HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-26; City Council; 10238; St. Tropez WestCl-’ OF CARLSBAD - AGENI-. BILL d$f (-@I :;’
\B#&ji,a 3 f
dTO.~
TITLE: APPEAL OF A PLANNING COWlISSION DENIAL OF CT 89-lO/PUD 89-Z/
)EPT. f’u-4 HDP 89-23/V 88-3 - ST. TROPEZ WEST/CALIFORNIA BUILDERS CITY MGR.s
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council
direct the City Attorney to prepare documents UPHOLDING the decision of the
Planning Commission by DENYING CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This is an appeal by the project applicant of the denial by the Planning
Commission of a six condominium unit Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit
Development, Hillside Development Permit, and Variance proposed for the
southwest corner of Ocean Street and Grand Avenue. The variances requested
are for 1) building height; 2) setbacks; 3) tandem garage parking; 4) reduced
interior garage width; and 5) reduced building setbacks from open parking
areas. The appellant lists the following reasons for the appeal:
1. The denial of six units is based on grading
calculations (slope analysis) which conflicts with
the applicant's engineering estimates.
2. The applicant disagrees that the project is
inconsistent with the Mello II segment of the
Local Coastal Program.
3. The variances requested are not unreasonable as
similar conditions exist all along Ocean Street.
For these reasons the appellant, California Builders, feels the project
should be approved.
The maximum number of units for the project was calculated based on a slope
analysis provided by the appellant's engineer. The slope analysis was
stamped and signed by the appellant's engineer to provide the assurance of
accurate hillside mapping required by the Hillside Development Regulations.
Since that time the appellant provided a new slope analysis that completely
deleted the area of the site previously classified as containing slopes over
40% which receive no density credit. Those slopes in the new analysis have
been classified as being between O-15% and 15-25%. In addition the area in
slopes from 25-40% which receive half density credit have been reduced by
almost 50% in the new slope analysis. It is staff's opinion that the
original slope analysis more accurately reflects the existing topography and
was calculated in conformance with how the ordinance has been applied.
Therefore, the project exceeds the site's growth control yield of 19 dwelling
units per acre permitted under the Growth Management Ordinance. The new
slope analysis relies on averaging over greater distances to reduce the slope
percentages.
-
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. /@, 2J8
The project site is subject to the requirements of the Mello II segment of
the Local Coastal Plan. Policy 7-12 relates specifically to development
seaward of Ocean Street. The policy requires new development to observe, at
a minimum, an ocean setback based on a "stringline" method of measurement.
The proposed seawall does not comply with the stringline setback. Because
of the potential beach erosion caused by wave deflection it is important that
the seawall follow the stringline so as not to redirect and concentrate wave
energy onto adjacent properties.
The Planning Commission in denying the project recognized that there are
numerous examples in the area that are similar to those items the appellant is requesting variances for. The Planning Commission denied the variances
as the Zoning Ordinance has been modified in recent years, such as by the
adoption of the Beach Area Overlay Zone, to tighten up the standards in this
area. In addition, Planning Commission recognized that other units in the
area have variances but it was felt that few or none have as many variances
as the project proposed.
In summary, both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the
Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the project.
For further information please see the attached staff report to the Planning
Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects
which a public agency rejects or disapproves (Section 21080(b)(5) of the
Public Resources Code).
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no increased need for City capital facilities or increased
operating expenses due to denial of this project.
EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2886, 2887 and 2888
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 19, 1989
4. Planning Commission Minutes from July 19, 1989 hearing
5. Appeal from Charles Rowe
ST. TROPEZ WEST
city of Carlsbad
CT 89-10
HDP 89-23
PUD 89-2
V 88-3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COWSSION RESOLUTION NO. 2886
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 89-10 AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT 89-2 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF OCEAN STREET AND GRAND AVENUE.
