The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1963-03-12; Planning Commission; MinutesI I I I \, \, 8" :CITY OF CARLSBAD I I \\ ',,",, '\\'\\'\\ I I !Minutes of: PLANNING COMp11ISSIOM I I ', ',, ', '\\'\\'\\ I I :Date of Meeting: March 12, 1963 I \, % ', 8 '., ', 1 I ~ame **,'+$, '. \, \P \+#-I i !Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. ; of '.s$!+ '\ '%, ; :Place of Meeting: Council Chambers Member $@.pP~,cPcul ! ,""~"""""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""~*""""~"~"~""-"""- *a. "--?""*@ 15 I ''8' \'. %,6\. 4J,.a?\ p i 1 :ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, :Ward, Grant, EWald, Palmer, Jarvie and Sonneman. : :Also present were City Attohey Stuart C. Wilson,! !Planning Technician, Uhland B. Melton and Secre- i jtary Price. I I I I I I I I I I I 1 k i WRITTEN COMMUNXCATIONS : I I I !There were no written communications. I I I :ORAL CO"UFICATIC)NS,: I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I t I I I I I I I I I I I i I (a) There were no oral communications from i I the audience. I 1 I I I I I (b) Report of Planning Technician on Counci! 1 I I 1 I action on Planning matters. I * I * I iThe Planning Technician stated that the Council I ;upheld the Planning Commission's decision On the I :appeal of Maureen. McInerny Rortck. I I I I I 6 t I i PUBLIC HEARING : I I t I . $ I I :VARIANCE - For reduction in front footage from I i 60' to 20' to create a "panhandle" lot split, and I i for reduction of setback of rear yard of existing! idwelling on Parcel "C" from 20' to 10' on propert$ iAdams Street and Highland Drive, more particular14 :described as a portion of Tract 242, Thum Lands, ; ;Map 1681, R.0-S. Map 3696, in the City of Carls- :bad; being Parcel 1, Book 206, Page 061 of the :Assessor's Map of San Diego County. IApplicantt Luciana Brisman, !Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certi-! :fied as to publication of notice of hearing and i :the mailing or notices to property Owners in the !area. The Secretary then read the application i :setting forth the reasons for requesting this !variance. :The Secretary read a letter to the Commission :dated March 8, 1963, opposing this variance on th4 :grounds that it was defirmitely not in the best i :interests of the City of Carlsbqd, and the ad- :joining property owners. The letter was signed ! :by the following: located on the south side of Tamarack between I I 1 I 1 I I I * I t I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I & I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 4 I I I I I t t I 8 I I I 1 I I I 4 .- " -2- :Paul S, Wheaton, 1130 Chinquapin Ave., Carlsbad ; :Mrs. Kathryn M. Dilkes, 1280 Chinquapin, I' I I :Mr. William T. Maymes, 1250 Tamarack Avenue, 'I. 1 :Mrs. Frank J. Donohue, 1195 Tamarack Avenue, 'I. i :Frank J. Donohue, 1195 Tamarack Avenue, 84 *: i Johnie D. Sellers, 1130 Tamarack Avenue, I* .I iC.H. Matthiesen, 3960 Adams Street, Carlsbad. I I !Kenneth 0. Hinkle, 1170 Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbadl :Cline A. Sullivan, 1170 Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbadj :Jack R. Estes, 1199 Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad. I I IRuthanna D. Estes, 1199 Tamarack Ave., Carlsbad. I I ! I t I !The Secketary read a report €ram the City Engineelf, jLowel1 A. Rdthbun, who called attention to the i :purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, !and that the praparty is desirable for maximum i !and proper deveiopent of the land as now zoned I !to create approximately twelve i12) reskdential i / lots: and that the owner intends to do so, that jthe owner may eventuaily create three to six (3 :to 6) "panhandle" lots from this property by I I :successive lot splits; that the block land use ; !study confirms that a public street opening and I idedication is desired and necessary for develop- i jment of the Owners property and abutting proper- i jties. He recommen.ded that because the property i jwill eventually comprise twelve (12) or more lots; :because subdivision of this property is reasonabld; :because there are no extreme circumstances justi- i ifying conditional exceptions to the "general con- i itrols and standards" requirements, and because th4 :required showing for a variance has not been met, Ithe variance be denied and tSe division of the i jland be processed as a normal subdivision. t I :Chairman Ewald asked the applicant or his repre- ! isentative to speak. I I iEFtEEST M. LEVER, Attorney-At-Law, representing i ;tile applicant, stated that he believes this partij IcuLar lot split will allow them to have at? estate i :type lot