The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1964-03-24; Planning Commission; Minutes. * I 1- I , 8'' I I 8' I I I : CITY OF CARLSBAD I Minutes of: : Date of Meeting: March 24, 1964 : Place of Meeting: Council Chambers I '\\ '\\ '8 ', " '* '8 ' ,.' PLANNING COMMISSION I 8 '8 ' Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. &/I. I I I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, : Ward, Grant, Palmer, Jarvie and Lamb. Commissioner i Sonneman was absent. Also present were City Manager : ; John J. Marnaux, City Attorney Stuart C. Wilson, City i i Planner Uhland B. Melton, City Engineer Lowell A. ; Rathbun and Associate Engineer C. R. Thornton. I I I I I 3 I I I 1 I :APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I I I (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of March 10, 1964, will be up for approval at the nexkmeeting after additions : have been added to them. I' I ! I I :WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I : (a) Dr. W. I. Gullett - Letter requesting to have a I dental office at 250 Tamarack Ave. I I I I I I 1 ! The City Planner stated tat the reason for putting this i i letter on the agenda is that the zoning does not permit a : :dental office in an R-1 zone, as it is necessary to have an I i R -P zone for this profession. !It was the unanimous decision of the Commission that a i ; letter be sent to Dr. Gullett advising him of the zoning : !necessary for this profession and of the procedure for t ; obtaining a rezoning on this property. I I I I 8. 4 I I 8 I : ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: ! I ! (a) There were no oral communications from the I I I I I I I audience, I I (b) The City Planner reported that the Council had the I final reading of the Ordinance of the Commission's Resoluf tion of Intention to have R -3 on Jefferson Street; the app1i-i : cation for zoning to R-3 on Garfield and Cherry had the : I first reading; the zoning to R-T on the David Baird proper& :had the second reading and was approved. The memoran-! i dum sent to the Council from the Commission for the pre-: i cise plan of streets at the Southerly end of Jefferson Streej ; and along the railroad track to the inner lagoon was forwar',ded :to the City Engineer to put on their project list. i Chairman Palmer asked the City Engineer if he had receivkd ; the; memo and the City Engineer stated that he had receive4 i it and had also checked when this was initiated and found :that it was in February, 1963, when they had received I i this from the Council. i The City Planner reported that the Council had requested : the Planning Staff to study and report back to them on set -: ting up industrial zoning in the City for "1, M-2 and "32 i Commissioner Lamb reported that the Council had the firsb reading of an ordinance on a conditional use on the Hummejl i property to sell and retail flowers and questioned the fact 9 :that it did not come before the Planning Commission. I I I I I I I I * I I I I I I I I I I I I ! 1 I I I I I I * * I I I , : I I I I The City Planner explained that this property is located at! Monroe and Park and the Hummels have been doing this : for years before the City was incorporated. The Chairman stated that he does not believe the Commis j sion should critic+ the Council's actions, but they could ; inquire about this matter and asked the City Attorney about this. I I 8 I I I I I b I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I The City Attorney stated that this matter was started befote : he was the attorney for the City and this was taken up and : I done the same as the Women's Club with Councilmatic actign : at this time. This was initiated by the Council. If this : i was an amendment to the ordinance it would have to be i : brought to the Commission and a public hearing would be ': I held. This was a conditional use ordinance and if the I I : Commission wished to have a hearing, they could send a : i memo to the Council or he could bring this up at the I I i Council meeting. I After discussion, it was agreed to consider this and the i : policy set by the Council on notifying property owners witg- i in 300' on zone reclassifications under New Business in i I I I I I I : view of the long agenda. I I I I I PUBLIC HEARINGS: I I I I I I I (a) Resolution of Intention No. 47 - To consider a zone 1 ! classification to R-1-10 on property known as East Carls-: ;bad Annexation 2.4. (Approximately 155 acres). Applicaht: Planning Commission. I I I I I I :Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Grant reviewed I