HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-25; Planning Commission; MinutesMeeting oft
Date of Meeting:
Time of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
MINUTES
PLANNit«; CXM4ISSI~
Apdl 25, 1984
7:00 P.M.
City Cbuncil Charmers
'nlE! meeting was called to ocder by Olairman Ratcotis at 7 :00
P.M.
KJLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Raltx>tis, O:::mnissioners Rawlins,
Schlehuber, Snith, Marcus and Lyttleton.
Absent: O:::mnissioner Farrow.
PI...ANNIN:i CXHHSSI~ PRX:EOORE:
Chairman lalbotis announced the Planning camri ssion
Procedure was being soown oo a transparency ard a.sited the
audience to spend a fe,,, minutes reading it.
PIBX.E OF ALLEX.Im:E was lead by Olairman Ralt>otis.
Staff Menbers Present:
Olarlee Gri.mn, Principal Plann~.:-
Bill Hofman, Principal Planner
Dave Hauser, Principal Civil Engineer
Walter Brown, Civil Engineer
Bx-officio Mentlers Present:
Michael Holzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager
Dan Hentsc'.:lke, Assistant City Attorney
POBLIC HF.ARD1i:
CU> BUSINESS:
1 • CT 84-2/CP-270 -LA CCSTA ronm: -AWr'CJVal of
documents.
Bill Hofman, Principal Planner, indicated to the cani.seion
that this it• was ~ioualy voted oo, but needed ""'re
findings to justify the density of the iroject 90 the
doc\a!nts are being returned for further justification.
Chairman ~is stated that this public heari ng was
conclooed and oo further teetillcny on this item would be
takal.
caaissioner s.ith felt the density is a little stroB3 in
this area and would like to aee a change in density oo this
project.
Since oo aw else wished to speak oo this item, the public
hearing was oonclooed.
'lbe Plaming ca-.issioo denied Reaolution No. 2265. Schlehubt!r X X
Snith X
Lyttletcn X
lbrbotis X
Marcus X
Rawlins X
MINUTES
April 25, 1984 Page 2
NJi1ri PUBLIC HEARifG<:i:
2. GP1/LU 84-3/ZC-304~CT 83-20/SDP 84-3 -A.LAND.ll. -Request
to al.low developnent o a mixJ-use residential (roject oo 47
acres located at the oorthwest and oouthwest oorners of Elm
Avenue and El Camino Real.
Bill Hofman, Principal Planner, gave the (resentatioo oo this
item as oontained in the staff report, using a transparency
of a location map showing the site of the project and wall
maps showing the ent ire (rOject. Mr. fbfman indicated that
this (rOjec• 00.'1sisted of four c:IR)lications: General Plan
Al'lerdnent oo 9 acres of land oorth of Elm Avenue, zone
Change, Site Developnent Plan for 195 unit apartment (rOject
and a Tentative Tract Map for a 73 single family subdivision,
south of El.111 Avenue. 1\s a point of background, Mr. fbfman
indicated that a general plan anendment and zone change were
previously denied oo this p:operty because the City Council
and Planning C<nnissioo felt approval of an .snendment was rot
llpEr()priate for this site without first reviewing the
developnent plan. Mr. fbfman indicated that staff was in
supp,rt of this (rOject because 1) the general plan
designation is consistent with the RMH designation
imDediately to the north of this site and Elm Avenue IIOUld
serve as a good boundary between the RIJol designation and RMH
designatioo; 2) the anendment w:>uld pt'OVide for a higher
density that would allow for developnent which would give the
applicant incentive to r:,ut Elm Avenue through to its
connection to the west which is a very illportant link to the
City's OYerall circulation system and feel this should be
taken into consideration. 'ltle 2Xlne change is consistent with
the RMB desi gnation and, therefore, reccmnending approval of
the 20ne change. Mr. fbfman indicated that staff believes
that the higher density of 19.7 du's/ac can be justified
because the project would be putting Elm Avenue through the
west and the density is axipatible with the existing
apartment (rOject that is located imnediately adjacent to the
north. '!be project's al-Site anenities which include a
centralized recreation area and a large aaount of open space
would _:ustify higher density for an apartment (rOject. An
apartment project "°'-Ild pt'OVide for nore rousing C4¥)rt.unies
for low and noderate ioc-ane families. Staff is reccmnending
for the single family developnent that a homeowners
a880Cation be established to maintain the ~n space area.
Qle major ooncern for the a...erall site was the aarount of
grading that 1o0Uld be involved. 'ltle site should be graded as
a "'1ole with ooe grading plan and reccmnending that a <r-
0\lerlay be placed on the B:>Uthern part of the p:operty, south
of Elm Avene and a.lded a oondition of appr:oval that would
require that ooe grading plan be sutmitted for the entire
project. Minor changes to the oonditions of approval which
were p111&sed out to the Planning Ccmnission are being
reocmnended for inclusion.
Q:mnissiooer Lyttleton inquired as to whether or not the <r-
0\lerlay was ooly on ooe portion of the property.
MINUTES
April 25, 19~4 Page 3
Ccmnissioner Lyttleton inquired as to whether or rot the Q-
Overlay was cnly en cne p:,rticn of the rroperty.
In answer to a question fran camdssioner Lyttleton, Bill
lk>flllan, Principal Planner, stated that if the Ccmnission
adopts staff's recarmendation it "°uld be en t:ott,
properties.
caanissioner Rawlins depicted a typographical error on
Resolution No. 2284, •ana cx:ird::minium permit•.
carmissioner Smith questioned as to whether or not a
haneowners association was g:,ing to be a condition and who
would be maintaining the slopes oo El Canino Real and if the
one exit and entrance was suitable for these apartments and
why isn't it possible to have a second entrance and exit
on Elm Avenue to relieve sane of this oongestion and if this
entrance was a gated entrance.
In answer to questions fran Ccmnissioner Sr.tl.th, Bill Hofman,
Principal Planner, indicated that, ~ conditioned, a
haneowners association ~ld neintain slopes for the single
family p:>rtion 1n1th of Elm Avenue and that the rroperty
owner ~d be responsible for slope maintenance for the
apartment project. In regards to the cne access p:,int, there
are two reasons for this: 1) topographically access is
difficult because it is a very steep slope to Elm Avenue and;
2) the driveway n-eets the intersections spacing standards.
Fran a safety p:>int of view, the Fire Department reviewed the
site plan and has expressed no ooncern oo this aspect. Mr.
Hofman indicated that the driveway was not to be gated, but
perhaps the Planning Ccmnissioo soou.ld ask the applicant.
