The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1965-07-13; Planning Commission; MinutesI I I 1 I I I I I :CITY CF CAitL AD : Minutes of: PLANNING CGMMISSICN ! Date of Meeting: July 13, 1965 I I : A.PPi3CVAL OF MINUTES: I- " I I I I I I I iZITTEN CGMMUNICP"TSC4T;IS: I I - I I I I I I (a) San Diego County Planning Congress - re: Meeting: !July 23, 1965, Lake Room, Quails Inn, San Marcos - I I i Panel discussion on Mobile i5ome Parks. Reservations i :were made for the meeting. I I I I i ORAL CLMMUNICATIGNS: - I I : There were no oral communications. I I I I I I I I : PUBLIC HEA12INGS: 1 I I ( a) VAKIANCCE, continued - To consider a reduction ! !in the required front yard setback from 20' to 13'; reduc- i :tion in side yard setbacks from 10' to 6'; and reduction in : ;rear yard setback from 2G1 to 9' on property on lot immedib :ately south of 4220 Park Drive, Applicant: Donald PA. i Briggs, Jr . i The Planning Director explained that this application could jnot be approved at this time since the lot split had not been: :approved. I I {Mr. Thornton reported that hie applicant had not posted a jbond or entered into a street improvement agreement at : :this time. I I !The Building Inspector stated that Mr. B-q: was on :vacation out of the City. !After a short discussion, the Commission agreed to con- :time this hearing to the next regular meeting. s I : (b) RECLASSIFICATICM - A-1-6 to R-3 (Multiple- :Family i3esidential Zone) on the southerly side of Laguna :Dr. contiguous to the westerly side of U. S. Freeway XI- ; $3. D. -2B. Applicants: LPA, a joint venture. !Notice of hearing was read. Secretary McCarthy certified :that notice of the public hearing was published and sent to : ithe property owners in the area, and then read the applica: I I I t I * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 8 :tion. !There was no correspondence on this request. 1 I I I I :The Chairman asked the applicant or his representative if : ithey wished to speak. I I hOE PAdISI, 9344 Seacrest Dr. stated that he represented :L P 13 and is also a principal . in this joint senture, and i hey own the R-3 property and would like one zone. . Mr. ; : Parisi, stated there are no improvements on the pro4 berty tney are asking to be rezoned. When asked about I ithe amount of property the State plans to take in connectio! pith the Freeway, Mr. Farisl stated that he understands : !it will be about 30' and if the State taked this property $hey will place a street on the westerly side of the properG !in order to have ingress and egress from both streets. I I I I I I I I I I I I * I 4 I I I I I 1 * I I I 1 ! I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -2- I I I I I I I ~~~"""""""""""""""~""""""-"""--"""--"---"--"- 4 ; M. SMITH, 1085 Laguna Drive, stated that he is in i- : : favor of this zone change. He reported being opposed to : i it when he first received the notice until he noticed he has: : 13-3 property on two sides and he may ultimately want to develop his property also. b I I ! I i The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i from those opposed to this reclassification. I I I I I I I i Tnere were no persons present desiring to speak in oppos<- : tion. I I : The public nearing was closed at ?:59 P. M. 4 I The Planning Director explained that the subject property i was a separate parcel and could be sold separate from the! : adjoining R-3 property owned by LPR* I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I*.*iI b : de reported making a land use study of existing d-2 uses ! i::::: 1::::: in the City and showed on the study map that only 15% of i :I;:;: ; the land zoned R-3 was actually being occupied by apart- ; :;'::I i ments. He pointed out that if lower cost R-1 land continueb :;i::: ; to be re-zoned to 23-3 then the existing higher priced R-2 : :::i:: land will remain vacant or continue to be used for older : iii;iI I single family structures. He stated that the removal of : :;;::: : older buildings and the construction of new structures is i :;;::: ::I::: i one way of up-grading the City. He called attention to the I ;;!:I: : fact that the City can only use a certain amont of property ; :;;::: i that is zoned R-3 and it helps to stagnate the town when it i )l()II :;I::: : is not used. I 11:;:: I I I ::!I;; I I ii 1) I;:: F Points discussed were that there was no urgent need for i :a this zone change at this time; that nothing has been developl- :::::i : ed on the adjoining R-3 property; that a precedence was : i made at the last meeting on denying the zone change in a I 1;:;:: ;similar situation; and cost factors of land that is zoned. : i Commissioner Freistadt commended the Planning DirectoG ion the research study that he made, but felt that since this: :property is owned by the same property owners as the ad- : jacent Et-3 property that this property should be zoned 3-31 I to make the zoning the same. i Commissioner Lamb agreed with Commissioner Freistadt ! i and pointed out the beauty of having a large parcel of land I jand the Commission should consider what zone would event- : ually be best, I I !After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt Re- i i solution No. 402 denying the zone change for the following: ;reasons: I 4 Ifor the present and near future needs of the Community. : ment. I I : The following resolution was presented: I I :::::; ;:'#;I I I 1 t I I I I I I I I 1. There is adequate undeveloped it- 3 property : I 2. The present d-1 zoning is suitable for develop- i I I I I * I I I I iPlanning Commission desolution No. 402. A L3ESoLUTIC~ McCarthy :mmAmm FCA ZIIANGE OF ZGNE F;rZCNi i Sutherland iCF LAGUNA DZIVE, CCNTIGUCUS TG TdE ;/VESTEZLY 1 McComas :rZ-1-6 TC R-9 ON PdGPERTY kT THE SBUTd.E:&LY SIDE: Lamb :SIDE iF U. So FLZEEWAY XI-& D, -2B, was adopted by : Freistadt :title only and futher reading waived. !The request for relcassification was denied. I (c) iZECLASSIFICATICN - 3-3 and R-1-7.5 to C-1 :(Neighborhood Commercial) on the southerly side of TamaS :rack Ave., between Pi0 Pic0 Dr. and Adams St. Appli- i :cants: Jerry L. dombotis, et al. