HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-11-09; Planning Commission; Minutesrc
I c I * '8, ', '8 ', '8, .t8 ICITV OF CARLSYAD I I ',, +\ 'b, ', " I I 1 ! t-finutes of: PLAPJMIWG CDidf4ISSIOr? : Date of Aeeti ng: Novernber 9, 7965 Name' ', 8% \:'$
!Time of ide5ting: 7:30 P.i-I. : of '?$+?&.&,$!&, j,P_!a,c,e"o_f__i.!~~~~-~~~"~~~~~~-~"~~~~m~~~~ _""""""""""" f ; """""""""""-,"" Member ,ob@.pp 08
I i!'w 84 I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners IlcC mas, i I:):
: WcCarthy, Palmateer and Freistadt. Commissioners! ;:,::;
l;lt:I
jllunn, Lamb and Sutherland were absent. Also pre-: :+;:
::'I I* , : sent were Planning Director Schoell , .Wty,$Clerk i t I::$; :::::* i Adams and Dick Sprehe, City Civil Eng. Ass't. i :"I : I I :::I:( ! APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
: ber 26, 1965, were approved as corrected. :Palmateer : 3 !x: ; :
I I I
I ', '\ \\
*,+o, '
'. .*' '\\ \\ \' *, I '\ '8& '8
I I .b
*
I I I ::;+;
I IYcComas : I I !x: ; ;
1 I (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of Octo- jPfcCarthy ; ix:xi i i
I -; Freistadt i : :x: I@ '
I I *:;:#I ::;:;: 3 WRITTEN CO~~I~~~UNICATIONS: I :::::I
I I 'all;;
I (a) City Pianager - re: Request for vacation : . ::;+I#
::,:I: !of Valley Street from r"4agnolia Avenue to a posi- ! :$i: I tion just nGrth of Hndrea rivenue, aatea ~floveher :x:;;
I. 65, was read by Secretary :;lcr;arti?y.
i Acting Chairman btcComas appointed Cornmissioners i .:I::;:
'::;I: I NcCarthy, Freistadt and Palmateer to serve on a I I:p:; i study. committee regarding this matter and appointi I::!!; : ed Commissioner i3cCarthy as Chairman. I :!;!;:
I l'ol I: i Acting Chairman irlcComas also stated he would be i ii::;:
:available to work with this Committee. 1 ::I:;: .::;I@:
! Comm. Freistadt questioned if study on this mattef It;:;; I' I :::;:i !was necessary. He stated this vacation seemed : i::::: ;desirable and unless there had been many objectiobs, I ;::::: I he could see no reason for a study committee. I :::':;
Acting Chairman McComas and Comm. i4cCarthy stated! ;;i;:: i they had received objections to this matter. I I;;;;:
I ::;::: i Dick Sprehe stated the Engineering Department alsb I::;:: :wished to study this matter more thoroughly, and : 1'1 1 I ;
I that the Engineering Department will have reports! ::;::: : available to the Committee before the next reguiaf I::::: I me ti ny .
i Comm. PtcCarthy informed the members of the Com- i
- : mittee he would call a meeting as soon as these I i reports are received.
i ORAL COI.'Ii.lUN I CAT IONS :
i Thzre were no oral communications. I f :::;:;
I
I
I II
I
11
I I
I
I
11
I I
I
81
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";: ::p;: ;: :i;i ::!:!;
I :;:;:; I
t I 4 I:;:;; ; ; i-; ;
I 0::::; 1:
I I :;;;:;
I I ::;:;:
I I ::::;I
I (a) RECLASS1,FICATIOM - To consjder a reclass! :;':;: ! ification from R-1-/ .5 to R-P (Residential Profess- ::::I:
!I:::: :ional) on property located at 1225 K not.! Jes Hve- i ;:'l:l Icants: Jack Y. and Patricia R. KUbOta: :;I:
.. i nue. Appl' :I:;;,
I I 1 !::I:: i Secretary F4cCarthy certified that notice of the i 8 I I : 1.; ;:i;i; :public hearin3 was published in the newspaper I. I /:::: ;: i and.!notice of the hearing was sent to surrounding! 4i;;;
m: i property owners, and then read the application : ; and letter from t4r. and 4rs. Kubota concerning 1,ii;i
::I:::
. this request. I ;'; : : ; ; I :e:::; * : ; i': ;
I .::::;: .I
0 I
1:
'111 #I; I
I I I 'I
* I .I I I 01
I I
PUBLIC HEARING:
I
I
1 - -
I
I I
!There were no letters objecting to or favoring :
!Acting Chairman McComas asked if the applicant or: i : : ;.: ; i his representative was present and if anyone else: ;::::; ;::I:; :wished to speak in favor of this application.