Resolution of Intention No. 47 initiating this and certified :to the proper notice of public hearing in the Carlsbad i Journal. !There was one item of correspondence from Jelrry : Rombotis stating that he was opposed to this zoning as the! use of 10,000 sq. ft. lots merely serves to defeat or, at i !minimum, Petard growth. Lot size by itself has never ; : been a factor in determining type and quality of developme$t i and hence retains land at minimum tax yield for a larger ; : period to the detriment of alf taxpayers within the city Lim(ts. : The City Planner stated that there were a couple of othkr i items pertinent to this hearing and asked if the Commissio)l :would consider both of these mat& s and a tentative map. i I He explained that the newly annezoperty is deemed to be: : R-1 and the smallest lot area in the City at the present ; i time is R-1-6000. Kamar owns approximately 80 acres of: : property in this area but are planning a subdivision on approximately 40 acres of the property facing El Camino i i Real and know what has to be cut and filled and what bear -; ing the zoning will have on this property. I I I I I l I I I I I 1 I I I I I I * I i The Commission discussed the order of holding the public i : hearings and felt they should be held in the regular order. I I The Chairman announced that since the Commission had jing to speak in opposition. I I I initiated this, they would now hear from all persons desiri I I I I I $ JERRY ROMBOTIS stated that he wants to cooperate with I ithe City but the subdivider has discussed this preliminary : I zone with member of the City, the City Planner, the City ; Engineer and the City Manager, and have tried to utilize i i this land which was formerly in the County. Their plan ; utilizes the best use of the land and they have considered : i the drainage and the sewers and felt that if the Commissio6 would consider the tentative map, they would be better : able to explain that some of the lots are over 10,000 sq.ft.j :and less than 3Q% are 7500 sq.ft. plus, and most of them i i are 8 and 9000 sq. ft. plus. i MIKE FORTUNATI, Kamar Construction I stated that this i ; has been thoroughly engineered and there are two major : : factors the best use of the land and the economic conside4 - i ation involved. The minimum size of the lots in the tentayve , I b 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I -3- 1- I I t i are 7.5 although they were aware they could be 6000. El i : Camino Real separates the City and this new unit East of i El Camino Real which has some junk cars and some shack! : on it, so this development will be an improvement. I I I I I l l B KARL MULLEN stated that he was from Roy Klema ; Engineers and there would be considerable grading to be : done and that a survey of new construction on urban rene&l ; for 10,000 sq. ft, He pointed out that if you change the size of the lots you may deviate the purpose of meeting the ; ; demand for homes in certain price ranges. The larger i : lots may lay idle and the City will not derive the benefit : i from them. Seacrest Estates Falcon Hill and El Camino i i Hills are now considering town houses after unsuccessful : : attempts to sell Larger lots, and felt there was no reason i i for rezoning this for larger lots. He stated that he felt : : that R - 1-7.5 should be approved and the 10 000 should be I I denied. I I i There were no other persons present desiring to speak in ; : opposition. I k I I I I I I I I I : The public hearing was closed at 8:19 P. M. I ! I : The City Planner explained the location of the property i and that Tamarack Avenue was designed to go out to Vista : : Way, and Elm Avenue is designed to cross El Camino Real to the Calaveras recreational area and there would be a ; i need for schools in this area. He described the contours i :of the land and that the back portion of the property is steelp i and could be developed if larger lots were made. He I I ; explained the location of the 8.5, 8 and 9 * 000 sq. ft. lots and that the back portion would have 10 000 and some of i the lots on El Carnino Real and on each side of the entrance i would be 10 I 000 or over, and other lots on El Camino Rea$ would be 9,000 or over. There was considerable discussion by the Commission : J regarding the lot size and some felt this should be studied :more as one Ldt,size would not fit the entire area because i of the topography. The Commission agreed that it should : : all be zoned R -1 - 10 and then take smaller portions to con; i sider for smaller lots. I i Upon being questioned, Jerry