The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1967-05-23; Planning Commission; Minutesr I :CITY OF CARLSBAD : Minutes of: i Date of Meetitly: :Time of Meeting: i Place .of Meeting: I""""""""""""""". ROLL.CALL was answer McComas, Sutherland, ~ sioner Palmateer was City Attorney Wilson an.d Planning Direct0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (a) Minutes of the 1967, were approved r' WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (a) Division of Highways - re: Landscaping of the completed freeway through the City of Carlsba! as soon as possib1.e -pending availab1.e funds, was ; read and acknowledged. I I I e I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There were no oral communications. PUBLIC HEARINGS: I I I :(a) AMENDMENTS TO PRECISE PLAN, continued - To : consider amendments to Precise Plan PP 6602, for i increase in size and height of sign, to permit ; the installation of a Denny's Restaurant and $ Mobil Oil combination post sign with a total height of 55' and containing 4 cabinets, each double faced reading "Mobil" "Denny's" "Restaur- i ant" and "Always Open" as per.Heath & Co. design #6470. 'Said sign to contain a total area of 429.50 sq.ft. for one side of sign located on the1 Southeasterly corner of Palomar Airport Rd. and : Interstate 5 Freeway. I I I I I I I I I Notice of hearings were read. The Secretary certified that publication was given and property: owners in the area were notified of the hearing, and then read the application. I I The Planning Director gave a report on the facts resulting from the staff investigation of this i property. He presented a map showing the exist- : ing and approved commerci'al uses at Interstate 5 i Freeway Interchanges from Del Mar north to Buena :. Vista Lagoon. He read a letter from John E. Cassidy, Jr. , Chief Zoning Administration Divisiob., County of San Diego, dated May 17, 1967, regard- : ing signs at these interchanges located in the i unincorporated areas. : I I : ... I I I I # I I I I I I I Chairman Sutherland announced the Commission would now hear from the applicants or their representative and any others desiring to speak I in favor of the applications. I I MR. KEN MICHAEL, representing 'Heath & Co.., Dis- i tinctive Electrical Advertising Store Front Moderniz-ation in Los Angeles, stated that the I signs of Denny's Restaurant and Mobil Oil are : known throughout the States of California, Oregon: and Washington. The purpose of requesting this : size sign and height is to be able to create a i I I I I I I I I I I I h I I I 1 I I I I I P I I I I I I -2- I I I I I. :sign that can be seen from the Freeway in time to: . 4 :permit traffic to safely exit from the Freeway. ; ;The entire success of the businesses depends on i :drawing business from the Freeway. He stated that a quarter of a million dollars will be spent on i I improvements, however, if they cannot advertise ; I their businesses they will not be successful. i Denny's signs generally average between 55' to :111' high. The original application for an amendi iment to the Precise Plan was amended to combine ; :Denny's Restaurant and Mobil Oil. If the sign is! : reduced in size and height, people driving on the; Highway will see the sign after they get past the; :turn-off. He pointed out that there are signs in; i the City much larger than this, and -the need for ; this size sign should be c.onsidered. I :MR. EUGENE BOLAR, Real Estate Representative, Mobil Oil Corp., stated that about two months ago! :they submitted applications which they then post-: poned to this date. The Planning Director was not : in favor of the two large, separate proposed sign4 I when they discussed them with him, and as a result .I of "togetherness", Denny's and Mobil came up with! the present proposal which they feel would not be: : detrimental to the City of Carlsbad and would call I attention to these facilities. The service sta- ; : tion would be a $125,000.00 installation. When i !questioned regarding the reasons for needing the : : larger sign's, Mr. Bolar reported that the Mobil i i signs have been approved by. the Federal Highway ; ; Beautification Program. He then presented picturts . i of existing signs in the areas nearby. I I I CHARLES LANE, Mobil Oil in Los Angeles, stated ; this station is