Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-02-21; Planning Commission; Minutes* I , *\ ,- ' *' 1 I ',, ,I \ '8 \, ', 8 ' ' ' ** t i iqtnutes of: PLANNING COK15SION (Regular ; ; Date of Heeting: February 21, 19SC Adjourneh Name *.,$,%, ,4 i i Time of bleeting: 7:30 P. il. Meeti ng )I of ~$9?..,+,&+ @ :.Rlacc of"Mee,tingl; ____ I;ouoxi,l,S;bat&er,s _-_-. - .."-_.. +- I Member ----_.- -----c.l..s--;.-;- ,o$&-Q d.4 ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners i ;:::':I : Sutherland, Munn, Palmateer, McComas , McCarthy, 1 :.; 8 1 I I Lamb and Freistadt. Also present were City b +I 4:;:: I Attorney 1111 1 son, P1 anni ng Director Schoell , 8 I;+::: I Building inspector Osburn, and Ass't City ;l:;ll i Engineer ThoPton. I :::::: f APPROVAL OF MINUTES: kutherland i [xi 4 i : (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of February Palmateer i i i 4 : I : 8, 1966, were approved as corrected.. . -$!cComas : i i x : It : I CITY OF CAKLSBAD I I s, ', 'b8 ', ',,'*, \8 '8 ' '\ ' ' I I I I '. '& '*,>$ I I I t i:;::: I t 4 ;ii:ii t t ;;;:;i I burin ;@:x;; 11 I NcCarthy !xi : I( ; i I I ;ii;;: ;;:!;I ;*Itti ;::;:; ;I:;:; ;::I:' I I ; : : ; 4.; I I I::$: ::;:I: I I I I Kamb rreistadt :;:x:* I : >4 i i I i WRITTEN CON'~IUNICATI0NS: I i:;::: I I:'*;: i [a1 Council Actionoon Planning Platters was n0ted.i : b City Manager - re: Removal of Lagoon Sfde- ; ;::::I 1 walk easement on Lots 1 thru 9, Buena Vista I I ;::;:: i Gardens. Peti tfon presented to Council concern- i i ion for study and recommendatfon. t I ;!I ,I:;:; 1: i lJfth the consent of the Commission, Chairman : IdcCornas asked that this matter be placed on the i /:!:: i:* i agenda for the next meeting since they had not ; ,:;I:: ! had time to study it. I I I F : ing this matter was referred to Planning Commfss-i I I I I I I ;;::i; :;a::! I :;;:;: 1 t I !;;:;; 1: I ::$: 4 I :::::: :;::i; :I::;; ;I::,; P i of State Highway 78 and El Camino Real. Appllcaqts: :::;:; ;:-;I I .I I:!::: 11 III:I: I i::::; *I I ;::::; I : ORA1 COMNUidICATIONS: I t I There were no oral communications. I ;::::; i PUBLIC HEARIHGS: I l;ll;: i (a) RECLASSlFlCATION - Zone R-A010 to C-2 : (General Commercial 1 on the Southwesterly corner i : FAWCO, ET At. : The Chafrman announced the public heaping open. i : Notice of the hearing was read. Secretary I I :::::; i Palmatesr certified that notice of public hearind iiiii: i was published and sent to property owners in the i ;:::I; It : area, and then read the application. t ;:;I:l I I I I ;;;::; i There was one item of correspondence dated ;:;:;: I;:;: i February 21, 1966, signed "A group of interested i : property owners" that was not considered because I ;:'I;: of lack of personal signatures, objectfng to I I 1:~~:; : the zone change for FAMCO, ET AI. - I ::;;:: .... . I ;;;I;: ! I ::t:1: fir.! PlaiTninq Djwctar gzva a report of til? staff! ,;::;: i in!':stigation on- this qztgcr. ;I:#&* I 0::;: ... . .. . I :i;:;' t :;;:;e : t iiIip # 6 I,;:;; I 8 * :;;::: I I I :;::;; I i:;:;; :'PI i :;~I:l 14 I ' ::I: I I I ;t;;:: I ;;!;I; I i:;:;: 8 1;::;; I :::;:I I !I!!!: 'I 1 1 I ;:;lll I I * I I I I I I 1 (11 .'I I 1 I I 6: k I)' i::;:; 4 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I:;'#; i:::ij I f t ! .- -2- I I’ I I I ’ \’ I I I I I I , .., I I \ *’ I t‘ I I I ’, ’\, ‘., 8, ’, ‘, I I I *\\ ‘\ ’, ‘ , ’ I I 1 I 1 I I 1 i The Chairman announced the Commission would now : hear from the applicact or his representative and any others desiring to speak in favor of this; : appl i cation. I I i !!o one present spoke in favor of this applicatioi. I The Chairman announced the Commission would now i hear from those who wished to speak in oppositio4. i As there were no persons .present desiring to spea(:k i in opposition, the public hearing was closed at : : 7:50 P. iL1. I The Commission questioned the parcel being shown i as C-2 property on the zoning map at this corner.: The Planning Director explained that the C-2 : zoning was granted and according to the ordinanc4 i a precise plan was to have been presented. At i : first when he read the ordinance he did not I I i believe the property was zoned C-2 at the presen? : tiae, howeverg after reading it again this I I evening, there was a possibility it is zoned C-2. The property owners are asking that the i : !.!csterly portion that is now toned I?