APPLICANT: ST. TROPEZ WEST/CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
CASE NO.: CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Lot 1 of Block "B" of the Hays Land Company addition, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof No. 1221, filed in the office of County Recorder of
San Diego County, November 4, 1909.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of July, 1989, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said
Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map and
Planned Unit Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as
follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission DENIES CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2, based on the following findings:
Findinqs:
1. The proposed project is not consistent with the Zoning Code and General Plan because the building height exceeds that allowed by the zone and creates adverse visual impacts, required setbacks are not met, and the allowed density for the site is exceeded.
_-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1c
11
12
12
14
II
l(
1';
li
l!
21
2:
21
2~
2,
2'
21
2l
2;
2.
3.
4.
The proposed Planned Development does not .meet all of the minimum development standards set forth in Section 21.45.090 as the building is not set back a minimum of 5 feet from open parking areas.
The proposed Planned Development does not meet all of the design criteria
set forth in Section 21.45.080 as adequate useable off-street parking is
not provided because substandard tandem garages are proposed, and it is not compatible with existing surroundings, specifically the public beach, due to its mass and building height which creates adverse visual impacts
and does not relate to its environmental setting.
The proposed project is not designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the natural topography of the site as the building design does not step down the slope but rather utilizes a large amount of fill and an extensive amount of retaining walls ranging from 5 to 18 feet in height above existing grade which will be visible.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of July,
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Erwin, Holmes 81 Marcus.
NOES: Chairman Hall.
ABSENT: Commissioner McFadden.
ABSTAIN: None.
MATTHEW HALL, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLBILLEW
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO. NO. 2886 -2-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2887
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF OCEAN STREET AND GRAND AVENUE.
APPLICANT: ST. TROPEZ WEST/CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
CASE NO.: HDP 89-23
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Lot 1 of Block "B" of the Hays Land Company addition, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to map thereof No. 1221, filed im
the office of County Recorder of San Diego County,
November 4, 1909.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided
by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of July, 1989,
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission
considered all factors relating to the Planning Commission Determination; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as
follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
DENIES HDP 89-23, based on the following findings:
Findinqs:
1. The development proposal is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Hillside Development regulations of assuring that development density and intensity relates to the slope of the land because the project density exceeds that allowed by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and the building does not step down the slope resulting in a building with a large
mass and strong vertical appearance as viewed from the base of the slope.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1E
19
2c
21
2i
22
24
2:
2E
27
2E
2.
3.
4.
The proposed project is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the regulations of encouraging creatively designed hillside development requiring a minimal amount of grading as the project proposes grading which is not within the acceptable range, and the excessive use of retaining walls ranging from 5 to 18 feet above grade which would be visible to the public.
The 51 foot height and large mass of the proposed project is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance to reduce the intensity of development on hillside areas to ensure all development is compatible with the existing topography, which is also evidenced by the number of variances required by the project.
The project design does not substantially conform to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual with specific emphasis on the view of the hillside and hillside architecture which suggests a multi-level terraced foundation fitting into the hillside.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of July,
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Erwin, Holmes
& Marcus.
NOES: Chairman Hall.
ABSENT: Commissioner McFadden.
ABSTAIN: None.
MATTHEW HALL, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOL2i'ULLE~
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 2887 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2888
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE FOR BUILDING
HEIGHT AND SETBACKS, TANDEM GARAGE PARKING, REDUCED
INTERIOR GARAGE DIMENSIONS, AND REDUCED BUILDING SETBACKS
FROM OPEN PARKING AREAS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OCEAN STREET AND GRAND AVENUE.
APPLICANT: ST TROPEZ WEST/CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
CASE NO.: V 88-3
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
Lot 1 of Block "B" of the Hays Land Company addition, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to map thereof No. 1221, filed in
the office of County Recorder of San Diego County,
November 4, 1909.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided
by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of July, 1989, 3
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said
Commission considered all factors relating to V 88-3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission DENIES V 88-3, based on the following findings:
Findinqs:
1. The conditions applicable to the property such as the slope to the west is applicable to all properties on the west side of Ocean Street and the height requested which is twice that allowed by the zone, has not been
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
2i
2:
24
2c
2E
29
2E
granted for other properties and is the result of self-imposed design constraints as are the other variances requested.
