HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-06-27; Planning Commission; Minutes. I' , \., 8 *' I 8, '8 8 '8 '8 '8
0 '\, ', 8, '8 '8 '*
* CITY OF CARLSBAD 0 \ ', '\, 88 '\ '8 I
I
I I
I
7 w I
0 . :Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION I x,8 8.. '\ 8'' ys\ I i Date of Meetin,. June 27, 1967 i 14 3 me 8 %$. h, 8?$*. ;Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. '8$-%;,, 8 *\ '$\.plz, : : of \V, , i Place of Meeting: Council Chambers *+@<;.<Y?<.. : ; Member ,o p..p(?\:..',~ , - -; -3 i ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, 8 i:::;;
; McComas, Palmateer, Sutherland, Little, Jose and I *::;I;
::;a:t : Voorheis. Also present were City Attorney Wilson,: i::::; i Assistant City Engineer Thornton, Building InspecYpr a:;o01 ! Osburn, and Planning Director Schoell. :;o:';
I po;:
b:;;l
: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1;:::: I Smith ; ; :x: ; ;
I ; McComas ; ;xi : :
I ;x; : : i 1967, were approved.as corrected with the addition! Sutherland: : ;x: : ; that Commissioner McComas abstai-ned from voting on: Liktle I ix; 1:: : ; the rezoning of the. Baird property because he was ; Jose #I ; I :xi : : : not present for the entire hearing. I Voorheis I :x:x; I1 ;
I I 0 *1111~ I::;:,
I i I.! ; i
8 I i::;;; lo@
I iii::: i requ.esting that the freeway billboards, existing ! 01:;04 IS
I I I ;I:!:; ;;;Io;
'
I"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""I""""~"""""""""""-
I e
0
01
0 I
I a I
(a) Minutes of the regular meeting of June 13, : Pal'mateer
0
WRITTEN COMMUNICA.TIONS:
Memorandum dated June 27, 1967, addressed to City i '0;:l 1 ; Council from Parks and Recreation Commission 10 I:,
; and planned, on both sides of Interstate #5 be. :;11;: i carefully reviewed. a
The Building Inspector explained that no billboard :yo:#
:permits had been issued for signs since Ordinance ;: ;i;; 18 : No. 8043 was adopted in August, 1965. All of the; 0::;;
Freeway signs within 660 feet from the edge of an$ : section of freeway or landscaped freeway will have :;;::: I to be removed in August, 1968. No alterations ca? :;;:;: : be made on the structures of the signs, however, ; .:;o:o i the designation or direction can be changed on thd
i the billboards.
i When questioned the City Attorney stated the sign 0;:~:~ I :could be changed every day as long as the structuqe 1;*0 i : :; ;.; , ; I i was not. a1 tered. I I ;,;a;* i
i report on this matter to the City Manager.
: report be sent to the Park and Recreation Commis- I :i::i: i sion from the Planning Commission. I I i::;:; i The Chairman stated he felt the newspapers should ;;'o;I ; inform the public on the status of the freeway I i bi 11 boards.
: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
: There were no oral communications.
; PUBLIC HEARINGS:
; (a) RECLASSIFICATION - To consider zone change 04 i property from R-T to R-A-6,000 on certain pro'pertx ; lying between Car1sba.d Blvd. and Jefferson St. an! i Northerly of Laguna Dr., being portion of the I t. : SE 1/4 in Sec 36, T 11 S, R 5 W; and portion of ; i Sec 1, T 12 S, R 5 W. I i Notice afhearing3xas read., Secretary Palmateer : ; reviewed Resolution of. Intention No. 61., initiated : by the Planning Commission to hold a public hear-: i ing on this matter. The Secretary certified that; ; notice of publication was given and property I &
owners in the area were notified of the hearing.
I
;;::;;
a
i". *
::::I; I::;:;
;;:;ii
I : sign, and new advertisers can take over space on I ::I:;: :I::;: ~
I i:::;::
;:':;: 1 : The Building Inspector stated he would make a I I I;;!;; I! j
I I ;::::I i
r"., 0 . :::;;, ;::;o: , j Chairman Sutherland requested that a copy of this :::;:; j
I I b :;10;1 I
O I
I a I
O * I 1::
*.
lI:;l;;
;::;:';
; : 0 1.; 0 ;::;:;
I 1 . ;::;:;
9 ;::;:;:
I i i 0
I I
I+;:
I 8 1 ;:::i;
I:!;;:
1 ::i;
I I
t* I.