Ccmnissioner Rawl ins, questioned atx>ut the nud flow oo Elm
Avenue and where it is located.
In answer to a question fran Ccmnissioner Rawlins, Bill
Hofman, Principal Planner, irdicated that the nud flow was
very extensive oo the site but did rot know the exact
location. Mr. tbfman indicated that the nud flow was
identified in the EIR and mitigation neasures are given in
the environnental inpact report and those mitigation neasures
are incorporated in the conditions of approval.
CllAirman lcabotis opened the ?,Jblic hearing and issued the
invitation to speak.
Stan Landess, l!R)licant, 2341 Jefferson Street, San Diego,
CA. In regards to the nud flow Mr. Landess, with the aid of
wall exhibit, depicted the exact location of the nud flow and
irdicated that the area in the blue line shows the
approximate extent of the nud flow after a second l'l)ils
testing was oone oo the site. He indicated that the nud flow
starts at the top of t..~ hill and indications soow that the
nu:! flow is as deep as 26 feet and in sane p:,int in time when
Elm Avenue goes though nust be cut out. Mr. Landess
indicated that they feel this is a very <J'.)Od project, lohich
will be 11n asset to the City of Carlsbad. Mr. Landess,
irdicated that they agree with staff's t-eccmnendation but
have concern about a few of the conditions in regards to the
clarity of the extent and flexibility. ()\ Resolution No.
2284, page 4, conditions 8, 9, 10. Page 9, condition no.
(j)
MINUTES
April 25, 1984 P~e 4
4 1 , oo not inierstand the need for the haneowners
aesociation. P~e 8, 35 a) it calls for 1/2 street
i.q,roveRlents oo El Camino Real. In the EIR, we were told
that we "°'1ld be required to aid a third lane to El Camino
Real in the center aoo inprove the nedian and nedian
landscaping. We inierstand the intent of the '-Ording of the
docunent, but feel it should be a little nore flexible in
that it ooesn't inply that we 110Uld be res(X)Mible for re-
building all of El Camino Real but rather change it to
eanething like •inprovements for that p:>rtion of El Camino
Real that fronts the EX'()ject to include a third lane in the
existing nedian, a median divider and laooscaping all
integrated into the existing inprovements to the satisfactioo
of the City Engineer. Condition no. 36 of Resolution No.
2284, page 8 refers to a minimal ccrrpletion of Elm Avenue to
the west of this site ~ior to l!lllY occupancy of the EX'()ject.
Mr. Landess indicated that they fully tnderstaoo and agree
with the need for Elm Avenue to be ccrrpleted, but their
project is currently asking for a density increase of 16.51
over the existing zoning and this will frail a traffic
standpoir.t affect about a 71 increase based oo
ertracpolations of the EIR. 'lbe traffic p:>rtion of the
certified EIR for this project was calculated at a nuch
greater density than this EX'()ject is currently being asked
for and in no place in the EIR was it stated that we would
specifically have to have Elm Avenue a:mpleted before the
project was ccrrpleted and occupied because it wasn't felt
that the traffic generation 1o10Uld rdversely i.npact to a great
degree than already exists. Mr. Laroess felt that the
corxUtion oould be nodified to allow occupancy subject to the
city's satisfaction. Also, the condition that is required is
only a 28 foot road bed of inprovements and therefore its
stating that Elm Avenue 1o10Uld not really be (if this
conditioo were net) would not be in for full traffic vollme
capabilities. Mr. Landess indicated that with the exception
of the aforementioned requested changes and cxmnents, they
support staff's rccamiendations, appreciate the oooperatioo
of cit y officials, staff, citizens, and request SUIJIX)rt of
the oonsideratioo of the requested changes and ~al of
the requested resolutions. For clarification pn:poses, Mr.
Landess indicated that there will not be a gated entrance to
the EX'()ject and also, Conditioo No. 35)c)ii) is to be
omitted frail Reeolutioo No. 2284.
camdssioner Smith had acme concern regarding the haneowners
asaociatioo in regards to maintaining the tipartnents in
f ront of the single family dwellings oo El Camino Real.
ca.issioner Schlehuber, g.Jestioned about Condition No. 35)a
regarding 1/2 street inprovements. He indicated that ~ime
arterial standards are clearly defined as to lltlat ~ime
arterials are.
Walter Brown, Civil Engineer, indicated that 1/2 street
~ts IIOUld include all of the inprovements necessary
to mite a street, specifically, sidewalks, curb, gutter,
draina:je facilities, street trees, all of the paving and
structural croes sections. In this fashion nothing is left
out and all the applicant has to suanit a OC11pleted 1/2
street with the ID!di an inprovements to meet city standards.
@
MINUTES
April 25, 1984 Page 5
Chainaan Rallbotis, questioned whether or oot the applicant
would cnly be adding a third lane, median, landscaping,
sidewalk, street lights, etc.
Due to cannission query in regards to the extension of Elm
Avenue and its CXl'll)letion the applicant responded:
Mr. Landess, applicant, indicated that they are to cooperate
with the city in all ways EX)SSible to insure that Elm Avenue
is cxnpleted as a fully inproved street all the way through
to Donna Drive and o:xne to a satisfactory agreement with the
city and through asssessment districts or whatever vehicles
there are, rut we are responsible fur all inprovenent cx,sts
of Elm Avenue oo this site. Mr. Landess further stated that
if required to cooperate with the city in getting Elm all the
way through, the EIR does rot state that this ~ject ha.s to
have Elm Avenue cxxrpleted in order fur it to be occupied.
Nick Banche, Attorney, 3464 Ridgecrest Drive, Carlsbad, CA.
indicated that he was in SlJPEX)rt of this project ooly if it
is oonditioned as recxJ'IIOOnded by staff. Mr. Banche nentioned
that the EIR is a very graphic CX>Ct111ent, it tells you about
the site oonstraints, sensitivities of the site and the
potential of the devastating affect on the neighborhood which
is rot his language. Bandle indicated he was JrOOO of Mr.
Landess fur requesting a Q-Overlay on the entire site because
there has to be enne oontrol oo ~at is d:me oo this site.
Olairman latx>tis opened up the p.iblic hearing for a response
fran the applicant, being none, the p.iblic hearing was
concluded.
Ccmnissioner Schlehuber, felt the staff report frcm staff was
a good report • As far as circulation, Mr. Schlehuber had oo
problem with this rut needed enne clarification fran staff in
regards to grading. Mr. Schlehuber strongly suwc>rted the
fact of having a taneowners association oo this ~ject.
