The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1965-04-27; Planning Commission; Minutesrc * ', b -8 88 't '8 I I '$8 8*8"88 '8, 't8'%, I :Minutes of: PLANNING CCMMI SSICN I '8 '\ '8 8 ' !Date of Meeting: April 27, 1565 Name 888 '*+- =.:*A :Time of Meeting: 7: 30 P. M. ; of '+%\ \p, , !Place of Meeting: Council Chambers &O'\ 48.4 * : : Member fb'P.'$" """"""""""""""""""."""""""""""""""""""~""".""""." "","" U'4 ji+OLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Palmateer, I i:::1; :I: ::: :McCarthy, Sutherland, Lamb, McComas and Freistadt. : ;;I :::; :Commissioner Grant was absent. Also present were 0 ;: :;:o :City Attorney ilson, City Engineer H ayne P, Lill, A.ssisi *:I II :;*:I; itant City Engineer Thornton, Planning Director Schoell i I)', ::;;:I I and Building I nspector Osburn. 1 ;;;!:; I 6 I:!*!o !CITY GF CARLSBAD 88 0 I ', '8 '8 88,'*8 I I b I I 4 ;I1 11 I 0 jAPPlEOVAL OF MINUTES: I : (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of April 13, 1965, :McCarthy : ; :xi :were approved as submitted. isutherland ; : :x: 0 :Lamb I* I I : x;x; I :Freistadt i i ixf 1;;: :::; - I I ipdmatecr i i :x: I I iMcComas !xi !x: 0 I I I ib-dITTEN CCMMUNICATIONS: - I I i (a) Council action on Planning matters was noted. : (b) San Diego County Planning Congress - re: Meeting i :May 7, 1965 at Hotel Del Coronado with panel discussion i lon Architectural Control. 3eservations were made for ; ithe Commission to attend. It was agreed that arrange- i iments should be made to see if the Council men wished to : :attend. : (c) San Diego Planning Department - Letter addressed i i to the Chairman of appr eciation for help in preparing re- i :port for Part 8 of Environmental Conservation. i The Chairman asked that a letter be written thanking them ! :for the 3 copies sent and ask for additional copies for the i i Commission. 0 I I I I 0 0 I I I 0 0 I 1 ! CRAL CCMMUNICATI GNS: I I a 1 I I I 0 # I 0 I i There were no oral communications. i PUBLIC HEAiCUNGS: - I ( a) IiECLASSIFI CA TICN - R- 3L to C -1 ( Neighborhood4 :Commercial) on property located on the Southwest corner I :Applicants: Jay Lear, Inc. : Notice of hearing was read. Acting Secretary McCarthy : hearing had been published and sent to property owners in 1 the area. Eight letters were read from the following objecting to thi4 i zone change because they felt it would cregte an attractive : ;nuisance across from the school; would be an intrusion of i i commercial enterprises in established area of homes and ; : schools; create traffic hazards; create added trash and i i waste disposal problems; this land use would be an unfor- : : tunate change in the direction of sound land use patterns; i undesirable in a predominantly residential area; no need : :for commercial zone in this area; referred to difficulty in*: i Gceanside with the students and the shopping center; would: :not be in the best interests of the City: i 4/21/65 Oceanside-Carlsbad Union sigh School District, i 0 150 S. Horne St., Cceanside. 0 i 4/32/65 Gordon J. Baker and Betty M. Baker I 2035 Charleen Circle, Carlsbad. 0 I 3784 Skyline Zd., Carlsbad. 0 I 2025 Karren Ln., Carlsbad. I 3790 Skyline 3d., Carlsbad. I of the intersection of Chestnut Ave. and Monroe St. I 0 I I 0 0 I I I read the application and certified that notice of public I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I t I I I I I I 0 I 0 I I I I I I I I b I I 0 8 I I I 0 I I I I 4/26/65 James M. Gaiser and Dorothy M. Gaiser 41 26/65 Noel C. Gregory and Linora K. Gregory i 41 26/65 Geraldine S. Eeeman (Mrs. T. F, Beeman) ! 0 I c 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 t I I I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I 1 -2- I I I I I I """"""""""""~""""""-"""""""""""""""""" 4/27/65 Mr. an.d Mrs. Jack Y, Kubota 4/26/65 Mchard C. Nutting and Dorothy 1. Nutting 4/27/65 Harry L. Krepps, President of Carlsbad Lancer Chairman Sutherland announced the Commission would no4 hear from the applicant or his representative and any I I ~ others desiring to speak in favor of this request. i,- 380i) Skyline Rd. , Carlsbad. 