The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1963-11-12; Planning Commission; MinutesI I ', .\ '8, '8, 't, I 'b" 8 \, 1% I I I CITY OF CARLSBAD 8 I I I '\ 88"s,8 8, y., I I '\ '\ ', \\ t84 80d$&, a,,;?+ : : Minutes of: PLANNTNG COILR,MISSION '\ ', '\ i Date of Meeting: November 12, 1963 i Na me 't '?$A, *, i : Time of Meeting: 7:30 3?. M. : of i Place of Meeting: Council Chambers ("""""""""""-~""""""""""""""~""""""""""."~""""""""" e.. "","" '\*\\ I I '8pi:o. . : Member 'f3@,+@?8{ I I I I I ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, : Palmer, Jarvie, Lamb and Sonneman. Commissioner:. ; I Grant was present at 10:lZ P.M, Commissioner Ward waj i absent. Also present were City Attorney Stuart C. Witsod ; and City Planner Uhiand B. Melton. I I I I i APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Davis I Palmer I I i Jarvie (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of October 22, 1963 ; Lamb : were approved as corrected. i Sonneman I ! I I WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I I There were no written communications. I t : ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I : There were no oral communications. ; PUBLIC HEARING, continued: I I I I I I I I : VARIANCE - To consider an application for a variance i i for reduction in front yard setback from 20' to 15' on Lots! : 5, 8 1 13 and 14 on Cul-de-sacs; reduction in rear yard : I setback from 12' to 5' on Lot 6 from 12' to 8' on Lot 7, i i from 14' to 7' on Lot 11 and from 16' to 7' on lots 1 and ; : 15; reduction in side yard from 6' to 5' on Lots 6, 7 and : i 20, from 8' to 7' on Lots 2 3, and 4, from 8' to 6 l/2' 04 : Lots 17 and 19, from 8' to 5' on Lots 12 and 16 and from i i 9' to 5' on Lot 18, on property located on the Northwesterly : corner of the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Harding! i Street, approved tentative map Magnolia Village Subdivision, i Assessor's Map in the City of Carlsbad. Owners: Arthur ; I Salas and Alta V. Pruner. I Notice of hearing was read. The City Planner read the i application and certified to notice of hearing being sent to : ; property owners in the area. 1 Letter from Don Creeger Licensed Surveyor acting as i agent for Magnolia Village , a joint venture, in which he ; stated that he felt there was a need for nice homes for people with lower incomes and that Magnolia Village can : degree and he felt this would just be a temporary variance: for 5' side yard setbacks since the Carlsbad Planner and the Subdivision committee have recommended 5' side yard more particularly described as Parcels 204-21 -18,19,20 3 21 S. D. Co I I I I I I I I I I I # 1 I f not be built unless the lots are utilized to a maximum I I t setbacks. I I I I I 1 I I I I I There were no other written communications. I I : Chairman Palmer announced the Commission would now i i hear from the applicant and any other persons who wished! : to speak in favor of this variance. I : DON CREEGER, 2499 State Street, stated there was a i subdivision committee and they recommended that there : be a 5' side yard setback in R-2 zones. I I I I I market demand for this type of home. He worked on the : I 4 * I I I I I I I I I No others. present spoke in favor of this request. I I ! The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear i 1 from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. L 1 I * , I I I I I I I I 8 I I t I There were no persons present desiring to speak in ; opposition. I I The public hearing was closed at 7:55 P. M. I i , I I I t I I * I . t The City Planner explained the location of the property ; and that he had prepared a tzb1.e of setbacks for the Corn-! mission comy;liled froin the studies of ot1L.l-r cities. I I I I The ComrnissiQn discussed the fact that Lots 1 and 11 ar$ reversed corner lots,and the questiun was asked if there were less lots, would these variances be required. They: also discussed the minimum size of duplexes, and that { they cannot grant a variance greater than has been granieeY to others in the area, but felt that a plaxmed community concept can have more variance than an individual home. After further discussion, it was agreed to grant the request for said variances with the condition that the property be developed as shown on Map Exhibit "A" for : the following reasons: I * 1. That the granting of such variances will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious I to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone: in which the property is located. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. That the variances requested are no greater than: are existing in similar situations. I I I I I I I I I I b I * 3. That there were no oralc.rr written objections. The following resolution was presented: Resolution No. 322. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAQ CMMISSION GRANTING VARIANCES FOR REDUCTION OF FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD ; SETBACKS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN MAGNOLIA i VILLAGE SUE3IVISION, ACCORDING TO TENTATIVE was adopted by title only and further reading waived, MAP ON FILE IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORN~A I 1 I I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC HEARING: continued VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in required front: age from 60' to 23.03' in order to create a lot split on ; property located on the south side of Basswood Avenue i between Adams Street and Highland Drive, being portion ; of Tract 239, Thurn Lands, Map 1681, and Lot 10, Chest: nut Manor, Map 5073 in the City of Carlsbad; being Parcels 205-120-9 and 205-36-10 of the Assessor's Map i of San Diego County. Owner: H. Von Packard. Notice of hearing was read. The City Planner read the application and certified to notice of hearing being sent to! property owners in the area. There were no written communications. The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear! from the applicant and any other persons who wished to speak in favor of this variance. No one present spoke in favor of this request. The Chairman announced the commission would now hear: from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. There were no persons present desiring to speak in opposition. The public hewing was closed at 8:40 P. M. I I * I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 , I l I I I I I 1 I I t $ 1 I 1 I I I I I I 4 i The City Planner explained the location of the property 3 and that the design conforms to the "Panhandle" lot split i policy set by the City Council. I I L I I I I I I I t I t I 1 I ! Davis Palmer Lamb Jar vie Sonnem 8 ;- After due consideration, it was agreed to grant a varianci far said property for the following mxm&hmx: reasons: : I I 1. That this reduction in width is in agreement with t$e "Panhandle" Lot split policy. I , I I 8 2. That it would open up a highly desirable building : site. I I I I I I I 3. Tllat the granting of such variance will not be waterially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious I to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone! in which the property is located. The following resolution was presented: Resolution No. 323. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBA; FOR REDUCTION IN FRONTAGE IN ORDER TO CREATE: A LOT SPLIT ON A PORTION OF TRACT 239, THUM I LANDS, MAP 1681, AND LOT 10, CHESTNUT MANOR i MAP 5073 in the city of carlsbad, California subject to ; certain conditions was adopted by title only and further zf . reading waived. I I I I I I I I 1 I I "MISSION GRANTING .A VARIANCE i I b I I I I I I I 1 I I PUBLIC HEARING: continued VARIANCE - To consider a reduction in required frontage from 75' to 12 1/2' in order to create a lot split: on property on the easterly side of Skyline Road between i Westhaven Drive and Alder Avenue, being portion of Lot 1,Rancho Hedionda, Map 823 of the City of Carlsbad; and i being portion of Parcel 207-9 -4 and all of 207-9-5 of the : Assessor's Map of San Diego County. Owner: Doris Chalmers. Notice of hearing was read. The City Planner read the { application and cd:rtified to notice of hearing being sent to i property owners in the area. There were no written communications. The-.Ghairman announced the Commission would now hear! from the applicant and any other persons who wished to speak in favor of this variance. I I I 8 $ I I I I I 1 I I I I 4 I I I I No one present spoke in favor of this request. The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear ! from all persons desiring to apeak in opposition. I I 8 8 There were no persons present desiring to speak in I I I opposition. The public hearing was closed at 8:40 P. M. I The City Planner explained the location of the landlocked I piece of land and the "Panhandle" that would lead to it. Hb reported that the "Panhandle" the owner ds asking €or I exceeds the "Panhandle" Lot Split Policies. By moving i the "Panhandle" over it would shorten the distance for the! "Panhandle" by 50'. DORIS CHALMERS , *I12 Skyline Road , stated that she fel) this proposal would put the street next to Jack Kubota's : house and she felt he would appreciate not having it there; She reported that she had come to the PLanning Commissibn meeting when Mr Humphreys submitted the tentative mad of Chestnut Heights, and