Q:mnissioner Lyttleton, asked what was happening oo Rising
Glen.
waiter Brown, Project Engineer, responded that Rising Glen is
a anall llppendix jetting fran the ~ject, oonsidered to be a
connectioo when the adjacent subdivision wasp.it in. 'nle
treatment fur this anal! piece of land is to have curb and
gutter ruilt across the opening and a catch basin p.it in to
catch the water •
Olairman lbltlotis, questioned the applicant at this time,
with the ooncurrenoe of the CClllllission as to what they were
planing to oo with this piece of p:-operty.
Stan Landess, responded that this easement was initially an
eaaaent to get through Dr. ~ite's tnrse ranch. 'nlere have
been aeveral recanendations by staff, rut felt it should be
landscaped and curb p.lt in cc add it to a lot that backs up
to that and deed it to them. It is a oon-standard lot, rut
hav\. oo solutions for this lot at this t .i.me and rot frepared
to ai,awer lln'f questioos oo this subject.
Olairman lbltlotis, indicated he had oo p:-obleiw with the Elm
Avenue ext.enaion.
MINUTES
April 25, 1984 Page 6
Since rD ooe else wished to speak on this item, the poolic
hearing was ooncluded.
The Planning camdssion cnopted the following Resolutions:
RESCUJl'ICN 00. 2282, RECXM4EmIN:i APPIOJAL CF AN AfoE'UlolENl' 'ID
THE IN1> lEE l!'UJmNl' CF 'lHE CDERAI.. PI.AN ~ lf1, 4-10
DU'S/ACRE ID !Mi, 10-20 OO'S/ACRE CN NINE ACRF.S CF PRJPERIY
lOCATBD CN 'lHE tORlfflES'l' CDR>mR CF EL CAMIOO REAL AND 'lHE
nmJRE ALIQIBtll' CF ELM AVmJE.
RESOU1l'ICN 00. 2283, ~IN:i APPIOJAL CF A~ OIAN:iE
FlOI R-A-10,000 'ID RlM-Q CN NINE /ICRF.S I.OCATED CN 'lHE OOlffli-
WFSI' CXHmR CF EL CAMIOO REAL AND 'lHE FlmJRE ALIG?14ENI' CF ELM
AVFHJE ~ A ZCNE aw«;E f10il R-A-10,000 'ID R-A-10,000 (Q) ON
36 ACRES IOCATID CN 'lHE ~ CDRNER CF EL CAMIW REAL
AW THE PU'ruRE ALIGltlE'n' CF ELM AVmJE .
The Planning canni.ssion a:k>pted the following resol ution with
changes to Conditions 35)c( i, anitting Condition No.
35)c)ii) and changes to Condition No. 36.
RESOU1l'ICN 00. 2284, RE(DioMENDIN:i APPRJVAL CF A 75-I.Ol'
~IIENl'IAL &JB)IVISICN CN PR)pERl'Y GNERALLY I.OCATED CN 'lHE
NORlBEST AND S'.X1l'floES'l' CDRNER CF EL CAMIOO RF.AL AND FlmJRE
Eu. AVENUE.
Olanges to Resolution No. 2284 are as follows:
35)c)i) An enclosed storm drain fran the southerly
boundary of the iroject to the oortherly side
of Elm Avenue along the westerly side of El
Canino Real, or an alternative acceptable to
the City Engineer.
35(c)ii) OUT
36) Full street grading, 28 foot paved section, storm
drains and a(JPUrtenances thereto, full right~f-
Wll'f and slope easements to secondary arterial
standards for Elm Avenue fran it's existing
terminus east of Donna Drive to the westerly line
of the developent shall be tx>nded for (rior to
approval of the final map and installed at a time
as deemed necessary by the City Engineer,
however, the iq)rovements shall be installed
prior to occupancy of the 1 21 st Lili t.
RB&Un'ICN 00. 2285, APPIOIAL CF A SITE IEVElDPMENI' PU\N 'ID
WDtl ~ CF 195 APAR'IMBNI' lfi!TS CN NINE ACRES CN
PJO>BRl'Y CJ!NBRALLY ux:ATABD CN TBE N:lRfflWBST CDffiER CF EL
CMIOO !EAL Mil PUTURB ELM AVBtUE.
3. Zi¾w 84~49iM)/ZC-306 -LA cmTA DEL SUR -Request
to the r P an and La Costa Master Plan to change
densities and land use designations and a zone change in the
aouthwestern portion of the La C.osta Master Plan area.
Schlehuber X X
lartx)tis X
Rawlins X
Lyttletal X
Smith X
Marcu.5 X
MINUTES
0 iP A.
April 25, 1984 Page 7
~~~~ ~ :,,A :.A ··4b
COMMISSIONERS CJ,.~\_~
Charles Gri.Jlln, Principal Planner, gave the staff pc-esentation
on this item as oontained in the staff report, using a
transparency of a location map showing the site of the
project and wall maps showing the entire project.
Cllarles GriJnn stated to the camli.ssion that the applicant is
essentially requesting a realignment of general plan lines
and densities within the southwest La Costa area. 'ftle
southwest area is divided into a nunt>er of neighborhood inits
and the applicant's request llOU.ld alter these boundary lines.
'lbe realignnmt being pt:'OEX)6ed with the general plan, llOU.ld
provide a possibility of 616 potential additional inits
within this area. In <Xllt)aring the existing general plan
with the prop:>Sal, it is inp:>ssible to <Xllt)are it by a
neighborhood by neighborhood basis because the boundary lines
of the neighborhoods within the area have been totally
realigned. 'ftle RUt area still abutts rost of the existing
developaent. 'ftle existing master plan oontains a carmercial
site which is being dl:opped off the applicant's pt"OpOSal.
'ftle RM areas will be increased in size. Originally, the
applicant was pt"OpOSing 1700 potential additional inits and
in "°rking with the applicant staff was able to reduce the
potential additional lDlits to 616 and staff was still
concerned because an increase to 616 units was still an
increase. A problem arose in regards to oow oo ~
redistribute the densities with:>ut allowing this great an
increase in density. Staff feels this problem has been
resolved through the master plan by locking the applicant
into the same arount of tni ts as in the existing master plan.