with a desirable view and will have good brainaye. Mrs. Brisman owns the r,orth half of the: broperty which consists of 1 1/2 acres with fron- i itage on Adams or Tamarack. D I phe applicant has been willing to put the improve-! $er?ts in or! Tamarack and he believes that this I I type of lot split is the only way on this 1 1/2 I I I I I I I I * I 0 I I I- l 1 I I t t I acres . I I bo one else spoke ir? favor of this request, kAUL WHEATON, 1130 Chinquapin, stated that this i 'proposed lot split has been brought about to evade! the planning of Carlsbad and is the cheapest way ; Lo get the lots in. Four years ago, he asked for i I I 1 t I 4 I b lot split on his property and was deaied this as! $.t was not in the best interests of the City, as bhey would not be able to get fire trucks in on a i :panhandle". He was told he could go to the PlayL-! hing Commissior. and fight it, hut he did not fight: St in any way. He had a contractor come in and : bas told there was a possibility of bringirgthe i I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I , r I I I I I I I I i I r i :"""~""""""""""""""""*""""""~""""""-~""""~~ i street up from Adams near the old Sair:ty home, i : He did not go to t3e Plaimicg Commissior, and now ; : these people are asking for the same thing. He i i stated that the map 01:. the wall was prepared by i the Efigineering Departnlcnt and believes this i would be the best thing. He could get a "pan- i handle" lot split cow alzd have two houses back i : on his property, but pointed out that there is a : : sul3division across tT1e street with a cul-de-sac I anir thinks this is the proper use of the land. He discussed this property with his neighbors an4 I they were not aware of the change of ownership. i The Chairman stated that the City had recently 1 established a "Panhandle" lot split policy. I : C.M. MATTHIESON, 3960 Adams, stated that he owns I i the old Sainty property Twrilich is next to this i property and questioned whether this "panhandle" i would be like an alley if granted, and who would i I I I I I I I I I I I i maintain the street. : The Chairmbn skated that he did not believe this ! : property is next to Mr. Matthieson as Mrs. Bris- man's property only fronts OD Tamarack sild that wider the lot split ordinance, the "panhandle" i I I I I I I I I i would be maintained by the owners. I t I 1 t I I I I t I I 1 I No one else spoke against this request. I I I : MR. LEVER, speakin.g in rebuttal, stated that par; cels A, B and C are wder one ownership and the I property to the south is under another 0wnership.i i This is the only way to have these estate-size i lots. The plan by the Engineer would give eleve4 i (11) small Lots and their plan would have twelve I : (12) large lots. The three (3) lots of Mr. I I : lASheaton*s are less than half of t'nese lots and I i the cost of the road, apart from destroying a i house, would be approximately $12,000.00 to $15,000.00, and would reduce the building area. i i Mr. Wheaton, by splitting his property, has i created his own problem and expects them to rec- : : tify his problem. The applicant is willing to i : make whatever agreement is necessary to do the i i improvements on Tamarack, which he believes show4 good faith on her part and the acplicant should I i not be penalized by Mr. Wheaton's problem. I The public hearing was closed at 10~18 P.M. 1 I The Planning Technician explained the location of': the property and dwellings on a block study map I prepared by the Engineering Department and a I I 1 I I t I 0 I t I I I I t t 6 * I I I 8 I I i proposed cul-de-sac. He stated that some of the I Councilmen have indicated they are not interested i in any more short cul-de-sacs. He also stated i : that the Engineers have questioned whether there { are one or two parcels unlder this ownership. The Chairman asked the City Attorney if there are! I I I I I 4 t i any legal problems involved. I The city Attorney, Stuart C. Wilson, stated that I i he would like to inquire whether this w2.3 a whole: I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I * I I I 1 -4- I I \,\*8*. I I 8 '\ '\' '\ 8' '. 1 I I I I I I I I k I I 1 & I 6 I I I 1 I I I The City Engineer stated that it is a portion of :;;:;; :,I:;; ,:;I I '11 ::; I !:;1;1 I I I ;::::: ::a::: +::: ,::::I I ;;l;tl I 1' I I I :;::I: ::;:i: Io 41 I I 1:d;; I I ;;:lll I p;!+ 11;; 4::;; ::ptl ;:I:%@ I@ ;1:;1* ,::4:: ::I:,: 1 ;:I;*' I ;;p81 I*:: I I :;;::: Is1 ;;li:i :;::;: I I ;;:::; I :;:::: p;;: I I I :;I;l* :,:I:: ;:'I:: I:!;;: :;;I:: ;: I ;:I' 1 I ;: I:+ :#I; ii' :i;: 1: ;I:::: I adversely affect the comprehensive geaeral pla4. iiI::b I I I I:::! 