-A-10 be i zoned C-2. By zoning the entire property C-2, I : it will clear any doubts of the zoning on this i property. 1 Commissioner NcCarthy questioned whether the Citi i was sure the fllay Company would build there and : ; questioned the uses t-hat are permitted in a C-2 i i zone for this property near the lagoon. I I I Commissioner Freistadt stated that he attended f a meeting when the May Company presented their i i proposed shopping center plans in the Council : : Chambers. * I Points discussed by the Commission were that the9 i felt the City Manager or some one from the Counctl : or flay. Company should have been present at this i i meeting to clear up any matters; that there I I should be a precise plan presented. ; The Planning Director explained that the City i Staff had met with the architect and engineers i i from.the Play Company that week and their plans : ; are isMrtent. i Mr. Thorton stated the May Company has scheduled i to start grading the shopping center site for : ; parking lots, structures and all their grading i i plans in June or July, 1966. The grading plan , : wi 11 be reviewed and approved by the City I I ! Engineers department. i Commissioner Munn stated that the Commission i knows what the land is going to be used for and I : could not understand why they. were discussing i i this. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 1 I 1 I I r I t I D l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I * .I I I I I I I I :::;:I 11::: t ii;::@ I:;:;, ::::;: I I:;::: I !::ii! I I ::::;: i valid reason not to reclassify this property and ::::;: ; believes the financial arrangements have been : ;:: :::;:I *I: 1 made. I 1 ;::!:I I ::I::: I ::,:;: I I :;::I: I 8 4: I I I I I Commissioner Freistadt stated that he saw no I I I I I I I I 1 ;:;::: I I I a !I:!:! .- I I I : :.i ; i i I The following resolution was presented: I I i: '1; I 41;;; A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 427 i ::,*,I ': recommending a change of zone from R-A-10 to C-2: ;lt:ll 1:;;;: i on the above property for the following reasons: ; :::;:: I I I :::I:: 1. The location of the property at the inter- / :::i:r I'*I( : section of two major thoroughfares makes it I !:::It 8: I:;#:: i ideally suited for a regional shopping center sudh :I;::: I as has been proposed and is permitted under a : ::;::: i C-2 zone. I ::;I : 2. Permitted uses in C-2 zone are provided for ;::::I at this site in the proposed General Plan. llllt' I I ;::::i i 3. This rezoning appears to be in the best I I ;I#;:# I general interests of the City of Carlsbad. 1 41;: I :!::In I :*la I' 'i Planning Commission Resolution No. 427. A RESOLi-Sutherland ; ;x: i : ::,:,; I TION REC0Nr:SENDING TO COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZONE FROH : Munn : j, :x! ; : : R-AIIO to C-2 ON PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHHESTERLY' I Palmateeri i ix; : 11 i CORNER OF STATE HIGHWAY 78 AND EL CAi4INO REAL, : i4cComas : :x; i i was adopted by title only and further reading i 14cCarthy : ;:I : ; :x; : :* Lamb I : :x: : i .I I I I '11 I I 11 - : waived. I I I I Freistadtix: I:* ixf ; #I 11 I I i (b) VARIANCE - To consider an increase in build- ::;;:: :::I:: ; ing height from 35' to 60' with the applicable :ll:l; exceptions for penthouses and roof structures on: 1::;;t : the Southwesterly corner of State Highway 78 and! {!:;:! I :I:; 1 El Canino Real. Applicants: FAWCO, ET AL. I I ;::;I; I I!!I!I I I I i The Chairman announced the public hearing was optin. I certified that notices of the public hearing weri : sent to property owners in the area, and then : : read the application. I i this matter. I I resclting from staff investigation and explained: : that a different height limitation is necessary i i to build this type of center. I i The Chairman announced the Commission would now : hear from the applicant or his representative : and any others desiring to speak in favor of thii i applfcatidn.. I 1 I I Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary I t I I I " : There were no written communications regarding i I I * I I The Planning Director gave a report of facts 1 I I I b ! i I ;-1*1- i No one spoke for or against this matter, i The public hearing was closed at 8:20 P. !4. 