2. The project is located in the Beach Area Overlay Zone and must comply with
the height, building setback, and parking requirements of the zone which
apply also to other properties.
3. This property owner is not being denied a right enjoyed by other property
owners in regard to building height and parking requirements because this
and other lots in the area, similar in size, may be developed with fewer units within the required standards.
4. The proposed project may be detrimental to the General Plan because
implementing ordinance requirements are not being met.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of July,
1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Erwin, Holmes
& Marcus.
NOES: Chairman Hall.
ABSENT: Commissioner McFadden.
ABSTAIN: None.
MATTtkW HALL, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLBILLEW
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 2888 -2-
AWL~CATION COMPLETE DATE: JUNE 21. 1989 p ,;
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 19, 1989
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3 ST. TROPEZ WEST/CALIFORNIA BUILDERS - Request for approval of a 6 condominium unit Tentative
Tract Map and Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit,
and Variance for building height and setbacks, tandem garage parking,
reduced interior garage width, and reduced building setbacks from
open parking areas, located at the southwest corner of Ocean Street
and Grand Avenue, in the R-3 Zone, and in Local Facilities Management
Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2886, 2887
and 2888 DENYING CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3 based on the findings
contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit
Development, Hillside Development Permit, and Variance to construct 6 attached
condominium units on a 15,400 square foot (.354 acre) lot located along the west
side of Ocean Street south of Grand Avenue. The proposed project is subject to
the following standards and policies:
;:
High Density Residential (RH) General Plan Designation.
Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone.
Fii:
Beach Area Overlay (BAO) Zone.
Hillside Development Regulations and Guidelines.
e. Planned Development Ordinance.
f. The Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Plan.
9. Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
The project site consists of two lots. Four apartment units with no off street
parking exist on the northern most lot, parcel 1. The southern lot, parcel 2
is undeveloped. A 40 foot wide coastal pedestrian access with a 5 foot wide
public stairway exists immediately adjacent to the site on the north.To the south
is a 21 unit condominium project. To the east is a variety of 1 and 2 story
multi-family residential units. To the west is the beach and Pacific Ocean.
The proposed 6 units would have a density of 20.40 du/acre. This exceeds the
sites Growth Control Yield of 19 du/acre. The project exceeds the maximum
density allowed for the site due to the application of the Hillside Development
Regulations which reduce the total site area that can be used for calculating
density from .354 acres to .294 acres.
CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDr 09-23/V 88-3 ST. TROPEZ ~K~T/c’ALIF~FNIA ‘BUILDERS
JULY 19, 1989
PAGE 2
As shown on Exhibit "H" and “I”, the project's architecture is reminiscent of
the St. Malo project in Oceanside. The units range in size from a low of 2,352
square feet to a high of 2,943 square feet. Each unit has at least one deck on
the west side of the building with four of the units also having a deck on the
east side. All of the units have a storage area exceeding a minimum of 480 cubic
feet as required by the Planned Development Regulations. The applicant proposes
garage tandem parking for each unit which does not meet the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. Common recreational facilities are proposed which include
passive open areas as well as a spa and permanent barbecues.
A total of 3,367 cubic yards of fill is proposed to create numerous floor levels
and to raise the western area of the site approximately 10 to 12 feet so as to
be above the established 100 year flood line which is at the 8 foot contour.
A seawall is also proposed which will have a height of 10 feet above beach level.
The building height proposed is 24 feet above Ocean Street on the east side and
51 feet above existing grade on the west side as measured pursuant to the
existing building height definition.
ANALYSIS
Planninq Issues
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Does the proposed project comply with the development standards and intent
of the Beach Area Overlay Zone?
Is the project in conformance with the intent as well as the development
and design standards of the Hillside Development Regulations?
Does the proposed project conform to the development standards and design
criteria of the Planned Development Ordinance?
Is the proposed project consistent with the Mello II segment of Carlsbad's
Local Coastal Program?
Can the required findings for the requested variances be made?
Is the project in conformance with the Local Facilities Management Plan
for Zone l?
