HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-06-13; Planning Commission; MinutesI
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 I I I I
I I
r .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
.8
I
I
I I I I I I I I
I I * l
a I I
8
I I I I I I I I I I b I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b 1 8 I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I b 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
CITY OF CARLCa4D Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSL Date of Meeting: June 13, 1967
Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. Place of Meeting: Council Chambers ."""""""""-"""""""""-""""""""""""""""""~ ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, Palmateer, Sutherland, Little, Jose and Voorheis.: Commissioner .McComas was present at 8:08 P. M. 1 Also present were City Attorney Wilson, Building ! Inspector Osburn, and Planning Director Schoell. i
Chairman Sutherland welcomed Lt. Col.Elmer H. Jose, Jr. as a new member of the Planning Commis-! sion.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
(a'.) Minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of May 19, 1967, were approved as submitted.
-
I I
I
4 I
I
I I
I k I
I I I I
I
1 I
(b) Minutes of the regular meeting of May 23,' ! 1967, were approved as submitted. a I
I I I I I 1 I I
I I I WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I I I 1
(a) San Diego County Planning Congress - re: Meeting at Quails Inn, San Marcos., June 23, 1967.; Topic: Irvine Ranch Development.
The Chairman reminded those planning to attend to! make reservations.
(b) City Manager - re: General Plan for the City of Carlsbad. Memorandum dated June 8, 1967,: stating that the City Council requested the I I Carlsbad City Planning Commission to make the : annual review of the General Plan for the City of Carlsbad, as recommended by Daniel , Mann, Johnson: and Mendenhall. I I
The Planning Director noted that the General Plan: calls for a comprehensive review every 5 or 10 : years. At this time the Commission could make a I study of areas that have changed since the Gener-: a1 Plan was adopted, such as property around the i Airport. These changes could be formally adopted and incorporated as an attachment to the General I Plan.
The Chairman requested the Planning Director to : makqa study of the areas where the land use has I changed and report at the next regular meeting. : I
.I I I
I I
I
I I I I I I
8 I
I
I
I
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I I I I I
There were no oral communications. 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
c
I
I I I
I
I
I 8 I ', \ '\ *, ', I
I I ,t 8%'
* \' I - I ',, 8."S8, '*, ",'*, I
-2- I \, y8,8 ',, \.,'\, 1
I ! Name ",,'\%, 8\8 , '.$. 6. i
I ; of *$$$>, '\ *v, ; : Member $$@.$3\p\,0\~ :
8 I
I I
I :---------------------------.---.----I--------- ------------- -- ------. __________ 8 --~--------------------,---- I
',& 0 % Q
: PUBLIC HEARINGS:
! (a) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider zone changes i : initiated by Planning Commission Resolution of ; I Intention No. 61 on properties from R-T to:
I i.8 I :! I I I '*;;I; i!;;:;
I t 'I,;:a 11
:;It';
.'l:;:I
I i:: 8::
I "iiii
I @:;I:; .* I :*;:;8 ;: 8,: 1 Notice of hearings was read. Secretary Palmateeri 1:;:::
; certified that publication was given and property; , :' ;:i;:: II
i owners in the area..were notified of the public ; 0::; : hearings. I I :;;,::
I I ;;;::; , I::' i Chairman Sutherland explained that after consider; ;:; 1': i
I :-; : ; I able study and in the best interests of the City,; : the Planning Commission felt some of the proper- ; :I;::: 'l:i;I i ties zoned R-T were not suitable for that zone at: i::;;; ; this time and initiated the adoption of Resolution : of Intention No. 61 to hold a public hearing on i @:;I I
!LI 8::: , i rezoning some of the properties to the original : ;::;:; ; zoning or to a more suitable zone. I $;!;
F I I I I !:I:::
; The Planning Director explained that implementati9n :;,:i; i of the General Plan called for a study of all of : 'I:;;;
:;'I,# ; the zones and since the City has established new i :$:: i R-T and R-W Zone Ordinances, a committee was I :I I' 1- ; : i.: ; ; : appointed to s'tudy the present locations of the' i :!:::! R-T Zones. After adoption of the new R-T and ; :I:;ll R-W Zones, the Janss Cbrporation, owners .of Shelt+r ::::;i
I i Cove Subdivision, now called Bristol Cove, applied i::::: ;;::;: ;:;:::
1;;;::
1. R-1-15,000 on the Easterly side of Park i ;: Drive, Lot 73 in Shelter Cove Subdivision, Map i ;:;:;I *"I
'81
I 5162.
