Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-12-23; Planning Commission; MinutesChi TY OF MEETING OF: CARLSBAD DATE OF MEETING: DECEMBER CARLSbAD PLANNING COMMISSION 23. 1969 TIME OF MEETING: 7:30 P.M. PLACE OF MEETING: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ~- I "" ROLL CALL: Eity Staff Representatives present: E. J. Olinghouse 2nd R. A. Johnston of the Planning Department, City yttorney Stuart Wilson, and Joe Spano of the Engineer- ing Department. Councilman C. H. Neiswender was also Dresent. lPPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of December 9, 1969 Mere approved as submitted. lRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (a) The Secretary read a letter dated 12/17/69, from :hairman Tony Howard-Jones of the CIC, setting forth a mecommendation that the Commission direct the Planning Iepartment to study the necessity for re-zoning problet trea No. 1, as described in the Housing Element of the ;enera1 Plan (Figure 17). Mr. Olinghouse elaborated 01 :his letter, stating that a report will be made by the ;taff at a later date. IRAL COMMUNICATIONS: (a) There were no Oral Communications at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Pre-Annexation - To con sider application to allow Mobile Homes Park on approx mately 110 acres, located Southerly of Palomar Airport .. Road - and _. Edsterly of Lowder Lane; Applicant: Andrew McRevnolds. The Chairman stated he.was advised this applicat was to be continued to the meeting of January 27th, by request of the City Engineer to allow time for review of several factors involved in this application and, b agreement of the applicant as well. The motion was made and agreed by voice vote approval to so continue. (b) VARIANCE - To consider an application to allow excess in Sign Area and Sign Height, located on South- east Corner of Palomar Airport Road; Applicant: Carlta Corporation The Planning Director read the Staff Report date 12/15/69, setting forth the background information for this request for excessive sign area and sign height from those allowed by the city's sign ordiaance. A diagram of the proposed location 'and proposed sign was exhibited and, it was pointed out this facility is not freeway service center with other uses available, an herefore, additional sign area or height is not allow he staff recommendation was to deny this request for ariance. to a freeway interchange nor is it developed MR. PHILLIP BREEDEN of L. Bruce Stollard Company 222 India Street, San Diego, as represented for Mr. aul Ecke, the applicant, felt this variance for the COMMISSIONERS 'resent ,bsent otion Yes bstained bsent In lotion \yes \bsent I i. . CI'TY OF CARLSbAD -2- signs is necessary from a safety standpoint. Also, it is near a freeway interchange and the sign would allow traffic safe ingress and- egress to the station locatio The topography in this location also requires a high sign in order to be see. The sign. appears necessary t be equal with other such properties along the freeway and there are taller and wider signs allowed in the County near the freeway. MR. WM. M. FERGUSON, 2295 Harbor Drive, San Diego and representative of the Richfield Company, felt it is imperative to- identify their location, what with the neighboring competitive stations and, they do feel thi is a'freeway interchange location. They want the same privilege as competitors near this location and are ready to begin construction at this location. There were none to speak in opposition of this application and the public hearing was closed. The Commission questioned Mr. Ferguson regarding his know- ledge of the city's sign ordinance at the onset of the-r service station planning for this location. Mr. Ferguzo stated there were aware of this ordinance but noted thc other operations in the area and felt these requests for variance would be understood. The Chairman pointec out the Commission had turned down previous requests for sign variances in this area. Mr. Olinghouse was questioned and clarified further regarding the defini- tion of a "freeway service station facily", as well as the sign ordinance allowances for such. He added this had been explained to the applicant as well as the fact that the station in question was not a freeway service facility. This was at the time he was submitting his specific plan for this development area. Following these discussions, th.e motion was made 'to deny this request for variance, for the following reasons: 1) The property upon which subject Variance is requested does not qualify as a freeway quadrant or freeway service facility and, therefore, does not warran a larger or higher sign; 2) The granting of the request Variance would be in conflict with past Planning Com- mission decisions upholding the City of Carlsbad Sign Ordinance; 3) All pole signs in the general area have A been approved by the Planning Commission and City Counci and are in conformance with the City's sign ordinance. I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 651 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA AND SIGN HEIGHTS ALLOWED ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUT EAST CORNER OF LOWDER LANE AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, identified by title only and further reading waived; reasons for denial are as stated above. The Planning Director stated he would read the' xhibits covering the details of the applications in uestion, in presenting the staff report. report and Mr. Johnston would utilize the wal COMMISSIONERS \\\ n It :ed lotion ,yes 1, Absen 'H - 00 - CI TY OF CARLS6AD -3- Pa.rticular ,points covered were: The densities proposec for the various development areas (average of 8.43 uni per net acre); 1 park proposed for the resident"s use and 1 for the city's public use; other open space uses potential school sites near and adjacent to this devel opment site, which have been investigated by the schoa board; the Tentative Maps, which will be pr;esented at a later date for Commission approval on all structural