HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-10-10; Planning Commission; MinutesI 1 I $ ', b** '* I \ ', b, ', I " ', ", 1 , '. ",'*' : Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION' '\, ', ' '\ ''J, I i Date of Meeting: October 10, 1967 N 6 me '., *.+e, 'b,, 1 :Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. : of ,'a;, '\ ?+. ; : Place of Meeting: Council Chambers ; Member '%+?& *,Q ~~~.ppw, qp$$& ; ~""""""""""""""--."~""""""""""""""-""--""""-;""--"---"----------,-"-
!ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, I I ,8l:I' I:;':: :McComas, Palmateer, Sutherland, Little and Jose. I ji':;' iCommissioner Voorheis.was present at 7:35 P. M. i :I ::;I :Also present were City Attorney Wilson, Planning ; ,l;'Il
1:;::; Director Schoell , Building Inspector Osburn, City: jiii:; 'I I Engineer Lill and Civil Engineering Assistant 4 I 8.1;: i Sprehe. I
:APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I I;ll;;
:;':;: : (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of September :Smith i:$(;:: i 26, 1967, were approved as submitted. iMcComas ; I x;x: I( ;
I I i I
I !Jose !!)c:;; I*
!WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I I 'I;;l; II
!Letter dated October 5, 1967, from the Continentai :*'I 4:;;: :Baking Co., 517 Elm Ave., Carlsbad, stating they ; *;*I;: !had been informed by the Building Inspector I#;;:: 1: :that the Sign Code does not allow moving signs i :which they feet they need to attract business fori :their perishable bakery goods. I ;::;I* :i:
:The City Attorney stated that no action could be :ii::: jtaken by the Commission unless the applicants sub: i;;::: :mit an application for a public hearing for a I I ;;;:::
I ;11;11
!Commissioner Voorheis was present at 7:35 P. M. i ;:a
f ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
!There were no oral communications. I i i i :4
a I ;*;a
!(a) VARIANCES - To consider a reduction in fron-i ;;"I' :tage to 50 feet, and reduction in lot area from i :6000 sq. ft. to 5000 sq. ft., and reduction in : :side yard setback on existing building on Chinqua: ::;:;: i pin Ave. from 10 ft. to 6 ft. in order to create : :a lot split on Southwesterly corner of Garfield i :; 11' :St. and Chinquapin Ave. Applicant: Louis E. Car-: : ver.
i Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Palmateer ::::;i
. !certified that notices were sent to property I ::;:;I
:owners in the area and then read the application I :and signatures of 4 property owners in the area ; I!;::: ! approving these variances. I ;::i:i
:There were no written communications. ..
iThe Planning Director explained the location and ! Isize of the property and the size and zoning of 1 ; i I.: ; : ;the lots in the area that were subdivided before i *;:;: i the City Zoning ordinance was in effect. He I !I;:;:
:#.;I;
: I1 :: ;"
I I
I
''t ", 8, ', , I
i CITY OF CARLSL . I I I
I I i:;lIl IJ
I I ; (II(I* :.; ; : :
I 4 I ::!:;:
I :Palmateer ixi 8:
I I isutherland; ; $: ; ;
I I -F
:Little ;:$+:
I :i;:::
I i::;;, '4
'I:;;;
:::;:i
;;!I a
I :::;ii
1 I
I
I
I
I I
* I
I
I 8
I I
variance on the matter. 1;;:::
I I 4 I ;::;I!
8 .- I :iii
-1 I :;;:;: ;,,*I8
I I -1 .I 18 I;;:11 1;:
4 I I ip;:; @e1:
F i PUBLIC HEARINGS: I ;;::::
* I ;i;+:;:
;;:::: ;,:::i
,:;:;I
:i;:;:
*
* ))I*
;i ii;:
v I I :{i:;: ::;: I'
I I :.;:;:
::I:::
1:::: I*(
I I
I
I
I ; : I.,
I I I i::;:; ;::;:;
;:;I:.
;,,:::
I I I ;ii;:;
I 4 I :ii:i:
I I :;;:;:
'I I ;i:::: * e ;:;:
I ::;:::
I I !:::!:
I I' I #
.~ .. I I 0 I .. 'I ..
..