unique and presented a rendering i i of the proposed station. He explained that 55 ; ; stations were designed by Architect.El1iot Noys, : i consultant to Western Highways, and they have a i : $10,000,000. program throughout the United States: i 12 of these stations will be built in the West. :There are no existing stations of this type on i : the West Coast. He referred to the esthetics of ; :the building leading up to the signs. Traffic : i Engineers will tell you that you must see signs ; : in advance in order to exodus if.there is a need ; for gas or food. * I MR. WILLIAM ROUDENBUSH, representing Denny's, ; stressed the need for an adequate sign that can : : be seen and read in order to attract business I from the freeway. He stated that Denny's will I i e-mploy approximately 35 to 40 people;. most of I ; them will probably live in Carlsbad and spend : their money in the City. This would mean added i revenue for the City. He described Denny's as : : being a clean type of operation, catering to i families. They do not serve liquor and would not; : need extra police protection. ; MR. JOHN GRANT, 4056 Skyline Road, Carlsbad, stated that he was responsible for getting Denny'i : to locate in the City of Carlsbad as he serves as; ;I:':! 1:::;; National Franchise Representative for the Company: : and wondered how this sign could be offensive to i i anyone in the area since there are few people I I ::'Il; i 1-iving in that area and that time is needed to i i get off the freeway. I ' .I I I t I I I I I' ' I I' I I 1 I I I I I I ;I::;; ;:;::: 8'1 I I 1:;:;: I I I :;;::: I .; :;;:;: I a::;; :;I1 ::,l,I ::;::: i:;:;: $2:': I I /I;:; I;;#;# I I I I ::a::: I ::::I: J I I I \ /"'- -3- No others present spoke in favor of this applica-i i tion. I : The Chairman'announced the Commission would now I hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. i I I I J 1 I i No one present spoke in opposition. i I I I The public hearing was closed at 8:06 P. M. When questioned about the sign being accepted by ! I the Highway Beautification Program, Mr. Lane I stated he was speaking in regard to the Mobil sigh i only. I : In answer to the question raised regarding the i .! lighting fixture at the bottom of the pole, Mr. : :.Michaels stated the lower part of the standard : i wou1.d have a soft light and had not been included! : in the sign area calculation. I i Points discussed were the visibility of the sign i : and the distance needed in order to see and read i the sign; the General Plan; that while there is : 'i interfere with, property east of the Freeway I across from this property is residential; the i direction of the sign; having as few signs as : possible in the City; there are 3 commercial uses: planned for this property and if applicants wish : : to exceed the requirements in the precise plan I i for these uses what will happen to the sign for : : the third use; the Commissioners having made on- i site inspection of the property and other signs at I freeway interchanges. I'The following resolution was presented: I I I I I I * I I I I I I I I I I I I -< : nothing in the area that this could possibly b I I I I I I I 1 I I i ; After due consideration a motion was made to deny: I the applications for said amendments to Precise Pi I 1. To exceed the height' and size of the sign i described in Item 23, Resolution No. 1327,Precisei : Plan PP 6602 would be inconsistant with the pattekn i already established along the freeway by the b I ; County and the City of Carlsbad. I ; additional sign space being required on that sign!.. ! : - : Plan PP 6602 for the following reasons: I I I I I I I I I ,: 2. Because of the pre-eminent possibility of I I I I ', 8'. 8 ** I I I I I I 8 8, ', 8, ', '8 '8, 8 '\ *, 8, '\ 8 I I I I I I I I '8, 8, ' \\ '.,'*' I I N a me *,, '<%, '*.:\%* I I I ; of .,+'\O' \ '<+, i I '\&.e, 0 4'., ; #>, '+\ : :""""""""""""""""""""-"""""""""""""""""~"""""""""""-,"" .. : Member .tb'sp.,$$JQ, I ::;I:! i:::;.: )I) ;:;:a; ;I;!:; ::;I:: ::I::: :;:::; ,:::I; :::;:I ::;I:: !id:: :Ill :)I:;; ;:::I8 l:ll:: $4:: ;I:'Ib 8, 's ", ', 8 ' I 8 '((1 I ;::::: ;:,:I: ;::::: ;:::a: (;::i: * :;i:;: I::;!: ;:#I , 8 :x: I Resolution No. 493. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING !Smith ; COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DENYING AMEND-: McComas f :x; i i MENTS TO PRECISE PLAN PP 6602, was adopted by ; Sutherland: ; !x:.; : title only and further reading waived. :Little i ~x:xi i (b) VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in front i *.I I , i yard setback from 20 feet to 11.5 feet on Sandal-; ;: wood Lane, in order to construct a patio sunshade: ;I:;:: on property at 3436 James Dr., at the Southeaster: 1;;:;: ly corner of James Dr. and Sandalwood Lane, being: ;lI;l' ,:;I:: Lot 16, Sandalwood Dale Unit No. 1. Applicants: i ::;::I John P. and Mabel M. L. Freitas. I I :;:::: I -1 I:*: I I ;::;:; I I ;:;I:# 1::::: * I ::::;: I I :::::: 11 ;:;: I I ::*tll :::::: I I :;ti:: I '(1 I ;I:::: ! : : : ! I.:, : Voorheis i ; :x! i *'I I .. I I I I :;1::i I I 1 I I I I 8 ', b', * 8. I I ,8 8". I I '. tt' I I I I I I I 5,' 't,",, '\, '8, ', I '\ ',\., 't8 " 8' I 1 I ; *f b$'\q, +& ; I \?$&+ ;>,+$& ; :"""""""-"-"""~".""""""-"""""""""""""""""~~"""""""""""-,"" : Member ,o ~~.3y?~,08 ''I 18: - :::;:I ;', I ; I :I;; :!:;I; * :::;;; I I ;;I!:: I ::;@:I 88 I I t I 1,;:;: I. I :::!:;, I I I 8' - 4 .- N a me '8'. '*P&, 8. %, '8%. i Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certi-i ; fied that property owners in the area were notifi<d ::;I1: i of the public hearing and then read the applicatidn and signatures of 9 property owners in the area i ; approving this variance. i There were no written communications. i The Planning Director gave a report on the facts I ::;::: :;':I; ; re,sulting from the staff investigation of this I ;l;@ll ::::;; i property. I 1:;:;: i The Chairman announced the Commission would now ! :::#&I : hear from the 'applicants or their representative i :;':;: :tp; I and any others wishing to speak in favor of the ; ':I:;; ; application. I ; ;-e I I I&@*;: * I i; !.I; : LT. JOHN FREITAS, stated that when he first found: ;!i:!i i this property he asked the contractor, Mr. Lewis ; ::I::: ; Chase, to have the h0us.e face on James Drive as i i he felt it would be safer for his 5 children. At ; :;;::: : that time he did not know he would have trouble i :::I;: ; kitchen and family room at the rear of the garage! ;:;;;: and would 1 i ke to put a roof over it. but if he 1 ;::;:; I complies with the required setbacks the patio wili. ;::I:, i be too small. Lt. Freitas stated they thought ; :they would be able to have a 6 foot fence on * l:t*al I Sandalwood Lane but found out they could only hav{ ; a 42" fence. The roof would be of high quality ; ! material and they would have, a portable Shoji I I ::::;; : butterfly type screen on the street side for ; privacy. He reported the whole neighborhood is i in favor of the variance. I(*I1# I The Building Inspector explained that the narrow i part of the lot is considered the front of the i : lot and does not permit a fence over 42"in the : 20' front yard setback. He pointed out that the i::;:: : ordinance allows for the front porch to encroach : 1:;;:I : 6' into the front yard, however, this property's I entrance is off of James Drive. If the patio I I ;:;:*: : were to be on James Drive it could be 10' from tht lll;: ; property 1 ine. I I ;;1*81 i The Planning Director suggested that a letter be lo~l;: : directed to all developers regarding setbacks and! I then be adamant about them. I I. ;:;&:I i MRS. LILA MERRELL, 1630 Sandalwood Lane, stated i ::I:;: : she lives across the street and spoke in favor of: +;:; this request. I ::;I*: i The Chairman announced the Commission would now i ;:;:;: : hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. : I::I '1; MR. A. NEIL HENKE, 1650 Sandalwood Lane, stated : i he had no objection to the patio but questioned : 1::::: ; the elevation of the patio roof, and was concerneh I with how the roof will be tied in with the build-: : ing. I I $;I::*. I ::; I 8 4 8 I I I I :;::;; I:::;; i with a patio. He put in a patio slab o.ff the I :::i;; Io 1:;:;: I :I;::; :I::;: 'I:;;; :::;;I I I i:::;; ; : : I.1 ; I ;i!:i; I '*I::; ::::I; :;!pi; ;: ;::: :;; 18 ;*I :;: I:::;: I 11 1;i;;: ::ii;: i::;:! I ;::i:! I ;I' ;:; : '1 1:::: I I I I :::::: ;:;ii: 8:; ;;;l@l ;:;::: I I I -;I:;:: I I ;i;:;: I I I ::;::: :ll:l; I I I I :i:::: I I ;1:1;1 I *'l;l; I t I 1 :::::; I* ;::;:; I l:;l;l I I ::I:;: I " ~~ * :;::;: F I 1 * I I I I I I I 9 I I I I *' I I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I I P e l I I I I I I I I I -8, '\ .