I
I
'1
8"111
I
I
8:' 1
: for rezoning to R-W for most of their property i i with one o'f the exceptions being Lot 73,which is ;
! a parcel of land on a high bluff across from the i I;!!;! :I I subdivision,which they agreed to have zoned to ; ::'I;: I conform to the zoning on adjacent property. He i i:iiii i explained that the original zoning on this parcel; ;::;;; : was R-A-10, however, the adjoining property is : ::;:;: - I R-1-15,000. Therefore, the Commission are consid- :;I "8:: : ering a change of zone on this parcel to R-1-15. : ;;;:i: 'I;:8I
The Chairman announced the Commission would now i :I;:
i hear from those wishing to speak in favor of.thi4 : application. I :!I:;: : i No one present spoke in favor of this applicatiotl. ::!$;
i The Chairman announced the Commission would now :. ;:;I;: ;::::: i hear from those wishing to speak in opposition tq : this matter. #I;:;: I ::;:;:
I ; : I ; 8.; :::::;
I I :;tI*; { The public hearing was closed at 7:48 P. M. I I :I::!;
t * I I ::;:I;
The following resolution was presented: a ;::;:: I I::*;#
I :;:+ 1. I After due consideration a motion was made to I 8 : adopt Planning CommisSion Resolution No. 505 I ;:;:;: (1181'
recommending a change of zone on Lot 73 for the i ;::I:! following reasons: t:;I;l
! 1. That the present zoning of the parcel is not! -i::i::
;::;:I in conformance with the General Plan. I I :8i8:' I;Iaa:
I I ,l,:b8
I 8 :::::i
I 8::;'l
I :;:
8 I '8 ;:;:I; ;: ,;!I;:
I I ;i;;;;
.I I
I1
I
1 I No one present spoke in opposition to this matted. I" *;I
8
I
8 :18:I:
I I
8 I
I
11
I I
I
I a
t I
8 a I :::;I, :;
I I I :i:
I I !!;;;! *I
I I :::t*1
- ~~ a ::I:::
I
t
I
I
I
I *
"
!
I
i 2. That this parcel is on a high bluff 3nd is : I: - : separated from the lagoon uses by topography and i thus, should not be zoned R-T which is a use : associated with lagoon frontage. *1:;1
3. That the parcel is p.resently a spot of R-T in! :1111
: the middle of a large block of R-1-15,000 and the:
herein recommended rezoning will bring the zoning: ::::I : of this parcel into conformance with surrounding i
zoning, will eliminate spot zoning and will pro- ; )'La : vide a better, more natural, and desirable break
between zones.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 506. A RESOLU-!Smith
R-T T.0 R-1-15,000 ON PROPERTY ON THE EASTERLY SIDk.Sutherlandr : !x! ; ~ : OF PARK DRIVE, LOT 73 IN SHELT'ER COVE SUBDIVISION:,Little' ; I ;x; i 1 ! was adopted by title only and further reading i Jose : i !x: : 1 : waived. :Voorheis i :x:xi : I
I 6 1"t;I ! (a) 2. RECLASSIFICATION R-T to R-1-15,000 on i 1::::; i:::;; i the Northerly side of Adams St., Lot 16 and por- : : tion of Lot 15, Block E, Bellavista, Map 2152. I !!::!; - :;::q
3 The Planning Director explained the location of : ::,::I ;I1; i this property owned by David E. and Irene M.BairdI :::;:I : was zoned to R-T in March, 1964, and the land use: i;:;:; i is not in conformance with the General Plan which! ;d:q
: shows this land being retained for residential : ;::;:I
;:;l:I i use. Since the R-T Zone is set up specifically ;;':@I : for Residential-Tourists, it was felt that Adams : I:;!;
::::I: i Street would be the natural .topographical break : :::;:I ; line. Subject property has 2 single-family dwell!- !:::I 1: : ings on th'e property at this time and is located : ; ; ;\I : I
, ! on a bluff surrounded by land that is zoned R-1-lb, I'd;; ;i!:;: i except for R-T property across the street and R-Wi i::::: ; at Shelter Cove. I I ;I::::
I I :::::i i The Chairman announced the Commission would now .!. ;::;:;
: hear from those wishing to speak in favor of this: - !;:;:I
'8':
1:;1;1
I I I I ;;:'I: I ;::, +:;: ;::il:
I * I I :I::;:
I I i;::;: ' I I ;:::::
-11
I !.: : ; i
I ::;::
.. :::q ::::;
;:::; ::::; ::::;
:::I,,
I : i.: i:
:I::; : : :xi I ~ : TION RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZONE FROM : Palmateer : 2 :x: : ~
I
I
I. b I -'
I'
I I-
1'1 ,
I b ;;I:@'
11 I
I I
z.one change.