. :this reclassification. I I I - ** I '" ;:I:;: I:; I :-I
I I
I
I I ::;:::
b I I ::a*#:
.. ~ , ;::::I
I
I I
I I 1
I I
1
I 1 ;, ..: : 8 !
I : ; 9.; ; I ::! 1.:;
11
*I
r
I I * l I I I I
I I
'8., '8, ', ', I
I
t I ',*** ,\8 \.' a I \\ ',, '\\ '.,+, I I
1 '8, 'x ", \ ''''*, 1
I -2- I I N a me ', 'd8 'x, '$k
I : Member .$'$3.*$\,0'.;
;::::;
:;I::*
I I
I I I : of x88gi?j+, ',& 4 \ \'\ r*,+q-?p q,, i : :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-~""""""""" "","" 13 ir4R. JACK Y. KUFSOTA, P. 0. Box 1095, stated this i :application had been made on the basis of a land : 1:
use study. lie s.tated he felt this reclassifica- : 11;;
; tion would be beneficial to surrounding propertiej. I The plot plan submitted with the application sho~fi I::::; i the proposed future freeway widening. All resi- ; l*~b;l
: dcntial homes between Laguna Drive and Buena I :;:;:; i Vista Nay ni 11 be removed by the freeway. !li th i :;I:::
:an 8 lane freeway and a 4 lane future Pi0 Pic0 i :::::: *I i Drive, flr. Kubota stated he felt this R-1 zone :would no longer be desirable and that R-P zoning :
I I ::::::
:::i;:
;:::I:
I,::;; i:: (14
:::::;
::::I; Acting Chairman AcComas informed dr. Kubota he i ;::I;I could have this hearing continued, if he so I I *l:~l, I:':;:
: desired as 4 votes of the Commission are requir- : ;;I:;: i ed to gcss a reclassification. Since only 4 Cornmi- ;I::::
I:;I(I : ssioners were present, it ~~ou'ld take a unanimous ;;4+ 8:
I :;!:;:
!dr. Kubota stated he would leave this up to the ::;::: :Commission; however, he would like to have the ; ;:I::: J hearing at this meeting. I # I:!:::
I ::;i:i
I ::~l;l i i4r. Kubota continued that he would be willing to i :I::;: i dedicate property for improvement of Knowles Ave-: l;;aal
!+:I: I nue and, if desired, would install a street light; It$!:
I t i:::;, 8: i Dick Sprehe informed the Commission Pi0 Pic0 Drivb ;x::;
may be a 2 lane street with parking and not a 4 : ;::'I;
;;::I : lane arterial street. 1 I ;;I::!
