Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969-11-10; Planning Commission; Minutes. .. 1 MINUTES OF: DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: CI c I v OF PLANN tNG COMM tSStON NOVEMBER 10, 1969 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS- ROLL CALL City staff representatives present: Stuart Wilson,Cit Attorney, E. J. Olinghouse, Planning Director. APPROVAL OF MINUTES fa) Minutes of the regular meeting of October 28, 196 were approved as submitted, by a motion receiving a voice vote approval. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (a) The Chairman briefed a letter he had received fro San Diego Planning Congree re a luncheon meeting in Mission Valley on Wednesday, November 19th, to elect officers for the forthcoming year, etc. The Chairman indicated he would attend this meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications at this time. PUBL I C HEAR I NGS (a) VARIANCE - Application to consider Request for Re location of Certain Existing Signs, located at 1145 El Avenue on the SE Corner of Pi0 Pic0 Drive and Elm Aven Applicant: Shell Oil Company. The Planning Director presented the Staff Report dated November 4, 1969, which set forth the background recommendation for approval of subject application, th reasons for such recommendation, and conditions to govern. ~ A layout transparency was pr.ojected and the proposed locations of all signs, as well as the new alignment for Interstate 5, were pointed out. The Chairman having called for the applicant or his representative, MR. CAL MASSEE of the San Diego office of Shell Oil Company, approached the Commission and introduced himself as the Real Estate agent for th district office. Mr. Massee stated the application fo a Variance was presented at this time to allow for the existing signs, although the actual construction phase for the freeway and subsequently, for the service stat in question, was still some time away. He added they were in agreement with the recommendation to approve and, the conditions imposed could be met. There were no others in the audience to speak in favor or in opposition of this application and the pub hearing was closed at 7:40 P.M. ‘During the Commission discussion that followed, it was clarified tfiat the ervice station building itse1.f is to be moved, as we1 s the building sign and one (1) other sign, as requir or the freeway widening program. Further, that the arge,statiomry sign(whicfi is not to be relocated), wt1 ecome non-conforming at the completion of the morator COMMISSIONERS \ \ resent bsen t otion Yes bsent n C I m -2- (which IS 63 ft.h1gh,320 sq.feet) Further discussion regarding the stationary sign., pointed out that it was clearly visible from the free. way enroute in either a- Northerly or Southerly direc- tion, while certain other service station signs were not visible. The sign l'imitations, as contained in the recently adopted sign ordinance, were discussed a! they applied to this Variance application and, all no1 conforming signs within the City. Several points of the sign ordiance were also discussed, i.e., moratoril periods, enforcement of the ordinance, and the present of new, non-conforming signs.since the adoption of thc ord i nance. *There being no further questions or discussion by the Commission, a motion was made to deny this applic; tion for a variance to relocate existing signs. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 641, A RESOLUTION VARIANCE TO PERMIT RELOCATION OF CERTAIN EXISTING SlGl LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PI0 PIC0 DRIVE AND ELM AVENUE, identified by title only and further madil waived: the reason for such denial is: 1) That the OF THE CARLSBAD.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A proposed sign moves will not be in conformance with tt current sign requirements for the City of Carlsbad. OLD BUS I NESS (a) At this time, it was decided that signs and the City's sign ordinance should be discussed as there were many problem areas. After questioning the City Attorney on several points, it was agreed the Commissi should draft a letter to the City Manager regarding enforcement of the ordinance as regards the older, nor conforming signs, non-conforming sig,ns since the adop- tion of the ordinance (February 1968), and signs ereci without a permit. The Planning,Director was asked to work with the Building Department in obtaining a list of signs in violation within the City, to be used as supportive data to the City Manager. Mr. Olinghouse stated he would attempt to have the list available at the next regular meeting November 25th. NEW BUS I NESS There was no New Business presented at this meet- i ng. COMMITTEE REPORTS [a) Service Stations and Auto-Related Uses Work Com- mittee: Chairman Jose reported there is to be another work session to review the final' draft from the Planni Department, where the complete sect ion (Sect ion 14) t: being redone to add th ts amendment. (b) Public Uti1it.ies Zone Work Committee: Mr. 01ing.- house stated that a final draft for review and dts- cussion will be presented at the next meettng, pri'or to a pub1 ic hearing. 0. (c) Residential Density Zone Work Committee: Chairhar Jose stated he, had attended the first work sessfon as alternate for Commissioner Llttle and that the Planntr 1 ~epartment is preparing a revised draft on this also. COMMJSSIONERS I lotion ' Ayes Absent 9 . "" -3- committee Reports (Continued) (c) Also, there is a possibility of another residentia density ordinance for si'ngle family areas, entitled (d) Community Involvement Committee and Sub-Committees: .Chairman Jose reported on the first meeting of this group, which had been for the purpose of appointing the members and chairman and .setting up meeting dates for the four -sub-committees. Mr. 01 inghouse reported on the first meeting of the Human Relations sub-com- mittee, at which the work projects had been formulated. (e) Mr. Olinghouse stated he hoped the Commissioners would come in at their leisure, prior to the next meet ing on November 25th, in order to view the exhibited design layouts, .background material, etc., for the forthcoming H. B. Development Company proposal now be- fore the City. He further discussed the merits and necessity of pre-fil ing conferences for large or otherwise unusual proposals to the City, in order to avoid lengthy delay!; and/or misunderstandings that might otherwise occur. These pre-filing conferences would include City staff representatives, the developer, and representation frorl the Planning Commission. He added he hoped to utilize this concept on future proposals of this nature. ADJOURNMENT The motion was made and affirmed by voice vote to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 P.M.