HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-04-27; Planning Commission; Resolution 3959.
# .& a
1(/ RESCLIITION NO. 3QS
2
3
4
5
t? RESOLUTICN OF THE PLANKING CO!WLSSION OF THE CITY OF CAXLSBAB RECC"4ENDINC AI)(?PTLON C3F
PR,ECLSE PLAX FOR ELM P,VENUE FROM PI0 PIC0 iam TO EL CAMINC! mxr,
FBEREB,S the Planning Ccrmission of the City of Carlsbad
held a. public hearing on .April 27, 1965, which was continued
hearir,g to f\fjay 11, 1965 t to cmsider the recommendation of a
plan SOY E~E Avenue from ?io Pic0 Drive to El Camino Real; an
\WEREAS notice of said hearing was given as required by
!WEREAS all persons desiring to sgea.k QS to present evid
arding said precise plm were heard:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEI) by the Planning Conmission
City of Carlsbad 8.5 follcws:
I., That it does hereby reccmenc! to the Ci.ty Ccurncil of
City of Carlsbad that it adopt a precise plan for the
extension of ElF Avenue from Pi0 Pic0 Drive to El Car:
?.ea1 within the City of Carlslsad, as shown on that ct
20
21
pap entitled Elm Avenue'Extension Precise Plan Projec
Drawing #132-4A consisting of two sheets on 5ile in the office of the City Engineer of the Cit
22
23
of Carlsbad, which said rrzg is by this reference inc
parzted hereir;
24
City of Carlsbad that said. precise ~1z.n reconmended t 25
2, Tka.t it does herebv recomaend tc the City Council cf
26 I adogted. j.nclv.de 8 ?rovisicn that no lmd wit5in said
27
28 li~.!its from the edge thereof be allowed to be ililprove
precise planed right of wa.y OT tirithin the no~~al set
29
30 3, That it does find that the precise plan herein recom
pemanent structures ,
a1 32 I I a. As reccmmended by the City of Carlsbad En.ginscrinG
T)ena.rtmeZt, is detailed ztnd ~eets all requirement:
il - 1-
L 6 @
31 the 2evelc~~ent of a good TGXI system,
2
14
*I 5,
,
b. Ties in with the County lracter ~lan sf rozds tc t
esst of El Ca3ir.o D.eaZ.
cc Is the aost feasible of all rcutes consi6ered.
d, Conforns to the master pla.n of the city of Carlsk
6 4, Th'at suRrnaries of the hearings regaxding the kereir,
7 recommeaded yrecise pllarz are attached. keretc 2nd by t 7 91
reference incsr?orzted herein.
PASSED, A.PPP.ICl!ED AND ADOPTEE at a regular meeting of the
I 18 Czlrlsbad City Plamizq Co~missioa held QD the 11th da.y of !!4iiayl,
31 1965 by the following vote, to wit:
92
13
AYES: Commissioners Palmateer, 'McCarthy, Sutherlaod.,-LBml
NOES: Hone. McComas and Freistadt.
P,BSENT: None. (Conmiss
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Grant.
P,BSENT: None. (Conmiss
ABSTAINED: Commissioner Grant.
18 ATTEST: I/
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
1
2
I I
Ir -2-
t
9.
* e e I ', \.% 8'. I I I b :CITY GF CARLSBAD 8, '\ s, '\ '\ " ,. **
1 \\ N.,''. \ :Minutes of: PLANNING CCMMISSICK I 1 8 \, '8 '' ', '8 !Bate of Meeting: April 27, 1565 i Name \\ '.$ ' :Time of Meeting: 7: 30 F. M. : of '.$$& :Place of Meeting: Council Chambers : Member '& \$j '( ~""""""""""""""--"""--""""""""""~"""""""~~"""~"""~","
**
I I !BOLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Palmateer, I :McCarthy, Sutherland, Lamb, McComas and Freistadt. : iCommissioaer Grant was absent. Also present were * :City Attorney k5 ikon, City Engineer Vi ayne P, Lill, Assis; itant City Engineer Thornton, Planning Director Schoell i :and Building Inspector Gsburn. 4 I
iAPPRCVAL OF MINUTES:
: ( a) Minutes of the regular meeting of April 13, 1965, :McCarthy !were approved as submitted. iSutherland
I I
I * I * i
I I iPalmateer
I I :Lamb
t I jMcComas
1 :Freistadt ! I $&ITTEN CCMMUNICATIOMS:
I I
- I I I I I i (a) Council action on Planning matters was noted. : (b) San Diego County Planning Congress - re: Meeting i :May 7, 1965 at Zotel Del Coronado with panel discussion i :on Architectural Control. Seservations were made for : i the Commission to attend. I t was agreed that arrange- i jments should be made to see if tine Council men wished to : tattend. I (c) San Diego Planning Department - Letter addressed i ;to the Chairman of appr eciation for help in preparing re- i !port for Part 8 of Environmental Conservation. I I
i The Chairman asked that a letter be written thanking them i :for the 3 copies sent and ask for additional copies for the i ! Commission. I I
I I I
I 1
I I
1 I
s I
I I 1 CRAL CCMMUNICATI CNS:
I -
t i There were no oral communications.
i PUBLIC HEARINGS:
I I
I A
I 1 I I I I
I I a * t 1 I I i ( a) IiECLASSIFI CA n@N - 3- 3L to C-l ( Neigh'uorhood-: :Commercial) on property located on the Southwest corner I i of the intersection of Chestnut Ave. and Monroe St. :Applicants: Jay Lear, Inc.
