HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-09-27; Planning Commission; MinutesI 1 .,.e ,.a I
!CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION :Minutes of: I b % ' '\ '\ '8 /Date of Meeting: September 27, 1966 i Name '*" '.& '*.'",& ; :Time of Meeting: 7:30 P.M. : of '*, 8% : !Place of Meeti'ng: Council Chambers '.~$pb,*\*
:
I (""""""~""""~"""."""""~""*""""""~""""""""~""."."..~.~.~~ -2""". ,&; : Member bo
!ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, :Palmateer, McComas and Little. Commissioners I ISutherland and McCarthy were absent. Also pre-. i iiiiii lsent were City Attorney Wilson, Pla'nning Director: ::;I ((1 ;:; I: iSchoell , Building Inspector Osburn and' Ass't City: ;I1
:Engineer Thornton. 1,:
I :::,:I
!APPROVAL OF MINUTES: iSmi th :;':::
i (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of September :McComas : : :xi : :
13, 1966, were apptoved as submitted. iLi ttl e : ; :x: ; 'I I
!WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I I I1#1 I
!City Man&er - Memorandum5dated September 22, 1968, :I;::: B:,:I@ :re: Proposed ordinances. -The Council desires :::I:: 'Ithat each Commission take a.11 steps necessary to : ; ;"; 1.;
;publicize and dissimenate,..information to all in- I iiiiii jterested citizens of Carlsbad regarding all ordi-: ijli:: :nances that may be under study. The Council re- i ::I:;; 81:: jferred the propose'd. ordinance Regulating Dedica- : ii:;1;
f tion of Land, Payment of Fees, or both for Park i I. : I land Recreational Land in Subdivisions to the Park: :.I 1 i ;-.;
:and Recreation Commission for further study and ! !;:::;
jreport. This memorandum was .noted. I I ::::::
I I !:::I:
:Division of Highways - L.etter dated September 23,; I ;-; I :
:1966, re: a workshop session on Scenic' Highways,: . ij:::;
:October 28, 1966 in the auditorium at the State i !::::i
:Building, 1350 Front Street, San Diego, starting ; ;::::;
:.at 9:00 Ai". I I ;::;:' I ; ; ; ;.:
I ::;;:i
!Chairman McComas, Commissioner Smith and the I !;;1:1
: Planning Director stated they would 15 ke to attend .I I ; ; i ;.;-
i this meeting. I ;,: : i ; ;
I I I I-;:; :::I;,
!Chairman McComas requested that. the Parks and Reci :ii:;: :reation Commission. be notified of this workshop : ;.I /;:;I 1 I ;
jsession. 1 I I I iiiiii
I 1: 111
iSouthern Cal'ifornia Speedboat Club, Inc. - Letter! 6. :i::;: I ; ;.; :to the Carlsbad City Council, dated September 23, : :: 111
i1966, which was sent to the Planning Commission I ;I::;:
;:le
ire: Boat Racing, was acknowledged. ;I1:
I I I ;:;::: &:I
:ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:' I I :;; i.i;
I I ;::::;
:There were no oral communications. I I ;::!!!
I ,1a1;: )((I
I ,:;::I I PUBLIC HEARINGS: I ::::::
I : ; I ;'; ;
I I ::ji;:
!:;1:1
I 1 ;:;:;:
I I*$!:
I I I 1::::: ::::i;
::;att I:;:::
I I ; : 1.:
;:;;:I 181
I I:;,;:
I ;ii::j
I : :.: I i i I :/:;!;
I 1 I ':;i:;:
I' I ::;:;:
I I I :;:!:!
