Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-07-26; Planning Commission; MinutesI I I I ', 8, ., ') ' 8, ', '\ I :CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANHI rki cc:F."17" lSS 1st: I Clinutes of: I Date of Meeting: July 26, 1966 Na me '\ '.$ $$+A i ; Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. 71. '*.&$, '*, .%, , i Place of Meeting: Counci 1 Chambers I"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""""-,---- Q%~ : Member 8%'@,pp ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, I: : Sutherland, Palmateer, McComas and Little. ;lllII i Commissioner Freistadt was present at 7:40 P.3. ,Id;; : Commissioner McCarthy was present at 7:57 P.M. i Also present were City Attorney b!ilson, Ass't I ",I;, City Engineer Thornton, Building Inspector Osburn! iIi::i ::::A I and Planning Director Schoell I ,:I i APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ! (a) Hinutes of the regular meeting of July 12, i Smith i 1966, were approved as submitted. : Sutherlanq !x:xi : i I I ',\\y, \ t ' I I 8, St,'\, I I '8 ' 't '\.\'.,4 ' '. I : Of .?b8&9J,&p, ; I :;;::: :::+; '\ '\,"\ I I ' I I :' I I I :iii:l 1: I I I I I I::;;; I I ;:;I*; I I i:;!!; I I 4:::; ; I ix: ; ; I i Palmateer pi ;XI ; , I : Flccomas i :xi I I 1 i Little t I i ;x: i WRITTEN COMMUNI CAT I ONS : I I :::;I; I ;::::I i (a) San Diego County Planning Congress: 1966 i :!!::; i Summer Meeting, Friday, August 12, 1956, San I ;I1 'I' ; Diego Country Club - Topic: "The Pros and Cons i ;:I:': ;I:' of Urban Renewal ." The Chairman asked that re- i ;!#:I; t:;l;I I servations for those planning to attend be made : :I;:;: ;I : with the Recording Secretary. ;:;: I I I ;;::;: i PUBLIC HEARINGS: I ;::i:: I I ;::::: I ::'I:: i (a) VARIANCE, continued - To consider a reduct- i :::; $81 , : ion in the required front yard setback along I I ;::':; ; Carlsbad Blvd. from 20 ft. to zero, and reduct- ;:::;; 4' I,; i ion in side yard setback from 19 ft. to 5 ft. I ::;:;* on property adjacent to A.T. 8 S.F. Railway I ::4;: : right of way on property located on the North- p;: i easterly side of Mountain View Dr. between I ;;;::; : Ocean St. and Carlsbad Blvd., being Lot 47, I ;I::;: i Granville Park, Map 1782. Applicants: Army and ! ;::I:: : Navy Academy. 1;;::: * :;:::: I I I :;::;: : Eloti ce of hearing was read. ::;:;: I ::;i:: ~ ,f- I I I !!#'I! The Planning Director reported that after the ; last meeting he and the Ass't City Engineer made i :;;::: an onsite inspection and the Engineering Dept. : :::;:: :made a report that there was no feasible way of i ::;I:: i bringing the intersection to the bridge and the : ;;::;: : only way to increase the visibility would be to i ;*:;I; ;::;:I i move the intersection farther south. Mo matter : ;::;:; : how high they got on the bridge it was a blind i ::pi: i intersection because of the steep road grade .on : IO ::;:;; : the north approach to the bridge. kJhen traffic i e:;:;: :::#:I i warrants it they may have to put a stop light : : in, @II;;: I I ;:::I: I I :::;I; i Commissioner Freistadt was present at 7:4Q P.M. i #':;I; : Mr. Thornton presented a map of the intersection i ;:I:;; ;::;I; I of Carlsbad Blvd. and Mountain View Dr. and ex- : plained the plan for future improvements deline- . I ates a left turn into Carlsbad Boulevard from i : the Mountain View Drive stop lane at a right I I angle as well as a right turn merge after stop. i The location of the proposed addition to the I ' :Academy building will not interfere wlth sight I i distance of the vehicular traffic at subject I : intersection, and the proposed structure will not! i interfere with widenfng of existing parkways for : : future sidewalks. Mr. Thornton reported that he i I" 'I I I 'I I I I I I I ;:I(;: ;::;;; I I@ ,P I 'I' I I 8: I 'I' I I I I :'I '1: I1 11 IIII II I 1 I ii;;;; iiii:: I I '#I:b I I 4 I .I I I I I I I I I I I * t 0 I I I I ! I , .