:Notice of hearing was read. Acting Secretary McCarthy I i read the application and certified that notice of public i hearing had been published and sent to property owilers in i : the area.
i Eeght letters were read from the following objecting to thi4 I zone change because they felt it would cregte an attractive ; ;nuisance across from tie school; would be an intrusion of i i commercial enterprises in established area of homes and ; :schools; create traffic hazards; create added trash and i i waste disposal problems; this land use would be an unfor- ; ; tunate change in the direction of sound land use patterns; i i undesirable in a predominantly residential area; no need ; :for commercial zone in this area; referred to difficulty in!! i Gceanside with the students and the shopping center; would: :not be in the best interests of the City:
i 4/ 21 / 65 Gceanside-Carlsbad Union Sigh School District, i
I 150 So Horne St. , Cceanside. I i 4/22/65 Gordon J. Baker and Betty M. Baker
I 2035 Charleen Circle, Carisbad. I i 4/ 26/65 James M. Gaiser and Dorothy NL Gaiser
s 3784 Skyline 3d. , Carlsbad. I ; 4/26/65 Noel C. Gregory and Linora K. Gregory
I 2025 Karren Ln., Carlsbad. 1 i 4/26/65 Geraldine S. Beeman (Mrs. T. E'. Beernan)
I 3790 Skyline Zd., Carlsbad. a
i
I I I I I I I t I
I I
I I I I I
+ I
I I I I * ?
I I I I
1 I I l I
I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I
a
I
I I I 1 !
I 1 I I
I I I I L I a I I * I i 4 I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I :>
4 I t I I I I 4 I * I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t * I I 1 I I I
1 I I t I I I * I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I +
I 8 s I I I I I * I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I t I
I I I ( I
( 4 I I I I I ,
I I
,
.. Y
I I I m
I I : of q$%
I I
m; : '\ *\ '\\, -\". ',, '\\ \\,"
I I -2- ! Name \\,:$6.
I I '*, '8 ', '8 '8
I I ,\x' I \\ '\ \ '
:-"""""""""""""""""""""""--~"""""""""""""~""""""""~ : Member $' : 4/27/65 Mr. and Mrs. Jack Y. Kubota t !
I I
'T
I I I 3800 Skyline Lid., Carlshd. I
1 37'10 Skyline ad., Carlsbad. 1 I
I Booster Club. I
! 4/ 26/ 65 Richard C. Nutting and Dor0th.y I. Nutting
i 4/27/65 Harry L. Mrepps, President of Carlsbad Lancer i
i Chairman Sutherland announced the Commission would no4
i hear from the applicant or his representative and any I i others desiring to speak in favor of this request.
i Md. H. B. LE:AR, President of Jay Lear, Inc., presented! : a rendering of the proposed shopping center they planned i i to have on this property if rezoned, stating they felt they ; i would be serving the neighborhood needs and it would be i : architecturally designed so the neighborhood would be & t i proud of it. He repcrted that the irigh School students get i : in cars to go down town to get their lunches and this would: i be better for them than travelling in cars away from the : : school. He had no intent of over-ruling the ABC for liquo4.
I I I
8 I
I I I
I I I t a I I
I ! I *
I I I 8 I I I I I b 8 I I I I t 1 I I I I t I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I D l 1 I I I I 4 : No others present spoke in favor of this reclaskification. i 4 I I I I !
I t : The Chairman asked for those present desiring to speak i i in opposition to stand and a large majority of the crowd : : stood. 4
; The Chairman asked €or only those having additional ob- i I jections to speak, I I
i CAPTAIN DON MERRY of tha California Highway Patrol : : stated that he lives on Xarren Lane and has two children i i who will be attending the Sigh School and he felt this pro- ; : posed request would be contributing to juvenile delinquenc; i ies. He stated that he has worked with many juvenile de- i
i lin quency cases. I
I
I I I I
# I I I 1
I
$ I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I *
I 4 8 I t
I s t I Mi%. PETF.3 FOL2, 2055 Chestnut Ave. , stated that he i I i concurs with the letters submitted and felt it was not nece$- : sary to have C-1 zoning in this location.
! MAJOR XENiXY TUBES, 2335 Karren Lane, stated that he i i thought with the May Company shopping center coming into! : the city, it would take some time before this proposed : i shopping center at this location would be completely de- i : veloped.
1 The Planning Director read a report of his findings.
i The Chairman asked Mr. Lear if he would like to speak in! : rebuttal.
* I I I I I & 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I t I b I
I
I I t
I 4 I 8 I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
i
I
I I
t I I t
s ! Mi3. EEAi3 stated that it was hard to argue with statistics i i and he had been following the Master Plan. Be stated that: : he had contacted the Fost Office and they would be serving! I over BGW citizens in that area, and felt those expressing : : objections to this reclassification were very small amount: i of that number. He felt the school children would be under: : better control there. i3e had contacted different chains i I of establishments or organizations who felt this was a : ! good location. He stated that there might be more traffic i i there. I I
i The public hearing was closed at 8:01 P. M.
!
I 8 I I I I I I I
I I
I 1
I I
I i Mr. Lear was asked if he would want to operate one of the! : proposed businesses and Mr. L,ear ststed that he would ; i like to run the market and small bakery. I I
i There was discussion on having liquor near the school. I 8 I
I I I
I
I I I
I I I I
I I
I
I I
I
a.
