HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-06-14; Planning Commission; Minutes1 I' , 88 '8 8 ' '
:r3inutes of PLk]it;iIijG C0J;tISSIoN !Date of !leeting: Juile 14, 1356 i Name '"8$,c&8 "st '8 \\ :Time of bleeting: 7:30 P. i!. : of $#&,+,+,c. $+ i I PI ace of lleeti ng : Counci 1 Charnbers : Member ,oy\,@p,d\ I I~""""""""""""--""""-""""""""~""""~"-"----"--"~""""-----""- ""7"" 'I 1q
I I :;::::
iROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, I ;I, (141
:Commissioner-,Sutherland was absent. Also present: iiii:; 11 I& !were City Attorney Wilson, City Xanager Mamaux, I ;;;:I1 :;::;; :Planning Director Schoell, City Engineer Lill bl:;l#
!and Building Inspector Osburn.
I I :*
' '8 I I I I
I 88 '8 ' 8 I I . ~CITY OF CARLSWAD I I '\ '8 '8 ', '8,8b8 I
'8 '8 88 '8 '8
I t, '8 ", '8, '* ''
I
iPalmateer, ?tlcComas, iGlcCarthy, Freistadt and Littl4. 1:::;: I1
I 1 4 I ::::!I
I I ;;ii;i
I :Smith :I IXi ;x; i :
I 8 :Little :I I :$xi *
I I :Palmateer ;x; :xi : :
I I iHcComas i jx ; : I: :
I I :rkCarthy 1 ; i i x;
1 I iFreistadt i : :x; : i
I :Little : : 3; ;
I :Palmateer i 3 i 1) :
I I iidccornas I I !x ; :
I jilcCarthy I :
I I :Frei stadt :x; ;x i !
I jLi ttle I I ;:pi:: ;;:::! :;::;;
I I IPalmateer I 1 : I :x:
I :McComas [ i : ;
I I $lcCarthy 6 : X i :
I :Freistadt i 4 : :
I I jLi ttle : ; i
t I ipalmateer : !xi 4 : OI I
I I :HcComas i : : 4 i i
I I ii'icCarthy I i i $ : ;
4 I :Freistadt !xi i 8 I
I I ;: ll:;ll : xi
IldRITTEN COMPIUNICATIONS: I ;:i;i:
I ::I:;:
I:::!;
!(a) DR. HARRIS A. TAYLOR, Supt. Caiiisbad Union i ;I 4;ji:i
iSchool District, spoke regarding the need for the i 1o :Schools and City to wo.rk together for the growth : i::iii
!and development of the City and stated that he i :!;I;: :u:::
iwould like to list some of the problems he sees : '::@I;
:corning up in the future: (1) They are concerned ::;::I
;I )I(
!with the increased assessed valuations in the I I 1:i;::
:community; controlled manufacturing, controlled : :l;lt; ;: @:I
:highly selecti.0e business. (2) They are cor?cern$d ;:ii:: :with the proper location of school sites in the ; I@;+;: ::;:;:
:vicinity. (3) They are concerned with combinatiGn ;: 'I; jschool and park sites, and cal7ed attention to the: :i!iii :12 acre park and school site in the proposed I i:::;; :Laguna Riviera Subdivision and to the Vatley St. I 1:~111 :::;::
:School park combination. (4) He expressed con- I ;;;a:; lcern over the safety and welfare of the children : l:;:@l !and the future traffic control; excessive noises; i ;11;:; '::;:;
jelirnination of attractive nuisances; in and around: i::;:;
IAPPRWAL OF rl~~~~~~~: # I 1
:(a) i4inutes of the regular adjourned meeting of IPalmateer i : ; i : 4
:;/lay 12, 1966, were approved as submitted. iTdcComas ; i ix : I I
11
I :iulcCarthy i : I XI
I t
I I iFreistadt 1 I jx; j 1 @*I
I I
i(b) Llinutes of the regular adjourned meeting of ! 1:iiii 10
$lay 20, 1966, were approved as submitted. iSmi th i j, 11 : I
I
$
I I ::I I ,- t 4 I:;::; III:j i(c) Minutes of the regular meeting of )lay 24,
:196Q, were approved as submitted. $mi th i ixpi : ! I
I I
I
I
I
:;
I @I I!
