HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-01-24; Planning Commission; Minutes.! e
:CITY OF CARLS : Minutes of: e PLANNING COMMISSIO P
!Date of Meeting: January 24, 1967
:Time of Meeting:, 7:30 P. M.
!Place of Meeting: Council Chambers
i ROLL CALL was answered 'by Commissioners Smith, I McComas, Palmateer, McCarthy, Litt1,k and Voorheis :Commissioner Suther1,'and was ,absent.! Also present !were City Attorney Wilson, Assistaht City Erlginee :Thornton, Building ,Inspector Osbur,h and Planning i Director Schoell . ,' I. '
i APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1:
I I ,""""""""""""""""-""""""""""""""""~".
I I
I. '
1 I i (a) Minutes of 'the regular meetinig of January 10 :1967, were approved as written. ;
1 I I
.. .
8 I '/ i:
1
/'
I :WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
!There were no written communications.
,I
I
;I I I'
ti \
/' i ORAL COMMUNICATIONS':
I I
I
I : PUBL-IC HEARINGS:
I
:(a) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - R-1 to R-3 i (Multiple-Residential) Zone on the Westerly side i of Rooievel t St. , Northerly .of Magnol i a Avenue. :Applicant:' Miles T. Tolbert.
1 5
1 1 1 I b I I I I 1 1 i (b) PRECISE PLAN, continued .- on above property. i , I
The. Planning Director reported that he had writte; :to the applicant as th.e Commission directed and : jwas informed that the applicant was out of the I :state and would return between February 1 and 6, : i 1967. The Planning Directo,r stated he will con- i
I tact him wh'en he returns to see how he wishes to : i proceed with this property. I
i With the consent 'of thp Commission, Chairman :McCarthy asked that these hearings be continued : i to February 28, 1967, in order for the Planning i :Director to duscuss these matters with.,the appli-;
i (c) CONDITIONAL USE.PERMIT, continued - To con- 1 :sider a1lowi.ng construction of a church building :
I Westerly from E mwood St. Applicants: Church of i
I Letter dated 'January 21, 1967, from Joe Parisi, i :Agent for Church of Christ, asking to withdraw ': i their application for a conditional use permit, i : was acknowledged and accep!ted. 5 I
I I /The following items were tonsidered concurrently I : since they applied to the; same ,property. I 4
1 (d) RECLASSIFICATION - R-1-7,500 to C-1 , C-2 and i i R-3 or: the Easterly side, of Park Drive, between I :Monroe St. and HillsidejDr. Applicants: Donald ; j A. Briggs, et al. I
I #I
1 I
I I I I t 1
cant. I, 1 I I I 8 t
and off-street arking at 1370 Knowles Ave.,
Christ. .f I 8
b t 8 1 I r L
I t I
I I 1 I *I I
I I I
- .. -
I 1. I I b I 1
1 I
I
I ,. i , !/ I I
t I I 4 I
.. ,.
: ,.
,.
'. -..
..
.. ..
I I 1 a
I I ' Ns rlc S, 'I$' 888 "&>
~,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,.,~~~~.~~..~~~~~-----------~------.---------~-----------.J----------------~-~--.--~-*-- I : tJember \,o\Q.p\o 4s
.I
.I 1' I 88 88 '8, '8 '% '8 %I
1 b %8 * I 3 I I ', '8, 8\8 b8 ', '\ I I '8 8, S8 '\ I
1 '8 88, \ \ ' I
I - 2, -
I if
I Ii ',,p % 7J,+,3>,,,, ,.