.I 81;;;;
I I I :::D
I I I :;I;::' I
I I p; I '
I 1 .: I, a. ; ..I at
.' *'"',, ", '*"*, I I
I
I
I "' ." , a,', ' I
I 1 I ;:18:I
I I II:;I; ;:::;;
::::::
I ;!!!!:
: x !xi : :
I ipalmateer !x! :x: ; I' :
6 I !;s:'@ ; 1.: :
I ii:i;i
I I ; !-! ; :
I 1
1 1 I I
11
I
I
I
.. I
I
I
*I))
1
I I
@I
I + 1
I
1)
I
I I
I
I
.;I* 11
I
I I I I*'
I I
I !(a) RECLASSIFICATION, continued - R-1 to R-3 :(Multiple-Residential) Zone on the Westerly side jof Roosevelt St., Northerly of Magno1.ia Ave. :Applicant: Miles T. Tolbert. I $1
!(b) PRECISE PLAN, continued - To consider adop- jtion of a precise plan on the Westerly side of : :Roosevelt St., Northerly of Magnolia Ave. Appli- i jcants: Pl.anning Commission Resolution No. 448. t
l@Iau;
I I
8 18'; I ;
I I
I .I I 1 I I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I I 11
I
I I
I' I I ; ,: ' 4.. I
! I . 1. a -!-:
I e
I I '"\' '+,, ',"')' I I
I . N a me '. '*+'\@, '%$, '*,,"#? 8 ',* ;
I : of ''??$$.$',&*
I Member &$*h.g d.4 :"""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""""""~""""~"""""-~~ -a";""
I : I"I;I
I .I ;:::;:
:The above public hearings were continued in view ! , ':::I: !!:;!; !of the fact no further report was received from i :::::: :the AT&SF Railway Co. concerning possible use Of : ::I;:: :railroad r,S.ght of way for street purposes. I I ::::;;
I 4 I ii::;:
iThe Planning Director suggested considering the :+;:
!following 3 items simultaneously. I 1 !!;j::
8 #:;':I I I 'II;;;
i(c) RECLASSIFICATION - Zone R-A-10,000 to C-2 ::::;; : (General Commercial) on the 'Northwesterly and I :";; :::, ,
!Southeasterly corners of Interstate 5 Freeway and i 1:'I;I
:Palomar Airport Road, and from Zone R-A-10,000 : : ; : :.; :
"I I I ; ;
!to IIM" (Industrial Zone) on the Southwesterly I :I 1 4:::;
!corner of Interstate 5 Freeway and Palomar Airpor4 ;Road.. Applicants: Paul and Magdalena Ecke, 'and I :&:;:
iCarltas Co., a corporation. I I ::::;:
I I : I ; ;. .;
:(d) PRECISE PLANS - To Consider adoption of pre-i 4::;:
i cise plans on the NW'ly and Sei ly corners of I : i :,: ;
!Interstate 5 Freeway and Palomar Airport Road. I I :::!j!
;Applicants: Planning Commission Resolution NO. i ;::::: I'
.I 4::;;
I I :;:I I ' I 'I ;. i -.;
:TENTATIVE MAP - PALOMAR PARK -. 3 lots located on I !;:;:!
!the NW'ly and SW'ly and SE'ly corners of Inter- I 14;:; 'I
jstate 5 Freeway and Palomar A'irport Road. Owners{ I ::;:!: ;II,I; :Paul and Magdalena Ecke. & I ;. ; I ; ,I
!Notices of the hearings were read. Secretary I :::&I:
iPalmateer certified that notices of the hearings i ,::;::: ::;:I: :were published and sent to property owners in the: i area, and then read the applications. I ; : ;';
I I::;,;
I :::I:, : There were no written communications 'on the re- I I i::::: : classification or precise plans.. : 1 ;. :.
I - I!::;;
I '@I:#; : There were no written communications concerning i I::::; I the tentative map except from the various depart-; 1::;:;
i.ments and agencies. I I ::;::;
::I;:;
I I ::::i;
: The Planning Director expl.ained that this is a i ii::;:
critical area for development of this portion of : :::j:1
*,'I I:
j the City. T,he General Plan lists a neighborhood 'II,I;
; commercial use to serve this area of town and that :I:;:;
:::;,I. i the Council policy calls for precise plans to be I iijiii : presented to the Planning Commission and Council : I for future land use at freeway interchanges. The! :::i:: ::
: P1 anning Director stated that the applicants are ; ;I:'::
I;:;: i interested in having freeway commercial uses at I ::,;It
: this interchange. The Planning Director read I ::;I::
I I:: :;: from the General Plan that was recently adopted :::!j! :which explained the need for freeway service i facilities including gas stations, restaurants i ; :.; i i : and motels at freeway interchanges de'siqned to : ;::I:;
meet the needs of travelers. This would be a I I::::I
I jIiiiI : different use than the downtown commercial uses. The elevation of the properties at the Northwest-: :::;:;
: erly and Southeasterly corners and the visibility! ;i:;:i
of the properties .makes this a proper location : ' ;:I :::;
;;I1:' : for freeway uses as traffic going .south would be: 4:: : i I : ;.: i able to make a turn to'the Northwest corner with-: ::;;;: i out crossing Palomar Airport Ro'ad. Traffic, going! :I::;;
I I ;:;:::
I I :ii!ii
I I;;:::
I I Iiiiii
I I! :;::
I I!::!
I I I :I*:::
I 8' .' *\ ', '. .\
I ', " '. I
I I I.