I I I
~ ~- l;;l*I
1
I I I I I
I I
S ', b'. *. I
h 8 b b ', m 'b, ", '8, 'b8 bb I I
8 \8 ', 't8 '*t ', '8, I -2- 8
I 8,',, ' b I I I I * ,\.\'
I i N a me '*, '+$ 8' -<* i
I i of 8<$$G.,;,,;?,,8, i
I ! Member .c'@l ,d~~~, I -0 '.o*.c' k""$ i explained the written report of the facts result- i i!:*'l 1 ing from staff investigation of the property, and I 1;p ::;@A
;mentioned that improvements would be required if ; ;:I:':
:the lot is split. I B;!::;
I ::a:;:
i Chairman Sutherland announced the Commission I b I::;;;
I I:;g#l ::;:;: i would now hear from the applicant or his represenf ; tative and any others who wished to speak in fava* 0 ;:;i::
8 8.; ; ; * of this application. * la ;;@e::
6 i:,:: MR. CARVER questioned the reason for the 10' side: :: ::I;:: :yard setback if the property is divided and is ; i 50' wide, and the Planning Director explained 6 ::;;:I :::;:i ; that on corner lots the minimum side yard setback! i::::, 81 i on the street side is 10' regardless of the width: ;:;@I8
; of the lot. I ::*;I;
I :; I MR. CARVER stated that his property is the only i It;;!: i property on that side of the street going south I* la*@:: ::I::: : from Chimquapin, except the adjacent San Diego : I:;:1: : Gas & Electric Co. property. He stated he had i I;* i talked to Mr. Frank DeVore of the Gas & Electric ; :iol;: ; Co. and he had assured him the Gas & Electric Co.: lti;;;
had no objections to the lot split. He stated he: ::I SI ::;::: ; wants his property to conform to other lots in th4 i:;::: neighbor-hood, and that he has lived there for I I ;i::;: : approximately 7 years and has no plans for the i ::!!#I :; : property. I I 6 :';I;! ;I
i No others present spoke in favor of the applica- : tion.
: The Chairman announced the Commission would now i hear from those wishing to speak in opposition. ::;
I No one present spoke in opposition.
'. 'd
I I ;q> '
,"""-""""""""""""--"""""""""""~"""""~"""""""""""~"""""
1
I
a I
I(
b 4;:;;
I
I I :::I ii;;;:
I 6 ;:':::
I I ;:!!;! ::I;::
I I ;;!:;:
a :ai;:
I I :!kl@: ;:::i;
I I ;!!:;: i The Chairman asked Mr. Carver if he was prepared I ::a::: : to put in the improvements if the property is I I 1;:i;: i;:;:! i split and Mr. Carver stated he wanted his propert) : to be the same as other properties in the area. ; ;l;al@ ,:4::
I 8 :*::;! i The Planning Director pointed out that this was ! :::a ;::::I ; not a real concern of the Planning Commission as I i the applicant would have to bring this matter :;I:;:
I i;:::: I before the Council if he wished to have a waiver i 1;::;; ; of street improvements or enter into a futute l 8 iii;:! I street improvement agreement. 4 ::;:I:
I :;1:i;
I When questioned regarding future plans for widen-: :;::;;
; ing Chinquapin Ave. since an overcrossing is b I l,'l*:
I!::::
i planned over the Freeway, the City Engineer ; stated that no study has been made on this street! ::!:;:- ! at this time.
