Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1958-11-12; Planning Commission; Minutesc m bIlPNTES .".. OF REGULAR 18!J3m ETG OF CARLSBAD CITY PLANTTIRG C0I;ELISsSION November 12, 1958 1- The meeting mas called to order at 754 P.H. by Chairman Swfrskyo Present besides the Chairman were Cornissfonera Baumgartner, flaps and Jarvie, Absent Commfssioners kbplght, Fennel and Stringere 2- Action of' City Council. on their intent ion to Grant the appeal of Smith and Castela ASSOC., Lots L, M and N, Block nl", Palisades. A menormdm from the City Bamger, dated lbovepnber X?, 1958, setting f crth the find- ings of fact by the City Council on the appeal of Smith and Castela ASSOC., and ordering the Planning Commission to make a further report ard qeport back to the City Council was peado The Chairman reviewed what had happened in this matter up to this time, and stated that the report would be based on "&e CommIssion*s previous findings and the findings of the City Council. It was moved by Corn, Unumgartner ana seconded by Corn. Jarvie that a memorandum be sent to the Gity Council reconmending that the variame as requested by h2th md Castela Assoc. be granted for the reasons that the variance hnd to be requested ciue to a technicality, in that %story s trvctures coulu be bu91t on each of the three lots and the requbod rear ymd set back mould be only 10 feet. Considerable afscussion aas civen this mttcr, Corn, Baumgartner pointed out that some of the objections presented had been based on %he fact that the wea had been developed along R=l lines, and that %story structures, which were. allowed by the b2inance in any zone, V;OUIC: cut off the vf:ewr of sumoundfng property omcrs. Corn, Jarvle stated that he had previously felt that tb-nattcr should hnvo more thought md stuuy before approva but he was now in favor of ito Corm, Hayes statea she had previocsly voted asfainst the variance because of the number of' prsons appearing in protest, as'the area had been developed alone R-1 lines and an apartment house would be detrimental to the surrounding property owners, and stated it was fE r opinion tkrs rssea along the -highway should be rezoned Commercial, The Chairman stated that when the Council and Cornlxlsslon made their aonInG study, it had been decided that the beseuse of the property would be. R=3, multiple dwellings, The Chairman asbd f0r.a vote on' the motion now on the floor* Fow ayas; Commissioners libright Fe:mel and Stringer absGnt, blotion car~ied~ Corn, Hayes stated '$;hat she felt if ~e variance were granted, Smith and Castebla should be limited in sone manma? such as having t~ start construction wNlth%n, 90 days. Some dSscussfon was given this mtter, during nhfclz Gom~ j?amgwtner stated that he had thol;@rt nany tims tbEs I.Smitation should be imposed, but ciic! not fael there ras justifi- cation fop Ft irr this case as the only reason for the variance was because 3 lots vrere involved, 1% was rroved by Corn?. Brtyes and. seconded by Coma Jarvle timt, ff the varhnce were gra~tod, a. Ifmitation be ~TLPOSQ~ reqxll-hg construction to be started within 00 days to preclude the possibility of the property's being us#3,d for any purpose other than that LIS set forth in the applicetion :?or tZE variancec Wee ayes; Col:m, Bauugartnw voting "no"; Conr&;3ioners Ebright, Fennel and Strincer absent, :-lotion carried, 3- Action of City Council on.their intention to grant the appeal of James A. Scanlon on the heicht of Q fence from 42" to 72". A memoran- dum from the City i'dLanager, dated liovernber 12, 1958, setting forth tha finciings of fact by the Ciw Council on the qpeal of Jams A, Scanlon, and ordering the Planning Conmission to make a further report and =port back to the City Council was read. The Chairman reviewed what had happened in this matter up to thia time, and stated that the report would be based on the Coxmission's previous finaings a5d the f indlns of the City Council, Corn, Hayes moved that a memorandum be sent to the City Council recow mendins that the variance as requested by James A. Scanlon be granted for tkE reasons that no protests had been registered end neiGhbors had taken the trouble to appear at tb hearing on Scanlon's behalf; that the fence did not obstruct the view at an intersection; and allowed the mst beneficial and profitable use of the property. Corn. Jarvie seconded the mtion for the reasons that the fence had been up for a gear and was so close to the Clty hll *ai; someone must have knovrn about it and should hve stopped construction vhen it was beinc built; and he had seen similar fences in tom ani did not consider it fair to allow one person to do somethinc that another could not Considerable discussion mas given this matter. Come Daumgartner stated that the variance was supposed to be considered as tho1lgh the fence was not in existence ad he could see no justification for its The Chairman stated th pro3lom is to control fonces which cannot be bullt fn certain restricted portions of yards, and if' the Conmission cyanted a variance after soneone had vfolated the building code, they are granting him a :?ight that his neighbor does not have, The Chairman asked for a vote on the mtion now on tho floor'a Comaissioners Hayes arrl Jarvie voted "yes"; Chairman Swirsky and Comdissloner Caumgartnar voted "no"; Commissioners Ebrfzht, Fennel and Stringer absent, 4- Adjournment. By proper motion, the meting was declared adjourned at 8:30 I?*:dI, Hespectfully submitted, -2-