I I 4:::;:
: Planning Director Schoell read his report regard-: ;;::;; :*I::: i ing this application to the Cammission wherein : i::;:: : he stated staff investigation had revealed there 1:: 18: i is no R-P property in the area, uses allowed in i ;:I::'
:I:;:: : R-P zones are not consistent with the health, I ;p::
safety and w3lfat-e of an R-1 area, and that there: ;;::::
is adequate undeveloped R-P property within Carlst. ::I::: i bad for present and future needs of the Communityj '8::;: ::;:;:
I ::I::: ! There vere no other persons desiring to speak fori :;!!:! or against this application. I I I::;:;
1 I ;:::I: i Acting Chairman JcComas declared the public hear-: 4::;: ::::;; ing closed at 7:48 P.3. 4 I Iii;::
I I ::pll
1 I i:;::;
I I I:;;:; ((1 II
t I i:::;:
Secretary YcCarthy stated the Joint Tenancy Grant! ;I;;:;
Ceed stated the applicant had owned the property : ;::::;
:::;;I II : since August 5, 1965. I I 11 11
I I I ::!::I '11*11 i Chai rman i\lcCnlilas asked the Planpi ng Director what! i;;!:! I parking facilities would be adequate for this I ;a1# 1 :!I;;; : zoning. I I ;I:;!; * l;;lll
: Mr. Schoell stated he had nDt looked into the re-: ::;::t
i quirements for parking. However, ?4r. Kubota i:;::;
I ::#I;; i would have to meet all City stanii.-trds. He added .: t : : p;
: parking probably would not present any problem ::;:
I:;:;, 8: Mr. Kubota, but the uses allowed in R-P tonus codd I:;::: : create a parking and traffic problem on We stree:. ;:;*:I
;*1;1;
I I ;:,:I: i Comm. Palmateer stated the Mastsf' Plan Report I ::::i: i shows a11 this property to rm;tain in its present i I::;:; *:;I:
: zone of R-1-7.5. Landscaped buffer strips make ! ;:::::
I I I:::::
: there were, no exceptional Circvaistances ti, YarraEk iiii;: i this change of tone. :;;I,*
I I i:::::
I I I 1:::::
! :';:;: ?!1!1!
11
would be the best zone for this area. I I ;::!:: **I,l
* 1 I I I
vote to pass the request. I I I I 11 :!I;;; I*
I
I I I
I I
I I
I
I f
I i Commissioner Freistadt questioned how long Yr. : and ijlrs. Kubota have owned the property.
I
11
I
I * I
I
I I
I
freeways compatible with !?-I zoning. felt
1
I
I I
I I I I
I I I
I
I
I I * I '\ \\ ., 3 ' ' I \\ \ '\ '\ '\ '* I
I I \, ', 8 ', '\ '*, I I s ', '8, ', '\ I
I -3- ',, " \' '\\'\\'*
:""""""""""""""""""""""""""-"""""-"""""~~""""""""""""'"" I Member $'@,*\p@, I
i Comm. Freistadt stated generally the Commission :i!:;: : has been trying to keep commercial and R-P zones I ::;i:: i4rs.lcertain areas of the City. If this property I :::4:: I::;::
:were re-roned,it would be breaking up an entire : e:::;! i area east of the Freenay, and it would be difficult :;*I#* i to deny future requests for zone changes if this : ::ii:: : zone change were granted. I ;::I::
I 1:;:::
I ::;:;: i Chairman McComas stated he was against this zone i ::;;:: change. If the application had requested zoning : ;;:*I 4: : a half of a whole block, the situation may have i l::*:l
111:8:
I*;::: :would be inconsistent with present land uses. I I 4:
;;:;I:
8 I
I I i Name ',,:'?!&, '\,,'@),
I I i of oJ@p,;. 4%
f ; 8 11 ;';
I b
!warranted re-toning. He added this tone change I:;:::
I I I ;I::;;
I I I ::;i;; Conm. Freistadt asked if it is possible the Civic: ::::;; #I:,
Center mig!lt extend northerly.
