HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-06-03; Planning Commission; Minutesrc
I I' , .', \ *' I I I
I I \\ '\ * '\ '\ '* I I \, '\ '\\'\, $Ji nu tes of : PLANNIb!G COi<iilTFSIO!.I [gegular i '\ ','\,'\\ ',\\, :Date of Meeting: June 3, 1965 ',\,\'
!Time of Meeting: 5:GO P.M. bieeting) i of .,+.o\, 8, .%\, I :Place of Meeting: Council Chambers Member b?k%.q\,+t?,*p $3."0\,~~0~&,1 ; :"""""""","""""""""""""""~"""*""""""""""""""""""":-~"~""
'11111 1q !ROLL CALL was answered by Smith, Palmateer, !;IC- :::~ll !Coma's, T9cCarthy and FrefStadt. Commissioners Sut- : :::i:: VI :herland and Little were absent. Also present wer4 I,',,: :$:: !Planning Director Schoell, City Engineer Lill. I I 1*:1::
I I ::I:::
!Chairman McComas announced the purpose of this ::jj::
;::I:: :meeting was Lo study an alternate route for Tama- : :::::: !rack to El Camino Real. I :iijii
I :::;:i
i'Ibe Planning Director explained on the map that ! :::::; :Tainarack is proposed as a 102' right of way from :::;:; !Carisbad Blvd. to the easterly side of the Free- i :::::I
::;I:: :w;zy now. The General Plan report recommended an : ::::I: (18 i84' right of way from the San Diego Freeway to El i i:::':; jCamino Real. Due to objections raised from pro- : :i::;: :perty owners in the Highlands, the Council has re: 1 Io1
!quested the Planning Commission to make a study : iiii:: I(II
:for an alternate east-west route for Tamarack. I I :ill;:
8 :;I1
:The Engineering and Planning Departments and the ! I:,
::;::I :Planners from DMJE.1 believe the proposed route on j :#I:;; ::::;: 1111 !Tamarack to El Camino Real via Birch Ave. would : :be the best main route to the beach, lagoon and -! ::* 1,::;:
jdowntown area and would connect with roads pro- : pa:::
:posed by the County easterly from El Camino Real. i 1:Ilb iiiijj !If 'I.amarack does not follow this route as an 84' : ::;::: :right of way, the Engineering and Planning Depart! :::I::
8: jments recommend that Tamarack be a 60' right of :
:way from Highland to El Camino Real; that Park Dr.: :!:;:: jand Hillside Dr. be a 68' right of way. These : :8111;
I::I:I :streets would have a larger right of way than I I l:II I :!:;:: !Chestnut but would be ti1 same width curb to curt :with norc green area. I 10:
I I I I::::;
!He discussed the traffic circulation going througq !:::j; itown. I I @I:;::
::::I:
I :::I:,
!There was discussion by the Commission of looping : ::':I:
:Tamarack southo easterly from Park Dr. and wester: ily of Sunnyhill Dr., around the southerly end of : 1;::
:Sunnyhill and Skyline and then over to El Camino i ::::j; ::lilt
;Real with an 84' right of way. I I 14j:;
I I::: !The Planning Director pointed out that the resi- : :::::: jdents in the Highlands would get more noise from i ::I:I:
:that route than one that went directly through : :!::I:
jthe Highlands and that the staff f2els this would ! :I::(: ::j:;: :be more costly because of the distance and topo- : ::I::: jgraphy. He called attention to the fact that mani :::;:: :other property owners from Carlsbad Blvd. to Park: :::I::
!Dr. would also be affected by the widening of Tam; /:::: !:dl:
:arack. I I ::::$
I :;I::: !Points discussed by the Commission were that the : i:;:;: !route through Birch St. would hurt less people as! 1:::;:
:there were only 7 families in the Highlands that : :;1:1:
jwould actually be affected by this route; that it: :I::::
:is engineering sound and would cost less for ac- I ;!::;:
iquisition; that it would be a more direct route : ;:::::
:from the back country and would tie into the circi- ;::::: :::::; jlation with the Freeway and the County roads plan: ;::@:I :ned east of El Camino Real; that the property I I I:;:,:
!could be acquired now if it is precise planned j i;l::: ;::::I :before driveways are installed; that there would : ;:I::: !be no parking on Birch Ave. between Sunnyhill Dr. I ;;::::
:and Skyline Rd. due to the topography; that when I I::;!:
:Elm Ave. was precise planned Commissioners and ; :;#I*:
:11::: :Councilmen were affected also but they recommendeq ::I::* :it in the best interests and for the necessity of: ::;I::
1:;::: :the City. I I lll:;; ;,I
I I I I 1:;:;:
I I I I ::::;:
I I I I ::;:;:
I I I I i:i!:i
1 ! :;::::
I
1 I I
Ad j o u r n e d : r+ a me 8,. 'x,,'\++,
$1
I I
I
I I 1
I1
I I i::::! 1:;1
I I I
::ii:: :;I
I I I I ;: /::I::
I 1:;1
I I
Il(Il(
I
I I 1: II
t.!l!l
r. L . I
r-
I ,""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~
I I jgther routes were suggested, howeverg the PlanninG juirector stated that a major route should have a i :direct purpose -to get to some particular place : jand affect the fewest possible residents now and i ;in the future. 1 I
!l.pc;n being questioned the City Engineer stated I jthey might have to have stop signs on Skyline if i :th.is is a 69' street but did not believe the traf.: Ific would warrant a 4-way stop sign.
tunnelling through the Highland3 to get to El :Camin0 Real without affecting those living in the:
IKighlands was also suggested and it was pointed i jout that this would be very costly.
/The Comvission adjourned from the Council Chamber; :at 5:48 P.M. to go out in the field to study the i jland for an alternate route.
!Respectfully submitted,
I 4 I
I I I I I I I
or bridgin over Birch
1 I I I I
I I I I I I I I t I I
I I I I
I I
:Recording Secretary
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 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 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 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 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 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 I I I