8 I ;::;:! ;:;1:t I I I I ;:;:I: pl::: a l!!l!I t I I 8 I I Commissioner Lamb stated he believed the Nay Company could be more than 35 feet, but he did : i not believe the reasons given for request4ng thid : variance meet the four requirements necessary I for granting a variance. He stated that he I : felt this would be setting a preredence for futute developments in the area. 4 i The Planning Director explained that the Shoppin4 : Center's location would not make its height de- ; trimental. I I I I I I I l l 1 I I t 1 I I I I 1 0 I e I I I : I I I l a I I I I The Building Inspector reported that they have : rough plans of the shopping center in the buildidg : department and that grading plans will be submitded. i He explained that the building would be 60 feet : I high at the northern or lower level of the I I parking lot, but would only be about half that i t far above the southern section of the lot. Pro- : i jected plans for the center call for customers ; parking in the upper level of the lot to enter t& i section floar of the center, while those grrking i : in the lower level lot would enter the shopping : I complex's ground floor. i Mr. Thorton explained that the height limit is i : determined from the official grade of the streed i (El Camino Rehl) at a point opposite of the I i rnfddle. of the structure. ! Upon being questioned, the City Attorney stated i I the Comrflission could grant a variance for an b I increase in height limit if they wished and they i : would not have to consider setting a precedence 4s i they would not be bound to granting future I # : variances of this type along the lagoon. Commissioner Palmateer questioned the height I lfnlft on signs and the Building Inspector ex- : plained that the height limitation on signs was i removed over two years ago. ! Commissioner 14cCarthy questioned the City AttorniJ i on whether they should overlook Item 2 in this I : case, and the City Attorney stated that point wa$ i a valid one and had been discussed many tfimes. : : He was quite sure if the variance were granted i i and the matter was taken to court, the court I I : would uphold the Planning Commission's decision. : There was discussion on setting a precedence; I I proposed plans; and that the increase in height ! : might be used to the property line. I I : The City Attorney stated the Nay Company is In i the process of drawing up the building plans. I I i The Planning Director pointed out that the 1 i Commission should note that the downtown area i ; build to the property line and that the regional i I shopping center would be built in the center of : : the property and would not be blocking light I i and air to adjacent property. If the Commission : wished they could place restrictions on the I variance saying they could not build within 20 i : feet of the property line. I I : Other points discussed by the Commission were i that there were a lack of facts: and that there I I is more information available that could be I : presented at the next meeting; whether all of thi : buildings on the plan would be entitled to have ; i 60 foot height limit; that the City Manager or i someone from the May Company should be present; : : that the meeting should be continued for further i i information. I I I I I I I I * k 1 I I I - I 1 I I I I I I I I l I I t r I I * t D I 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 * t ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 8 I 1 I I -5- I Commissioner Lamb questioned the Planning Directir i regarding ordinances and the Planning Director i ;::::: i ordinances- and they should definitely have I ::;::I : ordinances to take care of these requests. They i 4:;:: i ar'e trying to get ordinances now in an overall i package from 3i.IJH which should be here