I i(d) i4inutes of the regular adjourned t$eeting of i :Way,31., 1966; wePe hppigved. as ,submitted. iSmi th ;xi i# i
1
I
I
I
I 11
I I I
r :(e) Minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of i !i:lll
:June 3, 1966, \:!ere approved as corrected. :I 811
1 :$mi th ;:!::;
I
I
1 iLi ttle
I *
c I I
11
I
I 4 I I
I
I
I I
I I :;:::;
I li::;; I'
I 1 I :li:;:
I I ;I ;:;:
I
I I
1 ~:*~l* I t;;:;: * 'l&I*1
I ! !$I!*!
_- "
I I '\ \ -, '\ '\ '. I I I I
I I '\ ' ' I
I -7- I
I I $ I ',, ".,"., '., '.,:\., I I
I I I I .\ \.,'., '\,'..'., 8 I
I Name '\ ,$,
I : of I I \$f&9J,+x+. I ;""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""~""""""""""""-""-"-------"--~--"
I I ;;I#;: 1 the schools; air pollution, etc. The City and '+:I :!I;; : Schools are being confronted with more and more ; @l:;lb i joint problems. He expressed appreciation for #I:;;:
#o*s:: 11 f tle help, cooperation and full support of the : ll;:ll
1111:, i City for the development of the school and park { :;;;;; : sites, and of ehe willingness of the schools 1 I I :,:::; 1:;8Il i to work with the City in the future. 1 I a !:I:::
I I I:!::: i PQBLXC t1EARINGS: I I ;;+: ::::
I 1 ,:*::;: ! (a) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in rear ::::I*
1:: yard setback from 13 feet to 5 feet on property i ;@I:;:
1;:
: located at 1279 Knowles Ave., E'1y"of Pi0 Pic0 : 1:: i Dr. Applicants:. John B. and Mabel S. St. Clair.! al#;:i ::; ;::
I I .I I ::if::
I !::;In i I\lotice of hearing was read. The Secretary * : certified that notice of the public hearing was I l&:a:: l;gl*l
I f::/:f i given to the property owners in the area and I I :i;:ii ; then read the application. I 4 I I:::::
I I 1;4;: : There were no written communications.
I I :I : The Planning Director gave a report of his find- : el:;;: :!:;*I
i and that the applicant would like to split his ; I::,:: :;I:::
I property since Stratford Lane was constructed I :'I:;: i and dedicate 10 feet of his property on Knowles i 1:;:;;
1'11(1 : Ave. The guest house would have a 5' rear yard : ::::I*
1:p:; I se4back on the Parcel fronting on Knowles. If I :i;:::
I the proper rear yard setbacks were complied with : $1: ::i:i; the Parcel fronting on Stratford Lane would re- i $#AI@ quire a variance for reduction in lot area. He : 1:::;:
: felt it would be better to have a reduction in : i;;;::
:l::al 1: rear yard setback on the guest house than to havd ;::::; : a reduction in lot area, however, if the Commissy I:;# I1 I ion deemed it wise to grant this, he recommended i 111;:;
;;:I:; : that it be for the exfsting structures only and ; :;I!:: i not as a blanket variance across the total back i ;::'::