I
I I I '. '."'. '\. '' ''
I
'I
I -2- *'
I
:;'n:I
'I::
I I I
I I'
.. I'
i457. I
I I '11,
I I I ii:;:; I I
'I'
I I
I I
I
b
I
I I" I
III(
'I
I I b ;:: '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 : :..; ,; , *t
I ! :!I.@!
~ ~____ ~~ ~~ ~
c
0
-.
I I I I I I I I 1 I
I I I I
I @
I -3-
i corner without having to cross Palomar Airport : : Road. The applicants would like to develop the I/:;: ::I:;: I Southeasterly property in three phases. The first :;::a: ;would be' a service station at the corner of Lowdet OI i i. i i Lane and Palomar Airp0r.t Road. The second two l l:;ab'
:phases would consist of a ,restaurant and a motel.! ::;:;:
!The Northwest area would be developed as a service !::I::
istation within the area delineated. Later, when i :i;;:: 11
!more uses are justified, the owners anticipate ; :;I:;:
:augmenting this area with other freeway service :I::;:
;::I i facilities. He explained that the applicants I I I : ; 8 :.I
/I:::
: are not sure which motel or restaurant Will, 90 in! ::l:tl i there at this time. I ::I1
I 1.: :
I ,;I:,::
The Planning Director explained that the property! ::l:b:
;1:1
; at the Southwest' corner where IIM" zoning is being! ;: : :.: 1 I:' 1: i requested, is lower in elevation and cannot be : 1:::; i seen as readily from the freeway. He stated that: l::~;l ; he is working now on planned uses for standard : ::':::
! industrial parks and hopes to have this brought 1.4i;;
before the Commission within a month. Since no ; :: ::;::: precise plan was presented on the property where i :::::: ; the "MI1 zone is being requested, he suggested I ::;::: I that'the Commission wait until a precise plan is -! I ; I I. ; -.;
;presented. He reviewed the development of the ; 1;::::
::;;;a : County lands along the freeway to the south and i 'I) If i referred to an ordinance from the County regard- : ::4::
;l::l;
ing freeway service facilities. He stated it is i ; :-:; : I
:::I:: ; better to have one sign of sufficient size up to : 181; : 200 square feet, in order that it can be seen ;L;81
I ;:14;1 i from the freeway in time to turn into the facilitk, * ;*ab1: I;:!:: i than to have three signs. He also referred to : I i i ;-: : the .City's ordinan'ce'on wall signs. I I 11 11
i Tentative map. The Planning Director explained ; i i i I i.: i his written report and the recommendations sub- I I' 111 l:;8*' : mitted for the Commission's consideration. He : ::;:;: I explained that Lowder Lane according to the Naste? :::::I
; Plan cal'ls for an 84' right of way wi'th a 68' 1:;1:4
I :;+: i roadway. I I ;::*::
I I 1;;::: i When questioned the Planning Director stated he i : recommended a 5' sidewalk in this area as it willi
:;;::: ::;::: i differ from the downtown area in that people will; :I::;; : not be walking from store to store. ,ii::;; :::::i @I .! dated September 23, 1966, on this tentative map. t : He pointed out that there is a partially improved: i::;:: :::::, I1 i road easement put in by the County from the app1i:- '@(a : cants boundary to the Las Encinas sewer plant anq :::::i ;::;:; i stated it would be necessary fur the street to be: ; :/: ; : ;
' : brought up to City street standards before in- i 1;;t;1 i creasing the traffic on it. I' ::::::
::::;i
1 I ;::;I;
I I :!!:!: :i:;i: ;;::;; : I : i ;,:
:;!:!;
:JI:;:
1:'
.; I :
1. I
I b 1.
i::: 1.6 .I
#I
1
I 6 I I::::: :'I;
I
'I
I
I I
II*(I*
I I I ::::I: I:;*:;
I *
Mr. Thornton read the report from the City Enginebr
I ' I I I ;::;:: ;:::I;
The Chairman asked 'the applicant or representatiGe 4' ;liii1 bl : if they wished to speak and any others wishing t$ i speak in favor of these requests. I I
1
I Mr. Bill Rick, Engineer for the applicants, I ;11;*; I stated.he wrote the various letters and thanked i : the City staff for their coope.ration in these : i matters. He stated that the subdivision map was: $1 I' ; a matter of considerable concern to the applican4s ,a1;1:
i as they do not wish to sell or subdivide the I : : ; : ;*I : property. He stated they did not see anything ! :;:i:; I in the proposed resolution stating that a final i :I::;; ; map was required and appealed to the Planning : ;:;:;I i Commission that requirement of the final sub- I 1 :I:;:: i division map be waived. He stated that-he had i I 1 : I ;.I ; ,*..I ; I
I I ; 1s.: 8 I:!'.!!