37'70 Skyline Rd. , Carlsbad. I I Booster Club. I I I I I I I I I I I I t I MA. H, B, LE:A&, President of Jay Lear, Inc., presented I i a rendering of the proposed shopping center they planned i to have on this property if rezoned, stating they felt they i would be serving the neighborhood needs and it would be : architecturally designed so the neighborhood would be : i proud of it. He reported that the High School students get ; in cars to go down town to get their lunches and this would i :be better for them than travelling in cars away from the : I school. He had no intent of over-ruling the ABC for liquo!. i No others present spoke in favor of this reclassification. i i The Chairman asked for those present desiring to speak i i in opposition to stand and a large majority of the crowd : I stood, I I # I I I I I I I 1 I The Chairman asked for only those having additional ob- ! jections to speak. I I CAPTAIN DON MERlhY of the California Highway Patrol : stated that he lives on Karren Lane and has two children who will be attending the sigh School and he felt this pro- ; posed request would be contributing to juvenile delinquenc ies. He stated that he has worked with many juvenile de- lin quency cases. I l MA. PE TE,8 FOL2, 2055 Chestnut Ave., stated that he concurs with the letters submitted and felt it was not nece?- sary to have C -1 zoning in this location. 9 I MAJ08 HENiZY TUBRS, 2035 Karren Lane, stated that he I thought with the May Company shopping center coming int$ the city, it would take some time before this proposed ; shopping center at this 1ocation.would be completely de- i veloped. I I The Planning Director read a report of his findings. The Chairman asked Mr. Lear if he would like to speak in! a I I I I I I I I I I rebuttal. I I Mh. LE.AIl stated that it was hard to argue with statistics i i and he had been following the Master Plan. He stated that: : he had contacted the Post Office and they would be serving! over 6Ccii3 citizens in that area, and felt those expressing : : objections to this reclassification were very small amount: of that number. He felt the school children would be unded : better control there. ae had contacted different chains { of establishments or organizations who felt this was a i good location. He stated that there might be more traffic ; I I I @ I I there. I I I I I 4 I @ I I I The public hearing was closed at 8:Ol P. M, I I Mr. Lear was asked if he would want to operate one of the! I proposed businesses and Mr. Laear stated that he would ; ; like to run the market and srnall bakery. i There was discussion on having liquor near the school, i I I I I I t I I I I I I @ I I I I t I I I I I I ! 1 I I I * 1 I * I I I ! -3- ;"""""""""""""""""""-""-"""""- """" """""' ; After further discussion, a motion was made to adopt i ; change for the fallowing reasons: I : 1. There is no need in this area for more of the uses i permitted in the proposed zone. : 2. The location directly across the street from Carls- bad High School and one block from Magnolia Elementary : School is less suitable for the purposes permitted in the : i proposed zone. i 3. It would create an extreme trac hazard for the huG : dreds of school children using the public thoroughfares. i desolution No. 394 denying the application for a zone I 1 I I I I i The following resolution was presented: I I I i Planning Commission Resolution No. 394. A dESGLUTION; i mYING APPLICATION FCR CBANGE OF ZC.NE Fi3,OM ; it-3L TC C-1 ON PRCPERTY AT TEE SOUTXWEST I i CORNEd OF THE IMTEIZSECTIC'N OF CHESTNUT Am- i ; NUE AND MGNRCE STmET, was adopted by title only and further reading waived. I I I 4 I 1 (b) ELM AVENUE PRECISE PLAN - To consider adop-: : tion of a precise plan for the location of an extension of i i Elm Avenue easterly of its intersection with El Camino i : iteal between Vista Way and Chestnut Avenue within the ; i City of Carlsbad. I Notice of hearing was read. Acting Secretary McCarthy i I certified that proper notice of the public hearing was given: ; and read the letter from the City Engineer dated April 13, I : 1965. I I ! The Chairman asked the Engineering Department to explai; this route on the map and the period of time that they felt i i it would take to complete it. I 1 Mr. Thornton explained this precise plan consisted of 1.35 : miles of roadway extending from the intersection of Pi0 