HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-11-28; Planning Commission; MinutesI *
*? ; CITY OF CARLSW I
: Date of Meeting: November 28, 1967 I : Time of Meeting: 7:30 P.M.
-1 I *
9
I D
1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION’
1
I I I I b
a
: ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, i McComas, Jose, Little, Palmatter and Voorheis. I : Commissioner Sutherland was absent. Also present i i were City Attorney Wilson, City Engineer Lill, b I i Building Inspector Osburn, Assistant Planning 4 I
: Schoell.
I
4
8 I
I
I I
I I 8 I I
Director Bob Johnston and Planning Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1 I
t I I I i (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of November
; 14, 1967, were approved as corrected.
I :Jose I
I 8
I I I I I i WKZTTEN -COMMUNICATIONS : *
i (a) Memorandum dated November 27, 1967, from the i : Parks and Recreation Commission regarding pro- # I i posed tree planting easements in subdivisions was! i read by the Secretary. I I
It was agreed this item would be considered under!
New Business. I I
i ORAL COMMUNICATIONS : l
: There were no oral communications. I I
I 8
t
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
e
I I .. I I *
I I I -1
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
-8
I -8
.b -1 I
. i (a) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider a zone change:
from R-A-10 to C-2 on the South side 0.f Ei Camino: i Real, approximately 800 feet East of Kelly Drive, i i being a portion of Lot 1 of Rancho Agua Hedionda,
Map 823, in the City of Carlsbad. I : Applicant: M. Hoffmap. 1
i Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certi-; : fied that notices were sent to property owners in! i the area and that publication was given and then I i read the application, signed by the applicant, 8 I
: they were in favor of this application. I
; A petition with 47 signatures, received at the i i public hearing was read, stating they are in I I : favor of the zone change to C-2 on the Hoffman i : property. I
The Planning Director exptained the location of
D ; the property and the .zoning in the area and the i
; .written rep.ort.of the facts resulting from staff I I investigation of the property. He presented a : i map delineating the new alignment of El Camino I
Real and the relationship of this property to I
: Kelly Drive. He explained no Precise Plan was : presented with this application; therefore, any : I use under C-2 would be allowable if this zoning i i were granted. i
r-
.I
I I
b I I I 8
.I : and three property owners in the area who stated
I
I
I I
I I I
I I t
I 4
I
I I
P
I I I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I
I
I -2-
I t
: in the General Plan, which indicated these center4
should be located on a collector street with resi4 I dential streets intersecting same. Planning prin-:
ciples indicate the service areas should be able i
to serve a 1 mile radius and that the community
within this radius must be able to support the I
centers. He pointed out this proposed developmene
is within five service radii, and that although i
there will be local streets within the area, ther4
will be no intersection at this point. b I
The City Engineer stated the Engineer's Report
was included in the Planning Department Report. i
He recommended this should be handled by a sub- I
division regarding the public rights of way. He :
stated there might be a problem with left turn ;
on El Camino Real unless a T intersection is made.!
The sewer and water services are about 600' from i
this property. The user is responsible for ob- i
taining services for his property. I I
MR. HOFFMAN, applicant, 4901 El Camino Real,
stated he feels this proposed development is need:
ed. He explained when this property was incorpor-1
ated into the City, he and his wife had built I I
this building and operated an egg ranch there for i
several years, which.was in operation before
City incorporation. They plan to use this build- :
ing for approximately 40 nave-lty shops. This
property is low bottom ground and houses cannot *I
be built on it. Since this property will front ;
a 6 lane highway, it' is impaobable that people :
would want to live next to this-. This'particular :
property was not considered in the General Plan.
This devel.opment will not be a community service. i
center. These shops will sell novelty items.
They plan to have an inside mall with a country-
type atmosphere, a .silo in the parking area and ;
a windmill with ravens in it and various other I
buildings which will hold animals; also a mexican:
cart with a driver, which will continually circle:
the development and take children for rides while:
the parents are inside the mall.
Six businesses have tentatively signed up to be i
in this development, includ'ing an antique gun I I
shop, country leather goods and a tweed shop. I I
The inside of this mall will be open with enclo-
sures of wrought iron. The parking area will I
provide. 137 parking spaces with landscaping. Thii
deve1opmen.t is on a 4 acre parcel. The rest of
their land, about 26 acres., could be used for .
low density- housing. I I I
Commissioner McComas asked Mr. Hoffman if.he
I
I
b 8
I I I
I I I
'. I I -1
*I
I.