: yard for building. I ;::::, ,
I ;:::ii When questioned if there were any definite reasof& 1:'If:
; that were granted others in the arez, the Planniqg 1I:fl;
::'I:: i Director stated that when a new street is created, !!;:;I
: the Commission would always be faced with problemis ::a: ;:I;:; I such as this, and it does become a condition for : ::::i: : the possible granting of a variance since the i ;::;I: i guest house was already there. Other properties : ;:;@;I
::a::: : in the area would be able to be split without thd /::;: i need for variances. I I ;::::i
I I i::;:; i The Chairman announced the Commission would now 1 1;;4:: :::::: : hear from the applicant or his representative. ; :::I:: * ::pi;
f HR. JOHN ST. CLAIR, 1278 Knowles Avenue, stated i :::::: that he purchased the land with existing house I ::;::: ; and guest house in the fall of 1956. They have : ::I:;: ::: ! no children and they would like to be relieved i l;l!ii i of the lower portion of thei r property. The * ;I:@l'
I ;::::: : guest cottage is a wood structure with a concrete: ;1::1; I foundation and there are no doors openin9 on the : ;I:::;
: back of the cottage into the rear yard. I ;::;::
I ;::1:1
I 1:;::: i ~+~r:i St. Clair was questioned regarding installing! ::I:#;
a concrete wall across the back of his property i :I:;:; ;::;:; : and he stated that it would work a hardship to ; ! install one at this tinle. I ;::::I
I
I
' ',&' ',,'.$$,
'~$'\O. ,c) \.l* \ '\\ %., i
; Member ,Q ,O %,e'? '&'\$
11
I
I
I
I I
1 I I :::i;: 11::;:
I 1
ings and explained the location of the property 1 ..
I I I 11)1
11(1
I I
I I
I
1
I I
4(1111
I ;:;::I I:
I I I /4;! ;:I1
I I I ;;:;:; ;I1#
I $1:::
I ;::;:; * ;::;t;
I I :i::i:
! ! :!::I!
I I
I I
I I I 1 I I I I
I
I
I
I
I D
I I I
I. I '\\ '\\ \\, '\ ', *\ . ,.. I I
I
1 I I
I ,.,\'' I
I I
I
1 I ', ', '\
I I '\, "\,"\, ',, '\\'\, 1
I -3- I N a me8 '., '8B, ",~&
I : Member '%.o\c'<p\,d. I :"""""""""~"""""""""""~"~"""""""""""""-"~;"--------""-"-~--~--~-"-
I I 'I 1 I3 I No one else spoke in favor of this request. 1 I ::I:::
I I I :I:::: l:;~ll
i The Chairman announced the Commission would now : ::l:bl
1811;: i hear from those who wished to speak in oppositio4. :I;:;;
::::I@
I I lal:: i KO one spoke in opposition. I
::;bl '11:18
;II 10
$ 8 lo*:;^ i The public hearing was closed at 7:58 P.N. I 4::i:
I I I::::' :::::: i Points discussed were that it would be better to ;::!;: : grant the reduction in setback than reduction in : :I:::: i lot area; granting the variance on the existing i :::;:I
!::::I i structure and not for the rest of the lot with :
I @I:;!! : no variances on replacements or additions. 8 I i:;;::
I :;;t4a
11 :;:::!