& 9;'
!(e) VARIANCES - To consider reduction in iront I : ; i :' i, !footages from 60' to 25' minimum on Lots 311,,42, : : ; ,; : E I'
:88, 92 and 134 in order to create "panhandle 10tS"I, :I;;;;: jand to 50' on Lots 105, 106, 107, 108, 132, !#I33 : ::::, I. :and 135 on lots on interior bulb of cul-d,e,-sacs; I ; ; ; .I' !reduction in side yard setbacks to 5' on .al'l R-1 ; .I. I ; : :' ;lots; reduction in rear:'yard setbacks to .lo' on I lI;I::: :;:;I:: !all R-1 lots excepting -lots backing on Carlsbad : , 111 ::.:.:ll 161 !Highlands, reduction. in front yard setbacks from i il]ii ' : : I20' to 15' on the R-1 ,lots, on property located : Ill :;: :on the Easterly side o'f Park Drive, between Monroe: ::I:::, !St. and Hillside Dr,. Appli'cants: Donald A. Br4ggS, ~ls;l' ::::I:
:et al. I i:;::: ; ; 1.: ; 1 ;
I I I, ;,; : I ; 8 :'
i156 Lots on the Easterly side of Park Drive, be- i 4' IL1 1; 1 ; : ji : :
ftween,Monroe Street and Hillside Drive. Owners: ; :Donald A. Briggs, et al, .Subdividers: D.B.Jr.Inc.: 1 1 I .: :,
;:::I'
1 ~
I I:/ : I ::, :
!Notices of the' public hearings were Iread. The 1 I ;, ; : : :. ::::;:i
:Secretary certified that publicatioo was given ; !:I ; !that property owners in the area .weTe :notified, ; :I; ; I :and then read the applications. 1 I. : ; : ,i:
I I I ;l!l I
b I I : *I I ; :.
,I a : Ij :Secretary Palmateer repo.rted that there was consid; ,::::i: I , $1 jerable correspondence and asked the City Attorney : :;:dl4
:if all of the letters would have to be read. The i 11,;1;
!City Attorney asked that the names and address of : . I .f ; :: :those in favor and those opposed .be read and that i i :if there were any petitions or letters with a l;;8:6
1 ,: I : : :.; :number :of signatures that the en,tire petition"or i
/The Secretary reported that there.'were some ques- f :tionnaires also, some of. them were not signed.
:The City Attorney stated he be"1iieved the question-i ,; ; i i I.: inaires were no intended, for the Commission and I : : ; ',; :were sent out by the dPvelope'r and were to be Ireturned to the developer and 'should be disregardeb.
:The Secretary read the names and addresses on six :I;::: Iletters stating they were in ,favor of the tone I:::
jchanges.
!The City Attorney interrupted the Secretary to :state that he had just received a letter from the i 1.: ; I I 1 I;;:::
:Developers attorney asking perrnission lo, speak as ; I 8 ; 8 4.: : 1 ; :they wished to ask a continuance of these proposal$ i,: ::;Ill
ifor six weeks. I I :\,: 1 : ; : ; 1 ; ; 1. :.
I a ; i i ; :: 1. :The Commission discussed this request and the I I : : . I.:
:majority felt the app1,icants should have the right! : ; : 1 I..; I' ; 1 :' ;;:,:i
, . !to continue these hearings. I : : : b, 1 ' :ti
8, : : ' I ,!(I !MR. RUSSELL GROSSE, Attorney for the applicants, 'L 1 1 : ; I ..:. ;;;/:
:stated he had just been,asked to represent the I !I#, I ; :; ::
:applicant that-.afternoon and had reviewed the City: ; : : 1 : ;: :Engineer's recommendations but had not had time to! 1,::;: ;: :resolve any of the. problems or a1 ignment of the : i i I.!
:streets. He stated he felt that the over-all plan: ::::;:
1 ' ; i.: : :has Some merit, and asked that these matters be I $:Is 'I jcontinued for 6 weeks in order to work with the i :I 41;:; :Engineering and Planning Departments to get some : ::::;; :of the problems resolved.. ::p
I t.: : I I ::I;;;
$ I I ;: :'I;
>1 I I ;:::::
1 ; ; I : 1.;
I
1
I
I
I 88 b \' $ I 1 ', '. A i of 8 &? ':&, '\ ',"3> be\^/, *?!/ I.,
1'1
811
11 Id 4
I'
I
11
I 1
I I I 4
I
:TENTATIVE MAP - PARK MANOR UNI'T B SUBDIVISION I
i ;;,;Id
~ ..
I I
i !; I:
I :i
d!
! I 1 I# 11.1
:1 1: 1.;
1 ii!; : ; : * ; .I
1'' I : ; i :,
1 I .: 1::;: I I
1 '1 ;. : : ; :'.