\ \, ', b . I I I ', \ \ ' '\ '. I I -2- I I 1 8 t' I I I I I f I f \, ,' \ \ ', 1 I I \, \\\'\\\ '+, '\ I I i N a me '8, sL8 \$$, I f : of '*+% '' q!! : I Member '&$ .%Q,%,O\o. \ 9'9 \ <"\ ; :"""""""""""""""""""-"""""""""""""""""";""""""""""-."~*" 1 -J ]saw PO advantage to bringing Pacific Avenue into i ;:::;; !!'I I :the bridge as it is not good planning to enter IIII ion 9 bridge and the cost of acquisition and con- : :::::: :Ill:: :str?~ctfon would not justify it. He stated he I I::# felt t!lis intersection nay warrant signalization i in the future and would be the best solution. I I 1::::: :*:*:t !The public hearing was closed at 7:48 P.M. I I :I:::: 18 ;The following resolution was presented: After i I:: ::: ;:I:': !due consideration a motion was made to grant the : :variances as requested on the condition that the i ;I::;# :proposed variance be limited to a onestory build-! I::#&: i ing and to the dimensions as presented on the al:ll: I :;I:#* ; application, for the following reasons: I I I iiii:: I I t 8';: I 1. That there are exceptional and extraordi! 4:::; ::;ab& i nary circumstances because of the terrain. I ;;l:o' I* I 2. That it is desirable to conform to the i ::;; 1.; I' ::I:;: !general aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood : :::::; : and to carry out the general planning of the area) :@~I*l I 3. That the granting of this variance will : ::I:!: I ;::'I: : not be detrimental to the general welfare or in- i 4::;; i jurious to adjacent properties. I f :::;I; I I :!i;l6 It: [ Planning Commission Resolution No. 447. A RESOLU-:Smith I ixix: : : 'fI0N GRAFi'TIPJG A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY AT THE i Sutherlandk i ;xi ; ': ! NORTHEASTERLY SIDE OF ROUNTAIN VIE!.! DRIYE BETWEEN: Palmateer ; 1x1 : ; I OCEAN STREET AND CARLSBAD BQULEVARD, was adopted IHcComas : i ;x: I ; ; by title only and further reading Ivaived. :Freistadt i : :xi : i !Commissioner HcCarthy was present at 7:57 P. M. i i (b) RECLASSIFICATION - R-1 to R-3 (Multiple- I Residential) Zone on property on the bfesterly I side of Roosevelt St., Northerly of Hagnolia Ave.! : Applicant: Miles T. Tolbert. f f ::!::: I (c) PRECISE PLAN - To consider adoption of a : precise plan on property on the bdesterly side of ! i 448. I I :I !!:I 1: i Notices of the hearings were read. Secretary : Pallmateer certified that notices of the above ;:::I; i hearings were published and that property owners :i::;; I in the area were sent notices of the public I ;::::; : hearings and then read the applications. i There were no written communications. i The Planning Director gave a report of the staff ::;;:: i investigation and explained the location of the : ltl#l; :existing buildings on the Village and the pro- I i posed buildings on property northerly of the I I 1::::; : Village as presented on 3 maps for precise plan, I I known as Exhibit..Maps No. I, I1 and 111. He I I 1:::: : felt the proposed use of this property would I I::;:; lafl I i fit in well with the existing Village. He re- ; i ported that the City Engineer had discussed : this matter with him that evening and the General; I Plan proposes State Street to extend Southerly : Ql:l: : to Agua Hedionda Rd, and this would affect the i i westerly portion on these properties. 