1 I :::I:, : 3. That the application is somewhat adverse i ;:41: .*:i:: : to the policy established by t3e City on "pan- ;:llll I handle11 lot splits. 1 I 1:;1:: I 9 I I::::: 11111: 4 1;;;:1 i 4. In view of the objections raised at the I ;::t:: i meeting by surrounding property owners. I I:':;: ! :!::!: : a lot and there has been a lot of deeding back i and forth, but it has not been split. I I I The Chairman stated that he had checked it on the ; : I I,: : Assessor's map and it showed it as two parcels : :I:: on the north 1/2 of the property. It was all i I under the ownership of Kaufman at one time. I The City Engineer reported the record of owner- I I I I ships on this property since 1956. I I I 11 i C. R. Thornton, Assistant Engineer, stated that i i the San Diego County Assessor's map from 1956 to: : 1957 showed a Record of Survey No. 3696, as one i ! errtire parcel and there have been no approved i 11 lot splits since 1957. I I I I i MR. LEVER stated that there are two parcels and i the County records will verify this, and it has i 1;4:; : always been two parcels. I i After considerable discussion, it was agreed tha4 I *i(I i this request be denied for the fo1lawing reasons: 1::1:: I 1. That the granting of such variance will be : i materially detrimental to the public welfare i : and injurious to the property or improvements i;li:i i in such vicinity and zone in which the properti i is located. I I 1 I k 11 I e l * I I I 2. That the granting of such variance will : :Ill I e l I I I':I;~ Resolution No. 285. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBd Davis :xixi ; : I 1 $::: : CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIAMCE ON Ward I' :xi :x: : : i PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF TRACT 242, . : Grant i I :xi ; .SI; i THUM LANDS, MAP 1681, R.0.S. 3696, IN THE CITY 04 Ewald : 'X: I CARLSBAD, was adopted, $4:: 1 I :i I I Jarvie ; I :xi I ; 1 i Sonneman : I !xi I i :,I (1111I 1 I ;:::;: I I:::;: I I I:: 11; : Palmer , :x ; I The Chairman informed Mr. Lever that the applicar!! : has the right to appeal to the City Council I within ten (10) days in writing. (II I 1 :!#:!I t I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC HEARING: I 1 I I I VARIANCE - For reduction in side yard set- i back from 6' to G" and rear yard setback from 12 'i ! to 2' on property located on the north side of i i Walnut between Cerlsbad Boulevard and Garfield i i Street, at 150 Walnut Avenue, said property bein4 i more particularly described as portion or' Tract I202, Thum Lands, Map 1681, in the City of Carls- ; bad, being parcel 9, Book 204, Page 050 of the i 1 1 I I I I I I I ! -5- I \, -, \, ., -\ ' I b I b / N a me '.\ '$.O '~$&,,"~~'$+ * I I Of 8?b$&\.p\\ $5. I I Member '$+%$\ps'8' ~""""~"""""~"""""""""""""""""~""""""""""~"""-"""""- , ,";-;";-I; 1 Assessor's Map of San Dieg-o Cou~ty. t :;;I:: : Applicants: 'Walter 14, and Eleanor E, Samenfeld. I;:::: I I I i::iii I I 1:;' I I Notice of 'nearing was rea2. The Secretary certii ::I:;: 11::;: fied as to publication of notice of hearing ar.d the mailing of notices to property mmers in the I I i area. : The Secretary then read the application setting : I forth the reasons for requesting this variance, i and the names of eleven (11) property owners in i I the vicinity approving this request. He pointed I out that the Hughes property was adjacent and I i the other property own.ers were in the same block; i roughly speaking. I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I A recess was called at 8:50 P.M. The meeting i ! reconvened at 9i05 P.M. I b I I 4 I I I r The Secretary read a letter dated March 7, 1963,: i from Harold N. Shivers and Mrs. Harold M. Shivers, 3252. Carlsbad Boulevard, who own property to the! : north and west of this property and opposed this ! ; request on the grounds that this would be detri-i i mental to the neighborhood, as well as de-valu- i i ating adjoining properties. It is not a depress4d i area and there is na..apparent reason for setting i i a precedent. : There was no other correspondence. I I I I I 6 I I I I 1 I 6 I I CHARLES J. HELM, OceaRside, stated that he is th4 i contractor who will ultimately build this if it 4s i approved. The property was developed as such when thev purchased it. He has attempted to wor4 something out with the Planning Technician and : i they have agreed to a 5' side yard setback and ai I 9' rear yard setback instead of the original application, Prior to this, they had the drainaie i and gutters worked out an.d this will have adequa6e i fire protection. There has been a misunderstan- I I ding in getting this under way and it