it was her understanding that she would be able to ask for a "Panhandle" lot split. She had I i I I I I I I I I I I I I * "4 " I I i bezn in hopes of working sornethir,:: OZ~ with Mr, Humphreks ;;;';I :::I:: : for this land locked piece cf property. There is no ease-; ::; 11( &I: : ment and it is staictly a community driveway. She is not : I::;:, ::: i asking for a buildable lot on Skylice and would like to hav4 :;l:q 1:: the driveway cross the property on Skyline diagonally to : ;1:::0 ; get to Parcel "B". t ;::::I I I l:~l:! I 04;::: The City Planzler stated that the property on Skyline would :a l*l:t' :::::, 8: done. I I I 4::l: I 1 ;;:::I After due consideration, it was agreed to grant the requea 1::::: 'I::: I I i:iiii I ;:::I8 1) I i have to be joined to thfpropekty in Parcel "A" if this werd ;:::;I ' I 11 I for a variance to create a "Panhandle" lot split with an : i:: 1:: : entrance on Skyline Drive as indicated on the lot split mai I for the following reasons: I I I I :;#I I I I I I 1. That there are exceptional conditions ap$.icd$e to : : the property because of the property being land-locked i and the location of the property presented a hardship. I I I I I I I I * I 2. That it would open up a highly desirable building ! I 3. That the granting of such variance will not adversGly I site. I I I I I I I ! affect the comprehensive general plan. I I 1 I I I I $ The following resolution was presented: I I HANDLE" i THE CITY OF : PORTION OF ; certain conditions f reading waived. I :* *** See Page 4-A I I I I I I I I PUBLIC HEARING: I I RECLASSIFICATION - To consider reclassification i : from Zone R-1-7.5 (Residential) to R-3 (Multiple-Family: i Residential) on property located on the north side of Oak ; : Ave. between Pi0 Pic0 Drive and Highland Drive, being i i portion of Tract 11 5 of Carlsbad, according to amended mhp ; of the Town of Carlsbad, Map No. 775; Assessor's Parcets ; 11 and 12, Book 156, Page 180 of the Assessor's Mapof : : San Diego County. Owners: Jack L. Moye, Odus M. I i Walton and John H. Spencer. I * I I 1 f I The notice of hearing was read. The City Planner certifi$d!& i as to publication of .i&Ee. of hearing and then read the ; : application. With the permission of the Commission the I i -reirdibg of the complete legal description was waived. I I i There were no written communications on this request. : The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear ; from the applicant and any other persons who wished to i I. I I I I I I I I spcak in favor of the reclassification. I I I I I I I I I I i No one present spoke in favor of this reclassification. I The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear : from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. I I : There were no persons present desiring to speak in i opposition. i The public hearing was closed at 10:20 P. M. i The City Planner explained the location and zoning of this I I 1 I I i * I i I I I I I I I I I I property and adjacent property. i I I I I I I I I ; * ! I 8 I 1 I * I I I I I I I I I : '8 ', -8, '\, ',8 '', I I I ', '8, '\ 88 ', ', I I -4-A - I ; of +*8 ' .9/' : I '?b 89 \ 48,$qt I I I '\' \\' I '8 '8 "8 8, ', '\ '\ \ ', ' ', I I Na me I-, '\$, 888:q$8 i ~"~"""~""""""""~""~""""""""""""""""""""~"~;""""""---"- : Member $@.+~SC?J'~ --.--;----'i' I i A short recess was called at 9:18. The meeting was 8 i:::;: : reconvened at 9:32 P. M. 1 I ::;##I :;::" io I I ;ll:l@ : CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: I l:i;;: I I I I i!;;:: : The Chairman announced that although it was out of order! :::1:: ::I::: I on the agenda, he woulkl iike to take up item 11 -(b) on the : agenda regarding the Conditional Use Permit for a Drag i ii::;; 1I:;lf i Strip. He stated that on October 22, 1963, follbwing the : 1': I 4- 1 vote on this matter, that he had stated that the City : :ai::: : Attorney would have to make a decision as to whethkr or i ::I:;: 11 : not the Conditional Use Permit was granted, and that he i ::;;:: I was now asking for that decision, I ::::I; ::::;; :::I;; ! Commissioner Sonneman questioned the time limit being :::I i within 20 days, in Arti& 18, Section 1 tiO6; and line 20 i *I#;;: 2pt1 11 : on page 2 of the resolution about the Conditional Use Per4 i:: ::: mit being transferable. She protested this being advance4 111:11 :I "1:: ; on the agenda and also wanted to know if she could change ; 1;;:;: i her vote. 1 llll;; D ;:::;; I ;:::I' i The City Attorney stated that Section 1803 or Ordinance i ;:;I:: ,;l;nl : No. 9060 governed the granting of Conditional Use Perrnitb, ;*::I; I that the statement in a set of rules for conduct of Planning: ;::::; : Commission