4 ::I::: i Mr. Thornton explained that according to the I ::I:;; : General Plan adopted by the Council State St. is I proposed to be a major collector street with an : I84' right of way with 4 moving lanes of traffic i * \\ '\, ', 8\, '\ ' .-+ I 1:: ::I::: ::i I f I1 I I I I I* f I I I I r I ' : Little : ; ; : :x: 1 :;:::: f &Ii!ii ;: ,#I:: f ::I::: 1) I I i:::;; 'I:::: i::::; i Roosevelt St., Mortherly of Magnolia Ave. I I $81 F : Applicants: Planning Commission Resolution No. i I:;!; !!l11: 4 ::;;I( ::I:;: /:;:; I I t ::i:i; ;:/ I 4 I::!!; ::;1:1 ::::e, @I; ::::I: ;::;:; I ;::;:; ;::I:# ;:;::: :;:;!; ii::;: 1 8 ;:::i: ::;:I: ;I ;I@ 1;:;;: ::;I 8: f I :; I I 1 I!::;; I 1 t ::;::I I I f f ::;:;: I I I I ::;::: I I I ! :::i:: 11 I f f f :;l:I: !;:::I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I f I $1;:: l:l:i I # 1 :!!I!! I I 8, \ '.. 8 % ', I I I ,\\" I I t ,*8' I I I I I I \\ '\ ', '% *.,'*, I I I $ ', ' ', '\,'t8 I I *\, '\ '\, '8 S 8, I -3- I I I 142 me \\ ', '8%. 4' 0' "8>?$4+ i I I ; of .C-J,\b,;\ ;.+' I 8."\+, ' I Member *e@,p+$&, 1 :""""""""""""""""""""""""-""""""""""""";"""""""""""-~"" '*I1 14 :I:::: i aK:d ~~uid bc extended Southerly with ;f new align-! I ::'I;: ; ment, frcrn Elm Avenue to the interchange with I :::::; I kgua Hellionda Road, contiguous to the railroad i:iiq rirjht of way. The construction of this extension! ::::i: 11111 i would be predicated upon the harbor opening. 4 I :::I:: I 4 I ::;8#1 I :*;::I i The Chairman announced the Commission would now ! ::I : hear frcm the applicant or his representative and: :::!;! i .2ny others desiring to speak in favor of these ! ;::;I; 1:;1:1 i applications. * I I :::/!! 'I I I I ::;::: : b1R. JIM DOE!LING, 2081 Meadowlark Circle, San I :::::I (81 i tllarcos, stated they plan to acquire the Carlsbad : ::,I:: : Village and with the acquisition of this property! 1,:::: make a complete "Care" unit for elderly persons. i ::1:a* :I::;' : The nursing home and other facilities would be a : :;:;I: i tremendous addition to Carlsbad. He reported / I@;#:: iiii;: i having a letter from the Federal Housing Admini- : It I : stration indicating that upon the acquirement of i 1:111: the property the Director passed the necessary : ;:I;:; : resolution to this agreement. The Village pro- i perty is owned by the FHA and he and Wolney Bell : :::;:i ! are plrrchasing the property. I I ::~111 1 Ho others spoke in favor of this reclassification!. ::a::: i The Chairman announced the Commission would now i :a::;: : hear frcm those wishing to speak in opposition. i i MR. DAVID R. DINIUS, 511 Flonte Bonito Dr., Los Angeles stated that he owns 10 acres on the : south side of the Village and some property on (11 the P.!orth side. Flost of the property is land ; : locked and each time he approached the Commission! or Council in the past regarding re-zoneng of i /;:;: i the property they were adamant regarding putting : : any different zoning in until a street was put i ;: i in. At the time Archie Koyl asked for rezoning : 81; : on the Village, he asked to extend Tyler through iiiii: i and would have given the land for this. He stat-: Iml,*; : ed that he is against rezoning this property untip :::I:, *#I:;; i a street plan is constructed in this area. Al- : : though the Village is in existawe: there still i :::I:; :,I1 i may be some possibility of opening this land- I I ;::;!! : locked property. He stated that he was not pre- ::I:;: ;:::I; i pared to give an opinion on the State Street I ;::;:; : extension