has been a i : hardship on the Samenfelds. I I 1 1 t I I I I HUIE HUGHES, 170 Walnut Avenue, stated that he i owns the lot east of the Samenfela's property and i they can build up to the property**line as far as i i he is concerned. I I I I I I I I I MRS. BARBARA SHIVERS, stated that she would like ; i to remind the Planning Commission that Commissio&r i Grant built or!. this property and should abstaiu i on voting. i Commissioner Grant stated that he still owns an i interest in this property and will abstain from voting, but will take past in the discussion. i MR. XmIM pointed out that this property borders i on business property which differs from residen- i i tial property. The Samenfelds had no intention i of building anything that would be detrimental to: : the other property owmre or to the Shivers. They! ; have agreed to build the new building with the ! I I I I 1 I I * I I I I I I I I I I l l 1 4 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 1 I I I I 1 I I I -6- ~"~"""""""~""~""-"""-"-..~"""""""-----"---""-~-"-~" 5' and 9' setback$. The existing carport is a i valuable piece of property and has been used as i an accessory building, It is necessary to close I i off two of the carporbs in the rear and the I I i dressing rooms for the cdgport area will only I have a 2' setback, but the new structures will : ! have a 9' setback, and there will be a 2' area i for drainage. I The public hearing was closed at 9:18 P.Prt. ! The planning Technician explained the location i : of tne property on the map and pointed out the i ! existing structures, ewimming pool, carport and driveway, and that the property on the west is i i zoned C-2. I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I t Commissioner Grant asked the Planning Pechaician : to explain the nature of the C-2 property on the i : west and the north, as this property is owned by i i the Shivers and they are the only ones opposing this request, and they have a grocery store therd i and then a building Chat was a former bait shop. : There was some discussion whether a person that : : abstains should sit in the audience or not. 1 Commissioner Grant asked the Chairman to ask the i 1 City Attorney if he could participate in the dis-! i cussion. The City Attorney stated that he could i i participate in the discussion if he wishes, and i : that it is proper. I i The Commission questioned the Planning Technician: on whether the reasons would be the same for deny; I ing this request, since there were changes in the! setbacks, and the Planning Technician stated that: : the setbacks would be more compatible now. I i The Secretary asked for a clarification on the i setbacks so there would be no confusion as to what the setbacks actually are that the Commi- ssion is discussing, I :The Chairman explained that the existing carport : :would remain with the 6" and 2' setbacks and the i 1 upper story will be setback 9' and 5' which will i f I 4 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I t 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I be used for living quarters. I I I 1 I I I I I - !The Secretary pointed out that according to the i ;ordinance, when you connect a living unit in withi !an accessory building, it becomes one structure i ;for human habitation. The rear wall of the car- I i port will be the controlling factor as it becomes! !one structure for human habitation ark! the side :yards would remain the same. :The Commission agreed that the original applica- 'i I tion had not been changed. I :When asked about this, Mr. Heim stated that they i i had agreed to move the upper story in 5' for fire I :protection, but it does not change the carport I !whatsoever. It is an existing building an6 if I * I I I I I I I 1 I I I * I I I 1 I I I I 1 .I I ! -7- I I I I I I I I I 1 8' \\ ., \ ' 1 I I \ \' I 1 I I I I 'L' ', ',, '\\ \\\'\\ I I "\ '\\ '., ', '\ '\ \\\\ \ " ' ', '\ '' I I ~a me '8, \\%, \., i I I j of '\+gk.,;,,$q$, 1 :"-"-""""-"""*""~"""""""~"""~""""""""""""""~""""""~""~*""~,"" 1 Member *&@,+bpQ.; I : they demolish this buildihg, they kduld not have i ::;;#I i to appk? for a variance, The underpart of the i I carpbrt is now plastered and they will pu$ a fire! ::;::: ;::::: i wall around the carport. and bring the drainage i lli:;: i around to the front of the building, The fact 1 ::; :;;I I :;: i that the lot is so deep makes it an kxpenisive loti fII:lf l:*l;; i to put six '(6) units on. It will be making an l'::;; ::::;: i improvement on the lot and will not be detrimen- :I::;: : tal. I I :::;;; I i:;:;I I There was a discussion that there would be no I I ;I:::; I ItI 1:;::: i way of preventing the property owner from enclo- i :;;;;; i sing the carport and that other property owners i :I;;:: i could come in and ask for the same application. I!!