Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-07-23; Planning Commission; Minutes' .- -ITY OF CARLSBAD - COMMISSIONERS J MINUTES OF: DATE OF MEETING: July 23, 1968 Commissioner Gullett was present at 7:38 P. M. Also present were City Attorney Wilson, Assistant City Engineer .Spano, Building Inspector Osburn, Planning Director Olinghouse, and Assistant City Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (a) Secretary Jose welcomed Mr. Dewhurst'to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gullett arrived at 7:38 P. M. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (a) There were no oral communications. ' r (a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - To consider allowing signs on the Fotomat Film Dispensing Building, located on the Southerly side of Elm Avenue, between Harding Street and Interstate 5 Freeway. Applicant: Fotomat Corporation. to the City. / COMMISSIONERS i. , I I 1 -2- The Planning Director recommended that the ba.nners, designated sign I'd", not be allowed since they would not be in conformance with the proposed sign ordinanc, The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear from the applicant or his representative. J. R. WILSON, representing Fotomat Corporation, state there are no flashing or blinking signs proposed. There are two canvass signs proposed,one lettering "Film . Developing . Flash Bulbs", which will be constru'cted as banners at both ends of the building, and another banner-lettering "One Day Photo Finishing constructed in the front and rear portions of the building. These banners have been used throughout the Country, but since they would not conform with the proposed sign ordinance, he asked the Commission if it would be acceptable to construct these signs as permanent signs, so they would not move or flap. He pointed out they have eliminated the pole sign and are trying to advertise this by getting some form of identification. The' Chairman announced the Commission would now hear from any others wishing to speak in favor of this application. There were no others wishing to speak in favor, so th Chairman announced the Commission. would now hear from anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this applic- ation. As there was no one present wishing to speak in oppos ition, the Chairman declared the public hearing close at 8:OO P. M. When questioned if the proposed signs would be in conformance with the present ordinance, the Planning Director stated that it depended on the total sign area of the shopping center, which is considered as a one pawel ownership. The sign area based on 1 1/2 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage would then be delegated to different proprietorships. Commissioner Palmateer felt that there was no reason for denial, provided that the banners be installed as a fixed sign. Commissioner Jose stated he agreed with the staff report, that the proposed banners be deleted since they would not be in conformance with the proposed ordinance. He felt there would be sufficient adver- tising without the banners. After due consideration, a motion was made adopting Resolution No. 567, granting a conditional use permit for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed conditional use permit would not be detrimental to the public or safety ' welfare. -3- 2. That the granting of this conditional use permit would not be in conflict with the existing signs in the surrounding area. Resolutiom No. 567. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CIT PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF ELM AVENUE, BETWEEN HARDING STREET AND INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY, subject to the condition that the proposed sign, referred to as Sign I'd", as designated in the Planning Department Report,. be constructed as a fixed sign, was adopted ' by title only and further reading waived. OLD BUSINESS: (a) Memorandum dated July 19, 1968,'to the Planning Commission, from the City Council, in regards to the - Brady zone ct (a) Memorandum dated July 19, 1968,'to the Planning Commission, from the City Council, in regards to the consider granting the reque.sted reclassification - Brady zone change, requesting that the Commission consider grar subject to the condition 'that the zone change not be effective unless and until a specific plan or plans for all or portion's of the subject property have been approved and adopted by the City, and subject to the further condition that all public. improvements and dedications recommended by the Engineering Department be made and installed prior to the zone change's becoming effective. I .. The Planning Director again reviewed subject reclass- ification and'explained that the Council request a specific plan which will illustrate the development, and to'have a comprehensive plan area so that it would be in conformance with the General Pla-n. He 7 commented that in reference to. the "State Planning- Zone Law" code book, the P1 anning Agency may, or if directed by the legislative body, prepare specific plans based on the General Plan and may recommend such plans to the legislative body for adoption. This is often done by many cities when there.are several owners involved in a zone change, in order to insure the execution of the General Plan. He suggested that the Commission request the City staff to prepare the specific plan on the designated property and also appoint a commissicnerto participate in the study. He stated that a meeting would be held with the property owners to get their ideas and opinions for the development and then the Planning staff, in conjunction with the Engineering Department, would prepare