;pi::
I I' , b," ' s 8' I I I I I I I
I
I ", 'S,"., \, ', ', b ;
I -4- I I ", ', '' ', ",'%\ I I
I ;: " ', '*\ ', ' '
I 8.4 I * : Name 's 'b, i
I ; of "$\O\ ,**, ; ~","""""""""""""""""~~""""~"""--"""---"~"-:"~---~~~"~~"----"-~~-"-~ '4
:::I::
:::;:I ; would not be constructed for some time. He stated 11 11 : ; i: :.;
I ::;::: i future street so they would not have to make the i 118 :::::: ::::;;
:;:1:1 18 1
;;#:I1
1,::::
I I '
I : Member @*.+,++> $@*$+\@ bs8 t
iiiiii
1 1;;; i been out on the property many times and it was. : i::::; i his understanding that the street from Poinsettia: l::~ol i Lane to the Batiquitos Lagoon going to Terramar : i would be.located farther'east. He believed this :
: perhaps they could make a aeservation for the
; investment in the, street width improvements at : i this time. He stated they were in agreement withi : the cond'itions in the proposed resolution with : i the exception tha8 in the Southeast portion of th6 : property the improvements and landscaping be put :
; in accordingly as each phase is built. He stated! that Mr. Eck'e and Mr. Stallard also agreed with i him on this. He stated they would pppreciate the; i Commission's approval of the C-2 zone on the I : property at the Northwest corner as the applicant{
I erty is not suitable for agriculture and he did I : not believe it would be the best address for a : single family residential address even though it : is' in Carlsbad. He felt the. present ordinance is : a fine ordinance and they saw no reason to delay lthe development of this property at. this time and: i that with ,the exception of a few minor points thej i agree with the staff 'recommendations and conditiorfs.
On being questioned whether there was an economic i :justification for the development of this properti inow and if studies had been made, Mr. Rick reportdd :that merchants in San D.iego had asked his firm to i !study all instersections along the freeway betweer-i * :San Diego and Oceanside and there is no other .I I I
. I intersection on the freeway between San Diego.and : ;Camp 'Pendleton with the visibility &hese properti4s jhave, and there would be no traffic hazard to entdr :them which makes these choice locations. There I jwill be secondary streets from the center of town i :to, Poinsettia Lane. This is a road to go to the : i beach and..,automobije facilities do not: belong on : : the beach. I
:MR.. WARREN GRANSEUM stated that he is with Mr. I I Xtallard and would like to discuss several things.: :He pointed out that when the new Interstate 5 was i !constructed, according to an agreement with the ; ,:State Division of Highways and the City this partis-
. '8 Mar property on the West side of the freeway was : :adversely affected by raising Palomar Airport Road! :for access between the freeway right of way and ' i Palomar Airport Road and the railroad. The North-: :west quadrant lies between the freeway and rail- i :road right of way. He explained the easements for: :the telephone Compa.ny a.nd South Counties Gas Co. i ion the access to these properties. The property I :w.as cut -off by 18' of fill. He called attention ;
:Cannon Road and that there are some 34 acres that ;
:.. ; ia 20' service road to serve the industrial street I :abutting Mr. Ecke's property and to the sanitation: jsite which is zoned ''MI'. After Interstate 5 was ; :constructed the property was 1ef.t in a hole. The i :property has been filled and .has a far b.etter I I jaccess now. It is necessary to develop this I I !property in order.to open up the 34.acres to the i
:. :north and is one phase of the request for rezoning: :If the fill had not been available to do some of :
l1
41
c :own many acres in this area.. He stated the prop-:
0
I I
4 I I 1 I
:to the 46' drainage easement constructed across i ..
1 . I. :have a 20' easement elevated some 18'. There is : . ..
I
I !this work it wauld be impossible to do it now. I
I I I 1 I I I -1
I 1 I I
1 ,I
I I !