I I
8
t
I
I I
I
I I I I
I
I
I I I I
I I L
c
,f-.
r-
I * I
l l
I
I *, 8'. . I a , ', ', '. I
I a ' ', '\ . 's, , '. yS8 I
I -3- a I : I Nsme of \. .;.,'\o:, *%. *, * %th
I ,9t'#'A ', ;T$\ : p'&+,<-. ,:. 4 a :""-"""""""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""~~"""""""~"""",~"- : Member *,o~~..pp~~,~~,~ would object to presenting a Precise Plan. on this i i:;aIl IJ i 4 acres. a ;;;:::
I :;;:::
: Mr. Hoffman stated they had no objections to a ;;:i;; Ill
i Precise Plan on the 4 acres; however, it was i their understanding the Precise Plan had to be on: I :::i::
: expensive.
6 I ;:;i:: I1
I ;::;I; 4:;:;
I :::;:I ; to this building if the zoning is not granted. a I ;::;:: : Mr. Hoffman cannont lease or alter this structure ' :I,;:; : without the rezoning. They did not want to have ; 11 4:;:: :ai!;: a precise plan on the 30 acres, as if this re- I I ;: I( i zone was not granted, the costs involved in the 1::::: :;@*'@ : Precise Plan would be excessive to the owner. I ::;;;:
I :;'I::
I * ;I:;l6 i Commissioner Smith asked if a subdivision map I I 4:::: I ;::I;: would be submitted on this 4 acre parcel. I I I:;::,
I ;@l:l;
,I *{;I:; i Mr. Abrams stated a map was presented with the I * 1::l : application. * b ;:,;:* ;:;:a;
e l ;!:;;{
I I ::!I;: : could be stipulated as the only use this property: !::;:! : could have. l6'4Il
I I i:::;:
I D fiq!::: i The City Attorney stated that since this is not ai :-I;: ::::;: : Precise Plan, any use allowed in the C-2 zone if ..I ::'I:: : granted, would be allowed on this property. -1 I ;;::;:
:I::;;
-1 ;::*la
: Mr. Hoffman st-ated h,e would be wi1ling.to have a ; *I ; i ; i ;.:
I :;;:;I Precise Plan on the 4 acres. I * I :-I;:
* I I : i i i.; : : The Chairman announced the Commission would now : ;'@bl: ;i:;i; i hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. i ;;::I;
: There were no persons present who spoke in oppo- I :;4;: : sition to this application. I :;::;;
l 8 :$::
e 8 ()a ::;::: a
:;I:;:
I I ;::;I;
I
I
4
I 8 ' ' '%, '8,8', a I
a t-8'
',, 8'* '. *, '.-?
b 1:::::
b J *
B b I :::::: 11, II
::'I::
the entire 30 acre parcel which would be very I **Ill; I I I :::;:a i:h;:
8 *
MR. HAROLD ABRAMS, Architect for Mr. Hoffman,
stated another point to consider is what happens i b
I
I* I
I
b
I I I I
I
Commissioner Jose asked if the plan presented 1
I
b 8
I I .I I 1;
I. a b I *::*;I
*I
The public hearing was closed at. 8:18 P.M.
I I (aI b
: Commissioner McComas stated he felt a Precise 1 e .:ii:i; . i Plan would be necessary to insure that this type : i:;!:! i development would actually be constructed on the :i;ii; ::;d: I property and to see that the parking requirements: ::*::: i and landscaping requirements are met. e a ::i:
i Chakrman Little concurred and stated a Precise i i ;.: : I Plan should be required as this is contrary to I I::::; #I;:
I I ':I: i Commissioner Voorheis pointed out that part of . ! 3;'I'b i . this property will be affected by the realignment: :i:::: i of El Camino Real and might require a street va- : cation. A subdivision map might be needed.