DISCUSSION
Beach Area Overlay Zone
The Beach Area Overlay (BAO) Zone has several intents and purposes. The two that
the proposed project does not comply with are to provide for adequate parking
as needed by residential projects and to protect the aesthetic quality of the
area. In addition the project does not meet a number of development standards
of the BAO Zone.
CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDk 0$-23/V 88-3
ST. TROPEZ WEST/CALIFORNIA ~IJILDERS
JULY 19, 1989
PAGE 3
In order to meet the required parking requirements for the project the applicant
is proposing tandem parking in a 10 foot wide by 37 foot long garage for each
unit. The Zoning Ordinance allows tandem parking only on lots with a width of
less than 50 feet. The project site has a width of 110 feet. The parking
regulations also require a single car garage in multiple family zones to have
minimum dimensions of twelve feet by twenty feet measured form the interior wall
edges of the garage. Visitor parking is required at the rate of 1 space for every
2 dwelling units resulting in the need for 3 spaces. The applicant is proposing
4 spaces which exceeds the standard. However, no building setback from open
parking areas is being proposed for those 4 spaces. This does not comply with
the BAO Zone and Planned Development Ordinance requirement of not less than a
5 foot building setback from open parking areas. The applicant has requested
a variance form all of the parking related standards mentioned. This will be
discussed under the variance section of this report.
The other BAO Zone issue for this project is the impact on the aesthetic quality
of the area. The project as viewed from the beach will reach a height of 51 feet
as measured pursuant to existing standards, and will appear as four stories.
Retaining wall heights ranging from 5 to 18 feet above existing grade would be
visible along the north and south building elevations. The extensive length and
height of the proposed walls would be directly adjacent to the public access
stairway. Screening of the walls would be difficult as they come right up to
the property line. The building does not step down the slope resulting in a
building with a large mass and strong vertical appearance as viewed from the
beach level and public access stairway. A variance has been requested to exceed
the height limit.
Hillside Develooment Reaulations
The project is in conflict with two of the specified intents of the Hillside
Development Regulations. The first is to encourage creatively designed hillside
development requiring a minimal amount of grading. The project design proposes
grading 9,524 cubic yards per acre which is in the potentially acceptable range.
While staff recognizes the need to raise the western portion of the site a design
that stepped the building down the slope utilizing the existing topography could
reduce the amount of fill required. This would also serve to reduce the height
of the building and proposed retaining walls. The second intent which is an
issue for this project is to reduce the intensity of development on hillside
areas to ensure that all development that does occur is compatible with the
existing topography. As stated earlier the density calculations under the
Hillside Development regulations allow only 5 units while 6 are proposed.
Redesigning the project to 5 or fewer units would allow the applicant the ability
to reduce the intensity of the project to be compatible with the site so that
fewer variance requests would be necessary.
Planned Develooment Ordinance
The project complies with all but one of the development standards of the Planned
Development Ordinance. The standard not met is the required building setback
of not less than 5 feet from open parking areas which was discussed under the
CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDb b+23/V 88-3
ST. TROPEZ WEST/CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
JULY 19, 1989
BAO Zone Section. Common active and passive recreational facilities are proposed
including a spa, barbecues, and a common outdoor area. Two stairways are proposed from the site down to beach level. Balconies are proposed for each unit with 4 of the 6 units having two balconies. A separate storage space of at least
480 cubic feet is required for each unit and has been provided.
Local Coastal Prooram
As proposed the project is not consistent with all policies of the Mello II Local
Coastal Program. Policy 7-12 relates specifically to development seaward of
Ocean Street. The policy requires new development to observe, at a minimum, an
ocean setback based on a "stringline" method of measurement. While the proposed
building and decks appear to comply with the stringline setback, the seawall does
not. Because of the potential beach erosion caused by wave deflection it is
important that the seawall follow the stringline so as not to redirect and
concentrate wave energy onto adjacent properties.
Variances
The applicant is requesting a total of five variances. The variances requested
are as follows:
1. Allow building height greater than two stories or 25 feet in height,
whichever is less to permit four stories at a height of 51 feet.