the specific plan. MR. ROYCE BOND, involved with the zone change, add- ressed the Commission and stated the Planning Direct0 suggestion would be agreeable as it would save a great deal of time, work and money. The reason for this process is to allow, especially the small developers, to get it on record that the zone chan'ge may be made, then they can go ahead and individually submit their specific plan on their particular Parcel of property. and this would set up commitments as to the area and what is going to be done wit-, it. COMMISSIONERS Moti Roll Ayes Noes -4- .. -1 "+A "."" I Commissioner Jose felt that it should be brought to the new commissioners' attention,that at the time the application was first considered, there were many residences of that area objecting to the R-3 zone. Mr. Bond .commented that all the objecti:ons, with the exception of one, came from residences of Home Street wh'ich is nearly 1/2 mile around to the property area. As soon as development occurs on one lot, there will be no connection whatsoever with these residences. There are only two parcels of all of those objecting that do not adjoin R-3 property. The main reason 1 for the objections to an R-3 zone, i.s that the people in that area did not want a motel developed. He state that most of the R-3 property in the City is develop- ed as R-1 property, and it would be too expensive to tear down these houses and rebuild as R-3 property. Mr. Brady is not interested in developing this property himself. He has attempted to sell this /c property for some time and has had two offers - one ' is for single family dwellings, "ding bats", which are low cost houses, and the other would be for mulitiple dwellings. I c Commissioner Snedeker commented that in reviewing the Commission's public hearing om this matter, there were many people objecting for the reason they did not know what was going to be developed. It appears from the Council minutes that the Council bave come to a conclusion that if the subject zone change were granted,subject to a specific plan, this would give the .people objecting to the plan the opportunity to present their opposition at a later date and at the same time would give the people in the area something that they desire. He questioned the City Attorney if this could be a conditional zone change, 'subject-to the condition that a specific plan would be presented to the Commission within a certain period of time. The City.Attorney stated if the Commission wishes, they may recommend that the zone change not occur until a specific plan is submitted and approved by the Commission. After a general discussion, a motion was made direct- ing the Planning Staff to prepare a specific plan, with the consultation of the applicant, for the entir subject property and to have said plan ready for presentation to the Commission, along with subject reclassification, for a public hearing on August 27, 1968. (b) Planned Community Ordinance. The Planning Direc- tor reported that this ordinance was presented and considered by the City Council at their meeting of July 16, 1968, and was referred back to the Commissio for further study. He stated that there were minor changes that have been suggested that will possibly) solve some misunderstandings and problems. The . basic problem is the fact that the ordinance is presented as a zone classification rather than a Motio Roll Ayes .- -5- *~-W*. "."I. conditional use permit. After extensive consideratio in this matter and after inquiring other planners in other communities, he stated he has come to the conclusion that as the ordinance stands, the. zone classification is to the City's benefit. There are problems .with the conditional use permit approach because this involves working with the ownership and not designated properties. He then reviewed the minor changes, additions and deletions, that were suggested to the ordinance. MR. HARRY TRUAX, a' Carlsbad property owner and employee of E. Brian Smith of Oceanside, addressed the Commission and stated he presented his sugges- tions at the last Council meeting in regards to the pr.oposed ordi'nance. He has reviewed this ordinance with the planning staff and discussed concepts and approaches towards this ordinance. He felt that the City of Carlsbad needs a planned community develop- ment control. He stated that this ordinance is a good base to provide from and believed in certain concepts it will work very well. He commented that there may be some interesting .proposals that may be in ,contraction to possibly several items within this ordinance and hoped that when they ape presented to the Commission they would view them with an open mine of the possibility that this ordinance may need amending .to further implement the valve of the City. After further discussion, a motion was made that the subject ordinance be recommended .for adoption, subject to the minor revisions set forth by the Plann ing Director, and be referred back to the City Counci for their'consideration. NEW BUSINESS: (a) The Planning Director welcomed Mr. Dewhurst to the Planning Commission. (b) The Planning Director requested that an adjourne meeting be held in order to discuss the status and progress report of the General Plan. The Commission agreed that an adjourned meeting requested by the Planning Director would be worthwhil and very helpful. ADJOURNMENT: (a) By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:32 P. M. to Monday, July 29, 1968, at 7:30 P. M. in the City Staff Room at the City Hal1,to discuss the status and progress repcjrt of the General Plan. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary COMMISSIONERS Motion Roll Call Ayes Abstain