HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968-01-09; Planning Commission; Minutesc
.. " - - .- I * ... . ' ', '. I
: Minutes of: PLANNING COMMIS -ON I \\ '\ ', '\\ '*,'\, I I
: Time of Meeting: 7:30 P.M. : of '\&& '\ -?&. i : Place of Meeting: Council. Chambers .,J@, :, ; : Member s~&'@:FT~ ",o', I ;"~""""""~""""""""""""""""""""-""""--------"""-----"""-"------,"--
I I ::I
Is:
I I 1:;: i ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Smith, ; McComas, Little, Palmateer, Sutherland, and 1 I :::;:: i Voorheis. Commissioner Jose was absent. Also " i 80 81 : present were Assistant City Engineer Holly, City ; :::I:: fiI 11 : Attorney Wilson, Building Inspector Osburn and J Planning Director Schoell.
1
I I i CITY OF CARLSB- .-, i "..:'.,'8', ',, \,,\,, I . *. 1 8,. '8, '-, 8, . '
.el* '.
8
Date of Meeting: January 9, 1968 : Na me ', '*$. ', 8%.
I
8
I I :::::: iiii:; I
I 8 :;::;;
*I ,;':;:
I I I pi!:: 1: i APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I I ;;:::i
I * Il:::@ 8 i::;::
* I ; ; ;.: : *I I p::
; ;.I : ; ; ;':::;
jx:x: ; ;
I k i Sutherland: I-;~: I
I : Little 1; I I : ; !xi ; :
I I Voorheis. I
4 I
I I * * : (a) No action was taken on the minutes of the : regular meeting held on December 26, 1967. I *: 1
i (b)' Minutes of the regular meeting of December Smith : 12, 1967, were approved as corrected.
'I
I I I
I1
I : McComas $( : : ;
I : Palmateer ; : :x: 84 I
i WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I 8
: (a) Letter dated January 4, 1968, from the San Diego County Planning Congress in regards to the ; ! designation of the 1968 Board of Dir.ectors. I
: Commissioner McComas stated that since he is Pre- : : sid6nt and can vote only in a tie v0te.a member i
should be appointed fromethe Commission. 1 I
I
I
I I
I I
I 8 I
I
'I I I I
I 8 I 'I * ; Commissioner Jose was nominated as a member of Smith
I : the .County Planning Congress. I I I *
I 8 * I I I 8 I I ; ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: * I
i (a) The Building Inspector presented an applica- i
: Washington Street. He described the location on i the map and stated the property is located on the ; West side of the railroad track. He pointed out : I:;,:: : that Washington Street runs and dead ends at Chest: :;*:;:
i nut and there is a roadway going to Tamarack at the ;I:::: : present'time. I
1;;:::
I 1 * II:iii I When questioned if the building will be b1ockin.g i ::::;; )Ill
: off the future street, the Building Inspector +;;:
::I:;: i stated it will be blocking off and will be directlk ; across the railroad right of way. He also pointed: ; : : ; 4.;
out t,hat it is not a street, but has been used as : 88;:
;i:@s@ : I a street. I t ;;:::: ()I( * ; : 1.: I :
: When questioned, the Building Inspector stated 1*@181
I l,;l;l i that the Santa Fe Railroad has a 200' right of i :a:::: ;:#;#; ; way. 8 ;;;I:I
I I I ;:;::: i The Building Inspector stated that technically i (:::l;
:;;#:I i if this were on any other street it would not be i 1:;:;:
;necessary to br.ing before the Planning Commission,; ;;I1#:
:but Washington Street dead ends and is a natural : !ll:*
#, :*: i
!thing for that street to continue with the align- i ::; 1:;:
:ment and enter into the next block; therefore the ; 18,;:; :::::; applicant needs the Commission's approval of the : ;~r;.~ I::;:)
:building site before a building permit can be issuid. :::I::
I I ;:: ;<I '1:
:*@,~l
t I #:*I;# * I I@!;;:
~~ ~~~ ::.,.a,
- I S I /
.)- I tion to build a thirty (30) unit apartment on I
I 8
*;I#@
I I I I
I
I I
@*I
8
I 8
I
..I I
I
I *
I !When questioned if the development plan would meet! ithe parking requirements if a road was constructed:
:at a later date, the Building Inspector stated he : !would lose the parking area but not the building. i
:Chairman Little requested the Assistant City Eng- i i ineer make a report verifying the exact right of ; :way and if any of the land used for the road is i private property. I I
i(b) The Building Inspector presented a letter I from R. W. Grosse, the Attorney for Denny's Res- i taurant, requesting permission to put up a tempo- ; : rary sign until the precise plan is appealed to i the City Council. The sign is an existing sign ; : that they have taken o?f another building, there- : i fore there will be no e-xpense but the labor of I : putting it up and taking it down. ,The letter also i
pointed out that Denny's would like to open this i ; weekend.
