Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-02-10; Planning Commission; Minutes* CI -1 'Y MINUTES OF: DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE : OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 1970 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL CALL : Councilman C. H. Neiswender was present; City staff representatives present: R. A. Johnston and E. J. Olinl house of Planning, Joe Spano from Engineering, City Attorney Stuart Wilson, Howard Teakell and Richard Osburn from the Building Department. Commissioners Hermsen and Gullett were present at 7:35 and 7:50 P.M., respectively. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: (a) The minutes of the regular meeting of January 27, 1970 were approved as submitted, by a motion receiving voice vote approval. (b) The minutes of the adjourned meeting of February 2 1970 were approved as submitted, by a motion receiving voice vote approval'. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (a) The secretary introduced a letter dated January 28 1970 from Mr. Joseph Malatino, regarding reinstallatiol of a wall-mounted advertising sign at the Golden Tee Cocktail. Lounge in Poinsettia Plaza. Mr. Malatino fell he should be allowed to reinstall this sign on the Nori side of his building, inasmuch as it was causing him a hardship, brought about by the Texaco Station on his North side being relocated by the State Highway prograr: and their subsequent new building. Mr. Olinghouse stated this letter could not be acted on at this time by the Commission, and suggested Mr. Malatino bring his request to the Planning Department to be handled as a Variance application for later pu61 hearing. YR. JOSEPH MALATINO, 1515 Waverly Street., Oceanstde, Mas present in support of his letter request and statec that the Texaco station abutting his property at this time had been moved back nearly 20 ft. to accommodgte their new design. They now share a common North. wall >ut he feels this sign should be returned to that parti f his building still exposed, next to the new station fter commission discussion, it was agreed to advise tl pplicant to discuss his particular situatton wl'th tke lanning staff, for their handling as it applies to thf ign ordinance. Mr. Malatino advised he would proceed There we~e none at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CO"l SSIONERS Present Absent Motion Ayes Abstainec Absent Motion Ayes Abstainec Absent n i. 1 4 X X X e CITY OF -4 CARLSBAD -2- 9 The Planning Director presented the Staff Report of February 3, 1970, setting forth this request to change an existing pole sign in size only, and maintain the existing height, which is excessive of that allowed by the ordinance. This change in signing is necessitated by a corporation name change, being effected at all branches of this.firm. The staff report recommended denial in that unusual circumstances do not exist for the granting of a variance, and this would not be in keeping with past Commission decisions. s branch bank, MR. L.E , was present to make a pre sentation in behalf of this request, and quoted excerp from an attachment to their application, which had bee1 mailed out to all commissioners. He brought the audiel up-to-date on the details and reasons for this present variance request, stating the peculiar age and structu' of their building did not allow placement of a pole si( visible to the public, at any other location than at present. Also, they are allowed up to 181.5 square fel of total signing and with this requested sign would us( onl-y 94.4 sq. ft. of that, for a reduction of 50 percel He further presented several reasons why no prec dent would be set in the granting of this variance. He addec there are no signs fronting on State Street nor on the rear parking lot., and that this sign is considered necessary and desirable in presenting their image to the public. Additionally, this sign is considered to be a definite improvement over the present one. There were no others to speak in favor or in oppositiol of this request and the Commission discussion followed Mr. Black was asked and satisfied the question regardil the age of the present sign, which is estimated betweel 1963 and 1965. While it was agreed that this particuli sign logo was not offensive and the application had bec well prepared, the sign ordinance setting height limiti tions for the height of the building, or 35 ft., which- ever is smaller, is quite clear and had been conformed to by other businesses. The Planning Director read from the Zoning Ordinance (No. 9060) those points just. ing the granting or denial of a variance, stating that at least two points were involved in justifying the recommendation to deny this request. The applicant re. ceived questions which he asked MR. NEIL OLSEN, 4815 Polara, Covina, California, sign representative for Sec ity Pacific. Bank, to answer. Mr. Olsen stated that if the bank building were placed back and higher, they could put the proposed sign up with no variance. Also, they would show hardship in this matter, if they could not conform with the corporation change required of them. He said the present sign could be remodeled, but it is twice the size of that proposed and would not be at all desirable. Mr. Olinghouse clarified that remodeling o'f the pre.senl sign could not be construed as structural changes and therefore would not have to conform to the expiration date set on the original sign by the sign moritorium. Further discussion ensued as to whether the granting 01 this request would or would not be establishing of a COMMISSIONERS b :e ? I .. I . I 'Y - lr- CITY OF CARLSBAD -3- precedent for future sign variances, and the City Atto ney commented on a Planning Commission's responsibilit in viewing applications individually or fairly. All the points in favor of granting were presented; howeve it was pointed out that the type of sign was not the question in this hearing, but whether or not a reason for variance exi'sted, and this was what the Commission was obligated to act on. Mr. Olsen was called to reit ate the hardships he stated were involved. The hardsh of the sign height was that there was no where else to put a sign visible to the public-and the height involv is approximately 28 ft., with the particular building involved. He added this was not a self-inflicted hard- ship