HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-05-11; Planning Commission; Minutes'C
I 1 8,'. %*' I
CITY GF CARL - ID 1 ', '.,"., ", '*,'*, I
1 ', '\ '\ '\ '' '' I I I I
I I : ACLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Palmateer, :
i missioner Freistadt was present at 7:42 P. M. Also pre- i : sent were City Manager Mamaux, City Attorney ilson, ; j City Engineer Lill, Assistant City Engineer Thornton, I I : Planning Director Schoell, and Building Inspector Csburn. i
McCarthy, Grant, Sutherland, Lamb, McComas. Com-
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,"*.) i APPhCVAL OF MINUTES: ;:;oI j~alrnateer I : :x! i ; ; McCarthy :xi :x: i
I (a) Minutes of the adjourned meeting of April 23, i Grant I 1 I ; :x: i 1965, were approved as submitted for the discussion peri-iSutherland : : i I : od. : Lamb :I I 1 :xi ; :
I i McCornas ixix: : I I l:I
I I :::::;
I (b) Minutes of the regular meeting of April 27, 1965,iPalmateer : ;x: ; : :were approved as submitted. : McCarthy i ;xi ; i
I i Grant : ' ;x: ;
I I : Sutherland i i :xi : ; ; Ixix: I@ ; :
I I I McComas I XI :xi I i
:!;;I; ;;::::
;::::: ;:::;; #I*
I I ;I:: i:;::: I;::': jinformation. I I /:'::
I I I:;:+
I *)I( jGiZAL CGMMUNICATICNS: I I :::::i
1 I ::;I:,
I ::;:::
I * :I;::: ::I:;:
t I 1 :::::: ::i:i:
$1:::
1::;:; I' ::::::
I I ::;:;: ii::ii /::;:
I ii;;::
::;::: ::::;i a**
::;:::
I ::;:;:
I I :;:;:i
I 1 I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I I Lamb
I I I 1 ;l*:la : W &ITTEN CGMMUNICATICNS: I I ::;:;I 0:
I 11
:dated May 6, 1965 from Don J. Cretzler, Director, Ma- : :;:I1' ;:I:B' )(I' rine Givision, stating the Oceanographic Development Co& ;; ::ij i mittee of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce is assemb-i ;ling a comprehensive description of city-owned property ; jand facilities suitably zoned and situated for use by ocean-! l:;181
:(I:;; :oriented industrial firms, and would like to include in- * I ::i;;: i formation of this area. I I ~;::l~ *I
i The Chairman asked that this letter be acknowledged and i :referred to the Chamber of Commerce for the necessary : I;'*::
I I I
I I I 1 (a) Council action on Planning Matters was noted. :
* (b) The Bissett-Berman Corporation - re: Letter I
I)
I I
*
I I
I I
I j There were no oral communications.
1 ~1:Il' !Commissioner Freistadt was present at 7:42 P. M. I I ::::::
I I I
I I
:TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - GRECOUlZT TEAW-CE f :12 lots - Zone 3-1 -7.5, on the Southerly side of Magnolia ; !Avenue between Adams Street and Yvette 'hay. Cwners: i 111 I@ :Howard M. Baumgartner and J. B. Trayer. I
:The map of the proposed subdivision was presented and I :also a block study map was projected on the screen. a I ::;;::
!Secretary Grant read the letters from the various depart- I *,;I;# jments and agencies, Also read was a letter from Paul i :Neal of DMJM suggesting a stub-out street at the South- ; ::;I
:west corner which would provide for a loop street to Adam4 ::;:i: :in the future, so the land locked property to the west would: jhave ingress and epees to their property.
!The Planning Director gave a report of his findings to the i i:::;: :Commission. I I ::;l:I ;:::::
:square foot lots grouped around a cul-de-sac. t ;:,*I'
I 2. The land is physically suited to accommodate i I:;:;: :such a use. I I i:;:l:
I 2. A cul-de-sac is the preferable means of access to! ,;I::: :;i:i: :this particular land for the following reasons: I I ::;:::
1 I::::;
I '::;:;
I I :::;:I
I I ;:::I:
I I 4 I ::;::: I@
1:;:;:
I * :I;:I: ; : I :.I
I * #'::*;
I 8 I I:!::;
I :' I I 1:;:::
I
I I I
I I
1I,)I1
I I
I
I I 1. The proposed subdivision contains 12, R-1-7500 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 ! !el!:!