The Chairman announced t'he Commission would now : hear from those wishing to speak in favor of this! i zone change. I
I *I '11 I
@Ia:;
::@#;I
No one present spoke in favor of this matter.
I I (I::;:
The Chairman announced the Commission would now i ;:;I:: : hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. i ;:I::: /:;;:
I I ;:lI#l
; MR. DAVID BAIRD, 5236 Shore Dr. stated he is the: I:;:;: I owner of the property referred to and that nobodi '#*;I; !!:;:; : would build a single family residential home on : :::;I: *I i 15,000 sq.ft. across from a "6eer joint". He ::;I :;
: stated that he had planned to build a nice home. I 11:;
:;I:::
i on the plateau bxt had to move. away from this ;::;;I : property because the noise on the lagoon caused : :':I:: i him to have a heart attack. .He reported paying i ::;:;:
::I:;: ; the taxes on the property and that it is hard to: :;::/ i 'hold tenants there because of the activities I ;:@;:I :I I:
: across the street. He stated he had gone to con-! : ; 8 I 1,1
*ll;:
siderable expense to go before the Planning Corn-: :;I:;: i mission and Council to have this property rezoned :;::I:
;I;':#
I I I 1;4;** I'
I I I :;::a:
1 I ;II;I;
I I I I :,I:::
I I I I :iiii:
I I I 1 ;::a::
1 I I I ;:;:;I
I
"1
I
I
I
I I 11
.!I!*! I I....
P -4
"""_"""""""""" i to R-T in order to develop the property as soon i I as sewers are available. He stated that sewers i are not available at the present time and that he: : has signed a petition requesting sewer improve- i i ments in that area, and now that the sewers will ; : soon be available the Commission want to rezone i i the property to R-1-15. He stated the property ; : is not suitable for R-1-15 and that he has had : I engineers, architects and surveyors working with : this property and the most they would be able to : I develop would be 4 parcels if zoned R-1-15. I I
I Commissioner McComas was present at 8:08 P. M. I I
i MR. BAIRD stated that changing this zone to R-1-1$ ; would be downgrading the land in value and zone : and he did not believe it would be fair or right i : to deprive him of developing that property as R-T.: He stated he had an appraisal of the property I I : made that day and the appraiser informed him the I i property would drop considerably in value if I : rezoned to R-1-15. He stated he had talked with i
,- i the Planning Consultant and he assured him that, i
I eventually there would be high-rise development : i in that area. I I
i The Chairman stated a study was made of the : property and nothing has been done with the propet- I ty for 3 years. The study made by disinterested : : consultants , Daniel , Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall: i indicated this property would be better for high ; : density population. If a precise plan were brougbt in for apartments he sees no reason why the Corn- i mission or Council would not consider it. He I I stated he did not.fee1 the property belongs in an: R-T zone. I I
Commissioner Palmateer addres.sed the Chairman and! : stated that seemingly this particular piece of : i land was out of context since it is across from : R-T and R-W and is not water.oriented and to have: i this property have this zoning is discrimination i : against other properties in that area.. The other! i properties in the area have the right to have I
.I : their property zoned R-T also 'if this property i ; remains R-T. There is adequate -R-T property !