meetings which purported to change this I ::'I:: section was of no effect, and that thuthe 4 to 1 vote was i ,:i::: :;I:;: { sufficient to grant the Conditional Use Permit. He stated: ;::I:: that Resolution No. 321 could be considered as having bee+ Il:i;i i passed at the October 22, 1963, meeting, but that the time :;;;,I for appeal should not start to run until this meeting so as ::*le: ;I:::' i to allow all interested parties to protect their rights : following the decision. He suggested that all parties be I !:::I; ::;: i informed of the decision. @I i Commissioner Sonneman asked if she could make a motio? ; to continue this to another meeting. I I ;:I 11 t The Chairman stated this was Old Business that was delayed twice and did not feel the decision should be I I I b e '(1,1 Ill I I I I 11 t I I I I I 1 11 ,IO1 I It I, I' I I iJ::: I I ::::;I 'k '1' i:::;: l'!!;: I 1 ;:;I:: * I ::;:;I It1 1: I I 1::::: I delayed any longer. I I i:: 1:: I 1:;::: I I I ::I::: I :$:: I /*::! ;::;:; ;:p:1 ::;:;: :::::: !;I1@' I lit; I I ;::::: I e I ;:'I:: L I a a I::!:: I I I I ii::ii I I :::;I; I*() I 1 I I !::;ii I I 3Iii:I I I I :::::D P e ii:;;! I I I I ::I:;: 1 1 b ::;:;: I 1 I :;;:;; t I I ::::I: I I :!:;i; ! I k :ii::: I ;tl;I; I * I :::;:; I I I ;I:::; I I I 1 :;::I: I I I ::;::: 1 I :::@:; I I I I ;:;::I 'I I I II;:;: I I 1 I ii:::: I I I r !;;::I I ;1. a:!: t * I 1 I I I I I The City Attorney stated that he did not feel it would * I :::::: I* I change things to delay this. I I :;:I i Commissioner Grant was present at 10:12 P. M. I The City Attorney and Commission discussed setting up i of public hearings so that if the City Attorney was not ; I present, the Commission would know what the required i I a new set of rules and regulations governing the conduct i 1:;::: voting is on matters. I 4 I I I 11:;1; t I I I I I i I '(I'b 4 1 I I I t I I , I I t I I I 1 I I I ka,lI: i I yr. 1 ,'I"; ..:*it . I i After due consideration, it was agreed to pccemmend I : approval of reclassific'htion from R -1 to R-3 on the above; &scribed property €or ths following reascns: 1 I I I I I ! I I 1. That it would be the best usage of the land and wou!d 1i;sil ::;::: i::;:: 'I 1 I ;:::'I I 2. That there were no oral or written protests. I I::):: I I :;:::: I 3. That such reclassification will not be materially i i:;::: 1;;:;; * I :::I:: I I I 8 ;;1:1; '#;I I I 4:::: I I:::;; : Davis ; :x: ; : I "MISSION RECOMMENDING APPRO!" Palmer I ; :X! ; : be compatible with the akljoining C-1 and R-3 property. ; I I I I I I I I I I detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the prep4 :;::;: : erty or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which t$e :::I:: i property is located. I The following resolution was presented: Resolution No. 325. A RESOLUTION OF TIE CARLSBAi Grant ; :x:xi ' ; VAL OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN THE CIZY Jarvie :xl :x; i i OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FROM ZONE R-1 TO R-3,; Lamb I i ; : : was adopted by title only and further reading waived. : Sonneman; t :x; I i 1:;1 i PUBLIC HEARING: I RECLASSIFICATION - To consider reclassification : from Zone R-1-7.5 (Single-family residential) to R-3L ; (Limited Multiple -family Residential) on property located :I::;: : on the Southwest corner of the intersection of Chestnut i 1::::: i Avenue and Monroe Street, being a portion of Thum Landb, : Tract 250, Map 1681 in the City of Carlsbad, California; i i Parcel 24, Book 205, Page 230 of the Assessor's Map of : : San Diego County. Owner: Oakley G. Parker. t ! The notice of hearing was read, Secretary Grant certifie9 : read the application. : There were no written communications. I 11 1) :; I I t I I I ;Id:: I I l :; a::;: I I i: :::: 111 I I ;::::: 1:::;: ;a::;: :I:::: ::: I I I I t I:,::: i;:::: ;:!I:: I ;; 1:;;: I I:: :a: I 1 :::1;1 11::: I :;;::, The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear: 'I* '11:;; ; from the applicant and any other persons who wished to i :t1:1; ;:!:I: : speak in favor of the reclassification. * 41:;; * e I ::::I; JOHN PATTERSON, Attorney at Law, 316 Nevada Street: iiiii: ; Oceanside, stated that he represented the applicant and i ;::;:i I they had applied for R-3 several months ago. The Plannipg : Commission had voted 4 to 2 recommending R-3 but the :li' .I i Council voted 3 to 2 against it as they felt it should be I !::!:i ; R -3 Limited. Mr. Patterson felt the R-3L development : i with 7500 sq. ft. with 4 units to each lot will put propertt : on the tax rolls which is a substantial reason for voting f* ;;It1: i this. ;1;1 as to publication of notice of hearing. The Secretary then: I1;l:; I