I II
8
4 I I I 0
I 0 I
; .. 0 iiii:i
4 ..*
I O I *.
I I 1 0 I I I O 0 I 0 1 I .~ ~ __ * ~ ~ ~
.i 1 '\, ',,',, '\ '8, -8,
I I 4 I I. I
I I I
1 8 ,','\ 8'
\ I
I
1
- ',8 , 3''
rc -2- I 8, '\ ', '8, 'S,',, I
.I i N 3 me ',, '++, b8 t23* I I ;. of \$',o;, '. *<% I .O;;f., ' *p/. t I ; bfember +\+,-7&+Y% *
~"~""""""""""""_"""_--""""__"___"~_""""___""""~"""""""""""~,"",l ,o p ;$"8 ",d\ I i Letter dated June 12, 1967, endorsing the proposed! ::;;:: '*111(
zone change in the Buena Vista Lagoon signed by ; ;*I I;;;;!
Lt. Col. L. G. Southwell, Julia E. Southwell, I I 11 (0 ; Arthur M. Hoagland and Eva K. Hoagland, 2411 Buenai ::ii;:
;;18~~ I Vista Circle. * *I:;::
l I I :;:;la IN
I 'I.;; i Letter dated June 12, 1967, from Laura R. Shaw, : I :;pi!' ;Secretary of the Buena Vista Lagoon Association, i :::;;; in favor of the zone change to R-A. I :::;;;
I I :;::;;
!Chairman Sutherland'explained that the Pl'anning , . ::;I 1
I::;
Commission started a study on the R-T zones over i , ; a year ago as part of the Master Plan for beach ; :;#I;# ;;::;;
and water oriented property. As a result of those: :;::;; i studies the Commission adopted a resolution of i ;;::;;
;intention to consider rezoning this property to a :: ; ;.; ; ; ;
; zone that would be more suitable at the present i i::;;; 41 I
i time. I
'I: I;;:
I :;
I I 11;; I I ::;:,I
The 'Planning Director explained the land use of i:;;:;
:the property under consideration in the Buena 1. 11'; I I, I Vista Lagoon and that the property is basically :;;:i: ij:i;i :under water. The areas on the East and West are i #'(I i zoned R-A, held by Nature Conservancy. The area ; :;!!:; r ;to the North in Oceanside is zoned R-1. Property; 1 .;
; to the South is zoned R-1-10. He explained that : ;;;": i this is the only R-T zone in this part of the City! 11;:; ; and the R-T zone is an active recreational type i iiii;:
:I:;;: I zone. According to the General Plan the land use: ;; ; for the lagoon is for a passive type use and resi4 ;*hll
1:;:i
I i dential use. When the property was rezoned in 19d3 1::;;; ;; ; the property owners at that'time had preliminary i I$;:
:;;I;: i plans to develop the property. I I :;;:::
I I ;:I:;: i The Chairman announced that generally the appli- 1; i i ;.: ; cant speaks first, however, since the Planning : ; ;,; I ; :
;*l;8; i Commission is the applicant, the Commission would I ;::;:: : now hear from any one wishing to speak in favor I ;:p; : of this zone change. I I :;:;;; I*
I .a
I
I
I
I
ii;;:;
I
;lll
I I
I -1 :
I I ::I:
I+;: I'
I I 1: . #I i MR. OSCAR FEDERWISCH, 12431 El. Rey Place, Garden I :;::;: I;::;: ; Grove, stated he owns Lot 18 in.Buena Vista Garde4s ;:::::
.!.and questioned. the affect this zoning will have oq l+;l: ; his property and if it was good for his property i ; ; 4 :.I
lll;l; : he was in favor 6f it. He stated he came down ; ;::;:;
j from Woodland Hills and asked some one to explain i ', ;::;;;
I the meaning of the zone change to him. ;II:l;
I ;:;I:l
I I 1;;:;: : The Chairman explained the uses that c.ould be builjt ::::a, I. i:: ::; on this property under the current zoning. I I *I*::;
I I l;~l;l I 8 -.;;::;; i The Chairman announced the Commission would now ::i::: ; hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. I l;;:I: 1.
; No one spoke in oppos'ition.