I I : I6
I I I I
I I I I I I
1
I I 1
-
1 : avai i with : pirbl
; Comm i this
1 I
i
able and this property is not in conformance: the General Plan and, general welfare of the
C. :. .
lissioner Little stated that the intent of I I I rezoning was to bring these parcels back intb .
' i proper zoning so they will have the proper land ;
: sion could put stipulations on the present zone : i so that a precise plan would have to be submitted: : before development. I 1
i The City Attorney informed the Commission they : i could not do this as the property can be develope9 .; under the requirements of the zone it is in. I I
When questioned by the Commission Mr. Baird state3
use. He questioned the City Attorney if the Comm!is-
I I I
I I I 1
: he would be satisfied with R-3 zoning.
:I * 1. .I
I I
I I I
I1 ' I
I I I ii I. I :I I
I I' I $i I I
c
1 I
1 I
8
I ', \, ', * *
I
I I
% ''
I '., y, '\ '\,'\\
I b 8' \ \, ', 8 ', '\ '.,
I -5- I ; Na me '8, *?&. 8 '%&,
I I of '/ O' \r ',+, '8. '?., l ',$q&,qpp$p 0 :"""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~~"""""""""."",-"- : Member ,o .Q..P~~.o
:The Chairman stated he believed that in the i+:i :interests of the City Mr. Baird should come in 1,::: !with a zone change for R-3 and with a precise plaq :;e:;
:for ,denser use when the need existed. 8
I * ;'s:*
:No others spoke in opposition. J I :*I 'I::;
I I $1::
!The public hearing was closed at 8:27 P. M. /p: ;:
I I I I+: ;:
;The following resolution was presented: I I ;:::I
I I;'::
:After further discussion a motion was made to :' i::::
I:*t :adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 506 b I ::$i :recommending the zone change from R-T to R-1-15 a4 ::ii;
;previously presented for the following reasons: ; 11 11;;
:1. That the parcel is presently a spot of R-T in i i ; ; 1
fi#l;l'
::;I:: Ithe middle of a large block of R-1-15,000 and the: 'I :herein recommended rezoning will bring the zoning i t:;:::
:of t,his parcel into conformance with surrounding : ::;*:, ;i;::: :zoning, will eliminate spot zoning and will proviqe pa;;; ,'SI la better, y,o.re natural , and-desirable break between I::;,; ; zones. * ::I;;;
12. That the present zoning is not in conformance I :;11:1 :+;:
i3. That Adams Street forms a natural topographic41 :iiii; :break between the R-T and residential zones. :4. There is a large amount of R-T land that is ::;I::
;lt@I;
!not presently being used. '. # I p;:@' #:;:;I
Planning Commission Resolution Ne. 506. A RES,OLU- :Smith : ' :xi I :TION RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZONE FROM :McComas : ; ; : ;::,
:Palmateer ;xi z; ; ; :SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, was adopted by title only jsutherland; ;x3( i ; i and further reading waived. :Little i i pi i.;
I :Voorheis
I I i I ; ; I (a) 3. RECLASSIFICATION - R-T to R-1-6,000 at I I::;, 4: :the South end of Harbor Dr., being a portion of 'I ::;I:: 41
a l . I::;::
!Letter dated June 11, 7967, from Elwood E. Trask I ;;::;;
:and Bess H.T'rask, 501 Chinquapin Avenue, opposing: i:::;: I:;: the proposed zone change from R-T to R-1-6,000. : ;::b 1::
:They stated they have owned and lived on the I ::;GI;
; property since January, 1928, and purchased this ! ;i:::;
: property because of the water frontage on the Agu4 :::;:;
Hedionda Lagoon which, at that time, had an ever-: . #:;*;I I;;::: :changing water level due to ocean tides. After . 1:;:;: !observing the development over the.years of the ; !::::I
:Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, the Newport Harbor; ,:;I;: i I.: ; ; ; !and the recent improvements in San Diego Harbor ar(d - :Mission Bay, they are of the opinion the highest : ;;;;;:
llb#;: i and best use of the properties bordering on the Aiua :I! : Hedionda will be that as encompassed int he R-T i i;i
"(1 :*: ; * 1 : !zoning. If the properties are combined they can ; ;I**:' ;be developed as a high-class residential-tourist : ;:;::: i complex having private boating facilities and a i I*;:';
;:I;:;
:higher total taxable valuation than if developed : ;::;:; :as individual subdivisions with minimum sized lot4. I:;;;,
:They asked the Commission to consider the fact : i that the property at the south end of Harbor Driv4 :has the longest water front of any of the propert$es
-1;II I'
;1:;1: : in Tract 233 and if permitted to subdivide into ; :;;;;: i lots of 6,000 square feet it would greatly inter- I I fere with the future development of the other I I ::;s::
I I ;I1 '1;
8, ',,'\, '*, '\ 8
;.