. Commi'ssion Palmather pointed out he felt this
l
* I I I ;: @a *!I!;
i the General Plan. J ;::*#I I I ; i ;.: ; ; ;::;:;
:::; :::;i;
1 :a a:i:;:
4 ;:;;::
a::;:;
I * i:::;;
I I ;:ao*l I:::::'
1 I I:::':
$ :;a::;
I
I I
a I
I e
I
b I
I
I l
I
I
-4-
* I * ,""""""""""""""""""""".""""""""""""""" : development could be an asset to the City; how- ! ever, the General Plan must be follQWed. This
i Plan is necessary.
actually constitutes "spot zoning'' and a Precise
t I I I ; Commissioner McComas indicated that the General ; i Plan considered normal types of businesses. This I
would not be a neighborhodd shbpping center. This i i is a noveltything and felt if a Precise Plan
; would be presented, he would be more inclined to : I go along with it, as the City would have assuranc4
* I b
that this type of development would be done. I I I I
:
I b i Commissioner Smith felt the solution to this b
would be to have a continuation of this hearing i I so that the applicant can submit a precise plan. i
! The Planning Director expJAined that centers are i ; usually located on a corner for convenience to !
I I t
: I I
shoppers. The Commission has to consider the I I i property in the area, and the problem of turning : left onto this property. If no left turn is : allowed,. people would have to make U-turns to b i enter on to leave. I
: Commissioner Jose asked if the City would be pro-!
r I I I
I I
l e
tected in regard to services if a Precise Plan
were submitted. I b
I .
e :
I I !
The City Engineer stated the Precise Plan limits i
what goes on the property, bu.t a subdivision map,-;
lot split or parcel map would be required to pro-j
'. I
i tect the City .in regard to obtaining Services to .; I
this property. I
I t I I b I I
r : Mr. Hoffman stated if this development is sub- I ! mitted to the County before the realignment of : i El Camino Real, the County has stated they will i i approve of the left turn.
: Discussion was held as to whether the types of : i businesses could be limited under the Precise i Plan and the City Attorney advised this would be : very difficult.
i The Planning Director stated the most important
restriction would be that no service stations i could go on this property.
: The City Attorney staked if the hearing is con- ! i tinued, it would have to be re-advertised.
: Commissioner Voorheis stated a TenCative Map I i for 1 lot should be submitted, with -the*zop&ng . i i . effective upon. the recordation of the map. I
After discussion, a motion was made to continue i
I
I
I I
D 8
I b
I I
b I
4 I .I
I b
I : B
I e
I
I
:
I I
I I .. I
I I * I * I
* b 4
I I I I b I
b I
: a I
I t I I I I : I
..
r'
r
I I 1 I I I I
I I I 0
I 0
8 I I
0 I I # I
I -5-
II
i precise plan.
I I I I I I I I i (b) VARIANCES - To consider reduction in re- i quired front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet,: i and side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet on ; : the South side only on property located on the i i West side of Garfield Street between Pacific Ave- i i nue and Normandy Lane, being Lot 19, Granville 8 I
: Carlsbad. : Applicant: William A. McShane. I I
; Zone : R-3. I
i Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Jose certij : fied that notices were sent to property owners in!
the area and then read the application. 6
I
Park Unit No. 1, Map No. 1782 in the City of I
I * I 8
I 8
I I I 8 0
8 l
8 I
I i The Planning Director explsined the location map : and the'written report of'the staff investigation! ; of the property which pointed out that the 20 I I i foot setback in the front was necessary for i parking cars. The applicants plan'to construct I
; a 4 unit apartment with 4 garages. However, : the lot will have a 20' curb opening for drive- i way and the street is quite narrow. 'The setback i is ne'cessary for extra cars. A 2' street dedica- :
tion will be necessary as Garfield Street is now -;
I 1 I
I I
-1
; substandard. I -4
.I -8 I
' The City Engineer stated his report had requested: I the 2' street dedication.
: ehi3irrn8iE'bi,ttLe: amor;lm&@d1 #ihd'eoglraisBfon wouEd 7. , i,
now'hearifrom the applicant or his representative i i and any others wishing to speak in favor of the : i appbication.
i MRS. BEVERLY McSHANE, 10410 C2ancey Avenue, Downej i California, skated pictures of the general area : i have been taken and presented the Commission with:
. i same. They proposed .to build a 4 unit apartment ; : with 4 garages in the front of the property and i : since this is a small lot they wish to use as much of the property as possible. The house next! i door is set back 15 and 1/2 feet from the properti
line.Th@y cannot finalize their plans until they i : find out if they can have this variance. She I I stated they had contacted owners in the area and ; i the people on the corner stated they had no ob- : jection and.the people across the street have . i ! .pla.ns to construct a similar development in the i
; future. I I
I
I
I r- * I I
I
8
8 I
8
1 1
I
8 I
I I I
b 1 I 8
I I t 8
8 I
.. I
I
I I
I I I a 1
..