but one required by law in the merging of two corporations and necessary name change. The quality a image they have is involved in the sign they wish to use and Mr. Olsen felt the question of brdship could b set by the Commission. Discussion of the meeting of a variance requirements w again discussed, as earlier read from the zoning ordi- nance. The motion was then made to deny a request for excess in sign height, for a pole sign located at 505 Elm Avenue, for the following reasons: (1) that no extraordinary circumstances are present substantiating this request; (2) no apparent hardship will be inflict on the applicant by this denial; (3) other businesses in the same vicinity have conformed with the sign ordi nance; (4) the granting of same would be in conflict with past Planning Commission decisions upholding the sign ordinance requirements. This motion not passing, and the vote being split, the applicant was therefore advised he could appeal no action from the Planning Commission to the City Qounci' (b) RESOLUTION OF INTEN-TION N0.69 - To consider recomm ding to the Council an Amendment to Ord. 9060, creatin an RD-M Zone (Residential Densitv-MultiDle) The Planning Director briefed the RD-M draft, which ha resulted from two work sessions between the Staff and appointed commissioners. The Chairman posed questions as to possible confusion arising from Sections 13.83 and 13.85, regarding building height and sideyard set- back requirements. He foresaw the need for more clari tion in these two areas, based on past requests before the Commission regarding same. Discussion was given as to how.the building height is established, either from measuring the centerline of the building or, from measuring centerline grade of the frontage street. Th staff agreed to rework Section 13.83 (building height) so as to avoid future confusion in reading the propose new ordinance. The motion was therefore made approval to continue the pub1 amendment to the regular meet OLD BUSINESS: and received voice vote ic hearing on the RD-M zo ing of February 24, 1970. (a) Illegal Siqn s~+~~~ - Report from Building Dept. .COMMISSfONERS r- P d d S d Motion Ayes Nayes Absent n- ica- Moti'on e Ayes Absent CITY OF CARLSBAD -4- The Chief Bldg. Inspector was present and handed out a memorandum dated 2/10/70 regarding illegal signs, blinkers and flashers, and his department's present si survey in the City. In reading this memorandum, there was confusion as to alleged previous sign ordinances still in effect in the City, previous to Ordinance NO. 9224, which the Planning Commission's questions pertai to. There has been past confusion regarding the Com- mission's repeated request for a list of illegal signs in the City, since enactment of Ord. 9224 in April 19E Mr. Osburn stated confusion arises in interpretation c certains signs, the moritorium periods involved, and in enforcing the sign ordinance in general. He did clarify that ten sign owners had been contacted and si of these had already complied to the ordinance or were in the process of correcting their signs. The City Attorney was !requested to review the past sig ordinances, or portions thereof, which Mr. Osburn re- ferred to, in that.0rd. 9224 should take precedence, a supersede, all of these former ones. Mr.. Osburn stated his department has assigned one man fulltime to the City sign survey, of which 143 establi ments have been done, and this is continuing. (b) Continued Items - List attached to Agenda - Mr. Olinghouse stated the list oT continued and proposed n items, pending in the department, were current with th "target dates" shown. NEW BUSINESS: (a) Memorandum/request from Building Department re moving YMCA storage building to Lagoon site - Mr. Olinghouse introduced a letter from the Buildl'ng Dept. requesting Commission approval to move a YMCA storage building from Solana Beach to their location a Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Building Dept. recommendati was to deny the request as presented, and require the minimum concrete piers, at proper spacing, as set fort by the Building Codes. Commission discussion followed as to intended use of the building, its exact proposed location, permanence of installation, etc. The motion was then made and ap- proved by.voice vote, to approve the requested buildir move in line with recommendation of Building Departmer regarding a permanent pad. (b) Community Plans/Consent of Planning Commission to contact property owners within South Carlsbad general area and initiate preparation of Community Plan - Mr. Olinghouse discussed his memo and attached map of February 5, 1970, proposing a preliminary system for coordinated area plans in the preparation of such com- munity plans. He stated they have already discussed this with some of the homeowners in the South Carlsbad area and they have indicated concurrence in planning cs.. .. COMMISSIONERS 1 i 1- I ;e 1 Motton Ayes Absent X - ." . . .& Cl'W OF CARLSBAD -5- the 'area's 'development, .He refe-rred to a wall exhibit depicting the area in question, the proposed open spac system for the City, etc. It is intended to determine what.these property owners may plan for future develop ment and, at a later date, an amendment to the General Plan for this southern area may be required. At this time, the concurrence of the Commission in these effor is' des i red. A motion was duly made and approved by voice vote, for the department staff to initiate a preliminary system for coordinated area plans for Area #2 of the exhibit shown (possibly overlapping into Area #5). Progress shall be reported to the Commission from time to time. COMMITTEE REPORTS: (a) Parks & Open Space - Work Committee: Mr. Olinghou reported from the last meeting, stating they were con- tinuing on their presentation of this plan for the cit (b) CIC: Mr. Olinghouse reported on activities of variousad hoc committees and his meetings with them. He commented on the first of several "Housing Problem Areas" evening meetings at Jefferson School, bel'ng con ducted by. the Human Relations group of CIC. He added these meetings have been well received and a second is scheduled for February 19th at 7:OO PM at the school. ADJOURNMENT: The motion was.made and unanimously received to adjour at 9:37 P.M. Respectful-ly submitted, COMMISSIONERS Motion Ayes Absent 2 Motion Ayes Absent X x