I I I ;;:i;i : Points discussed were that the existing buildings: i are non-conforming because of the setback and if ; :;;:a: : the variances are granted it would be compounding: ;11::; i the non-conforming uses in the area; the develop-; ; ment of a harbor near this property; that the i applicant has no plans for the property;required i : ; i :+; :
((1 It
I;@l;g
I ;Il:;;
I
I S
I'
:B ;::;I*
l I. @
I I The public hearing was closed at 7:50 P. M. I
r I
11')
I
I I
11
8 :;::::
88
I ;;:;:!,
;;; 0 ;.I
n:;:;, I
I::;;I :;;*;:
I 8 ;; 1.: I ;
I I : ;.* : ; .:-
I
I . -1 8 .:;::i: ' I B 1; i;; i.,
8 I' 1 ,:I:::; ' I #b::;:
6 I I :::;I;
I I I 1. . 1 Li.; I ;
8 I t I
. ~ ~~ ~~ :;*I,*
1 l I I I
8' b, '\'*\ "..,'*\
I *, ', ', '\\ \\ '
1 I I * a e I
8 " ' \ - 8 . ', '\, '\ " -. 8
I I '., ', ', '. '.\'\\
I : N a me '\, '*P!. *,, $&, i
I i *+' \,Q' 3' .*' '\ '*7p ;
;;;e IJ ;;;:;: i:; " i:: :ii I iii ::: 1;
8 :::+
1 -3- .9'
I
I I
&,". 'G -i>ct\$\ * :""""-""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""","" ; Member '*aQ.-pp\$,*
i improvements; density on Chinquapin; that the sid$ :yard setback came about prior to passing of the ; !present zoning 0rdinance;that the Commission has :granted reduction in side yards in the past. I
icommissioner McComas stated he was not opposed to: ;:;'I! :granting the variance for the reduction in side : ;;:;:; :yard setback, however, he was opposed to the rea-: a,@* l,'e;:
;8;;II : sons given for creating the opportunity to obtain: I;#*:: I a lot split. e 8 p::;: 1;;::;
I I
8
I I
e * The following resolution was presented: I 8 ::;I::
I I I ::::;:
I :; :After due consideration a motion was made by I e *,ii:i ::I!;; I@ i Commissioner McComas to adopt Planning Commissioni :; : Resolution No. 519 de'nying the variances requested.
l a a :;::;;
: The Building Inspector pointed out that if the : iJi::
:make the- present building conforming and the ownet 'I:;;; i could improve the property over 50% which he can : :::;;;
I ii!;;;
# 8 * ;;I*:: ::;;
: The Planning Director questioned the request for i p:;; reduction in area and frontages meeting the re- ; 1:i::: i quirements necessary for granting a variance as : I!::;:
; shown on Page 376 of the City Code Book. The loti ')l'I'
1::;
: split would have to be approved by'the Engineering ::;I;:
Department. I ::;;!!
I D ;ip:; i The City Attorney advised the Commission that thei bi!;; ; could grant all of the variances or grant part : ::Ill@ I i and deny part of the variances requested. I * ;::;;;
I I I) I;!:;: i Commissioner McComas withdrew his original motiorli 1:l a*
I .e I : ; : :.i i A motion was then made to adopt Resolution No.519; ::;!!;
: granting variances for reduction in side yard set+ ;e:;e;
I back on existing building on Chinquapin Avenue i :!!:!;
.r : from 10 feet to 6 feet on said property f.or the : 2:;:::
1;::;: i following reasons: * e ::;::: : 1. There are exceptional and extraordinary i circumstances applicable on the present use of : :*I::;
: the prope-rty that do not apply generally to other: ;:::;; 4:;;;- i properties in the same area. 8 :::;I;. : 2. That the granting of this variance is neces- i I!:;:; I1 i sary to bring the existing building into conform-: ;:;ii: : ance. # e:;;::
D @Il;:: '*I
. I The motion also included that 'the balance of the i ::;I;: I:;:;: ; ; : : :'#
' 4 ixi I ;
I( ;;:::;
Commission approved the side yard setback it would ;;:::: I,@I;;
not do at the present time. 1 #I
I
:I*
I e I I@
I(
I '. I #I:::;
'4
'l*II'
I 8 ::;:;:
I I
8
i requests be denied for the following reasons: e I:;:*: : 1. In order not to allow the possibility of split- I: I ting a lot in the area that would be undesirable.! ;::I:: '*l;l
:; * i TION GRANTING ANn DENYING VARIANCES ON PROPERTY :McComas ! 4 :XI ; i I AT SOUTHWESTERLY' CORNER OF GARFIELD STREET AND i Palmateer i ix~x; i ; ; CHINQUAPIN AVENUE, was adopted by.title only and ; Sutherlandi ; ;x: ; : I further reading waived. i Little : : !xi I i
I Voorheis i : :x; : ;
8 a e 1. : 4 :. 9:. i It was pointed out that the applicant can make ..i ; : ;' t ;.: * ' ;. ; 1 ." : full use of the R-2 lot a.s it is now since the ; -' : ;. * ;-:- : ; ; .I -; "- i buildings would be conforming.. .- I- - : ' ; : ; 1; :..; I- j Mr. Carver stated he would appeal the Planning ~' i ; ; : ": 1
; Commission's decision to the Council. a- I *:@:
" e ;;;*;4
e 4 I 1:;:;: ; I e, ;. 1 ;
-? ! !::!:?