..
,-
r
h
1
I
I I I
I
I I I
I I I I I
I l
a
I
I I I I I
l a
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 1 I 1 I I I
I 8 I I
I
I I
8
I I
t 8 1 I I I
I I
I
b
I I 4 I I I
I I I I I I I .I I 4
I * I I I I I 4 I I I
I I 1 I I I I I I
1 8.
I I 1
I I
I I
1
1 I 8 I 1 I I B
hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. :
No one present spoke 'in opposition.
The public hearing was closed at 8:55 P.M. 4 I
'Points discussed were that if the front yard
setback variance was granted to 10' and the 2'
dedication was required, this wouad actually
leave only a 8' setback in the front yard; that :
this is on a substandard street and allowing such I
a setback would compound congestion problbms;
that the property in the area is vacant, and what!
is approved on this lot could set a precedent I I
when other owners plan to develop their property.!
The Planning Director stated that if the side
yard setback if granted, the Commission may be :
I
I I I
I I
I
I I I 1 I I I I I I
I 8 1
I I I I
t
setting a precedent. I I I I
Mrs. McShane stated they would be agreeable to
a 15 and 1/2 foot setback. as the property next i
door has. I
Commissioner Palmateer stated he would abstain i
from voting on thesevariances as he lives in the i
near neighborhood. 8 1
Planner Schoell pointed out if a Precise P&&n
were presented showing a 3' and 7' side yard
setback, no precedent would be set. .
The City Attorney advised the Commission that
could grant the side yard setback variance, with ;
the condition it be 3' on the South side and 7 ' I
on the North side. I
The following resolution was presen,ted: I I
A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 534, 8
granting a side yard setback variance from 5' I
to 3' on the South side of this property, on the i
condition that the North side yard setback will
be 7' for the following reasons:
1. That it would not be detrimental to the
surrounding property, to the public welfare nor
I I I
I I I I I I '. I I 'I
-1
*I
I I I I.
I
8
I
I
4
8
I
I 4 I 1
contrary to -the General Plan;
and to deny the variance on the front yard set-
back from 20 ' to 10' for the following reasons:
1. The 20 I- setback iS necessary for off-street
parking.
2. A 2' street dedication is necessar'y.
3. It would be setting a precedent for the un-
developed .. .prope&$y in the block-
~ .* ...
I
I
1
I
I I I
I f
I
I I I I I I
I I
f I I I .
,-
,P-
t
4 I
I I I I I I I I
I
I I
I *, b., b '
I 4 t ,.,sa* I - b b'
t 's8 '8, '*, *, ', 't
I I I 1 88\*" , ' 8, ', '\
I -7-
I SETBACK FROM 20' TO lo', was adopted by title : only and further reading waived. I I :::;;:
A recess was called at 9:16 P.M. The meeting was ::;:!!
. '1~~11
6 * I :::;;;
::::,I
I I ::;*::
: reconvened at 9:29 P.M. 8 I 1:;:;:
I * ::;:;: i (c) RECLASSIFICATION AND PRECISE PLAN - TO consii :;I:;;
:;;:;: ;;4;* : (Residential Waterway zone) on Lots A and B and 3 i ;!!:I; *II: : through 63, and for a Precise Plan. 0 I ::::;;
I I ::::,; i TGNTATIVE MAP - ESTERO SAN SIM~ SUBDIVISION - 65 i ;i:;:;
i Lots. i::::; @l:;I;
;::;:;
::;:*:
* I :;I:::
I I ::::;: :+;:
I I I *:;::I sf :;;:;: ::;:*:
'. I I 1;;;:: !Notices of the public hearing-were read. The Sets; -1 ::::;; la
:;p,t
::I:;: :I::;;
I I I :::I:: :;;;:;
I
I 8
I ;el
I I
i der a zone change from R-A-10,000 to R-T (Residen-: ii, p:: '8
tial Tourist Zone) on Lots 1 and 2, and to R-W,
I 4 i
I I
I I : Location: Approximately 1000' Easterly of Marina i :ii;:: i Drive, b:eing a portion of Lot ''I", Rancho Agua i ::;I;:
; Hedionda, Map 823, in the City of Carlsbad. I
I Applicant: Allan 0. Kelly.