:The Planning Director stated it is possible the [ ;:;::: Civic Center could extend Oortherly in the future: ;:::::
I There is no definite plans for this presently. i 4:*1;
:::::I
I I ::;:::
!A motion was made to adopt Resolution Fjlo. 419, I I :;I:*' I
l*l:;; I recommending to the Council denying a change of ! iiii:: - :zone from R-1-7.5 to R-P (Residential Professiona)) iii;;i
I I :I;:::
I ;: 1::::
::::;:
I
I I 1)
11)
I I
for the following reasons: I
I I I ; 1. The uses allowed in R-P zones such as signs: ::::;; : 10' high by TO' wide, apartment houses, hotels, : :: i private clubs and mortuaries are not compatible : ;;;::: ;with the welfare of the R-1-7.5 surrounding propebty. :;;::: : 2. There is other adequate property in the Cit$ ;I*;l'
::;I;:
I 1:;1:: I 3. This zone change would not b~3 in concur- I ::;::: i rence with the General Plan. : 4. This zone change would constitueEspot zoninb. ;:II ::;:;: 11;
: The following rejolution bias presented: I I I;!:;:
I Planningommission Resolution No. 410. A RESOLUC i 3'101'3 DEI'JYING APPLICATION FOR CilANGE OF ZOrIE FROPI i : R-1-7.5 TO R-P (RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIOriAL) 0i.J 1 I
1l*111
of Carlsbad all ready zoned R-P. I
I
I I I ::iiii
1 p::: 1'1
I I
I I
I I I
,-
i PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1225 IWOWLES AVENUE, LOCATED i tlcComas : 014 THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF KNO!.ILES AVErJUE, EASTERLY: McCarthy I OF PI0 PIC0 DRIVE, was adopted by title only and I Palmateer i further reading waived. :Freistadt
i Mr. Kubota pointed out the map prepared by City
:staff does not indicate Stratford Lane and this ; i could be a material consideration.
Chairman i3cComas informed idr. Kubota he had full i : recourse with the City Council on the Planning ; Commissions' decision.
I 1 I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I
I I (b) VARI5NCE - To cons.i.d-ex reduction in fron: i tage from77 to 12 1/2' in o;*tier " - to create two : :>an-handleN lots, on property located northerly
jof Falcon Drive cul-de-sac. npplicant: Ernest : : Adler Jr, I I
:Secretary read a letter from i!r. Adler, dated !November 8, 1965, requesting this application be :continued to the next regular n12eting. I I
:The Cornmission agreed to cont.inue this applicatioi !until the next regular meeting. I I ::;::I t:;1;;
i TEiITATIVE SUGi?EVISIO!l I"1APS:
! TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION PIAP - FALCUfl HILI. V.?IT ?'i2.4j :I::;: i36 lots, Zone R-1-7.5. Location: On th;;. i:orthetatp
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 l
a I 4 I !ll!l!
/ I I ' I .. '\ ', "
I I \ '\ ', '' \\ 88
I 1 '% ', ', 8 ' '
I -4-
I I I I I I
I I ; I ", ', '\ 8, ' '
I i N a me "8, **!$,, *,
I I ; of "+$!+, .,'% ;
I : Member '\$$$'9;.+* ,o 'Q ..p$? $"; I
" '\ , ' , \ 8'
I I
I
. b'
'\ '.$$
I
;"""""""""""""~"""""""~"""""""""""~-""""~~"""""".""""","--
I :;#I:* !side of Bass\;rood Avenue between Canyon Street andi :;:::: i Donna Drive. Owner and Subdividers: Kamar I I :::;::
I :::::i : Construction Company. 1 I :::, @:I
I ::;':: !Secretary i4cCarthy read letters from surrounding ! :;'::: i property owners protesting the approval of this ::ii:: 11
:tentative map as follows: * ;I:@::
I :i':jii
I (a) Letter dated November 3, 1965, from 1 i:: :::
I 1::::: II :Ernest Adlel-, Jr., requesting disapproval of the i ; tentative map becaQse the subject map shows Elm ; i:::;;
:Avenue deflecting PJorth into adjacent property :instead of a direct straight line, which conflictb jlf~ith 3rd. No. 9050, Article II, Sections 200 and i i 201, and because the map shows many lots backing : :into Elm Avenue, which would be undesirable from i an aesthetic viewpoint and is damaging to the : residential character of the neighborhood and I would lower property values.