I The City Attorney stated he had just recently been! i notified and could not get in touch yPth Hr.GrQssei
: The Building Inspector illustrated the shape of : I the sign and stated the sign is ninety two (92) i : actual sq. ft. and thirty (30) feet high. He also : i pointed out the s'ign will' sit along side the Mobili ; sign, which is also thirty (30) feet high. I I
The 'Planning Director stated at the time Mobil's i : sign was put up it was within the maximum require-! 1 ment. They have a 160 sq. ft. sign and the maxi- ; : mum allowable was 200 sq. ft.
i Chairman Little asked if there were any recommend-: i ations. b 1
I I 1 b
I I I I l l I 1 I
D e 1 e 1 I
I I I I
I b I I
8 I 8
e I
* I : The City Attorney stated that they are asking for I i more than 200 sq: ft., which is not allowed in the: : Precise Plan. If the Commission d.esires to vary : ! the terms of the Precise Plan, they have to have ; a pub1 ic hearing. 8 t 8
The Planning Commission agreed that they could 3 i not take action on the letter and requested the ! ; City Attorney to notify Mr. Grosse. 1 I
i (c) Chairman Little pointed out to the Assistant! i City Engineer that he had had telephone calls re- i : garding the turn off coming south on El Camino : i Real going West up Chestnut. He stated any speed I ; extending over ten (10) miles an hour throws you ; : toward the center. He felt that it was a danger-: I ous situation and requested the Assistant City : Engineer investigate this.
I t
I' I I I * I 1
I I I D l I I 1 I I i (d) The Planning Director stated a gentleman frotd : Escondido would like to settle a dairy in Carlsbad, : East of the Carlsbad Raceway. He stated the dairj i is presently located in Solana Beach. He pointed : out there will be 400 cows on 38. acres, and the I i application would come before the Commission as a: i Conditional Use Permit. e # I I I * I I I I I I 0 I I
rc
I
I I I I I I '8, ', ',8'*,,'','88.:'8, *, 8 ', ', '\ I I I
b
i I "... s..
I '% 8''
.. .. . -
I 8, ',.'x, ', '8 I I
I -3- : ~a me \\, -%. \., *?J?, i
I i of $20:. ' '+,. I I '.<,:+-&t$, I i """" """"""" "-""""" """ I""""""""""""""""-; "___""___"_ '.o-.o:.C:."-,.~
I I I
: Member
I ;;In;, I The applicant's only th0ugh.t was if there were anyj !!;::I i reasons for major Objections immediately, they I ;lI'II
:would not continue to pursue it. These things 8 1'::;:
.I ::II;; i which should be considered are flies, oders, etc. : ;:::SI
I I #*I 1:;;:: I*
:The Planning Commission felt that it could be 4 ::;:::
I :::,** :; :;: :from interested citizens of the surrounding pro- I ;;ii:: i perty owners. I I::
I I I ::;:;:
I :; I 1.: : i OLD BUSINESS: I ;i;::' I i ;.; ; ; :
I I:;:::
I
II
I
I
I heard and that they would then be able to hear
b
I I
b I 1' I
I (a)' Freeway Interchange and Service Station : Study. The Planning Director stated the staff has i :I::;: !made a detailed study of the freeway interchanges ; : :-: I ; : ;in the City of Carlsbad. He presented a map show-j ::::;; I ing the major streets which handle the major circ-; ;;:;I'
;ulations in Carlsbad and the locations of the l,'I;;
I ::i::: I existing service stations, the service stations i ::::;; ;that have been approved, and the major restaurants: ::::,; ; that are in Carlsbad. He stated the Commission I ::;;:I
:::I;: i should approach this in one of two ,ways; by limit-; 'I,'" : ing the number of freeway service facilities or to! ;:I:+
i allow them to come in -wherever freeway service ; facilities belong. He pointed out and explained : i on the map the locations and zonings of each free-! ;way interchange quadrants in Carlsbad and asked if: : the Commission would bear: in mind that'these free-: I way interchanges will be developed in some manner ; ; and in their decision how would be the best way : poss.ible to develop these interchanges in the I ! future. He also stated the City could only handle; i a limited amount of restaurant and motels along ; ;the freeway. He recommended if the Commission is ; i going to have freeway service facilities, such as i I a restaurant, motel and service station, there : should be a least two freeway service facilities i i on one quadrant. He strongly felt, because of * I ; the depreciation of property surrounding the ser- i i vice facilities, a complex would better justify ; : the depreciation -of that property.
