City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
November 7, 2006
VIII. Public Hearings
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Subdivision Application to create a new building site located on the west side of Junipero between 10th and 11th Avenues. The appellant and property owner is Jeff Svihus.
Selected excerpts of the Agenda Item Summary, prepared by Assistant Planner Nathan Schmidt, as follows:
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Subdivision Application to create a new building site located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District. The appellant and property owner is Jeff Svihus. The property is located on the west side of Junipero between 10th and 11th Avenues.
Description: The Planning Commission reviewed and denied an application for a Subdivision to create a new building site in the R-1 District. The applicant has appealed this denial to the City Council.
Staff Recommendation: Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal.
Important Considerations: The Commission determined that the project’s irregular lot line and lot shape was not consistent with the neighborhood and General Plan Policy P1-31. The Commission acted in accordance with staff recommendation. The applicant recognizes the subdivision criteria but notes that the proposed lot line would allow most of an attractive home to be saved rather than being torn down.
Decision Record: On 13 September 2006, the Planning Commission denied the Subdivision Application. The applicant filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 15 September 2006.
After the presentation of the staff report, during the public comment period, John Thodos, Architect, addressed Council, as follows:
“The fact that, we clamor in this community for diversity, we clamor in this community for creativity and when somebody comes with an apple with a little different shape we all go a little bit nuts. This is an opportunity to do something interesting on the lot. If someone can build a home, and meet the setbacks, meet the height requirements and meet the guidelines and you have a creative, interesting home, isn’t that what we’re always talking about? And isn’t this an opportunity, I wish we had more of these situations, because they help develop people who start scratching the head and not come out with the same old bromide. They can’t come out with the old cliché, but they have to solve the problem in a new way, which can be an extraordinary contribution to what we consider the uniqueness of Carmel.”
“Don’t you love our streets? We have little hidden walkways that go through there, it’s not logical, they go nowhere, they dead end, but it’s those kinds of things that people who come to this community say it gives it its charm and it's that something extra that we have and I think we should be here to encourage that opportunity and to let an architect develop something that we all can be very proud of and would be new and interesting and still work within our guidelines. What’s the difficulty? 35' wide lot, for those of you who are familiar with the Tipton lot, it’s on a 30’ lot, came out just swell, I thought. So 35’ is really quite generous. So it’s a little bit U-shaped. So what. I’m sure it will come out something that won’t look like another 1000 others I keep seeing coming round here. So I fully support it. Let’s get some interest and some juice in our city!”
“Thank you.”
A motion was made to grant the appeal and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission with conditions, seconded, and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC,
ROSE & McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
No comments:
Post a Comment