I ::;I:@
\"
I
I I ; of \,.% \?d*&&,.$$+ \O', $4. ; I
I I
I
I
I I
I
f I I 11
I I I
I I I I I
The following resolution was presented:
1 I 1 : After further discussion a motion was made to i ,::I:: adopt Resolution No. 440 granting a variance for i :!I:;: : reduction in rear yard setback from 13 feet to : ::; ::: i 5 feet v!ith the condition that this variance : applies only to the present structure and in the i :event of that structure being removed this varianqe 11::
i will cease. Said Commission did find the follow-: I;:::: : ing facts and reasons to exist: , I ::;I::
I I ;@l:81
I l:'l;: i in this instance since the guest cottage was con-: ;:;::: : structed years before the opening of Stratford ; ::;I '::I Lane was contemplated which creates a condition i i:, 1;:: It ; making the split of this lot feasible. I I ;;:;q
I I 118 1 I :;:I;:
I 2. This variance will not subtract from ! i::::, 81;
i the property rights of others in the vicinity. i ::::::
I ;::;I;
3. That the granting of this variance will : ;::;:I
;I::!;
I , I i;:::;
I I ;:::::
;!:I
:I::;:
I 1. That there are exceptional circumstances! I ::;I;: 11
11
)l111#
1 I
1
I
I I
1 I
not be detrimental to the public welfare and will! ::I:;;
; be in keeping with the General Plan. 1:~111
1 Plannin Commission Resolution No. 440. A RESOL$-Smith ;;ii::
; KNOWLES AVENUE, EASTERLY OF PI0 PIC0 DRIVE, was i McCornas : ; 5( : i ; i adopted by title only and further reading waived.: i4cCarthy : ix3( i : :
I
/c
I I:::
i 'fIdTIWG A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY AT 1279 : Palmateer I : i : ': :
I
I I i freistadt :xi 3(: i i
I I : Little , ::x;:: ,
1
I i::::: i (b) VARIAFJCE - To consider a reduction in rear i /;:I; i yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet on property i ::::I:
: located at 955 Grand Ave., at the Southeasterly i ':!!;:
I corner of the intersection 0.f Grand Ave. and I I I+;: : Hope St. App'licants : John and Norma C. Ortega. i I::;::
I I I 1:;1;:
8 l~l:;l ! i'lotice of hearing was read. The Secretary I ::i:;; i certified that notice of the public hearing was I : given to the property owners in the area. The i ;ll;:l
::::I; 11 i Secretary then read application. 1 I ;:::I;
I ll;l;l i There were no written communfcations regarding : ;:iiii 1::::: : this request. I I ::;:::
i The Planning Director gave a report of the staff i ;;:::: ; investigation and explained the locittion of the : ::::;; : property and structures and the zoning in the iy:1: area. He stated that it is a unique piece of I :I:, ::;;::
property as the structures were on it when it : ;: ;:;: i was R-1 property. It is now R-2 property sur- : :::::: i rounded by R-3 and C-2. The owners wish to build i::;:;
Ill 1;;:;l : an apartment over the existing garage. I I ::#:I:
I I ::;::I
I I I ::I::;
I t ;I:::; I I I ;::;::
I I I I ;::;:a .I!!::
I
I'
I
:I
I 1 I ;:
I ::;::: I 1
I
I I ,
I
I
I
I I
,-
rc
I f' ',... I
I I I I '8' '\\\ '\\ , '\ % '\ ', . I
I I I I
'8. ""'., ',,'.,'\, I I
& : Member ~%@.+~$3. I ~,,""","~,,~""""""""~"~""""""~""""""-.""-""""""----------"-----"--,----
I I i::;:l J i The Building Inspector pointed out that tht. two i :ii::: i story apiirtment house across the street was I I :;l:bl
lI:I : granted a variance for reduction in rear yard se& ::::I: ;it:l@ I i back -to 5:. The Ortegas have owned the property i : for nany ycars and are the only property owners ; 1 ;;#:I@ :a::
I ~ho have dedicated 15' on Grand for a street ope4- , 11;; :;:::I : i 11s and sewer services and all uti1 ities arc in. : 6 :Ill
;:@:It i Adjacent property owners to the South with C-2 i 1: i::: prcperty cannot build to the property line when : !:o;l; ,::::I : their property abutts an !?-Zone. If a building ::'I:: Is built closer than 5 ' from the property line 'I:;;; : it has to comply with the fire zone. 1 I :::: ::e
: The Chairman anflounced the Commission would now i ::;::: i hear from the applicant or his representative. I *8Il;: ;:I:;;