within a : i month. I :I:::: i A motion was made for the Chairman to re-open thi Sutherlana i :x: ; ; i public hearing and continue the hearing to the : Munn : ; :x; : : : next regular meeting on iiarch 8, 1965. I Palmateer: : !x: ; I1 : : f.!cComas : :; I :xi : I I 8cCarthy : ;xi ; : I : Lamb I ac :x: : : I I I Freistadtixi !xi : 11 : I I ;;p:: : Since the following two public haarings were on ; i::;:; 0: i the same property and pertained to the subdivisiin :::I SI::; : that would be considered, the City Attorney I :;;I i stated they could discuss both items and the I I ;:4ii i subdivision. I I ;::::: I I I:::;: ::I: / (c) RECLASSIFICATIQW - Zone R-A-10 to R-1-7,000! ;;:!:I I: I sq. ft. on the !ilesterly side of El Camino Real, ; ;:llll 1:l': i Easterly from Park Dr., being a portion of Lot I{ i;/L 1 gho. Rgua tledionda, i4ap 823. Applicants: Kamar; I;&; 1;*1;1 i Construction Co. I I I i;:::: :::::i I ;::::; i The Chairrrlan announced the public hearfng was ! : open. :;;;;: I ;:Ill; I I ;i;;:: ! Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certif e: i fied that notice of public hearing was published: ::::I: i and sent to the property owners in the area, and i : then read the application, i The Secretary read the following correspondence: ! 2/15/65 Georgia Nelson, 4260 Skyline Road, i objecting to small homes because they would I I : increase the tax burden and increase the need : i for police protection. The small lot site would! : devaluate their property. I I I 2/17/66 Dr. Geo. 14. itlerkl2, 4225 Sunnyhill Dr. I i objecting to the small size lots and asking for I a buffer zone for the immediate contiguous areas! : to at least 15,000 sq. ft, lot and then drop dowh i to 10,000 sq. ft. in areas adjacent to the 15,006 : sq. ft. lots. He requested the Commission to I I begin study to upgrade the zoning in the area to: : the blest of them from 10,000 sq. ft. to 15,000 i i Petition received Feb. 21, 1966, protesting the : zone change from 10,000 to 7,000 sq. ft. because: i it would devaluate their property, augment I I future tone changes requested for undeveloped I i property immediately adajacent to Unit 2 Carlsbad 1 Highlands, increase the flow of traffic on propoged i D Street and Hillside Drive and be detrimental to : the planned development of the City of Carlsbad, I was signed by 103 persons. I t I I stated that the City is now using antiquated I I ;:: l14::! Ill :: :I:: ::I:;: ::i::: I :::;;; (11 I I I I I I I I I I 18 I I I 1 1:;1 t I I I I 11 $:;;I ;::;:; I I::;:; I I ;::;:; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sq. ft. I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l a t I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I : 'X8. ". I I \\ I I I I I I '\ "., '\, '\,'., I I I : Name t8,'$&, '\ '.$I. I I I i *f '.".\@' =y~ I I \GJ\O '?+ : t I ;I:;:! The Planning Director gave a report of the staff! ;; 1:::; I1 : investigation and stated that the reports w?r?? ! :::;:: i written on the tentative map were the same repo{ts :ltl;: I as for the precise plan. fie explained that whilg I:;!;; 11 there are 156.8 acres in the subdivision only thp :::;ii ; area outlined in green was being reclassified te ::; ::: i R-1-17. He pointed out that the Commission I I iii:;: :I1::: I should consider the fact they are asking for a I 1:: 11 ::::;: i tone change from 2-A to R-1 which is more re- : :::;:I 111 f strictivc and excludes many agricultural, I I i poultry and animal uses allowed in R-A zones. I I jiiiii I There are 329 parcels proposed. Lots 1 thru 1 ;:I: i 325 will average 9,784 sq. ft. per lot. The I :;I;l1 I* i total lot density of 588 lots would average I ::;:;: : 8,986 sq. ft. 'per lot. Lot 326 is to be dedicatbd ::i::: !;;;I1 i for park purposes. The subdivider is planning eo 1::: I deed this land to the City and grade it to meet ii:;:: II(I( i the approva? of the Planning Commission and I I :::I:: ; Engineering Department. I 1*1:1~ 4: I I i;::;: 1 Commissioner Palmateer questioned the precise i ::I::: i plan on the large areas in the subdivision. 