#*# :::::: I I :;$;: I* i The Secretary stated they could attach a conditi# *I::;; : to the variance, I I 1::::: I I;;;;: I I I ::fI;: I The City Attorney stated that it was true that ; ll4:;; :I::,; i:::;; ;;+; r::::; :;:;;: ::::;I: I* 11 I @I I I I I 11.8 * I I I :I, I I the Commission can grant this and recite condi- i ::::;: tions, and impose conditions such as no building& i He pointed out that the Ordinance states that th4 : distance between a building used for human habi- i ::;I:, i tation and an accessory building must be ten fee? i (10') and that the situation restricts the adja- I i cent property owners from building up to the i property lirle without a variance. : It was pointed out that the present apartments I have a 15' setback on the west side. ! After considerable discussion, it was agreed thad this request for a variance be denied for the ; i following reasons: : 1, That the granting of such variance will be ; materially detrimental to the public welfare i I and injurious to the property and/or improve- i ments in such vicinity and zone in which the ; I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I L I I I I I I I I I property is located. 2. That there are no exceptional or extraordi: : nary circumstances or conditions applicable to i ! the property or to the intended use that do nod i apply generally to the other property or class: i of use in the same vicinity and zone. I 3. That granting the variance is not necessari i for the normal use of the property. I : 4. That it would be granting a special privi- : lege that could not be granted to others. I t 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 Resolution No, 286. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAd Davis ; PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF TRACT 202, : was adopted. 1 I I I I i The Chairman informed the applicant that he had : I the right to appeal in writing to the City CounClil : within ten (10) days. # I I I I I I I I I I b I I I I I I I I ! I I -8- I I I I I :"~","-*"""""""~""""""""""~"""""""""""""".~" WBIiXC BEARING: I I I ! i I t I I I I I I I I I I PARK DRIVE EXTENSION - Resolutibn of Inten-! tion No. 39 to amend the Carlsbad City Master : Street Plan by declaring the potential extensiod o€ Park Drive from its southerly terminus in a i generally easterly and northerly direction to a i point in El Cantino Real County Road Survey No. I 682 between stations 55 plus 84.70 and station 59 plus 25.32, and designating said extension a$ a secondary street with a 62' right-of-way; this! change being initiated by the Carlsbad City I I Planning Commission, under the provisions of Article 0, Title 7 of the Conservation Planning and Zone Act of the Government of the State of California. i I I I I 1 I I I Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certilr i fied as to publication of notice of hearing and i i the mailing of notices to property owners in th& area. The Secretary then reviewed Resolution 06 : Intention No. 39 initiating this amendment and ; ence. i The Secretary read a report from the City Engi- i neer dated March 12, 1963, declaring the need ! for a north-south route other than the freeway i to assist in development of territory south of i i the present City limits. - I reported that there was one item of correspond- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Chairman pointed out the proposed route on : the map and explained that there are 60' ease- i ments already established in that area and asked if anyone in the audience wished to support thi4 application. ALLAN 0. KELLY, Carlsbad, stated that the pro- : perty owners have agreed to give 2' to make it i 62 ' right-of-way and it seems the proper place to put the roads. The City should avoid cross- ing the lagoon, as it would be impractical to build a high bridge there. The City should engq- neer the road to do the least harm to waterfronq property, and the City already has one road to : the south from El Camirro Real to the 101 Freewa$. There is a considerable flow of traffic now in : front of his house. He counted 15 or 20 cars I passing his house within an hour and if the road is paved all of the way through, there will be i more using this road. A road across the lagoon i will stop the development of property to the : southeast. He objected to fast traffic in recrej ational areas. The Chairman stated that the adoption of this Resolution of Intention does not pinpjnt this I route . FRANK