2. Reduce side yard building setbacks from the required width of 10 feet from property line to a minimum of 6 feet.
3. Allow tandem garage parking for a lot that is not substandard in
width.
4. Reduce the interior garage width required from 12 feet to 10 feet
and allow a depth of 37 feet.
5. Reduce building setbacks from open parking areas from 5 feet to 0
feet.
The applicant has taken the position that the west side of Ocean Street creates
a unique set of circumstances not found anywhere else in the City; and therefore,
the variances requested are justifiable. The Planning Department records show
that a number of variances have been granted on Ocean Street. Those variances
approved have been primarily for building setbacks.
A height variance may be justifiable due to the slope of the property, however, the building height near the center and western portion of the site is excessive.
This is a result of the amount of fill proposed and the design not stepping the
building down the slope. Staff cannot support the proposed height of 51 feet
on the western portion of the site which appears as four stories. By redesigning
to reduce the intensity of the project several of the proposed variances would
no longer be necessary. Given the proposed design staff cannot support the
CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDr &~-23/V 88-3 ST. moP’Ez NEST/CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
JULY 19, 1989
requested variances which are needed largely as a result of self-imposed design
constraints.
Growth Manaqement
The subject property is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1,
northwest quadrant. As identified earlier the project's density of 20.40 du/acre
is not consistent with the City's Growth Control Yield of 19 du/acre.
Summary
The project does not comply with the intent and development standards of the BAO
Zone and the Hillside Development Regulations. In addition, it does not comply
with all of the standards of the Planned Development Ordinance or with the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program. A total of five variances have been
requested which demonstrates that the proposed project is to intense for the
subject site. Staff is not able to make the required findings necessary to grant
the variances. The project also exceeds the City's Growth Control Yield.
Therefore, staff recommends denial of CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects which
a public agency rejects or disapproves (Section 21080(b)(5) of the Public
Resources Code).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2886, 2887 and 2888
:: Location Map
Background Data Sheet
4. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
5. Disclosure Form
6. Reduced Site Plans
7. Exhibits "A" - “J”, dated July 19, 1989
DN:af
June 20, 1989
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3
APPLICANT: ST. TROPEZ WEST/CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
REQUEST AND LOCATION: APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 2901 OCEAN STREET.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1 OF BLOCK "b" OF THE HAYS LAND COMPANY
ADDITION: IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1221
APN: 203-234-01 AND 02
Acres . 354 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 6
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RH
Density Allowed 15-19 DU/AC Density
Existing Zone R-3 Proposed Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Proposed 20.40
Zone N/A
Zoninq Land Use
Site R-3 4 UNIT APARTMENT & VACANT
North R-3 COASTAL PUBLIC ACCESS
STAIRWAY
South R-3 21-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
East R-3 MULTI-RESIDENTIAL UNITS
West o-s PACIFIC OCEAN
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District CARLSBAD Water CARLSBAD Sewer CARLSBAD
EDU's 6 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date 3/24/89
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other, CEOA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL
SECTION 21080(b) (5)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACT8 ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO.: ST. TROPEZ WEST CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RH
ZONING: R-3
DEVELOPER'S NAME: CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 142, CARLSBAD. CA 92008
PHONE NO.: 434-3125 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 203-234-01 & 02
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): .354 AC., 23,144 SO. FT., 6 DU
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
City Administrative Facilities; Demand in Square Footage = 22.239
Library; Demand in Square Footage = 11.868
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Parks; Demand in Acreage = .044478
Drainage; Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = N/A (Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation; Demand in ADTs = 36 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire:
Open Space:
Schools;
Served by Fire Station No. = 1
Acreage Provided - N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 6
Identify Sub Basin - 1G (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water; Demand in GPD - 1,320
DJSCLOSURE FORM
APPLICANT: St. T opez West. a Joint Venture
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
P-0. Box 142, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Business Address
434-3125
Telephone Number
AGENT: Charles F. Rowe, dba California Builders
Name
P.O. Box 142, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Business Address
434-3125
Telephone Number
MEMBERS: Dr. Earl Shultz, Karen Shultz P.O. Box 2394, Ranch0 Santa Fe
Name (individual, partner, joint Home Address CA YLUbI
venture, corporation, syndication)
See attached
Business Address
942-9243
Telephone Number Telephone Number
Name Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
1iWe understand that if this project is located in the Coastal Zone, I/we will apply
for Coastal Commission Approval prior to development.