\ -\ I I , \, '\ ', ', '\ I I I \\ F- - I N8 '8 8, ', ',,", I -5- I *, ',, ', \\ ' 8 I I I N a me '8, \$!. ' \., '84 *$,>, i 8 '.r';..'$@ q:,+ i :""""-"""""""""""""""--"""""""""""""""""l"""""""""""-,""~ .. : Member ,Q -fi'\p'p ",d\ I LT. FREITAS stated that the roof would be lower :::;(I l'; 4 :::;:: :of high grade patio material. 4.1 I I ; ; )1@1 8 :::::; 11;:;t :The Building Inspector explained that the estheti4s :::::: i of a structure are not a part of Building Inspec-! ;:::;i ; tion, but they are concerned with structural and ; ::I::: wind loading requirements, and the structure in t :'p!! ;: I question will have to be fastened to the building: 181:l; ;;:a:l 1::::: :The Chairman asked the applicant to show the I ::4;: I ; I I I,:;:: I :i;:i; I II,:;! :Building Inspector stated the floor of the patio i ii' .: I i ; i is a couple of inches lower than the house and : ::I:;; :the drainage of the property will not be affected! :;;:;; i by the patio roof. I ; 18.1 I I I,;,* b :::;:: * ::'I:: !The public hearing was closed at 8:47 P. M. 1 i::::: lI*; i After further consideration, a motion was made to! iirii; : adopt Resolution No. 504 granting said variance i :::;;; I* I i:::;; I 1)11 :. ,1. The owner needs this particular Jocaticn on i iiii:; i h-is property for a patio in order to properly use; ::@8:: : his property. I 1;::;; :;I 4; I2. The granting of this variance will not inter;; i: ;::I I(' ; fere with the enjoyment of the view from their i 1;:::: i neighbors' standpoint. 1 I ::;I:: $ I :;:::: p::* 8'; : conditions and limitations tha.t the roof level of l::l:: :;:;I; i the patio is -not higher than the existing roof of: iiii:: : the house. I I 10 I :;;:;: Planning Commission Resolution No. 504. A RESOLU-: Smith 1. ::;:;: !x: :xi ; i : TION GRANTING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY AT 3436 Jame4 McComas ; 3( :xi ; I DRIVE, AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF JAMES DRIVE: Sutherlani : ;x; ; I AND SANDALWOOD LANE, was adopted by title only ! Little ; : :x' ; I and further reading waived. : Voorheis ; : ;x: i ; I ; 1;: I ; I I ; of %$&q>, ', ..e/. 'I than the existing roof of the house and would be I I I I I I 11 *I I I I elevation of the patio to his neighbor. In answer to questions by the Commission the I 1: I I I I I I I I I * I I I r for the following reasons: * 8 . i AND that said request be granted on the followingi I 8 I II r I I' I I I I :$;; 1 I 111111 I I ::;a;: I I ::,:a: I ::l:l; I 8;::i: ::pt 0: ;11;:: II ;I4 lll:~: ,:a::: I 4::: I i::;:: @.Ill I :i:iii ::i:;: I !:I::: I 1::::; I :-I:: 1;;1 I I 1::::: -1:;; I :::Ill ::;;;: 1::; I I 1::; : OLD BUSINESS: ;$:I : (a) Required Improvements - re: Lot Splits and I 1';I;I : McComas reported that the Committee met with ; the Carlsbad Realty Board and considered a pi'oto-i i type ordinance. The Realty Board will study this: proposed ordinance and give the Committee their i I:::;: I views on the matter. Commissioner McComas stated ; ,I:::: : they expect to have a written report and prototype i ordinance written up for the next meeting. i NEW BUSINESS: I Zone Changes - Committee Report. Commissioner members of the City Staff and representhtives froh ' I I :::::: ;: I ltIl I I I I I l;*l@: 1 ;1:*:4 I I I I (a) Fence Location Study. The Planning Director i : asked that this matter be continued. ! (b) Signs located within the City. There was a i -' ::I 1;;: i general discussion on the height, size, shape, : quality and color of signs in the City. i With the consent of the Commission the Chairman i : requested the Planning Director to make a study I :*1:1; I:* i of commercial signs in regards to amending the ; I ::@I :Ip*l 1: : sign ordinance. I I ::I;:; Ill I I I I I I -. I !!:!:!- 1 \ I I I ,- -6- I I I ,""""""""""""""""""" ._ I .""" (c) Reclassification of R-T : on June 13, 1967. There was affect this zone change would i sition of the property in the ;for a State Park. The Commis agreed to proceed with the pu i matter. I 1 i ADJOURNMENT: I By proper motion .the meeting : 9:'07 P. M. ! Respectfully submitted., I I i DOROTHY M. OSBURN / Recording Secretary 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 1 1 * I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I