I I :::;;;.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 519. A RESOtU-!Smith
e l .. ': Jose : ;x; ;.: 1
I
.. .
.~ ~.
" .I 4-
I 8 8.
- -7 '
rc
r
..
..
1 1 1 8 I I 8 I
I 1 1 8 I I
-4-
8 e 8 T-4
8 D 8 8 8
8 8 * * 1 1 I .""""""""""""""""""""""""".
:(b) RECLASSIFICATION AND PRECISE PLAN - To con- i I sider a zone change from R-3 and R-1-7500 to C-1 i :(Neighborhood Commercial) and for a precise plan : ion property located at the Northeasterly corner i lof Tamarack Ave. and Pi0 Pic0 Drive. Applicants: ; i Richard V. Jordan, et al.
:Notice of hearing was read and the Secretary ;certified that publication was given and property! jowners in the area were notified of the public : :hearing. He then read the application. 8
:TENTATIVE MAP - TAMARACK CENTER - 2 lots located i
ion the Northeasterly corner of Tamarack Ave. and : :Pi0 Pic0 Drive. Owners: Richard V. Jordan, 8 !George N. Boone, and Diocese of San Diego, Educa-i :tion and Welfare. Developers: Richard V. Jordan: I and George N. Boone.
!The Secretary read the application submitted.
!The above reclassification, precise plan and :tentative map were considered concurrently.
!Letter dated October 2, 1967, Division of Highway$, !stating the proposed development is not in conflict :with the State Highway plans.
!There were no other written communications except! :from the various departments and agencies. 6
8 6
b
?
I I
1 I
6 8 6
I a 1 1 6 a 6 * a 6 6 a 8 * 8 6
I t
I I
8
6 I I 8 8 I
I
6 I
8 I ;The Planning Director explained the location of i :the property and zoning in the area and the facts! I of the written report resulting from the staff . :; ; investigation of the property, and the circulatio! :of traffic to these quadrants. He then explained; : the tentative map and precise plan. He stated I ithat everything would be built as shown on the ; : Precise Plan unless the ordinance is more restric! itive. Adequate parking would be provided. He : : also pointed out that Pi0 Pic0 Drive will terminaqe i at Tamarack Avenue. 6
:The Chairman announced the Commission would now i i hear from the applicant or his representative and: I any others wishing to speak in favor of the appli: ; cations. a i MR. DALE BUDLONG, Attorney at Law, 2965 Roosevelt i i Street, representing the applicants Mr. Richard :Jordan and also representing Father O'Dwyer, who : could not be present. Mr. Budlong presented and : read a letter from Father William A. O'Dwyer, I 8 : Pastor of St,..Patrick's Church, dated September 20: i 1967, heartily supporting this application and : : requesting that the Planning Commission favorably! recommend and approve this precise plan and change : of zone.
I l
8 a 8
I l
a
I I
I I
b I I 6 I 6 I
I 1-
l a
a
.- . ..
.. ..
..
6 !
.-
I I I I I
I I
I '8 '\ '' 8** s N *, I I
I
I
" h I '., ',\\\ ', '.' '8 I
L '\\ 'S8 '*, 8*., ys, I
I ; of '&, .9:> ', *?$> ; I '.s?,D I i Member ,e' GA,T$\+ p, ; ;""""""""""-"""~~"""""""""""~"""""""""""""""--""""--"---,-"-~ .o "0 *.P$?',O'
:Mr. Budlong pointed out that this area is at an I ;;;*'I
'I#;:@ : intersection of the City where the gas station : :::;:: I6 !would not only serve the passing through trade on: !I:;;;
: the freeway, but woul'd also serve those people ; ;I:' l;I;:' I
going to work between Carlsbad and Oceanside. He: I '8;; 4:;;; : called attention to the fact that customers havini I4 itheir vehicles serviced at the service station at: 1:;:;:
'I,;I;
:the Southeast corner have to cross Tamarack in i ::::i; :order to get back onto the Freeway. He stated ; ::':;: : that Mr. Paul, from Paul and Allard, Architects, i ::I;:: !who prepared the precise plan was present, and Mr: : Harry Truax, from Dresselhaus Engineers, who prepdred :::I:; !the subdivision map, was also present. Speaking : i::::; ;in regards to the occupancy certificate, Mr.Budlo(g 1:'I:l
i stated that service stations are constructed more: :';!:; :quickly than restaurants and asked for a modificaj ii:;:; ition that as long as the foundation of the restau4 I::;:l :rant is poured, that the service station be permiBted !to open. He called attention to the fact that at: :this particular intersection two service stations: !already have signs existing that are higher and ; ; larger than the Planning Department recommends fod : this property. He asked Mr. Anderson of Shell Oij ;Co. to speak regarding the economic report on i signs.