'lbe master plan also alters the individual developnent
stamards for each neighborhood. 'ftle developer has two ways
in which to develop the pc-operty: 1) standard mning process,
or1 2) La Costa developaent rrocess, which essentially
requires a tentative map with a Q-Overaly and requires a
public hearing. Other changes to the master plan include a
change to the RI/ parking section, adding an additional 1 acre
lot to the SJ:GrE easement. 'ftlere are also a,anges to EilaSing
which allow aore flexibility in developaent. Other changes
include SI addition which ~ld include non-residential uses
with a oonditional use permit such as churches, schools and
certain nedical facilities. 'ftle school district section was
.ended to reflect a fairly recent general plan amendment
app:oyed by the City Chuncil. Aleo included in the
application is a change in southeast 17, across Rancho Santa
Fe Ibid, to change fran Travel Service to Residential MedilDll
Density and a mne change to the pc-operty above southwest 9
fran R-1 -7500 to Planned Camiunity so it can be incorporated
into the southwest 9 neighborhood and master plan and "°'-lld
be subject to the standards within the master plan.
Cmnissioner Smith questloned the difference in figures to
his calculations.
In answer to ca.issioner Smith's question, Olarles Grim,
referred the Caaission to page 3-9 of the exhibit (Table for
La Coata southwest) the total is 6 16 uni ts. 'lbe total
general plan area for the oouthwest is 481 units and the
muter plan locks that into 3 , 4 58 uni ts. 'ftlese figures are
actually written into the text.
MINUTES
PLIHUN;; CXMUSSI~ April 25, 1984 Page 8
Coamissioner lbltx>tis asked about the q:,en space cx:q>arison.
Charles Gri.Jnn stated that the q:,en space is cx:q>arable in
acreage and possibly nore because of the ~eement made with
the applicant that there be at least 40 feet en Mission
Estancia. ene of the reasons for this was because of
environmental reasons and another was to give Mission
Estancia a little better q:ienness fran a visibility
stampoint.
Ccnili.ssioner Schlehuber was concerned as to whether or rot
there is an assurance that a general plan cnendment can't
ccae back to amend the iraster plan to CX1Ver the increased
density.
Charles Grinm indkated that a master plan is easier to amend
than the general pl.m, but it 1o0Uld all depend on subsequent
Planning camdssion and Council's decision to control this.
'!be master plan l«>llld require ooth a public hearing at
Planning camdssion and City Council level before any changes
could be made. '!be general plan can cnly be amended a few
times during the year, whe,eas you can request a master plan
anendlllent at anytime.
ChaiI'IMJl Iort,otis q:,ened the public hearing and issued the
invitation to speak.
Jim Goff, ~esenting DarA'l Corporation (applicant), 1241 Elm
Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. Mr • Goff indicated that it was their
intent in regards to all of trose areas that abutt existing
single fmni.ly developnent that the new developnent shall
match in kind that of the t!Yi<:.ting developnent. Mr. Goff
indicated that 9Cllle of cdditicnal general plan density cx:mes
fran the deletion of the ooamercial areas, Wlich are renDITed
frau the ~ and µJt into other residential type areas.
caimissioner Schlehuber asked what type of demand for rousing
is needed as Mr. Goff perceives it to be and perhaps
changing the naster plan to meet this type of demand.
Jim Goff felt that lll.lch analler wits and DDre ITOdest
facilities 1«>Uld be feasible for today. Mr. Goff indicated
that at this time they were not recaimending a change in the
master plan. Mr. Goff further indicated that in sane areas
studies were not a:mpleted in depth in grading inplications.
Mr. Goff stated that they tried every conceivable technique
to lock in no density increases in thit1 plan.
Cnmdssiooer Schlehuber asked if the applicant 1o0Uld accept
general plan amendments to lower the density en sane of the
areas where certain densities are already in !I:> that not cnly
would we have the master plan, but have the general plan in
other areas.
caaiasioner lolbotis had ooncern about being locked into the
3,458 units and whether cc not the applicant was <ping to
sell these various parcels to different developers ~at was
going to happen when we cx:me to the end of this and 9 are
left OYer and have used ti> the 3,458, ~t happens next.
Mr. R:lllbotis felt very oonoerned about the last person ti> an
area of land and not having My density left.
MINUTES
April 25, 1984 Page 9
In response to Chairman Raltx>tis' question, Jin (:Off
iooicated that oone of us are <J)ing to be here to see this
happen. He iooicated staff recognizes that they have to keep
a count. It w:,uld be a very difficult thing in the final
analysis to reach 3,458 when all of it is developed because
the pattern of developing is about 75 to 801. Mr. Goff felt
this <pmtion etx>uld be referred to staff and see row they
will keep a track of this and aYOid such a situation 01Ter a
10-15 year wild-out period.
Chairman laltx>tis C4)elled the pmlic hearing and issued the
invitatioo to speak.
Steve Kissick, President of the Ponderosa Haneowners
Association, 7912 Las Nueces, carlsbad, CA. Mr. Kissick
briefly discussed the timing of the rotice of i:reparation and
negative declaration. Mr. Kissick~ SfOke oo behalf of the
Ponderosa Hcaeowners Association felt a fear for this change
to the general plan, specificaUi in regards to the EX)tential
increases in density. Mr. Kissick lllderstands the existing
nuai>er rut felt it will increase as developnent is troken up
in the maller neighborhoc:.:is ar-.d 9)0ll reach that EX)tential
maxinllln l'IUllt>er and towards the end be forced to increase it.
Recognize that D~ is taken a:xne care with staff to maintain
fairly consistent densities relative to adjacent areas in
Rancho Ponderosa and areas to the rorth. He was very
concerned about the increase densities in small local areas.
He was ooncerned about the increase density in the valley
will have a negative inpact with respect to our txnes and
property values. He felt the applicant has obviously spent
sane time in trying to mitigate these changes rut felt
unfortunate to take a FOSition in qip::i,sition against this
specific plan until is mre knowledgeable.
Bill Kruger, 7837 C).lebrada Circle, carlsbad, CA. Mr. Kruger
felt the EX0E)06ed 1/10th of an acre per dwelling mit is rot
considered oongruent with the neighborhood. 'lbere is a 40
foot euenert between our tones and the new developnent. He
felt that cbing lilllay with the 40 foot easement and retaining
the same density w:>Uld be better.
Chris O:>rtez, 2927 Segovia way, carlSbad, CA. Felt this is a
nice cnmamity and with the new plan it w:>Uld be a difficult
ooaunity to achieve. Felt strongly against the increase in
density.
Art DetoGky, Calima Wily, CArlsbad, CA. ~ he purchased
this property he was told by ruilders and developers that
nothing IIOUl.d be developed in the canyon because it is a
natural canyon, this was a large factor in p:operty
evaluation. Strongly~ the rezooing and developnent of
this green belt. It's trees and natural topography aoould be
preserved as ociginal.ly intended and the area, at nost, be
dedit".ated as a park site fur the benefit of the entire
oaiaJnity and the preservation of it's natural beauty.