8 I 1::;;: I ::::;; I1 i The Planning Director explained that the large : :::;,I :::I:: i areas would be zoned 7,000 sq. ft. but they I I !:;;:I : would have to come before the Commission before ;' :I:;:: i they could be developed €or more than a single 1 :::::i : residence. tic explained the areas shown in blue; :::;:* ::'I:: would be 7,000 to 7,999 sq. ft.. The yellow ; :::::: : would be 8,000 to 10,000 sq. ft.. The red I I ::It ::;: I would be 10,000 sq. ft. or larger. I I 4:::: I ::!l!l I I I I I I '\ ' ' 9, '\ ' ' ' I ' , ' \\ '. '\ I -6- I \\ \'\ ' " :""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-."-""""""-i""""""""" : Member $'f$?$%\$',: "","" :::I I I:# I 1 i I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I t Commissioner Freistadt inquired regarding properky closer to the lagoon being zoned R-T and the I Planning Director stated that the area closer : to the lagoon should possibly be developed with a higher density to allow more peopl6-to.enjoy : the bet.uty of the lagoon. lie explained that i the developers own the large parcel of land I l and wish to rezone the property in order that ! future property owners who purchase the Ather lots in the subdivision will know that the I I small size lots may be developed later. He then gave a report of his findings on the subdi4i- sion nap. He explained that there are no streeqs on tile property at the present time, and the 75 ; ft. existing easement for power line is close t4 the park area. It is their tentative thinking ; the easement will be turned toward the south i and double in width. The streets in the sub- : division correlate with the streets in the City.! The City is preparing an ordinance now for I I easements in connection with parks for hiking i trails, etc., and for dedication of property : for park site from developers. The developers : of this property are willing to dedicate properiy and meet the requirements that will be requested: in the ordinance. They are proposing to dedicaqe 7.5 acres and if the ordinance is passed, they : would have to dedicate more land, or in lieu i thereof, a fee for additional land if it were : necessary to meet the standard set forth in the i ordinance. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1- I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I rc I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I + I + I I I I I I I I 1 I The Planning Director presented a map of the i vi;:: City showing the park lands now available to ::$I: :::;1: the people of Carlsbad including State Parks, ; leased park land, and City owned park. lands and i :;,::i showed flow the proposed subdivisions park would : @1:;:4 !:;;I: tie in with the overall plan. I :::I;: : 1;:;:: I The Chairman asked the Engineering Department fo:r their rrcommendations on this and Mr. Thorton : stated that the Engineerin3 Department does not I give recommendations on zone reclassifications I unless the street width or utilities are iri- I I adequate. He explained the streets in the sub- I division and the roadway widths. Park Drive I I and Hillside Drive will provide for access to i the lagoon and points east and west. They vi11 I try to limit access to Kelly Drive. They plan i to have a 4 foot median strip down Kelly Drive. : I * A short recess was called at 3:45 P. M. The I I :;i:;; meeting was reconvened at 9:58 P. I-!. 1 ll:ll; 1 I :::::: I :I $1::: (d) PRECISE PLAN - To consider adoption of a i 1:;::: precise plan on the Westerly side of El Camino I ::II;: Real Easterly from Park Dr. Applicants: I :;:::: I 1::::: Planning Commission Resolution Mo. 426. I I ::):I* :'I1 I ::::I; It iiotice of hearing was read. The Secretary certii- ::;::I fied that notice of public hearing was publishe$, :I:II: and then reviewed Resolution No. 426 adopted i :;;;;: by the 'Planni'ng Commission of their intent to :::;:i ::; hold a public hearing on a Precise Plan on this i ::;:;: property. I I I:: ::: I I ;::::: There were no communications on this matter. I I 1:;:;; I ::;;:! I I 11 l,;ll 11 I I I I TEIITATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - LAGUNA RIVIERA - I I 329 Lots on the Hesterly side of El Camino Real,! Easterly from Park Drive. Owners and