Rombotis pointed out that I ; there is more to be considered in developing the land than I i just the lot size as there is the matter of density;gnd I I : design. San Clemente has rougher contours but they put 1 i money in development programs instead of grading pads. ; He agreed that the zoning methods in the City are antiquatjd regarding lot sizes. He would like to see the Planned I I more. He explained that the tentative map was studied frobn I I I I I I I I I I I : Development approach so they would understand these protlems i many aspects and had to meet the requirements of the FHq and ; VA the City Engineer and their engineer. I I i After due consideration, a motion was made to adopt : Resolution No. 344 to classify the property to R-1-10 for i i the following reasons: I I I I I I B I I I I l I I I I 1. That the area is virgin land. : 2. That the City should safeguard itself by making it : 3. That there is already a subdivision across the stree$ i that is R-1-10. : R-1-10. I I I I I I I i The following resolution was presented: I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I .:$ - I 11 I I I I I i (b) CLASSIFICATION - To consider a zone classificati+ i to R -1 -7.5 on a portion of East Carlsbad Annexation 2.4 : : (approximately 80 acres). Applicant: Kamar Constructiorj i CO. , Inc. JERRY ROMBOTIS stated that he would like to consider i : this with the tentative map as the two go together and woula i like to amend the application and consider just the area in i : the tentative map of approximately 40 acres. I I I I I I I ' I I I I The Secretary stated that they could consider this subdivi4 sion without the report of the various departments and i I agencies. : The Secretary certified to proper notice of public hearing i I I I I I I and read the application. I I I I I I I ' I I i There were no communications on this matter. I I The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear : from the applicant and any other persons who wished to : speak in favor of this reclassification. JERRY ROMBOTIS presented another application with i i signatures of more property owners favoring this classifi-: : cation. ! DON BRIGGS, JR. asked for clarification as to what I Kamar Construction was asking for. s 1 1 I I I I I t $ I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I The Secretary then read the notice of hearing. I 1 i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear I : from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. I I I I I I I I I I * I I There were'no persons present desiring to speak in I opposition. I I The public hearing was closed at 9:03 P. M. * I I I I : The City Planner explained the zoning he felt should be on : i certain lots in this subdivision as he felt that certain por - : tions should be 10,000. He explained that the subdivider : i is offering dedication of property for street rights of way i i on El Camino Real and that the lots would face on the insic$? ; of the subdivisiin instead of fronting on El Camino Real, ; i When asked his opinion of this subdivision, MARVIN I HUMPHREYS, owner and subdivider of Chestnut Heights : across the street, stated that he thought they had done an i : excellent job and he had to have 10,000 square foot lots in! order to pad-out to 7 I 500 s-e feet. I MR. TEMPLIN stated that he was speaking for himself and his wife, and the Caldwell's have acreage east of this sub4 ! division and they have talked to Mr. Rombotis regarding : the recorded prescriptive easement to their property. ThkyL;$ have no objections to this and felt this is a fine subdivisioti. I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I . The City Planner explained the access to this property which is generally worked out between the property owner , themselves. The only portion that is being considered is : the 138 lots. I I I I b -5- The Commisiiion discussed whether they could zone the i ;ii:ii lots different sizes. I I :::::: KARL MULLEN stated that they had just had a similar I zoning on a subdivision go through in San Diego. The I amount of lots could not be increased, and they did not saG which ones had to be a certain size, but there were so many 1 p4 lots designated as 7.5, 8 1 9, 10,000 plus. He presented : 1:;4;1 l:l: a tentative subdivision map colored and showing the desig; i:!::; I1 nations of size of lot area. I I I.. :i:;!: I I iiii:: ::I::: I ::!ll! ;I1 ::;::: !::::I I I I I I I After due consideration a motion was made to adopt : Re solution No. 345 changing the zone from R -1 to R - 1 -7. $ ion the following conditions and