Strongly opposed high density in this area.
Homeowner oo 2701 La Gran Via, carlsbad, CA. Spoke in
op(O&ition of this iroject. Going ahead with this plan will
force him to m:we.
MINUTES
April 25, 1984 Page 10
Sid Lupu, 7833 Q.Jebrada Circle, Carlsbad, CA. Concerned
about the Southwest 7 ar~a. Felt the oonsideration of the
green belt and 51 alteration in the density is an irrelevant
fact and relook at the total density that is bei~ (Xop:>sed.
Nould like it to be mandatory that the h:>usi~ be s~le
story that IIOUld certainly mitigate any inpact en the
surround~ area. 'lbere is a great deal of wildlife en the
site.
Evelynn Bitlifsen, 7731 Calina way, Carlsbad, CA. Mrs.
Bitlifsen stated that the ErCJPOSed EX"Oject w:>uld 5:lversely
affect the surrouncU~ properties. 'Itle developnent of tones
in the canyon \IDUld oot be CXJJpatible with the existi~ tales
in the adjacent area. 'lbe increase density of 3,458 hanes as
prq>OBed, will result in a terrific a:lditional traffic of
over 6,000 autan:>biles creati~ ooise and fl'l0CJ, etc.
Wildlife habitat and beautiful views will be destroyed and
most iqx)rtantly, ~ will pay for it all.
Dani Eastwood, 2721 La Gran Via, Carlsbad, CA. Concerned
about the canyon. HM a (XC)blem with her tone and has
worked with D~. Engineer for D~ told her that this
area is wstable and i.q,roperly sloped and there ..ould be
future (XObleins.
Judy lt:lntaque, 2708 La Duela, Carlsbad, CA. Indicated that
schools are overcrolded and sees very little bei~ oone for
the achool syst•. Be~ a funner Curator in Chicago, there
is quite a bit of evidence of indian remants en the site such
as old caap fires, hundreds and hundreds of shells that rould
have ooly gotten there t:7:r' indians. She felt this was an
iq>ortant factor oo this EX"Oject.
Paul Ehlke, Calina Way, Carlsbad, CA. Basically il;Jreed with
everybody elses' carments.
Steve Mal.tin, 2812 Soot>rosa Street, Carlsbad, CA. In regards
to parks, Mr. Martin in:Juired as to what (XO'lisioo will there
be to require parks similar to Ponderosa' s in the cdjacent
areas oo the 3 boundaries of Rancho Ponderosa.
In mswer to a questioo t:7:r' Mr. Martin, Charles Grinm
indicated that the EX)licy of the City in the Parks and
Recreation Element was that the city was goi~ to nove t!l,iay
fran the small parks and go with the cmmmity park ooncept.
It is possible that the city may require each individual
neighborhood to develop a:me type of cpen space or park
silllilar to Rancho Ponderosa and it loOU.ld be maintained t:7:r' the
haleclwners aesociatioo.
John Dill, 7808 Segovia, carlsbad, CA. Rad ooncern about SW
10. Mr. Dill indicated that he mved fran Encinitas to La
Ooeta for a better quality of life and if this plan cpes
through he w;:iuld oonsider novi~.
Charles Grinn stated that SW 10 indicates that the
devel()plll!nt should (XO'lide for attached and/or detached
s~le fllllily hous~ oo lots to a minim.a of 3,000 sq.ft, it
allowed for areas of significant gradi~, included q>er1
space linkages. 'lbere are (XO'lisions oo SW 9 and other areas
that abutt exist~ s~le fmnily residences to (XO'lide
COllplltibility rut are oot needed in this neighborhood because
a &lope separates it fran the neighbori~ street to the
north.
MINUTES
PLAlfiIN3 CXMUSSIOO April 25, 1984 Page 11
Bill Kennedy, 2729 La Gran Via, carlsbad, CA. Expressed
conaern in regards to the iroperty set aside for a school.
Mr. Salterniclc, 2745 La Gran Via, carlsbad, CA. Expressed
<:..'Olleern about the 1X)6Sible school site and felt the entire
area is very ll'lStable. Mr. Salterniclc made reference to the
geotechnical hazards.
Harry Grove, 7760 calina way, carlsbad, CA. Felt confused in
regards to the mning and if changed, wat oould be ruilt.
Mr. Gt.ove suggested cpen space for this area.
Phil Croteau, 3009 Q..tebrada Circle, Carlsbad, CA. Expressed
concern in regards to the mount of dwelling 1.r1its and
density pr:op:,eed for this ErQject.
Oscar Caine, 2742 La Gran Via, C&lsbad, ca. Concerned
about the l'll.llt>er 1110unt of ll'lits and densities being
pt'OIX)Sed.
Jonell Butler, 2404 La Plancha Lane, carlsbad, CA. Concerned
about dr~lnage in the middle of the canyon because she was
told that this was a very bad area for ruilding.
Jenneaoe Croteau, 3009 Q.>ebrada Circle, carlsbad, CA. She
dis~eed about the marketing of 0-4 du/acres rot being there
for those tnnes and sp:>ke in ~ition of lower incane
housing and high density in this area.
Resp;,nse
Jim Goff felt that in the SW 7 area the existing greenbelt
sepill'ation '-0Uld be adequate separation frcxn those
residential 1.r1its abutting it. If this is rot sufficient
maybe the area should be left like it is -it is in the RIJot
area. 'lbe rud:>er of 1.r1its lnder the RIJol are not that nuch
greater ally 5 units per acre. With respect to the little
projection were attenpting to re7.0ne it. We can leave it at
the R-1-7500, the problem is that it cannot be designed and
developed as easily as "1en it is lnder the P-C 2'DOe and part
of the lllllSter plan. Leaving it in the iresent 2XXling is not
a major issue. As far as q,en space alignment, there is a
very large, habitat area we have attenpted to incorporate
into the open apace. In regards to Etiasing, we w:>Uld
anticipate the developer starting frcxn Rancho Santa Fe ~
at the intersection of Mission Estancia and noving westward.
Areas of the a:>st ooncern will be the latter part of
developaent ""111aybe 10 years.
Since no ooe else wished to speak on this matter the public
teetialny was concluded.
cn.aissioner Lyttleton asked if any neighborhood neetings
took place before this meeting.
Ccaaisaioner 51111th felt the main ooncern was the increase in
dwelling 1.11itt1 and 1.r1til the camrlssion has a chance to
review this he felt he oould oot approve this tonight.