I '*a
I t l;aI: I
I
I
I " 1
'I
'#
,- :with the General Plan. * :x;;; '11
*;;::I 1:
01 I
L R-T TO R-1-15,000 ON PROPERTY ON THE NORTHERLY :xi
b I 1 !Jose ; ; 4 I ;x;
I I ;:ii:;
Tract 233, Thum Lands, Map 1681.
b I I I i!:;;;
.I
I 11 8
11
Ill
i:::;; :; :I:;;;
:;I:@;
I;;;;' 8s
s ::;;i;
1 I 1 I I;;:;!
properties in the tract. I *
I
~ ~ "- ~~
!
I
I
c -6-
1 (""""""""""""""""""""""- ""
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I """""""""",.,-,1.
P
i The Planning Director explained that the property; i was zoned t,o R-T in April , 1964, and that it is : : served by a narrow residential cul-de-sac street I I with a 60' right of way. No use has been made of! the land since it was zoned R-T. At the time it : i was zoned to R-T, the Engineerin Department made' i a study showing other access to This property. Ii : was felt that Jefferson Street would coiltinue
down and through this property. The Planning : Director reviewed the minutes of the Planning i Commission when this property was rezoned. One ; of the criteria listed for rezoning this property:
f was that a precise-road plan be prepared. The :
former City Engineer, L. Rathbun, had stated that! ! the City did not precise plan small residential i
streets but that this was done by the interested : : land owners. The Planning Director stated that I
in looking over the land he felt this property ; would be zoned R-T in the future, but at the
; present time the possibility of a motel or hotel i I there would be creating a traffic hazzard and
until a circulation pattern is established he felt : this property should not be used for residential-! i tourist use. I I i The Building Inspector explained the traffic : patterns that were presented at the public hearin
: former Planner,. U. Melton, had presented a sketch:
of a proposed frontage road along the railroad ; which would have been on a 6.0' slope and the Engineering Department felt that there would be i : better drainage if the road extended from Jeffer-: I son. The owners of adjacent properties offered .!. : street dedication at that time.
; The Planning Director stated he felt the main i street that would serve this property would be i : State Street when it is extended and would be a : I major collector. I 1 i The Chairman announced the Commission would now : hear from those wishing to speak in favor of this! i zone change. I I : No one present spoke in favor of this zone change!. i The Chairman announced the Commission would now 1 : hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. ;*
i
I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I t 1 I I
I when this property was rezoned to R-T, and that t
I I
I I I I I t I I
4
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 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 !