I : 'I !:I:;:'
i '! :\::;;, ::pi; 11
I I i;!;;;
I
i~ I , ; I.'
:letter be read. ,. I t jiI i i i i 1
1 ,I I
1
1; I
13
9 I
I I I t
I 1 6 * I 4:;;; :!::I;
I L 1 :@I:;;
1 I
t j , 1.'
4
11 f
1 1
I 4' '
:e
I '8
I
I 1
I
! ! I ! C-fi ~~__ ~ " ~~ ~~~ ~ " ~
!
I I.
I I
I 'a I I '8, 8 '* ", 5 '\, ., ', ". ', 3,
0
i;pp , ,. !.I , :; !ti''
j;' !; j '<I I
I' 1 .I ; .. I ,: .I
8 ' 2. ,,, '1 ,I
I *, be, 8 '
I
I I -3- I I \\ ', ', '8 '. " I ', 't, '8, ', ', '8
1 I
I I I ~z ne ". 'tP.- 8, '[G,, ;' ,;
I I '$&\, '8, '?,%; . : ;
I ; Of '&4,,q'.,+,@, ; :""""""-.---.""""."""""""""~""""""""""""""~~"""""~""""~~","~~ Member ~$3~6.pg ,G%* i Chairman McCarthy. questioned the fact that if thii ;;I I
:ill i plan is re-done and revised, the effect this would have on dedication of land ,for parks in subdivi-
1 ;.'J;; ::::
i sions or payment of fees in lieu thereof. I : i ; ;,, 1
I ;1I
I :IiI*l :;: 1 MR. GROSSE stated he believed they would tiave the ::4;t;
: same power and that six weeks continuation shouldj '#;;:I *I ;; i I i.; i not change this. I I:;; ::I
I, ::;:;; 11 i Commissioner Smith asked Mr..Grosse 'if he was 1 I ::I *I
: aware that this application was filed 24 hours : :11:;: :;::;; i before the Park Ordinance was in effect. I .:;ii::
I ::SI': i The 'Chairman asked if it would not be wise to 'I 1 ; ; 1 :'..I
:withdraw the applications and submit new applica-: : la ; I I ;,;,'!:
tions if there are 50 or 60'% changes in the plan. i ; I ,B', ' I : 1'. '
1 I : I I ; :: : i ; .; (: i The City Attorney pointed out that the Commission I 1 ::::I: ; does not have to take a .position on the park l:s!:4 I dedication and whether there is a substantial : :::I::
::I:&:
; change or a new plan at this time. The Commissioi , '/ .; ' ,: ; : ; i should just consider granting a continuance. :'I I : I I
: continue the three ;applications to March 14, 1967iMcComas ! ; F! i :
I' 1
bI
11
I I
*
I
I I I
I
b 8 I
8 r.::,l
I'
1 I I
I
1 e ;$;!it I ;
4:::; : : : ;x: ;
I i~almateer ;x: y; i i
I 1 :McCarthy i : ; !x; ;
I iLi ttl e I "
I ;Voorheis 7 I I I ;
I (f)' PROPOSED AMENDMENT -...re:. NAMES OF ZONES. I ,,; 1;
I ; :I1 : ; ,I/ * I To consider amendment of Section 2 of Ordinance i , ,&I 1 1 ; 1.1 : I
t No. 9151 and repeal of .Section 3 of Ordinance No. : :::I;,
I i : i 9151, Ordinance No. 9110, Ordinance No. 9114, and: I 4 ':I : : ; 1
; Section 1505 of Ordinance No. 9060; said amendment >:I:::: i initiated by Planning Commission Resolution,'o,f 4 . .I : I!;: : ; : ; ;, ; ; Inten'tion No. 59.
: The following resolutilbn was presented: I
i The City Attorney explained that this is juit a technical matter to pick up all of the names of :the different zones where they are listed at ..th,e : .III)
beginning of the zoning ordinance as they have I 1:;: ; : : ! : added the.new R-W zone. He stated that if it is : : I;! i : : : i the Commission's pleasure, they adopt a .'resolutiorj ~ :::; : to amend this.