I I
I
P
-2-
I I * 8 8 I I I I 8 I 1 I I 1 I I I :""""""""""""""""""-""""*""""""-"""""""-~"
I I I (a) It forms a neighborhood unit in which there
I (b) It reduces the number of cars traveling
i can be free movement of pedestrian traffic.
I within the neighborhood, thus reducing the traffic hazards i : and providing fewer reasons for outsiders to be in the areq.
I (c) The Fire Chief preferred a cul-de-sac be- I i : cause it could be eadb closed off and traffic controlled : i during a fire. fie found no disadvantages to his depart- i : ment.
i cause it reduced the number of complaints his department : ;must investigate regarding speeding in the area. He I I :found no disadvantages to his department.
i The Chairman asked the applicant or his representative to i speak. I I
I I I I 4
+
* 1
I 8 (d) The Police Chief preferred a cul-de-sac be- i
1 I I I I
I I I i Mi3 JACK KUBOTA, Consulting Engineer, 2965 doosevelt :Street, stated that he was representing Mr. Don Zolly for : I Howard Baumgartner. I I
i Vv hen asked how stubbing out the end of the street would i I affect the subdivision, the Planning Director stated that : : they had had some discussion on the property involving i I two parcels of land between this proposed subdivision : and Adams Street that would not have access. To stub I I out the end of Grecourt %ay would be creating a hardship. i : The present plan would have adequate drainage, whereas, ; i the stub at the end of the street would create drainage i : problems. I I .
I I 1 I
I I
I I : There was discussion on sidewalks being contiguous to
the curbs and ornamental street lights. It was pointed i :out that there would be one street light at the corner of : i Grecourt Lane and Magnolia and one in the middle of ere- i : court Lane.
Mr. Kubota explained this subdivision was originally plan,-i : ned to be two-thirds this size, and this plan is the collec- i t tive action of two property owners. He pointed out that ; i Woodland Heights, Tamarack Manor and Glenview Estates i have been developed during the last five years in this :block and if they had all been presented at one time, the i I streets could have been arranged differently, but felt this : :was one of the best plans for the streets at this time. I I
: M&. E. HGSSALL, 12 30 Tamarack Avenue, stated that I i the property he was talking about belonged to his mother I :who was out of town, and is a large parcel extending from ; Tamarack to this proposed subdivision and this would be I ithe last means of obtaining access to develop his mother's ; property. He pointed out that his home is a newer home i :located to the west of his mother's home on a 62' x 185' ; i piece of land and his mother's home isan older structure i :to the west. He stated that he had talked to Mr. Baumgart,' iner the day before but Mr. Baumgartner was not interesteq I in changing his plans. Mr. iiossall indicated they had not ; I been able to come to an agreement on price when the other! i subdivisions were put in on each side of them.
:Discussion was given to the possible development of Mr. i I dossall's property and that the property is large enough i I to be developed by itself. I
I I * I I
4 I
* 1 I I I
I I
I I
I ! 6 :MRS. JUNE Vi HIPPLE, stated that she is -Mrs. Bossall's 1 :daughter and that originally there was a plan for a street !to go straight through there. I I
I I 6 I I I
I I
I 1 I I I I 8 I I
1 !
i The Planning Director stated they had studied this for 12 i : hours from every aspect and had had two meetings with : the developers. He stated they had turned the first pro- I i::::: i posed subdivision down, and the Engineering Staff felt : 1;;::: ; this was the best plan for all of the parcels on this block.
