The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1968-02-27; Planning Commission; MinutesI ? .:CITY OF CARLSBAD \ \ ' '\ '\ q', \\ i i i' ' ' '\ '\ '8' + - I '\ \ ' +., "Jy,\ minutes of: PLANNING COMM1S"IN I \ '.J' \, \$/",, / ;Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. I Name '\$@$">@.q \,O I place of Meeting: Council Chambers I I of tp&< I ; I---------------------"----- _-______-_-_____________ ~llemher___Q\"_~-~_;_, \I I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, :McComas, Jose, Little, Palmateer, and Voorheis. ICommissioner Sutherland was present at 7:3& P. M. I lAlso present were City Attorney Wilson, Assi,*stant ; :City Engineer Holly, Building Inspector Osburn, IPlanning Director Schoell, and Assistant City I Planner Johnston. *A :Date of Meeting: February 27, 19, - I I '\ '6> ' &.y& I I. I. I. I. I, I' I I11111 I 111111 I I11111 I I11111 llllll I11111 IlllIl I I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I 11111l I I.IIII1 I llllll I I I ;APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I 111111 111111 111111 :(a) Hinwtes of the regular meeting of February ' :Smith : 13, 1968, were approved as .corrected. 111111 I ,McComas lxlxl I I Ill I I : : I I Jose :x: :x: ; ; I :Little I I I I 1x1 I : Voorheis : ; :x; ; : I I I I I I lPalrnateer I IxI I I I11111 I 111111 I11111 I llllll I 111111 I 111111 I I11111 I I11111 1 I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I 1l1111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 1 I11111 I 111111 I 111111 I I11111 I 111111 :WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I IThere were no written communications. :ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I I I I I I - donation of Council Chambers to the Carlsbad Girls: Illlll 'Club. Commissioner Jose stated in checking the I jfeasibil i ty of whether the present Council Chamber; I could be utilized for the Girls Club he under- I I I11111 :stands that the building is over fifty (50) years ; :old and is not in to good condition; therefore, the cost of moving the building and making it I I I I I I 1.1 :compatible does not seem reasonable for the build-; :ing to be utilized for habitation. 'I PUBLIC HEARING: - I11111 I I I I I I :(a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - To erect a 100' radio transmitting antenna and building to house ; ; transmitters. :Location: Westerly side of the railroad right of ; way, Southerly of Palomar Airport road.^ I I I I I I I I Applicant: 0ffsh.ore Raydist Inc. I I I I Notice of hea.ring was re.ad. Secretary Jose certi-: : fied that publication was given and pro.perty owner? I in the. area were notified of the public hearing, I :and then read the application. I :Commission Sutherland arrived at 7:36 P. M. I I ;The Planning Director presented a map explai.ning ; I the location of the property and the. zoning $6 I :the area and the written report of the facts I I property. The property to the North of Palomar I I :Airport Road and East of the railroad are elevated: :above subject property. He also stated that the I I Planning Commission should take into consideration: :if the proposed use would have any interference : !with local televisionsor radios. I I I I I I I I : resulting from t.he staff investigation of the I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :Chairman Little declared the public hearing open : land announced the Planning Commission would hear I ,from the applicant or his representative. , I :MR. LEFFLER, West Coast representative and super- I :viser for Offshore Raydist Inc., stated he would : 'answer I any questions that the Commissioners might ; 1 have. :When questioned why this particular property was I #selected, Mr. Leffler stated this .property was I iselected beeause of its location near the ocean. 'He also stated that they have looked over this I :entire area and that the man who owns this properti :is willing to lease this piece of property. They : 'picked this side of the freeway because there I :would be less disadvantages'trying to get a permit: :for this piece of property.The reason it is locate4 @in the middle of the lot, is that if they get any I :further to the North the land would not be level. :When asked what the function of this tower would ; be, Mr. Leffler, stated that this is one station I :in a network of stations. It takes four stations : :together to have a system that provides a radio I location. They provide electronic survey for I I :geophysical work. They do