I
MR. W. G. ALLEN presented a plat of the property
showing the sewer easement, the edge of the bluff: and the portion that .is in the lagoon. He stated; the reason for presenting this plat was that sincp this property was rezoned to R-T there is an en- ;
tire new Planning Commission, new Council, except:
for one Councilman, a new City Manager, a new I
City Engineer and Planning Director. He explainejd
the property was originally purchased by a group to form a very de luxe apartment complex at the i end of Harbor Drive. They have had considerable ; planning and engineering done on this property. i
When the origi?Gl group purchased the property ; they felt they had enough money to pay the taxes : until they could develop the property. The proper!-
ty taxes have increased 3000% and soon the cost :
of the taxes will be more than the original pric4
I 1 I I I I
I
I I I
I I
I* I -, ', .*\ '.\ 'a, **, I
I \, '\ '\ '\ \\\"\
I I I
I
\\\\' , ' \ I I I I I I I -7-
I ' : of 'cd;*, 3, /\+,
I ', \+\ '8, y,,
I I i Name ",,'+$ '\, '?% :
I ..$$;, \. *f+, :
of the land. In addition one member of the group: i:;':I ;:;if: ;died and they had to pay inheritance tax. They a$e : in hopes the land will come up with the value ;.; 8 I ; :
I I 1;::;: 'I I assessed it. He stated the Harbor Report and : General Plan show a med.ium density of 40 families: pl:;:
;::;I; per acre. If zoned to R-1-6 they may have 6 4 ;::::I : families living on a prime piece of R-T property.! ;::'lI i Very 1 ittle of the property is on level land. He ; 1;;I;: :;;::: : stated-that he has plans and photographs that wert ::'::: i presented at the hearing when it was rezoned that; ::p:: : are still available, and although they are not : I:::;; i pr-ecisely the same plans that would be built, thei ' ::;1,1
; would be similar. 'He reported that there is a ; ::;:::
i small amount of water available for still water i ::;;I; : activities along the California coast. Carlsbad I ::::I; i is blessed with a lagoon which they hope will eveb- I ;-I I , ,
: tually be a harbor. He reported being chairman : ;: I;;;:; I( i of the Harbor Commission and working on the Carlarja ; Harbor District. He reported being experienced ifl ::;;,I
'I;;
i zoning and development of harbors. He reported i ; that he knows the developers of the Boatel in I I i Oceanside and they are having to rent the apart- I i::;;; : ments for less than half of what they originally : ;:::;; i planned. The reason was that they built too soon! : Mr. Allen stated they have been advi,sed by develop- i ers not to build until the Freeway is completed ; from Los Angeles to San Diego. He stated,he has : i lived on Jefferson Street for 15 years and it has: 1:::;: : considerable traffic and is the same width as I i Harbor Drive. They plan a luxurious apartment. I ; complex on the property. He stated that if the : ; property is left in the R-T zone they can still i ;::#:I i get proper financing for a $800,000. project. b ;:::::
I"*'( : represents 3 different parcels; his property on i ;:;;;; i Chinquapin, South of Jefferson comprised of 5 b I b::!! : acres; the Couser property comprised of 3.57 acre!; ii::;: and the Gerow property comprised of 5.46 acres, ; ::i::: : and they felt the highest and best use for- water i i oriented property was R-T. Some of the owners ; : have speculated on the eventual use of the lagoon: I and asked that this property remain R-T. He I : stated that the group he represents, the Causers,! i Gerow and Geyer, as well as the Allens , are in : : fav0.r of giving land for street dedication, and : :::i;: that the Trasks are also agreeable. I B ::;I 1::
No others present spoke in opposition.
:""""""""-"-""""""""-"-"""""""""""""""""~l"""""""""""~,""~ ; Member ~~&'4"~''''."\ \$ ..Pp',o\ I
a
@@:'la I6
b
1. I I1
I(
:::;;; @I(
:I;/;;
11
1.: : : ; ; ::: 1,::: :;':;:
!;:a;*
;;I:::
;:#;I; :*I#
;::::I ;::;:I :::::I
I 1:;:::
I I ::;:::
I( I
I I
I I MR. RICHARD GEYER, 690 Elm Ave., stated he
;:
::;I:: ;i:;;i ;::;;:. :;:;ii I::::: ,;:::: ::i:::
I :I::;;
I:;:::
I :::::i ::::i:
I I I + ::;:;: i:::;; 'I'
e ; : : ;.I ; ; : : ;.: ;
1;' 1:::
I .I :::;;;
I ::le*,
.;::;:;
I .;::;I;
I I ;::;::
I l ;;;l;I
I _I .; *' ; ' ;
a I ;. I I
e I ::I;:: II'I'I
I :.I i:::
I I ::;I;( I ;;;:::
:;::I' 11
I e 1;: I :::a
I I I I :I* II:i:
I I I I:':;:
I
I I
I'
I
, 8. I
1 I . .. i The public hearing was closed at 9:05 P. M. I
i Points discussed were the circulation pattern and: : the fact there was no precise plan; property I owners dedicating property for a loop street.