i After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt Re- i i solution No. 397 recommending approval of Grecourt Ter-: :::;I# II : race, subject to the recommendations of the various de- I ::,;:: i partments and agencies, with the condition that Item 13 : ::'I:: :be changed to read:
i;:~;; :;':;: :;::;;
:;I:':
;;:;:I
I I I ;,:I::
I:'::: :$::
;;I:;;
I I I :::;:;
I I i:::;;
I 13. Sidewalks shall be four (4) feet in width and lo- I ;:h)'
I ;: ::I:
1:;;:
4
I I) I
I I
cated six (6) inches from the Magnolia Avenue street right of way line, and sidewalks in Grecourt Lane shall be: :I i four (4) feet in width and located contiguous to the curb. : I I
PLA-MMISSICN .&FCOMMENDING A.P- PdOVAL OF THE TENTATIVE PAP GF GaECCUAT TEEZ4Sutherland : MCE SUBDIVISION, was adopted by title only and further i Lamb reading waived. iMcComas
I ; Freistadt
; PUBLIC HEARINGS:
I
I I I I I I * I -c I I I I (a) VArtLANCE * To consier cdl reduction in the re- i ! quired rear yard setback from I@' to 5' on the Southeaster+ : l.y corner of Harding Street and Grand Avenue on Lots 14, : : 15 and 16, Block 67, Map 775 of Carlsbad. Applicants: i Carlsbad Investment Corporation. e
i Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified that i ; proper notice of the public hearing was given to the pro- 1 perty owners in the area and then read the application and ! : the report from the Planning Director stating that he did i not feel this reques't met the requirements for granting : : a variance. * I
: There was no correspondence from the public.
: The Chairman asked the applicant or his representative i i and any others in favor of this request to speak.
1 MiZ. dCBEi3T WATSON, President of Carlsbad Investmen! - - "Z : Corp. , 755 Elm Avenue, referred to the Planning Direc- ;' tor's report and pointed out that this property is adjacent tb :an alley and the land would be used by the tenant. He ex- ; iplained that they plan to build 7 units with a new condomin$ ium type development, each having their own garage and ; ; driveway and own stairway. A-lthough the narrow part of I : the lot faces on aarding Street, the front of the buildings ; i will be facing on Grand Avenue with their own dividual : jpatios being in the rear of the building on the south side of :the property. They have allowed one parking space for i : each unit and the carport will be located 5' from the alley. ; i de did not plan to sell them as a condominium developmen$ {They will be rented as separate units. The reason Eor de-: i veloping the property in this manner was to keep the traf- i i fic off of Harding Street. 6
: M, hen asked, Mr. Thornton stated the alley is a 19.79' de-! idicated right of way. I I
i There was discussion on this being close to C-2 property i :as there are only two lots in between this property and the I :C-2 property now, and he would not need a variance to ; i develop the property if it was zoned C-2. 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 1 I I
I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I * I *
a
I 8 : I
I
I
P
/-
I I I I I I I 1 I
I I I i Member 'i! :""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-"""~""""-"".
;The Planning Director gave a report of his findings to the i I Commission
I 1. Facts resulting from the staff investigation are: i
I (a) The applicant desires to build a 7 unit apart-!
I
I I
I
I I : ment house in an K-P zone and requires a 10' reduction : in the rear yard setback to allow space to build the seventq : unit.
: land in the area,
i provided by the ordinance should be maintained for the well- : fare of the apartment inhabitants. 1 I
: quirements for a variance as follows:
i tions applying to the land or buildings. The land is level, i buildab1e)has ease of access,
i a1 to the public welfare by limiting the open space in a re- i ; sidential area. I I
: The Planning Director explained the need for open spaces . * and open areas around multiple dwellings and that this J
I application did not meet the four requirements necessary i for granting a variance. I I
I The propoied variance would infringe on the legal right of i other property owners and would in no way be advantageou$ : to the inhabitants of the apartment or the people of the i i City. Cur zoning laws state that the sole purpose of any : : variance is to prevent discrimination. 4 I
I When questioned, Mr. Thornton explhined thgt.it is the i standard procedure of most cities to consider the narrow : :part of the lot as the front of the lot, regardless of which i i way the building faces.
i The difference of developing this on R-P or C-2 property ! :was discussed, and the Building Inspector explained that i i the side yard requirements in the it-P zone would be dif- : : ferent. In the C-2 zone the property could be developed i
:from the alley, but would have to be used as a motel. The! i only difference between the motel and apartments would i :be that as a motel they would have to register the cars ; i and pay a room tax. Motels and apartment rentals both ret quire business licenses. l a
I I
I I (b) The land is level and similar to other 3-P i
4 (c) The minimum open space around the building!