HR. JQlifd QRTEGA, 955 Grand Ave., stated that he i :i::;: i::;;: i plans to stucco the inside and outside of the : 11 : building. The building has been there for about i ;;::I# :::::: i 40 years. They are asking for a five foot rear : @l;;lf :Ill::
1.. I ;i::lt I six fset from the property line, He pointed out : I;:::;
: that the Carlsbad Investment Corp. was granted ::::I: i a 5' variance on their property across the streeq. :I::;;
'::;I; : The entrance to the apartment over the garage : ::al:l ~ould be from an exterior stairway on the North- i :I::;; :;::I: easterly corner of the building. 8 I ;I);la
I I l:~l;:
: ?lo others present spoke in favor of this request.: I;::::
I I : :,: 1 I I i The Chairman announced the Commission would now i :I:::: ;;4*: : hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. i /:::: I I I ::::::
I IO : If0 one spoke in opposition to,,this variance. I I /:::I I:
I 1)
I I 1 1;::;:
I The public hearing was closed at 8:22 P.N. I 1:;:: i Points discussed were that do to the location of ::;:,I
I the property this was a reasonable request; that ; :;::;i
it was a special circumstance since it adjoins I :::I;: 11
I 2-.3 and Commercial property; that it would not : :::::: i:: ::: : be detrimental to the public welfare or surround-! ;i 0:::: i ing property owners; that the existing building : :iii
: was not ideal but the owner has some property i :*It ;:'I::
i rights to utilize the property to the best ad- : :;:::: : vantage; that the building is off an alley and : ;:;:::
llll; i the owner has stated he would stucco the building: 11 :::;:; : irlside and out; that there are similar uses in : i::::: i the area; the entry to the garage in on the house: 1;:;::
: side of the garage which makes ingress and egress: :l*ll; ::::I; i ssfer than opening directly to the alley; that i I**,:, :::::; : it is in an older section of the town and does 1*11:: Ill have a unique circumstance surrounding this; that: ::::I: i it would be creating a hardship to deny the vari-: l:al:b :;:::; : ance cr to cause the building to be moved; re- I :;:::: i stricting the variance to the existing building I It4 ::4:i;
: on The back af the lot with no overhang into the i ::;:;:
t 1 :l;l,l
I b ::::I'
I I:* 1:: i The City Attorney stated the variance could be : ::::;:
: restrictcd to that specific bufldiR?g. I ::::::
I ~1I;l;
I :::i:: : The City Attorney stated the va:.fdi'!.c could be I I:::;: i restricted to that specific btiild.ing. b :;;I::
I I I 1:::;: i Commissioner i.icCarthy stated that he would like i ::::;: ::;::: i to grant thc variance for the reason of eccacmics: :::::: : but that would be all, as Le felt .it was not I :a1:;; good planning aad the request does not meet the i l:;lll
::a:::
I I ::i;::
I I :*I I8 I I ;:::::
I ;:::::
I I 1.; I : ; :
I I :I::!;
I I ' L' I
I Y $. .. I I I ' <' t
I 1 i Name "'\ .$, ',,'.$, ,
I I : of '\,+ .y:& \O" 9',.2.\+ '\ ?+., \ t I I
I*
1)
I
I I I 11 :i;iii
I #I $1)
I I I 1
11
IO
vard setback but it will really be closer to I I1
I I
I
I
I
I*
I I
I
setback.
I I
I I I
I
I ,
1
I 1
b
I
I
I
I
I
! l!!l.l
-_
."""_ ,""""""""" "-
I I requirements of Secticn 1802
Cesmissioner Freistadt agree ; i4cCarthy.
i he -rollowing resolution was
I I
I
I
1 I
""""""""""""""""~"
I I I I I I
of the City Ccde.
d with Commissioner
I I I I
presented: 4 I I I t I I :ii;i; After due consideration, a motion was made to I ;::::: i adopt Resolution TJo. 441, granting a variance I I 1::::; I*
: for reduction in rear yard setback from 10 feet i ::;Ill
i to 5 feet with the condition that the variance : ::::::
::I::: : shall be restricted to the confines of the exist-: ll;*lt
:;l:ll i ing bui 1Li.ing with no overhang on the South and I;:::: :b!est sides allowed. Said Commission did find 1 I :I,::; 'a:;l:
I I :; l#;8::
i the proper use of the land and to require the I I :::i:: :moving of the existing building would create a i !::;I1 11:: I hardship.