not do the actual geo- ,physical work only provide the electronic control .I this station would be one of the networks which I :covers from Point Mugu to La Jolla. I lWhen questioned, Mr. Leffler stated they have not I :checked the touer height with the airport. He I !poin,t& out in order to get the FCC license it has I :to be approved by the FAA. :When questioned if the transmitting would have any1 :effect on local television and radio, Mr. Leffler : 'stated it would not have any effect. This operate$ :in a frequency band between 1650 and 1800 kili- ~cycles, which is. above the broadcast band and be- 1 :low the marine band. It is operated on a C-W I lfrequency. He also stated there is no modulation 1 :on this; it is just one single frequency. They I I 'expect I to get ranges of 150 to 200 miles from this: Istation. I ;When asked where other transmitters are located ; lin this area, Mr. Leffler stated they would be I :at Huntington Beach, Point Mugu, and Catalina I ;Island. :When questioned if it wou1.d be any problem for I ;this operation to be located inland, Mr. Leffler ; lstated it would tie a problem. They try to stay I :as close to the ocean as possible. This is a I 'phase comparison system; if they get away from :the water they start getting skywwes and the :accuracy depends on the phase of the one trans- I I :mitting station.to another. He .also stated they ; #put out a power of 500 watts. 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 1 I 'I. I I I I I ~~~ . I - I l -3- 1 I 1 I 1"""""""""""~""""""""""""" I I I I. 1. I. I. I. I' I 111111 I I11111 111111 I11111 I Illlll I 111111 I I11111 111111 I11111 111111 I11111 111111 111111 111111 I I11111 I llllll I I11111 11l111 111111 111111 Illlll I11111 I I11111 I Illlll I 111111 I 111111 I 111111 111l11 Illlll I I 111111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 llllll Illlll I I I I I'I I11111 111111 I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 Illlll I11111 Illlll I I I11111 I11111 I I11111 I I11111 111111 I11111 I 111111 I I11111 I11111 I I I11111 111111 I I11111 I I11111 I 111111 I I I11111 I11111 111111 111111 111111 111111 I 111111 I 111111 I 1-1 I I I I I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 111111 111111 111111 I11111 I I11111 I I I11111 Illlll I11111 :Mr. Leffler then distributed photographs of the ; !network station. :Chairman Little stated there should be industry ; lin this area and electronic type of equipment is I :quite sensative to outside interference. He state4 Illlll :he would possibly consider something like this on ; la Conditional Use Permit subject to interference. :Chairman Little announced the Commission would tnow hear from any others wishing to speak in favor: :of this application. As there were no others I 111111 'present to speak in favor, the Chairman announced : llllll :the Commission would now hear from any one wishing: :to speak in opposition. I Illlll ILAWRENCE WRIGHT, owner of the Solamar Mobile :Estates, stated tie was not against or for this ;application. He stated he is trying to determine : if this use will effect the mobilehomes in any :way. This antenna is directly between the mobile : I11111 lhomes and thier T. V. source, Mount Wilson. His I :radio. If this is a continual operation this I :means there will be no relief from it if there is : tany interference. He pointed out he might accept I I ithis use if there was a written quarantee to the : llllll :effect that there would be no interference with I IT. V. or radio. Another thing is the appearance : :of the use. He stated Re has never seen a T. V. ; :or radio ankenna, 100 feet, in a residential area;l .land that he considered the mobile homes a residen-: .:tial area. If there is manufacturing in the I 1 future.; it would be on the other side of the track; I11111 :and would not affect hi3 residential area. I :Chairman Little announced that. the Commission r~~~ld now hear from any 6thers wishing to speak I I "in opposition of this application. INo others present spoke in. opposition. I :The public heari.ng was closed at 8:02 P. M. :Commissioner Palmateer stated that there is an I enormous amount of low ai3 traffic along the I :beach. There are many helecopters traveling this I I I11111 :route. He considered this .tower.would be a con- ; I11111 lsiderable hazard. ICommission Sutherland stated that the Commission ; :sho-uld make further investigation and check with I :the County, the airport, and the local T.V. and : :radio stations. I