HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-01-10; Planning Commission; MinutesI
f
:CITY OF CARLS,~ '
,' -.
1 ', '.* , ,, \.' I I I I I :Minutes of: /Date of Meeting: January 10, 1967 I '., ', '\, 8, ', * I 1 :Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. Nz me '., '++,, '',,%?, 1 i P1 ace of Meeting :, Counci 1 Cha,mbers ,?> /\ 8 '7/'
:ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, Sutherl and, Palmateer, McComas , McCarthy, Little i :and Voorheis. Also present were City Attorney 1 ;Wilson, Assistant City Engineer Thornton, Buildin4 : Inspector Osburn and Planning Director Schoell. :
: APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
I I
I
PLANNING COMMISSION ',, t, '\. ', '\ ',
I ,' , ', '. ' ', '\,'?,\
; of t.44' cy, . '2P. : I
:-"-""""."--"""-"-"-------~---"."""""~""~""""""""l"""""""~"~""~~~~" ; Mern ber ,& ,o @,+%e 7 ',++ \G,; :
I I 1
b I b I I :Smith 11 : : !xi : :
1 :Sutherland !xi F ; I
t ii
I I 'I ILi ttle i Ix:x: : :
i (b) Minutes of the regular meeting of
(a) Minutes of the regular meeting of DecemberT3iPalmateer ; ; :xi : ;
iMcComas ; 11 : : ; ;x! :McCarthy : ; :x; ; ;
i 1966 ,.-were approved as submitted.
I
I
I I
8 I
r I' :Voorheis : : !xi : : I1
I I
j1966, were approved as submitted.
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1
I'
..
I WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: *. I b
:There were no written communications. I
;ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
: There.were no oral communications. L 1
; PUBLIC HEARINGS:
i (a) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - d-1 to R-3 I (Multiple-Residential) Zone on the ,We,sterly side i : of Roosevelt St., Northerly of Magnolia Avenue. : Applicant: Miles T. Tolbert. 1
j.(b) PRECISE PLAN, continued - To'consider adop- i : tion of a precise plan: on the above described 1 i property. Applicants: Planntng l'Commission : Resolution No. 448. '.
i Secretary Palmateer read a lette'r /from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. to Mr. ; C. R. Thornton, Assistant City Engineer, regard- i : ing the City's proposal to use'a 38' width of I i their right of way between Oak Avenue and Tamaraci' i Ave. for the proposed extension of State St. to be a total width of 78' with 40' thereof on adjacent! i private pro-perty. They state'd their concurrence : : in any part of the street endroachment would be i i predicated on the street improvement being made ; : entirely at city expense and that the city would I i not assess the balance of their property for any : ; portion of the improvement or future mainte(ha,nce i i of the street or improvement,.. They pointed out : : that their license agreements are short-tei-m : documents and. asked if the City would acce,pt such! ; license for a permapent parallel roadway improve-: [ ment which would include practically half,'tbe I 1 : street for a distance of'approximately 3/4 mile. i i They stated they would submit their final qecom- : : mendations after verification of above. I
I I I 1
I
I I I I I I I I I
I I
I
I
I * 1 I 1 4 4 I 1 1 I
I
i I
I I ,' I 1
I I I 1 I I I I 1 I
1 I
I
I I
b
1
I I
'I , 1
1 I I I b 1 I I
f I 1 I I 1 I I
I 'i I
I I
I I I . ~ ~~~~
1
I
I
I
1
I / I I ', ,e, s ' I I ,\\\\' I
I
I
I I /.. I *, '8, ', '%, '\,", I
I -2- I ', . ' '8 '8,'8, I I I 8, y'8 * I
I : 0 f '$;:$> ', '2;. :
~"""---""-""""-"-"""-"~-"-"""""""""""""""""~l"""""""~""""~""~, , Member *f&<d,~%p\%, I
1 l;;l :.I 1 : ; ; I 41,;::
I :;;@Is
1 all;::
I I ;;:::' I*
I / I ::::;; 4 I ::;:::
L :::'I:
', '\ ',
1 I I ; Na me ***, *%$, ", '%$; ;
I I '& \&%> 7:,+9* 1
:Mr. Thornton stated thd Engineering Department 1 ::;I8, jhad never indicated thp City would assess the : Railway Co. for the ,'street improvements, however, i ;I 4:;,1 1 I '1 IJ 1 ithe short term license agreement would be intoler: ; able and the Engine,ering: Department would not i recommend that the Counci1,'accept a short term i :::;ri : agreement on this matter.
i With the consent of the commission, Chairman i McComas requested the Staff to contact the appli-i :::::: :;;:;:
; cant regarding his wishes to proceed on this I :;:::: i application and asked that Items 5 (a) and (b) be! :;I:;'
: continued. I 4;:
I I ;::I
b L 1::: I (c) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - R-1-10,000 to I I::;:: : R-1-7,500 and Greater on property Easterly of El : 1:;I::
;;;;a*
Camino Real , and also being Easterly of El Camino I ~l:llI
: Mesa Units No. 2, 3 and 4 Subdivisions. Applicants: ;;1:11
:::I 11 i Pacific Vista'Estates, Inc. I I 1 i:;:;:
.I I :;::;;
r : a precise plan Easterly of El Camino Real , and : :I!:;:
;;;;I1
, I I ,;::I'
I ::;;;;
;.; ; i : 4
I 1 I :;::ii
i since they appli-ed to the same property. I 1 i:iiii
;;+:;
I :::::;
1 I1;l;I
I ::;:::
I 1 i:::::
+ ;:I:::
'I ;I 4: :I::
I l':::
I :::;;:
1 :::;I:
::::1:
I :;::::
I I I;::::
d I ,4:;;
I I)
.I I1
41
1 I
I
t
I(
I,l)
I
I
PRECISE PLAN, continued - To consider adoption of: :I::;;
also being Easterly of El Camino'."esa Units No. 2j ;ll;l~
; 3 and 4 Subdivisions. Applicants: Planning I s1;t;: i Commission Resolution No. 477. I 11
Ill*
i TENTATIVE MAP - EL CAMINO MESA UNIT NO. 5, SUBDI-i ::::,I I@ : VISION, conti-nued - 91 Lots Easterly of El Camino: i::;:: i Real , and also Easterly of El Camino Mesa Units i I;' 4:
: No. 2, 3 and 4 Subdivisiops. Owners: Pacific ; ai:^:: i Vista Estates, Inc. Subdiividers': Kamar Construc- i :;;::: : L tion Co., Inc. / I I i;::::
I )111 I The above items were conbidered concurrently 1 I :I:::; 11
':*;I4 / Notice of hearings were/ read. The Secretary I I 1:::;: :;I ::certified that publica$ion was given on the' zone 1 8:
i changes and precise pl'$ns and that property I I ::;:*' : owners in the area \nl'er,k notified'of the public i :b$:l4 i hearings and tentativq map.