: The Reclassification., Precise Plan and. Tentative i Map were considered concurrently. I I i:;:::
I
I
I
I
* 4 ;:a
I
I
I
: retary certified that publication was given and -i ; ' ; : ;*: i property owners in the area were notified of the I jhearings and then read the application. I I:'*,'
i A letter dated October 23, 1967 from Jerry L. R0m-I ip;:; : botis of Kamar Construction Company was read, I
:which stated they are in accord with the proposed i
zoning for the proposed subdivision 'and are also I i in accord with a fifteen foot setback for Lots 1, ; ; 2 and 3 with proper architectural design. I I
The Secretary read a letter from the County Depart1
. I merit of Special District Services, dated November ; i 2, 1967, which stated legal aspects of obstructing: : the natural channel flow should be considered, I I i safe building pad elevations should be controlled i i by the extreme high tide of design dischage of :
IAgua Hedionda Creek, a soils engineer should reco-i : mmend on channel embankment protection, that the i
final map should clearly identify the design flood:
lines, and .that a perpetual maintenance. agreement :
should be considered for the waterway areas. The
County-also.recommended visiting marina type dev- I i ehpmentS in Orange County and contacting public i
:officials to see what problems may arise. They :
r I I
I
I I I I
1 sent a resolution regarding a similar type i I 'I I
I t I 8 I s e
..
I
I l
a
I I I I I
~~ ~ ~~
I
I
-8-
I I
I 8 :""""""""""""""""""""*"""""""""""""""""" I
I I I
I
8 I
I development in and around San Elijo Lagoon.
i Chairman Little stated this letter should be cons-! : idered as part of the Engineer's Report.
i Planning Director Schoell explained the location i i map and the report of staff investigation regard- I i ing this property. Kelly Drive will go next to i
:this development in the future. The applicants :
are requesting two zones, R-T and R-w and have
submitted a Precise Plan and Tentative Subdivision! I Map. This is a marina-type development and will i ; have single family dwellings on Lots 7-25, 34-44 :
I
I
b B b I I I 4
I I I
and 50-62, duplexes on Lots 26-33 and 45-49 and
multiple housing on four of. the remaining lots,
Lot A is a launching ramp and land under water in : one channel; Lot B is beach and recreation area : i and land under water in the other channel, He t
explained the requested zoning is in accord with i : the General Plan which stipulates this property i will be Low-Medium Density, 8-21 families per .: acre; this property has an average of 11.18 fami- :
lies per. acre. The boat launching facilities i will not be public and cannot be used for commer- i
cia1 purposes, A Homeowner's Association should i ; be formed for maintenance. Two (2) off-street :
; parking spaces shall be furnished for each dwell-: i ing unit , located no- closer than 20' , to a proper- : ty line adjoining a street.
r' I I I
1 I I
I I I -1 I
I I I -1 : City Engineer Lill read the Engineering Report. -: I I .I -8
. f When questioned regarding the- improvement of the i access road to this subdivision., the City -Engineet
! to be fully improved; however, this road is about i
1,060' feet long and full improvements would be : extremely costly to the developed. ,He stated he I : hoped the Commission could find a suitable solu- I i tion to this problem. 8
The Chairman announced the Commission would now i : hear from the applicant or his representatives i
. : and any others desiring to speak in favor of the : i applications .
i MR. W. A. KELLY, 3869 Woodvale, Carlsbad, stated i : there is quite a history to the name of this sub-: ; division which dates back to July 16, 1769. The
commander, being a practical man, called this
inlet &gua-?Wdionda, "stinking water"; however, i
; the priest with him named it after San Simon and : ! called in San Simon Lipnica ; hence the name I I
.Estero.San Simon or inlet of San Simon. He pre- I
sented a location map and stated this Would be a i i privately-owned development with the boat-launch-:
/c I : stated that. street openings in the past, have had:
I I b
I I
I
I
I 8
I b 1.