Illlll :It was agreed that -this application be continued I I 111111 :for further information. :After further discussion, a motion was made to : Smith :continue this hearing for further i'nvestigation. lMc~o~a~ I Ix I IxI I I I I I I I I - :concern was that it might affect their T. Y. or I - 1 I I I I - I 11.1 I I I I I I I I I I I : ; ;x: : : I I I11111 I 111111 Illlll I 111111 I IIIIll I IIIII! c 1 I I. I. I. I. I, I' I11111 I11111 :TENTATIVE MAP - HART LOT SPLIT - 2 lots I Drive and Highland Drive. I I llllll IIIIII I Illlll I 11l111 I I11111 I 111111 I I11111 I I :Location: Northwesterly corner of Las Flores I llllll I I I I 'Owner and Subdivider: William S. Hart. :Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certi- ; ;that property owners in the area were notified.of : the hearing and then read the application. ;Letter dated February 26, 1968, from William Hart,; requesting that he be relieved of the requirements1 :of constructing improvements on Highland Drive at ;this time and that he be relieved of the require- : ~ments of the in-lieu fee for Parks and Recreation I :for Parcel B at this time.also. The intent of thi$ ldiivision is to provide a building lot for his son,; :who is soon to be married.. ;Letter Qrbmithe City Attorney to Mr. William Hart,; stating that the City requested that he execute I :the deed to his property to the City. There will ; ;be no charge for these improvements unless he I wishes to create additional lots facing on to the I ;newly created Las Flores, etc. I lLetter dated February 23, 1968, Pacific Telephone I :and Telegraph Company, stated that they propose ;to serve the Tentative Hart Lot Split with exist- ; ling facilites they have buried in the street. I !Letter dated February 20, 1968, Public Heatth 10epartment stating they would accept the tentative: 'map I providing the conditions listed in the letter Ibe followed. I 'The Assist. City Engineer presented the Tentatfve I :Map and described the property awned by.Mr. Hart. tie :stated the Engineering Department is requesting :improvements along Highland Drive.. He also stated; lthey are not .requesting improvements along the I :extension of Morning Glory Lane. He pointed out I :that a problem involved is the water system. The ; ldnly existing water system is located on Chuparosal :Wa'y. This means that a ten foot easement for a I ;water pipe line should be provided along the North: lside of Las Flores Drive from the West property : :line of Parcel B. He then reviewed the Engineer- I :ing Department conditions for the proposed lot ; ~spl it. I :When questioned who was liable for this water 11ine extention, Mr. Holly stated?hAat the Cfty :is liable. Mr. Hart will pay $13.80 per foot and ; :also the $60.00 connection fee and $90.00 for I sewer lateral. 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 ;The Chairman announced the Commission would now ; hear from the applicant or his representative. I Illlll Illlll I11111 I11111 I I I 11-1 I I I I I I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I' I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I 1111l1 I I11111 I IIIIII I IIIlll I1111l~ I I I I I I. 1. I. I. I. IO I11111 I I I 1.1 I I :MR. WILLIAM SAUER, .Attorney representing Mr. Hart,, I I11111 : stated they are only concerned with one lot which ; #Mr. Hart wa'nts to give to his son as a wedding :present. He stated they will go along with the I I I11111 :terms of the City Attorney's letter which was sent; 111111 ;to Mr. Hart at such .time as he dedi.cated a portion1 I of that property to the City of Car1sba.d. Mr. t I llllll I11111 :Hart will in addition slgn a future street agree- ; iment where by he will agree to develop the area I lalong Highland Drive at such time as the City is I I I11111 :prepared to put sidewalks in and develop the Ifrontage area. He also stated that Mr. Hart will I :sign a contract as to t-he water line being extendeb I11111 :to his property at the expense of the City. t lChairman Little announced the Commission would I I I11111 'hear from any others wishing to speak in favor of ; : this application. :As there were no others wishing to speak in favor ; lthe Chairman announced the Commission would now I Ihear from any one wishing to speak in opposition. : :application. I I :After further discussion, it was agreed that there; :were no objections to this lot split. I I Illlll :A motion was madme to adopt Resolution No. 547, :recommending approval of this lot split, subject : I11111 .: to the recommendations of the various City agenciep .I and uti 1 i ty compariies. 