locations, streets, utilities, etc. The Staff recomme tion to approve this application was presented, and certain points contained in the Housing Element were also read, recommending this particular area be develo under the Planned Community zoning concept. Mr. Oling hous,e also handed out a chart setting forth the devel- opment potential of Hosp Grove by 3 types of zoning - R-A-10, R-1-7.5 and P-C. Total dwelling units, popula tion per household, total population for total 160 acr were shown for each zoning, and it was clearly shown the higher densities involved in other zoning than the P-C, which the d'eveloper is requesting. The proposed densities were shown to compare favorably with surrounding areas; the average size of units pro- posed in the cluster-type units indicated a less numbe of school age children as compared with what could be developed under R-A-10 zoning. The Secretary read correspondence received in protest 3f the proposed P-C zone change, from eleven adjacent property owners. Also, a letter from H. C.Harmon, of the Carlsbad School Board, stating they had reviewed the proposed housing development and posed no 0bjecti.o to it. They stated a full elementary school appeared t be needed to accommodate the ch.tldren from thts housin area and no suitable site was aval'lable withtn the stt although two or more sites immediately adjacent had been deemed possi bl e. The Chairman called for the applicant or his represent tive and MR. JERRY ROMBOTIS, KAMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPAN introduced MR. MERT WILLSlN,Architect and Planner of t firm of Willson 81 Willians, 2855 East Coast Hwy, prlma known as the master planner for Lake San Marcos. Mr. Willson stated the various aspects of the development planned had been well set forth in the Staff Report but he wished to explain how the Mas.ter Plan to be utilized had been developed and he used color slides to show the present Hosp Grove area, proposed -green areas, parks, probable access/exit routes, cluster hou areas, and how much wooded area could be left intact in order to keep the areas pres.ent topography and at- nosbbere intact, as viewed from the inside or from the Dutside. The two densitl'es involved (low-medi.um and low densities) for the different parts of the develop- nent were also projected. He also discussed the pro- posed public use park which could tie in with other 3pen space and park areas. Mr. Willson stated the typ 3f housing and the clustering of dwellings, while stay Mithin the density requirements, was felt to be the be neans of preserving the natural beauty and. terrain of this area. The Planning Director stated any of the questtons rais in the protest letters could be answered at this time if any in the audience wished to pose them now. MR. COMMl SSIONERS S da- ed S, - e i. 1 y i'ng ng t d '. . 0 - - I/ CI ry OF CARLSWD COMMISSIONERS tion containing approximately 111 signatures of sur- rounding homeowners in the area. Mr. Bator stated thi was a very untimely publ-ic hearing, due to the holiday season and many not being available for it, as well as the fact that only 2 weeks notice .had been given the property owners to discuss or study the proposal. His understanding of the P-C zoning indicated it should be utilized in areas off to themselves, rather than in an area already somewhat developed residentially. Presen traffic to the Plaza center off El Camino Real would b congested by additional from this development and, the park to be dedicated to the City was not felt to be on which could be well utilized as a recreation area due to its steep walls and rough terrain. MR. ROBERT PRESCOTT, 3303 Belle Lane, expressed concer about the critical school situation in Carlsbad which MR. ERNEST ADLER, JR., 3836 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, in the area time to pose their questions to the depart ment and view the development 1,ayouts there. Commissioner Little commented on his past experience in the Parks and Recreation Comm.ission at which time were developed under R-A-10 or R-1-7.5 zoning, which applies there now. Commissioner Palmateer commented .. ~~ .. ~L-~, t *. .4 "4 c. L CI TY OF CARLs6AD COMMISSIONERS -5- subdivision'development for a given area. Commissione Dewhurst stated that when the applicant presents his specific plan and tenti:t"ive maps for review by the Commission, the public can also review and study these should be continued through the holidays until the las meeting in January (January 27, 1970) to allow the necessary time for further study. There was a request for recess at 9:08 and the meeting reconvened at 9:18 P.M. OLD BUSINESS: warded with the Commission's report to the Council following the appeal hearing. ment with their decision of the appeal. . .. c ., L m CITY OF -6- CARLS6AD cu.ssed and .it was decided this was not clear enougR as well as the fact that it was still being checked ou and therefore, not compl'ete. It was decided the Plan- ning Department could also work on the non-conforming and illegal sign problems and foeward their findings t the City Manager's office for action, with complEmenta copies to the Commission and the Council, (d) The Chairman reported that his attendance at the San Diego Planning Congress luncheon in early December had resulted .in a recommendatton to disperse the group due to lack of attendance and interest. He stated a letter to this effect will be mailed to all Commission in the near future. NEW BUSINESS: (a) There was no New Business to present at this tim COMMITTEE REPORTS: (a) Mr. Olinghouse stated a Work Committee will need to be formed to assist the Planning Department i,n the Residential-Density amendment to the General Plan. Thi dill be requested at a later date, at which time membe from work committees who have completed thei'r functton 3n other projects will become available. 9DJOURNMENT: A motion was made and unanimously agreed to by voice vote to adjourn the meeting at 1O:OO P.,M., iespectfully submitted, . .- L Vancy Jo Leynd Recording Shcr COMMISSIONERS Y I-S S Yo t ion 9ye s Went