I I I I ;#I I I :::;:I ;:: 1:: a:;::; i::::: 11 I::;:: ;;::;I a: The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear! : from all persons wishing to speak in opposition to ttie i ;;I:;: 1::::: i reclassifcation. I I !;::I; I I ol;:~: i DON JOHNSON, 4065 Sunnyhill Drive, pointed out that 1:;1,1 i::::: : Magnolia School is a short distance from there and objectFd I;#:;: i to any increase in traffic at this intersection. He stated : :q:;: ; that he represented those present from that area and they: $1 ##;a; objected to this zoning in view of the fact that it might turQ !:;;:I ;::;:I into a commercial zone, and they did not want this to tu* ;::;:; I into a commercial zone, and that it would be spot zg'nj.ng. : 1:;1;1 i He also pointed out that a petition with 150 signatures i:;::: 1 protesting the zoning to R -3 on this property went before : ;::;:; :!::I: ! the Council. I I ll:;l; : I ;:01;1 $;: a* *; ':I:: 11 1'1 * ;: D I l I I t 81 I I I( *I I I I' \\'\*" 1 " \\ ', '\ '\ I \\ '\ ' , I I I I I I I I . '\,'*\ I -6 - i"" - - - - "- - - --- - """_ - - - - - ".. - - - - - - - - - - "- -" - - - - - -" - - - " - - * "" ;- - -" -""-"--:$:e".- - ;- zi :< i::::: 4;;:: I I I I \\ ', '*\ ', ', ' I .\ ', \, '\ ' '* I i Na me \,, '\%4, ~~,'~~s\ 1 I I i *f \$';q, '\, ?+., 1 * : Member 86' p,,!+$)\ 9'. 6 I I ,,:'I, : The following spoke in opposition to this reclassification i i on the same grounds as Mr. Johnson: I ; PETE FOLZ, 2055 Chestnut Avenue i MRS. MILDRED THOMAS, 1970 Magnolia Avenue : MRS. ROSE WADE, 4050 Sunnyhill Drive i GRACE THACKER, 3810 Park Drive : MRS. HOLLIS LINTT, 2040 Chestnut i W W. WATKIN'S, 2044 Chestnut i MRS. THOMAS questioned the difference between R-3 and: : R-3L and the City Planner explained that this is a more i i restrictive zone. : The Chairman asked those to speak in rebuttal if they : : desired. I : MR. PATTERSON stated that people cannot live in the '9!8p\ Q ',#<e : # I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I D I I I I I I I :!!I!: # t 6 I I I I I I I 6 I I past. When he came to Carlsbad, Sunnyhill Road was I pasture land. He pointed out that property should be zone@ i for the highest and best use of the land and he felt that i : R-3L zoning is the best use for this property; also that ; there is R-3 property on Monroe Street. t I 8 I I I I I The public hearing was declared closed at 10:59 P. M. : Commissioner Jarvie stated that he feels the application i i is similar to the former application and that property in I : that area has taken a pattern for R-1; that this would be i 41spot" zoning , and that the additional traffic would be a : : problem. I I I I I I 1 D D I I I The Planner explained thdt R-3L is a new type of zoning i i which was adopted in September , 1963, and is a more : : restrictive zone than R-3, and does not permit any t i commercial uses. I I I I I I Upon being questioned, MR. OAKLEY PARKER stated theke : would be about 48 units. There would be 12 lots with 12 separate buildings with 4 units to a building. Everyone i of the lots will be landscaped but he did not know how fast i ; they will be developed. I I I I I I Commissioner Sonneman stated that she felt the City shou ; have a residential area to be proud of. Although there is R -3 zoning on Monroe Street, she felt that with 48 units I on that spot it will be crowded, although it might be lucrative. She understood Mr. Parker would build and i sell them individually. I I I It was pointed out that this location is not the most com- ; i patible to R-1 , -and the rezoning at Carlsbad Boulevard i and Terramar Road had not created any considerable amobnt ; of traffic problems since the operation center has been : i established; that those opposing this are misinformed as I they have all spoke of commercialism; that R-3L is a I which is not desirable for R-1 . ; After further discussion, it was agreed to recommend : I described property and that the following facts exist: i I # more restrictive use for light residential use for properti * I I I b I I I approval of reclassification from R-1 to R-3L on the abovb e l I I I I 1 I I 1. That the property is not suited for R-1 because of i / its location adjacent to a busy expanding high school and at ! an intersection with 4-way stop signs on it. I I I I I \ I I 2. That it would be the best usage of the Land and wo$d I be compatible with surrounding property, * I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I t I I .I I I I I ? I I' ,,. S.' I \ '' I I '\ +, 8, ', 'S I I I \' \,,"\, '" '\\'\\ * I I -7- i Na me' *,, '*p. '8, '& ? Of '$LO\q.,&& I I *,S s" I I I ,\\\\' I I I I I $qj+, '\, 8f&%, ; :""""""""""""""""""""""-""""""""""""""""""""""""" """_._ * I ')II * 4 il :;;I1; !potential R-3 on the City Map dated October 16, 1956. I :::i:; : 4. That the property is near other R-3 property on i 11 :I:: i Idonroe Street. I * pI:lI I d::;! 