I The Building Inspector pointed out that the : Engineering Department has made a land use study i -.; I i : 1118 : ; i of the block and the drainage problems have to be: : considered.
I
I I I
I
I
I I I * I I I I
e
I I 8'1
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 1 I I
I b I I t I
I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
I I 1 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 1 I 1 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
-1
I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I !
4
I
I I
1 I
I
I
f I ', 8 '\ ', ',, '5,
I -8-
I \' ', ' ' I I I I 4 I I I
I I I
8 ', ', 8 " ' '8 '\,",
1 I ; of y+&, '\, '<+' i
I , \8 ', '\\ ', '\ I '. *, '\ 8' ', " I Na me *,, *?&, '. '3.
',&<e .-p,q>,+& : :""""""""""""~".-""""""~""""""""""""""""-~"""""""~"""";-~"~ Member *<8@.p\p\d,a
MR. GEYER stated they have been approached by : i : i ; i.: developers who are interested in the entire area ::;;;: and wish to purchase or have a long-time lease on: the 4 parcels as they do not want just one parcel: ::I::: They would not develop the property as R-1-6 when; the property costs $125,000. per acre.
MR. ALLEN remarked that the former City Engineer : :*;ltl had stated the Engineering Department would desigb ;:'a::
;;I;l*
a street through there, however, that City EngineFr i::::: 1:118 left shortly thereafter. I 1::: :' ::;#,I Aiter further consideration, with the consent of i ::;:;: ::;:;: the Commission, the Chairman declared the rezon- ; ::;::: ing on this property to R-1-6,000 continued # I ::;::: indefinitely for the purpose of allowing the ; ;.I : ;
property owners to work with the Engineering Department regarding a street opening. 1 I :::;:;
(a) 4. RECLASSIFICATION - R-T to R-A-6,000 on ,I certain property lying between Carlsbad Blvd. and: i!!;:: Jefferson Street and Northerly of La.guna Dr., 8 I ' ,;I;:; being portion of the SE 1/4 in Sec 36, X 11 S, I * :::I::
R 5 W; and portion of Sec 1, T 12 S, R 5 W.
The Chairman explained that due to an bmi.ssion of! 1::;
one of the parcels in the legal description, a ; corrected notice would have to be published and : ii:iii sent to property owners in the area, therefore, this ;;I:;: part of the hearing would not be heard until the l;*ll: next regular meeting on June 27, 1967. lo;@;l
OLD BUSINESS:
(a) Required Improvements - re: Lot Splits and i i::::: Zone Changes - Committee Report. Commissioner I McComas reported that the Realty Board planned to: send in a written report on this subject. The i ;' :::;:; Secretary reported that no report had been re- ; ceived at this time.
I 11;; (b) Fence Location Study. The Planning Director i ::::;: reported that after discussing this with the I :i!;;: Building Inspector, they felt the majority of the! I:;::: problems would still come before the Commission. ; He asked that until they.work out a better pro- I 1:::;: cedure to solve these problems that this item be ; ::;::: removed from the agenda. I* I :.; ; :
NEW BUSINESS: I I ::I,;:
(a) Initiation of Precise Plan - Southwest t I;l1 1
corner of Palomar Airport Road and Interstate 5 i Freeway. I ; ; I ;.I 8
Letter dated June 9, 1967, from Earl H. Thompson,: :*::I: Attorney for the owner, stating that Paul Ecke ; requests that a precise plan be initiated concur-; ::::;; rent with the app1ication:for a change of zone on: 1:;::: the Southwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and : ::;::: Interstate 5.
'Ii.14 ::;:::
Ill ;:I:::
I I :;!;;:
I 4;::; ))I 8;
I1 1
1
I I I :;::I:
I :$;!
