Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-11-26; Planning Commission; Minutes.- I : CITY OF CARLSBAD : Date of Meeting: November l& 1963 i Place of Meeting: Council Chambers :""--"-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""." : ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis,War i Grant, Paher and Lamb. Commissioners Jarvie and i Sonneman were absent. Also present were City Attorney : Stuart C. Wilson and City Planner Uhland B. Melton. Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 7:30 F. M. I * APPROVAL OF MINUTES: * i (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of November 12, 1963, were approved as corrected. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I I I i There were no written communications. i ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: * I I I (a) Audience - There were no oral communications fro] : the audience. I I I I The Chairman requested that any business not con- ! cluded at a meeting be first on the agenda of the next meel : ing, I I (b) Report of City Planner on Council action on Plannin : matters. : The City Ptanner reported that the Council had the second I reading of the Ordinance on C-2 zoning on Palomar Airpol ; Road; the second reading on the Robert Means property or i Laguna from Zone R-1 to R-3; the second reading on two ; annexations to the City and explained the locations of them i PUBLIC HEARING: i RECLASSIFICATION - To consider reclassification from Zone R -1 (One -family Residential) to Zone 11-3 : (Multiple-family Residential) on property located on the i south side of Laguna Avenue between Jefferson Street and : U. S. 101 Freeway. Applicants: B. T. Cantarini, et al. : Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Grant certified as I to publication of notice of hearing in the Carlsbad Journal ; and then read the application and the signatures of 10 pro1 i erty owners desiring R-3 zone. i There were PO written communications. I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear from the applicant and any other persons who wished to speak in favor of this reclassification, I * i BANNING CANTARINI, 905 Laguna Drive, stated that he and his brother and parents had spent $3500. for a subdiv ; study on this property and found out it would not be econor ically feasible to subdivide it. I : The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear ! from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. ! There were no persons present desiring to speak in I opposition. i The public hearing was closed at 7:43 P. M. i The City Planner explained the location of the property ; and stated that he had talked to the City Attorney and they i felt the Commission should adopt a resolution of intention ; and include all of the property in the block so there would i not be spot zoning. He called attention to the ingress and ; egress, as it narrows down to 40' or 45'. He discussed ; this with the Engineering Department and they felt the I I t I rc c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I * I I I 4 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 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 1 1 property owners should be notified that the City needs an: additional 10' to be dedicated for street right of way. The: Planner recommended that' the meeting be continued and i property owners be notified that the City would like them ; to come in and dedicate this property to the City. I i I I The City Attorney stated that if the Commission wished, i they could deny this reclassification because of the street: being too narrow, but restrictions could not be plac+n i reclassifications. I I Chairman Palmer pointed out that the property owners on! the cul-de-sac off of Laguna in the R-1 zone have dedicattd property for street rights of way. I The Commission discussed the improvements on Laguna : Drive * and the dedication of this property; and adoption .! of a resolution of intention to zone Assessor's Parcels : 1 , 2, 3 and the Brierly Estate on Parcel 10, and properti facing on the east and west sides of Jefferson, North of : Home Avenue to the West side of U.S. 101 Freeway to i MR. CANTARINI stated that they plan to build apartment i houses on this property and they would be willing to dedi; cate property for street right of way, . He pointed out that: his garage is a' from the center of the street and this w4uld only leave 15'. I I I I t R -3. I l I 1 I I I After due consideration, it was agreed to recommend i reclassification from R-1 to R-3 on the above described property, excepting where the property owners have not ; signed the application on Assessor's Parcels 1 * 2, and 3 i and 10, Book 203 I Page 1120, for the following reasons: : 1. It is relatively a large area adjacent to existing : R -3 property and in a vicinity that has considerable R-3 I and R-P property. I 4 I I I I I I I I * 2. That there were no oral or written protests. 3. That it wauld be the best usage of the land and would be comptabie:with surrounding property. 4. That such reclassification will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare OT injurious to the prop erty or improvements in such viainity and zone in which the property is Located. The following resolution was presented: I I Resolution No. 328. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAb fFICATION OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN : Davis THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA i Ward FROM ZONE R-1 TO R-3 * was adopted by title only and : Grant further reading waived. i Palme : Lamb I I -COMMISSION RECOMMENDING RECLdSS- I The Planner was instructed to prepare a map of the area: to be reclassified by the next meeting; and to write to all! property owners within the R-3 zone on Laguna Drive and ask for dedication of 10' for street right of way. The City Attorney was instructed to prepare a resolution! of intention to reclassify the property on Jefferson Street I I I I to R-3. I I I I The cost of publishing maps of the area to be rezoned was discussed and it was pointed out that the cost was ; prohibitive. I I """"""""""" i OLD BUSINESS: I """"""-""-""- -3- I I I i There was no Old Business. I I I;;;: 1 ii;!:: I I i NEW BUSINESS: I I I (a) Report to the Commission on a proposed Precise i : Plan Development Policy. I s i The Chairman announced that he had served on a committes i with Commissioner Lamb and the Staff to study this matted. i The City Planner explained that for the past 6 months theri i has been a need for this type of development and they have; ; a developer who is very interested in developing 120 acre+ : between Hillside and Park Drive , overlooking the Agua 8 i that he had met with developers, the City Engineer and the! : City Manager to study this area. Precise Planned Develoe- I ment does not mean Community Planned Development I ana: : they felt they should ask the Council to give the Commissi+n i authority to loosen some of the policies set forth in the ; : zoning ordinance provided they qualify for the precise i ; plan development. The present ordinance allows 4.5 I I building sites per acre and if a developer plans to put in i i extra pLantings, sidewalks, he may be entitled to 20% I : increase of density in the area. The first unit of 100 i building sites on 18.5 acres wmuLd increase to 120 home4. ;Their land is zoned R-1-10,000 sq. ft., and they would I I get a .?% increase of building site per acre, with 6 1/2 ; : acres of "green belt" area or 30% of the first unit. !It was : bshmb pointed out that this was not a con- i i dominium development in its full meaning, and there have : : been failures in condominium type developments in the : I past that have sold for $7500. Before Senate Bill No. 600i : was passed there were many problems regarding injuries,: .- i tax bills, lawsuits, etc., which have been corrected and ; : this is now a financially sound way of owning property as I they have title insurance now and FHA loans now for this : I type of development. One of the purposes of this type I : development is to allow the developer to develop the propeity i without coming in for a number of variance$ ,and reclassi-j : fications. gE;swxubzx ia~mxma- L I I s 4 I Hedionda Lagoon with this type of development. He repor&d I I I * I I I I :s-,ma-dte*R-3LBIRQI* I I I I I I * : After considerable discussion, it was the unanimous i decision of the Commission that a memorandum be sent to! : the Council forwarding this report for their consideration;: that this is a complex issue and the Commission suggests i ; that this be brought to DMJM for their assistance and : I approval. l I (b) Discussion of Planning Commission Meeting of : December 24, 1963. : It was felt that a decision could be made on this matter at : the next regular meeting on December 10, 1963. I I 1 I I ! & , I I * * , , I I I 4 I I I I I ADJOURNMENT: I s i By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M.i ! I I I i Respectfully submitted I I 8 I I 8 Recording Secretary I I i !