Subdividets Kamar Construction Co. * I 1 The Secretary read a letter dated February 2, 1466, from Jay F. Hoffman of Marja Acres, on El Camin4 Real, stating that he and his wife blaryon wished: to go on record as not opposing the proposed ': ' : Laguna Riviers Subdivision in any way, however, ; he called attention to the lots in the area I that parallel the hi-line easement as he has seen this area flooded. I f.lli. JERRY ROMBOTIS, 325 Elm Avenue, stated that i he is President of the Kamar Construction Co. : and thanked thp staff for their excellent pre- i sentation and stated that he felt they covered : most of the points in connection with this. I 1 He stated that he and his engineer were present to answer any questions and that the houses I I would be in excess of $30,000,in the first unit I and will b2 better than those in the nearby I I neighborhood. Upon being questioned, Mr. Rornbotis stated that i in the Falcon Hill Subdivision the 7500 Sq. Ft. : lots were the first ones to be sold and they ! have some 10,000 sq. ft. lots there that are I I not sold at the present time. I 1 I I I I I I I I ! - i. :. - I I I : '*\ '\ .3 ' \ ' '' I I I I \\ \\,'\\ ',, '.,'*, 1 I I ', 8 '% ', ',,'\, 1 I t, " ' , I , , '. ', ', '\ I Name '. '?& ', '?& I I : of 'qg?j, '\\ 'f&, ; 0 : Member ',L~\.P',+ $$@.~\p'~,d'~,; I :"""""""""""-I"-""""""""""""""""""""""~"""~~"~"""""""~ "","" 1 1 I::;:* 1::m:: i No others spoke in favor of these requests. 1 I ;;::;: I ::;;;: i The Chairman announced the Commission would now i :::I : hear from those who wished to speak in oppositioq. +tbl 1:;: I 1;;;;; IIRS. GEORGE bJIINDRUi1, 4130 Clearview Drive, stated :::##I I@ : that she thought Dr. Merkle's letter was good. I :::::: i She stated that 2/3 of the houses wo~lld be less : ::;::I :::I:: I than 10,000 sq. ft. lots and that her home would I ;:I:'; i be one of the closest homes to it. She stated : ;I;::# ;;11:; : that the applicant had stated there were I I:!;:: i not many large parcels of land to be developed. ! ;I1 1::::: 11 ; She pointed out that there were nany large I I ::I::: I parcels of landsto the south near the Palomar ; :l;:l~ l:lg;: : Airport area and she felt the land should be up- i ::;;;: i graded and this would be detrimental to Carlsbad.: i::;:; : She stated the Commission should consider this I: i property in one-half acre lots and called attent-; 11 10 ; ion to the zoning in the area. ller main objcct- ; i:::;: 1;::;: I ion to this was thc reduction in lot size as b I ;1;:1; i she felt it would devaluate her property. She i ;::;:; ; felt it would be better to take the park area I ;::#:I ," 1::::: i and make larger size lots. I ::;;@I I I b ::;I:: :::i:i GORDDi?: A. fIARDWICK, 3145 Skyline Road pointed ou6 :::;:; I that you cannot build or utilize the property i 011 ::I::: 1 where the power lines are. Ne referred to the i 11:::; f General Plan on the left and the fact that Tama- ; ;;:::; i rack ends at Park Drive. On the proposed map it I ;::i:: I goes to El Camino Real. It did not stop at Park ; ;;::tl Urive on the proposes map and winds down through i 1:;:: ::;I:: ;I:;;; 11 1 I Hillsidi? to El Camino Real. He stated that he : I was on thc Planning Commission when the Gordon i ;;!::! i 13hitnall Plan was adopted. The 'laster Street I I i::::; ! Plan called for Tamarack to be built to the Nortq :::::I 11 i to Chestnut Street to El Camino Real, however I :::::: : subdivisions have been built in the way. tie ex- i ::::;: i pressed concern over the increase in traffic as : ::;:;: ;lt;ll : he felt the traffic may be more than the streets i :;;;:: i are designed to carry. He also voiced objection : ;::::: i::::: I to the reduction in lot sizes. He stated he I #1;8: : realized it is good business to get as many lots I !::I;: :::;:I i on the property as possible. i The following persons also voiced objection to i t:;::: ; the reduction in lot size and increased traffic i 11:::' i through the Highlands, and expressed a desire to : : have a buffer zone between the Highlands and the i i small sized lots: I I ;I::I: I I I I 1 I I I I t -I I I I 1 I 'I 11 '14 I It I* I - I I I I I ;:;:;: I I :::::: )I)@ ;;I::; ::::;; ti:;;; I I $;:; I I :*I:;; I I ;::::: I 1::::: I I Jerry L9c&llan, 4079 Skyline Rd. i Leonard V. Smith, 4241 Skyline Rd. : Don Johnson, 4065 Sunnyhill Dr. I I I ;:ii:: 10 I* i Setty 9ollrich, 4150 Skyline Dr. ; i.?rs. Fran Yarbrough, 4265 Sunnyhill Dr. 8 I I :::i:i ;:;I:, : Red Robinson, 4210 Skyline Rd., stated that he : ::;::: i owns property in the Highlands and is a subdividdr :;I:;: : and understands the problems. Each person has 4 ii:i;i i personal interest which is not in the best inter-: :;:I;: : ests of the City, nor arc they considering :#::I; I 1::::; / whether it will be more beautiful for the City. ! ;I* 81 i He stated that he has served on the Planning :::;i: I 0::;:: : Commission and Council and does not object to : ::;I:: i 10,000 Sq. ft. lots. He recommended the subdividers ::;::: : on their work and stated that he h:fmself has . * !::;;; i 4,000 sq. ft. lots in his subdivision but would i :::;:I : prefer to have larger lots near his own residencq. :::::; ;;;::; I I I :;;::: I I I I :::I :;: , I I 1 :;@hll ;:I::: I I * 1111 81 I I b I t )t,Il) I I l:!l!l * I * \' .. I 4 4 I : '\\ '\ "\ , * I ,, ', , ', ",'*. I I I 1 \\ \,"" '" y-, I I I I Na me '>, '*& '\ ",$, I t : of $..' ',\, f+' i 92%, .J\#+ I I "" * "". * """ * """"""""" - """"""-"""""""-""- -"";"""""""-$?.,$"-,""$I I I I o(I i Dr.John J. Safarik stated that he owns Lot 44 &:;':I ::;::I : in the Carlsbad Highlands and has invested a gooa :::::: i amount of money in the property as he paid for a: :::::: ; view lot. He felt the property would be devalu-i i::::: i ateci by a reduction in lot size and was strongly: :::i;: i ear1 ier. I ::*I:: I I :$;: ! 14R. UHLAND B. NELTON, 3961 Gloria Lane, called 3 :::::I ::#I:: i attention to the school site in this area which ; 11::;: : is shown on the General Plan. I I :::l)l 1 ;;1;11 I I 11;; i MR. PHILLIP LYgHS, Idewport Beach, inquired if thb ::!:I; :::;:I ! Commission would adopt a resolution that night : ::;:/ : regarding Tamarack Ave., and he was informed tkib :l;l:: :;I::; i matter was not being considered tonight. I I ii:::; 1'1 I I I I ,,:,,I i The Chairman asked the applicant if he wished I :::I:: ::I::: i to speak in rebuttal . I I I::;:: I b;:ahl 11 i i4R. YIKE FORTUNATI, explained the 7,000 sq. ft. !' ::I::: : lots are not nearest to the Highlands area and ; :4::: ;I:::; the subdivision is not visible from the Highlandb :;::;: : area; that they would have the same density as . i :;I:;; :;I::; if a17 the lots were 10,000 sg. ft. since many ; : would bc in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. He also i :;;:o *Il::; ! explained the north-south route from May Company: ::I::: :::::I i to Palorilar Airport on El Carnino Real would 1 I : discourage traffic through the Highlands. He : I::::: i:::;: 18 I stated that he felt these homes kJou1d be a def- i :::::: : inite asset to the community. He stated he knowS ::i::; I from personal experience that homes can be * ;: :a:: : bought for $21,000. in the Carlsbad Highlands. i ;: :::: ;: 0) I I I I 1::::: : In answer to 3rs. Yarbrough's inquiry regarding i ::;I;: i SC~GOI children going to school, Mr. Fortunati ; ii:iii I stated they would probably be school busses to ; ~II~I~ :::::: take them down El Camino REal to Chestnut to get! :::I:: : to school. He explained that the streets would i :81:;: :::::: i be developed in the subdivision as needed to I l:::;; i ssrve the homes that arc developed; that they : /!::I* : must abide by the precise plan; that some of the! 811a:: :::i:: I property can not be developed in smaller sized i::::: I( : lots because of the topography. I I 1 ::::I; 11111 I I I ;::::; ROY KtEisIA stated that he prepared the map and I :;::i: i explained the existing sewer be constructed and : ::;; : that 45 lots are feasible for financing at this i :I::;: i time. He explained the units that would be I I 41:q i developed in stages and the drainage. He stated: :::::I : loyical development and they have taken into : ::;I:: :+::: consideration the views. They have worked over i : a year on this with the City Planners and 1 ::ii:: t I:;::@ ;I1 