I1
'I
I
'I I
;*I I:;: 111;
b I $1,
I I
I
l I I I b
I I Each freeway interchange was discussed. Points : that were considered were the location require- i i ments, the control, and the limitations of free- : : way service facilities on each quadrant. #
I I I I I
I The Planning Director presented a map of each freeway interchange quadrant for the Commission's i ; consideration if they did desire to.allow further: : freeway service facility development. :; 'I'
I : : :.: I I :::::;
I I i::
I 1) Las Flores - A map was presented showing i 'I:
I;i$;I I the existing zoning of the area and the new align: :L;i: : ment of all the streets after the freeway has beeri II ;:;I I developed and what changes will occur on these ,LI;I; :'
; streets. The Planning Commission determined that : ;::;::
;:I::, I'I 'I : Las Flores interchange quadrants should remain i status quo until other la.rge developments take ; ;::I::
: place in town and there is a need for service I ;x;:!
I I"I'1 i facilities in this area. The Westerly two quad- :;:;i:
; rants of Las Flores are most suitable for apart- : :':;I: ;::;:; i ments because of the beautiful view of Buena Vist4 :;;!!a 'I : Lagoon and the ocean, and therefore should not be: ::,:;; : used for freeway service facilities. The North- i ;:;;.,; i east quadrant is well located for a large freeway: I' II'i
'I
;::I:I I $1:;:
I I I I I::,;:
I I 8 I :":;! ;::ll*
t 1 I I 4:;:;
service facility when the need is established. b 'I
I 8
f@,f,'
s
i
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I
I t I I I I 1 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 I I I I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I t I I I I I I I ;
I
I I I 1 e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I e I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I t 8 I a L I I I I t I I I I I I & 8 I I m 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. r .-
I
I I , I
I I I I
I -4- I
~"""""~"~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" , t 1 I I I 2. Elm Avenue - The Planning Director showed i
'the existing zoning and uses. He also described ; the Civic Center location and the new alignment of! Pi0 Pico. He revi.ewed. the reasons for the selec- ; 'tion of a Civic Center site visible from the free-i 'way. The Planning Commission determined that Elm ; ~Ave-nue and Palomar Airport Road are ideal , because! ;of their direct access, for the purpose of trans- ; I ferring people off the freeway to our beach, com- : Imercial and industrial facilities. For that rea- i son the Northwest quadrant of Elm Avenue is ideal : for. a restaurant, motel and service station com- i
1 plex if a large enough piece of land can be util- ;
1-
1 ized
~ /7 - I
I I 3:Tamarack Avenue - The Planning Director :
I presented a map showing the existing zoning and 1 uses and described the location of each quadrant. :
l He suggested that if the Commission were going 'to i
~ build additional freeway service facilities it I I would be best to build at least two of the three i allowable uses. The Planning Commis'sion decided : ithe Tamarack interchange has adequate freeway
~ service facilities.and recommended the Northeast
~ quadrant for institutional or residential use.
b #
e l a I l I
I , 4. Cannon Road - The Planning Director stated!
~ that at the present timeethere is no freeway inter: 'change. He presented a map showing the existing ; zoning and the location of each quadrant. He also i pointed out the Northwest quadrant is presently ; owned by San Diego Gas & Electric Company and they have no plans to sell this property for Com- mercial use. The Planning Commission recommended : that the Westerly quadrants of Cannon Road inter- i change be held for industrial use in accordance ; with the General Plan. There is limited industrial! land available adjacent to the freeway.. This D l particular land is excellant for not only indus- : tial but for distributorship type uses. As the i North County grows there will be requirements for : this because surrounding. communities do not have i enough sumtable land for industrial development ; with immediate access to the freeway. The North- i east quadrant is presently owned by the San Diego ; Gas and'Electric Company and is not considered fori commerical development. The Southeast quadrant ; is propertly located for a freeway service facil- : ity which would serve the surrounding area.