I l * 0 e I I . '\, ,. ',\,, \.. .. \8' \'
4
I I t I
1 8, ..\ , '8, =, I
I I '8 8, '8 ',
I I -3- i Na me 8*,,'t&,
'\ , '8 8q
I I I : of '\?L't :""""""""""""-"""""""""""""""""-"""""""~"""~"""""- : Member $& ; After further discussion, a motion was Eade to adopt I I : Resolution No. 394 denying the application for a zone i change for the following reasons: : 1. There is no need in this area for more of the uses I i permitted in the proposed zone. I I 1 : 2. The location directly across the street from Carls- I i bad Sigh School and one block from Magnolia Elementary '! : School is less suitable for the purposes permitted in the : ! proposed zone. : 3. It would create an extreme traEfLic hazard €or the hu& i dreds of school children using the public thoroughfares. i
! The following resolution was presented:
i Planning Commission Resolution NO. 394. A. ~ESGLUTION: Palmateer I I DENYING APPLICATICN FCR CiUNGE CF ZGNE FAOM ; McCarthy i
i CORNEA OF THE INTERSECTICN OF CHESTNUT AW- : Lamb ; NUE AND MONLXE STREET, was adopted by title only i McComas i i and further reading waived. : Freistadt I1
i (b) ELM AVENUE PRECISZ PLAN - To consider adop-i t tion of a precise plan for the location of an extension of i i Elm Avenue easterly of its intersection with El Camino I I Seal between Vista Way and Chestnut Avenue within the : i City of Carlsbad.
I s I I
I I I I
t I I b I I I I
I
I I
I I I I I I I I t I I I I I 1 I I * I I I I I I
I
I
I Z-3L TC C-1 ON PitCPEaTY A.T THE SCUTBWEST I Sutherland ;
I 1
I I I I s I I I I I I I I I I
b I 1 I
I I
I i i Notice of hearing was read. Acting Secretary McCarthy i : certified that proper notice of the public hearing was give$ i and read the letter from the City Engineer dated April 13, i : 1965. I 1
I I I I : The Chairman asked the Zngineering Department to explaih i this route on the map and Lie period of time that they felt i I it would take to complete it. I I i Mr. Thornton explainec! this precise plan consisted of 1.32 : miles of roadway extending from the intersection of Pi0 i I Pic0 to El Camino Real. The Street would have an 84' : ; right of way with a 68' roadway with a 4' median strip. i I He explained that the Engineering Department has been :
I working on this project for over two years and coordinated: i the City Select Road System with the City of Vista and City: t of Oceanside and the County's plan.for roads and streets. I i Elm Avenue is designated as e major street (City of Carls;
I bad designation) on the Master Plan from the beach area i i to Melrose Avenue. Elm Avenue would extend east of E-l : : Camino Real to join a similar street from Vista providing ; i another access to Bceanside-Zarlsbad College. It is necet- : sary to get to a point where it is feasible to cross El Ca- ; : mino i%eal due to the topography east of El Ca-mino 3eal. ! ; Elm Avenue from Pi0 Bico to Zlmwood would require a ; i 2 foot dedication on each side for an 84 foot right of way. I : He explained that the red lines on the map were cuts and ; i the blue lines were fills. From E.lmwood to El Camino i : heal it would be necessary to acquire the full 84' right of ; i way. He explained that it was expedient to have this pre- i : cise plan and they are trying to build a street for heavy ; I traffic as Chestnut will..be taxed ccnsiderably in the future; : This route would require the purchase of a minimum I 1 I amount of buildings and would only have new intersections I i crossing this route at Monroe and at Donna Drive. The COG- ; struction of the Elm Avenue as a major street to be fi- I I i nanced by gas tax monies. They roughly estimate the cost: : for property acquisition to be $138, CCO. and the cost of i i &'ad constvuction costs including sidewalks and street : : lighting to'be $41"2,DGL?. Zowever, this cost codd be re- i I ducecl to $384, CGO. by futwe subdivided lands rccpiring : : 'acczss to Elm to providz full dedication. .% explained $ i that subdividers are required to improve tne street to me+ : ithe standards for local streets and provide for 40' of pav- ;
I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I !
1 I I s 8 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I s I s I a 4 s I I I s t L I t I I 1 I 8 1 I I I I I I I I f 1 I I I s 4 I s s * I t I I I I I I I I B I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I * I I I I I I I 1 I I * I ! i ing. 1 I I
!
1
I 1 I !
..
I * e e I '\\'\ 8.. \\\ I I .' . '\ '\, . , \ . ',
I I " ' \\ 8, '.
I ', '\ , 8 '
I ', '\ '\ '.,
I -4- ; Name '8 '*e,
',& \< I ; Member \$$ :""""""""""""""""""""-""",""""""""""""""""-""""""," : Mr. Thornton stated they plan to work from Pi0 Pic0 and i 1 may get to Valley by next year, He does not feel they i : have any great problems, They hope to eliminate as man$ I driveway accesses as possible. They plan to connect i i Canyon Street to Oak Street. Monroe will cross Elm Ihve.1 : and extend down to the future May Company shopping cen-{ I tzr. The Engineering Department estimates that it will i I take a maximum of 5 years to complete this route to El i i Camino Real and hope to have it completed within 3 1/ 2 ; ; years, subject to Gas Tax Budget review and projecting i i available monies into future years.
i Mr. Thornton explained the grading and fills that would be: : required and the topography of the land. He pointed out ; I L i that when the sewers are in,this area will start to develop! : and they will have a difficult time if this is not precise ; 8 I i planned as the cost for property acquisition will increase. i
f Commissioner Lamb inquired if they plan to precise plan : I I i Tamarack and Cannon L3,0ad in the future and Mr. Thornto$ i stated they plan to. I I I I
1 Acting Secretary McCarthy read a letter from Ernest Ad- i i ler regarding a precise plan for the extension of Elm Ave.: i with a proposed alternate route extending toward the fu- ; : ture May Company Shopping Center site.
i When questioned Mr. Thornton agreed this was the most i i direct route to the May Company but the City is attemptin$ : to establish east and west routes to coo'zxlinate with the i i roads in the County and needs of the City. 1
I I
I I
I
I
I'
I I ; of "."O.@
I I * f
I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
I 1 $ I I I I * * b I I
1 1
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 8 I * I I I I t
I I I I I I I
i I
I I
k I I I I I MS. EXNEST ADLE3 explained a new map that was pre- i : sented at thie hearing. i3e stated that he approved of the i i route up to a point at *Canyon Street where he felt this i ; route shoul'd extend northerly to El Camino Bal near the 1 i future May Company site. i Councilman David Dunne, 3015 Highland Drive pointed out!