11 I : Davis ; ixjx: i !VAL OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN THE CITY Jarvie : Member -$'@,$"Q?:.+.. : 3. That the property was formerly zoned R-1 with I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I ; The following resolution was presented: I i::::: ;::I i !Resolution No. 326. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD! i.Gr2,nt i :*:x; i i PLA~G COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPRO+ Palmer : I ixi : : :OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FROM ZONE R-1 TO R-3L; Lamb I was adopted by title only and further reading waived. i Sonneman I I I I I I I I I I !PUBLIC HEARING: I I VARIANCE - To consider an application for a variance ;for side yard intrusion from 2' to 3' for a stairway and i !second story deck, and a front yard reduction from 14' to : 10' for a second floor deck on Lot 80, Granville Park No. i 12, Map 2037 located on the Easterly side of Ocean Street : :between Beech Ave. and Del Mar Ave. in the City of I :Assessor's wap of San Diego County. Owners: Irma and i i Charles Algover. !Notice of hearing was read. Secretary Grant read the $ ' . :application and signatures of those approving this applica-i :tion, and certified to notice of hearing being sent to propeq- I f f I Carlsbad, being Parcel 6, Book 203, Page 151 of the I I I I I I I 1 I I ty owners in the area. :Letter from the Army and Navy Academy stating that they I Idid not object to the side yard intrusion but did object to ; :the front yard reduction from 16' to 10'. : The Chairman announced that the Commission wouLd now i jhear from the applicant or those desiring to speak in favor; :of this request. !MRS. ALGOVER stated that she is Hungarian and asked I ! that Ted Johnson represent her. i TED JOHNSON, 1469 California Street, Oceanside, stated! ;that the facts were pretty well stated in the application and: i if the Commission saw how small the house is, they would: : under stand this request. * I I I * I f I I I I I I I I 8 8 1 I 4 I' I II I I I f I I I I I I AL POLHAMUS, 2642 Ocean Street stated that his wife hdd signed the petition and asked for a clarification of the desip : of the front of the house. : MR. JOHNSON explained that it will extend 6 feet beyond : the front of the house €or an upper deck. It will change th4 i appearance of the house but the ground level will remain I : the same. The City Planner explained that there were many variancek I existing in the area for both front and side yards. t I The Chairman announced the Commission would now hear I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; from all persons desiring to speak in opposition. I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I There were no persons present desiring to speak in i opposition. i The public hearing was closed at 11:48 P. M. ! I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I i -8 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : of i with any structures on the ground, for the following : reasons: I I 4 I I I I I I I I I 1. That the granting of such variance would not be i I 2. That the granting of such variance will not adversiJy J granting special privileges to subject property not ahead$ : granted to others in this vicinity. 4 1 I I 1 I I i affect the comprehensive general plan. I I I I I I I I I I I 3. That the granting of such variance will not be i materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious i ; to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone! : in which the property is located. I I I I I I I I I I I The following resolution was presented: I i Resolution No. 327. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAd ing waived. Commissioner Jarvie stated that he felt a letter should be! : sent to the Zouth Coast Asphalt Products Company from : i the City Council , that they have not aaered to the plantinis I and landscaping on the Conditional Use Permit. I ; ADJOURNMENT: I By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 11:59 P.4. : Respectfully submitted, I 4 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 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 * 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 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 4 I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a I I I I l 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 1 I I I @ I I I I I I : Recording Secretary I I ;::!I; I I t I :::!I: I :;!a;: a1