I I
#
8 8 I 5. Palomar Airport Road - The Planning Direc-i tor presented a map showing the location and the ; existing zoning of each quadrant. He also pointed out the locations of the restaurants and service ; stations in the area. The Planning Commission felt that Palomar Airport Road interchange. has i adequate freeway service facilities for the pre- ; sent, and that no freeway service facilities should be considered on the Northeast quadrant un-i less it is a part of a very large development.
I a
I I
l a # 8 8 a 8 a I I !
I I I ,"I- II
!After further discussion, a motion was made that :smith i the above recommendations be submitted to the :McComas ; City Council for their consideration at their nextjsutherland: ; I i council meeting. :Little i : :x: I I1 I
;; 1::;: ii ;x; : : :x: i I
# lpalmateer :XI :xi :. ;
I :Voorheis I :x; I 1 I I ,::I,;: ::::;, :::;,I
I I : : ;-: :
::;I:: : :.; : ; :
;;"I' ;:;:
I ::,:I;
I :-; ; : :
I i:::;:
;:'*,I
1:::;; :::;:I 'I
I ::::::
I :::;I: 1) :::;;: ;p;;;
::I:::
;;::I' I'
I I ::::::
I I ;::I 1:
,;I::'
4:;:
a ::;@,I 'I :i:: ii
p;!:l I: ; : :, : : I( .: :p;:
I I ::::;;
I :I:;::
i- : ditional Use Permit. :Little : ' :x; I i
I ipalmateer : : :x: ; ;
I Noorheis ; : :xi ;. i
II
1
I I
11
II
I
I I
:Chairman Little indicated if the C-1 Ordinance I i is granted, the Commission will have no control ; B +$I i of the freeway service facilities.
The Planning Director stated that these freeway ! I interohanges should not be allowed in the C-1 ; Ordinance. He felt the freeway interchanges should: : be by Precise Plan. I ::::::
! Chairman Little stated-that it should definitely $e i by Precise Plan and the best way to control these ; : freeway interchange facilities is by putting them i i in the ordinance under Conditional Use Permit.
I Commissioner Sutherland stated all service stations ; be put under the Conditional Use Permit. He felt; : it would give the Commission a bette-r control as I
to were they are placed and also the type of oper-: : ation which they run.
i The Planning Director stated we would not have to i p:;:! i rewrite the C-1 Ordinance, but it would have to i ; be amended. He also stated by putting service : stations under Conditional Use Permit will protec?
us in the future. He pointed out the Commission : : could make new classifications for restaurants, i motels and service stations as freeway oriented ; : facilities.
I I
;IIbI
.I
I
'II,I'
I I
I
r
F ',:',I
I
I
11;:
8 :"I
After due consideration, it was moved that a :Smith : : :x; i :
rc : recommendation be made to the City Coun'cil to iMceomas !x: :x; i i
I c *
i authorize and place service stations under Con- Sutherland ; !x! xi :
I
I
I I
::I
* ::::I:
;::::I
I i::::!
I 8 :i::;: :;:;;I : ; : : :.i
I :::::,
I I :;:;a;
I ;I:;::
8 ;:;::I
* ;::::;
i (b) Recommendations for amendment to Sign Ordin- i ;:;::I
1'1 'I
: l- ance. The Chairman stated that the City Council : 1::::: : inquired of the Commission to make recommendation: ;ol;l;
: concerning the sign ordinance.
: The Planning Director presented a rough draft, i to each commissioner, showing proposed maximum i : size of sign within each zone.
i Chairman Little stated the Commission should : established a total height of a sign. I I *Ill
: A motion was made that the following recommenda- :Smith ; : :x; i ; I"*',
i tions, regarding the amendment to the sign ordin-iMcComas , ;xjx: : ; 0'
: ance be made to the City Council for there con- :Sutherland !xi ; : : I. sideration: iLi ttl e : ; ;x: : :
8
a I
10It
I' l
I
B I
I I , ; 1.; I ;
1 t I
ta
I I I :Palmateer i : ;xi ; i
I 1. All freeway service facility signs be IVoorheis I ;X; i ;
I I *;;!;!
I 2. All signs be a maximum of thirty five ;;':!;
I $41.
e I :* 1:;::
e ::s :::: I ::':i:
I I * I :::a:: I :I::::
a maximum bif eigthy (80) sq. ft. per use. I I 81:111
I I t :"
feet (35') in height.
I I I I
I
I
I I * I"
! '#:!I!*