Letter from J. McMah0.n dated January 6, 1967 , : asking the Planning Commission to deny the request :;I;l* : for reduction in lot size and stating he felt ;l:~ls
1 Kamar's subdivisions degraded the surrounding
; areas. (No address was given and he was not'one $1 ; of the property owners in the areai that were i notified of the hearing):. 8 I :::;;;
: Letter dated December 27, 1966, from Kamar Con- ! ** :c;;; struction Co., Inc. asking that this letter serve: ::::;: : as their agreement that they will pay the fee, in; J:llll
lieu of land dedication, per the City's Pakk Ordinance No. 9190 for El Camino Mesa, Unit No.5.i ::::I:
PI
I I
I
I I I
I :I 14
I(
1
I 1: / 1
1411
11
I I 11
11
I 1 I
I
I I i There was no other correspondence except the
; recommendations from the various departments and i i agencies. I I I Ill :x:;: 1:;:;:
The Planning Director explained the facts resul- i ::;:;:
; ting from staff. investigation and that the I property is presently zoned R-1-10,000 and the : :;:,;: 11 : applicant is requesting reclassification to R-1- i ;a1 111:,' 8: 1 7,500 and Greater, based on a precise plan which : ;::;:I I is a duplicate of the tentative map of Canin' i 11~1~:
>I .I
L I/ I 188
l I;;, !::!;I @I
I > I
I I :;:;;:
I ii::;:
I! :::::: :::;::
-~ !:!ff:
1
I
1
1
I ~ ', I I ;:;::: -~ ~
I 'I
k
:Mesa Unit No. 5 dated December 23, 1966. He ; 1;;I;l
:explained the zoning in El Camino Mesa Units No.2,; ::; ::; ::::::
:3 and 4, adjacent on the Westerly side of this ; :::::: i I :.I, :proposed subdivision, and that the boundaries of : ll'l;: lthis proposed subdivision w.ere shown at that time i :*I 1:;:::
[on that map. He explained the terrain of this 4 I ::'::: :proposed subdivision was characterized by steeply i :;:::: :;:::; jsloping, very irregular contours ranging from an : 81 I I
;elevation of 280' at the highest point to 115' at : :::::; :::;o :the lowest point. Lot 81 has an area of 113,200 i ,::I::
:::I::
I,,;,' :sq. ft. and because of the topography would make : :one good building site. The average lot area of i l:dl:: :all other lots is 12,977 sq. ft. which would I 1' ll::::
' :a1 low an average of 3.3 families per a'cre and is i ::!:;; tin keeping with the General Plan for this area 1 I I:::;:
:which designated low density reside,ntial with 3 to! l:;411
:;J:'+
:7 families per net acre. He explained that Lots I :;;::: j13, 14, 18 and 19 were eliminated after the first i I :;;::: :subdivision map was submitted ag t'he escrow for : ;;l;l'
:the purchase of that property was not complete, i *I :;l;ll :and that Lot 80 as shown is a combination of 2
l
1)
1) :;i:::
I I ;I:::: ;:'*::
,/- jlots in order to make a more suit,able building : 1::::: :site. He explained that there is:a utility easemeht :::::: :directly to the east of th'is proposed subdivision.: :;;;:: !This subdivision was filed prior t'o the effective : I p:a4&
Idate of the ordinance for dedication of land, pay-: ;::ay fment of fees, or both, for Park and Recreational ; ::I:l'
18::
:Land in subdivisions, however, the subdivider has i I";;; I:: :agreed to pay the fee in lieu of dedication of I I 1: ;*:;I& 11;; :land although he is not requir,ed, to do so. He :explained that the school is considering a future : ~;:lll !school site easterly from thi:s subdivision directlk :*It :south from the former C,ounty ,Dump Site and felt : ::::;: Ithat a neighborhood park could be established in i :combination with the.'sdhool. 1 :ll;l'
:The Commission questioned the' amount of people ! :; 1: ithat would be living iy the subdivision and the I ::;I::
jfrom the subdivision.
/The Planning Director also explained the develop- ;::;I; :ment of the streets in the subdivision. I 1 ;::::;
:Mr. Thornton stated that due to the topography the: :II:::
jstreets comply with the street standards except i
jwhich should be a 250' minimum radius. The topo- i 4 ::I :::: :graphy to the south did not lend itself well for : 4' :: 11;; I jthe extension of the cul-de-sac to the south sub- i :division boundary. There was a study made on the ; !north side for the extension of Chestnut. The I 11
:study indicated that Chestnut Ave. should be :extended east as shown. Where the grades are 12% i ;I:::: :or greater, concrete pavements are required. He : :pointed out that City Standards generally limit
:dwellings, however, since the majority of the lots; ' :;;:::
:will be on one side, he recommended that the I I ;:;:;: \service for the 21 lots be approved as submitted :; 1:::
:on the long cul-de-sac. He explained that if the ; ::::I:
!barriers at the ends of Streets ''A", 'IB'', and I'C" i ;l:~:~
llt:l:
:at the edge of the subdivision are grant deeded to: :::I:, ::;::: :the City it will avoid the 'subdivider being taxed i t;l;B1 !for them. The Engineering !Department recommends i :::;,I 4.::
$ I I 1 ::I,::
t I I :;::a: ;l;l;z ::;;;:
l'~1~; I! 1 I !.I
,I
II
I I I 8::;::
$1:::
f;:ltl 111
I ::;:::
t I I i::;::
i ';;:#a I1
!size of the park and distance the park would be ; : '8 I Is;:;
I I I/: ; : ; I
I 1 ;:'I::
I 1 ;;;::;
;:::;; :::;:: :for one portion of Sierra Madre horizontal curve ; 4:::;:
;:;::: ;::::;
I ;::::'
1 1 :;::;:
I ::::I:
;::;::
:::;I 1:::;; I1
:cul-de-sac streets to service a maximum of 15 1 1:::::
11
1 1
I
L11I'
1 I 1 I
I I ! I i !
r
-4-
I I !temporary turn-arounds at the end of Chestnut Avei : and Sierra Madre be beyond the subdivision boun- i i dary. He stated the subdivider has submitted a ; ; temporary grading plan and the purpose of t,'he; long i lots is for cuts and .fills to be within the l;ot ;
; boundaries.
I I
I , 1
4 I
1
The Chairman announced the Commission woul'd now i hear from the applicant and those desiring to L ; speak in favor of thi's application.
i MR. JERRY ROMBOTIS, President of Kamar Construc- i tion Co., Inc. stated he was asked by the Plannind Department to consider payment of fees in lieu of: land for dedication since there is a plan to buila I a school on the other side of this property. He : stated they are in complete agreement with the i ; City Engineer's recommendations,. The long bank : i between this subdivision and the existing subdi- i : visions will be left in its natural terrain. The: i over-all yield of Units 1 thru 5 will be less :than 3 dwellings per acre.
:When asked abLout Lot 81, MR. ROMBOTIS stated he ; :would be glad to give this property for park 1 .: dedication but it is steep and would have to be ; i terraced.
1
# I I 1 I I
r 1 I I I b I 1
1 I
..
1
1
5 I
I ,I ! i Mr. DICK CALDWELL, 3580 El Camino Real, stated he i
; represented his ,father and sist.er who own land : adjacent to the easterly side of t'his subdivision i :and they are not opposed to the subdiv,ision, but : I he was concerned with the number of children and i : stated he would like to see a park there. He I I questioned the width of StreetsI'A" and I'B" and wa$ i informed they would be developed. to full City 1 I ;standards with a 60' right of way./ 1,
i The Chairman asked to tiear from those wishing to :speak in opposition of these applications.
1 I' 8
I
,, t
1
I 1 I
! No one spoke in opposition.