I I
1 I I I
I I I
b I I
I I
I I
I a
I
8
I
I
I
J C
..
a
P
I I I I I I I I
@ '\ 8.. 8 *'
I
I
8 \, '8 's I I I I n n I I
I '8 '*,",8 ', ',
n I 's8 'b ',' ',8 **,88, *' , 8 \ \, ', '\
I i NZ me *., '\?&, *,, %?&
:""-"""""""""""""""""-""""""""""""~"""""~"""""""""""-,"" .o "p *.e- e w. '
I I I - 9- ; of .S 8.?&\><:.\., \o:, <> ', *%, ; : Member ,e.'''\ '*'*8 '
; locked, except the each of the owners who.wi11 i ;; ! have a. key. A Property Owner's Association will :
maintain the rock and if an owner does not main- i tain it, they can have any necessary work done an4 i charge the owner for the work. This development
; will be an asset to the City as the City's tax ! base will be increased, business will increase, I ! this will advertise the City of Carlsbad, and tha6 i the proposed development will attract affluent i : people, as the cost of the lots is expensive and I : the homes built on them will be a higher value : I than the usual subdivision home. #
I MR. BILL RICK, Rick Engineering, 3957 Kenyon : Drive, San Diego, California, Engineer for this :
development, complimented the staff on their I I
studies and reports. He requested the Commission:
ns
I
B
# I I I # I I
# I I t
: consider the following:
! 1. That the access road not be required to be i fully improved. He pointed out Laguna Riviera i : Unit No. 1 Subdivision was required only to : improve..one-half width of. the road and that no i
lots will have access on Park Drive and stated : i generally two 12' lanes with drainage control are! i granted. He stated'they would be willing to : install 24' of pavement on Park Drive to the I : development with a berm; when owners on the rest : i of the property develop, then they can improve I
their sides and full improvements can be install-!
ed without tearing out existing full improvements;
I I I I I I I
F I I I
B I 1
I
I I t -1
. i 2. That on Item #10 of the Engineer&g Repart ! regarding 2" of asphaltic concrete on 6" of decomi
posed granite base be deleted. . He explained they!
: neer and the City Engineer, as there is a possi- : i bility there might be adequate native material
/- i would rather decide on this with their soils engif
for a good base.
3. That on Item #I1 of the Engineering Report
I
I I I I I 0
: regarding the installation of driveways at the : ! time curb and gutter is installed be deleted, as i i owners of the property may not want their drive- i
. : ways in the locations constructed. He explained i ; the applicant will not build on all the lots. I I
4. That sidewalks be allowed to be constructed I i 4' in width instead of 5' to allow for more land-! : s'caping. I I
i 5. That a requirement be added. He stated that i i he would like the requirement that a license wit?
; the San Diego Gas & Electric Company be obtained i : . to. insure construction of the waterways. The
City now has a license with them, so people can i
use the waters. The same arrangements will be i
I * 8. I
I I I I
I I
I I I 4 I I
I I 8 I I I I I
..
1
r
r
x
I 1 I I I I I I
I I * I
I ("""L"""""."""" ; necessary for thi
have to sign this
I I
I I
I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I a I I I I l a I
I
I I
I
9
I
I
b I I
I
I I I k
I I I
I
I I I I I I I I * I I I I
I l a
I I
I I
I
I 1
I I I I I I
l I
I I
I I I I I * I 8
1 I I I
I -* W I l a 4 I 9 1 I I l
1 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I b a I I I I I I I b
I I 1 I * I * 4 I I
I 7 6, That the 20'
- 10-
."""""""""."" s development.
license also.