limitations: 8 I 1 1. That in no event shall said property be developed :into more than 138 lots; no more than 29 of which shall be :less than 7500 square feet in area; no more than 43 of : :which shall be less than 8,000 square feet in area; no mor4 i than 38 of which shall be less than 9,000 square feet in arda :and no more than 28 of which shall be less than 10,000 i i square feet in area. i The following facts and reasons exist: i 1. That it would result in the highest and best use of :the land considering topography. I : 3. That it is not contrary to the Master Flan. I I I I I I 1 I I I I 8 8 I I I I I I 2. That there was no opposition. I I , I 1 I 1 I I : The following resolution was presented: I s sion Re solution No. 345. A RESOLUTIO# G TO CO- C-OF ZONE FROM :R-1 TO R-1-7.5, 8. 9, and 10,000 PLUS ON PROPERTY i i2.4, was adopted and further reading waived. I I !A short recess was called at 9:38 P.M. Reconvened at i :9:50 P.M. I ! I (c) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider a zone change :from R -2 to R-3 on 4 lots between Sequoia and Chinquapin ion the West side of Garfield and two lots on North side of :Chinquapin. Applicant: Melvin F. Lull, et al. :The Secretary certified to proper notice of public hearing !in the Carlsbad Journal and read the application and :signatures of those desiring this reclassification. He also read a letter dated March 19, 1964, from Melvin Lull and :Jeanette Lull with more signatures approving this reclassi i fication. !AT A PORTION OF EAST CARLSBAD ANNEXATION NO. : I I I I 4 I * I 4 I I I I 1 I I I I There were 'no other communications. 1 I I The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear :from the applicant and any other persons who wished to speak in favor of this reclassification. I I I ! I !MELVIN LULL, 3955 Garfield Street, stated that he had i !asked for this request as per application read. This I , :property is located adjacent to property which is already : i zoned R-3. They would like to develop this property in i :order to sell or to make this better income property. I JACK HALL, stated that he resides in Santa Ana but had i I recently purchased the property of Mrs. Cummings and I was in favor of this reclassification. He bought this lot : :because of the ocean view and inquired about the develop- i jment of high rise property in this area on Carlsbad Blvd. and the abandonment of this street, and if there would be i i hearings on this matter. I ! I I I I I I I Davis Ward -, Grant . . Palmer Jarvie Lamb -6 - He was informed that at the present time the height is : limited to 35 feet but it might be receptive to an increase,! The city Engineer stated that there was nothing pending fdr a street vacation at this time, however, there have-been ; requests in the past but not during the last three years. 1 i I I The City Attorney ,reported that there might be public I hearings on this matter before the Council. The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear I from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. I I I I 1 I I I I I I I : There were no persons present desiring to speak in oppo-i '&I:;, 1811 i sition. ! The public hearing was closed at 10:03 P. M. I I I I ;:::If ::::;; I I I 11 f f ii!::: I I ::':;: 11::;: ::::@I :@@I;: ,:::I I) I* 1 I I The City Planner explained the location of the property : i and the zoning in the area and that Chinquapin was not I ; open to Carlsbad Boulevard. There is a pumping station : : located where this street would be next to Carlsbad Blvd. ; ! The access to the lagoon will be down Garfield. (*I( 11 I I I I I I I After a short discussion by the Commission, a motion : i was made to adopt Resolution No. 346 recommending to : the Council the reclassification of this property for the : i following reasons: i 1. That there is already considerable R-3 in the area. : 2. That the tendency has been to recognize the need fo! I R-3 in the area. : 3. That there was no opposition. I I I I I I I I I I 4. That it would be compatible with the Master Plan. I I I I I I I I ! The following resolution was presented: I I i ing waived. I I I I I I I I I I i (d) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction from the required sideyard of 6' to 5' on property located on the I Southeast corner of Palm and Harding. Applicant: I I b I b I I I : Mark A. Ostrye. I 1 The Secretary certified to notice of public hearing being : i sent to the property owners within 300' of this property i : and read the application and signatures of those approving; I this variance. I I I I I I I I I I I