! the structure where his home is located and stated that he i i would abstain from voting when this comes before the i : Council, but felt the needs for roads are well established ; i primarily for access from this community to the eastward: : section of town-and pointed out that the City had failed to : i put in an underpass on Chestnut. i?Ie stated that he prefer+ : the City Engineer's plan rather than the alternate route. ; i The Master Plan showed a straight line from Elm to E1 : Camino Real and would be impractical due to the topograp4y i and costs. The Gordon Whitnall Master Plan was only a i i schematic or general plan and the precise plan would be : : prepared by the City Engineer. This route meets all of i
i the requirements and is more attractive than a straight : i line road. A curved road cuts down high speed traffic. i : i3e pointed out that La Jolla and Laguna have few straight : i line streets. He recommended this route as a satisfactori : route and wauld be in the best interests of the City and is ; I a sound and practical route. He pointed out that some wilg I be hurt, including himself. I I
i Mi%. 0. D. SMITH, 1350 Gak Street inquired why he was : ; notified, and was informed that property owners are no- i I tified if their property is adjacent to this street. I I
i Ma. JCHM ECA.DER, 3021 Highland Drive concurred with i : Cmn. Dunne and was in favor of this route as the City is i i having growing pains. * *
! MA. TCNY HGWAAD- JONES, representing 13enry Mayers i : Investment Company, stated that their land was acquired i i for subdivision purposes and the City will have to act fast i I when the sewers are available. de felt the City should : ; have monies available €or acquiring property wnen Elm is i : precise planned. * I
I I I 1 I
I I
t I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
! I
I I I I * I I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I * I I I I 1 I I I * I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I * I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I t
I I I I I I k * 1 * I k & I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I !
.A
I I I I I
0
$
0 I' I 'x8 '*,.'8,
I 8' I *\ 8- 8,
1
I 8 I
I
I I
I""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-""""""-.
I -5- i Name '
I I Member
I : of
i M&S. MC NEIL stated that she was here at Mrs. Kathryn : ; McCally's request to inquire how this would affect her pro! ; perty at 2988 Valley Street. Mr. Thornton explained that ; i the road would pass through her property but her build- i i ings would not be affected.
i EARL THCMPSON, Attorney at Law, Oceanside, stated : : that they have no problem with the precise plan up to I i Canyon Street but they recommend an alternate at the end I : of Kamar's Falcon Hill. The route Mr. Adler proposes I \ can be driven on now with an automobile and explained : ; their proposed route and stated that it would cost less to i i acquire and less to maintain. It would not destroy adja- ; I cent property because of the cuts and fills. fie stated that: i the City's route would be extremely costly to acquire and I i maintain. Mr. Gerry Carlet has done the engineering on ; ; this alternate route and worked with Mr. Jerry Fisher, i : Planning Consultant, preparing a map which will follow ; i the natural topography. He stated that he would like to I
I turn this over to Mr. Fisher who has conferred with the ; i property owners in the area.
i The Chairman stated the City Engineers and the Pianning i : Director have not reviewed this map and the Planning Corn- ! mission are not Civil Engineers and it was difficult for th4 i Commission to pass judgement on this map. He asked per',-
; mission to have the City Engineers and the Planning Dir- : : ector meet and study this.
i Mr. Adler asked that if the Planning Commission has an i : opportunity that they go inspect on site with their EngineeGs i as the Commission would have more veracity on this.
i Mr. Thompson asked that a aranmittee be appointed to see : : it with Mr. Adler's Engineers and that this hearing be i i continued to the next meeting.
i Mr. Fisher stated tnat they have prepared a map espcci- ! : ally for the layman which was done on a simplified basis. ;
: JAWES 6AISEi3 inquired if there would be lighting provid-j i ed and Mr. Thornton stated that this would be' $art of the ih- : provements and that lighting and sidewalks would be pro- : i vided from the gas tax monies.
i MR. JCXN ANDERSGN, 298'7 Highland Drive, expressed i i objection to this route going through his property as he ; ; felt he would not have anything left after the house is re- : I moved. He stated that he felt the street was never supposk ; to go through there and felt that he was not wanted in Carl$- ! bad any more.
: The Chairman expressed regret that thie route was taking : ! part of this property.
: There was discussion on continuing the hearing.
: Mr. Adler stated that his plan goes almost to Vista Way. i
i The Planning Director pointed out on the Carlsbad Vicinit2 i Map that the problem which concerns the City is the pro- : : per location of a collector street running east .and west i : and connecting with the County's Select Road System, shout- : ed where Elm as proposed would met there requirements.!
; Mr. Thornton stated they have %lorke&wi-t;Z the Divi- i i 3@n of.. Higliw&ysman the CQrl.sbad Sekept -Road System and : : they would be able to expend the State Tax monies, for the: i extension of Elm Avenue. They have considered all route4 i in the last two years and have done extensive topo work ;
I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I
* 4 I I I
I I
a I I I I a
I I I I
t I 4 I I
1 8
I I I I I
I I
t I I I I I I 1 I *
I I I
I I 4
* 1
I
1 I I I
I I t I I I I I I ! I
..- , 8 8' 8 8'
,8'
', 8 '8
>8 '\ '\
\8 '*$& <*$$
$3
8 '\ 8v
',b 8< .""".