!MR. DON ANDERSON, Shell Oil Company, 3511 Camino :Del Rio, San Diego, stated the sign proposed by i : the City of Carlsbad is 80 Square feet on one I I i pole. He felt this development would serve resid$nts : of the City as well as the Freeway traffic and ; i stated it is necessary that motorists be able to i :see a sign in order to alert their exit from the 4 i Freeway when traveling at speeds, of 60 to 80 mile$
! per hour. I
i He would like their station to be treated the I :4'I'*
same as similar businesses in order to be compe- i ;:::;;
r : titive they should be treated on the same basis. i !;;I::
i MR. BUDLONG asked the Commission to accept the 5' i ::;:,I i planters as shown on the Precise Plan rather than: ::I:;; : the 10' planters recommended by the Planning Dept.! IIIi;: i He referred to Item 18 of Resolution No. 522 and ; ;y;:: :stated they would like to offer the City $3.00 i ;;ii;: : per front foot on the Pi0 Pic0 frontage along the: ;::;:: i subdivision toward construction of said water mairj. I;'*;: '4;;;
I I :; I I ;:;: : In regards to Item 19, Mr. Budlong pointed out i :;:::; ;: I I
! that.existing sewers are in on Tamarack, and # I;:::: :questioned the existing sewer services being i revised or replaced as he felt it should be ; existing lateral services be revised or replaced i i as required by development. , I ::::!:
I No others present spoke in favo'r of these appli- i iii::; i cations:
:The public hearing was closed at 8:47 P. M.~ 4-
;.. ....
I -5- I
I 8 '\', 8 \'
I N 6 me "., '-3, *.\ i .8
I
(11
'11 ::;:ii
:;::;:
I/ I I I I I I I
#
-1 -I 1 : ' ' :.i I ::I:::
I 4 I :::pi; 4::
I 11:::.
4 4 :i;l'I
I ((I 1::; :;;:::
a I :::;:;
;;;*I#
I :;::;: ; ;.a ; :
I 4 I ::I:;: 1')
I-. - I ' i ; : : :--
.. I. ; : : i..
.. I i i : ; ; ,:
.... ...... .I . ; 11 :- ... * I:*;:;
.. ~ ;::::;- 4:;:;
I ;;;;;..
I I I ::I:;:
-. . ~ -! ! * :.! 0 !.
.. 4 I* :::.
I. I ... '
4
.. . .......... .. .... .. .. . . _. . ..... .. .. ..... 8. . ." I 9
4 I .4
. "
~. ." . - ~.. .. I
-. .. .. .. #I '
" " .~ . . ..... . - . "~ .... ~ .. .. ...... . .~ 8
8 -
I -.. . 4- .. .. .... - ..... .. ... : -- ... .I -~ . " a. - * I :::;:;
I I I I ::,;:; :4:1:
'I I
I 8
Id I*
..
I
". .. - Y ..Y
!When questioned regarding the existing sewer
:laterals in Pi0 Pic0 Drive, the City Engineer
:stated that the State generally reconnects exist- i
ing utilities, however, the City does not have ; : any plans on this yet.
I I I I I
I
8
4 The Chairman inquired whether there would be a i
lot split required on the Church property to I I separate it from the subdivision, and the City : Engineer stated a lot split will be required to I
separate the Church property from the school and :
subdivision. I 1
I I i The Planning Director explained that a single loti i split is an administrative procedure and would not: ; be required to come b-efore the Planning Comissiorj.
! I I :The Chairman called attention to the number of I i service stations in the area and stated he felt : that all. of the entrances are being blocked so no: i large motels can come in. He stated he is in 8 I : favor of a nice motel as a freeway oriented use i at this location. I I
rc
I 8 I I Points discussed were that this was the best use I i of the l'and but was .not logical for this use at i ; present; according 'to the zoning ordinance the ; : applicant must show a public necessity which has i i not been shown; that the intersections on the I I : freeway are being block by service stations so no! i large motels can come in; that there are enough ; : service stations in the City of Carlsbad, and i there is no need for more service stations along i : the Freeway; that the owners should be able to ":
get the highest and best use of their-property. .i
: MR. BUDLONG asked permission to speak and stated i
i different in that it feeds a vast number of peoplg, ; and read an editorial from the July 20, 1967 I I i issue of the Carlsbad Journal regarding the traffic ; count on Interstate 5.