There were no written communications. I I i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear! : from the applicant and any other persons who wished to : I i speak in favor of this reclassification. i There were no persons present desiring to speak in favor: : of this. : The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear: i from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. I * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I There were no persons present desiring to speak in oppi I : sition. I I I I I I * I I I * I I I I I I I , D The public hearing was closed at 10:15 P. M. I I I I I I I I I I I I ! The City Planner explained the location and that there wede I no topography problems. He recommended that i€ .this ' i : variance is granted that it be for the plot plan only and not to enclose or roof patio in the rear. The City Attorney informed the Commission that conditio4s can be attached on variances. I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I : After a short discussion by the Commission, a motion : was made to adopt Resolution No. 347 for the reduction of! : side yard setback from 6' to 5' as per plot plan which shoFs a building extending to within 5' of the lot line for the I I : following reasons: I 1. That the lot meets all other zoning requirements. i : 2. That granting of the variance, subject to the plot : plan below referred to, will allow the same use of the lan4 I as neighboring land enjoys. I I I 8 I I I I I 3. That it would not be allowing a special favor. I I I I I The following resolution was presented: * I ; Davis Ward Planning Commission Resolution No. 347. A RESOLUTION Grant : GRANaNG A VAKIAN'C?TON PR0Pk'"HwAT SOUTHEAST Palmer CORNER OF PALM AND HARDING, was adopted by title i Jarvie i only and further reading waived. : Lamb I I I I I I I I I (e) VARIANCE - To consider a "Panhandle lot split" - i i a frontage reduction from 60' to 20' on property located 015 : the Southwest corner of Chinquapin and Highland. Appli- i i cant: Allan K. MacDougall. I I The Secretary certified to notices being sent to property : I I I I I i owners in the area and read the application. I There were no written communications. i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i ; from the applicant and any other persons who wished to : i speak in favor of this reclassification. i ALLAN MacDOUGALL, 1330 Chinquapin, stated that Par-; I cels C and D are all on one portion of land on one deed. : : They would be creating a new parcel with ample lot area i i RICHARD THOMPSONl 3985 Highland Drive, stated that hi is : is in favor of this. * : The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I of 28,220 sq. ft. I I I I I I I I I I , from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. I I I * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i There were no persons present desiring to speak in I opposition. : The public hearing was closed at 10:25 P. M. : The City Planner explained that Mr. MacDougall also I owns Parcel "A" and would like to take 20' off of Parcel : I facing on Highland is R-1 - 10,000 but the lots below are : : R -1 -7.5. The City Planner stated that he felt the applica4t i should put in improvements on Chinquapin to Highland and i i that all of the requirements be met in the "Panhandle" lot : ; split pdicy . When asked if he would want 2 "panhandle" lot splits, Mr. ! : MacDougall stated that he did not want 2 and that he would I go along with putting in improvements in the future on : : Chinquapin but did not want to do this at the present time I I I I "A" in order to create a "panhandle" lot split. The propeity I I I I t I I I I I I I l e I I I * I I 1 I I I I I I Y I I I I I I I t ",??'80, ,*, I' * I I 8' , ,.. 8'8 I I I I 8 8' I I I * '\ +, '8 y\, '. ' '% 'x ", 8 -8- I ' '\,'*, I ", '8, ', '\ 8 I Name '\ \%& 'x, i 1 I i of .$??@,+,++ I 1 Member '$l"p'b'@'b84 :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-l""""""""" "."*"" I I :'I#;# I I ::!:I: i unless all of the people on that street put in the improve-: : rsents also. He stated that he .