HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-24; Planning Commission; Resolution 1921.. a I/ 0 0
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1921
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.41, OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE
BY THE ADDITION OF SECTIONS 21.41.015, 21.41.081,
21.41.082, 21.41.083, 21.41.084, 21.41.085, 21.41.086 AND 21.41.087 TO PROVIDE FOR A HEARING
PROCESS FOR EXTENSION OF AMORTIZATION PERIODS FOR
SIGNS AND BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 21.41.050 TO
ALLOW NON-COMMERCIAL ON-SITE SIGNS.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD
CASE NO: ZCA-139
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
9 I/ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 24th daJ
lo II of February, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing as pre-
11
12
scribed by law to consider said request; and
13
desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 14
sidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and cor
15 /I relating to the Zone Code Amendment.
16 I1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
I? iI Commission as follows:
18 A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hear
ing, the Commission recommends APPROVAL of ZCA-139
according to Exhibit "A", dated February 24, 1982, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
19 B,
22
23
Findings:
structures in the city and supplements the regulatory 24
of Carlsbad to regulate and eliminate certain signs and 1) This ordinance is a continuation of the efforts of the cit
27
certain property regulated by those provisions. The of the provisions of Chapter 21.41 may create hardships fo: 26
2) The Planning Commission recognizes that strict application 25
provisions of Chapter 21.41 of the Municipal Code.
provisions of the code provide adequate relief from the
caused by noncompliance with Chapter 21.41. While existinc 28
anced against the detriment to the citizens of Carlsbad Commission also recognizes that this hardship must be bal-
F
11
- I/ 0 e
1
2
3
strict application of its regulatory provisions, the Com- mission finds that it is desirable to establish a special hearing procedure for relief from the amortization provis:
of Chapter 21.41.
4 3,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9 4)
20
21
22
23
24
The Planning Commission finds that continued strict enforc ment of the existing sign ordinance is necessary to protec the aesthetic quality of the city and is part of the city' continued efforts to promote an attractive community. Tht Planning Commission recognizes that the U.S. Supreme Courl
the case of Metromedia Inc. v. City of San Diego has estal
lished certain strict criteria to ensure that reuulation (
signs does not unreasonably restrict first amendGent free-
doms. The Planning Commission finds that no areas of the city are compatible with billboard usage because of the scenic nature of the city and its major arterials includir
but not limited to, Carlsbad Boulevard, El Camino Real, Interstate 5, and Palomar Airport road and because Carlsbz commercial and industrial areas have been planned in such manner that visual aesthetics are a primary concern. Olde areas of the city, particularly the downtown commercial ar industrial areas, which at one time may have been suitablc
for billboard uses are no longer suitable for that use be-
cause of the change the area is undergoing and because of continued efforts by the city to upgrade these areas. The Commission finds that regulation of signs including on-sit signs and billboards is necessary to ensure that the soci: and aesthetic qualities of the city are maintained, to prc mote local business including tourism, and to enhance
property values throughout the city. The Commission also
finds that prohibitions against off-site signs are necess:
to prevent sign proliferation in the city. The Commissior
further finds that regulations of signs both on and off-sl are necessary to ensure the safe use of city streets and
sidewalks and promote traffic safety.
Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the publ;
hearing, the Planning Commission finds that all signs and
structures which have become nonconforming because of expi
at,ion of the time periods established by Section 21.41.08C
the Carlsbad Municipal Code are fully amortized and that failure to immediately remove such nonconforming signs or structures will be detrimental to the public health, safet
and welfare and to the intent of the citizens of Carlsbad
enhance the aesthetic quality of their city in order to st
ulate economic and social benefits including tourism.
25 5) That the amendment will not cause any significant environ-
26
mental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued
//// 27
by the Planning Commission on February 24, 1982.
the Planning Director, dated January 29, 1982, and approve
//// 28 PC RES0 NO. 1921 - 2-
I .. L !I m e
1
2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
3
4
Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held
the 24th day of February, 1982, by the following vote, to wit:
5
6
AYES: Chairman Farrow, Commissioners Marcus, Rombc
NOES : None. Schlehuber, Jose; Friestedt and L'Heureux.
7
8
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN : None.
9
10
11
12
13
14
li) &
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
/
/
ATTEST :
~~.,;.r~~;y;I..;;z~ S C. HAGAM, Se retary
8 LSBAD PLANWTNG dMMISSION
24
25
26
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 1921
1
-3-