at this time and wished he had known I ;;:1:1 i of it. He stated that he was opposed to any ;:::I: ;:;::: : piecemeal zoning until the street plan is approv-i a1;1: ed as it would be a disadvantage to the City and i ::: i property owners in the area. f I :!i!;' I :::;I, I: ! FIR. MILES P. TOLBERT, 247 Highland Pl. Nonrovia, i 4:;:: : stated that they did try to get a street through : I::::; when the Vi1 lage property was rezoned, Since the: :::I:( ::;::: property has been re-assessed it is too expensive: 1::::: : to hold on to unused property. I ;elll: I I:;::, I iiiiii I MR. DOWNIIJG, pointed out that the property is ad.-! ::':I: i jdcent to R-3 property and would not be "spot- I I ::!::; : zoning" and by combining the properties felt I I ::@::I ::!/:: i the development would be an asset to the cornmunit). !::::I * ;::;:I i The public hearing was closed at 8:35 P.11. I :i::i: I ::!::: I :;:;:: I :::;:i I ;::;:; I ;::;:; I ;::;:; * I ;::;:; I ;: ! I!:;:: I I I I It ;I::!; 4:;;: I I I ::i:;: ::ii:: I I I ip;:: 1::::: I I !::::; 11 ii:: i!::;! I I( 1::i;1 il !it::: ii !!:I I ;:I i!:: /i!i! ::I::; I a I1 11 I I ::; :::;:; I f 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 1 * l11IO I'1;I * I :::;;: h I I I I I 1 ',\..''. I ,, '. '\ '8 <b '* i N a me ', ''e. 8, "$:. : blcmber 'd&'@t 44'. I I .,\ st' I I I I I '\, 'x,"., ', '\\'\, I I -4- I I : Of ,CJJ$Z~,~,,++ I -\$.q& '\\ ?&8 ! ~""""~"",,,,,,""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"-~"-"""""-"---~---- ..c \. ,:q I I' I I::;:! !:;::I :;:I;: "8 I t I I I I , ' \'\, \ ' I \8 8 I '#II I Th?.,Chaimac esk~rl if State Street or the Gzneral: 1:;::: J Nan was discussed before the zectinq, and Mr. I I I::;;; i Thornton stated that it was nct discussed with : : hir? until this meeting. t I I ;iiiii i Points discussed by the Commission were that the ;I::;; i applicants were not aware of the proposed extens-: :+;; 11 I i ic?n of State St.; that this application should be! returned to the Planning Director and Engineering: :;: : D~pt. for study of the State St. extension; that ; iiii:: i it would be an advantage to have State Street ex-: ::I::: : tended; that the proposed facility would be an : ;::/:i i advaiitege and asset to this community and it 4 ;::::a I I::#:: i !vould be desirable to have the rest home in I :;l:tl 1) : connectiop with the Village; that the Commission i ;I:::: ! should consider the implementation of the Master : *:::I; :::;;; : Plan. 8 I :::::; 8 I i:: 1;:1 11 : Upon being questioned regarding the use of the i ;;a:#: i VillaSe Mr. Downing stated that it would be one i I:::, : complete care complex and there would be a section: :';I:: ::It;; : for thcse who do not need nursing care. The I I ::I#;; i dining room would be serving these people also. i I I ;:14:: I ;::::: i The City Attorney advised the Commission to re- i :ii::: : open the public hearing if they wished to contin-: '1; ::::I, :;;1:t i plan for the development of the property. I 1;;::: I 1 ;la11@ I ::'::: : The Chairman re-opened the public hearing. I I 1::::: I ;l:ll; I I I 1;;::1 I A motion was made to continue the hearing to the ! I::!:: 1 next regular meeting in order for the applicant : ;:::;: : to work with the Planning Director and Engineerinb I;:::; Dept. regarding the location of the buildings on i :;;p: i the Westerly side of the property to allow for ; :I ii:: :the State Street extension. * * I;;*:! I :::::I I ;:4;: i (d) ZORE AMENDMENTS - R-T ahd R-l.J Zones - To I :$:: i consider the following amendments to Ordinance :,I : No. 9060: All of Article 9, R-T (Residential - : ,a;::: *:/I; i Tourist Zone), and creating an R-14 (Residential- i ::;I:; :Waterway Zone) ; said amendment initiated by Plant. I:: ;:; I : ing Commission Resolution of Intention No. 55. 