: Carl L. Bernhardt, requesting disapproval of the i i tentative map because it indicates Elm Avenue !will turn north into adjacent property rather :than follow a direct line which will interfere i ivrith the proper development of adjacent land.
i E. J. Sabson, representative for Group Ten Develob- i ment and Investment Company, requesting disapprovtl I of the tentaFive map because it may not conform ;
; to the State Subdivision Law or City Ordinance I and as shown on the map, Elm Avenue curving to : : the North will caus2 financial loss to their : property. I I
i Secretary i4cCarthy read the reports from the : various departments and agencies.
i Chairmail FlcComas asked Mr. Ernest Adler to point j j out where his property was located.
i!!r. Adler pointed out his property on the tenta- I tive subdivision map and stated the improvement i i of Elm Avenue by the subdivision is not indicated! : on the map.
IDick Sprehe stated the City has adopted a precise! jplan of Elm Avenue. The subdividers have conform4 :ed to the City's request by showing the precise : jalignment of Elm Avenue as adopted. The subdivi-: :ders have dedicated land for Elm Avenue, but will i !not have to improve it becaus.e the subdivision i :vi11 have no vehicular access to Elm Avenue. I I
:Commissioner Palmateer added Flm Avenue as a pre- icisc plan wi 11 b2 improvcd arid financed by the i :Ci ty frm Gas Tax Funds.
i3r. Adler pointed out when his tentative map was I :presented to this Commission, he was inforned he ; :had to dedicate and improve the streets the :proposed subdivision. I I
!Commissionzr Freistadt brought out the subdivider4 :will be required to irnprove kfcstwood and Blenkarnd :Drive. tle also stated Elm Avevr~c appears to abut! Ithe proposed subdivision 2cd is acttrally not a ::.+ ;part of the subdivisicn.
I I I
I I I
I I I
1:;:
1 I * I I I I I I 1 I
I I I I * (b) Letter dated September 3, 1965, from I
I I I I 8
I * I I I
I I 1 I (c) Letter dated Plovenlber 2, 1965, from I I
I I I
I I
I t I I I * 1 1 I I I I
I I I I I I
1 I 4 * I I
I
I I
I I
t * /
I I ;
I I I I
I I I I 8
I I I I I
I I * I I I 1 !
,-
I
I I I I
I I
4 . ...' '*. I
a ', '\,'., '\ '"' I
I
I : '.\'\'\\\'\', 8 x' I
I ''8 ", '*, '\, \ 8 I
I * -5- i Na me "', ''@8 \\, ''4 \$-t-t, i
I ; of '$*\$'\ \,& .& ,4' ' '*<
I
I I ' ', 8'
I
I 2.$?p ~"~""~"""""""""~""""""""""""""~~"""""""""~""------"-----------,---- : Member ~~@..p~$~&'\.,i ::;;:: !iir. Adler stated on the original tentative nap I ::I;::
:submitted.for this property, which has now expir-i It: 1::
ied, Elm Avenue was shown running through tho sub-: I:, *I
jdivision. He further stated when his Subdivision: :;a::: :was before the Conmission, it wasn't allowed acce2s ~l;:ll
I to Elm Avenue, but was required to improve it. I :::I::
:The only reason given for disapproving his tentative ;1,;10
::;t::
:map k!as that it did not follow the alignment of : :!pi :Elm Avenue as shown on the original tentative of :: :Falcon Hills Subdivision, The Attorney had stated I#:;:: i::;::
:this alignment had to be followed as the City had: ,:;I:: !approved it and they could be liabte if they I
I :I;:::
:allowed the alignment to be changed. NOW, the
;:I:;; iiii:: :old tentative map has expired, so the City can : :follow a new alignment. I ;!::::
l,:ltl
I I ::I I I :::,I; IComm. FlcComas asked i'lr. Adler if there has been i ,::;:I :building since that time which would indicate the : S1I