I 2. The foregoing facts do not fulfill the three re- I
I (a) There are no special circumstances or condi,C
I (b) Granting of such variance would be detriinenf
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
to the property line except for the 5' setback required 1 I
I I
*
: The Planning Director explained that there is a difference ;in use between a motel and apartment in that the motel is :typically for transcients where the apartment is used as a i home. Ac a home it has need for open space to provide I some play area for children and landscaped area typical
:of good residential design.
*
I I I The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i !from those desiring to speak in opposition. 1 I
i No one spoke in opposition to this request. I I
i The public hearing was closed at 9: 25 P. M.
!After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt Be- 1 :solution No. 396, granting this request for a variance for i the following reasons:
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I I I 1 I
I
I
I
I l a * I 1. That the granting of such variance will not ad- i verseiy affect the comprehensive general plan. I
I
I
I I
I I I
- I .*\ **- I I ',*'\8 ', ', ** I
I I '8, ', '\ '\ '' I I \, '8, '' '\ '8 I
I 'a, '\ 8 '* '8 I I I
I
I : '*+% '8' *$, 4 I -5- [ Name ** %+ ',,'*&
I I
y SF\, 9.,&+ I :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""i""""""""" : Member $%%.&? ""1"" 4q
I I 2. That the granting of such variance will not be i :::;:I : materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious ; :'I#;, ':+I
to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone i ::: :::
! in which the property is located. I I ;*I:;;
1 1::::: I"
I 3. That the subject property is located on a short : block containing both commercial and residential-profes- ; :::::I :;:;:; *I i sional zoning with alley in the rear and constitutes an ex- '81;:;
I I;::;:
I 4. That it would be a higher and better use of the ::,;I@
I )#I'
: land. I I ;:'I::
: AND that this variance be granted on the following condi- : ;:;!::
"(I(( tions and limitations that no trash or rubbisn containers i :::;I; i shall be allowed to stand in the yard facing the alley ex- : ::::i; I1 : cept on pickup days. I e I::@ I
:I::;;
I I I $ 'I4;;; I The following resolution was presented I "'I;& I I :::I,;
I I * I ::;::I
mmission ;2esolution No. 396. A RESC,LUTION Palmateer : : ; :x! ; ::;:':
A VAi3yANCg ON PR0PER"TAT SLUTiiEASTr McCarthy : : !Xi : EdLY CGANEZ OF SArEDING STlZEET AND AVENUE, : Grant : jxix: ; I I was adopted by title only and further reading waived. : Sutherland i ; : xi : 1
I
'I
ceptional circumstance. I '81
I
I I I I 881 I:!;;: It
I
I I Lamb :x: ;xi : ': '
1 : McCornas i I ;xi I i I * I ! Freistadt : : ! !x: : I I I I I : A short recess was called at S: 35 P.M. deconvened at i i 9:43 P. M. I I I
I I I
I I I (b) ELM AVENUE PAE CISE. PLAN, continued - To 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 a;pdint of intersection with E1 Camino : Aeal between Vista Way and Chestnut Avenue within the City of Carlsbad. I I 1 I I i The Chairman announced the Commission would now take I : up the continued public hearing. I I
i The Secretary read the following items of correspondence i i in favor of Mr. Adler's proposed alternate route that were: : received since the last meeting. I I
i May 6, 1965 Ernest Adler, Jr. May 6, 1965 Group Ten Development & Investment Corb
May 5, 1965 E. J. Babson, spokesman for Group Ten
May 7, 1965 Mr. & Mrs. Carl L. Bernhardt
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I Ernest Adler, Jr., and Allan Jandro
I Investment & Cevelopment Corp. I I :; I
I I I I I I : May 11, 1965 Mr. & Mrs. Jerry D. Colling
: The Chairman explained that Mr. Adler presented an al- 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 The Chairman reported that he and some of the other Com! i missioners went over this route with Mr. Gerald Fischer. : The City Engineering Department has been working on this: I route for over five years. Je asked the Planning Director! : and Mr. Thornton to make their reports and comments and then Mr. Adler and those wishing to speak in opposition. i
i The Planning Director stated that since the last meeting i :he had gone out with Mr. Fischer, the Commission and : the Engineering Staff, He explained that Elm Avenue is a i I part of the Master Plan of Major ltoads of the County of : : San Diego and of the Select System of City Streets and will i be used to create order among inter-related parts. Elm
I I I
a I I I I
I I I
I I I .
