jarvie, Hughes, Kistler and Davis. Absent, Commissioners Hardwick and Ward. Approval of Minutes of June 13, 1961 $'Absent, Chairman Grant and Cormisstoner Kistler.Ii Written Comunications: There were no written communications. Oral Communications: There were no oral commmications. E.A. :.OE.?SEL, 1204 Tamarack, stgted that as far as he was comerned, he could not do anything with his property in the back, hz is lrndlocked. He has 1 1/2 acres in the back and connot use it. Chairman Grant showed the map of the proposed subdivision to Mr. Roessel, who pointed out the property to which he was referrin2 and expliined th3t it was the property to the west of the proposed subdivision snd that Mr. 2oessel's objection was that the bxk portion of his property would be landlocked. M2, XESSEL stated that when they built Voodl.md Heizhts Subdivision the people dn~,.~He'neighborhob8~~co~la~~ed that they had th?&e'.or four feet of dirt all over their property. ,Every time there was a little rain, it washed the dirt down from sorl-eone elds property. If the Commission would let him ,>ut in a 25 foot right-of-way it would open up the brick o€ his property. He now rents it to the zrower of Birds of Paradise. His son in law had sold his Procertv -2- to this subdivider. 243.5. LESLIZ EAYMES, 1250 Tamarack, wented to hear paragraph #10 of Resolution No. 211, which stated that a lot split application should be filed for the part of the nap that was noted as not a part of the subdivision. The Chairman explainzd after reading this yaragrqph that the lot split was necessary for R division of the land and for tax ::urposes: fii. i.CZSSEL wznted tQ know if he could go ahead md cut a right-of-way to the property in t!ie back. The Chairrxn told Mr. Roessel that he would have to go phrough the proper procedures to get a variance. HERSHEL GR21SER, 1281 Magnolia, stated that the cul-de-sac was going to go back to his property and he was wondering what he could do, NIX. KALICK.4 stated that a lot of people have been using this property as a way and that is what was bringing up a lot of these issues. The Chairman told Mrs Greiser that he would have to do what the subject sub- divider was doing if he wished to divide his property. A cul-de-sac, he steted, has many advantages, one being a place for children to play. Chairman Grant remarked that it would make sense to have a street through there but that Mr, Kalicka had a right to subdivide even though the rest of the property Owners were not ready to do so+ Mr. Jamie stcted that Mr. Greiser was not ltlndlocked as he had frontage on idagnolia. GLEN METCALF, 3761 Highland stated that he had no objection to the subdivision. There is considerable landlocked property in there which should be taken into consideration. He had not studied the map sufficiently to see if a dead end street would be g-.od in this subdivision. He felt that eventually a street s should go through there and if a cul-de-sac were put in, it would mean that each one that developed would have to put in a cul-de-sac and that is not good planning. I-Jith a dead end street there, if Mr. Greiser decided to subdivide, he could continue it. The Chaiman asked Mr. Fietcalf to point out his properfy on the map. The property is on the northeast corner of the subdivision. PG. IULICKA stnted that Mr, Netcelf: had bought property there and could not get through other peoples property to open up the back of it so it would be a good.. thing for him if a street went through there and saved his landlocked property.. The engineering for this project had not been easy due to the fell of the land. All of these people cm hook into the sewer he would be icstalling for the proposed subdivision. There is one owner who will not do anything with his property. In order to extend the road ecsterly it vould have to go through this man's property and it is known that he will do nothing with it and you could not open up a road without this property. lZS. GOLEIE KIEFFE2, 1274 Magnolia, stcted th2.t she w.~ wondering if everyone who had 2 acres of land could subdivide and put in c~l-de-s~cs, She thought -3- there was a $an for the future where land would be laid out in blocks. She understood there was a plan where a road would go right by her home in the 1200 to 1300 block. She wished to know if this were the woy all this land is to be developed. The Secretary explained that in the back there are certain areas on which studies were made and in these studies there is a solution to some of these large lots. It is a method by which they might be opened up. This is not a precise plan 2nd has no effect or influence whatsoever, but is just a solu-& tion to the problem. It might be considered an aid to someone who was dividing in the arez. The Chaiwan asked llrs. Kieffer if this answered her question. ki;ZS. KIEFFER stated that she would thin!; the Plannins Commission would have a plm for those 2 acre lots. No one