Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-05; City Council; 6145; Ocean Street - Ultimate rights-of-way studyCITY OF CARLSBAD Initial : Dept. HeadK 6- C. Mgr, AGENDA BILL NO. - &)+'c DATE : February 5, 1980 C. Atty VhQ DEPARTMENT: Engineering OCEAN STREET - ULTIMATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY STUDY SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF THE MATTER The Engineering staff has completed a study of Ocean Street rights-of-way and is sub- mitting it to Council for action. The report basically identified 50 feet as the minimum ultimate rights-of-way requirement for this street. Certain minor realign- ment and corner cut-off requirements are also discussed. EXH I BIT Staff Report I RECOMMENDAT I ON That Council adopt the recommendations in the report as City policy. Council Action: 2-5-80 Council accepted the recommendations set forth in the Memorandum to thecity Engineer dated January 21, 1980 (attached). 4 MEMORANDUM TO : City Engineer FROM : Principal Civil Engineer DATE : January 21, 1980 SUBJECT: REPORT ON OCEAN STREET ULTIMATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY As recently requested by you, staff has gathered data and informa- tion on Ocean Street and attempted to evaluate what the most desirable ultimate rights-of-way width would be for Ocean Street. H I STORY Ocean Street was established by the original subdivision for the Town of Carlsbad in 1888 as a street paralleling the beach with no ocean- ward lots. Hayes Addition (1909) created seaward lots along Ocean Street from Cedar Avenue to Elm Avenue. Granville Park #2 Subdivision (1927) extended Ocean Street northward to the present loop ending. This map created the offset of the streets at Cypress Avenue. also established by this subdivision. Since that time, numerous dedica- tions have been made along Ocean Street; each one has been five feet. This has resulted in the street having 40, 45 and 50-foot rights-of-way widths. Seaward lots were HOW STREET WIDTHS USUALLY ARE SET The streets of most new subdivisions tend to have minimum of 6O-foot rights-of-way since this allocates a ten-foot parkway each side (each containing a five-foot sidewalk) and 40 feet of pavement that allows two parking lanes of 8 feet each side and two through lanes of 12 feet each side. Sometimes that system is modified by adding two feet each side so that a ten-foot parking lane and a 12-foot through lane results. The residential street then has a total right-of-way requirement of 64 feet. In condominium alleys and other areas where parking is prohibited and the streets lose all residential character, sometimes the rights-of- way widths are set as low as 40 feet for two-way traffic and 20 feet for single traffic; however, such criteria would not seem applicable to Ocean Street with its residential character and influx of beach users. The basic observations seem to indicate that since the land in that area is a very precious commodity with a high demand and prestigious value, land requirements for public use should be minimized where possible. This indicates that a 60-foot wide street would be neither appropriate nor desired by the public. The zoning and land use of this area indicates that even if parking is required off-street for every dwelling unit, sub- stantial street parking needs will remain for the high density residential character of the area. In addition, the beach will always attract sub- stantial numbers of visitors to this area whether or not parking is legal. If parking is made illegal or impossible, then enforcement problems and costs will plague the City. If parking is supplied, some of those prob- lems will be lessened but certainly not eliminated. 1 , .r -2- CONCLUS IONS Thus, it seems that the most desirable rights-of-way width will in- clude parking. A half-street for this area would be broken down as fol- This appears to match the current demands of the area best. Historically, when no official policy has been available and each individual decision was considered on its merits, this was the solution of choice as can be seen by examining the dedication pattern along the street. What would this policy do if adopted at this time? Nothing im- mediately, other than settle the criteria which would be supplied to any developer in that area. If a person chooses to secure a building permit to rebuild on a lot in this area, he/she would be required to develop in conformance with the 50-foot criteria. This should not have a significant impact if a complete rebuilding is to take place. Problems would arise only if a partial rebuilding or building addition were to occur. The City could grant encroachment permits as a relief as necessary provided that ultimate removal or reconstruction were a condition of the permit. These cases would have to be settled individually on their own merit. The main structures affected by a 50-foot right-of-way width, if adopted, would be fences and block walls. Modification of these items does not represent onerous burdens for reconstruction for a rebuilder. The wall exhibit map details conflicts which may arise from policy en- forcement. The majority of problems arise because corner radii were never taken in the past and builders and the City did not anticipate the corner cutting of a portion of their building for the future. At Cypress Avenue a solution to the jog created by the offset road rights-of-way has been drawn on the plan. This reverse curve alignment would solve problems which were created by an historic lack of planning for this intersection. RECOMMENDAT IONS I. The existing developmental centerline south of Cypress (having combination of 8O-foot radius and a 40-foot radius) be replaced with two equal 320 radii to improve traffic flow and more closely match pavement and traffic requirements. 2. That ultimate rights-of-way of Ocean Street be set a 50-foot width five-foot sidewalks and parking on each side of street. 3. The corner cut-off radius be set at a minimum of 25 feet. Principal Civii Engineer Attachment