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I # I I I * I I I I * I I I I I I I I I I _- I * I I I I I I I I I -3- I 4 I : The Commission agreed to continue the hearing, i OLD BUSINESS: 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 (a) i3edge Hei hts. The Secretary read the proposed I resolution + o intention amending the first paragraph in I Section 1612, Ordinance No. 9060 by deleting the word : hedge" except within the required front yard setbacks or the required side yards on the street side of such lots on : which hedges or fences cannot be over 42" high in order i not to impair vision on corners for traffic safety. If I I I I 1 b I The City Attorney explained that since this is an amend- I i ment to the zoning ordinance public hearings would have i I to be held before the Planning Commission and Council. ; After discussion on this matter, a motion was made to : : adopt iZesolution of Intention No. 53. 8 i I * I I I I I * I Resolution f. Intention No. 53. A RESOLUTION GF THE McCarthy !xi ! DECLAaING INTENTION TC CCNSIDER AMENDMENT GFf Lamb I) SECTION 1612 OF 0,ZDINANCE NUMBEi3 9060 2EGA-tDINIMcComas ; ; ; PERMISSABLE HEIGHT OF HEDGES, was read in full i Freistadt : : I and adopted. I 1: I N bWTHE CITY OF CAllLSBAD : Sutherland : ; ;: I I ;: I I i I I 1 (b) Report on Master Plan. The Planning Director : i read a communication from UMJM stating that DMJM would need 5 weeks from the date of approval of the Maste : Plan for printing. de reported that Paul Neal stopped here i on Friday, July 9, 1965, on his way to San Diego and : brought a map of a precise plan for the harbor. Commis- i sioners McCarthy and Lamb and the Planning Director me i with Paul Neal to study this map of the harbor. : The Chairman and other Commissioners stated they were i not able to meet with Mr. Neal on such short notice and i expressed a desire to have &yon Barnes and Paul Neal : meet with them. ! The City Attorney stated that it was his information that i DMJM had received $15,000 at the beginning of the con- I tract, but that thereafter payments were to be made by the State only upon City approval of the work and that no such :approval had been requested or given. : The Secretary read a memorandum from the Engineering Department on the preliminary draft of the City of Carls- ;bad General Plan Circulation System and Mr. Tkornton i explained this on a map the Engineering Department had ; prepared. " 5 j I I I I I I I I I : There was discussion regarding the map of the proposed I :harbor and that this was not the way to present this with- i out having the background information to accompany it; : ;and this should be gone over step by step which had not :been done and there was no report on it; that the whole : I in a smaller area around the water. : The Planning Director reported that it was his understand; iing the darbor 3eport would be presented just to the I I Council and would not have to come before the Commissior3. town would be a district, but the improvements would be a I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . rc r I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I b : I 8 4 I -4- ;"""""-.."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" : It was the concensus of the Commission that this should 1 be presented to the Commission before going to the Coun- I i cil and that a preliminary report on the Harbor shduld be : : made before it is printed in final form in order to make I i any changes that the Commission felt were necessary be- : : fore recommending it to the Council expressing the Com- i mission's feelings on this matter and requesting that the i ; Council write to DMJM asking them to give the Planning i Cirector a complete briefing on the decisions reached on : : the Harbor study. I i The Commission agreed to meet on another night besides i i the regular meeting night to discuss the revised prelimin-: ; ary draft of the General Plan page by page and then have i a representative from DMJM come down and then come up; : with a conclusion on this plan. I I I I I I I I I I I I I : NEW BUSINESS: I I I I I I I I I (a) Two new streets at Palomar Airport Aoad and i Freeway Interchange: Avenida Encinas and Lowder Lane. i Mr. Thornton explained the location of these new streets i i off of Palomar Airport Xoad that the State has named, and! : recommended acceptance of these names. i The Commission approved the names of Avenida Encinas i and Lowder Lane. I I I I I I I 9 I 9 I I I By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9:23 P. M. : : to Monday, July 19, 1965, at 7: 30 P. M. for the purpose of discussing the revised preliminary draft of the General t : Plan. 1 ! I I : aespecffully submitted, I Recording Secretary I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I t I I I I I I + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I 8 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 1 I D I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 6 I # I !