I
I
41
,the following facts and reasons to exist: I
I I I :::;::
I 1. To deny the variance would deter the ownbr :::::: t I
It
t I ::::,I
I I 1 :::;I:
;;'I:: ; : :xi ; I PlanniAg Commission Resolution No. 441. A RESOLU-:Smith
.- : TION GRANTING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY AT 955 i Palmateer : ixix: ; 11 ; I GRAND AVENUE, AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE I i4cComas i : :x; : i i INTERSECTION OF GRAMD AVENUE AND HOPE STREET, was! OdcCarthy : ; i : 4 :
; adopted by title only and further reading waived.:FrQ!istadt i ! ; i 5
I lI;III 11 / (c) RECLASSIFICATIOf4 - Zone R-2 to C-1 (Neighbor; : hood Commercial) on property 1 ocated at the f.fortht i westerly corner of Tamarack Ave. and State Free- : ::;:;:
:way XI-SD-26. Applicants: Archie Koyle, et al. i
! (d) PRECISE PLAR - To consider adoption of a i i precise plan located on the Northwesterly corner : : of Tamarack Ave. and State Freeway XI-SD-2B. I I Applicants: Planning Commission Resolution No. i
I 8 i Li ttIe ?(: :xi : :
;: 1:::: i::::; I1
::I:;:
ll::;:
I I
I I I l!!l
I 43.2. I I
I I I I
I- : Tne Secretary read a letter from !Jilliam 3. Stre1)a : dated June 8, 1966, requesting that the above i i hearings be continued to June 28, 1966 for the ; : purpose of obtaining additional information for i the Commission's consideration. I I
i !.Jith the consent of the Commission, the Chairman : ; stated said hearings would be continued to June i : 28, 1966 at the next regular meeting of the i Commission.
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I
OLD BUSINESS:
I I i (a) RGT Zoning. The Planning Director stated that: : representatives from the Janss Corp., owners of i Shelter Cove Subdivision, wished to submit a : letter and wished ,to expediate the need for a I i Real Estate Office in the Subdivisdon. 1 I
I 9 I
I I I I i MR. DALE ALLRED, 4590 Cove Drive, Carlsbad, statejd : that at the special meeting on illay 31, 5'366, he i i made a statenetit and was requested to give a I letter containlnp the data he was. rpading to the i : Commission.
I I
I I
i t 1 1 t : He stated the letter is lengthy and he would g-ivei I a copy of it to Ihe Clerk and a, copy to each of ; ; the i,rwnissioners so the Commission coulci study :
1
,-
r
1 I
I
I
I ' of
I I
I i Momhor
I I ! this at their leisure. He stated he believed it i i would be better to carry this over to the ad- I : journed meeting.
I Temporary Real Estate Offices in Subdivisions. 'The City Attorney presented a resolution of I : intention for the Commission: approval regarding ! i temporary Real Estate Offices and temporary I I i Real Estate signs in the subdfvisions. I I
I I I I I I 9
I
I I i A motion was made to adopt Resolution of Intent- i : ion No. 57 to hold a public hearing to consider ; i these tnatters at the next regular meeting on I I : June 28, 1966.
: The Cornmission agreed to discuss the letter from i i the Janss Corg. at the regular adjourned meeting i : of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 21, : i 1966, at 5:OO P.N. in the Council Chambers. I
i (b) General Plan. The City Engineer stated that i i the Council requested the Planning Commission I : and Engineering Department to study an alternate ; I East-IJest route for the extension of Tamarack i : Easterly from Highland Drive. Tamarack Avenue : is designated as a 102' right of way from the i : ocean to the Easterly side of the Freeway and I then 84' to Highland Drive. After Highland Drivd, i the width is controversial. The Staff and the : : Commissioners made a field trip and looked over I i the property and discussed the alignment to El I : Camino Real. The City Engineer presented 3 sketc~es I of 3 proposed routes having a curb to curb width : : of 48' with two travel led lanes. He explained ! i the first route proposed would be a residential i : street and would be a distance of 4800 feet to ; i El Camino Real through Eirch Avenue and the I I : grades would be less than 10%.