®
MINUTES
April 25, 1984 Page 12
cataissioner Schlehuber felt he could oot SUWort this
project at its pr-esent state.
canaissioner Marcus had oonoern regardio;i i.lle noni torio;i of
this project.
Chairman ~is expressed concern oo nonitorio;i of this
p:oject, area SW 7. 'lbere seems to be alot of concern :::rl the
~ of this project. It is very difficult to
umerstand this project with such a short period of time.
o::..nissioner Rawlins felt the figures discussed were oot
ccapatible to those he saw and llltil these figures are
determined accurately felt this project oould oot be
approved.
Jim Goff suggested neetio;i with the citizens and brio;i all
the necessary material available. A continuation of this
matter to the next general plan neeting would be suitable.
Ccmnissioner Marcus made a notion to oontinue this item to
the next scheduled general plan neetio;i which will either be
in June or Nc:Nent>er and that this item be renotked again.
4. GP1/UJ 84-2 -(IQ.KE S'mEE'l' -Request to aneoo the
General Plan fraii RU4, Residential Low Medillll (0-4 du/ac) to
RH Residential High Density (20-30 du/ac) for four i:roperties
located 3460, 3470, 3476 and 3480 111:lnroe Street in the R-3
za'le.
£.ill Hofman, Principal Planner., gave the i:resentation oo
this item as oontained in the staff report, using a
transparency of a locatioo 11111P soowing the site of the
project.
Mr. Hofman stated that it is the applicant's intent to
convert these mi ts into oondalli.nil.lllB. Staff cannot support
this requeet because: 1) the EXOl)erty is surrounded oo three
sides ~ p:-operty that is designated as l.ow-1nediln density oo
the general planr a spot of high density l«>Uld resu.lt in an
incxapatible land user 2) A{¥olral of this alllel'dnent oould
advereely affect mjacent EXOl)ertyr and 3) Also, this
-r~t 1110Uld open the ooor for other siruilar requests in
this area and staff believes it is oot appropr:-iate to set
auch a irecedence in this area. Staff believes the existing
R-3 aone is oot oonsistent with the general plan designation
of MM. Staff is reo,. __ ,-,ir¥J adoption of a Resolutioo of
Intentioo to resone this p:operty and the other R-3
properties to the north , frail R-3 to R-1 •
Olairman lollbotis opened the ?,t>lic heario;i and issued the
invitatioo to ~ak.
Marcus X X
Ibtilotis X
Schlehuber X
Smith X
Lyttletcn X
Rawlins X
@
MINUTES
1! 11.:
Apdl 25, 1984 Page 13 0~ ~~ ~
COMMISSIONERS q,_ ~\\. ~\
Charles Novak, applicant, 29421 Cbral One Drive, Agoura,
CAlifornia. Mr. !tlvak indicated if the Qmnission wished to
see this area revitalized. Mr. !tlvak indicated to the
camdssion that there is oo intention of creatiB] additional
units oo the property and if the general plan amendment
allows to have additiooal ll'lits is there an alternate
procedure 11ihich "°'11.d restrict additional units via
conditiooal use permit ~ss and is a general plan
aendlent r.eeded to effectuate a subdivision ~al oo the
property.
Dan Hentschke, Assistant City Attorney, explained to the
camdssion that a general plan amendment is needed to
effecutuate the dlange and concurred with staff's
recc.maendation.
Allen Rios, applicant, felt that the staff report . reflects
camaents that are oot really oovering the scope of the
project that they are planni.BJ to develop oo the J:rQject.
Felt the Qmnission should give them an opportunity to cxme
back and file concurrently a tentative map so that they have
sane sort of structure 1lihen considering their application
for a general plan amendment as 1o-all as a tentative map.
William Crowell, President of Pacifica Flowers and owner of
the 6.6 acres adjoining the subject property. Mr. Crowell
spoke in favor of this J:rQject because he felt this 110Uld be
an inprovement to the property.
Ray Brookhart, 3475 Anne Drive, Carlsbad, CA. Expressed
oppo6itioo in regards to dlanging the density level of the
property and encouraged the camdssion to accept the staff
report of denial.
Paul Sandford, 2021 Gayle way, Carlsbad, CA. Had ooncern in
regards to all the traffic oo flt:>nroe and approving this
project "°'11.d result in l!l'l increase in ;-raffic. Mr.
Sandford aleo spoke in ~ition of increased density in
this area.
Sara Todd, 3365 IDlna Drive, <:arlsbad, CA. Spoke about the
congestion oo Mooroe Street and was in agreement with
staff's recaanendatioo and requested that the east side of
Monroe between Basswood and Chestnut be limited to parking
at oertain hours for oongestion purposes.
Norm Hagen, 3445 Anne Drive, <:arlsbad, ca. Mr. Hagen felt
the location mp did rue. clearly identify the J:rQject and
felt that there is a real traffic i;xoblem in this area.
David Penraan, 2061 Janis WIiy, car lsbad, CA. Was in
oppoeitioo of increasing the density and felt traffic oo
Monroe is a real i;xoblem.
Henry Swrisky, 3400 Sea <xast, Carlsbad, CA. ~ ancern
in regards to the higher density and euworts staff's
reocanendatioo. Mr. Swrisky oaaended the ec..ission on
many of the actioos taken by them.
Har:old Dennis, Laurie Circle, <:arlsbad, CA. Spoke in
oppoeitioo of the high density and traffic and felt the crime
i n his neighbomood has increased since the apartments were
put in.
@
MINUTES
PI..ARm«. <DIUSSI~ April 25, 1984 Page 14
Responae:
Charles Novak, in response, indicated that parking was g:>ing
fran 16 current parking spaces to 39 parking spaces by
rel!Ddeling the back area. Mr. !bVak did oot tnderstand h'.JW
there can be an increase in traffic when there is oo change
to the occupancy of the t::uilding and felt they were rot
penalizing the neighborhood by I.P.Jl"ading th':! neighborhood.
Mr. !bVak asked the o:nnission to direct staff to help them
find the appcoptiate approach to file a subdivision map cn
this ~rty.
ec.dssiooer Schlehuber questioned why there has been a oo
nothing mintenance approach oo this ~rty for a couple of
years.
Mr. lb.Tak stated there is a new owner. Mr. !bVak indicated
that they were not asking for an increase in density, change
the aaount of residents living there, increase occupancy t::ut
or..ly asking for the owner of this rcoperty to make the
investment necessary.
Since no ale else wished u:, speak cn this item, p..iblic
testiJlaly was ooncluded.