I I ;;;:@a 18: ;::;:; ;::::;
I I :#I
I
I I :;:I1* 1;:
I I ::::I'
;::ol;
::;I;# ::;:;:
I I I !:;!:!
I ::;1:1
I I 1:;:::
.. I iii:ii
::::;: ;:;:;:
'I;;;
;:ii;:
I I ;;Ill@
I
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I I ,*I;:: ;:
;:;::: ;:::::
I :;;:;: : ; i ;.:
. .. * :::;;; :;i::: i ; : :'; i
I (;::;: ;::;:; ::::;:
I 1 : ; ; i.i :
I ;::I,: * I ;:;i::
I I ;:h;:
4 I : : I': ; :
a I ::: l!l:!:
:;:
I I1 I1
1
I
I
I
I
-1
,*l11(
I
I I I I
I I
I' , .*, ** I ,, " \ ' ', '. I , ', ''8 '" ', 8, I I
I - & ',, ', ' ', ', '.\ 1
I I : I ~a me *-, 'YG, '8, -$$, I ; of \$',O'> b I ,pd:G,Ij, \-v. :
I I I I I:!!::
I I ::::;;
I 4:::;
; : :xi ; 1
I I I
\ -
I I I 8, '\ ", '8, 's8 ', I - I -9-
:""""""""-"""""""""""-""""""--""""""""""-~"""""~"~""~".",""~ Member $j~'h.&?\,~, ,L $<a, ; i The following resolution was presented: I I i:I*:I
I ;I* It ,I#:#' I*
' c)\ ,y
A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 509. I i Resolution No. 509. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING :Smith :* : COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DETERMINING jMcComas * :xix; i i THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD TO CONSIDER ; Palmateer k i ;xi i :
I RECOMMENDING A PRECISE PLAN TO THE. CITY COUNCIL ISutherland: : :x; I i AND ORDERING NOTICE THEREOF TO BE GIVEN, was ;Little : i ;xi ; : : adopted by title only and further reading waived.iJose : : ; Voorheis :xi : ! (b) Properties affected by Freeway Widening. *r ::i::: I1 I The Planning Director presented a right of way ::;I;: : map showing properties that will be affected by i :::I:: i the widening of the Interstate 5 Freeway. The ; ::I:::
map indicated 6 properties that would be affected!, ; some by reduction in lot area, one by reduction :
i parking would be affected. He reported discussink ;::::: : this with the City Attorney, and questioned the i i Commission on whether they wished to set up a I I ;:;::i : consistent policy that would take care of these : ;::I:; I situations and use this policy also when the City! ::,:i: : put streets in and similar situations are created:. ;#:;I*
I:;#:: i If left a non-conforming use, the owner can use I ::I:::
the property as long as he does not increase the I ::ii:: i improvements over 40%. I ::;I;:
I ;::~*l 811 I 1::::: i The Building Inspector pointed out that on some i ~;I'I' : of the properties the State has paid the full 1:;:
I 8 ;:l181 i price and then the property owners have bought i ::::I*
I:;lI
: the structures back for a small price. I *::I;:
I I t ::;i;:
::;I::
I :x; i
; ;-: : ; ; ::ii::
I ;::;I'
!!:;;:
: in frontage,and one in an R-3 zone where the I i::;ii-
I'
11
7
I I I
I(
t
I I
There was considerable discussion on this matter i i by the City Attorney, Planning Director and the i ; Commission. I I i It was the general feeling of the Commission thad I on minor deviations from the requirement of the i
: property wo.uld become non-conforming and there- : fore limited in future i'mprovement'. If the ownez
desired a variance request, he could be heard by I ; the Planning Commission and if. approved the prope:r- : ty would not be non-conforming. Major deviation$ I would require a variance to be approved. I I
i The City Attorney stated he would communicate i , : with the State regarding the. Planning Commission i i and Council's feeling on the matter. I I
I ADJOURNMENT:
I # I
- : zone, no variance would be required but the I I
I I I I .*
I I I
I I By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at
I I I I I
I
I 1 I I I I DOROTHY M. OSBURN : Recording Secretary I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I t I I I t I I I I I I I 4
I I I I I I ! ! ~ ~~~