81:;: I I I:~lal I I I :;:::: *I 1 I i The Planning Director explained that the resolu- i :i::;: i tions for the R-T zone and R-W zone were the I I :*::;: :same as the Commission had agreed upon in their i :Ii::: ::::;: *I* i study meetings. 1 I I I#::;: :: iy;; ': i Notice of the hearings were read and the Secretari I;' : certified that publication had been given. I I :::i;: I There were no written communications. I I ;::;:: i The Chairman announced that since this was I I :!::I: p;!ii :initiated by the Planning Commission, the I :I:::: i Commission would now hear from those wishing to ;::::I : speak in opposition. I ;::;:; I ::::I: i MO one spoke in opposition. 4 t :!::;: I b I :I::;; 1111 :The public hearings were closed at 8:45 P.M. I :::;:; D :::I:' 1 I :::I:: i The following resolutions were presented: I I ;:;:;: I I ;::;!i i After due consideration a motion was made to 5%. :!!I:: I I I :a::;: ;:I1 I I lea;:! I I I :I: a I ;; 1;;: I 1::::: I D :.; : : I I I :;!::: I, 19 t I I In( *I I 1*11 I 8 11 1111 I1 ce it and explained the purpose of the precise i * 811 I 11 111 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 P -, .I. I adcpt PlanRing Commission Resolution No. 451 ".: amending all of Article 9, Ordinance No. 9060, R-T Zone and that the following facts and reasons! exist: 1. That the passage of this recommended ! amendment to Ordinance No. 9060 is required by I public necessity, convenience and general welfare! ;::::: '::::; * :I:::; @:;;I6 :;;;:: I I ::::;: 18 I ::::;; ;::Bel ;::::: I !:::I! 68 I I l:;t81 ;;I:#* I()) I1 P:anning Commission Resolution No. 451. A RESOLU-:Smith )II'I TION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY: Sutherland: !xixi i OF CARLSBAD AN ANENDMENT TO ARTICLE 3 OF ORDINANCEPalmateer : :x! ; ; : :xi : Ne. 9OCO (R-T ZONE). was adopted by title only i FlcComas i xi : and further reading waived. i BlcCarthy > i :x: i : Freistadt : ; !xi : I Little i : !xi i After due consideration a motion was made to I ::I:: asopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 452, am-: .. .. :::I: I,,:, ending Ordinance No. 9060 to create a R-W Resi;. ::I:: dential-l,daterway) Zone by adding Article 9.5 for i . :::I: the fol1 owing reasons: I 1 ::::I I I :::I: ;el!# -1 I I I ;:I*# 1::;: 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 1 I I ! 1. That the passage of this recommended i 1:ti;; amendment to Ordinance No. 9060 is required by I public necessity, convenience and general wel- ! i::::: 11::1: @I ::Il ::i; fare. OLD BUSINESS: (a) Laguna Riviera Subdivision. The Planning i Director explained that this subdivision came be-; foreethe Commission earlier and the Planning I I Commission approved the subdivision with the recommendation that certain lots be made 10,000 I sq. ft. lots and forwarded it on to the Council for their approval. The Council returned it to ; the Commission stating the applicant's Precise i plan as presented is acceptable in general with : the exception of lot size and asked that all I present designated lots 10,000 sq. ft. and above i remain; all lots less than 10,000 sq. ft. should be '10,000 sq. ft. except where extreme topography: and good sufficient reason requires a smaller i lot size, and in such a case no lot shall be less; than 8,500 sq. ft.; and such justification shall ; be acceptable by the Planning Commission