&BPS and lives on Parcel'$'' ,I;::: :i:iii : and the property next to his is unimproved. I ::::I; I :::1:1 : It was pointed out to him that he would have to comply with ::I::: i the "Panhandle'i lot split policy but that if he wished a ;#I:#; l::*:l i waiver of the street improvements on Chinquapin at this I :::::; 1::: : time he would have to go to the Council. I I 1 !::Id 1::::: I I !Il!l! : After a short discussion, a motion was made to adopt i i Resolution No. 348 granting a variance for reduction in : : frontage from 60' to 20' in order to create a "panhandle"! '.a I( I I I I 18 I I lot split for the following reasons: I 8 I I I 1 I i 1. That there are exceptional circumstances applicabl! : to the property that do not apply to other property in the : i same vicinity. : 2. That this variance would not be detrimental to ; adjacent property. i 3. That there was no opposition. : 4. That it would not be adverse to the comprehensive i i plan. ; 5. That it is the highest and best use of the otherwise i i landlocked property. * I 8 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 And that the following conditions be met: I I I i That it conform to the "Panhandle" lot split policy; that : all of the requirements shall be met which are set forth i : dations and that the lot split be surveyed and monumentedj : The following resolution was presented: ! Planning Commission Re solution No, 348. A RESOLUTIqN in Ordinance 9136 subject to the City Engineer's recommrfn- I I I I I I I I I I A VARIANCE ON PROPEK~AT THE SOUTH INQQIAPIN AVENUE BETWEEN HIGHLAND i AND ADAMS, was adopted by title only and further read- : ing waived. I I 1 a 4 I I l I I 1 (f) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - To permit the use OB i a church in an R-1 zone on property located on the North-! east corner of Monroe and Chestnut. Applicant: Pilgrim i I Congregational Church. i The Secretary certified to the notice of public hearing bei4g : sent to the property owners in the area and read the applif I cation. i Letter from the Board of Trustees stating that the property : is in escrow'pending granting of this conditional use permjt. : There was no other correspondence on this matter. ! The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear! from the applicant and any other persons who wished to : : speak in favor of this reclassification. ! ROBERT ROGERS stated that he was another member of I the Board of Trustees and would be glad to answer any : : questions. t The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear: I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I * 1 I I I I I t I I I I from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. There were no persons present desiring to speak in I I 1 I I * * I I I I I I : opposition. I Davis Ward Grant Palme Jarvie Lamb I I i MARVIN HUMPHREYS, 3690 Monroe Street, stated that i he was not exactly opposed but asked for architect's ren- : : dering of these proposed plans, as they were important to I him and if the entrance to the parking area would be off I : of Chestnut Avenue. : MR. ROGERS stated that there would be no renderings i i until this condition use permit is granted. The Church is i i one of the oldest churches and they are interested in having : a nice church at this location. i DON BRIGGS, JR. , inquired about the improvements of : curbs and gutters on this property since it is across from: i the High School. i ALEX WOLENCHUCK, 2034 Chestnut, inquired about the i off street parking as it is a busy intersection, and asked : : if they would be parking on the curb on Chestnut or if they i would be having off street parking. I The public hearing was closed at 10:53 P. M. i The City Planner stated that he had discussed this permit i i with the various departments and asked for certain condi- : : tions on this. The existing building would only be used i : temporary. The ingress and egress should be off of I : for curbs and gutters on Monroe and Chestnut. I : RICHARD S. OSBURN, City Building Inspector, stated i that they would not be able to use the present building unde: : the new State Law and have more than 50 people. He I I reported that he had gone over this with Mr. Hancock and : : they will have to have stationary seats or put in pews. Thi off street parking is one parking space for each 6 fixed : i Seats, oRif there are no fixed seats, then 1 for each 100 si. ft. of floor space used for assembly purposes. I I i MR. ROGERS asked if this meant they would not be able t4 use the house until the curbs and gutters are put in. I I 4 I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I Monroe Street and they should have improvements put in 4 . P' ' I I I I I 1 8 I I I 'I I There was considerable discussion regarding the time i limit for putting in the curbs and gutters and for building : : the new church and the use of the existing building. The i i Commission agreed that a committee should be appointed i, : to study this more and to make a report to the City Attorney i with their recommendations for conditions