'Resolution No. 547. A RESOLUTION OF THE'CARLSBAD kmith : CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL hccomas 1x1 1x1 I I :OF THE TENTATIVE MAP OF HART LOT SPLIT, was adoptepLittle : : :xi : ;by title only and further reading waived. dose I11111 Illlll I11111 I I11111 I11111 111111 I11111 llllll 111111 111111 Illlll I I11111 I I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 I 111111 I I11111 111111 11111l 111111 I I11111 I I11111 I 111111 I11111 " I11111 I11111 1l1111 I11111 I I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 I I11111 I11111 I11111 Illlll 111111 I 111111 I I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I I11111 1 I11111 I11111 II I I I I I I ,/- - :No one was present to speak in opposition to the I I 111111 I 1 1 I I I I :x; : : I I ix: : : I Palmateer I I XI I I I Sutherland: :xix: : I Yoorheis ; ; ; x: ; ; II I I I I I I Illlll I11111 I 111111 I I11111 I11111 I11111 OLD BUSINESS: I' I I. I (a) Memorandum regarding Freeway Service F&cilitiek. I11111 I I :The following correspondence was acknowledged: : Memorandum dated February 23, 1968, from the City : ;Manager stating that a public hearing was held on ; I the above subject matter, February 20, 1968, by I :the Council, and after considerable discussion and: ltestimony was given, it was the decision of the ; :Council members that this matter be referred back I ;to the Planning Commission, and that the Commiss- ; I ion consider the fallowing formula for Freeway I I Service Facilities Signs: 1 I ; That each use be allowed a. total of 150 sq. ft. ; I of sign space; that 2 feet be allowed between ; each sign space; that the bottom sign be placedl I I 20 feet above the ground; and that the maximum I I I height of the sign standard be limited to 50 ; : . feet. As to a single use facility, 200 sq. ft. I ; be allowed, with a maximum height of 35 feet, I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~ a I .I I I I I I I I ~”””““”””””””””~”“”””“””~~~~ - -6- I I I I ~(d) New Sign Ordinance. :Items (a) and (d) were considered concurrently. :Commissioner Sutherland stated that another study ; :session be held with-the Cfty Council to further I discuss the sign ordinance, as he felt that at I ithe last joint meeting they did not have the lopportunity to express their opinions to the : counci lmen. I :Commissioner Palmateer agreed with Commissioner I ISutherland. Since it is required that the I :meeting be open to the public, he suggested that ; :the Council and Commission conduct the study I l~e~~ion and then request comments and opinions. of : :the pub1 ic. I :MR. SID SMITH, Chairman of the ,Oowntown Merchants: ‘Committee, stated he would also recommend that I I :another wark session be held;.but he felt that I :the merchantsin the City should also be included. :He felt that Carlsbad is in a different situation : Ithran other cities as it is situated in the middle I !of the freeway. He also felt that the City I :merchant’s ideas and opinions may be very helpful.: :Commissioner Sutherland stated if the Chamber of ICommerce or the Downtown Merchants wish to comment: :on the sign ordinance they should discuss their I . :recommendations and problems as a group and then : .:appoint a representative to speak for them at the ; Imeeting, as it is stronger than individual I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I comments. I I I I I I I I IM~. Sid Smith agreed with Commissioner Sutherland.l I :qhe Planning Director stated the complete sign ; ‘ordinance is finished and that each member was I I given a copy. He then compared the orginal :recommendations with the completed revised rec- I I commendations. I :MR. GROSSE, Attorney for Mr. Ecke, inquired if I : tie could speak regarding the Ecke application. I IPermission was granted. He stated that the letter: ftom the City Manager was somewhat confusing. It ; Iwas his impression that the City.Counci1 in no I :way acted in regards to any sign ordinance; that :action was taken in regards to a precise plan. I I Their recommendations for the precise plan was a I I figure of 450 sq. ft. for the 3 uses- on the South-: :east quadrant and heights of 50 feet and the I I Southwest., quadrant a figure of 200 sq. ft. and I : a height of 35 feet. This was strictly their I I recommendations to‘the application. They have I : taken action on the Ecke appeal and have referred I : it back to the Commission for their