for presentation to the Council. The subdivider came: in the day before with the map shown before them.: The Planning Director explained the increase in ; the size of the lots from 7,000 to 8,000 sq. ft. I and larger, and compared this map with the former: map. The park and school site and the streets i would remain the same, however, they have in- 1 I creased the amount of the divided land and re- i duced the number of lots from 305 to 299 resi- : dential lots in order to increase the size of the lots. The Chairman asked the applicants if they wished i I I I I I I I I I to speak. I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! /- r I I I I I I I I I I I I I '\, 'N. '8,' ' , , '\ , .\ I I I \, ', ' '\ '8,"\ I ', \, ''8 '\ I 1 I -6- 'x, ', 8, ', '\ '\ t i Hame '. \'?+ *~.~~~~ i I I : of 'y90. .Fd@, p,+$ ',"+.,, ; 8 I : Member ~$$@,~~O-@. I ~""""~"~~"~~,~""""""""~""""""""""""""~""""~~""""~"""""~~~~~~"~~ '81 1q !MR. JERRY ROMBOTIS, representing Kamar Constructicin :::i:: ~CO., Inc. , 325 Elm Ave., stated they have added i !i:;:! ;#I la:l :to the 10,000 sq. ft. lots. They previously had ; :!;!!: ill4 19,000 plus lots and they now have 174 10,- i :@I:;; 4::q 1000 sq. ft. and larger making an average of :::I:, il0,OOO SQ. ft. lots in the subdivision. He point: i:::;: ied out that in addition to this, there is the I 1:::;: :park-school site. The park is being dedicated i ;:I:;: :to the City free and cleer. All lots under 10,- :!i:;: llll;; :OOO sq. ft. are based upon the topography. !The Chairman asked the City Attorney if a public ! !hearing was necessary and the City Attorney !stated that the Planning Commission was not :required,;to have: any. public hearings .on this I ::It:; !matter. When the Council receives the Planning :Commission report, it is up to them to make their; :;;::I 8: !findings by resolution not later than 20 days aftqr :receiving the report from the Planning Commission; :The Commission questioned the number of lots junder 10,1000 sq. ft. and Mr. Rombotis explained 1 :there would be 50 lots between 8,000 to 8500 sq. : jft.; 3% iots between 8500 and 9,000 sq. ft. and i j37 lots between 9,000 and 9,999 sq. ft. I I !Commissioner Palmateer questioned the drainage i :easement being on a portion of some of the lots ;and iilr. Rombotis stated they only had so much I I :land to use due to the topography and S.D.G. & E. jutility lines. I I !The Chairman inquired if the topography justified; :the size of these lots, and the Planning Director: !stated that he had seen this map for the first ti& :that day and studied the density but was not able: !to make a determination on the topography. !Comments of the Commission were that this suhdivi: jsion map is much better than the former one since: :the smaller lots are in.the middle; that Kamar i :has done an excellent job with the subdivision; I :that the street plans are identical with the I I !street plans on the previous map. !Mr. Thornton stated that he had studied them and i jthey are in conformance with the street plans. I I ;Commissioner McCarthy questioned the grading plan4 :for each individual lot and Mr. Thornton pointed i !out that the Subdividers' Engineers are competent: :and had made a thorough study of the area and I jspent many hours studying this subdivision. With! :the Engineering Department's work load they did i !not see how they could justify the time and the I :man hours necessary to study the topography of : !each lot. !Commissioner Palmateer stated that it was the :feeling the topography enters into the size of i