A aodoo was mde by the Planning Catmission to approve the
Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager
and aoopt Resolution No. 2286, re<Xlffllel'lding denial ~
follows:
RBSOU11'I~ 00. 2286, IDYIN:; AN~ 'ID 'l1fE ~ l5E
lffi!MBi#r ct mE CENERAL PIAN PKJll RFSIDEm'IAL UM-MEDIOil, 0-4
DO/AC 'ID Rr.SIIBfl'IAL HIGH lDSI'lY 20-30 00/AC ~ PHJPERrt
Gl!NBRALLY IOCAT'3D Nr 3460, 3470, 3476 AW 3480 1'1HOE
S'l'REE'l'.
A IIDtion was aade by the Planning camrl.ssion to approve
Planning ca.aission Resolution of Intention No. 170 as
follawa1
l'LMIII)I; <XIIUSSI~ RB&UJ'l'I~ OF INl'ENl'I~ 00. 170 -A
lilldbriai cf fflB PIANNOO a:iiuSSI~ ct THE CI'IY CF CARLSBAD
DBCLAIUll. ITS Dffl!N'l'I~ 'ID CXH;IDER AN AMElOtENl' CF TITLE 21
OP '1'IIB CARLS8N) tlJNICIPAL CIDE.
5. BIR ~GP1/W 83-l'J'ZC-278 -C.ARLSIW> LA!I> I~ -._...t ~( 1) C.rtlflcatlon of an Bnvira'lllental Iq>act
Rlport, (2) a general plS\ -dllle.nt to allow increased acr..-of. RUI lMd uaee and to allow ~rcial land lJ888,
and (3) a preaNlUaticnal BJne char¥Je to R-1-10 and C-2
acnea. 'lbe p:aperty ia located oo 85 acres, south of Palanar
Airport Road, and eut of Laurel
OMlrlN Gria, Principal Planner, gave the presentation cn
t.hi• ia. • a:intained in the l!ltaf f report, '8ing a
tr~icy of. a locetioo 1111P ahowing the site of the
project and wall 111p9 ahowing the entire project.
Rawlins
Marcus
Lyttletcn
Smith
Rcrrbotis
Schlehuber
Schlehuber
Marcus
Rawlins
Lyttletcn
Smith
Iottx,tis
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
MINUTES
April 25, 1984 Page 15
1! ~ o~~~~
COMMISSIONERS q,. ~\'ft_ ~\
Olarles Grim indicated that the major issues identified in
the environmental iJlpact report are traffic, land use and
noise fran the airport. Mr. Gri!IIII indicated that the
4R)licant is JrOPOSing that RL area be changed to RIJ! and the
6 acre cnnercial site be located towards the rorth end of
the EXOl)erty. Staff is r.,oa1111e.-idiD;1 denial of this EZ"Oject.
because this area is designated residential low density and
designated this way because of its EZ"OXimi ty to the airport
and airport roise. Staff feels this was desi~--nated this way
for tnmd reasons. 'ftlis is oot a g:x>d site for other uses
other than residential and mdiD;1 a <Xmnercial site will
increase traffic. Staff feels a o:mnercial site is rot a
good ooe for this are..i... Staff has discussed various
alternatives with the dR)licant in lohat they can oo with the
existiD;1 density.
O:nnissiooer Smith asked if the roise iq:>act report also
include the helicopters frcm Hughes.
Owlrles GriJnn introduced Detra Cbllins frcm ~.
Debra Cbllins stated that the existing ooise oontours for the
airport did rot specifically include noise frcm the Hughes
Belioopti!r Test Fli¢lt Operatioos rut in the EIR it
references the existing CNEL contours. 'ftler~ will be oo
significa.'lt roise inpact.s to residential developnent,
hcM!ver, since the helicopters M!re rot oonsidered. If a new
analysis were oone to incudc the helicopter it is p:,esible,
baaed a, ldopt.ive ooise standards that there '°1ld be a
signfiicant roise inpact and recannend that a 110re detailed
analysis be oone llltlel'\ detailed developm?nt plans are
prepared.
Omlissioner Schlehuber asked if there WIS IJCIY p:oblem with
the EIR if the helicopters have oot been oonsidered -would
this be at adequate EIR because of the ooise factorn.
In response to o:.dssioner Schlehuber' s questia,, Debra.
Collins responded that this '°-lld oot be a ErOt>lem. ~re
detailed SWllyais I01ld be required at such timr.. ~
dfielqaent plans are autaitted.
Cllairaan Rollbotis q:,ened the publlc heariD;1 and issued the
invitatioo to speak.
John lilatra, F.O lbx 4342 8ml Clemente, carlsbad, CA. Mr.
lllatra diatribute1 i-cuts to the canission lohic:h included
atclitional a111■ for their review. Be felt the EIR is
adequate and deecribee everything oo the site. Mr. Zilb1:ra
felt that thia plan can aet all of the lllitigation
requinants of the mviraaental bpact report. Be felt
that the .-itire area ehould be one a:ine because it is an
imlated area and a great opportunity to oo a mater plan for
thia ....
Dan Agatep, <l:xwultant, 2956 lt>oeevelt, C.-labad, CA.
Mlk•Hi! the flour iuuee aa ootlined in the staff report l7j
ataff.
llr. tep indl011ted that the teae0n they are reque&tiD;1 a
porUcn ~ thla aite to be ~rcial la because of. the roise
illpecu tbat oo •l•t on the site. Al.ao, the line .tllch
MINUTES
PL~UL CXJIIUSSI~ April 25, 1984 Page 16
separates RIJt to RL is a line drawn in his c:pinioo to reflect
the difference between a flat plateau area oo the site. Mr.
Agatep felt that retaining the 0-4 du/ac oo the southern half
of the property is consistent with the city's objectives.
Mr. 1-;Jatep explained the reasoning for the oon-residential
designatioo for the area oo the northerly portioo of the
site. Be indicated that the decibal range created by Palanar
Airport lG!ld and Lalrel Tree Lane/Cannon (to be), 65 IE
count.our is generated by traffic noise fran road surfaces.
'lbe airport 65 IE contour (as outlined oo the graphic as the
dotted line) on the left. If the 65 IE contour is super-
illp)88d oo the graphic it "°'11.d nove the airport noise inpact
area t.o the right. 'lbe mre i.trp>rtant is the airport iJrpact.
zones. 'lbese areas are lolhere a higher incidence of EX)tential
crash, if there were to be a crash. Additiooally, Hughes
uses this particular portioo of the plateau. Felt it is hard
to a.t1prehend that lower density residential i;rojects srould
be developed in cS1 area subjected to noise in this case, when
it is dcl!rf adjacent to a freewl!rj where there is high traffic,
higher ooise decibal ratings that we allow 9, 10, , 5, 20
du's/ac abutting that ooise generator.