I The Public Hearing was closed at 7:58 P. M. ~ I :@flI@l
! The following resolution was presented: I
- : MR. DONALD BRIGGS, JR., owner of property on I . :;; i Jefferson St. spoke in favor of the zone change. i i; ,;I:
I I
I**
I I
I :;;;:;
4 ;I*::; 1. l:;;;l
I :;;;:i
I I I ;::;:; '
I;*:::
I I I -;;::I: I *Ill
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 :::;Il I#* ';
1 I I I ;p;;;
I ;ll'I1
I I ntl:l; I I ;::;:' I
I I I
I
. .. ~ I I::#!:-
I I I 1 I I I
I I I I ; - - - - - - - - - -
;After d : Resolut i from R- :for the
il. The
!in the
;sive re !Vista L 12. Sub i uses on
:3: No :since i i4. R-T
iance wi
: Plannin
I I
I I
!TION RE : R-T TO I BOULEVA
I LAGUNA
I I I !
- -3- - I I I I l
1.
I I I -""""""""""""""""""""."""""""""""-~"
ue consideration a motion was made to adopl!
ion No. 508 recommending a change of zone I
T to R-A on the above described property ;
following reasons:
active recreational-tourist uses permitteq R-T zone are not compatible with the pas- ;
creational and residential use of the Buen?
I I b I 1
agoon area. ject property is surrounded by R-A or R-1
all sides. development has occurred on the property
t was zoned R-T in 1963.
th the General
land use in this area is not in conform-
g Commission Resolution No. 508. A RESOLU COMMENDING TO COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZONE FROM
R-A ON PROPERTY LYING BETWEEN CARLSBAD
RD AND JEFFERSON STREET AND NORTHERLY ,OF DRIVE, was read in full and adopted.
r' I I :(b) RECLASSIFICATION and PRECISE PLAN - To con:
jsider a zone change from R-A-10,000 to C-2 and :for a precise plan on 0.717 acre on the Southerly jside of Palomar Airport Rd. between Aveni.da
:Encinas and Interstate 5 Freeway. Applicants:
:Paul and Magdalena Ecke.
I I :Attorney Russell W. Grosse, representing the I I !owners, asked that this hearing be continued to :July 11, 1967, in order to work out some details :
;on the precise plan. I I
I I I D !With the consent of the Commission the Chairman : irequested this hearing continued to July 11, 1967;
I I
I(c) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in re-
:quired frontage from 60 feet to 44.517 feet on prd,g-
erty at 2357 Jefferson St. , at the Northwesterly :
:corner of Jefferson St. and Interstate 5 Freeway.!
!Applicants: William Hatchman,.Jr. and Zena L. I I : Hatchman.
I I I -
I
I I I 1 I !Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certi-: i fied that property owners in the area were notifiGd : of the public hearing and then read the applicati4n'.
There were no written communications.
I I i ;The Planning Director explained his written repor4 :on the facts resulting from staff investigation ;
of this property. I I
I ! 1 1
:The Chairman announced the Commission would now !
:hear from the applicant and any others wishing to! speak in favor of the application. I
!
I I I i MR. WI'LLIAM HATCHMAN, JR. stated that the State i4 :taking part of his property and the frontage will: i be narrowed to approximately 44 1/2 feet, a1 thoug~ ; he would still have more square footage than is i I required. He plans new construction within the : : required setback lines. The engineering was done!
by the State for him. I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I ! "I !
1 I
I , . . .,- \* I
i ,' 1 I 8 ', '*, '\ '\,'\, 1 I ", '*, '8 ", ', '\ I : a. N a me '8, +?&. *.8 \*?.i, s:y ; *{ r4, ,@' . C&, i'
I I ':?-.;". ,,', ;qf$ I kc\ q:.', ,A \ ', .. 9 :""-""""-""""""""""""--""""""""""""."~"""~~"""""""""""-,"",~ : f4ernber ,o ~..pp\\,d,& i i4R. MELVIN E. OSLAND, 2363 Jefferson St. stated I i::;:t : he owns property almost adjacent to this property! l;~l;: ::!:;; i and he would like to see Mr. Hatchman's proposed 1: Ill It
; plans for development and what he actually plans i I:::;:
:;I;;;
4 I ::::::
I I , :;* 1:;: : MR. HATCHMAN stated he thought they made a good ;::;;; i choice when they purchased the pro.perty as they :I*'l* : felt it was a good residential view lot. They i i bought the property with -the intention of moving ; :$:: : down here, but they had been unable to do so. 4 : :::;ii i Their object in renting the property was to have ; Ii'l#* ; somebody on the place. He stated he had to agree! i that the property has deteriorated with the renters. i:::;:
; there. They do not plan to rent the new house : a, I::
; that will be built and they do not notice the I :qi;: ; : '1 I noise from the freeway. 1:; I I ':::;;
I * I#:::: i MR. DON BRIGGS, JR. spoke in opposition of this ! i::;:: ; variance as he stated the owner could build 12 or!