consideration.: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : Chairman Little stated that the memorandum stated I I I Freeway Service Facilities Signs. It did not . . : I : state the Ecke application. I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~” I. I. I. I. I, I’ 111111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 Illlll I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 1l1111 111111 I11111 I11111 1111l1 11l111 I11111 1111l1 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 I11111 1l1111 I11111 111111 1l1111 111111 I11111 111111 I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 111111 111111 111111 I11111 111111 I I I I 1.1 I11111 Illlll I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 illlll I11111 Illlll I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 I11111 111111 111l11 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 Illlll llllll I11111 111111 1111l1 1-1 I I I I I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 llllll llllll I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 Illlll 111111 111111 I 11.1 I I llllll 11111l I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 Illlll IIIIII I11111 11111f IIII~I I I .I I I I I I I. I. 1. I. I. I' I11111 I11111 I11111 Illlll I11111 Illlll I Illlll 111111 I 11.1 I I :When questioned, the City Attorney stated that the: ,Commission could give their reaction on this I I I I Iapplication' that night. I I 111111 I :After further discussion, a motion was made to 'Smith 'prepare a letter to the City Council stating I I 1x1 I I iMcComas ; ; :x; ; ; :that the Planning Commission has reviewed the lJose I LX 1x1 I I irecommendations of the City Council pertaining to :Little : : ;x; ; ; :sign heights and area for Freeway Service Facili- IPalmateer ; : ;X: ; 1 ~ties. The criteria which this Commission for- I ISutherlandl xI IxI I I :warded tothe Council was set up after a consider- iVoorheis ; ; :X; ; ; ;able amount of time and study.'ThiS study encom- I I11111 lpassed what we considered the needs and require- #business. To the best of our ability and judge- I :merit and as a resirit of numerous studies, the I I 111111 :Planning Commission felt that these criterias were: lfair and comparable to those established by other I :cit:ies: w.ith similar problems. The Council's T I. I I I11111 ;ceaommendation:of 150 sq. ft. is almost double the: ;Planning Commissions recommendation and we cannot I l~ee justification indicating this body was in I I I11111 'error by almost 100%. The Commission respect-. :fully requested another study session be held and I :also requested that they be the host at this study: :session. I IMr. Grosse, stated that he recommdnd,the Commiss- ; lion deny the Ecke application and ask the Council ; :to delay the hearing until after the study session4 .:Af-ter further consideration, a motion was made ;Smith Ithat a letter be sent to the City Council stating tMcCOmaS I I ;X: ; ; ithat the Commission, by the following.vo.%e, does :Jose I I k 1x1 I I :not feel any change is warranted from the StandardgLittle : ;X; ; ; lprescribed and approved in the initial precise IPalmateer I I 1x1 I I :plan. A joint study session has been requested :SutherlaRd:x; :xl Ill I I ;and the Commission recommend that any final deci- :Voorheis ; ; ;X; ; ; ~sion be withheld until after the study seagfon. I11111 1l1111 111111 111111 111111 I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 1111l1 I11111 I 111111 I 111111 -_ I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 I I11111 I I11111 Illlll I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 111111 Ill I 'ments of Freeway Oriented Businesses and type of ; " I11111 I I I I I I I I :x: : rc- I I I I Illlll I I11111 I Illlll I Appeal of the decision sion by Jordan, et al, re n, tentative map, and pre ated on the Northeasterly nue-and Pi0 Pic0 Drive. following correspondence .. of the Planning Com- garding reclassifica cise plan, on proper corner of Tamarack was acknowledged: Memorandum dated February 23, 1968, from the City ; Manager stating that a public hearing was held on I the above slbject matter, February 20, 1968, by : the Council, and after hearing testimony from the ; ;appellant's representative, it was the unanimous I ;decision of the Council that the appeal be granted : #€or the following reasons: I I I I I I I 1. There does not appear to be any other I I :logical use for the property. I I I .. I 2. The development would bring in taxable I I I11111 I11111 :income to the City; and I I 11111l I I11111 I I11111 I 1 3. There is already :this intersection. I I I I I I I ". . .. I Illlll ~. a commercial dbnsity at ; I11111 I I I I I .I '. 