i I Pic0 to El Camino Real. The Street would have an 84' : : right of way with a 68' roadway with a 4' median strip. I He explained that the Engineering Department has been ; i working on this project for over two years and coordinated: I the City Select lzoad System with the City of Vista and City: ; of Oceanside and the County's plan.for roads and streets. i i Elm Avenue is designated as a major street (City of Carlsf :bad designation) on the Master Plan from the beach area i to Melrose Avenue. Elm Avenue would extend east of E.1 i ; Camino Real to join a similar street from Vista providing : i another access to Oceanside-Garlsbad College. It is neceq- : sary to get to a point where it is feasible to cross El Ca- ; mino i2eal due to the topography east of El Camino aeal. i : Elm Avenue from Pi0 Pic0 to Elmwood would require a ; i 2 foot dedication on each side for an 84 foot right of way. : He explained that the red lines on the map were cuts and ; the blue lines were fills. From Elmwood to El Camino i : deal it would be necessary to acquire the full 84' right of ; i way. He explained that it was expedient to have this pre- i i cise plan and they are trying to build a street for heavy ; ; traffic as Chestnut will..be taxed considerably in the future.: : This route would require the purchase of a minirwm 1 i amount of buildings and would only have new intersections : crossing this route at Monroe and at Donna Drive. The cot+ i struction of the Elm Avenue as a major street to be fi- :nanced by gas tax monies. They roughly estimate the cost: i for property acquisition to be $138, CCO. and the cost of I .'rdad constructiorl costs including sidewalks and street i : lighting to'be $41'2,33GS. ifowever, this cost codd be re- ; I duccd to $384, COO. by future subdivided lalids rsquiring : ; 'access to Elm to providz full dedication. 3s explained i that subdividers are required to improve tne strset to meet : ithe standards for local streets and provide for 40' of pav- ; i ing. I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I i l 0 0 0 +4- 0 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 :"""""~""""""""""""""""""""-"""""-""""""~" I Mr. Thornton stated they plan to work from Fio Pic0 and : i may get to Valley by next year. He does not feel they : i have any great problems. They hope to eliminate as mand : driveway accesses as possible. They plan to connect i Canyon Street to Oak Street. Monroe will cross Elm Ave.; : and extend down to the future May Company shopping cen-i i ter. The Engineering Department estimates that it will : : take a maximum of 5 years to complete this route to El i i Camino Real and hope to have it completed within 3 112 I : years, subject to Gas Tax Budget review and projecting i available monies into future years. I 0 I I 0 Mr. Thornton explained the grading and fills that would be! I required and the topography of the land. He pointed out ; i that when the sewers are in,this area will start to develop: I and they will have a difjicult time if this is not precise ; planned as the cost for property acquisition will increase. i I Commissioner Lamb inquired if they plan to precise plan : i Tamarack and Cannon Road in the future and Mr. Thornto$ I stated they plan to. I 0 I Acting Secretary McCarthy read a letter from Ernest Ad- i : ler regarding a precise plan for the extension of Elm Ave.! I with a proposed alternate route extending toward the fu- : i ture May Company Shopping Center site. %hen questioned Mr. Thornton agreed this was the most : : direct route to the May Company but the City is attemptin4 i to establish east and west routes to coopdinate with the i roads in the County and needs of the City. 0 I Ma. EiENEST ADLE3 explained a new map that was pre- i I sented at thie hearing. He stated that he approved of the i route up to a point at Canyon Street where he felt this i : route shoul'd extend northerly to El Camino deal near the ; 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 I I I 0 I I future May Company site. 0 I $ 8 I 0 i Councilman David Dunne, 3015 Highland Drive pointed out i : the structure where his home is located and stated that he; / would abstain from voting when this comes before the i : Council, but felt the needs for roads are well established : / primarily for access from this community to the eastward: I section of town-,and pointed out that the City had failed to ; / put in an underpass on Chestnut. Ae stated that he prefer4 I the City Engineer's plan rather than the alternate route. : : Camino Real and would be impractical due to the topograp4y i and costs. The Gordon Whitnall Master Plan was only a i i schematic or general plan and the precise plan would be : ; prepared by the City Engineer. This route meets all of i : the requirements and is more attractive than a straight : line road. A curved road cuts down high speed traffic. i : i3e pointed out that La Jolla and Laguna have few straight : line streets. He recommended this route as a satisfactor$ : route and wmld be in the best interests of the City and is I ; a sound and practical route. He pointed out that some wilt I be hurt, including himself. I 1 i Mi%. C. D. SMITH, 1350 Cak Street inquired why he was : ; notified, and was informed that property owners are no- i tified if their property is adjacent to this street. i MA. JOHN KADER, 3021 Highland Drive concurred with : : Cmn. Dunne and was in favor of this route as the City is i I having growing pains. I MA. TGNY HGWAi3D-JONES, representing iienry Mayers j : Investment Company, stated that their land was acquired : i for subdivision purposes and the City will have to act fast i : when the sewers are available. de felt the City should : i have monies available for acquiring property when Elm is I ; precise planned. 0 0 The Master Plan showed a straight line from Elm to El 0 I 0 0 * I 0 * I 0 I 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 * I 0 I 0 0 l 1 I ,- I I 8s. I I I I I I I I 0 "8 '88'888 , 8 '8,", I I I 0 "8, 88*,"88 's8 ',,'\, I I I -5- N a me '8\ *+ i I I : of '$&'8 '8 *e8 : 8 8' 1 *\, '8 ', ' ' I I I I Member *$$if,?\: fy 8.b '$3' Q'..G'$p I ;""""""""""""""""""""".""""""""""""""""~""""""""" '0 ""1"" I MaS. MC NEIL stated that she was here at Mrs. Kathryn ! :::::; ; McCally's request to inquire how this would affect her pro) ; perty at 2988 Valley Street. Mr. Thornton explained that : :;;::: i the road would pass through her property but her build- i :;:I:: i ings would not be affected. i EA3L THCMPSON, Attorney at Law, Oceanside, stated i : that they have no problem with the precise plan up to I i Canyon Street but they recommend an alternate at the end ! : of Kamar's Falcon Hill. The route Mr. Adler proposes can be driven on now with an automobile and explained : : their proposed route and stated that it would cost less to i i acquire and less to maintain. It would not destroy adja- : : cent property because of the cuts and fills, He stated that! i the City's route would be extremely costly to acquire and I ; maintain. Mr. Gerry Carl& has done the engineering on ; i this alternate route and worked with Mr. Jerry Fisher, i : Planning Consultant, preparing a map which will follow ; i the natural topography. He stated that he would like to : turn this over to Mr. Fisher who has conferred with the : ':I ;;I$' I I ::;::I * I :!!@!I I I property owners in the area. I I I I I The Chairman stated the City Engineers and the Planning I Director have not reviewed this map and the Planning Com- mission are not Civil Engineers and it was difficult for th4 Commission to pass judgement on this map. He asked per,- mission to have the City Engineers and the Planning Dir- ! ector meet and study this. I I I I I I i Mr. Adler asked that if the Planning Commission has an ! : opportunity that they go inspect on site with their Enginee4s i as the Commission would have more veracity on this. Mr. Thompson asked that ademattee be appointed to see I I I I I I I ; it with Mr. Adler's Engineers and that this hearing be i continued to the next meeting. I I I I 0 0 I Mr. Fisher stated that they have, prepared a map especi- i ; ally for the layman which was done on a simplified basis. : : JAMES GAISER inquired if there would be lighting provid-j I ed and Mr. Thornton stated that this would be, $art of theik : provements and that lighting and sidewalks would be pro- ; I 0 I I vided from the gas tax monies. I I I I 0 I i MA. JCHN ANDERSCN, 