; A motion was made to adopt .Resolution No. 488. I: recommending the amendment to cause the intro- : #/ I '::;I1: : ductory paragraph,s of the zoning ordinance to I I I ; ;,I:: I I correctly list the various zones. i Planning Commission Resolut'ion No. 488. A RESOLU-: Smith
I TION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2 OF ORDI-: McComas ;x; !x: ; j I NANCE NO. 9151 AND REPEAL OF. SECTION 3 OF ORDINANGE Palmateer : I ; 1
; NO. 91 51., ORDINANCE NO. 9110, ORDINA'NCE NO. 9114, : McCarthy i i )t i i 1 i AND SECTION 15,05.0F ORDINANCE NO. 9060, was adopt4d Little ; I p; : I
; by title only and' further reading waiied. : Voorheis I i. I
;I:;:
I P
After further discussion, a motion was made to :Smith
Ji :
I t
I I ii f$ i 1:. i
I I I I
I
1
! I(
#I 1,)
t /: I 1
I. I. I 1 I i{:$i;
I I ! I' :::::I
I I I :::::: :;;::: i:::;:
8:::;;
I
i:; ;'; 1 ; ;
I
I
I
3 I::::;
, SI:;:;
I I&ii:I II
I I *I::;;
I I I::;;;
:::I '11
I :x%: i 1
t I I
I ', : .I 1
i :;
11
I 1 I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I
I
I 1 I i ; 1.:
l 1 I :: :ii
I 1 I;!;&! I
1 ; 1 : ;. ,,;
L $ ,. b I ;::;I. ; : : 4 1.::.
I I : : i .;:,
1 : ; ; ; I.;;
I ,: ; ; t, . i/ 1. I/ , : !~ b ! I!?
8 I'
I "
I
I ' b
I I
., I
I L
I I b I
b
I A- -~ ~
"
I , , i
I I l I I
I 1
I' 1 8\ '\ '* '8, I 8 '\ 88, \ 8 '
I I 8, '8 \8 '8 y\8
I -4- I ~e ne , st., '8 *, 'd"' '
\ I ; Qf I ',~~G*TZ,#$A :""""""-""""""".""""""""""""""~"""""""""~""""~"""""""~""~ i Member $&'cd.pp~d.
:OLD BUSINESS: I 1 i i ;,.
I I lilt;. I !::;I
,I::!!
i:::;
..
I
I '\\\\ I 8' \, '\ '\ 888 \. '\
.+'..e 8, \0 * OtS'j, 8 *7?,
I
!(a) Zoning Study - Committee report on R-T and i I:' IR-W Study locations. Commissioner Little re.ported: :that he and Commissioners Palmateer and Sutherland; :are serving on this committ.ee and felt that they : istill needed to do a lot of study on this.' He I' Ireported that they had gone to Laguna Beach and : :Newport Beach to make studies.and they did not i ifeel they wanted the City of Carlsbad to be as :t I \;\' ; 1 ; :crowded as they are at these beaches. I b ;;I:! 1ltlI
I Ill
j(b) &ne changes and.public improvements. Commis-I ;;::; jsioner McComas stated he had a request.from the : 1I:'l. 41 11::: iREalty Board stating they would like to. meet with : .\the Engineering Department! to discus these matter:. ;tl;l
:With the consent of the Commission, the Chairman I ::;:: lasked that these matters.be continued to the next iregular meeting in order ifor the Realty Board to ; :meet with the Engineering Dept.
:NEW BUSINESS:
'I 1 q4:.
!(a) Required Improvemeits - Subdivisions 'an'd 'Lot I. ,+:;I
'3;
!Splits. I I' t ;::a:
1 I I ;:;:I.
;The City Attorney explained this subject was I. 1 ::;::
,:I:: :forwarded to the Commi,ksion from the Council. In f @l:l: jthe.past more improvements were required of the I I;#! :subdivider than on lots splits. It is the feeling! :;I::
10:
jof the Council. in recommending this that this dis-i ::::;
:Tinction be removed. There is no logical reasons ; I:;::
1:4a i to require a perso,n to put all of the improvements: I' ; I! :in just because he is creating 4 or more lots. If: ;: I :.;
t .: 1 6 jthis seems logical 'and the Commissdon'desire the , :I:&: (1111 1 required irnprovem'ents, he'"wou1d bring in the I I :i;::. :proposed ordinance he Qas drafted for the Commis- I I ;:: ;: ision's consideration. '. I 1:::
.I :;::;
1 i :;::;
:The Commission ,unanimously agreed to consider 1 ; I.:! i
1 ;I;::
I & I $1::
I ;;::;
4 $ ,;::: It
1111
::*I;
1:;::
;p:t , ,; 4 : :.: 1 :. ( I I ::::;
1 :;;;:
$1 dl
8
$1 I I 1 1;;:
1 I : ; t.:
:a:;! ::hl 4:::
;::::,
I 1 I 81
1. ; 1 I I.
I;;*
11: 1 b ;:::I
b I I
I I I I
)(I,
I
I
1 1
t I
1
1 this proposed ordinance.
I
!The City Attorney'stated he would have the propose8 :ordinance at the next regular meeting. 4 I ;: 81
:Commissioner McComas asked that Items 7 (b) and. ! ;:!:I ::I:: i8 (a) be amalgamated together.since they are $ 111:1 :similar.
:Mr. Thornton' inquired i.f the same cornmittere is :::
jworking on this, and was informed it is the same i ::::;
L ; commi ttee. I b :l;ii . . . .I I G:;,
i (b) Amendment to Uses under Con.ti'on.a'l 'Us'e Permi;tsi. ;:'I: :::;;
6 I 118
:The Planning Director stated that Paul Ecke would 1 :::ii ::::: :like to use a -.portion of his Residential-Agricul- : tural property which is just North of the property! :+; 9;
jthat was recently rezoned to C-2 on the Northwest i :::I:
:corner of Interstate 5 and Palomar Airport Rd., I ;'l:l
/North of the proposed service station site, for a 1 ; : : 1.;
I;@:&
; nursery. I
:;:::
1 1 :;::I
I I :;::I
I 1 I i::::
I ,;::4
I I ::;;;, , I I :::;:
8 ;; 8, !il
.b i i i
1 I
I
I
'I('(' I I I I 1 1
I;*
I
Ii1l(
11
I
I
I
1
I I
I
I
I
,.
'> I I
I I I I
~~~ ~~
: : ! ILL
~
. 1 I I 1 I I 1 %' ', '.\., *% ', ' ', ',, '\ 'x, '. I ',
I I
I 't ' ', '% '8,
I I
', '\,'*\\ '\ ' i Name b. '.c?, ,, ,bfi ''./!., .. '?d,, . ,
8 ; of '$AS, '\ .A *9/ '
I Idember '& $&'(a .C,7' A:'''& 8\42 :""""""""-""-""""""""""""""""~""""""""""~"""""""~"""."~~"~~ - P9 &'*
;The Planning Director stated he looked this properi- 1::;:
:ty over with Mr. Ezke'and he felt it may be a good; jinterim use. If it were to be considered he felt : ;; 1; ::
:the most appropriate way would be as a Conditionali ;,;I::;
:Use Permit. It would be similar to a precise plan: ; : ; ; ; ,,:
1;:::;
:use, except that it would not be attachedeto the i ; ; : 1 I _.I I/
{property. Once the use is gone, there'would be ; : ;
!no permit. If the Commission feel there is merit': 'l::l;
!;:;:x
;in this proposed use, he recommended that they * 4 1 :,; 1 ;::8#4 tadopt a resolution of intention to hold a public i ::; 41;;;
:hearing to amend the uses permitted under the 1 1 ;;,;;: jconditional use permits in Ordinance NO. 9060, as i I#;#;:
;;I::' ;there has been no provision made for interim uses : ;1:11:
1 I 1:;:1: a18;*'
I 1 1 14;;:
:The Planning Director reported that Mr. Ecke is i :ldl;
d:;l
!very anxious to proceed with estab.lishing a! I al:ll
jnursery on his property, however, even if thei I : ; I ;'I :
;Commission agr.ee,it would take a' minimum of; 13 i ::I:!
:11;;
:weeks before he could do so. According to $he I ; :: ; :~.