I I The public hearing was closed at 8:25 P. M. 1 I I 6 I I I i Mr. Thornton explained that the local streets in :this subdivision will tie into the City's and; 1 I i County's road system. The County has left ,the planning of the roads and streets in the dr'ea: :of i i the Carlsbad Municipal Water District to tfle City; : Engineering Dept. I I b
[The Planning Director explained that the tidy is
; trying to establish neighborhood parks and felt : it would be better to have the payment of' fees rather than the land because of the ruggedness of ;the land in this subdivision.. The park that is : :being considered in combination with a future I i school site is not in the City at the present time:
;but will not be in any other City.
!When asked, Dr. Harmon explained that the flat I imesa that the Planning Director described is the I
t school's first choice for a school site and would :
11 I
I
I 1
I I I I
I I I 1
I
1 1 I 1 8 I I I I
'? :
1 1 I
I I I I I I
I I
I' . -, '\ ', -, '. I I I I
I
I 1 1 I I I 1
'8, '\ '\ ', '\ " ,, 8, '8 ' '
I I , ., 8, '. y\\
I -5- I N i me 's' 'Y;, '8 ''?k>,.. i
1 1 ; of *$':q, .$2,*,,\+ '..'<%,, , ;
~"~~""""""~"~~"""~~""""""""""""""~"""""""~"~""""~"""~"~~~~,~~~~,,I : Member Q~~,+~~~, 4
, '. '\ '. $4. 8
1
I
:be close to the subdivision. There are 2 other ;;11;:
Il:*Il
:sites in the vicinity that are being considered :;::::
;;I:*' ; 1 : ;-; 1 :the proposed subdivision. I I 1;;1 114 I I ::;;::
:~l$c~ !Points discussed by t'he Commission were that in 1;;l [taking into consideration the terrain and topo- 1::;::
;I 1::
igraphy of the land, the developer has done a very: t::t#l :'I:;: /good job on this subdivision and has made good i I;"
:use of the property; some of the Commission stated: I1
11;;
I;'::: i that normally they were opposed to smaller Jots, i :;#I;:
:however, this was the best use of this propler,ty; : ~l:'ls ;ll:!8
!and although the developer was not required to i J:;lll 1:;::: ;comply with the Park Ordinance, they were willing : :ll;ll
:to give payment of fees for parks. I 1 :1;1:: 1 I I :;I:;:
;Commissioner Sutherland asked if the Parks and i i:;;::
:Recreation Commission'had made any report on this; *ll;l3
:;'I;:
jsubdivision and was informed the Park and Recre- : ;l:~ll ;::::: . :ation Commission were sent a copy of the tentativ: :::::' jmap and notice of when this map would be consider$d, :;::;:
:but had made no comments or recommendations on it.: i::::;
!The following Resolutions were presented: ;I'
Ill Ill;; :A motion was made to adopt Planning Commission i ::::;: :Resolution No. 478 recommending the change of zon$ : 1.1 : I I :as requested and adopting Resolution No. 479 1 :;I;;; I recommending the precise plan on Map Exhibif 7B'' i :;;::: ; for the following reasons: :::::: :;::;:
'I J'(11t i 1. That it is the best and proper use of the land. :;I:;:
:;:'I:
2. That the density proposed is in ,agreem'ent wi tY ::'I:: the General Plan. I I ;t::1* ,, I 1;JI;:
,I ;l;;lt
:A motion was also made to adopt Reso1utio.h No.482 ;::;:: I' i recommending approval of the tentative map ;of E-1 :I::,:
:Camin0 Mesa Unit No. 5, subject to the recommen- ; 1,; ; : I :
dations of the variousldepartments and agencies, : p;:t1
1;s 1::
. : plus adding Item 24 stating "Subdivider' shall pay! :;:i:: 41 i the fee in lieu of land dedication for parks as : ::::;; ;;:;I' : per Ordinance No. 9190 in accordance with hi.s lh:;lA i letter of agreement dated D'ecember, 27, 1966. 1 :::;;:
11 I ;::::: I Planning Commission Resolution No. 478. A RESOLU-!Smith ~I,l1
TION RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZONE FROM iSuther1,and ; x 11 ; i R-1-10,000 TO R-1-7,500 AND GREATER, AS PER PRE- ipalmateer ; I >G ; : CISE PLAN MAP EXHIBIT "B" PLANNING COMMISSION IMcComas :: ; i x I i RESOLUTION NO. 479, ON PR6PERTY EASTERLY OF EL. :McCarthy :xi ( ; I
' MESA UNITS NO. 2, 3 AND 4 SUBDIVISIONS;, was adopted Voorheis: ; ; 4 ; i
also, and both of these sites are also close to i I1
I
11
I1
11
I1
18 11
I*
rc 'I I
Id 1 .. I ,;*I I 1
1
J ::i:;:
I I /I;:: ::: 1 I
I
$1
I
l;d
,,
I I I
4'1
I I
1 I,
I1
I , i:i$ii
i CAMINO REAL, AND ALSO BEING EASTERLY'OF EL CAM'INO :Little - : ;x; x ; :
; by title only and further reading waived. I i::;::
b I! 1 :::;:: i Planning Commission Resolution No. /479. A RESOLU- ;Smith :iixi; i TION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF,'THE CITY OF :Sutherlandi ; ; 4 ; ;
! CARLSBAD RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF 'PRECISE PLANS, iPalmateer ; i x : 10 ; i AS PER EXHIBIT "B" REGULATING SIZE OF LOTS, was :McComas i : ; 4 ; :
; adopted by title only and further, reading waived. [McCarthy :xi : x i
I I I
1 I I 1.1
I
I 1
iLi ttl e :/;xi+ ; :
b I
:Voorheis i i x i i
i Resolution No. 482. A RESOLUTION' 0,'IF THE CAR BAD b2 ; CITY PLANNING CO~MISSION RECOMMENDING APPRO L OF isutherlandi I i + 1
:THE TENTATIVE MAP OF EL CAMIN0 MESA UNIT No- 5' :Palmateer ; i : >! : ; 1 SUBDIVISION, was adopted by title' only and furthe(McC0mas ; : ' : i reading waived. ~McCarthy :X: ; X ; :
il I Little : :4!;;
I '/ ;Voorheis : : : X ; I I' I :;;:e:
~~ . .., . ./ . :;I::;
i '; 18 :Smith ;iii:i
I(
I
I I I I 1 ,. I
I It
I.