/ The second proposed route would be to swing arourdd : the Highlands to the south. Due to the topo- I i graphy and lengthy distance, there would be
I larger severances of property and there would be i a 10% grade. The distance of this route would : : be 6300 feet to El Camino Real. I I
: The third route proposed would be to extend the I i route south to Laguna Riviera Subdivision, which i : would require 8000 feet of street. 1400 feet : I would be part of the future plan for Kelly Drive.! I if it is an 84' street it would have to be re- 'I : aligned. Their conclusion was that it would not I i be practical to have the 84' wide street and I I : recommended three 68' streets to €1 Camino Real. i 68' right of way on Park Srive; 68' right of way : : on llillside Drive; 68' on Tamarack Easterly of i Highland Drive to the present alignment of Birch i : which is 60' now and then back to 68' to El I I i Camino Real. The 3 proposed streets vocld have i : 48' curb to curb widths. I I
: The Chairman questioned the City Vanager regard- ! i ing the travelled roads and distances as they i may be planning further ahead soeetimes than they: : should. 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
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 I I I * I I ! !
i The City Fdanager stated the three 68' roads with i ' : 48' curb to curb would eliminate one 84' street : i and he pointed out that economics do play a I I : part of the public. The City i4anager stated he ; i felt the City would be much further ahead to hav4- i these 3 routes. Iluch of the land is undeveloped: : 2nd most of Park and Hillside Drive would be put i in by the developers, The General public would i : only be paying for that portion going through : Birch between Sunnyhill and Skyline. He pointed! : out that Elm Street is costing the public a I ! lot of money. :-le stated the general public would i not he paying for the three routes as they \~~ould: ; be built one or two blocks at a time as the pro- i perty is developed. There would be severance I : damage on one parcel. Severance damage and I I i property damage have to be considered. Routing : : around the Highlands with an 84' street for I i 6300 feet would be rather expensive after 10 yeads
! due to user costs per mile. These 3 streets are: all in residential areas but many of the people ! i are using Chestnut now. I I
The City iblanager recommended three 63' routes to ! : El Camino Real with 60' between Sunnyhill and i i Skyline on the present alignment of Birch, with : 48' curb to curb widths on the 3 streets. The i i property owners attending the Council meeting : ; from the Righlands were not opposed to the 60' i i route through the Highlands. I I
ALLAN KELLY, El Camino Rea? stated he believes : the City Engineer came up with the right answers : i and pointed out the residential areas on the i other side of El Camino Real. He stated he sees i : no reason for an 84' street east of El Carnino i I Real as the people can go around and take El I I : Camino Real which wi71 be a 126 foot street. i People from Los Angeles or San Diego would not i' : want to go through Tamarack as it would have I i the most grade. They could take Palomar Airport ! : Road on the South of the lagoon. He sees no I i reason for residential areas to have major i collector streets to go downtown to buy groce- : ries. People can take a li:$tle longer getting I i there or go around. Those in a hurry can take :
i speed through streets in residential areas.
i A short recess was called at 9:13 P.M. The : Commission reconvened at 9:23 P.H.
: The Chairman reviewed the memorandum from the i City idanager dated Nay 23, 1966, in which the I I Council asked the Planning Commission to study : an alternate route for Tamarack.
i The City ?lanager pointed out that one of the i reasons discussions came up on ~atter was the : result of the General Plan in which the Cornmissi4n i recommended Tamarack as an 84' road. tdhen this : : was discussed at the Counci 1 meeting the propert9 i owners objected to the width of Tamarack being : : an 84' street going through the HighlaGds. I I
0 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I
El Camino Real. He does not believe in hjgh I I I I I * * I * I I I * I 1
I I I I
I I
1 I I I I 8 I
I I 1 8 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 1 I I I I I I I I I !