2987 Highland Drive, expressed objection to this route going through his property as he ; ; felt he would not have anything left after the house is re- : moved, He stated that he fklt the street was never suppose ; to go through there and felt that he was not wanted in Carlg- i bad any more. The Chairman expressed regret that thie route was taking I ; part of tliis property. I I I I I I 8 I I I t I I I I I I I There was discussion on continuing the hearing. ! Mr. Adler stated that his plan goes almost to Vista Way. i i The Planning Director pointed out on the Carlsbad Viciniti i Map that the problem which concerns the City is the pro- I ; per location of a collector street running east .and west I i and connecting with the County's Select Road System, sho4- ; ed where Elm as proposed would met there requirements.: i Mr. Thornton stated they have QZorked+wi€h the Divi- i Slon of.. Highhaysmu the CBrlsbad Shct &bad System and i : they would be able to expend the State Tax monies, for the; i extension of Elm Avenue. They have considered all route4 i in the last two years and have done extensive topo work : I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I * I 4 I I I I I I I I t I c 0 _2- rc I I 0 8 '8 8, '8 ', ', '8, 0 0 I 0 ",8,88,>, '8 '\ ' I I 0 I 0 0 0 n 0 8, '8 888"8 I I 'QL'O\+ &+ i ::@ /:::: 0 88 ' 88 ', '8, 'x, '\ '8 0 I 0 -6- ; Na of me *., ''$, '8 '8, "$+ :"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""";""""""""" : Member '?9\+'@@8< ""-;"" i and find this to be the most feasible for the City and for : :::I,# I:, : the dollars spent. Monroe Street is designated as a local i i street with a 60' right of way and a 40' roadway to Vista I #;I:*@ ::::I' i Way. He pointed out that the cost factor is up to thecoun: :I::;: : cil to consider, but .that the route is up to the Commissio4 ::I::: i to consider. 4 0 :::i:: : Mrc. JANDAZO, 2801 El Camino Real stated that it seemed! :::a I1 i:: ::i ! the City's proposed route would be taking property off of : I#::@ :::::I the tax roll and Mr. Adler's route would be going over i ::p81 I* spoiled land. He pointed out that going over spoiled land : i::iii : will get you there as easy as going over good land. 0 '0 I n I I n :::;:i n ::;::; i MR. ADLER stated that they can point out at the next meet- :::::# ing that their route does coincide with the County's plan : I(O@ :::;:: for roads. 0 n ::::!: 0 :::::; I The Chairman asked that a letter be written to the City i :::;I: i Manager requesting his presence at the next meeting to : ::I;:: : discuss the precise plan of Elm Avenue and asked that a i i report be given from the Planning Director. n :::;I; I I I :1:4#; :i:::; I After discussion the Commission agreed to having this i :'Io : hearing continued to the meeting on May 11, 1965. 0 ;::::I I I 0 n ::i:i: :: : NEW BUSINESS: I 1 Oiiii 0 I I I I!;::: 0 I ::;::: I I I I ::::;: '81 i There was discussion on the preliminary report of the i ::;I:: : Master Plan. 0 :;n:n: 0 i:i:i: ! The Planning Director stated that a date had been set for : ;I:'#@ ::':'I i the public hearing on the zoning in the County Southeast of I ,I:':; I::::# : Carlsbad. n :::;:I I 0 I ;::o:o : OLD BUSINESS I I ;i:::: - 0 .n:iii 0 ::::;; : (a) Lake Calaveras. - There was no report. 0 I ::i:;o I AD JC URNNIE NT. 0 I ::;:;: ;: '1; 0 n n ;;I:;# 8' I By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 9: 43 I?. M. :I::;: 0 I 0 0 :;::o: : Respectfully sbumitted, I I 0:;::: 0 #"I;: i:::1: I n ;:Io:# 0 0::::: 1 zR3M. SOUSA 0 0 :;*I" I :I:::: : decording Secretary I ;::::: I 0:;;:o I :@'I;: 0 I 0 ::::n; I :::;:; I I 0 0 I-:;: I ::;:;: 0 I ::i;ii I ii ' 0 0 @ :::I I 0 :;:::: I ;::;no ': n ;:;*:I n l I ;:::;: I ':::I; 0 n ::;; :: I I :I:::; n ;I1 @IO I #:;::I I: b I i;;::; 0 I 1:s: 0 n 0 ;::I;# I Bo;:'; I I 0 ::I::; ;::':; I n /;:;I ::I;#: n ;::;:; * ::I;:; 0 ;::::; 0 I ::i:;, #I 0 b I;~I*: I@ I 0 I 0 :::I @: I n 0 0 I#,lIl lo@ There was discussion on unzoning property. I 0 0 0 I I 00 I n 0 I 0 0 I I 0 0 ' ,In' I 0 0 n I 0 I %L4L" I 0 a ;::::; 8 I I I 4 I I n I 0 0 0 018 8 I I n I 0 0 n I 0 I 0 0 I I I 0 n 0 I n 9 * 0 n 1 n n I 0 n n n n 0 6 I I I 0 0 0 0 I I I I n I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 n I * ;i;:;: ! I O.!@ !e