" I I i
s ',,'""
I 8 , ',
'8 %*' I
I I I
I I I *, *8,88\ '\,",'*, b
I ", '*,'8\, ',, ',, \, I
1 ; N;; rie , .L+ '* 'J\ '*8 8. '
I ; Gf '.O~.,/;.. '\ p, I
'.4>$& ', ,/'. ;
I ; tdenter . ~;~<~,p.p~$,*,~ 8. c.>,9+, / .' """"""""""--"-"-"-"--------"""""""""~""""""""'""""""""""""""~~
I I ;;;;;; jA motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 480 I ;;l;z' l,II
:granting the variances as requested on Lots 79, i ' ::;r:: I i 87 and 78 for the following reasons: ;.I 6
1 ::;I:: )lllss
I I ;l,;ll i 1. That there are exceptional and extraordinary l;~l*z
! circumstances that warrant the grant'ing of such ; ~l:~lI i variances because of the topography. I ~ll:l' I2. That such variances are necessary for the I I ::;I:: i preservation and enjoyment of a subjstantial : property right. I ;;:I I3. That the granting of such vari,ance will not :::ltl 1:: ; adversely affect the comp?ehensive General Plan. : II,)I1
~l*;l~
! Planning Commission Resoiution No'. 480. A RESOLUiSmith 1 TION GRANTING VARIANCES ON PROPERTY IN EL CAMINO isutherland !xi :x ; ; I1 ; : MESA UNIT NO. 5, EASTERLY OF EL CAMINO REAL:,: AND fPalmateer : xix I ; ; !ALSO BEING EASTERLY OF EL CAMINO MESA UNITS N0.2,iMcComas I i ?: ; 18 ;
I3 AND 4 SUBDIVISIONS, wh,s adopted ,:by title only :McCarthy : ;x i ; ; and further reading wai'v-ed. '/ jLi ttl e, ;: 11 :Voorheis I I 5; ; I
I I
I
k
I -6- I I
I
I I I ' I
I
I
I
I
1
I I
:;:;;;
I :;;:;:
I ;;1:11 I*&'
1 ::::y 11
/ 1 ;::;I' #*'I;:
: ; :x; ; :
I
1
I
11
*I I
I I
1 i ;i :x: : i
/ ;:: ;::
!I I ,# f-
I, 1 ,;::;::
' 1;::
I I a::;::
;:;I1:
1 'I I b 11 i PREZONING TO R-3 (Multiple-Dwellings), continued
; on property Norther'ly' of El Camino Real and East : ;;;:Is
: McCollum, et al. I i::;::
:Notice of the'hearing was read. The Secretary i ;certified that publication was given and that I I 8111*( 8:;d::
! property owners in the area we.r.e notified,of this: ::;::: i public hearing and then read the application. I i:::;: 11 1
i Letter dated October 18, 1966, authorizing Rick i :~t~ll
; Engineering to represent Glenn T. Bever and 1 i Arthur S. Dockham in connection ,with that certain: ;l:i,s : real property in the County of San Diego, commonl$ 1:;::: referred to as Villa Sintorosa and revoking any i ;;Ill;
: authority given to any:other person in connection: :I:!:: l;'ll' i with this development.
i Letter dated November 16, 1966, from William B. : : Rick, Rick Engineering Company, with prints of a :;t::: i layout of proposed Villa Sintorosa for review as i ::;:::
; he felt the Commission .would want to review the ; IIIIIi
:al:l; i basic idea proposed before calling for a precise I :;:;:1 111 I' ; plan and would want to consider such basic ques- I:;:': i tions as road alignment, density, restrictions, i llt;:8
: landscaping, and building height. Once these I I 411, :;I I1 i matters are decided a meaningful precise plan 'cou!d :I i;:: : then be drawn and heard. I I ;:I:::
! The Commission expressed objection to working out i a planned unit development for them. I :a ::;:;t I .I
i The Planning Director explained that they are 8 i ;:;;:: 14 ; asking for prezonlng from E-1-A to R-3 and are I ;:::/ 1;:
i presenting a proposed layout of V,illa Sintorosa ; I6
l(lI :::;:: : for discussion, but are not bringing in a precise: 111(1* :::;::
;::I:: : the property and golf couise and that the properti 1:;:::
I 1 I I ;;I:,;
I I 4l/'
I I :;Ill;
I I :I::::
I I :::;:a
;I I I ;::;:: ;ll::; 11
1 ;::;:;
11
1%
, I of Sintorosa Golf Course. Applicants: A. A.
I
I I
I I ;::;:: ;:;;::
I :,; I : ; :
:I: : 4 : i ;:;;:;
I. ;$:;:L
I :;::::.
B I '4:: :::;,I 11 ::::ii
I I
I I
I
I
I L
:::;:: I1
I I 9 ::::;; :;::;I
01 1I;l:
I r ;:i:;: I
I 1 I
plan at this time. He exp,lained the location of :
I 'I' ; I 1 :: I I I i::;
I I i b I b ::I:;; I@) ,:I1
1
1
I
I
L I t
I I 1 I I
!is in the Cou-nty and they would like to prezone : ;;;;;: :this to apartments zone in the.City. There are I ::::::
i many problems to be consideredon this property as: :;;;::
:a* I1
; there is flooding in the area of the creek bed at: I;':;:'
'l:*lI
I times and there are access problems, but the 8 ,'
;**;El
I property has much worth for development. If the i 1;;:s:
:I/L : Commission does not feel this property would merit /;;as-
I development for R-3 the applicants would not pur-! ; 1:: : : ;.; IS i sue this further. If the Commission feel this is: ;;1:11
; favorable, they will present a precise plan for ::I::: : the development of these 36 acres. i;::ll ;;;::i
MR. GRAHAM KELLY, Attorney at Law, 418 Land Title: 1:;:::
Bldg., San Diego, representing the applicants, 'l':l8
I ::;I::, I explained the grant easement that comes into this: ;;l;ll
11;; : property from El Camino Real is not a public highf :: 1,::::
i way. 1 ::; IIII I I ll:::'
I I : 1 4 ; 1.a.
I I ::a I(
I 8 1;; :.:
: requesting that the prezoning be denied as he felt :::I;: I;:;;; i the original plan for small acreage homesites is ; I' esir ble nd in kee in with t.he Ge era1 P an. ; I $: ;
1 I :I,:;;
;;:'ll-
i high density dwellings in this a.rea and asking ; i::;::
:that the property remain 1/2 acre estates: 1 1 / ;i::::
I I I 1,;:;: : December 27, 1966, Carroll R. Kelly and A1 ice 1. : ; ; : 1.;
; Kelly, Sunny Creek Rd., Carlsbad I 1 'I. :.: ::;
::;::I
lj8:ll i ty on which the Sintorosa Golf Course is situated; :;;;I1
;. .I .; ;
: December 27, 1966, H. E. Gribble and Pearl N. I I 1 I I-: I 1 i Gribble, 3130 Sunnycreek Rd., Carlsbad I :1'1::, * 1 ;x:;;
i The Planning Director explained this property I ::;:::
I ;::: : comes under the land use density for garden type I I":&:. i apartments in the General Plan. I 1;14;1
I I I ;;:*I1 l:l;
1 MR. KELLY stated it was obvious that the Kell'y ! : ; ; 4 .;. 1 : 1 : ;.: : family were not in agreement, and that this is I 4;;1,1
:.problem property in many ways because of t,he Agua: : ; I : .: ;{ ; ; :.: I 1 : Hedionda Creek. If th'is property is devel'oped i I;::;: i into 1/2 acre lots, they would run down into the : 4 ;I'*:: 1.; 1
: creek and produce a series of lots.. that w'ou1d"be I'll
'. 1 .I :;:
i "eye sores". Pads could be produced above the' : l:;l:: :::;::. ; flood level for multiple dwellings. When El I ::;;,, 611 i Camino Real is widened the golf course will lose 'i i : ; ;.: : : 2 holes. Carroll Kelly lives on top of the hill I ' 1 I : I.! i and would have no flooding problems. He pointed ; ;:::;:
: out that his property on the Westerly side of El :;::I:
;:I::' i Camino was prezoned and is in the process of bein4 4,:s;: : annexed to the City. In view of Highs Toofs bein.8 '
;*l:ll :::;:: i located near this area, he felt it might be feas-: .,# '::;I;
; ible to put in apartments for the employees and I ::;,:,
i intermediate executives in this area. He called ; : ; I :.I f
sa:::: : attention to the Carrillon (Maas-Rowe) property : ;::;I i which is zoned M in the County and the property t& ':::I;
:::*:I : the North belonging to Dr. Davis. Dr. Davis's ::;::: representative stated they would ask for part 1 It I I;!:;: : commercial and R-3 on their property. Mr. Kelly i I:;;;: felt there should be a buffer zone )between the i :::;:i : commercial property and residential' property. He ; I;'
;i ,::; f discussed the proposed streets and,'the elevations; I' 41: I
. i and that the property is a. place of beauty and : i; :;I;
t,::1
I I :I' I1 I 1 141;4:
I I ::::;:
1 I :;::I:
I I :;:::;
I I I ;:;::' 4
I I l~ll;~ 1 :::::I 1.