I I I I t I I I I 1 I I I 8 t I * I I I I I I I I I t
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I t I 8 I t I I I I I I I I 3 t I I I $ a I 1 I I I * t I 1 I I I I I
I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
I I t I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
* ..* L 1
I I I
0
I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 I I ', \\ \', ', t, \ '\ *' '\ '3
I 1 ., ', \\ '\ '\ ! ',, '*, '., 't, ' , ' '<
-6- i Name *-,'-%, ; of '43% ! Member .%' '\L \< )""~""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""~"""""""""""""". .- i and find this to be the most feasible for the City and for : : the dollars spent. Monroe Street is designated as a local i i street with a 60' right of way and a 40' roadway to Vista i
! Way. Be pointed out that the cost factor is up to thecoun-: I I i cil to consider, but .that the route is up to the Comrnissio4 i to consider. I : NIL%. JANDXI, 2801 El Camino Real stated that it seemed! i the City's proposed route would be taking property off of ; 1 1 : the tax roll and Mr. Adler's route would be going over i i spoiled land. He pointed out that going over spoiled land ; I I : will get you there as easy as going over good land.
I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I 4 6 I
4
I I I
I I I I I I
I
I
1 I
4 ! i MR. ADLEg stated that they can point out at the next mee#- i ing that their route does coincide with the County's plan : I for roads. I
I # t t I I I I I I !
I I I i The Chairman asked that a letter be written to the City i i Manager requesting his presence at the next meeting to : : discuss the precise plan of Elm Avenue and asked that a i i report be given from the Flanning Director. I
!
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I After discussion the Commission agreed to having this i ; hearing continued to the meeting on May 11, 1965,
I I I I I I !
I I I
: NEW- EUSINESS:
: There was discussion on unzoning property.
1- I I
!
I I I I I I I I I I
1 ; There was discussion on the preliminary report of the i i Master Plan.
i The Planning Director stated that a date had been set for i i the public hearing on the zoning in the County Southeast of; : Carlsbad.
I I I I I I
I I 4 I I 1 : OLD BUSINESS:
I -
i (a) Lake Calaveras. - There was no report.
t : ADJCUHNMENT:
I 4 I I I t 4 I I I I I I 1 I I I : By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9:43 P. M. i
I Respectfully sbumitted,
I I
I I I I I I I ! :: 4%24hQ,& r i DOROTH* M. SCUSA i decording Secretary
I I I I
I I I I I I I I !
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I * I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I 8 1 I 1 I 1 b I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 t I I
I I I I I 4 1 I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I t I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
I I 4 I I I I I I I t I I I I I 4 & I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 1 I I 1 I * I I I I 1 I I !
* I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
I t t * I I 1 I I I
I I 1 I I I I t I !
I *. 1 I '. I ' I I
I
# I I I ', '%,'8,, '\, 8,
I \,\. ,\. 0 ! I '\ '\ ' '\\'*, " , ',
\'
' , '. '\
I -5- ' -8 : CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION i Name '\, %!
! nf '4 i Minutes of Ma:/ l1 lac= i".. """"""""" * """""""""""""""- ~ ""_"" """_ * ""_ !"!:::ii:i ""
y I I3 1JYJ
@\
2% ' 'fieiber \$ .?hq - -.- I I I 2. That the granting of such variance will not be : : materially detrimental to the public welfzre or injurious I i to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone i
! in which the property is located. I I
i block containing both commercial and residential-profes- : i sionai zoning with alley in the rear and constitutes an ex- i i ceptional circumstance. I I
! land, I I
: AND that this variance be granted on the following condi- i i tions and limitations that no trash or rubbisn containers i i shall be allowed to stand in the yard facing the alley ex- : : cept on pickup days. I I
t I 3. That the subject property is located on a short i
I I 4. That it would be a higher and better use of the i
I I
I I
! I I
I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I # I I I I I I I I t I I : The following resolution was presented:
! Planning Commission i3,esolution No. 396. A 3ESCLUTIO@ Palrnateer i i GRRNTNAT SLUTi3EASTI- McCarthy I I EdLY CGRNEa CF :~~AAZDING STAEET AND AVENUE, i Grant 1 i was adopted by title only and further reading waived. i Sutherland I
I I I I I I I I I I
I 1
I
I I I Lamb I :2
I : McComas :
I i Freistadt ;
I
I
I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
: A short recess was called at S: 35 P. N'. Reconvened at I i 9:43 P. M.