:present ordinance he could sell his' crops land I 1 .;:PI 1'
:$I;#
':plants which are grown on the land now but would : 11111:
!not be 'able to sell trees, fertilizers, spr,ays and! I:;::,
jother products normall'y sold in nurseries,. 1, The i ; ; I ; 1';
;present conditional use .ordinance is limi'ted as. : .. I .:': ; i .;
t it does not 1 ist very many uses under it. I He t w;;;
I ::;Il:
:stated that Mr. Ecke could. come in and ask for C-21 1.1 I : 1 '
:zoning, but the City would have .no control over it!. i : ; ; :.;
I ' ;'I : ;
;The Planning Director stated he felt that a condi-: ;:/:'
{tional use permit would be better for this proper-: ;:;::I
I1;l:
ty than a zone change at this time. He read the ; ; ; : I ;,: !J:;; f us.es permitted under Conditional Use Permits in th!e 1 :::I proposed ordinance by. Danjel , Mann, Johnson and ; 4 ; " I
4.: ; I
I '11' I' I Mendenhall. I I :;)I;; 81, I
I 1 ii:::: :Mr. Thornton explained that there is about 35 ;. 44 ::::;;
acres of agricultural land 'between the Railroad I #:::;I jand Freeway North. of the C-2 property at Inter- I ::;::; , ,: I 1.; .; 1 :state 5 and Palomar Airport Rd. , I I 1 I:;!;;
::;I&; :A motion was made to adopt Resolution of Intention: i. \;e : No. 60 to hold a pub1 ic hearing on ,'February 14, i ;;!;I; 1967, to consider an amendment to Ordinance 9060 :11:1;
: to include additional uses permitted under Condi- ; l1 :::::I lh;l
itional Uses .as there is a need for inkrim uses to :;:::; i be incl uded under Condi ti on1 Use Permits. 1 ::;I:.;
1 ; ; 1 : :'I 11
!Resolution of Intention No. 60. A RESOLUTION OF I Smith ;x ; :x; : 1 ii CITY OF CARLSBAD i McComas ; ;xtx; i I DECLARING INTENTION TO HOLD PUBL;IC/ H'EARING TO Palmateer I : :x: ; I !CONSIDER RECOMMENDING AMENDMENVTO ARTICLE 14, i McCarthy ; i !x: ; :SECTION 1400, ORDINANCE 9060 T0"INCLUDE ADDITIONAL:.Littlei ; ; ;x! : i USES PERMITTED UNDER CONDITIONAL USES, was adopted: Voorheis i i ;x: i ; :by title only and further readjng waived. I lll:b;
;: 11
I
I -5- ', * , '\ '\
1 I
I
818 i i : i ;,,:
1l:I
' : t'I
'!under this catagory. 1
t'
41 1'
I
1
t I SI
1I,'8'
1 $11
1
1
I a
I 8. I
I I! I
8
I
I
4, I ,I
I
;l;lll
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I 8 ;?:I:
1
I 1 I ,,
I I I 1 .' ,
8 I
!i *I :y;:I /" I I I ! I ; i;: :.I
I I ;lllll .. t 1 Ji'::!
I I I ;,: j I ,I I .:;;
1 :I1 :;;
.I I 1:;::;
/ I 1 I I 1 I
I I
i -. - . &I
I .. . I , ;::!:!
I
;I I
:!I:&;
I I I L
.... <
1' a
).' .,
..
,.
. ..
,, >, ,,
I I I
I
I
I
.. '. !
I 'S, ', *' , , 8 I 4 , ', ',, ', '\ '.
I -6- 1 '., 8, ' , \ 8 t 1 , 8, ', %, ', 's ' ' ' I ', \, '& s, ,8 ', ; .:
I N.2 ne ',* '"\ '. '?d& ' '
I : of '$0 ,+?\ '\ .?/* $J.. ' '?/,
I ',b .C x 7 \,+'@, ;
,*' ." , '' , ,.