l e , .8 .* .. * . \' I I I I
I I 1
I I I 1 81
1 I I I '\\ *\,'.', '8 ',,", J I
'I I ; , Na me '8 'f?$, +'&' ., \ .$.A, \fi i I
I 4 I of ' '.?J!?&+&& ;
I Me rn ber s%"@.,p.p 'io'.; ~,~,,~~~~~,,,,,,,,.~""""~"""""""~""~"""""""~""""""~"""""""~~~"""~~""
:He stated that Mr. Ecke has made a large investmen; l;;ll' ;::::: :in the fill and the only way to justify this I lv::
:expenditure is to rezone the property in order to i ;.:
Ireli'eve some of the tax burden. He referred to : ::+:
ithe Planning Director's mention .of the San Diego I;:# :;;:::
. :County Freeway facilities ordinance set up on a : ::;I::
:conditional use permit basis. He asked that this i 48 1,;:::
lJl:;; :property be entitled to the same uses permitted On: :I,
I::;&I I1 lother commercilal property in the City. He pointed: II 11::
jout that land is cut off on the West by the rail- : :I::
. :road and cut o.ff on the east by the freeway. All : 111 tl*;:: : :'; : 1 I jof 'the proper,ty directly to the south is zoned "M"i 11) 11
:in the City ahd because of this and access to the : ;;I:;'
18111!
!railroad, it i.s.economically essential to the City': .I +;;;;
:and Mr. Ecke that this property be rezpned. He I 1'1)11
;;I:;;
\stated that the signs should not be more restric- ; 1111 ls;l:!
:tive than in the City's present C-2 zone as the depelop- ,
:;::::
l18;l' jment of this property would bring in revenue to thg :::;::
;City and Mr. Ecke. There are 7.43 acres in the 1 $1 ls;l;.:
:''MI' zone requested and the property is adjacent to: .; I ; ; .I 4
8:
326 acres of land to the south that is zoned I'M". i I I : ; *-!
!There was discussf*on on the applicants' willingnesb '1111' :to submit a Record of Survey Map but not a subdi- : :vision map; that the land was already subdivided i :on Palomar Airport Road and Interstate 5 was I !constructed; that according to the State Code the ! :applicant would not have to subdivi'de this land; :that it was a matter of. how the property will be ! :devel oped. .. 1 I :. I
!MR. BRANSfUM stated that the owner does not want i \to get involved in a sub,division map as he owned : :this property for many years and does not want. to :come in with a subdivision. 1' I
!On being questioned.why the Engineerjng Department! :wanted.this subdivision submitted, Mr'. Thornton !stated they were concerned with the improvements ; :and their. control of .on-site and off-,s;ite improve-: jments and'that a subdivision spe7l.s out precisely : . ., :what improvements are required. For the develop- i iment of the General Plan and Select Road system : . :for the City of Carlsbad and Freeway widening, I ithey felt it. was necessary to protect the .City'witfi :standards for improvements and necessary street i :dedications on zone changes'. The Engineering I I !Department was about to submit a report to the :Commission in regards to using the tentative and i :final map .procedure for zone' changes, when this ; :app1 ication was accepted. Past City procedures hake ;not been satisfactory. I 1 I
I I ;I:': :MR.'ECKE stated- that if the City requests a final : ::4:
\subdivision map they would withdraw everythlng 1::::
I ;11:1 :they have requested as he is paying more taxes i ;::I:
:every day than he paid for the property and they : I 1.1 : ; 4:;: jhave not asked for any services from the City. I 1:::; -:They have been growing flowers on the property. ' 1-1 ; ;
:He pointed out'that if a subdivision map is filed I ::;II ,. :;a::
ii t would be impossible to pay all of the taxes and! :I::;
I ;P~l
I &1::8 :voiced objection to being a "guinea pig" on this i :I::;
I 1 I I :a::;
I I 1. :;;:t
11 1: ::;:;
1- I :;,:I
I I I I :,::I I)*
I 1 1 1;::;
##I;;
::;I,
I I I :;,:a
I I :I:::
I I 'I ;::;: I I lJll;,
'! I 1.4;)
4 -5- I 'b8 ', '8, ', ', ', .' 8 b8
I *, '8 ', 8 '
1 ', '.$
I
I 1
I '1
11
4"
i;:;i;
I I Ill ::;:;:
;::::
I'
11
4
I I I
0
I 1
I I
I
'I :I
1 1
' ;it would be better to give the land away. He
I I I
I. 1
I 1
.I J
I I I I 1 J I
I
I I
1 1 i..'
'a a
c
1
I' I :proposed ordinance after he has been paying taxes : :for so many years. He asked for relief to be able; :to pay the taxes on the property and to be able to! idevelop the property according to the. present I :ordinances.
:MR. BRUCE STALLARD stated they are negotiating :with 4 applicants for this property. There are 2 i :hotel chains that are negotiating with them and I :they would like to know' when they can deliver the I !sites to them. He felt this would be soon if giveg :the ''green light". They felt the assessor would ; !take. notice of this intersection. 1
:Mr. Thornton stated that the applicants position :was well taken and they have engaged a fine I jengine'ering firm to work with the City staff.
I
I b I I I I
I I
1 1
I I 1
1 1 I I
I I I 1 -.