setback parking
"""""""""""- The City. would
requirement not
be required on the R-T portion. I I I 1 4 I Mr. Rick also stated he had checked with the City ;
of San Diego on parking ratios to dwelling units,
and that 1 bedroom units averagd1.3 spaces per I
unit and 2 or 3 bedroom units averaged 1.6 spaces :
per unit. This studied was conducted on 30 apart-:
ment complexes. He stated they did not want too I
few spaces, but if too many would provided, they i
would be losing landscaping area. Therefore, he :
requested the 2 parking spaces per unit be reduced
to 1.5 or 1.7 parking spaces per unit. I I
Chairman- Little asked if the study conducted by i
the City of San Diego was on water-orientated I I
property. Mr. Rick stated he assumed it was not, i
Mr. Rick further stated he hoped that the parking
requirements on the R-T portions could be handled :
between the staff and the developer. I I
Planner Schoell stated the Planning Department i
will have to approve the landscaping and parking I
lay-out. I I
I I I
b I I
I I
.. I When questioned regarding the overall flood con-
trol drainage, Mr. Rick stated the Department of :'i
Special District Services must approve the drain-.:
age. *I
Upon inquiry, Mr. W. A, Kelly, stated that Lot A i
was designated as a boat launching facilities as :
they realize drainage will come from the hills i
above and fill the channel with dirt. It will
be easy for a drag line to go in and clear any I
dirt which does accumulate. I
Commissioner Voorheis asked if "A" street will be I
paved .
Mr. Rick stated Yt wi.11 be paved half-width plus :
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
10 I . I I
4
I Discussion was held regarding the improvement of i
Park Drive, the access road to this proposed sub-!
division, regarding adequate width, sidewalks and:
berm; if street lights on the access road would i
be required.
MR. JERRY ROMBOTIS, P.0, Box 1155, Carlsbad, I
sta.ted they- are the owners of property West and i
North of this subdivision, and generally approve i
of the subdivision: however, they do not want a i
I 4 I
I I
I
4
1 t I I I
..
r
I I I ', b.. '
I I , \ %*',
I I I I
I
I
I I I I
,- -? I ', ",". ',, '\\ ', I
I I " " " ', ',,'.,
I .?$p, ' %?4, : ,-o ,5y .*A I :"""""-""""""""""""""--"""""""""""""""""'""""""~""""","- : Member *,o:~..p p\:o',l ;$;;
I :::111 II
:::;::
I ::;:;:
I;;*
:;#I*:
I I * ', ,', ' \ s'
-11- .",
I I ; I ~a of me '%, *;.,'.o:. **P&. *.,:?&
i precedent set regarding the single family.dwel1- i ; ; I 1 I-!
:ings on R-W property as when they develop their : ; property, it will be for a higher use. He also : ;p:-
stated that FHA standards will accept a 26' paved IIII
Right of Way with no curb and gutter for an access! :::;:i : road to a tract.
i MR. ART BISHOP, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, I i stated the Gas Company is in favor of this devel-
! opment and stated as brought up before a license :::;:; 11
should be required, which will be sub-ordinate to : :* 0:;;;; I the City's license with the Gas Company.
I l@@ll; I The Chairman announced the Commission would now i 4:::; : hear from those wishi-ng to speak in opposition. :
i No one present spoke in opposition.
: The public hearing was closed at 10:57 P.M.
4 I .:::'ll :::;:I II
I I I ;;::-
;$;:
I1
I I (0
I I I . ;::;:I ;Il;::
I I
::::I;
I :;:;:;
t :;:I;;
I ::;I:: * ii:;:;
I :I;::;
I ;:
I I I ;: ::::
1;:;;:
I I i:::::
I I :::;:;
I I ::::!I ;::; 1
8 l
s *
I * 6
I
I
It was pointed out this subdivision would be sub- i I ject to park dedication or ''in lieu" fees and tha$ :;::;; : the streets will be dedicated and will be main- i : tained by the City. I
::'I;:
*l:;l;
::;I;* ::':;:
I 1 ::I;
: want a 68' right of way.
I :;
; Mr. Kelly stated they would be willing to give : ii;:;: I:, 11
i the right of way at 68' where they can give it. I,;I:l
I .. I I :'I:::
I -1 ::;:;: : Item discussed were the width of the pavement and-: ::*:;: 8 : ; 1.1 ;!;:::
' the streets, the Gas'Company license, a perpetual! :r:;i:
!maintenance agreement, driveway installation, that i ;::;a; i R-T lots must meet all ordinances and regulations; 4:;:;
c I:::::
I @I;;!; i The following resolutions were presented: I ::::I;
I *:;;:I
I I :II~I:
8 ;I:::; i After due consideration, a motion was made to I ;I;I : adopt Resolution No. 535, recommending change of i ::;:;:
*:,'I, ; zone on above property from R-A-10,000 to R-T t ::;:;:
I ::':;: and R-W, for the following reasons: I I :$;;
'I I' * .:,::I: . : 1. That this will be developed as 'a marina-type ! i;:;;; 1. ;:::::
I ,I::;: ; 2. That it conforms to the concept of the Generaf ;:::a;
I ;::::; ;i:::;
:a!;!:
I : : ; 1': :
8 ::;:;:
:;pi;!