1 -8- I I. I I """"""""""- "" 1 I 1 :Therefore, this matter is'being returned to the ; ;Commission for further consideration and a report I I back to the City Council. I ; Chairman Little announced the Commission would I I now hear from the applicant or hi3-representative., I : DALE BUDLONG, Attorney representing Mr. Jordon, I : stated that they have proposed in the precise I : plan an Alphie!s Restaurant and a service station.; IHe then distributed photographs of other Alphie's I : restaurants to the Commissioners. He pointed out ; ! that the property is located on the Northeast' I quadrant of Interstate 5 and Tamarack. He pre- sented Mr. John F. Aaron a real estate representa-: Itive of the Alpha Beta Acme Markets Inc., who will: : discuss the proposed developments. I MR. JOHN F. AARON stated that the Alpha Beta Acme: : Markets Inc. have been in .the restaurant business I I for six years. Other Alphie's Restaurants are I I located in Fullerton, Corona, San Bernatino, Los ; Angeles County, and several other communities. It I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - i.s approximately 3500 to 5000 square feet in -size:. - ; They plan to open from 10 to 12 units a year. He I I also pointed out that Alphie's Restaurants are not: : a franchised operation; they are all company-,owned: ; and operated. The interior is of particular con- I I cern to the developers. There will be no cocktail: facilittes in the restaurant. He stated that I :Alphie's is more than a hamburger place, it will ; {When questioned what the total capacity would be, ; I Mr. Aaron&! stated they plan a capacity of 105 I : people. I : When questioned, Mr. Aaron stated they have not ;yet decided if this restaurant will be opened for : I 24 hours. There normal closing time is 11:OO P.M.; IHe pointed out that there are two Alphie's Restau-l : rants that 'are opened 24 hours. I I Mr. Budlong r-espectfully requested the Commission I I to strongly recommend th'at the property. be rezoned: I C-1, that the pkecise plan be adopted and that then I tentative subdivison map be adopted. He assured .,: : the Commission it will be a fine development. I :Commissioner McComas stated that he did agree 1 I with the City Council Is reason that there does I : not appear to be any other logical use for the I property'4.n the area. I : Commissioner Jose stated that the Planning Cornmiss: : ion's decision was justified but because of the I I comply with the Council. He did strongly feel I :that the foundation and restaurant be proposed at : the same time. I :Commissioner Sutherland stated he wolld stand I I ;with his decision. I I . I be designed with the family in mind. I .I I I I I I I - I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I tCouncil's action he felt the Commission should ; 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 1 ~""""""""""""""""""""""""- I I I - I -9- :Commissioner Palmateer stated that the Planning i rCommission is trying to do balanced planning and ; :felt that the overall planning needed a grea't I [deal more time and study. He felt that the Com- ; :mission's recommendations were valid; I I :4 letters were read from R. W. Sutherland, Mrs. IL. G. Huking, Dr. & Mrs. Stuart Scherr, and Mr. & ; :Mrs. Arthur E. Wollrich, stating they'were in I &favor of the Commission's decision. :Mr. Budlong stated only the restaurant will be I visjJ,l~.g.. from the freeway. He stated they will be : :glad to comply with the Cornmission's recommenda- ; :tions concerning the foundation. They will be I willing to put a limit so that the foundation-of : :the restaurant be potired by the time the permit ; :to occupy the service station is given. I :The Chairman announced the Commission would now ; :hear from any others wishing to speak in favor of I I this application. IMR. DICK JORDON, owner of the property, stated that he has an economic interest in the property. :He stated if it is true that we have too. many I ;service stations going in on the freeway eventual14 I this type of business will fail economically and ; :will be rep1aced:by other businesses. Businesses ; twill develop according to the needs of the commuL-l ; nity. The type of government we have allows cer- : .: tain rights to. the individual to use his property ; ''as he sees fit. He stated he was at a loss. as to I what he could do with the property. and asked the ; ;Commission if they could offer any suggestions, ; ; as he.was open minded. I #The Planning Dfkector read the recommendations ; : listed in the Planning Department's report for I : the precise. plan. I ; Chairman Little stated that the recommendations I lfrom the Planning Department should become a part : I I of the precise plan. I I Chairman Little announced the Commission would now: : hear from any persons wishing to speak in opposi-; I tion of this application. 