ChaitllWl Aalbotis opened the public hearing and issued the
invitatioo to speak.
Jaies 0:>urtney, President of Palanar Flyers, 4914 Avila,
carlsbad, CA. Mr. O:lurtney expressed ooncern as to whether
or not the Co!iJaissioo is going to grant :zoning changes
l>ea1use this area is already 2lOned residential an:1 if there
are any tract maps at all llpP['OYed for 2Dning oo this area
why can't we change the J;Olicy and include in those approvals
into the CQ.R' s of the i;roject so when people cane in to wy
a bane in these tracts that when they sign these <X>C\.a!nts
they are fully aware that they are next to a railroad tract,
airport, etc. Installing such a syste,a into the cc,R's of a
project "°'11.d eleviate ~ ooise caiplaints oown the road.
JbJer C.arlam, Plant Manager for Hughes Helicopters, 3101
Baddica ~. carlsbad, CA. lbt qlp)6ed to usage of lam in
the EXOl)et armer O[' take a,ay l!lffJ rights of the property
owner but, --llhould CXJI\Sider the people that use the
~ above the EXOl)erty in questioo. 'lbe property in
quealioo is directly beneath the flight paths of our
prnduction flight teat helicopters.
Richard Lee, Pilot, 2773 Glasgow Dr., car} .!bad, CA. Felt the
BIR, • it relates to ooise needs to be n.,1ised. Did not
object to the changee to the aoning, but felt that a11erya1e
ahoul.d be ••e of the fact that any increase in denslty will
decrMN dafety for the people that live below the airport,
will incn•• ooiM, ooiee aaplaints and (r()blw to the
city. Pelt it ftry hard to \Rierstand how people can wild
lllamd airports without telling the future owners of the
ill>act• of ooiee m their t.:aee. Sanething in the CC6.R's
llhould be incl~ to ake tbs •are of these IXOblem.
Willi• Bart, ~ident of Palc:aar Pilots Aaaociatioo,
Cllrl■Nd. Bxplai.nel! a mart he presenttd to the ea.rJ ssioo.
Pelt tnilt noiN, ■afety a liability to be incurred tr.?' the
det.-.lcpar a City wre aae of the iaporta.,t factors of
th1■ p:q,wty.
aa..iuioner Rafline Mk.-! how any craahea hllve occurred oo
th.la p:operty.
111111• Bart wapu1ded ~t cra■hea are not pined <blr\ to a
pa:ticular airport a therefon hard to derive this data.
MINUTES
April 25, 1984 Page 17
Harry Peers, La Costa, carlsbad, CA. Felt the airport
should be expanded analler.
Response
Don .~atep indicated that they "'°'-lld be willing to put any
of the restrict.i<X'IB mentioned earlier in the CC&Rs am also
be willing to assess am create avigation easements for this
purpose if this lllere to occur. urged to view their request
and recaw,..i approval.
Since no a,e else wished to speak oo this matter the public
testi.mny was ooncluded.
ec.aission query took place in regards to all the major
concerns discussed by the plblic.
Don Agatep felt other land uses oould be looked at and
expressed a willin:Jness to work with staff.
A IIDtioo was mde by the Planning cannission certifying EIR
83-9, Resolution No. 2279 as follows:
PI.AltiIKi CXMUSSI~ RESCLl11'I~ 00. 2279 -RE(XMIEN}D(;
Ci&ri.r1cRri<i4 CF tlJiiiiiiiiJffAL IMPACT ~, EIR 83-8, FOR
A PRlJBCT GENERALLY IlC[,{l)D(;: 1) A GmERAI. PLAN AMEHMNr
P10I R. (0-1.5 00/AC) ro RU4 (0-4 W/AC) AW C (GENERAL
CXMIERCIAL, AN:) 2) Clwa CF ~ PK». Fr-1-A (CO.) ro R-1-
10,000 All> C-2 CN 85 1CRES LOCATED 9:X1l'H CF P~ AIRPORI'
ROM> All>~ CF LMJm, TREE LANE.
A m:>tion vas llllllde by the Planning Ccmnission recamerxUng
denial of Resolution Nos. 2280 and 2281 as follows:
PLARmli CXJIUSSI~ RBSOUJl'I~ 00. 2280 -IENIAL CF AN
»lblJilNiii 'ID fflB WE tliB EL0ENr CF 'DIE GmERAL Pl.AN
P10I R. ( 0-1 .5 IX.I/AC) ro RU4 ( 0-4 IX.I/AC) AW C (GENERAL
CXJNmCL\L) on 85 ~ CF J?IO>ERl'Y GEJmRALT,Y IOCATm s:uffl
OP PAUIIM AI~ RW> ~ ~ CF LAUREL 'ffiEE LANE.
PLAllmG CXIIUSSI~ lmSCU1l'I(ti 00. 2281 -[DUAL CF A 70m awdi fii:ii lt-1-A (CXUft'Y 21:R) TO R-1-10,000 All) C-2 ~ 85
MW Cl~ <JHmALLY IOCNl'BD s:x,m CF P™ AIRPCRl'
JOU:> All) r.AST CF IAUm. 'DmE LANE.
A IWIU~ a>tia1 IIU aade by the Planning ec..isaim to Mk
the City <blncil for a stuc!y of land uees in this area.
Marcus
Lyttletoo
Snith
Schlehuber
lcrrbotis
Rawlins
Marcus
Lyttletoo
Snith
Schlehli:>er
, • :irboti.s
Rawlins
Marcus
Lyttlet:cn
Smith
Schlehd>er
lbrbotis
Rawlins
@
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,
MINUTES
PINlffili <XMUSSI~ April 25, 1984 Page 18
APPRJVAL OF MDVmS:
'lbe Minutes of. the March 28, 1984, Meeting were c!l)P["oved as
preeented.
'lbe Minutes of. April 11, 1984, Meeting were ll(lP["OVed as
presetted.
~=
By IXOPet' notion, the meeting of April 25, 1984, was
adjourned at 11 :40 P.M.
Reepectfully sut:mitted,
MICliAEI. J. LLER
Land Use Planning M~er
Anita Race,
Acting Minutes Clerk
MBffilG3 ARE ALOO TAPED AND m>T ~ FILE UNl'IL 'fflE MI?Ul'ES
ARB M'PIOIID.
Smith
Marcus
Lyttletal
Sch.lehuber
Ratbotis
Rawlins
Lyttletal
Marcus
Smith
Sch.lehuber
lbrbotis
Rawlins
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X