:MR. ECKE stated that it was important to them that: -::I:!: :;:::; :the improvements are first class as they do not ; : ; 81 ; I 1 1.1 I !want secondary improvements. He stated it is I I ,4,;1, jdifficult to file maps on the subdivision and I I ii::;: I1
;protect themselves. . '
I Jl:;ll SI 1 ; 1. : -,:
1 I i!:iii :No others present spoke in favor of these requests: 1:11#4
1 I ::\:::
!The Chairman announced the Commission. would now 811 ::I:;' 611
fhear from those wishing to speak in opposition. I ; ;.: 1 I :
I I I :::::: :No one spoke in opposition.to these matters. I f + ,:I:::
4 1 I :';!:: b' :The public hearing was closed at 9:14 P. M. 1;s It
I I ; ; 1 ;.: 1 11;: hn.-discussing the eievation of the signs, the . I I :;l:tl
::;141
:Planning Director po'inted out thatthis property i 2' ;;;p: - I)( 1. :. :differs from the downtown area because there will : :::::I J1 !be residential homes looking down over this area. : :I;::: :The signs should be only large enough and high I ;; I:::! jenough to,.be read from the freeway.. He felt that I i :.;:: :
1::;:: :the' County' was right. in holding to a policy of '. .. jsign height limits and felt that whe.re there was I :::i:: :::::; 11
'I :good visibility a 35' high sign would be adequate.; ::::;:
I I (1: :;,:::
:When questioned regarding the pioneering of the us4 i::::: !of the tentative map procedure with zone changes, I :$:;: I 8, !Mr. Thornton stated that Mr; Ecke was right as thii ,:*I :was th.e first, applicati.on of this type and the I I llB;:l
The Commission discussed approving the 'C-2 zones i :and following the Planning Director's recommen- I I 11 :dations to watt until a .precise plan is presented 'I befare considering rezoning to the 'IM" zone. I I
I
I I
11)(11
I
I
I
I I II I : ;.;
1111
I
'I I
.I I
i:;l';
Xommission has not had an opportunity to review thjs. 1;11;:
L :;:::;
I 1 :.; ; : ; ; .I 1
I I I 1 1 Fie Chairman questioned Mr.. Ecke regarding the I I
kiming for getting these zone changes and Mr.Ecke i stated that it was essential to get financing to : Day the taxes on these properties and they need to i have some income from the properties. He stated : $hey could see no reason for not being,granted the i
. :zone change on the C-2 properties so'negotiations : kould be completed. He reported having to leave i
I I
I I I
I 1 I
.I I.
I I
t . I t I
I 1
I 1
I 1
I
I I
1
t 1
I. I
1 1 I I I I I I I I I
I 1 I I 1 1 I
~ ~. ~~~ ~ ~ ~
~__
c
-7-
1 I I I
I I I I I ,b I I I I I I I
I' , \,'\ ' ' . \' I I I I
I
I '=\ y., 8 ', s' ',,'\, I- .
\' 8, 't,", ' '\, '8,''. I
Name '\\ '\$, \' %,:'a\ 1
-',,+e;. ','?+\ ;
I ; M ember '.bys\ \% @.*\e 9\,?t\q& \(O'.J I
i soon for Europe in regards to his business, and i :;; :::;:: ;;4::
I I I I#;;::
I : of :~"""""""""""""""""""""--""~"---""""""""""~""""""""""""""
i was anxious to settle these matters before leav- : : ing.