I ::;:::
" !- 1. i 1 : ; I
I1
I : ;.
I1
1 1 1 I 1 I I
II#)ll
I
Letter dated January 6, 1967, from J. McMahon 1.
?Not Tlsteg as a proberfy owner in tAe areaf .
Letters were read from the following object to i . : ;.:
&*I I1
I l.1 1
.I
December 27, 1966, Richard Kelly, owner of proper; I1
I1
8
I I I
11
It
I
I
I1
XI
1 rl
I1
11
I1
'I
'01
I
I
4
I
'> ;
I 1 't I
I 8 I I I ! ,' 1
c
1 I I '8 \, ', * 8 '
I I'
L I b8 , ', ', 8, '\ I 1 1
I
I I
1
I I
I I I
L I
I ',, '\, '\ '%, ',,'*, I
I 8 ', '* '8, '\8'%, I i
:""""""""""-------"---"""--""~"""~"""""""""""~l""""~""~"""~."~~~~~,, I 8.4 +,4, .+a -4'. ;;;;;: :::;::
::::I1 11
I ; ; :'; ;
1 i::;:: i would serve 'the property that this. I ;::I::
4 1: ::::,I i MR. ROSS G. THARP, Attorney, Dr. I :;'I::
f San Diego, stated he represented 'the applicants, : :a::;;
i and referred to the implementation of the General:: #::;I1
f Plan which indicates light to medium type denfjty; ::I::' i garden type apartments. He stated they would I Ill 5'1:
1 :I;:::
; have to go through annexation p,rocedures. Their 1 ::::;: thought was to sound out the/Commission tentative; :'I:;:
ly for the prezoning and if ,reasonably acceptable! ;:::I1
:I'll 31;: i they would ask for continuation of the hearing to: ::pi I* ; present a precise plan in 2 or 3 months. The pur: 1:;;:: i pose of the layout was to show the creek bed and the *ll:la
:::Jtl I'
: proximity of,future streets ,in the area. :';';:
I I I ::;;::
. i MR. WILLIAM RICK, Rick Engineering in San Diego, i :::3/ I1
;'I I ; I 1 : stated there were 2 reasons for having this hear-: 1,; ' I ; : - ! ing and that was to consider a number of opinSonsl ;\; i ; ; ;
Ill:,, I and reports of the neighbors. .. b I i!:;Ia 11
I I 1:: I i:i:;; I The Chairman asked to hear!'from those wishing to :I::;:
1 I J1al;t :;a
I 4 I :::I 4;: ! No one spoke -in opposition. I i::iii
I I::::: :The public hearing was closed at 9:28 P. M. 1 I 4::::
I 1 I :;;:a: i There were mixed feelings on the discussion of the ;;I::' I(I1
::'I;: i proposed development of this property by the I :;;:;: : Commission. Some felt that if large companies I :::;;; i come into the area there would be a need for a : :: 4,: ; place for the employees to 1 ive and this pvoposed! :;::;:
1 (all i development has enough merit to allow them,'to 1 I ; .present a precise plan,; that it may be an asset 1 4;;;;
/:;I: i to the City; that the Commission would lik'e to ; ;::::' : know the plans for development of the neighboring: a:;;::
i properties; that only one Kelly family and his ' f :;;;;;
; son were opposed to this prezoning. :::i::
I I I ;;:;;: i MR. THARP asked that this hearing be continued i :::a:: i for 2 or 3 months in order, €or Mr. Rick to work ; ;::I+ 14 : with the owners preparing la precise plan. I I 1:::;: :::;::
i With the consent of the Cbmmission, the Chairman i i continued this hearing until the first meeting in! : April, which would be Apqil 11, 1967.
I' I
I -8-
i/ Ns ne 8, *,, s **?.. '\ \* '+>,.
I ; tdernber +G>,<\2$ a\./\ ,.,,,y, i
I ,d\C$, '\, '?A
I I : of
!because of the topography, few would be affected : : by this development. He reported that Allen Kellj !and Mr. Burke would give free easements for the : :sewer. This would be a major improvement and
,I .. Jr.
I , I-
I I
I I
i 1 I,:I' 11
8 I;'::
I I I
I ,,
. : speak in opposition. .I I 6- *
I
I I I I
I I
'I 11
I
I*
I
8 I 11
,Is:*'
1 I I I I
I I I I I 1
The Chairman declared a recess at 9:53. Reconvenid i at 10:04 P. M. I I
i RECLASSIFICATION - R-2 ,to C-1 (Neighborhood
; Commercial) on the NorQhwesterly corner of i Tamarack Ave. and Intedstate 5 Freeway. Appli- : : cants: Archie Koyl ,,' ek al.