:::I:: !alignment of Elm. I I
I I ,:::I
hr. Adler stated there has bean building, but not i :::::; :::::, :in this area. 1 I ":;::
8 I I I ::;:;; :I I
!Secretary IIcCarthy felt the pertinent fact that i ;::;::
:concerns the Planning Commission, is whether or : :;1:0: :not the alignment of Elm Avenue as shown on the i i::;:;
:tentative map follows the precise plan of Elm Ave-: :!+; I:;
Inue as adopted by the City. I I ::I
I !;::;I $1
:Dick Sprehe stated the alignment as shown on the I :::;#I ':: I
:tentative map does follow the precise plan. I I :;@l:l
11:;;; i:::;; :The City Attorney explained there was a previous I i::::; !tentative subdivision map filed on this property : ;::i;;
:by Kamar Construction Company. Ilowevcr, the I I:'
:precise plan of Elm controls the alignment of the ! 1:::: iiii:: !street, regardless of where it is sRo\?n on a I I ::;;:I :tentative map. Also, showing a street running I ::II::
jstraight or curved does not make it right or $ I ::i:;: ::;::: Nrong. The precise plan controls the design of : iEla shown on this tentative map. ::,:;:
I I I i:::::
8 # 1,:;::
iHR. JERRY R0P"IBOTIS of Kamar Constsuction Company, i :::;:: :stated he felt backing lots up to a 68 foot street; ::;;:: !is good land use as opposed to facing houses on ; ::;;:; kuch a street. I I ::::I 81
I ,Il#I'
I:;/:
:'lr. Adler stated a good example of the unattractivF- :;I::: !:::I:
bess of streets with fences facing them is in the ; * ::i;
gastern part of Chestnut Street and on the easterly iiii:l '1;
side of Elm Avenue. He added City ordinance states iadjoini ng property owners must be considered when i ::I:;:
planning a new subdivision. The lots backing up :
:to Elm Avenue will adversely affect the attractive: ;;::;!
hess of this major street after it is completed. i :L1; ::I;
bots like these usually have fences 6' or higher. : :!;::;
I I I I ;!I1:'
Dick Sprehe read the memorandum to the Planning i ::::;; 1:::
Fomrrlission frorn the Engineering Department regard-! ::::I: @:;;*I
,ing this tentative subdivision map. , ::;;::
I I ::;I::
comm. Freistadt asked if the 20' pedestrian way i I:@:::
!/ill be paved. I I;!:::
I 1:;::: i:::::
Pick Sprehe stated this way will be paved with ,a1;1;
koncrete or asphalt; this VJill be wprked out with I ;::;:;
l:;l:l
$he subdivision. tie added Elm Avcrrue vi11 have : ::4;: Gidewalks and this pedestrian *;dy wl?1 connect 8 $ ::!I::
\Jes tnood to Elm Avenue. I :::;:I
I ;:;;:: * I I I ;::;:i
I I I I ;ii;;;
I I ;11;1; I I 8 I :I:;::
I I *)II 13
::::::
ti
I
I 'I
$1 I'
111)
I t
I I I 1 1
I
I I
I
I(,II
I 4 I
1,
:::I;:
b::$
:a11
I
I I
I I I I I I I
I I
I 1
I 1 !l!l!I
-
I 1 *, 8' 8 *. 1 I I 8 '\ '*, '\ '\,", I * I I I I I
I
I I I I '\\ '. '\ '.' ',,',' ., " 1, ', " '3 I '\ ', '\ I
I -6-
I I / N a me ** '*s* ".:$!,,
I I of ''?&$,>, $@8, I
I ; Member '%$?h&?@84 ;"""""""""~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""l"""-""""-" ""1""
I I ::;;:; i Commissioner JcComas brought up the radius of the! :::1:t : cul-de-sac has been lowered from 50' to 45'. He : 1::::: ! asked if the City had a standard radius for cul- i :&I:::
l::**l : de-sacs. I I ::;:::
I t+1:;:
I I 811 I I i;:::: i Planning Director Schoell stated the standard I (**I : radius is 50'; however, this can be lowered if : :::;::
i the cul-de-sac serves only a few lots. I !;:;:!