I: i Engineers in Carlsbad and Los Angeles. He stat4d ;:l;B1 : that he could not say anything about the develoe :;:::i ment of the streets as this is up to the City. ; ;;:I:; : Only a little over an acre of the park consist- i ;::;:; i ing of 7.5 acres would be under the existing ; ;I:::: ;::::; : utility easement. I ;::#:I I I I I I:;:*: i The public hearing was closed at 10:45 P. 14. I 1 :I#;:; I ;:I;:; 4 I :;;;I; : In answer to Commissioner I4cCarthy's question, i :;::;: I the City Attorney stated that if the Commission : ::I:;: i did not approve the Reclassification and the i :ti:;: ;: : Precise Plan they automatically would not pass ; I::!! i approval of the tentative map. I I;::;: I I I ::;;:: I I I I :::::: I I I I ;::;:; 11 I I I I i:;::: 4 I I 1::; . \' I I I I I \ \, \ I : Member *@'~',.p\$~&, I I $1 : opposed to the street access roads mentioned I I :::::: ::::,: I I I I I I) I I 1 I I !!+; Ill I 11)1*1 I I I I I #!!.!I - IW - I : of ' I I " . I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I * I I I I I I * I 1 b I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I * I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Points discussed by the Commission were the traffic pattern; that the density means more I than actual lot sizes as planned unit develop- I ment can be close together and still have the ; large feeling of open space; that the terrain i does not lend itself to all of the lots being : large and they are developing as much of the i subdivision as possible to 10,000 sq. ft. lots; ; that the subdivision is very desirable and a i good plan; the distance of the park from some ; of the lots; that the terrain dictates the streets in the subdivision. Commissioner Munn stated he felt the homes in t~e Highland area were expensive and there trould be low priced homes next to the higher priced I I homes. Commissioner ilcCarthy objected to the 7,000 sq. ft. lots as it would be setting a precedence for! property to the South and West. lie did not * I believe they could approve the subdivision when i they did not know where Tamarack will be. He questioned the park site easement and fe1 t ther$ would only be 3 some acres left for the park and he was not sure many people in Carlsbad would b4 using the park as it would be too low. lie stated he did not feel they could act on a precise pla4 when they do not know if the streets will go : through. I I Commissioner Lamb asked this be put off until I Tamarack is definitely decided on. He stated : he belirvcs all of the lots should be 15,OrIO and then come dokrn to 10,000 on the west and north. I He felt there will be just as many cars in the ; area if they take the park away and have larger i size lots. !4e would like to see roads with I I limited access around the lagoon. I I I I I I I I * b I I I I I I I I . Commissioner Freistadt agreed with Commissioner i Lamb that no action should be taken that night : and they should await information on Tamarack. i He stated that 4 or 8 lots on the north and west side should be enlarged and shaded red. He saw no reason the entire parcel has to be I rezoned to 7,000 sq. ft. He pointed out the ; zoning in Falcon Hill and that as a result of I the stepped down zoning there were more happy : people. He pointed out that the General Plan I does show a school site in this area and felt I they should consult with Dr. Harris Taylor re- i garding this matter, as he questioned where I * the school children would be going to school i since the school bonds were not pass&d. He questioned the flooding on the 7,000 sq. ft. 104s. i4r. Tho&on explained this will be considered and taken care of when the final map is approveq and the Engineering Department will have control; of it. The Chairman stated he felt this should be continued on the basis of the Tamarack extentioi. The City Attorney suggested re-opening the public hearing and continuing the hearings. I I t * I I I b I $ I ? I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I * I I * b 4 I I" I I I I I I i I I I I I 1 I I I 8 1 a I I I 1 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 I I I I I I I I I I !