;8l;l*
::;:;:
15 units on the property and there would not be : ;::::i : room on Jefferson Street for guests to park their! :::;;; i cars. He spoke regarding the vacation of Jeffer-; ;::;;; : son St. .. I *::*I1 I :;':;:
Assistant City Engineer Thornton stated that no i :I;; i action will be taken on the vacation of Jefferson! ::;*,1 .::;::: ; St. unless the abutting property owners request : ::;:;: i it. The intent of the City as of this date is to: :ll;l~
; maintain existing right of way of Jefferson Street. ;:::;:
lap::
1 I I ;;/*I
The Planning Director stated he does not believe ! ;:;:::
,:I::: : this prope.rty or the other narrow properties along :::i;: I the lagoon West of Jefferson are good R-3 proper-: :I::;: : ties, and the owners can build anything that is i i i i i ;.: 1 I 41 I;*;/ : to have on-site parking facilities.
I MR. BRIGGS stated they should still have off- I I;;l@:
: street parking for guests.
i The Chairman asked Mr. Hatchman if he would objecb . I to his property being a single family residential;
lot and Mr. Hatchman stated he. would feel that he; i was being discriminated against unless all of the; : other properti,es in that area were changed also. i 2 I : When questioned MR. BRIGGS stated one of his lots: i has duplexes on it and the other lot is unimprovea:
-4- I
I I
I l
c -
to do with the property. t
1
84
1 ;-; : : ;
::I:::
I *
1
I 4;
I1 I*
I
1 I :i::::
I1
permitted in the R-3 zone, and would be required ;
I
1
I
I ;;:;;:
I ;:;i::
I :I*;:; l@*l;l
I
I 1841 I I . 8:
I
I I. I 1 The public hearing was closed at 8.:38 P. M. 4
t I I I Points discussed were that the Commission cuuld i : deny the variance and let the State take the I *
!.*property, or grant the variance; not grant the : ; variance and suggest the property owner come back! : with a request for an R-1 Zone; that the lot is : i not suitable for R-3; that the variance be grantea : with the condition that it be used for R-1 ; that ; i if the neighbor buys the remaining property they : would not need a variance; that the Commiss'ion i i should not penalfze the property owner for what ; '. ; the State is creating. I I
I I
I 1 I
I I
I I I
I 1 I
1 1 8 I I I I
I 4 I t I
I I
I I I * I I
* I
I
I 1 I
I
I I I I I I
-\ , ' . '\ '\, .*\ ', I
' ', '\ '\ '\ ', I
I I ', " ',, ', '' '\
c -5- - "
,- I i Ra '*' '.?I, '\ '+. I
a I i of t4;q ' 'P&, I I I ':e/&. >+$& : ~""""-"""""""""."""""-""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""~"~" ; Member ~fo'Q'.pf-y2 I
I /i, ii:: SI
I . $7. '
: The Planning Director pointed out that all of the! i;8':! ! lots on that curve are problem lots, however, i this lot is better than any of them down there. i ii ;::: 1 I ; In a public street you are not required to park : ,J::: : only in front of your own property. b :;::;:
! MR. BRIGGS asked the Planning Commission to hold i i the hearing open and have Mr. Hatchman bring in a: : precise plan. I :::;;;
! In answer to the suggestion that the variance'be : i granted for an R-1 use, the City Attorney advised! ' ;i:::; ; the Commission this could not be done, and if the: ' i State sells the property they could sell to any- ; one that wants to buy it, and the neighbor, Mr. Mt- d::i; I Donald would be the most likely buyer. I I /;i!;:
: Mr. Thornton stated that with the realignment of i I:#@
