HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-06-13; Planning Commission; Minutes1-
2-
3-
The meting was called to order at 7: p0 P.M. by Vice-Chairman Hughes. Present besides the Vice-chairman were Comissioners kvis, HarMek, Jade and WWard.
Approval of Minutes of May 23, 1961. A motion vms made by Carmissioner Ward and seconded by Commissioner Jarvie that the minutes of May 23, 1561 be approv-
ed as submittei. All ayes, motion carried.
Written Cormnications z
(a) The Secretary read a letter dated June 6, 1961 from Lillian and W 9. Gar- ett requesting a re-hearing on the variance granted Eddie and Alice Vasquez on lots 42 and L3 on Ocean Street, Carlabad. He stated that the original of the letter had been turned over to the City Attorney and the City Attorney had advised him thst the Planning Conmission may revoke the variance granted to the Vasqueas under certain conditions which he read from Article 2.2, Section 2200 of Ordinance 9060 concerning revocation of variances..
Commissioner Jarvie stated that he wished to apologize again for making some remarks about the previous variances that had been requested on Pihich he had not had full information and the Secretary informed him that at the present time the only matter that was before the Planning Conmission was the Variance
on Lots 4? and 43 and that 81 y previous history had no bearing on the matter at hand.
Commissioner Davis asked if it were necessary for the Planning Gomission to find one of the five reasons named in Article 22, Section 22:m of the Code fn order to have a re-hearing.
MEbs. LIW OARRETT, 2360 Ocean Street, stated that In her conversation with the City Attorney on the telephone on this date lhey had discussed the fact
that the P1a ning Commission was under the fmpression that the setbacks rer re different from what they actually are when the variance was granted.
The Secretary stated that a survey had been made by the Engineering Department as to what the, setbacks %ere and he had relied on these . MRS. GARRETT stated that at the Plzn ning Commission hearing the Secret- had ' read the setback on Lot b4 as 6 1/2 feet, but betwen the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting she had the City check out the distance on this property and the engineers found it to be 8 feet.
The Secretary stated that on the Garrett's appeal to the City Council that the Council was informed that the Building on Lot 44 was setback 8'
MR, C, R. THORMTON, Assistant City Engineer, stated that this was not a precise survey but only an approximation.
Commissioner Davis stated that he had no objection to having a re-hearing and Commissioner Hardwick stated that to him it seemed to be confusing as to what the Commission could do. The City Attorney rendered an opinion that the Garrett's reaourse is to Su erior Court and it ty> uld seem more proper for the Commission to refer the let k r to the City Attorney for her advlsory action as; to what they should do. H e felt that the City Attorney should be more closely in contact with the Planning Conmission and what they were doing, and that she
c m
should let the Commission know whether they shodd take one stand or another on this matter.
A motion was made by CommissS.oner Hardwick and seconded by Commissioner Ward that the Secretary be instructed to write a memorandum to the City Attorney
referring the subject letter to her for her opinion as to what action the Planning Commission should take and also her legal advice on any action they might take. All ayes, motion carried,
MIS. GARRETT stated that the Vasquezes had been issued a building permit but that no construction had been started as yet, however, before the Commission decided what they were going to do, some construction might be started and
it might save them a lot of expense if the Commission made some sort of decisiom tonight. She felt that discrimination entered into this matter as she and Mr.
Garrett had asked for a five foot setback in their front yard 3 years ago and the Plw ning Commission gave them a 10 foot setback and if the Vasquezs buildj
as planned they would be cutting off her view.
Vice-Chabman Hughes told Mrs. Garrett that there was nothing further the Commission could do until they heard from the City Attorney.
4- Oral Communications:
There were no oral communications.
5- New Business 3
The Secretary read a memorandum from the City Engineering Depa bent to the Planning Commission, dated June l3th, 1961, on the subject of sidewalk con- struction for subdivision improvements, which recommended requiring sidewalks in all new subdivisions, enumerating the reasons for their being required,
There was some discussion among the Commission as to how the gaps there would
be taken care of between the subdivisions,and the Engineering Department in- formed them that they vere hoping for city participation on this where the
city would absorb 2/3 of the cost and further it would be handled under street improvements. Other cities have found that they sell the people on the fa& of having sidewalks and there are many reasons it is better for the city, among
these being a definite line between city and private property where city
liability ends. After further discussion on the subject matter of the memoran- dum, a. motion was made by Commissioner hvis and seconded by Commissioner
H ardwick that the memorandum from the Engineering Department recommending sidewalks in subdivisions be forwarded to City Council as a reconmendation of
the Planning Commission requesting that they issue a statement of policy in concurrence with the Pltn ning Commission on this matter. All ayes, Motion cam- ied.
MR, NlAx EWALD, 3308; B elle Lane, stated that he was sure the subdividers would
have no objection to putting in sidewalks, however, he felt that there was one thing that was left out and that is street lights. When he had come here 10 years ago there was not a street light in the town, and now there are some, He: felt that the subdividers might just as well put in lights also when they were building the subdivision.
Mr. Rathbun, City Engineer, stated that the engineering department had already thought about that and it is practical and they will be glad to incorporate it in their recommend.ations.
”
The V~~halrman requested the Engineering Department to write a memorandum recomm nding street lights in subdivisions.
!Dm Secretary read a netnorandm from the Engineering Department to the Planing Commission dated J’une 22, 1961, subject Junior High School Site, accompanied
by a map of the site which was shown to the members of the Commission. The Engineering Department approved the site with certain recommendations* !@e! Secretary then asked if it was the wish of the Planning Commission to send 8 letter to the School District recommending buying the subject property. A motion was made by Commissioner Hardwick and seconded by Commissioner Davis
that a letter be sent to the School District approving the acquistion of this property. All ayes, motion carried.
6- Old Business:
(a) San Diego County Regional Plan, Objectives and Policies, Preliminary State- ment of Alternates #2;, Industry. After some discussion of tW brochure it was
the unanimous decision of the Commission to recommend Alternate E, and the Secretary mas instructed to so advise the San Diego County Plrolnihg Congress.
(b) The Secretary read 8 proposed ordinance amndmnt to Ordinance 9050 which had been prepared for the consideration of the Commission. He explained the ordinance as it now read stating that the amendment ma& mandatory those things
which were only recommended in the present ordinance.
A motion was made by Commissioner garvie and seconded by Commissioner Hardwick that the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission by its own motion direct tk Secretary to prepare a Resolution of Intention to anend Ordinance No 9050 Section 300 (C), Article IIX, requiring subdividers to confer with the City Engineer and Secretary of the Planning Commission to insure general conformance to the requirements of‘ the subdivision ordinance before filing Tentative: * Subdivision Maps and that 8 public hearing be held on this matter. All ayes, motion carried.
F Adjournment :
By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 PAL
J . H. PRICE, Secretary