I I
I I
I
I (b) ELM AVENUE F2ECISE. PLAN, continued - To i i consider adoption of a precise plan for the location of an ; ; extension of Elm Avenue easterly of its intersection with i ; Pi0 Pic0 Drive to al;pdinl of intersection with El Camino : i i-ea1 between Vista Way and Chestnut Avenue within the i : City of Carlsbad. I I
i The Chairman announced the Cornmission would now take : : up the continued public hearing. I
i The Secretary read the following items of correspondence I i in favor of Mr. A.dler's proposed alternate rotlte that were: : received since the last meeting. *
i May 6, 1965 Ernest Adler, Jr. i May 6, 1965 Group Ten Development & Investment Cor4
I Ernest Adler, Jr., and Allan Jandro I i May 5, 1965 E. J. Babson, spokesman for Group Ten i
I Investment & Cevelopment Corp. I i May 7, 1965 Mr. & Mrs. Carl L. Bernhardt : May 11, 1965 Mr. & Mrs. Jerry D. Colling 4 I
: The Chairman explained that Mr. Adler presented an al- i i ternate route at the last meeting and the hearing had been i : continued in order that the City Engineers, the Planning ; i Director and Mr. Adler's engineers could study this new i : route. I I
I The Chairman reported that ne and some of the other Comi i missioners went over this route with Mr. Gerald Fischer. i : The City Engineering Department has been working on this: i route for over five years, Ae asked the Planning Director! : and Mr. Thornton to make their reports and comments an? i then Mr. Adler and those wishing to speak in opposition. ;
i The Planning Director stated that since the last meeting i !he had gone out with Wir. Fischer, the Commission and : :the Engineering Staff, He explained that Elm Avenue is a i i part of the Master Plan of Major iZoads of the County of ; : San Diego and of the Select System of City Streets and will i i be used to create order among inter-related parts. Flm I
I I
I I I
I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I
I
I .. ;
I I t
I * I I
I * I
I 1
L
I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I ! I
I I I I I I I I I I I I * I I I I !
I I I I I I I
I I 4 I I I I I n t
I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I * I * 1 I I I 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 I t a I
I f I I I I I I I I I I l e l I !
-5-
5. I ? I I I I 1 I
0 0 I I I I 4 I I
I
8
I I
1
I
4 I
I -6- 1
* 4 :""""""""""""""~"""""""""~""""""""-"""""~" I
i Avenue is designated to run from Carlsbad Boulevard on i i the west to Melrose Drive on the East, a distance of five i : miles and shall serve as a collector road for the resident4 i of this entire area and shall allow for them to disperse to i : major and minor north-south roads at spaced intervals ; i along its route. At its west end it carries cars to the I ; Freeway Interchange, the downtown area, and the beach. ; i Near El Camino Zeal it connects the high land on the west i : side with the high land on the east side. The length of ; i Elm between Eil Camino &ea1 and College Boulevard is . ! : properly located near the north edge of the high land and ; i does not split the developable land to the south. I I
i The Planning Director explained on the map that secondart i collector streets such as Donna Drive, Marron ;%oad, Tam- : arack Avenue will serve specific areas such as the May : i Company and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. By making the : ; best use of the natural terrain to meet the requirements i : listed above the cost of Elm Avenue from Carlsbad Boule-: ! vard to Melrose Drive will be held to a minimum and that I i this route contains no difficult engineering problem. i3e : : stated that after Mr. Adler speaks, he would like to speak: i further. I I
i Mr. Thornton stated that the City Staff had met with Mr. : ; Adler and his engineers and the City Staff still recornmen4 i ed the precise plan before them, and had no further repor! : to make unless the Commission had specific questions. :
: The Chairman asked Mr. Adler or his repres-tntative to i I speak. I I
I Md, EA3L THGMPSCN, Attorney with Andreson, Thomp-i i son, Gore and Grosse, 802 - 3rd Street, Oceanside, re- ; ; ferred to the portion of Elm Avenue that is incorporated i i in the final subdivision map of Falcon Hill, ;le stated they: : had had insufficient time to pmpare a precise plan for i i this alternate route as Mr. Carlat did nut prepare this i ; route until Friday before the last hearing. 3e asked to ; i present Mr. Fischer and Mr. Carlat and stated that the : : maps will show how thebr-route correlates with the Maste? I Road Plan, I I
i It was pointed out that Mr. Adler knew of this proposed i ; route some 7 months before. I
i Md. @E.&ALD FISCXEd, 2959 Carlsbad Boulevard, pre- i i sented a map and stated he was in agreement with the City: : Engineer's route taken from the Master Plan of the County: i East of El Camino deal and with many of the points I I
i brought out by the Planning Director. He discussed the 3 ! i different routes, one by the County, one by the City and i : one by Mr. Adler. ;le pointed out that the Commission is ; i dealing with hillside terrain and explained the various i i elevations and contours of the land. The point whers Mr. : : Adlerls route would meet El Camino Real would be about i I -4 of a mile from Vista Way, by the blue house. He dis- i : cussed the collector street being used to get where you ; i want to gs to the regional shopping center; that this would i i be the closest route to Oceanside and the Country Club; : ; the downtown area which passes by a major park; that it i i would be the closest route to the lagoons. i3e stated that : : they could use Chestnut to carry most of the traffic and i i that he had conferred with the State Division of Highways : ; and they did entertain the idea of an underpass at Chest- i i nut and he did not believe the City should channel all of : : the cars under the Freeway on E.lm Avenue. Ee stated that i the loop from Marron doad to Tamarack is good planning,: : and this proposed Elm Avenue route would be better than i i severing good residential land. I b
I I I b
I I I I I
1 I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
0 I I t I
I I I t I I I I I I I I I I 9 !
8, ,'8 \ *. , . , \\ 8, , \\ '\ 8
Name \\ '+& , \ '\ 8,
Member .$3
t8 \ '8 '8, 88,
8' t8 '8 '8 ',
of '.,.\$+ \?de .""""""""
I
I I I I I b I I I 4 I I 1 L I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I * I I I 6 b I I 4 I I I I
I I I I * I : I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I l
I I t I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I $ I I I I I I I I
I I I I I 4 I I I I I I 9 I 1
a
I I I 4 I I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
~, *n * * s I t I
8 -' ", '888'%8 '\,:,$
1 I 0 0 3' , \\ 's 8 ' .
I I " . 8 8. \\ 8. 1 I -\, '\ '\ -.