DeVORE, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, ! asked if the Resolution of Intention covered i the yellow or greenline. I 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 -9- t I t 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 1 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 1 , I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 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 4 The Secretaty stated that the Resohtion of In- i tention follows the green line and the yellow I line is the proposed line of the Engineering Department. The Chairman asked! that this route be put in the I Master Plan in their recommendations to the I I Council. The easement is expansive as outlined and if necessary, some changes may have to be made. No or?e present spoke in opposition to this hear-! ing . I I The public hearing was closed at 10:42 P.M. The Chairman stated that Commissioner Jarvie could ask the Engineer for clarification of his I letter. I I The City Engineer stated that he felt the align-; ment of the Master Plan should not be altered. He called attention to the fact there is a dis- tance of about two miles between U.S. 101 Freewag and El Camino Real, and that there is a need for another north-south route which could extend frord Park Drive southeasterly across a portion of the: Agua Hadionda Lagoon to intersect with the exteni sion of Cannon Road, and continuing southerly along a route following the best topographic location for City street development and improve: ment.. He felt that the bridge across the lagoo4 could be coordinated into one location, with the: City putting in a structure for flood control i channel. I I El Camino Real will be a highly used street and he recommended that this section as outlined on i the map not be deleted €rom the Master Plan, and: that it will not be detrimental to the develop- : ment of the property in the area. The City Engii neer stated that he would not be in objection to i this Resolution of Intention if it does not con- i flict with the projection of Park Drive southerlG. The Planning Technician reported that he had met i with the County Transportation Research and they I are in favor of this route and that the road froi El Camino Real to Park Drive will be named Horace! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I t 1 I I I Drive. I 1 I I MR. KELLY stated that he feels this route does I i not interfere and if the City, County and State : i want to pay for the developments of a high bridgd, I he wished to impress that he is%pposed to it. ! I It is of importance whether the City wants to i i develop a recreational area or a fast highway. i He felt the bridge would hamper marina-type develb opment in the upper lagoon which could be dredged! and made usable all the way to El Camino Real. i #e also stated that he has an easement for a road1 I on Dr. Pace's property and asked if it is so I I i important to cut this distance off. As? importanti 8 I I I I I I I I I & I I 1 -10- I I I I (""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ! part Of Carlsbad is the truck route down Stewart Road to get to the airport and industrial areas, It wa$ agrked to adopt kesoiution of Intention No. 39 to amend the Waster Street Plan and that the following facts exist: 1. Thak it is a logical route for the proposel extension of Park Drive fro& it$ presenttermi- nus to El Camino Real. 2. That the topography to the narth of $1 Cam' ino Real lends itself to the eventual extensib: of said street in the direction of Vista Way an6 Escondido Freeway. 3. That it will not eliminate the feasibility of a southerly extension of a street to the lands south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon in coordi- nation with the Sax:. Diego County Master Road Plan. 4. That it is good planning to provide for future major and secondary street construction and alignment in undeveloped areas prior to their becoming subdivided. i Resolution No. 287. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLS- : MENT TO THE CARLSBAD CITY MASTER STREET PLAN, BAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECO~DING AMEND- i was adopted. I I I The Planning Technician reported that Conuni- I ssioners Sonneman, Grant and Palmer would be meeting with him on Wedllesday morning to study - the "high rise" area. I , I I AIXIOURMNEMT: : By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at I I I I 11:20 P.M. I I I i Respectfully submitted, I Davis Ward Grant hrJa ld Palmer Jarvie Sonneman : J. H. PRICE, Secretary I I I I I I I I i t 1 I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 f I I I 1 I I I I I I I