I I
I I t
I r there is one thing that makes this location I
I l
I 1 i Mr. Budlong pointed out that the developers of ! : this property also purchased the property across i
the street on the Southerly side of Tamarack Ave.: : between Adams St. and Pi0 Pic0 Dr. which has I
already been zoned for a neighborhood shopping I i center. He stated he felt there would be a large:
. ; per cent of the residents using Tamarack Avenue : ; in order to get to the Freeway.
: MR. RICHARD JORDAN spbke in regards to the Commis) I sioners' state me.nts that they would like a large: : motel on this site under consideration, and men- :
: at Costa Mesa, the minimum requirements of land i I was 4 1/2 acres for Holiday Inn. He stated that : : on this particular site he could not think of anoi i ther use for the property for Freeway oriented : : business except a restaurant and service station.! i In answer to inquiries regarding the cost af the ; : development, Mr, Jordan stated that the land was i i valued at approximately $150,000.00 and they plan; : to spend approximately $200,000.00 for the improvt-
ments on this property. I I
I I I I I I I
tioned that on the last Freeway motel site develobed
I I
1
,-
I I I
I '* 8'. '.
I
8 1
I I I 8 ', \, *,
I k I
I ., 8, ' ', b. b*
I I 8\ ', 8*8 '8 '8,8*8 I
I -7- I 's8 '8 8, ', '8 '* k I N a me 8.. '898, **, '*+
I : *f *$'a. '\ : I I .?>yp, ;. ;?+, ;
I I :;;:::
I::!::
I
I
;""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-"""~"""""""""""-:."" : Member -~?>,~.'o'@, 1
')I IJ !The following resolutions were presented: I :;;:::
:After further consideration, a motion was made to i j!!!;; !adopt Resolution No. 520 denying application for ; I::':: ;change of zone on said property for the following i :reasons: I . '9::;: :I :1. Public necessity and public welfare do not 8 I I :: :I:: @*I;:
!warrant this change of zone. I ;:, 1) :2. The City already has suffic: ent facilities of! ;:'::: 1;::;;
!this type planned to adequately serve the people i !::;:i
:of the town. 6 1 4:;:;
I :;'I@#
!Planning Commission Resolution No. 520. A RESOLU- :Smith ;*:@:a
I ; ; ;x: : :TION DENYING APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE FRON :McComas . ; : :xi i :R-3 AND R-1-7,500 TO C-1 (NEIGHSORHOOD COMMERC1AL)iPalmateer ; >!xi ; i :ON PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TAMARACKSutherlandi ; :x; i :
!AVENUE AND PI0 PICO DRIVE, was adopted by title !Little :xi !xi ; 1
!only and further reading waived. :Jose : ; ;x; : ;
:A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 521 I I
:denying application for precise plans PP 5705 be- i
!cause the precise plan was contingent upon the
:zone change to C-1 which was denied.
!Resolution No. 521. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING :Smith COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DENYING APPLI- :FicComas ; 1:; k ;x: i
:CATION FOR PRECISE PLANS PP 6705 FOR TAMARACK i Palmateer 8 joq ! @a ; !CENTER ON- PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF :Sutherlandi : ;x; ; :TAMARACK AVENUE AND PI0 PICO DRIVE, was adopted by!little jxi ;x! ; i
jtitle only and further reading waived. :Jose I ' ;x; : ;
:A motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 522 :dfgpproving the tentative map of Tamarack Center -j :;!i;:
:Subdivision. -I :';I;:
:Resolution No. 522. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD :Smith : ; ; 1:; I
1,:
:CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPR.OVING THE TENTA- iMcComas ; i i :x; I
ITIVE MAP OF TAMARACK CENTER SUBDIVISION, was :Palmateer : k !x; ; : :adopted by t'itle only and further reading waived. ISutherland: I ;xi i i
I
I
11 1,
I
I iVoorheis i 'I ; !xi i
ii;;:;
1 j::;;;
I I I ' ::;a 1:;; 1
: : ; :x; i
I I I ;:**e* 1:;:;
1I:;l;
;:,::a
I
I I
I
I I iVoorheis , ;: ; :x; : ;
8 ' *I 'I ; i I i ;*:
8 I I ;*I;:; ;!:;!; -1
: I ;x:
'e I :Little Ixj :x; ;
I :Voorheis a ;xi ; ;
I I :!I:;:
;:I::; ;::;:; ;::;:;
:I::;: :!i:;:
I :a;:;:
I @:I;b;
I
I i Jose i i !x: ; :
i0L.D BUSINESS: 0 ::,,;:
:(a) Sign Study. The Planning Director stated thati ;u:4:
*1*11)
:at the last meeting the Commissioners planned to ; ;go out and study the signs in the area. He reporttd :sending for a copy -of .a Model Sign Control Ordin- ; $:::;
' iance prepared by Committee on Aesthetics, AIA and : I$::
:would like the Commissioners to study it as soon i ::a,;: !as he has copies printed of it. He suggested the ;
:Cornmission have a study session on signs.