;I( I( i When questioned th'e City Attorney stated that he i 1)1l1 !. had tal ked with Mr. Thornton and h.e felt this ' I :;;:I: : could be handled without forcing Mr. Ecke to have! I a tentative map and felt this could be handled by: :;,;:I
1 a normal lot split procedure. Mr. Ecke was the I. :;I *I
1:;:
first to apply for this type of 'application and : he suggested that in this case the Commission ;I1 It
11::;
follow the old rules and then consider future : ::;#ll ::4;: I applications after an ordinance has been adopted i :::::: requiring these improvements. I I1:;;! I ;:I
I 1:;:;: MR. ECKE stated he was willing to dedicate propes- ::;:&; 14 I ty for future rights of way and would like to i ::I::'
put in the improvements according to the develop-: ::;::: I ment of the property in phases. He stated that i -; ; ; : ;' ; i he would be willing to dedicate property on both : 1:::;: 11 i sides of the street, however, he would like to p$t :::::; : in the minimum amount of improvements at this tine ;:4:; : because of the "tight money situation". ::;:
1 I10 : i I. ;-: i MR. BRANGUM stated they were not opposed to the! I;, : height limit of the signs but objected to the f It;:;: I fact that only one sign wou1.d be permitted. l*#:ll
1 :::e:: I :I;;;:
! MR. ECKE inquired if the time comes and the familiy : 0.1 1111) 8
i sells off the present zoned area to a motel and this 1:::;:
is a separate lot would any future business comirjg :;::::
: in in the future be restricted from having signs : I:'::: ;;:::: i on the 7 acres of property? I : ; I : ;.:
I I I :11;;: i The Planning Director stated there would have to I ;I:;;;
l'fil(l : be an agreement between owners 0.f the various : : ; I .:. ;. I commercial uses to al1.o~ each to have advertisincj - ::!l:l
;;l;q : space on the single jointly used sign. 1 I ;:::::
I Il:iii I Mr. Thornton stated the Engineering Department i !::I;; i stood on their recommendation of the improvementi :::;:I
: of Lowder Lane and asked that the curb line be I I::::: ::;:I; : : I I ii 4:
I iii; i MR. ECKE stated they are willing to dedicate I I ::/&I, : property on Lowder Lane for an 84' right of way i i:;1;; I' i and 68' roadway width. I 4:::; :::I
I ;I#;:; I After further consideration a motion was made to: ;;:l:l
e;;::: ; adopt Resolution No. 458 recommending to Council I ii'ili i the change of zone from R-A-10,000 to C-2 on. I I * :I,, properties at the Northwest and Southeast corner4 ii:::: ::I::: ; of Interstate 5 Freeway. and Palomar Airport Road: : for the reasons: . ;::;;:
Id I 1:~111
I I ::;:;: I 1. That this would be the best and highest use i :::::: ::;:;I of these properties. I I ::::;: 2. That this change of zone wou.ld not be detri- I ::;:;: : mental to the surrounding properties. I ::;:::
I I I ::I::; i The above zone change being subject to the I I :;:::; dedication of street rights of way on Palomar I ::;I:,
; Airport Road, Avenida Encinas and Lowder Lane to: 1::l::
i comply with the City of Carlsbad's Master Road I :.l:!ii
: Plan; and I;::;:
I /:;::
;:I 1;
I 1::::;
1 I ;::::; 11 ::;I;:
I 1 ::::!I
I I ::::I:
:;; 'I 1
Ill
t
I
:+:: )Ill
;; IJ!::
I I
I1
IIIII)
$11
I I ::~111 :1;Ir1
I I I
I I I I
:a I1
I I
I I
34' from the centerline of the street. 1 I I
*
I I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I 1t:o
11
I
I I
I 1
I I I
'I t
I 'I I
I I I I 1
I I 1
I I
I I I
I8
I I I ;..; : * I 11 I:: ! ! ! I.:. ! I !
I I I a I* I ,\'"'' \ I
1 I 1 I I I I nb I .I
I I
I I 1
\\ '\ '\ ', '. ', I
I I I I I
* -, : , " j. 'I
I -8- \ '." \ \' '\ '\, 8.. '\ ', '.
'\\ '' '\ X' ', ',
; , ~a me $, '.,'%A. i '\ '.$\ 1
I Member .e@,~\p 4b.j :"""""",""",,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,-,"""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""~ i .DENYING application for change of zone from I I ;:;i::
: R-A-10,000 to .IIM'l on'the S.outhwesterly corner Of i :::/; I:::
i Interstate 5 Freeway and Palomar Airport Road as : the' need or desirability was not established by :::a,:
fi(1 116 i the applicants at this time for I'M" ,zoning on the; ::4:;;
8i:;l : property at said corner. 1);s:; i Planning Commission Resolution No. 458. A RESOLU-i Smith :Ja;::
1 :x:x: ; ; 1 TION RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL CHANGE OF ZOIIE FROM : Palmateer k I :x! : :
I ~-A-10,000 TO c-2 ON PROPERTIES AT NORTHWESTERLY McComas : ; :x: ; ; i AND SOUTHEASTERLY CORNERS OF INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY: Little 1 : :x; ; :
; AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, AND DENYING APPLICATION: :I:::: i FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-A-10,000 to ''MI' ON THE : ::::::
SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY AND i ,:::;;:
! PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, was adopted by title only : 'I lt;4;:
I and further reading waived. :ll:l;
I I I::;:' ::::;: I1
:-After considerable consideration a motion was madb 811 1;;
; to adopt Resolution No. 459 recommending to CouncS1 :
1: ; .: ;.; i the precise plans for properties ,at the Northwest! .;l:;lh
"81::
; and Southeast corners of Interstate 5 Freeway and: i:;~al
4 : :.: i Palomar Airport Road subject to the conditions ini ::::,I
lllll; : the Engineering a:nd Planning Director's reports : I and notes on the Precise Plans Exhibits A and B, :I:!::
i with the exception that one free standing sign : ;; 1 j., 8
i only, not over 35' in height and containing a . i ;;l:J1
I )111
; maximum of 2 faces, each face 2000 square feet or: I::,:: ;;;:;: less in area, may be used to' identify all phases i ::a::: and uses of the total property designated as I ,.; I I I
I :I,::; i Exhibit B and all other property augmenting this i ;:p/
: area with additional freeway service facilities ; ;:'::f
l;;la : in the future; and that street improvements be it:;::
i installed as the phases: of the property are I ::::::
l I ' ; :.: I devel oped. .. w. I i:: 8:
l 8. I 4::;;
i Resolution No. 459. A RESOLUT.ION OF THE PLANNING Smith ;:#:I:
i COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSB'AD RECOMMENDING : Palmateer : Ix~x: I ; 1 ; x: ,:. ;.