I
c I I ', *, *8
I I \\ \ '? I I \' B 1 ,' *'
I -6- Name '
I
t I I '
I
I : of
:"""~""""~"""""""""""""""""""""""""-"""":"-"-"-" I : Member
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
1 Avenue is designated to run from Carlsbad Boulevard on i
~ the west to Melrose Drive on the East, a distance of five : miles and shall serve as a collector road for the resident$ of this entire area and shall allow for them to disperse to i major and minor north-south roads at spaced intervals :
' along its route. At its west end it cakries cars to the I Freeway Interchange, the downtown area, and the beach. : Near El Camino Real it connects the high land on the west i side with the high land on the east side. The length of : Elm between El Camino Real and College Boulevard is . f properly located near the north edge of the high land and ; does not split the developable land to the south.
The Planning Director explained on the map that secondart collector streets such as Donna Drive, Marron *3oad, Tam- arack Avenue will serve specific areas such as the May ! 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 this route contains no difficult engineering problem. He I stated that after Mr. Adler speaks, he would like to speak: further.
I I I 1 I
I I * I I I Mr. Thornton stated that the City Staff had met with Mr. : : Adler and his engineers and the City Staff still recommend 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 represtntative to ! I speak. I 1
M8. EARL THOMPfXN, 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. de stated they i : had had insufficient time to prepare a precise plan for ; this alternate route as Mr. Carlat did not prepare this i : route until Friday before the last hearing. He asked to : : present Mr. Fischer and Mr. Carlat and stated that the i ! maps will show how thejr-.route correlates with the Master: i Road Plan.
I I I I
8 I 1 I
I I I I I 4 I It was pointed out that Mr. Adler knew of this proposed i : route some 7 months before. I I
: MA. GERALD FISCBEit, 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: ! East of El Camino deal and with many of the points I I brought out by the Planning Director. He discussed the 3 !
different routes, one by the County, one by the City and I
I one by Mr. Adler. ae pointed out that the Commission is : i dealing with hillside terrain and explained the various i
elevations and contours of the land. The point where Mr.
I Adler's route would meet El Camiao Real would be about ; 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 : want to gq to the regional shopping center; that this would i : be the closest route to Oceanside and the Country Club: : i the downtown area which passes by a major park; that it i would be the closest route to the lagoons. He 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 nut and he did not believe the City should channel all Of : : the cars under the Freeway on E.lm Avenue. He stated that I the loop from Marron doad to Tamarack is good planning,: : and this proposed Elm Avenue route would be better than i severing good residential land.
I I I
I 4 I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I t
I I !
,-
I
I
I 8
- t ' 8' I I \, b8 8.