ithe lots and it justifies their intent. He I stated that the Commissioners and Staff have : spent considerable time walking over the area i and it is an unusual situation. He felt that the! i intent has been fulfilled and it is impossible : : for the City Staff to verify this without going : i into weeks and months of study and that sufficienk : evidence has been presented by the applicants to i I I I I j;:::: I I I !!I::: It:::: :':!!I ;: I 1:::: I I i;:;;; pj;:: I:; -;:: I I I I 11 I I * I I I 1 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 fi I I I I I warrant the size of the lots. 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 -.,+,$+ ', 'q), I I I \$Pa, +,$+& : ii;:ii :I,::; :::::; ;:I:;; I ;;:::: ;:I::: I 1 1 I ::i;:; :;I::: I '\ .* '\ \, '\ ', I , \'\\' I : of : Member $'@,,p;$.-d, 8 :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-:""""""""""" ,""3 I I ;I;a:l ; After further consideration Commissioner Suther- i land made a motion that the Planning Commission i I re-submit to the Council the revised tentative : : map as presented and that because of the topo- i ;Iii:: graphical problems encountered the Commission : : were in agreement with the proposed changes. i This motion was seconded by Commissioner Freista4t. 1::::: I I I I - 7 - N a me ", "&\ ',, "&A I 11 Commissioner McCarthy voiced objection to this I I:: la; : wording and the motion was withdrawn.. I 1 ;1:11t 1'1:1 I I 1p::: i A motion was made to send a report to the Council! Smith i1k::i ; stating that the Planning Commission have consid< Sutherlandxj X I ered the new proposed tentative subdivision map : Palmateer: : 3( i 1 i ; for Laguna Riviera Subdivision and after consid- i McComas i X; ; i ering the evidence and arguments presented, and ; McCarthy : : 3( i : : I having heard no evidence that the 8,000 foot and i Freistadt i Ixk: i i greater lots were not required by topographic : Little i : 3( i : : conditions, we therefore recommend this map as a I :ii:;: i final solution. I :;::Il *I I I i:::i: i (b) Temporary Real Estate Offices and Temporary i 4:::: : Real Estate Signs. Memorandum from the City I :::I#: I :-:;I i Manager, John J. illamaux, dated July 21, 1966, I I:::, i stating that after hearing all evidence presented : the Council felt a time limit of one year should i ::;1;1 : time for use of a temporary real estate office i ::;:I: i and temporary real estate sign. :::I:: I I:;::: I I :::I:: i After due consideration a motion was made that i Smith !:hi+ 8: : a memorandum be sent to the Council concurring i Sutherland i ?( I : 1: I i with their findings that a time limit of one Palmateer i :x~ ; : i I year be placed on the granting of an extension McComas : i k: i ; ; of time for use of a temporary real estate offici McCarthy :xi 3( I I I : and temporary real estate sign. Freistadtj ; F: i I : Little ; : i I I I l1 i (c) Zoning Study. The Chairman asked the Plan- ! I:@ :I!;;: i ning Director if he had anything to report on thd : M zoning and the Planning Director stated that h4 I::':! '7:i; i had nothing to report at this time, however, he ; ;: : is working on it. I I :::::: I I ;:i::': i The Planning Director asked the Commission if i :::;:: ;:I::; : zones in the City and parts of the City where :a:::: i the R-T and R-W zones would be logical. 8 ::::I: I I 4:;:; I ,I*::: i There was discussion on the fact that it would I ;::I:; i involve considerable detailed study. 