I : of
;""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-~"""-"""""~"""""""",-. I Member $3 i ML3,. GERALD CA.ZLAT stated that he lives at 1351 Pacifib : Beach Drive in San Diego and appreciated the opportunity , i of getting together with tbe Planning Director and the : Engineering Department in going over this route. From I i an Engineer's stand-point, this plan has been well done i ! : and delineated in regard to cuts and fills. He stated that ; I i he did not have time to duplicate this detail in the short i
! time fie had. He stated that Mr. Fischer's route does en-: i compass good route planning; that it avoids excessive ste* i grades and goes around a residential area which he felt ; ; is desirable and good highway planning. It also eliminated i the necessity of a bridge separation at El Camino &ale ; : Be commented that bridge separations are very costly i i and should be avoided. He called attention to the cost :
t factors and the fact that if the bridge is eliminated which i i would cost approximately $200,000 it would pay for ap- : : proximately 3500 lineal feet of the route. Be was not con; i vinced that a bridge was necessary at this time for cross-! I I ; ing the grades and the City should not have grades exceed.?. I I I ing 7%. From an Engineering standpoint, the C ity *s i : route has some unnecessary grades exceeding 7% to 9% ; i which would not be necessary with the other route as it 1 : would require cuts and fills requiring 140' rights of way; ; i it would require the unnecessary cost of a bridge; the cos; : of going through high cost residential property. iie stated: i that he would be glad to answer any questions.
I I I I -7- i ~a me '*,8Fg8
I I '?L'4
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I
I
I I 8 I I I I I I * I I I
I I I I t t ! I I i The City Manager stated that there were several things !
! said that shoul&be corrected. The Council is the judicial! ! body in charge of expending the gas tax money. Mr. I : Eischer does not show anything tying in with 3efferson. i ! If Chestnut Street is extended westerly through an under- i I pass it would run directly into the Pine Street School, I I I 1
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 8 I I I 1 I i The City Manager explained the need for an east-west : : route, and that some funds are set aside now for the ac- i i quisition of the property, and several property owners 1 : have indicated they would dedicate property. Ze pointed i i out that the expenditure of funds is a Councilmatic action I : and the length of time it will take to complete the route ; i depends on whether the City wants 4 lanes now or 2 lanes. i : The City would like to have 84l right of way and they are : i ready to negotiate with the property owners now on.thc i : existing route. They expect it will Lake approximately 5 : I years to complete this route from Carlsbad Boulevard to i : El @amino Real. I I
i The Planning Director pointed out that Elm Avenue would 6 i have an 84' right of way which meets the City requirementp
i for a major collector street: while Chestnut has only a 60' : i right of way and therefore 24' of right of way would have I : to be procured by the City along Chestnut if this route : i were used. Chestnut also had the following drawbacks as f i a major east-west collector: Lt does not have an inter- : 1 change at the Freeway which Elm does. If an underpass i i at the Freeway was possible it would mean that the heavy : : Chestnut Avenue traffic would be brought to the school and! i Little League Baseball field which would be hazardous for: : children. Chestnut does not carry thru to the downtown i i area while Elm does. The wnole intersection at Elm Live.! : and the Freeway is under discussion with the State for en-; I largrnent. Gther plans have been studies. The City route: ; for Elm is a precis? plan as is required. The grades are i i within the standards of good planning of the County. Elm ! : Avenue is now programmed to meet El Camino kea1 at i : grade but that the elevation on each side of El @amino Rea! i are such that a bridge separation could be built a8 minimup i cost if desired to meet future needs. I 1
I I I
I I l I * I + I I I I I I I
* t a I I I I I t I I I t e
s I I I I I
I v I I I I I n I I I I * I I I I I b I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l e 1 I I I I I I I I I b I * I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
" . * .* I I I ', \ '8 '8 '8 'S
I I I I
I I * e * \\ '
88'
88\ '., '88 ',, 'b,'
I
'8 y.. '.88
I I ; of '3.S
b
I I -8- ! Na me "8, \8&, 'q
I '?& 8d ; Member se! ~"""~""~"""""""~""""--.""""""""""""""""""""~""---"""---~". i The Chairman asked for those wishing to sgeak in favor i or against this to speak.
i There were no others present desiring to speak in favor : of this.
i MR. Zi2NEST ADLEit, 2949 Carlsbad Boulevard, stated i that he was pot only concerned with his property but there ; are approximately for property owners within a distance 1 of 500' to 1,000' whose property would be affected. The : major highway does not belong in a residential area. He i stated that property owners will have to pay for a road
t they do not want or need, He stated that he felt Tarnaracl i Elm and Chestnut will be able to meet the needs for traffi : The crossing at El Camino Zeal could be handled by traf- I fic lights rather than grade separation. He is interested : in the low tax rate in Carlsbad and felt the City should be i more concerned with streets within this area rather than I streets for the benefit of outlying areas.
4 I
I I
I I
I I 4 I I
I I * I *
I I 8
I I
!:
I I 1 I I I
I * Q q
1 I 1 I I ? I I I I I I ! i When asked if the Commission took his route if Mr. Adleri i would have any objections to the City epending the money ; : for this street, Mr. Adler stated their route would not be : i a major street, but a collector street. I I
.