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 iihere was no one present wishing to speak in I opposition. IAfter further discussion, a motion was made to ; Smith ; prepare a 1etter.to the City Council stating that I McComas I I I 1~1 I : it was the decision of the Commission, by the ; Jose I11111 ; following vote, to stand with their previous 1 Little I I I 1x1 I I decision of denial of subject application untll I I Palmateer I IxI xI I I : further consideration. Sutherlanqx! :x; I ; I I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I 1l1111 I I11111 I11111 I I I I 1111 I I 'x: : Ill I : ; I I Voorheis ; ; ; x; ; ; I I I I I I I I : I I I I .I I I I I .I -10- I-""""""" "^" I I I I. I. 1. I. I, I' I 11l111 I I11111 I11111 A motion was made, that the Chairman prepare a kmith letter to the City Council stating that there is :McComas ; 5(; ; I : a sharp division of thinksng among the members :Little :;?(;:I I of the Planning Commission and that it was unani- IPalmateer I I N I I I : mously requested that if the City Council excer- ;Sutherland:x: 3(: : I cises it prerogative to grant subject application,;Voorheis ; ; 3(; ; ; that the recommendations from the Planning and Jose Engineering Department be made part of said I I Illlll I approval. ;: lIl)(III : :"F: ; ; I I I I I I I11111 I I11111 I 11111l I I11111 I I11111 I "1111 I I (c) Appeal of the decision of the Planning Com- I ; mission by Jay and Maryon Hoffman, regarding I ; reclassification, tentative map, and precise I plan on property located on the South s%de of ; El Camino Real approximately 800 feet East of I ; Kelly Drive. I I I I I I I I I I The following correspondence was acknowledged: I : Memorandum dated February 23, 1968, from the City : : Council , and after hearing testimony from the I appellant's representative, it was the unanimous : ; decision of the Council that this matter be referqed I back to the Commission for further study in light I : of new developments, and that a .report be made I back to the City Council. I I I - : Manager stating that a public hearing was held on - I the above subject matter, February 20, 1968, by th:e I I I I I .I I When questioned by the Commission whether this { would have to be readvertised, the City Attorney ; I stated that it would not have to be readvertised. I I I I I 1 Letter dated February 26, 1968, from White, Price,: I Froehlich & Peterson, was read stating the uses I : for which the premises will be used. I lThe Chairman announced that the Commission would I I ; now hear from the applicant or his representative.: : MR. PETERSON, Attorney for Mr. Hoffman, stated ; that in reviewing the minutes of November 28, 1967:, I and January 23, 1968, indicates the problem was I : that the Hoffmans did not sufficiently limit what : they intended to do on the premise and that the I precise plan was not precise enouQh. Another I substantial problem, from the City Engineer's 1 I ; view point, was the ingress and egress into these : I premises and that the City Engineer recommend to 1 the North of the rezoning property that a 60' road: ;be developed in order for the people to enter and I exit from this property rather than entering andr I : existing directly from El Camino Real, which has I I I not been provided.' He then presented Mr. Brooke, !engineer from Rancho Santa Fe and stated he wobr'd I like to present the revisedplat of the precise I I I plan and the revised subdivision map, which shows ; : the road that the City Engineer recommended. 