I 4 ',8 '\ 8-
I -7- Name '-*
I : of
I Member I Ma. GERALD CARLAT stated that he lives at 1351 Pacifit
;"""""""""""""""~""""*""""""""~""""-""""~"""--"--
; Beach Drive in San Diego and appreciated the opportunity . of getting together with the Planning Director and the : Engineering Department in going over this route. From : an Engineer's stand-point, this plan has been well done i : and delineated in regard to cuts and fills. He stated that : i he did not have time to duplicate this detail in the short i : time ne had. He stated that Mr. Fischer's route does en-:
i grades and goes around a residential area which he felt i ; is desirable and good highway planning. It also eliminateq : the necessity of a bridge separation at El Camino Real. I ! He commented that bridge separations are very costly ; : and should be avoided. He called attention to the cost : ! 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. He was not coni i vinced that a bridge was necessary at this time for cross-i : ing the grades and the City should not have grades exceed.?. I ing 7%. From an Engineering standpoint, the C ity 's : route has some unnecessary grades exceeding 7% to 9% ! i which would not be necessary with the other route as it i : would require cuts and fills requiring 140' rights of way; : it would require the unnecessary cost of a bridge; the COS? : of going through high cost residential property. il[e statecl: i that he would be glad to answer any questions. 8 I
I The City Manager stated that there were several things : said that should. be corrected. The Ccuncil is the judicial! ! body in charge of expending the gas tax money. Mr. 8 I : Rischer does not show anything tying in with Jefferson. : If Chestnut Street is extended westerly through an under- i i pass it would run directly into the Pine Street School.
i The City Manager explained the need for an east-west : route, and that some funds are set aside now for the ac- ; i quisition of the property, and several property owners i : have indicated they would dedicate property. ZIe pointed ; 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 84' right of way and they are ; ready to negotiate with the property owners now on'the i : existing route. They expect it will take approximately 5 : years to complete this route from Carlsbad Boulevard to : El Camino Real. * I
I
I I
88 I b8 1 1 8'
I
I I 8
compass good route planning; that it avoids excessive ste&
I I
I I t
6 I t 1 I I
8 I * i The Planning Director pointed out that Elm Avenue would 4 i have an 84' right of way which meets the City requirementh : for a major collector street while Chestnut has only a 60' i 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 : were used. Chestnut also had the following drawbacks as I : a major east-west collector: It does not have an inter- : i 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! ; Little League Baseball field which would be hazardous for:
i area while Elm does. The whole intersection at Elm Ave.: : and the Freeway is under discussion with the State for en-! I largment. Other plans have been studies. The City route: ; for Elm is a precise 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 &ea1 at i : grade but that the elevation on each side of El Camino Iteai, i are such that a bridge separation could be built at minimup i cost if desired to meet future needs. I
children. Chestnut does not carry thru to the downtown
I
I I I I
I * I
5 I 8 I 1 * * I * I I
I 8 . 8
I
I -8-
:"""""""""""""""""""-""""""""""""-"""""~-. ! The Chairman asked for those wishing to speak in favor i or against this to speak. 1 I
i There were no others present desiring to speak in favor [ ; of this. I I
I I
I I
! I 4 I I
~ Ma. Ei2NEST ADLER, 2949 Carlsbad Boulevard, stated I 1 that he was not only concerned with his property but there!