1 ;::I:; t ;:::I; 1 ;::::; 1::1;1 i The Chairman appointed Commissioner Sutherland i : to head a Committee composed of Commissioners I:;::: 1:4:: i Little and Palmateer to work with the Planning ; :ti::: : Director on this matter. I I :;;::; I I :e;::: ;: 1 ! The Chairman asked that the Committee report be i 1:;;i i placed on the next agenda. !::::; I I $81 :I:: e ::::;: i R-T Zone. The Planning Director called attention! ;: I to the fact that under the conditional uses in i the R-T Zone it listed on sale beer as an adjunc4 I:!::: 1:;::: i to another business, and that most businesses ; :::::: : where there is a nice restaurant near the water I iiiiii i do have on sale alcoholic beverages. I :::::: I i::::: I 1:;I:I I I :,4;: I 8~l;l: I ,:;I:: I I I I 8 ji: 4 ll;;ii i be placed on the granting of an extension of I ;:;:;: I I I I I I I (I( 8 they wished to make a study of the existing R-T : ;i:::; I I :I, 1 I I I I I I I I I I * I I I I I I I * I 1'1 I 1 8 I I I IIIii: 1 I I I I I i.! : i : I I I l!!l!l :*:::; c I I 8,s. \ b' I I \'\ . %' I I I \, 8 '' 1 \\ '\ -e- I , \'\ ' I I I I I I I " +\ "' '\"%\ I I ' " '.\'\\ I I I i Name '\, '+$, 8 ; of \.$ 0' '\ $6, I I I .$$& +,+$A : I i Member $3~,$+?\:d8 I I :I ;:!:It 19 ! After discussion the City Attorney stated that i l;l:l~ i the Commission could amend the resolution to I :::::; I :a::;: : correct this matter. I :::' /I::: I I I 1::s:: I A motion was made to amend Resolution No. 451, :;::;I ; Section 901, Item J to read "Any public or privaqe I::::: :;a::: I recreation facility such as beaches, bathhouses,: Smith ::)c:: : boat rides, boat launching and docking facilitie4,Sutherlandxi 2: I I games of skill, refreshment facilities, on-sale : Palmateeri : ki i i : alcoholic beverages and off-sale beer uses as an i McComas i 2 : : ; i adjunct to another business, :-..;. .I1. : McCarthy I :xk 1 : I 1: I ! (d) Park dedication in subdivisions. The Plan- ;::;:I : from the League of California Cities on Parks in; i:: I Subdivisions and a suggested ordinance. He : there were a few things he would like to change. : : He asked the Commission to study this between nov! $1 I and the next meeting. I I I I '\ '.& I ~"""""""""-"""-'-""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-~"" I I I1 11 10 I I I i Freistadtj J :x I I : I : Little : : 8; I ning Director presented copies of a publication i :::::: I::::: I1 I ;:a::: stated he felt this was a good ordinance, howeve<, (I::;; @;::la ;ii:;i ::;: I 1j;;: r ! The City Attorney explained that this would be ad ::;: amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance No. 9050 : !Jlt1 ::;: : and the Planning Commission would make their I I 1::::: :@I recommendation to the Council. No public hear- i ;:I:I: ; ing would be required by the Planning Commission.; ::11;: i:!::: I I 1:;::: MEW BUSINESS: 1 I I:;::: 11 I I I I::: i;::;; i (a) The Chairman announced that Commissioner :::;:I : Freistadt plarqdto turn in his resignation the i :::;I; ::::i: I to wait until October before resigning. ' I :::;;I :'I : ADJOURNMENT: I ;::1;1 I I ::;::I 1 I ;:'I:: : By proper metion the meeting was adjourned at I 1::::: :I:;:: i 9:54 P. M. I :i:::: r I I I :;:::: 11 I I ;;:::! I I I :*:::: I:;IIl ::;::: I " &+ I I::::! I l;;:ll #I I :II::; I ;!;::; I I I I ;:I::: I I I I +::: '1) I I :: I I I #;I $11 I 8 I first Of Sent^ember, 'hOWeVir he kid pursuaded him ::: I I I 1 I I I Respectfully submitted, 1 I I &-& 5$/, f&* I I I ! DOROTHY M. OSBURN i Recording Secretary 11 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 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 * 0 0 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 I I I I I I I I I I * !