mnts a lot 200 feet wide and 400 to 500 feet deep. Everyone does not want a cul-de-sac either. FIE. LETCALF st::ted ag2.in that he had no objection to the subdivision and that he owned his land longer tbzn Mr. Kalicka had owned his. The city had not told him what to do with his property. If he wanted to put a street in from Highland he knew he could not do it as the sewer would h-ve to be too deep on Highland. If he cme in with a cul-de-sac from the north, there is no way for anyone else to come in that way. IIe did not care as far as subdividing his property, as he has alre2dy given up on that and a': far as Mr. Kalicka's bring- ing a sewer in and the other property owners bein:: able to tie into it, all subdividers have done that for each other. MR. KALICKA st-ted thrt he had spent much time with the engineering department and elso had spent a lot ?f time takin; these small l'arcels and working them out. 4. dead dnd street rather than a cul-de-sac would ceuse him to lose one lot and raise some insurmountable problerss. i: study was made of Mr. Roessel's property and there were too mny engineerin: problems. Which one of these property owners is going to give up land for ell the rest along 8lagnolia? Mr. Roessel's son in law was the only one who would give up anything. It is impossible to get a through street in there. Chairman Grant stated th:t it wc?s good to have as many through streets as possible but when you cmnot get all the property owners to go along, it is impossible. MR. KALICKA stated thct he had based his drcinage and sewer on the engineering department's recomnendations and those of his engineer. Chairr.:an Grant asked Mr. Kalicka if the fall of the land was south into Tamarack. MR. K:ILICKA stEtec! that they were going to hcve to !mild up some lots on the west side in order to have them fall toward Tamarack. He stated that even with this building up, they could just barely do it so any people below his property would be unable to do SO. lJhen asked if the drainage went naturally to I<agnolia, he steted tl-.at part went west md south and part north and west. Mr. Rathbun, City Engineer, stated that he thouSht pro2er developrkent would re-Yuire a congre' ensive plan for this area which v~ould include all the property ovners. Cbirc:an Grant stated that he felt the Commissioners wented to study 6- the matter further, however he would entertain a motion. A motion wzs made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Kistler that Resolution No. 211 be adopted recocnnending to the City Council approval of the tentative map of Bali Hai, Unit #2 Subdivision. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote, AYES: Chairman Grant, Commissioners Davis,Kistler and Hughes. NOES : Comissicner Jarvie ABSENT: Commissioners Hardwick and Ward, Resolution No. 211 adopted. Old Business: Chairman Grant reed a letter addressed to the members of the Planning Connnis*' sion, dated June 23, 1961, from the City Attorney, Pks. Hayes, which had been mailed to him, The subject of the letter was the re-hearing on variance grant- ed Eddie and Alice Vasquez. In the letter bks. Hayes set forth the reasons for holcling a re-hearing as stated in section 2200 of Ordinance 9060, and stated that l.:nless the variance was improperly issued for any of these reasons, the Commission has no duty to hold a rehearing. She further stcted that to date her investigation had uncovered nothing that would justify a re-hearing. A motion W~S made by Commissioner Hughes and seconded by Cmissioner Kistler to deny the request of W.D. and Lillian PI. Garrett for a re-hearing on the .. variance granted Eddie and Alice Vasquez. Five ayes, 2 absent, motion carried, The Chairman instructed the Secretcry to file the City Attorney's letter and to write Mrs. Garrett informing her of the decision of the Planning Commission. 7- New Business: The :;ecretary showed the Commission on the map a roed which. is an access road to Solamar Mobile Zstates, which would have to be named before the County turned it over to the City. The County had instzlled a stop sisn and in order to enforce this sign, the road would have to have a name. There wes some discussion among the Commissioners as to whether the road went further than the trailer park, but it was pointed out that it did not. A motion was made by Commissioner Ilughes and seconded by Commissioner Davis thet the unnmaed road running north md south from the southeasterly inter- section of Palomar Airport Road and U.S. 101 Freeway, be named Solamar Road. Five ayes, 2 absent, motion carried. The Chairman asked the Conmission if they would cpre to discuss thz memorandum frm.1 the Secretary on the subject of conc!ucting hearings on variances but the Commissioners felt.that the memorandum was self explanatory and needed no fuEther discussion. .. I- -5- 8- Adjournment: By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 ?.M. Respectfully submitted,