I
I I I ! Z3.e pointed out that one of the owners giving a portion of I i his land was the one bringing in the May Company to this i : area. He stated that his subdivision was rejected by the ; i Commission because he would not dedicate his property i : for this extension. He stated that if it were not for Fal- ! i con Hill, the street would have gone straight through ther$
; and would not affect his property. I I
: Mr. Adler stated that the 5 year period the City Manager I i mentioned is a pretty long period for the people in the are4 : who'are 'waiting'to-subdivide their land who will have to det i dicate street right of way for a street they do not want or i : need. These property owners will be hostile to the route. : I He questioned the Chestnut road width. He felt they I I : should have good accessibility to the High School and that : i it was not planning to direct all of the traffic down the cen: : ter of town and they should direct;traffic other ways. I I
s I I
t I I b 4 I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I 1 ? $ t I t 9 I t ? I I $ b 8 I I I t I I I 8 I * I I I I I I ? I t
? I
I t
$ I t I
t I * 4
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I * I I I b I I
4 I 8 I I I I 8 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I i MS. SHORES, President of the Group Ten Investment Cor6 i stated that he never dreamed that anybody would put a .: * * I main thoroughfare over the crest of the hill. The properti ; they have is prime land they puralased for development, : I and making a major arterial go over this property was in- i I ; conceivable. * L
! The Chairman pointed out that the S$&f of the City Engineeb ! ing Department is compet ent and is responsible to the Ciq I ; Manager and the Council. I I I
I ! I
a I I I I I I I I
I
I
I I *
I I I
I - * I
* I i TONY IiGWARD-JONXS, representing aenry Mayers In- i i vestment Corporation who own some land on Valley, * I : questioned the availability of funds for acquiring property, i : Xe stated that he understands the sewers will be on Valley i :Street within 18 months or 2 years. They have a rough : i sketch for a subdivision with about 15 or 16 lots. This i :route will reduce the yield considerably. I
;The City Manager explained that they could not discuss : ithe cost until they know where the route will be and the i :width of it. He reported that the May Company officials : :were visited by Mr. Adler and then came down to the City I :and after reviewing the Cityts plan, they were quite agree-: :able and if they had had the papers available, tiley would I :have been willing to sign them. I I
I !
t I I
I I I I
I ?
I I t $
I * :
I I b s I * I I
I I I I I I I I I I I * I I I I * t B 1 I I I I I I I I I I * I I I I I 4 I I I I * t I I I I I I !
- .*: - :
I 1 I t
I I I e 0 I 8 , '\, '\
, .,\.\~" "',' , ' \, y',' '\ '. '
I I ', ', , . '\ 8'
I -9- I i Name 'b '*PC '
I I : of 'y% .a\,
\QL '0 t : Member *%'{ ;~"""""""""""""-"""-"""~"""""""""""-------"-"-;"--------"------~ ; MRS. MCNEIL, speaking for Mrs. Kathryl?, McZally, stat4 I ed that she had called the Engineering Degartment and i : asked if Wi.lson Street was going to be cut through, and th8 I I i Chairman explained that the Commissicm cannot answer i : tnis and it was up to tile Engineering Cepartment to an- i I I i swer this.
i The public hearing was closed at 11:28 P. M,
. ''
I
I
*I I I I I I
I I I
I
1 I I I 4 I * I I I I t I I * I I
1 I
I I i When questioned if the alternate route would be re-irnbur i ed with gas tax money, Mr. Thornton explained that the ; City's route has been approved by the State Division of i Highways for the expenditure of Gas. Tax funds.
i After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt We : solution No, 395, recommending to the City Council the I adoption of the precise plan as presented by the Engineer : ing Department for the location of an extension of Zlm i Avenue for the following reasons:
I I
*
I
'Si
I I I I I I 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 I I I I 1 t I I I t I I t
I I I I I I I I I I I 1. That the study shown by the City Engineering De-: i partment in.dicates a detaiicd study that meets all of the : I I ; criteria for a good road system.
I 2. That it does tie in with the County Road system : I i to the east.
: posed rotltes.
I 4. That it does conform to the Master Plan. I I I
t
I I
I
I I I I I I I
I I I
I 1
I L
I t
I f I 3. That it appears to be the most feasible of the pro:
I I
I I
I I
I I
I t I I I I i The following resolution was presented:
i Flannin Commission Sesolution No. 395r A 3ESCLU- i McCarthy ;
5 ?~LLSl!!ITY CCUp.TCIL I Sutherland i i THE ADGPTION OF A. PAECISE PLAN FOR TZIE LGCA.- : Lamb I I TICN CF AN EXTENSIGN OF ELM AVENUE, was adopted! McComas ia : by title only and further reading waived. I Freistadt i
I I I Palmateer I
I ?a u U CF TEE CITY OR Grant I
!
I ! OLD BUSINESS
$
8 I I I !
I I 1 I I I t I I I I
I (a) There was no report on Lake Calaveras. I I 1 ! I I I I I : Wise WILLUM A. UZZA33LLA, representing Ccean- ; / side-Carlsbad Sportsman Club, George Parker being the i : President, stated they have been operating in this area : i for several years and are interested in the development i I of all recreational meas and especially at Lake Calaverasi : Agua Ztedionda Lagoon and Buena Vista Lagoon. He asked; : the Commission to call upon them for assistance if they i i wished. & explained that be was responsible for the I 1 artificial reef in the Cceanside Harbor and felt that Carls-! : bad could have a harbor that would be better than Gcean- ; i side has. I !
I
I I I
I I I a t I I I I I 8 I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I l I I NEk3 BUSINESS: 1- I I
I I
0 b I I t I
8 I
! I I i There was some discussion on DMJM time schedule. I I I I
i ADSGURNMENT: i By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 11:43 P. Mi I I
+ t I I I I I I f I I
0 I I I I
I I I t
I I
I i Respectfully submitted, I 8 I I I I I I
I i #df q+J%.arj
I, i DGRGTHY M. SOUSA
Il- I decording Secretary
I I I I I I I I t * t I I I I *
I I I I I I
I I I I t I I I I I I I I 8 I I t I I I
I I 4 I I t I I I I * I I I I t I I I I I !
I I
I I