I 1 I ::I;>:
.I l I ;::;:; l ::::::
I I :!::;:
I ::*:::
I
I
I
I
I It was pointed out the Engineering.Department
I I
l -1 I
11
. ! walkway on Park Drive, the paving requi-rements on:
0 e I
I
I I I I
: subdivision with a Precise Plan,
i Plan.
: this area.
i Planninq .Commission Resolution No. 535. A RESOLUiSmith :I I ; c.;. : ;
TION RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZONE FROM iMcComas ::p$;l I:; : R-A-10,000 T0 R-T (Residential Tourist Zone) ON . iJose i ..LOT.$ 1 AND 2, AND TO R-W (Residential Waterway :Little ;:F;:; i Zone) , ON LOTS A AND B AND 3 THROUGH 63, was ipalmateer :xi I ; If , i adopted by title only and further reading waived. iVoorheis : !x?; I I
l I I*O
I
3. That a development of this type is needed in 1
I
8 I ,:,I,*
::
I *
a I I
I
I
I
I ! :!::e
.- h
I I I I I I I I
I' I I I I I
I -121
I I I I
I
After further consideration, a motion was made to
adopt Resolution No. 537, recommending adoption i i of Precise Plan PP 67'07 on above property for the ; i same reasons as above, subject to the conditions
; listed in the City Engineer's Report from Item i
1-20 inclusive and including the improvement of :
the access road (Park Drive) to the development : with 28' of pavement and 68' of right of way i with an asphalt berm and 2' walkway and Items 1
I I I
through 26, as amended of Resolution No. 538. I I
Resolution No. 537. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING i Smith .
I I I I i : COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD RECOMMENDING i McComas
title only and further reading waived. I I I
r
: Diego Gas & Electric Company to protect waterway
construction, to be subordinate to the City of i i Carlsbad's license with the San Diego Gas & Elec- : i tric Company: that a Community Service District i : be formed to assure maintenance of the waterways -; : and rock: that Item No. 10 of the Engineer's 'I '
-1
. i Report be amended to read "Street pavin.g shall
be as designated, unless otherwise approved by
I. i the City Engineer"; that the .laat s8ntence.- in ;
i allation of driveways be deleted; and that Item :
8. f. of the Planning Department Report add the : i words "with the exception of Lots 1. and 2, which : shall confrom to Section 905 of Ordinance No. 8 : 9188 regarding R-T Zoning Requirements".
i OLD'BWSmESS:
rc : Item6 3l;.:sE,..ther.En~nees-EitnB,-Rep~~t regarding inst- I
I
l I I 4 I I
I # * I I 8
. (a) Building Permit .issuance on lot within 1 i proposed James Drive Street opening on the North : { side of Basswood Avenue. I
; Building Inspector Osburn reported that at the i i last meeting the City Attorney.had ruled the I I 1 I 1 ;'i ; I City cannot deny a permit for this property as i ::; there is .no precise plan on James Drive. I ll::;:
I
I I
I I I
I :; :;:
I ::;:;: I I ! The City Attorney advised that the City's Purcha- !
.sing Agent should contact the owner and see if ! i::::;
; he would sell or what negotiations the'City can i ,:;;;I
i::i;i ::i;;!
: make with him. I I :::;I: 1 :; ::ii
;!:::I *I
I I I i!:;:;
I I I :;::I: :a::::
I
I
I I I I
I 111 .. i The Commission recommended that the above be done: 'I1:
I
I
I I
I
I I :;::;:-
I . 4!'u!.
- 13- * I I I I ,"""""""""""""""""""-"" * """"""
I : NEW BUSINESS: I
8
I i There was no new business.
i ADJOURNMENT:
I I I I By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at I
I : 11:28 P.M.
I I I I I Respectfully submitted,
I Recording Secretary.
I
I I I
I.
I I I I
I I I
I
I s I I I I I
I
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 0 !
0 * I
* $ I Y