I I I ::;:::
I I ::;::I 11 i Chairman t4cComas closed the public hearing at i iji:ii : 8:41 P,i-1. I I i:;:::
I I 'I::; i Secretary IlcCarthy stated he felt lots backing up! :; I to Elm Avenue would be a safety feature and asked: :I:::: It :Yr. Rombotis if any plans for planting had been ; I made. I I ii:IlI 181::;
I I I 1:;: I I l;:~#l
!Ilr. Rombotis stated the subdivision lots vary up :e::;: i to 8' higher than Elm Avenue. The bank will be : ;:#;I;
1::::1 : planted. I I :::;::
I I :::a *I
i Commissioner Palmateer asked i3r. Sprehe if both i
ii.fonroe and Donna ill intersect Elrn Avenue. I I(O6*
ii4r. Sprehe explained ilonroe Street and Donna Dr. i : will both probably intersect Elm Avenue. !4onroe : :would intersect Elm Avenue !with future develop- I :rnent in the area.
!A motion was made to adopt Resolution i40. 412,
:recommending approval of Falcon Hi11 Unlt Go. 4 \ !Subdivision, subject to the recommendations of . : the various departments.
:The following resolution was presented:
!Planning Commission Resotution No. 412. A RESO- iilcComas : It : !xi : i LUTLON OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COPIMISSION i3cCarthy ;xi !x: i 1 i RECOi:Ti.lENDITSG APPROVAL OF THE TEi.!TATIUE NAP [JF :Palmateer i x;xi I :FALCON HILLS UiJIT MO. 4 SUBDIVISIObI, was adopted iFreistadt ; i !x! : i by title only and further reading waived. * I i::::;
I 1:;I:l
iTEb!TATIVE PARCEL MAP. located on prooertv lyinq j:::::
:on the westerly side of Highland Drive, north of :ic:ii 11,;l' ISuena Vista !.Jay, submitted by the City of Carls- I ;::I:: : baa. I I ;:'::I
i Secretary LlcCarthy certified the surrounding pro- i :;I:#: ::i: i perty owners had been properly notified and read I ::::I:
:the letters from the various departments and I ;::::; ! agencies. * l:~l:l
I I ::I:::
Chairman AcComas asked if there was anyone present i:41:
j!r~Jho wished to speak regarding this tentative map.: 1 18 i:i:
1 I I I 4:iii :I,
!Dick Sprehe stated this procedure is new under : :::;;: :the State Nap Act. This is technically not a sub< i division map. He explained this property was I lllll; t::::; :renlnants of properties acquired for tne Las I !iriii jFlores Street Extension. This sale of property I :will reimburse the City for monies spent to ac- : !quire said rights-of-way. Power could be run in i :the parkway. The engineering staff and the San ; i:::;: !Diego Gas & Electric Company are working out I 8 :::::; jthese details now. * ::;::I i:::::
:A discussion was held wherein it w~s brought out : 1:;::; ::;:::
:Item No. 13 & 14 of Resolution No. 413, states ::::*: jutilities shall be provided by future owners and : 1:::::
:that the power facilities may or may not be :I,::;
I I:;,+,
I I I ;I1::; I 1 ;::::;
I I I ;::;:;
I I I 1:fia:;
1 I ;;!;:!
I
I
::x;:;
t I ::;;::
I ;i:;ii
I I I I !:!:@: ;:::i:
1:: 16:
:;I:::
;::l:l ;:::
I I !I;:;:
I I I ::::;; &I 1 * :::;;; :; I li:: /:::I $1
* ;: 11
I I 1'::::
I I ' ::Ir::
t ;:::;I
I I :::;:: ::;:;;
I
I
I
I
I I I
+ I * *:I:::
I
t
I I : :::I::
;::'I:
I:;:;,
:::::: :::::: 4:;:;
I
I
8 I I I
I
&
I installed underground; therefore, the City might
:be enjoying privileges not extended to individual: i subdi vi ders.