; ADOPTION OF PRECISE PLANS, was adopted by title ; McComas :xi ; 1 only and further reading waived. i Little ;: I1
l 1 1 ' ;xi i i
5: I / 'TENTATIVE MAP - PALOMAR PARK SUBDIVISION, upon thb :;;I;:
. '. : request of the.applicants and with the consent of: :;;:;:
:II:::
: the staff and Commission, the tentative map was : ;::I 1,:::
; withdrawn. 1 1 ii::ii
I :':;:: 'I
1 t I ;:Illy
8 I I !I::::
'l:::l
8 \'
\ *,bF
I *i , '$@A \,de\ 7:4+ : I
4.
11
a I :::::i 11
I I I
'I IJ
$4
I1
I I
I 1 1 1.1
0 IIl I) , 8 I "1
I
I
I 1
, ' i Resolution of Commendation. 1
, Resolution No. 461. A. RESOLUTION OF'THE CARLSBAD Smith : i :xi : 1 ': i CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COMMENDATION TO i Palmateer j ~xix; : : i DAVID FREISTADT FOR SERVICES RENDERED AS A MEMBER: McComas :x i ;xi : : : OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, was : Little : ; :x: ! ; i read in full 'and adopted. I :1111~
: OLD BUSINESS:
;* i (a) Zoning Study - Committee report on R-T.and. !
; R-W study locations. Due to the illnesss of I :;I* Commissioner Sutherland, no report was made.
II
I
I I ,:a:;:
I I ::::;: 1111,1
I :;;:I;
1; i: :.: ::;:::
I I 1 I : :.; ::::::
i 1 I ;;::;;
I 1 ;ll;ll
'1 ; ; ; t ',:
I 1 I I ;!:::I ll~ll!
I ;l;~:l
i I 'I:#:;;
I 1 :1~1~:
I 1:;I;l
I :Il:::
I I :;::I;
I I I II::::
I' :;::;:
I I 1 :-::: I &:;Ill
I I I :::I;,
I
I :::;:I
I I
I
I It 8s: 1
I
I I
I I
I 'I
I 1
1II)iI
41
1
I 1
i I I
I
I
.I I. i
1
I I I
I
I 1,
I
I
I
I
I I ' :bl:l;
l*l;i;
I .I !l:~.l
I I I I b
1 I
I 1 .I ; . .I I '.
I !
-9-
I I I I"
I 1 I b
d on a recent trip I e State to study I s around San Jose, ; 'o'rd University. He! 11 and discussing : th City staf,f mem- i
NEW BUSINESS:
The Planning Director reporte to'the Northern section of th industrial parks near airport Santa Clara, Fresno and Stanf reported seeind the Fresno Ma its problems and solutions wi bers and the Redevelopment Ag
I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I
ency.
Carlsbad Chamber of: e to speak before
1 I I b I I 'I 1 1 was adjourned at
1 t I 1 1 I I *
The Chairman stated that the Commerce had invited Mr. Hoxi them on the Fresno Mall.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion the meeting 9:59 P. 'M. c
Respectfully submitted,
Jd4A&@,&hPW ..
DOROTHY M. OSBURN Recording Secretary.
I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I 1 I I I I I L I I I I I
L I I I I I 1 I I I I 8 I I I I 1 I I I L I I I I
I I I
I I I I I
1
1 I I I r 1 b I I t 1 I I I I I
1
.I
I 1 I I 1 L I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I
I I
I 1 I I I I
I. I
I
I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I