,-
I I I 4 1 I I I I I
-8-
t
I I : of
I Member
~"""""""~""~"""-"""""""""""""""""""-"""~"-l""""-"-
I Points discussed were that it is much easier to : plan roads where there are no developments; if : i Tamarack was planned before the Highlands was ! built up there would be no problem there now; i block planning to have a better overall concept i : of planning some good rights of way; the Commis- :
I possible; if the streets are on record, property i i owners would have to develop accordingly; Hill- i side and Park will go through Laguna Riviera Sub-: : division to connect to El Camino Rea1;that the i shortest route is best; that the street would be :
I gbing through a housing development no matter I i which way it goes; Chestnut and Elm go through : to El Camino Real; Jefferson, Hillside, Park i or Tamarack will not have much traffice for many i years; the major arteries to the downtown area : : will be Elm and then Chestnut; that one of the i i reasons Chestnut was not extended was because
I of the topography east of El Carnino Real; traffic! i by the schools; the Jr. High School will be off : : of Tamarack; that there Rave been considerable i i studies made on Tamarack and east-west routes and: : Engineering-wise this is a good solution and the i i Commission should act now on it; that 3 streets i : with 68' right of way would be better than one I with an 84' right of way; that Hillside and Parki i should be 68' street and Tamarack should be 68' : : to the present alignment of Birch; from Sunnyhilli : to Skyline it would remain a 60' right of way, I I I Tamarack would then have a C8' right of way from i Skyline to El Camino Realf all of the 3 streets : : would be 48' curb to curb; extending Tamarack I I to Chestnut.
[ It was pointed out that a public hearing was held! : in 1962 on the extension of Tamarack to El Caminoi i Real via Chestnut and blest Haven as a major stree?
and it was deleted from the /$laster Plan at that ; I time.
I After further discussion, a motion was made to i i send a memorandum to the City Counci 1 stating thaZ : the Planning Commission, together with the Staff i i studied and considered the .yeques t made at the :
I Council meeting on May 17, 1966, for an alternate! i route for Tamarack Ave. to El Camino Real. It : : was the decision of the Commission that the follok i wing routes be recommended to the Council : (1) i i Tamarack Avenue should be extended from Park Dr. ; : through to Sunnyhill Drive with a 63' right of i i way and 48' roadway width curb to curb; from I I : Sunnyhill Drive to Skyline Drive on the present i i alignment of ilirch Avenue the right of way : should remain 60'; from Skyline to El Camino Real! i Tamarack should have a 68' right of way, with an : : over-crossing (not a cloverleaf) on Skyline over I i the present alignment of Eirch Street, if : pracgbble. (2) In addition the Commission recommended that Hillside Drive and Park Drive : : have a 68' rights of way with 48' curb to curb i
width from Tamarack to El Camino Real.
I (c) Park dedication in subdivisions. The Plan- i ning Director stated he had no report to make 8 i at this time.
I 1 I
I I I I I
sion should look into the future as much as 8 I
I
1 I
I I I I I I
B 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 b
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
,., t
I I I I I 1 I 1 I -9-
I I I I I
I I I
I I :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-""""~.
I I
!(a) Temporary Real Estate Offices in Subdivisions! :See OLD BUSINESS fa) above. 1
i
I I
i (b) Di4JI4 Contractural Services. The Planning I :Director reported receiving a letter from the :State Department of Finance who helped finance 1 i the General Plan and they would appreciate a i statement when the Commission consider the work I :completed on the General Plan. The Council would: i then take action on this. I
i The Chairman stated this was indicated when the i : Commission recommended adoption Of, the General i I Plan.
!A motion was made to report to the Council that : I the planning, zoning and subdivision contractuRa1 : requirements have been completed by the firm of i Daniel, blann, Johnson and Mendenhall to the sati-: :isfaction of the Commission.
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 :By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at
; 9:59 P.iL to Tuesday, June 21, 1966, at 5:OO P.M.:
in the Counci 1 Chambers for the purpose of study-: : ing the proposed R-T zoning. I
I I I
I
I I I : Respectfully submitted,
I