j Jefferson Street this street may not be vacated, : p4;: I#;';;
: and'sees no problems as far as the Engineering i 1:::;; i Department is concerned. The new centerline of : ::;:;: : Jefferson St. will be approximately 115 feet fromj ;;;;;I i this property. I lleI'; I ;::;:'
a I"I::
: granting 'the variance as requested for the follow! ;:I:;; ;::;;; i ing reasons: I 4::;; ; 1. That the granting of such variance will not bC! i!;;:! : materially detrimental to the public welfare or i I injurious to the surrounding properties in the ; :;;:;: :::i:; : area. I :;'I;: j 2. That the granting of such variance will not i i;::::
: adyersely affect the comprehensive General Plan. :!;;#I
::;:
I ;*I 1::::: I' i Planning Commission Resolution No. 512. A RESOLU-!Smith i : XXi : .i I TION GRANTING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY AT 2357 iMcComas ; i, F:&i I : JEFFERSON STREET, AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF ipalmateer I : :xi ; i
t ; 3E.FFERSON STREET AND INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY, was :!jutherland: i !xi ; : @I : adopted by title only and further reading waived.:Little i xi ;xi ; #I I
I i Jose I ; ;XI ; :
b :Voorheis ; ; :x: ; :
I I a;:;:
1 I i ;.I ; :
11 ab;:
I I :::*,;
i / : i-:
,I::;:
I
I I
I
I 1 :::I 41,;:: ::::ii :;::;:
* I :I::;;
;:I@ ;::::i
;s:':t
;:I::: ;L;:! :I
I ,i!:'v I1
@I1
'88
I
I
I 1-
I I I
11.' I I
11
I I
I
,- i A motion-was made to adopt Resolution No. 512 b b ;::;;;
*'I,
b
/-
I
I
OLD BUSINESS:
(a) Required Improvements - r'e: Lot Splits and ! ;:4;1 ;:jj;i t Zone Changes - Committee Report. Commissioner i McComas reported that he and Commissioner Smith :
! were on a committee studying this matter and had j - ;:I;;: two meetings with the staff and met with the 8. I. 0;:;: ; Board of Realtors and the staff. There are mixed; ::I 1;;jii i feelings on this matter.
i Mr. Thornton explained that these changes would ; 'I ;I::;:
1;::;; : come under the regular subdivision procedure and : ; under the tentative map procedure the zone change! . i i ;.; i i
:*:;I;
would not take effect until all of the require- ; ;-: ; ; ; I
ments of a parcel3 map,tentative map or subdivisiob 4:;:: i map are met. I I:;;:, ;::;:!
i Points discussed were that'more and more cities ; I :;:;;;
: are doing this; that it has to conform to all of : 1::::: I the bonding procedures; that it would be a uni- ; I j;:;:; 11
; form procedure .to follow; that it would create : -;@I 1;
-I:;:;, i only minor problems for small property owners who: @'@:;: ; have to put in improvements; the objection to the: ::;
:;I. :;: i word subdivider being the crux of the reason some! :;:;:: I*
: were opposed to this. I I ;::::; ;I:;';.
.I I I ;:;I;I
I I ,##;I; I '*#;I I I I ;:::I;
I *:;l:l
I ::::::
I
I
I I * I I i;:;ij
I
I I- I b1@IO
.I I1
I I
I I 8
I
4
I
I
I -8 ', 8, * \ * \' I I 8 8' 8
\ \ \ 8, \\ '\ I
1) I 8
I 8 I '8, '8 '*\ ' 8s,8 '\8 y\, 8 I
r I I i. , N a me '\, '*$6, '.8 '?$>, i. ; of ~$*'G\ '\ ,$\
:"""""""-""""""""""""""""""""""""~."""""@""""""~""""","" ; Member *,~'{~.~~~~,o\, ;
I !::;I;
;::;:I
I i:::::
I e 1::~:;
I
I \?$:%-+ 7:,.f+ :
P -6- -
I-
I I$ !After further discussion 2 notion was made to
jadopt Resolution of Intention No. 62 to hold a I:'@;: :public hearing on these matters.