PRECISE PLAN - To cbniider adoption of a precise
* , I I I I
I
I 1
1 I I 1 I/ ,I
i plan on property on' t,he Northweste,hly corner of : Tamarack Ave. and interstate 5 Freeway. I
1 I I I i TENTATIVE MAP - TAMARACK PLAZA SUBDIVISION - 2 i i Lots on the Northerly side of Tamarack Ave. be- :
: tween Jefferson Sit. and Interstate, 5 Freeway- 1 I I I .,' I b
'p : .. ... 1 I I :I I
h I
,I
I
I I
I I
I I 6. I s, '\\.\\ ', *. .\ 1
I 79- I \, \ ', '8 '\ "
1 8, ', \, 's '\ ''
I ; of '$%6' 8
; t/lemt;er *,a f&,.;..pb~, 1
:Owners: Archie KoyLatjd Edward Bryant. Subdivi- ;:;;:: iders: Archie and Da,vi@ Koyl. b ::::::
!Notice of hearings $e&e read. The Secretary I :l%:as I'III i certified that publcication was given and property: 1::1:: JI
t owners in the area,'were notified of .the public ;SI
4::
i hearings and then read the applications. ,ll;ld
4 :::;,I
I I ;::I:: 1:;::: ::::it
f of Highways stating the proposed development 1 ;;;t,, :la i conforms approximately with the fu'ture freeway i 1:;::: : requirements and that the.developer should check i ;l';,l
l;:I;; I with their office for precise requirements prior : 'I1;la
: to preparation of their final plans. They stated: !:!::: i that if the cul-de-sac shown on the Freeway Agree? 1:1 ::I::: : ment is no longer desired the City Council should: i pass a resolution requesting the State to delete ; ;;1:61
; it from the freeway plans. 11;:
I ;::;,I
. : Letter dated December 22, 1966,'from Dr. Howard Ci .I I : ' ,::: i Harmon, District Superintendent of Carlsbad City : I;;*#l
I called attention to the fact that when the former: :;t:l'
: subdivision was submitted the developer agreed : ;:::I; i with the School Board to provide an off-street walk- !;:;:' I\
I ;:I::: i Jefferson School, and asked that construction of 1 1:::::
I,f:II
; such a wa1kwa.y be a part of this subdivision or ai ::::::
separate agreement be consummated concurrently ;::i:: I with the approval of this subdivision. He expresked :::I ; concern that the subdivision map did not show a : *::::;
;:1;:1
I wall or fence along Sandra Place and on Jefferson! :::;:: Street. 1 I I::;::
I I I:;,::
The Planning Director explained that these appli-i ::I:::
;l:;lt
cations have been resubmitted. On the tentative I l;ll;:
map all of the property lines in the subdivi3'ion ; :;::I:
;l;l:l
:.between Tamarack and Sandra Place and between I :;::;; Jefferson and the Freeway would be eliminated and: ;l:a,l
: in place of the 10 lots, 2 lots would be created.: #tl;ll
:;:;la 11
He explained the change in the new tentative map : ;;;;;; 11.;:
1 comprised of 2 lots and the previous map 'comprisetl :#:;I* 11 i of 3 lots. The Tentative map sent to the school i :;:;I;
: did not show the wall along Sandra Place and on t :;::::
'I:::: i Jefferson Street; however, the precise plan does i :::;;; : show this wall. The Planning Director recommendekl :;:;/ I that if this precise plan is adopted that it be :;::;I
; subject to the conditions in his written report. : :::;I1 16 I1 I This development will have ,2 facilities, a res- :11:;:
: taurant next to the Freeway and a service station: ;::;:; on the corner of Tamarack and Jefferson with park: 1:::;:
: facilities. There would be 2 vehicular entrances: i on Tamarack and one near the corner on Jefferson.! :I:::: ;::::: : The Northerly corner of the service station prope:rty :=+: 1' i at Jefferson and Sandra Place would not be paved i ::I,+ ; and would be planted with trees and additional ; ::::;: i plants approved by the Planning Department. It i ::;:;:
::;:e: ; would be a park approximately 80' by 135'.. One ; I::::: i of the conditions of the precise plan would be th!at !:;I;:
; the park shall be graded, planted qnd maintained : 1'1 1: i before occupancy. The sidewalks would be contig; l:'tll I UOUS to the curb on Tamarack. 'The.' tentative map i l~l;l;
I 1 1 I
I
I I
\\
I I *,,'\,'.,'.,,'. '.. 4 1
I N 2 rn e 's, '*?e,, *.,'c&> ..,., I B
I
I I ~"""""""--"""""-""----"---"-""""""""""~"""""~l""""~""""~~"~"""~,, / +$@\ ;;,;7$i>. :
> I i :::;,I ; ; t-: :
I
I , I1
I II I
I
1 I1
I 1
Letter dated January 4, 1967, from the Division i
::;;;: 11
I :;;::I I*
I 1 i;;::;
- ; Schools, concerning the addition.al traffic and ;;;;I1 Ita;:
I1
I
I I 1s
11
1,II IS
I; way for school chi1dren.frot-n Magnolia Ave. to
(0 It
11
Ill'
1 I
I
'I
I1
I
I@(
;;::::
11 I'
i:;:;:
I I I :::::I
I 1 I /:::: 14 '::;::
i; 1; I ,:,::I:
I :::i::
1, I ::I::;
I
I I I I b ;::::;
I
1
I I
I
I
I ! I I I
I, , i/ ; ::I
'I 1 ! 1: 1:;:::
~~ .- I . . .~ . .~ ~ .. ~~ '
, 'I
4
I
1 I I
I
I
I I
. ,- ,...
I I ',, t8 's ', ', '*
I -.lo -
I L I I I
's 88,'b\, ', '\ '8 I I I
I' I , .\'. \ ' ' I
I I I ,I
\, , s '\ '\ '\ * '8
I I' I Na ne ''., '%$. 8%. '\%?, I
I ; Gf \,C..$ ', 'A;* ; I ,b~$, q> A'+,
:""""""""-"---"-"""""-"-.""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""~"~~"~l : t/iernber Q,?+&,
:shows that the subdivider will construct the side! i;;;::
; I;$ : I !walk, curb and gutter on the Westerly side of JefS : ferson Street School to Tamarack Ave. ,;I::: ; I; I.;:
I 4 I:'::: I ;1:;11 i Mr. Thornton explained there were ,:only two points I ;!::ll 11:: I that are different than the former map. Access i I 1::I::
rights have been waived on Sand'ra, Place and on ; :;J::* i Jefferson except for one commercial,' driveway near I :the corner at Tamarack. The service road shown :' 1 !I ,'::: 4'1 I i in dark blue on the map would have,'to be vacated i ; by the Council. 4' dedication of right of way on: ::::::
: Jefferson would be required i,n order to improve 11 I a:;:
1:: '11 the street 24' to the centerj making it a 48' roadway. :;l:aa
! In studying the street system there is a need fori ts;l:; ::;:::
a wider North-South street in the City as there ; SI 1:;:
: are very few of them.in this area. The Engineerirlg ::pil ::':::
Department has no objection to pedestrian entran-: :::;,I I'll i ces on Sandra Place, otherwi,se normal improvement: ::;I::
: for the subdivision wou1.d be requjred. 1 :;l161
::::
81 I ;:::
i The Chairman announced that the Commission would :I; I ; ; now hear from the applicant or h-is representative; I ll;;;; ;I1 and any others desiring to speak'.'in .favor of these 1:::::
: requests. I 1 ;::*,I
'll;;;
[ Dr. Harmon stated he was concerned with the pro- :;::::
; vision of an asphaltic oncreteLwalkway from the ; ha;::
::;I:: I Northerly boundary of the Jefferson Street School! ;:4:: ; to Magnolia Ave. I 1 li!I;; 1
I :i::;: 1IlI i MR. EARL THOMPSON, Attorney at 'Law, 804 -' 3rd St. I ::I::: I Oceanside, representing the owners, stated that 1 :;::::
:Mr. Strella, the developer of the tentative sub- : :;I:t@
:;:;I' 11 I division map that was presented at an earlier datd : has no interest or commitments in this subdivisioi. ;;;:'I IS ;:;i,; 1s : The developers, Archie and David Koyl are willing ; ':to put in the same improvements as Mr. Strella :::':I ,; 1.; 8
jstated he would on thetWesterly side of Jefferson: :::;:I
Ill;
:Street from the Southe'rly boundary of the Jeffer-j ,I8::: :I1
: son Street School to Tamarack of concrete side- : :::::I walks, curb and gutters, and to install asphaltic i 1:::;: : concrete sidewalks on the Westerly side of Jeffer; ::I;;:
son Street from the Northerly boundary of the ::::;:
Jefferson Street School to Magnolia. The only i ::i:::
i problem was that the asphaltic concrete would
.+G&
-I I
I I
;I;;;; pill
;::::I
11
11
I .I
I 1 I I 1,:::: ,:
rc-
I i .I I :;;/I 1,;1fi
I I 1
IS I1
SI I( :11'1~
I
'ba:t1
I ' ;-I:: :I::,;
: involve some maintenance in the future. It is no4 ::pi:
:will put in permanent imp?ovements. He reported : !:;I:: 11
:L;;:
:::;:I
:;::ir
::::I;
:;;::I :::::: 81
:I:;:;
::';I;
::::I: ;::;:I
I' i I 1:::::
,I / I :I' 11
I I ;::::;
I
I !;;:,& I:, ;1:;1; It
1 I :::;:; i I. I :;::::
1 I ::;::I
I I :::;::
known when the property owners North of the School 11 :;:;;:
I a difference of $2. .a lineal foot to 60 cents :in i a;:::; ; the permanent and temporafy sidewalks. Mr. Koyl ; ":::I i has extended himself now 'so it is not feasible
;I1 11 i of the school. The widening of Tamarack for EastjWest :;I::; : traffic will eliminate all of the frontage road, I and would make it imposfible to use the duplexes.: : It will be necessary to/ remove 10 duplexes or 20 ; i families from the 1.45 acres of land. The owners i : would be dedicating pr, perty for the widening of : i Tamarack. The prope,'rtjl wi'll be landscaped and : the traffic designed.70 get off and on the freewai
*&I
Ill for him to install the permanent sidewalk Northerly
d ll~l;l
OIlI
1 I
I L I
I
I I I
I
I
I #' I
&~l:l;
I I b
I I I I
I
1
I
j; I
I I
, ; .. ... / I
1':
! !I!&!& 81
~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~
c I I I
I t
I I
,' b, ', ", '\ ", 1
I I \, ', '. ', 'x 8
I - 11 - I ',b '%, '<, 8, ', ', . ', 2. ', '\ '* I
I 1 14 8 me \\, \:+.. \,, '?+., i
1 ; of ,,d,'."> , %'/%. 1 I I ,cjj.*, ', ;?;. 1
I i tdernber *,t+,+,+~~.&~ f.',,4,7>\ , * ; """"-""""""-"--""-"-"-"-"""~""""""""""""~~"~~""~"""""""~~."~~~",! i to these facilities. J'efferspn Street traffic i I;$+
:would be increased only slightly by this develop-: ;;lit1 43
i ment. He believed the: precise plan and tentative: ii: i i : :
: map are fundamentall'y .sound. The duplexes were : ':;:>c
:'I 3s I constructed approximately 13 years ago. The lIz;lf
I ;la :lis! I.
