Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1960-09-27; Planning Commission; MinutesSeptember 27, 1960 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Jarvie. Present besides the Chairman were Commissioners Davis, Kistler, Hardwick, and Grant. Absent, Commissioner Ward, Cmissioner Hughes arrived at 7: 35 P.M. 2- Approval of Minutes of September 13, 1960. Chairman Jarvie requested that a correction be made on Page 1, Paragraph 3, changing the last half of the paragreph to read as follows: ~. ~ "This WFS protested by an overwhelming majority of the adjoining property owners. 'Personally I think that this present reclassification that is up tonight will not hold up Mr. Dinius from developing his property as he has access from both Tamarack and Chestnut!". Chairman Jarvie also requested th-t paragraph 11, Page 3 be changed to read as follows: '>It wtrs moved by Cmissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Hughes that Resolution No. 176 grmting a reduction in square footage from 1200 square feet to 850 square feet per dwelling unit, be adopted for the following reasons:" 3- Written Cmunications: There were no written communications. 4- Oral Communications: There were no oral communicztions. 5- HEARING VARIANCE Request of Ray E. and Pauline Drace for reductionin side yard from 5 ft. to 2 ft. on property located on Ocean Street between Cedar and Beech Streets, more particularly described as lots 35 and 36, Block A, Hayes Land Company Addition in the City of Carls- bad according to a Mpp thereof No. 1661 in the City of Carlsbad. - Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary certified as to publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Secretary then read the application, setting forth the reasons for requesting the variance, and containing 3 signatures in sup- port of the application. There was no one present to represent the applicant. MR. BOB BRYANT, 2731 Ocean Street stated that he and his wife believed in the beginning that a bir. Ellsworth owned the property and he is a very good friend of theirs and came over and gave them an idea of what was going to be done. He never inferred that a two story unit would be put up at that time. They do not feel that a variance should be granted as their setback is 2 feet and the building would be almost adjacent to their property. My Bryant stated that he had told Mr. Ellsworth that he could use the space as a walk thru and the only reason he is opposed to the granting of the variance is that they plan to put a two story struc- ture there. He said he only knew Mr. Ellsworth and had never met the Draces . The Secretary stated that there was nothing in the application about building a two story apartment and that anyone is entitled to build up to 35 ft. under the ordinance. The public hearing was closed at 7:50 P.M. When questioned as to the age of his building, Mr. Bryant: stated that it was built in 1942 and verified the fact that it was set back 2 feet from the property line. He had measured the setback of the existing garage on the Drace property and it was a 1 foot setback. He had no objection to a two story building there as long as it was kept back from the property line. There was some discussion on the distance between the buiJdings and that of others in the neighborhood and it was decided thpt it would not be fair to this property owner to deny this request when there were properties in the neighborhood with equal or less setbacks. It was moved by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Comnissioner Grant that the variance be granted for the following reasons: 1. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substmtial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. 2. That the granting of such variance will not be materially det- rimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or im- provements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is lo- cated. 3. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. The Chairman calleti for a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Comnissioners Davis, Kistler,Hardwick, Grant and Hughes. NOES: None ABSENT: Conmissioner Ward Resolution No. 178 adopted. me 7, Section 706. Reduction in squa% footage per dwelling unit from 1200 square feet. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary then read Liesolution Of In- tention No. 16 of the Carlsbad City Planning Ccmnnissidm. There was no correspondence on this matter. The public hearing was closed at 8:OO p.m. It was moved by Cammissioner Hardwick and seconded by Comnissioner Hughes that Resolution of Intention No. 16 be adopted and sent on to the City Council for final adoption, for the following reasons: 1. The normal setbacks, percentage of ground coverage, and the maximum height limitations still apply as set forth in ordinance 9060, and that by reducing the number of square feet per dwelling unit from 1200 square feet to 850 square feet will merely increase the economic use of R-3 property, and thereby make the land's use more comensurate with the increased land values. The Chairman called for a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Commissioners Davis, Hardwick, Kistler, Grant and Hughes. NOES: None ABSENT: Comnissioner Ward. Resolution No. 179 Adopted.. 7- HEARING - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION - Amendment to Section 1814 of Ord- inance 9060 - Decision of City Coun- cil Final. Notice of hearing was read. The Secretary then read Resolution of In- tention No. 685 of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad. There WPS no correspondence on this matter. Public hearing was closed at 8:lO P.M. After some discussibn of the Resolution among the Commissioners, a motion was made by Commissioner Hardwick and seconded by Commissioner Davis that Resolution of Intention No. 17 be adopted and forwarded to the City Council for final adoption for the following reasons: 1. The City Council is a legislative body and is elected by the electorate of the City and therefore they should have the prerogative of overruling the Planning Cmission which is an appointed com- mission. The Chairman asked for a roll call vote. AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Commissioners Davis, Hardwick, Kistler, Grant NOES: None ABSENTt Commissioner Ward and Hughes -4- a- 9- 10- Resolution No. 180 Adopted. Old Business: Commissioner Grant brought up the subject of removing the R-3 kotential from the map. There was considerable discussion on this matter but no final conclusions were drawn. New Business: Commissioner Jarvie stPted th.t he and Commissioner Kistler from the Planning Commission and the Mayor and City Manager had attended the Planning Congress at the hission Valley Inn and that he was very happy to be there to represent Carlsbad among all the other City Planning Commissions of the County, Commissioner Kistler felt the study they had mede of their zone ordinances was interesting. They felt they should be broken down more to be more compatable with each other. It had been brought out that very clean manu- facturing plants which were very beautifully landscaped with large set- backs providing vistas, should not be classed with heavy industrial. He mentioned that the Planning Engineers who had presented these views were experts in the field. The Secretary told the Commissioners thrt there was a committee working on a model zoning law and when it is worked out it is hoped thct it will be adopted by the various cities in the county. Chairman Jarvie stated that he and Commissioners Grant and Hughes had at- tended the Harbor meeting. 3y proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~.9. PRICE, Secretary 0 c Item 7 - Tentative Subdivision Map - Village Horns - Unit 13 - This Tentative Subdivieion Map has been submitted by Carlsbad Investment Corporation and lies on the south side of Chestnut Street between Valley and Monroe opposite the Carlsbad High School. The City Engineer, myself,, the subdivider and his engineer have held a confcrenue cor@crning this subdivision and we find it meets all the requirements of the subdivirion ordinance and there is no technical reason why it rhould not be approved. As to the exact location of this property, I refer you to the plat attached to the Agendao