I 4 .. I. I I I
I 1
I I"-""""""---""-"--"-"""-----"""""""""""""~""""I"""""""""""~~"~~, : Member %SQ,+\~ i (c) Zoning at Jefferson Street and Arbuckle Placd. ;::;:
:The Planning Director stated that Mrs,. Mullican ; i owns property on the Northwesterly corner at t': 1
:Jefferson Street and Arbuck;l.e. Place, and would I ;;:;; :like to build an additional dwelling there. He . i ;:;lg : explained that her propert,y is zoned R-1 and is : 1. ::::: ::
:surrounded by R-3 and R-P 'zoning. He explained ; ;!::I :the downtown study area the Planning Dept. is J .:;i1* rI !making will go to Beech Street and over to Arbuck1:e : ;: 1 ; ' Place as a loop street. He felt that Beech Street I ; ;,I ::: :; :;
:there will be high density residential. He ex- ; I 1.: :
::;I: jplained the present zoning in the area and that 1 ::::; IArbuckle Place is fronted on both sides with R-1 ; :(I:;
::::I property except f,or the property on the South.- I I:;I: !westerly corner of Jefferson and Arbuckle which ! :;' ;:I 11
;is zoned R-P. Mrs. Mullican does not care what I i : 4 ;.;
I the property i,s zoned as- long as she can build a : 1:;:;
I : i : i', tJ
I ; : I I ;',
1 : : i : ;,: i Ther.e was discussion on whether Jt would be bettee i : i'i :to have the property zoned R-3 or' R-P, and the : -;::' :e i Planning Dire.ctor stated he did not believe this i property would be used for'R-P use at this time. : i He stated he felt it was mandatory that the parcel:
t north of this property be ,rezoned at the same time i since it is zoned R-1 also', with R-P zoning North I . :I::; : of it. He poi-nted out that when the property at f :;::; I the. Southwest corner was rezoned, 8' street
b I I I : f I :.i
;/I : 8
; :.'I
ill;;. I I IS
a
11
I
' :would be extended Easterly. Outside of this area
duplex on it. I
I 1 I
I:;!:
pll;
1:;:; :::;:
:::I;
I ::4: :;!:;
I I :'Jl;
I ::PI,
I;;!:
1 i:::; :::::
I. 1 1:::;
1 I ::~i: '~ :I::; ;::;I'
;:ii: ;::;: ::::;
1 iiii;
I !, :I !: i ;
111 1::::
I I ::::i
:I::! .* ::I:;
s i, ;I: .; ':
I I i ::iii
1 i :I: ' i: J i 1 :I: : f I#, ' :
1 I ,(I)'l -. . J!':'
I ; ill ; ; ';
I ll;:;
I c ::: : ' : ):I ' ;
I , 8 I :.J ;:le;
I I 1;::;
3 . L :::;:
I I ::'I;
I ::i:;
I 8 I I .:'I::
'I
1
dedication was given on Arbuckle at that corner. I
The Commission expressed :the opinion that the 1 I. ;:::: ::':I ; property owners on Arbuckle Place should initiate! proceedings for a zone change themselves if they ; wished to do so, and questioned whether there ;. +I' would' be enough propert? deft .on, the corner for : (vlrs. Mu1 1 i c.an to bui ld,/on.
I
1 I
41
r 1 ::i;: ::,,I
I Mr. Thornton explain,'ed, that 8' dedication is 8
needed from each sidelot- Arbuckle for minimum street dedication. 'He stated the Engineering Dept. always felt ttha,t some one would buy several i of the lots and coqibine them an3 ttien ttiey would :
J I
: then put in,the improvements on Arbuckle.
I . 1.; :. I ; [ The Commission concur'red with the Planning ; Director that the, R-3"zone would bie better for i i this property at.'thfs time. ' . I ::*:I
/ The Planning Dir,ector stated he would talk to ; Mrs. Mullican regarding the R-3 zoning.
i ADJOURNMENT: '
I
I
8
I
1
'I I ,
I I a
:! 'j : J I
I I 1 I
1 L I
I I
li ; '48
t ,I 1
*I By proper motion'the meet'ing was adjourned at : 8:48 P. M.
i Respectfully submi'tted,
1 I
1 I
I I
1
I 1
I 1
2
J
1
1 L I I i ;;::: : DOROTHY M. OSBURN i Recording Secretary J
I
I
I
4
.II 81
I 1 :::;;
I
L +
I
I I
'I
~-__ ; ; ! , ~ 1