; changes and needs i,,n the neighborhood make these : 11;13
$38 :t:
proposed facilities desirable. The park would bel :::*I4 :::;::
I a rest area. Humble Oi 1 Co. is ready to start : i::::: i construction as soon as the requests are approved! 3::;::
; by the City. They are making an outright purchase ::;I:: i of the property and will own all of the Western : Ill;;;
:*Ill : portion of the property. The park will be planted I:;$,: s#,;,s i and maintained by Humble Oil Co. who will put in :::;:a :ti :tables and benches. It will be more of a relaxing lla;;: i area than a play ground. The restaurant is in the l;;l&i
::I:;'
: planning stage now and the plans have not been ; ::;I:: i drawn. Should this be granted and the precise : ::::;:
: plan approved, they would have to be complied wit$. ijjjj1 ill Mr. Thompson reported talking to the City Attornej 1::;::
: that the Commission should include in any resolu-: tion that the owner enter into an agreement with I
the City pertaining to the aspha-ltic sidewalk. He: i stated he and the City Attorney Would have to draft ;;I::I
this. 1 ;;:+: I), I
I I i::;:: i The Secretary read a letter from Kings Retreat oft l';l;:
; their intent to lease the ,property, and Mr. I :I::::
I Ill ;;l;I' It I Thompson expl-ained this would be for a restaurant: ; only. ::::;;
I i 1 :'::;:
I ai:::: MR. GEORGE BUCKLEY, 150 Ai Del. Mar Terra,ce, Solana i ::::;: : Beach, representing Humble Oil Co., stated they : ;;1;11 11 I decided to buy the former Lot '2 although it is of I :':::;
;::Ill 1 no value in the selling of gasoline. It would bet I;'::: : for the ben.efit of travellers. There would be no i :;:::;
;1:;11
'I i playground equipment. They are investing in this: (18(1( i:;I,I I( ; as a freeway rest type ,?acility. He stated Humbl4 ::;:it :,Oil Co. is eager to puqchase this property and he: i:;;:: i would 1 ike to become afcitizen of Carlsbad. ; IC 11
MR. HARRY TRUAX, 41'25 'Harbor Drive, stated he is i !I ,;;I
: an employee of Dressel haus Engineers who prepared: i the subdivision map' and he is also a property 1 I ;:,::: ; owner near this area and has children who are using this crossing. He stated he felt the I : children will be safer with the proposed street [ i improvements. I
I I
I , ' 8 ', ', '\ I I
I 1
I 06, '18 1,
11 (dl
I>
I1
$1
'11
It, 11
$1
c rc ;+,: 1::
)I1 11
I I
1 I I11
11
I
I I I I
I ::::::
, *, I ;;;::: 1;:::: 14
:;;+A
I I :::;:: It
I :i::;:
:;::I;
:!I::;
MR. CHESTER BURKE', 251 Ch.inquapin, stated he owns! 1:' 1;; t 3 property across the corner from this property and! ;;*
I, I:;:
; believed this would be a good site for a station.:
I ;1,:,1
The Chairman announced the Commission would now 1 1::;:;
hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. i i;::;:
dl:;,! ir
1 :;:;::
I I <:;I ,I : No one spoke in opposition. I :.IJ::
.::;,I 11 I The public hearings were closed at 10:54 P. M. I I t::,;:
: Some of the question's asked by the Commission ,,;:::
I 1 :::I:: f were regarding the freeway sign, the separation 1 I:;, ;: : between this property and the Bryant's property. ; ;;,;I1
:,::I; /::;;
I,;,)
L 1 1 ;'AI': 11 :::;,I #:I
I I I I::::; I I :::;:;
I ' /'
I ;::I*:
:!I;:&
~ ~~ ~~ l!I:::
1
-8
I
I
I I I ;::;:: 111 t:;;$:
11
('1
:!::I1 Ill
I I
It
'1 I1
I I ..
t ;SJ:#'
'&,I1
..
,
8 ..
I :I
1)
I
I
1
I8
i 8 I*'
I I I
I
I 1
I
b I f
I 1
I I '/ 11
c
I I
1 <
I I I2
I I I
1' , .., . I \, " \, '\ '\ '\
I \, ', % '\ '\ '.
1 y;,, '\ ',<'.
1 I ,..\\'
I - 12 -
I : NI ' '\\ .. .c2; 's '+:. I
4 : cf b.5 ., , , , ,*/" : \$*\ q,\.,/$ $. 1
:"""-"""""""""-----"---------"""-""""""""~"""""l""""~"""~~~"~."~"~~,, tdcmber ~c'<~,~.I'J-.~.~, 1 i The Planning Director informed them that they 1 ::;::: : would be restricted to only one sign, with the i :::::: i same restrictions as on Ecke's precise plan at ;;$:*a
I 1 : : Palomar Airport Rd. and Interstate 5, and that all :::I:,
'It;:& i lights shall be directed away from residential ::;I1' ; areas, and that a 6' high wail would be built 11);::
1 1x1 4 '41:;; i between thjs property and the Bryant's property. : ::::;;
1 I 'lt;lg 11
Commissioner Little expressed the belief that this 1:;;;; i development would create more traffic and if the i ::11:: i restaurant is crowded people will be parking on ; ;::a : Sandra Place and using the pedestrian entrance. i 1,:::
:11 11
'I IJ;;:
I I '1;;lS I The Building Inspector repor'ted that there is a i :::;:: ;1'*;: i large surplus of parking spaces for, the occupancy! l:;AtI ; of the restaurant. He pointed out'that the Fire ; ::I:;:
: Dept. may get involved if the wall'is completely : !I::;;
;:;I*;
I :;:;.*
I ;lit I l;;:'l
i I
1
I
,I 1 I I '\ %.,\\,, '\, '+,.