!It vas the consensus of the Commission that a stud4 : : ;
!session should be held on Friday, October 27, 1967: ::::;;
;at 1:30 P. M. in the .Council Chambers to study t
;11:6#
I
I :Signs and Planned Industrial Zone. I :i:;:;
I I ; ; i.: : ;
I 4 !;I;;; ::i;:;
I ;!!;!:
I :;:;:i
I* 8;::':
I I ;;(::' .. 1,;:::
I I d;:;:
..~ ~~~ ~
I 1;;:;s
It1
I I
: ._ I
I I I-
I I
11
I I
I
I I ;;;I;:
I
I 1
I I I ::I!;: ;:: 1;
1
I
"
I I -8-
I I
I * I
5 )""~""""""~""""r"-""""""""""""""~ i (b) Planned Industrial Zone. Letter dated :October 9, 1967, from F. D. Booth, Building Engin-! : eer, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co., 1475 !Sixth Avenue, San Diego, with recommendations and i ;comments concerning the draft of the proposed I I : Planned Industrial Zone, which have been built i !compatibly in comparable zones in cities and I :counties throughout their operating area. He stated their .architectural standard not only meet:
:but consistently exceeds the design criteria in a given zone. I
I I I
a I
I I
I I
I I I t I I i The Planning Director reported that Mr. Ralph ; Palmer left a message that a group would like to : jmeet with the Commission concerning this proposed i ; zone.
i The Commission agreed that they would prefer to m$et I with the group after they have had their study i ;session on this matter. 5
I
I I
8 *
8 I
F i (c) Service Station Report. The Building Inspec: :tor reported going out with the Assistant Planner: :to contact the property owner of the service sta- i ; tion at the Southeasterly,corner of Pi0 Pic0 and ; i Tamarack., and the cars were moved around to the i : rear of 'the station. The Building Inspector I I : recommended that service stations be placed under; conditional use permits and that items for sale be : placed inside of a structure. He stated that he i i believed the City Attorney would tell the Commis-; : sion that a trailer is not a structure and believdd i that if service stations were under a conditional i ; use permit with restrictions, the City would not -: be faced with unsightly appearances of the statiarjs.
t I ... . . . -1
.I
I I 5 I # I
I
' (d) County of San Diego Planning Department ; notice of public hearings re: Amendments to i General Plan of Major Highways and hearing re: ; Regional General Plan, San Diego County, 1990, i were discussed. l
i NEW BUSINESS:
I i i (a) Initiation of Precise Plan - Southwesterly i i corner of Monroe Street and Ch.estnut Avenue.
; Letter dated September '26, 1967, from H. B. Lear, : : President of Jay Lear, Inc. requesting that the Cornmiss ion initiate proceedings for a precise t : plan on above property.
r
I
I I
I I .I 0
I I
8 I
I I
I
The following resolution was presented:
I ! * : Resolution No. 523. A RESOLUTION OF TH COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DET : THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD TO' : RECOMMENDING A PRECISE PLAN TO THE CIT ! 'AND ORDERING NOTICE THEREOF TO BE GIVE adopted by ti-tle only and further read
8 I i ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion the meet ; ourned at 9:36 P: M. : despectful ly submitted ,
! DOROTHY M. OSBURN
i &&by q,dd:LcL7L/ - -~ I Recording Secretary