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 .f I I I. I. I. I. I, I' I I11111 111l11 I11111 111l11 Illlll I11111 I11111 I 111111 I I11111 1l1111 I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 Illlll 111111 111111 I 111111 111111 I11111 111111 I 111111 I 111111 I llllll I11111 I11111 111111 I11111 Illlll I11111 I Illlll I I11111 I I11111 I I 11l111 111111 I 111111 I I Illlll I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I Illlll I11111 Illlll 11111l I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I11111 I Illlll I I11111 I Illlll I I11111 I llllll I I11111 Illlll I11111 111111 I11111 I11111 I11111 Illlll I I11111 I I11111 I Illlll I11111 I11111 I11111 I I11111 I I11111 111111 I11111 111111 I11111 I I11111 I I11111 I 11111l I11111 I11111 I I11111 I11111 :MR. BROOKE, presented the .precise plan which was :originally presented and stated that the existing I :building, a.t that time, was proposed to have egresd land ingress at two particular points directly on : 111111 :to El Camino Real, which was one of the objections.1 Illlll #Their plans are to close the entrance along El lCamino Real to redesign the flbw of traffic in the: :parking lot so that it will not create traffic I 111111 Iproblems. He also presented and explained the :original tentative map which consist of two lots. : Illlll :He stated they have eliminated the egress and I lingress and have provided a 60' dedicated right of: :way on the West side of the area for the future t11111 :street that will border the proposed area. This I lwill provide egress and ingress for the traffic I :generating around this building and come out into : I11111 lone central point into one left hand turn positiont :There will be just one entrance. :When questioned.if the one.entrance will create ani ~problems, the Assistant City Engineer stated that ,it would not create any problems. This is what : ;the Engineering Department recommended in the :traffic across the intersection. :When questioned, the Assistant City Engineer :stated that the applicant will build the 60' :street and also improve along El Camino Real. :MR. BROOKE, stated the City Ordinance calls for ; . ;improvements along all of the improved rights of I way of the proposed subdivision. There is roughly: {2,000 feet of El Camino Real , this means that they: :would have to extend from Kelly Drive the sewer, I I water, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks for the entirb 1l1l11 :2,000 feet. He stated he would like to request a ; I11111 #waiver from the Commission to eliminate that :which will extend beyond part of tk!',r proposed ; precise plan. ;Mr. Peterson stated that the Hoffmans do have a : :substantial investment in this property. They I I lare definitely limiting the use to rather unique I :and interesting uses. He felt it is a plan that I I11111 'will be attractive and will be a benefit to the : :The Chairman announced the Xommission would now ; :hear from-:.any others wishing to speak in favor. I ;As there were no others present wishing to speak ; lin favor the Chairman announced the Commission I :would now hear from any one wishing to speak in : 111111 : opposition. I No one was present 'wishing to speak in opposition.: :After further discussion, a motion was made that Smith : the revised application of zone change, precise NcComas II 'plan, and tentative map be approved providing ; the recommendations of the City Engineer and fYif1 e ; Planning Department are adopted and subject to Palmateer I I I , , ; the following recommendations: Sutherland ; ; X; ; ; I I I I I beginning. This allows better control of the I llllll - I I .- I Illlil City of Carlsbad. I' I I I I I I 'x; X: ; ; :x: :x: ; : I I :x; ; .; I I 1x1 I I II I I boerheis I ; ; :X: ; ; I I I I I I I I I 11111l I I11111 I I11111 I 111111 I I11111 I IIIIII IIIlli ~~ -~ ~~~~~ .____~ - .* " *. -x -1 "" 2- """""""""~"""""- I I I I I 1. That the egress and ingress system be 'changed I to .the North side of the property. I 2. That the businesses referred to in I Exhibit ''A" are defined as"Specia1 i ty" type @businesses. . I I I I I 3. That a minimum of six (6) of said uses ; I :are contained within the building at one time. :Store and repair shop, listed in Exhibit ''A", be I :changed to Radio Studios and Shoe store and shoe ;repair shop. I 5. That the last item in Exhibit""A" showing: 1"Similar establishments catering directly to I :consumers", be deleted. I :the precise plan.. I I I I I I I I 4. That the uses Radio Station and Shoe I I I I I I I I I I 6. That the landscaping be in accordance with I I I I I I I I I I 'NEW I BUSINESS: I I I lThere was no new business. I I I I I I I I I I I :By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at )12:01 A. M. I I I I I I Respectfully submitted, :TONI J. DERRIGO, ;Recording Secretary I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I I I I I ^. . I I' I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I