, ,
, .',' I
1
l a*, '>*
I*
'$1
I I I*
$11
I ; I
closed. 1);
I* 11 I I
I
,. i MR. THOMPSON stated they would be willing to clos$ 'It.;:: :#I 14 i the 6' wall but believed it was necessary to have: 1,; 1 ; I I& '
Other points discussed were that the plan is bettir ;I' I:&' i than it was and there are a lot of restrictions i 1.;;
t on this property; that there are no sidewalks to ; ::;::: i date; that the sidewalks will provide better 4 I :::::: :c,!l'
; safety for th-e children; that the applicants have! I 1:;;:: i gone to all limits to eliminate traffic dangers f ;:l::: l;;;Ii : at the corner; that the applicants have consulted: ;i:;l! I and worked with the School Board for the protec- : :::IlI 1:; ; tion of the children; that this.wil1 be a develop: :;ti': i ment the City will be proud of. % I :I1 I1
b:;:+
I ;;;:::
i The following resolutions were presented: I I 1::::;
I ::::;:
I :::t,i 11' i After further discussion a motion was made to 4 1 ::;I:: :.adopt Resolution No. 484 changing the. zone from 1 :::;it I R-2 to C-1 as requested for the following reasons:: *- ;;;,I; ;:;;::
1 11; 1 I ; ; , 1. The property could be better used as C-1 : :::::: i rather than R-2 Zone because of its proximity to i :::::: a major freeway interchange which will cause it ; ll:',* ;zl;l'
to draw not only local but transient business. ;::a:: 1 I I:;:+ + 1:: i:::;; ;x: :x: 8 ;
6 r.- : the openings because of fire pro-tection. I :;I : : ; ;
b .. > 4:;/
I ::;;1t
:i::;:
1 I I'
Id
IS
I I I
I I I
(11
, I
1
I
I Planning Commission Resolution No. 484. A RESOLU-[Smith
TION RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZONE FROM :Sutherland: ; :xi : I R-2 TO C-1 ON PROPERTY AT;NORTHWESTERLY CORNER .OF! Palmateer :xi ; i ; TAMARACK AVENUE AND INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY, was. :McComas : :x; i ; i adopted by title only and further reading waiied.iMcCarthy : : ; ;x; i :Little :;I 1 :x: ; i
, iVoorheis ; :a' k :xi : i
I 1 /:::: I'
I I ;:;"
E\ motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 485 I
i recommending adoption of precise plans on this ! ',,:I: : property subject to the:' conditions in the Planning :::::I f Director's report plus,'the following 2 items: :ibll;
#;I i "Subdivider shall in,stB11 curb, gutter and side- i lb:llg lL1;l; i walks on the Westerly ,'side of Jefferson Street ; I'll;,
; from the Southerly boundary of Jefferson Street I : Schccl to Tamarack Avenue and shall include such i ; :mprovements on his improvement plans. Subdivi- ; i der sha!l install asphaltic concrete sidewalks on;
i Plortkerly boundary of the Jefferson Street School:
i to Magnolia Avenue.."
1 I ;;;;,*
::::;:
I 6, L
:::;::
1:;::
;I;:;: 11
::a ,:I;
::I:;:
;:I ,:I1 11
I I :::41:
I 8 ;:+;
1 I I 1 J;l:;J I. 1';:
i.
'I
tne Westerly side of Jefferson Street from the i ;'::a1
11
I
I a ; : I'
~~ ! 11
.
4
t" *
IC-
- 14 -
1 I ,' 2 \\ 8, 'x, '* ,
I \, '\ , ', '\ 't I
I , .', % x'
1 4 %, ', ', '\\'\,' .... ' \\ ', '.~ , \ '. i
1 : 1 )J2 i;i i. ', '+>, '. '+. *,.y;.. '\\ '.<$. ;
1 : Cf 1 1. ' 5- $, ~ +' L, I
<x,; &>%> I
:""""""""""- """""""""""""~"~""""""""""""~""""""",,'J""."...,;"~* I I :Se:nter 4 ++, .,.J\:G,
i (c) Election of Officers for 1967. I ah,;;; 1 I ::I:;!
1 I i':::;: : Chairman McComas explained that normally the I I '1 ; ; I ;'; ;
. I officers move up to a higher office, however, I !l;;lI -1 1; i Secretary Palmateer did not wish to assume a I *L;;!:
'I'&:; i higher office but was willing to continue as 4 I 4:;;J
! Secretary. I :::,I2 ,&I
I ::: I"
I I :::;::
I ~1';l~ I ::I:::
I 1 , ill:;; 411 ; Commissioner Sutherland placed the name of # ;;l;L! i Commissioner Palmateer for Secretary. I 11 1,;; I 'I;;!$
r ;Smith i By motion of the Commission the nominations were iSutherlandjxi ;x; :
t closed for the office of Secretary. :Palmateer 1 ; :x: ; ;
; By ecclamation Commissioner Roy H. Palmateer was :McCarthy : ; :x; ; ; 1 re-elected Secretary of the Carlsbad City. Plan- :Little : :x:x; ; 11 ; t ning Commission. :Voorheis i :x: 1
: Election of Chairman.
.,
& '
I 1
I 1 I
1 I
1
G 4
"1 I
1
I
1 I I* I
Election of Secretary. I
I
I 'I ; ; ;xi ; '!
41
I
I I iMcComas ; :xi i 1
.I I I,;);: ::;:I'
1 ; I., ; : :
I 1 :.I:;; :
::::I'
1 1,;;
1 ISmi th : i ;xi ; :
I iMcComas :XI ;x; ; 1
.I I
I 1 11
1,l' Comnissioner McComas placed the n.ame of Commis- i ; sioner McCarthy for Chairman.
j By motion of the Commission the nominations were iSutherlandi ; :x; ;
,11:t:
1 I'
.I
closed for the office of Chairman. ipalrnateer : ixix: I1 11:
; By acclamation Commissione? Joseph D. McCar,thy fMcCarthy : -x: ; ; : ; 'x; ; : : ning Commission.' 1. :Voorheis i i ;xi I 1
1 'l;*ll li t Election of Vice-chairman. l I :::::: I :!I!!:
11
was elected Chairman of the Carlsbad City Pilan- :Little 'I
'1.
r I I I
Commissioner Little placed th er McComas for Vice-chairman.
Commissioner McComas dgclined he would 1 i ke to serve' as Vic the duii'es as Vice-chairman o County Planning Congress are
ZomEissioner McCarthy placed Commissioner Sutherland for V
3y notion of the Commission t c7osed for the office of Vice
3y acclamation Commissioner J v:as elected Vice-chairman of 2lani;ing Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
3y ?roper motion the meetinq 1>:24 P. M.
Respectfully submitted,
SOFiOTHY M. OSBURN Recording Secretary'
e name of Commission
the offer stating e-Chairman, however, n the San Diego very time consuming.
the name of
i ce-Chai rman.
he nominations were -Chairman.
ames J. Sutherland the Carlsbad City
was a,djourned at
i I
i th ther
lmat Coma Cart ttl e orhe
1 an
eer
hY
is
S