on this permit : : before the next meeting, in order that a resolution could be prepared for the meeting. I I 1 I I B I I I :~i:i: I The public hearing was reopened at 11 :20 P. M. I When asked if this would be ageeable, Mr. Rodgers stated: I that he felt this was reasonable and that he or Dr. Fox or f. : Mr. Hancock would be at the hearing and could be raached: i by calling 722-7008. I !I!, l:;l;l I I :ll;l~ I I I'll;: ::::;: ::::I: ;I/:: 1;;:;: I :;l;l; 8 i;:::: I *:;I I : The Chairman appointed Commissioners Grant and Lamb i to study this and to make their recommendations for i conditions in writing to the City Attorney. I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I : HEARING: I I 1 I I [ (a) TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - EL CAMINO ME+ i - 138 Lots located east of El Camino Real and Chestnut : : Ave. Applicant: Kamar Construction Co. I Inc. ! 1 I I I I I I I 1 i "\,:'\), 8, 8,8',, I I i of '*g&&,&%+ : '8 ', '. I I I I I I I I 4 8, \.,',., '\8 '\ '\ I - 10 - '\\ 8, '\ '\ 'N f I I / Name 8b8'$''~:8$A :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""-"""""""""";""""""""" 1 Member @bnp\,*\p "",""J \,@, : The Secretary certified that the notice of the consideration! :::'::: !of this subdivision map was sent to the adjacent property : !!;4 :owners of unsubdivided property and read the recommendat+ : tions of the various departments and agencies. :The City Engineer stated that he would like to add Item 7 !to his report under General Design regarding those lots i ; around the cul-de -sac turning circle being reduced from : ::,I;; I60' to 50' frontage, which is a normal procedure. !He raad a letter from the Telephone Company stating that !they would place their lines underground. The San Diego : :Gas & Electric Company have not submitted a report I but I :intend to put their lines overhead in the street. He stated i :that he would be happy to explain anything in his report. : :There was considerable discussion regarding the under- i i ground utility lines. * I i:::i: #'I::: I :::;;; 4::;; t I :'::I; ;!:;;: 14::;: ::I:;; I I ::::I: :::1:1 I I I I $1 I I I :::::: :;*:;; 1 f I I I I 1:::; 1 i:::;; I I t I *::!4! !JERRY ROMBOTIS stated that it is more economical for ! the subdivider to have the poles in front because they have : :to put in street lights. :Mr. Thornton asked if the subdivider has inquired about I {putting in lines underground. !MR. ROMBOTIS stated that the subdivider is required to ! :put in ornamental street lights and he talked to the City !Manager about this and have posted a billing charge. It : :would cost more than 5 times as much. The subdivider is :charged for 18 months billing charge on these lights. 1 I I I I I I 'I 1 I I I I 1 I I t I I t !There was discussion that this would be an expensive thing! :now but if they were put in back they would be getting closq ii;::: :to the feasibility of putting this underground , and that the : :::;:I :Commission could send a memo to the Council that the Citi I ::;;:; :Engineer is faced with this problem. ;The City Engineer reported that the subdivision committee: :;I:;: :has considered all of these points , and a memo to the Cou<cil !would not hurt. He has worked hard to get rear lot locatioh !as required by ordinance but the Gas Company has been 4 p:::: :firmly resisting it, !After due consideration, a motion was made to adopt :Resolution No. 350 recommending approval of the tentativ4 !map of El Camino Mesa subject to the recommendations of: :the various departments and agencies and that Item 4 of th{ !City Engineer's report be changed to require the utility : !poles be placed in the rear lot line, and that Item 7 be ;added to the General Design, and that the conditions of the : :zoning apply according to Resolution No. 345. :The following resolution was presented: I I : Davis ;Resolution No. 350. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAG Ward :m~if?MMISSION RECOMMENDING APPRO4 Grant '*i::: ::::;; I ::;I:, I f I ::;::: ::;:;: :;:::: :;:::; :;::;: I 4:::: I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I :VAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP OF EL CAMINO MESA i Palmer :SUBDIVISION, was adopted by title only and further readink Jarvie !waived. : I Lamb ;ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion the meeting was ;adjourned at 12:Ob o'clock midnight. :Respectfully submitted, I .4 I I I I I I I I 1 f I I b I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I t l I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I 8 I Y mU>A !Recording Secretary