Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1961-03-14; Planning Commission; MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION March 14, 1961 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Jarvie. Present be- sides the Chairman were Comnissioners Hardwick, Kistler, Grant, Ward and Hughes. Absent, Commissioner Davis. Approval of Minutes of February 28, 1961. Chairman Jarvie requested that the roll call vote at the end of Item C5 on page 5 be changed to read: **A11 ayes, motion carried.*' It was moved by Commissioner Grant and seconded by Cmissioner Hughes that the minutes of February 28, 1961 be approved as amended. bll ayes, motion carried. Written Communications: There were two items under this heading which the Secretary suggested be taken up after the public hearings, under Items #8 and #9. Oral Conanunications: There were no oral communications. CONTINUATION OF REQUEST OF SP.N DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. FOR ZONE CHANGE from R-1 to M on property bordering Carlsbad Blvd. and Terramar Drive, Chairman Jarvie stated that he had a few remarks he would like to make at this time. That this matter had been gone into thoroughly at the previous meeting and they had a good picture of it all, They had heard all the protests against this M zone. After thinking the matter over thoroughly, he could not figure why the San Diego Gas and Electric Company could not find some other place for a service area, He stated that these were just his personal thoughts on the matter and he hoped for harmony between the San Diego Gas and Electric CO. and the residents of the town. Commissioner Grant asked if it would be proper for the representative of the Gas and Electric Co. to say anything at this time. FRANK DEVORE, P.O. Box 1831, San Diego, stated that he would like to make one statement. CARL NEISWENDER, 5380 El Arbol, objected, stating that the public hearing was closed and if Mr. DeVore made a strtement, the whole hearing would be open again. Commissioner Hughes stated that at the meeting of February 28th, he had seconded the motion to consider this request further and felt, after further study on the matter, that the Planners who had put in this K-1 buffer strip had studied it just as carefully, and he felt the granting of this request would be detrimental to the adjacent property owners, A motion was mpde by Commissioner Grant and seconded by Cammissioner Hughes that Resolution #201 be adopted denying this request for the following reasons: The -2- property and improvements in such vicinity in which the property is located. 2. That such reclassification is not dictated by public convenience and/or necessity. 3. That there is other land that could be used for a project of this type. 4. That there were overwhelming protests of surrounding property owners, and no favorable comments were received other than by the applicant and its agent Chairman asked for a roll c.11 vote. AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Commissioners Kistler, Grant, Ward and Hughes. NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hardwick ABSENT: Comnissioner Davis Resolution No. 201 adopted. 6- HEARING - VARIANCE - Request of Carl E. Bittle for reduction in front footage from 70' to 64' on property described as portion of lots 16 and 17, Patterson Addition according to a map thereof No. 565 in the City of Carlsbad and being Tax Assessor's Parcel 1, Page 96, Book 35 of Assessor's Map of San Diego County. Noticd 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 re3sons for request- ing the variance. There was no correspondence on this matter. The Secretary steted that he had received a telephone call from Mrs. Bittle in which she mentioned some objection, not so much to the variance as to the legal procedures in the court and he had told her that that was not what could be brought before the Planning Comnission. If she felt there had been any in- justice, recourse would be before the civil court and hot the Planning Com- mission. CARL BITTLE, 2920B Harding, stated that he was the party who was requesting the variance and his repson for doing so was to make the court's decision comply with the city's ordinance. There was no one present opposing this request. The public hearing was closed at 7555. After a short discussion among the Commissioners, a motion was made by Comnission er Ward and seconded by Commissioner Hardwick that itesolution No. 202 be adopt- ed granting this request for a variance for the following reasons: 1. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vici- nity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. 2. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detriment,al The to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 3. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. 4. There were no oral or written protests by surrounding property owners. Chairman asked for a roll call votec AYES: Chairman Jarvie, Cmissioners,Hardwick, Xistler, Grant, Ward and Hughes. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Davis. Resolution No. 202 adopted. 7- HEARING - VARIANCE - Request of Marion K. Heinbach for reduction in front foot- aae from 75' to 20' on property described as a portion of lot J, Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to a Map thereof No. 823 and being Tax Assessor's Parcel 5A, Page 107, Book 35, 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. There was no correspondence on this matter. The Secretary called the attention of the Commissioners to the plat accompany- ing this application, stating that they could note there are other lots in this area served by an easement type road. Granting this request would create a **snorkel" type lot. lie further stPted that he had received two inquiries for clarification on this request and when he explained what the Heinbachs planned to do, the people seemed very satisfied. PAUL HEINBPCH, 104 North Strand, Oceanside, representing the applicant, stated that he and Mrs. Heinbach had tried to find some way to split the lot but there is no way except this. It cannot be split into more than two lots. There is no way to put a street through. Donna Drive is supposed to go through even- tually, so he did not think there is need for another street there. EDWARD MC CANN, 3705 Westhaven, stated that lots like this are typical in Carlsbad and that he felt the matter should be looked into very cgrefully as the Cotmission might be setting a precedent by granting a request of this type. He felt the surrounding properties would be affected by this patchwork variance and at this pokt it should not be granted. HARRY PRIGG, 3781 Garfield St., stated that he WPS not really against this request but would like to ask some question. On the property to the east of subject property there is a residence asd he wondered if this property could be divided at the same time. MR. HE1NBF.C.. stated thpt it could not as the frontage on both properties to- gether is only 105 feet. This property to the east is 317 feet deep. MR. PRIGG stated th.-t he had property in the area that has 85 ft.. frontage and the required frontage 1s only 65 ft. He felt that if he came in with the same type of request on his property, the Planning Commission would have a hard time turning it down if they granted this request in the same neighborhood. The public hearing was closed at 8:lO P.M. Chairman Jarvie stated that this type of request was something that was going to come up quite often and he felt that it should be considered further and that some of the neighbors in that area should be contacted and a study made of the situation. There was consider.2ble discussion among the Comnissioners about the fact that there were likely to be many requests for variances of this type A motion was made by Cmissioner Grant and seconded by Conmissioner Ward that the Planning Commission continue to study this matter and consider it further at the meeting of March 28, 1961. All ayes, motion carried. 8- Old Business: The Secretary read a memorandum from the Pi0 Pco Rezoning Committee, consisting of Conmissioners Hughes and Grant and Secret,lry Price, in which it was recornmend- ed by the majority of the comittee that certpin parcels of land northerly of Palm Ave., south of Elm Avenue and e-sterly of Pi0 Pic0 be considered by the Planning Cmission for recomnendation to the City Council for rezoning. The Secretary pointed out on the map the parcels that were recomnended to be con- sidered and stated that he had thought it might be well to extend this area of rezoning up towards Elm but Comnissioners Grant and Hughes felt that if the other property owners wanted to have their property rezoned they could apply in the regular manner for a reclassification. A motion was made by Commissioner Kistler and seconded by Commissioner Hughes that the report of the cmittee be approved as submitted and forwarded to the City Council for rezoning. All ayes, motion carried. 9- New Business: A memorandum was read by the Secretary, from the City Engineering Department, addressed to the Planning Commission concerning El Camino Real and Palmar Airport Road and was teken under advisement for consideration. 10- Adjournment: By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 8:SO.