I Commissioner Freistadt moved the Resolution be i i approved changing Item 13 to "power facilities ; : shall be underground". After further discussion,!
I I I I I I i
Commissioner Fresitadt withdreu his motion. I I
I I 1 I rlr. Sprehe pointed out ilorning Glory Lane wi 11 be: i improved by the City. I I I
I 1 I : City Clerk Adams stated she felt the reason this i map had been submitted was because the City had i i felt this was the best division of land. If the : : City were to improve these lots, the cost of suchi I improvements could be added to the selling price :
:of the lots. 1 +
! Commissioner Freistadt felt this was a unique si-! i tuation and could see no reason why the City :should put utilities in. I l
! The Commissioners agreed Item 13 be deleted and I
Item 14 reworded to read "Underground utili ties i :shall be installed!.':-
After further discussion, the Commissioners agreeb : to continue this tentative map to the next regulaf !meeting of the Planning Cornmission.
I I I
I I
i I I I 8
1 1 I I I I i I OLD BUSINESS:
I I I (a) Subdivision !lap Act. Amendment to Pro- ! ! vide for Parks for Recreational Purposes. I I
: The City Attorney stated he had contacted the i San Diego County Planning Department. They hzve I checked all over the country and have found no :
; general trend or general costs. They have found i i costs are based on need, cost of land and the : population. He stated he also went over the i i4aster Plan and they have approximately 25 acres i i per 1,000 population. He pointed out the Master i ; Plan has not yet been adopted. He asked that :more study be made and then a report could be i made to the Commissioners.
[ Chairman I'JcComas inquired of the Planning Directok : if the Parks and Recreation Commission could help:
The Planning Director stated the Parks and Recreai : tion Commission had received a memorandum regard-: : ing this, and stated he would like to study with : ; them and the Attorney and report to the Commissioe.
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 (b) Variances by ASPO. I
I The Planning Director requested this matter be i
:continued to the next meeting. I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 8 * I I
I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I !
~ NEU BUSTMESS:
I (a) El Camino Real Prime Arterial Alignment.:
Dick Sprehe explained a letter had been received i from ilr. I). K. Speer, County Road Surveyor, re- : garding El Camino Real Prime Arterial Alignnent, where 2 alternate routes were proposed. The
County requests the City's preference of the two routes.
* e
I I
I I I I I t t
-8-
I I t I I I I I * I I
I' , \, ., ' ' 1 8 , ,, '\ '\ '' I I 1 I I
I I I
I I I I
I
I 1 I * * 1 I i filr. Schoell explained the County does not neces- i : sarily prefer either route, but when a shorter : I route is designed, they are obligated to consider! : it. I 1
: After a short discussion, it was agreed the Plan-! i ning Director write a letter from the Planning ; Commission to the City Council concurring with i ; the Planning and Engineering Department's recorn- : i inendations concerning El Camino Real Prime I : Arterial Alignment. I
I Comm. Palmateer stated he ~~ould be able to attend! i the BCA-TI Conference November 15, 3965 to be i I held at the Hilton Inn in San Diego. I I
Planning Director Schoell instructed the recordin$ ; secretary to make the necessary arrangements with: : ilrs. Ling of Title Insurance Company and to * I i conff rm the reservation wi til Comm. Palmateer.
!By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at
I b I I l
8
I I I I I
I I I
1 * b I I I &
: 9:24 P.14. t I I Respectfully submitted, I I
I I I
I I
4 I I I I 1 I 1 1
NOEL tiELT0i.S i Recording Secretary I I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I
I
I
I I I I I I 8 i I I I * I I I I t I I # I I I I
I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I 8 I I
I I P I I I I I I *
I 8 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 L I I I I * I I I I * * I 8 * 8 I I I I I I I I I I
1 *
I I * I * I I I * * I I
I I I I * * I I I I I I I 1 I t 8 I I I I * * I I
I I I * I I # I I I I I
I I I I I