, are approximately for property owners within a distance ;
: of 500' to 1,000' whose property would be affected. The I major highway does not belong in a residential area. He ; stated that property owners will have to pay for a road : they do not want or need. Be stated that he felt Tamara& Elm and Chestnut will be able to meet the needs for traffic$ The crossing at El Camino Real could be handled by traf- : fic lights rather than grade separation. He is interested i in the low tax rate in Carlsbad and felt the City should be : more concerned with streets within this area rather than i streets for the benefit of outlying areas. b $ I . i N-hen asked if the Commission took his route if Mr. Adler! would have any objections to the City spending the money ; : for this street, Mr. Adler stated their route would not be: i a major street, but a collector street. 1 I
i He pointed out that one of the owners giving a portion of i his land was the one bringing in the May Company to thie i : area. He stated that his subdivision was rejected by the ; 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 tber4 : and would not affect his property. I I
I I I
I I 8
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I Mr. Adler stated that the 5 year period the City Manager : j mentioned is a pretty long period for the people in the are4 Wi~o~are waiting+to.eubdivide their land who will have to det dicate street right of way for a street they do not want or I need. These property owners will be hostile to the route. : He questioned the Chestnut road width. We felt they I should have good accessibility to the High School and that it was not planning to direct all of the traffic down the ceni ter of town and they should direct:trMic other ways. I I
I ! MB. SHORES, President of the Group Ten Investment Cor6 i stated that he never dreamed that anybody would put a 1: . * i main thoroughfare over the crest of the hill. The propert4 : they have is prime land they purchased for development, ; I and making a major arterial go over this property was in- i ; conceivable. I
i The Chairman pointed out that the Spff of the City Engineeb : ing Department is competent and is responsible to the Cit# I Manager and the Council. I
i TONY HCWAA3D-JONES, representing aenry Mayers In- i vestment Corporation who own some land on Valley, I :questioned the availability of funds for acquiring property, i Ae stated that he understands the @ewers will be on Valley i :Street within 18 months or 2 years. They have a rough : sketch for a subdivision with about 15 or 16 lots. This i :route will reduce the yield considerably. b 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 :and after reviewing the City's plan, they were quite agree-! !able and if they had had the papers available, they would ;
:have been willing to sign them. a I
I I
I I I -
I I D
I 1
b I I
1 I I
I
b I !
8
I
I
I - I * I I I ,. I
8 I I I I I 8
I I I I I
-9-
I I
I f I I I I I
I I I t
I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
t I I I t I I I I I I b I I I I I I I I I I I I
I /c I * I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I b
I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 I I I I I t I I I t I I I I I I I 4 I 1 * I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I t I * t I
I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I I i I I I 1
I I 0 I I I I
a
P
MRS. MCNEIL, speaking for Mrs. Kathryn McZally, stat{ ed that she had called the Engineering Department and asked if Wilson Street was going to be cut through, and th4 Chairman explained that the Commission cannot answer ; this and it was up to the Engineering Department to an- i swer this. I I
The public hearing was closed at 11:28 P. M. t t
When questioned if the alternate route would be re-imburd- ed with gas tax money, Mr. Thornton explained that the I City's route has been approved by the State Division of : Highways for the expenditure of Gas, Tax funds. I I
After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt Re-i solution No. 395, recommending to the City Council the ; adoption of the precise plan as presented by tha Engineer-! ing Department for the location of an extension of Elm : Avenue for the following reasons: I I
1. That the study shown by the City Engineering De-! partment indicates a detailed study that meets all of the i criteria for a good road system. I I 2. That it does tie in with the County Road system i to the east. I I 3. That it appears to be the most feasible of the prof posed routes. I I
4. That it does conform to the Master Plan.
t
I I
I I
I 8
I I I I I I I The following resolution was presented: i Palmateer ission Resolution No. 395.- A 8ESGLU- i McCarthy IF TEE CITY OF: Grant CA.,:tLSBAD dECOMMENDING TG THE CITY CCUNCIL : Sutherland THE ADGPTIBN OF A PdECISE PLAN FOd TTIE LCCA- ! Lamb
TIGN CF AN EXTENSIGN OF ELM AWNUE, was adopted: McComas by title only and further reading waived. : Freistadt
QLD BUSINESS
I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I
(a) There was no report on Lake Calaveras.
Ma. WILLIAM A. MAZS'Ai2ELLA, representing Ccean- : side-Carlsbad Sportsman Club, George Parker being the President, stated they have been operating in this area : for several years and are interested in the development i of all recreational areas and especially at Lake Calaverasj Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Buena Vista Lagoon. He asked; the Commission to call upon them for assistance if they I wished. i-Ie explained that he was responsible for the I I artificial reef in the Gceanside Harbor and felt that Carlsj bad could have a harbor that would be better than Ccean- : side has. I I I - NEW BUSINESS:
I I # I I I I I I
There was some discussion on DMJM time schedule.
ADJGURNMENT:
By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 11:43 P. MI
Respectfully submitted, I I I
I I
I
6.T V-d-
DORCTHY M. SOUSA fiecording Secretary
I I I I I I I I I *