!Resolution of Intention No. 62. A RESOLUTION OF : Smith ;ipi: i INTENTION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DECLARING INTEN: McComas ;x! i 4 I i :TION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RECOM- : Palmateer: :x: >G ; : i MENDING TO CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS.TO ORDINANCE ! Sutherland ; I3 : ;
:NO. 9060, TO PROVIDE THAT LOT SPLITS, REZONING ; Little @ :; : ;A : I
!APPLICATIONS, PRECISE PLANS AND CONDITIONAL USE Jose ;;:;:I : PERMITS BE SUBJECT TO S-UBDIVISION PROCEDURES, was : Voorheis : i 4 i : : adopted by title only and further reading waived. , ('e,*'
-8 #:;I;:
,I 8 ::;I;l I (b) Street Opening Study. The Planning Director i ::::;I ;presented a Land .Use Study for Street Openings on; ::I:I; i property South of Chinquapin between the Railroad! ; ;A : i ;
:and Interstate 5 Freeway and questioned the Chair.: ::!:;: :;:::: ; man if the public hearing on the Allen property i 'l8;I; i was .continued and still before the Commission or ; :I:::;
: if it had been removed from the Agenda. I8;~:e
:The Chairman stated this matter had been removed : !!:;:I
I#;';; I from the Agenda, and the Geyer and Allen property! :;4;:
: owners were to get together with the Planning or i 'l:@Il
;:l;l@
Engineering Department to work out a street open-; !::;:I
@I:;#;
: ing for this area. I 1;;1::
; The Planning Director explained the land use of i .;:iI:: i the property in the area and the proposed align- ; #I8 I'
; ment of the street opening and questioned the Cit$ 1;::;:
:;l:I' i Attorney if the Planning Commission could inform-b :;::;:
; ally approve of this, and the City Attorney state4 'I::;;
:::;I; i the Commission could, give an informal approval of: ;I:':a : this proposed layout of the street opening. I I 1:;:;:
I ;;I:I@ I I I ; : ; :': : The Chairman asked that it be a matter of record : ;:p:; 8: i that the Geyers and Allens are aware of the pro- i ::i:i: : posed street opening. l :I::::
I I ii:;;; ! The Chairman, with the consent of the Commission,i . ,fit;:;
requested that the property owners in that area : - ::::i:
: be shown this proposed alignment and that a lettek . :!!:;: i::;;; 81 i be sent to the owners of the property in that areh : that may be affected.
1
I
I
It
I 0 'I
I 'I
I I I piiii
I II
P 81
I I I ;i:i;i e I
81
'I
a 1
e
88
I !:;;:I 1:: @I;
I ;::::i ;:;*:I
I l e I NEW BUSINESS: I 8 I ,@#;I: I I ;::;:*
Director reported that he and Mr. Johnston, the i. !:;:I, 8:
Assistant Planner, had spent about 5 hours with :. ;::';e
i Mr. Richard Reece who spoke to the San Diego :: I(( e ;:::I' : County Planning Congress on this matter. The I I ;,;I;:
: Irvine Ranch Development has 10 people on their I ;:;:;: i planning staff; an airport, industrial parks, a ; 1:::;:
!;I'@; : State University, planned unit developments, I ,.; I i ; ;
: center with sign control, and about 4 different i ::;;:e I freeways going through the Irvine Ranch Develop- ; :I8 :::;:I
: ment. The homes run from $20 to $80,000. The : 1:::::
freeway is next to some of the $70 and $80,000. ::;e;:
: homes. The industrial development has a setback : :;1:1:
I of 30 feet so the Commission could get the idea OF :;::i:
:;::I: : the landscaping. 8 -;#;8;s
I I :I:!::
I '18; 4 I I ii:;:;
I I * :;:I
1 I ;:181; I e I I $'I'I
I ::;:;e
I I 8 :;*:::
! (a) Irv-ine Ranch Development. The Planning I I * ,:;I;:
I
town houses, ocean property, regional shopping ::;;:i
'@#;I'
I
I I
l e
4 I I ::;ee; 4:;:
I I I I
I
I 1 i;!!;!, ". !
c
I
r
-7- I
I 1 I I :""""""""""""""""""-.
I I I I I I I I I I
'They have architectural c time they are also the de holding development. The he felt if the Commission get some ideas on what th the City. 'Mr. Reece offe ty with the Commission on I end, and the Commission c :and be back in the aftern
i It was agreed that most o
I be- able to go to the Irvi i July 21, 1967, and the P1 i he would write to Mr. Ree : for that day.
I I
I I ! ADJOURNMENT:
I
By proper motion the meet : 9:25 P. M.
I I
"""""_.
ontrol b vel opers Plannin
could s ey desir red to g any day ould lea oon.
f the Co ne Devel anning D ce to ma
I
I I I I I 8 I I :Respectfully submitted,
I
I DOROTHY d. OSBURN Recording Secretary .
ing was
."""*
ut at . It
g Dir ee th e to o ove ', exc ve in
mmi ss opmen irect ke ar
adjou
"""
the is ecto is t crea r th
ePt the
ion t on or s rang
rned
"""_.
same a lea r sta hey m te fo e pro the w morn
would Frid tated
ement
at