I/We acknowledge that in the process of reviewing this application, it may be
necessary for members of City Staff, Planning Commissioners, Design Review Board
members, or City Council members to inspect and enter the property that is the
subject of this application. I/We consent to entry for this purpose.
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure
is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon
as being true and correct until amended. /-: ,
()&$$zJ$& 3 ’ /’
APPLICANT
/ &+imL
Agent, Owner, Partner
ATTACHMENT 1
St. Tropez West - A Joint Venture
Robert and Linda Wueste 340 E. 64th St. Apt.20L, N.Y.,N.Y. 10021
Business Phone: 212-354-0528 Home:212-935-2985
Charles F. Rowe
P.O. Box 142, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Business Phone: 619-434-3125 Home:619-729-9545
Bill and Julie Deen
4027 West G Street
Brawley, CA 92227
Business Phcne: 619-344-1177 Home:619-434-3567
Gloria J. Vanderlaan
P.O. Box 4351, Carlsbad,CA 92008 Business Phone: 619-729-2301 Home:619-944-6479
Robert L. and Lynda Cheek Erickson
730 Neptune Ave., Leucadia, CA 92024
Business Phone: 714-660-1096 Home: 619-753-6713
Gary L. and Glenda J. Foster
444 W. G St., Brawley, CA 92227
Business Phone: 619-352-4171 Home:619-344-0052
= 2
= = r. L
/
1
;
-f’ ---._
- b4orlNb CON-
. - rw3 of AWAcbN * rmJmv
LIIW. &Lab.
W-
rrwob rm.1
- . .
: i
1 1
/
I L i .---Q 7 a
-- 1
I
L
‘I !I i;
iI / d..L?-- _--- EM i
.
MINUTES
July 19, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 CO
Commissioner Holmes wants to be sure that Mr. Stewart is‘ aware that Conditions iI9 states that no signs will be ; permitted on the site, and Condition 111 states that do sales activity can take place on the site and no customer.d can be brought to the site. Mr. Stewart replied that a lot man will
bring the car to the customer.
'r&;ated they Conxnissioner Schramm inquired if SDG&E has 1
would renew the lease. Mr. Stewart replied/that he has options to renew for an additional three years. At some point, he would like to see a second level permitted within the Car Country. He does envision a consolidation of dealers at some future point in time.
Chairman Hall inquired why the dealers association has not agreed to lease this site as a group. Mr. Stewart replied that auto dealers are highly competitive and they sometimes
have a problem reaching total agreement.
There being no other person's desiring to address the Commission on this topi?j Chairman Hall declared the public
testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. ,/
Commissioner Schl conditioned. 8"'/
/
uber can support the project as
/
Commissioner i arcus commented that she likes the location of this storage' lot much better than the previous one.
/ Motion w#s duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolu and s ject to the conditions contained therein, with the
Y
on No. 2896 approving CUP 89-2. based on the findings
rev ' ions and added condition outlined in staff memo dated
J y 19, 1989 and also another condition prohibiting employee
f arking on the site.
3) CT a9-1a/pm a9-2/mp 89-23/v 88-3 ST. TROPEZ WEST/CALIFORNIA BUILDERS - Request for approval of a six condominium unit Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development, Hillside Development Permit, and Variance
for building height and setbacks, tandem garage parking, reduced interior garage width, and reduced building setbacks from open parking areas, located at the southwest corner of Ocean Street and Grand Avenue, in the R-3 Zone, and in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Gary Wayne, Principal Planner, presented a brief slide presentation of the site. He then reviewed the background of
the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a six unit condominium project with applicable permits and several variances. The project is located on the southwest corner of Ocean and Grand, R-3 zone, in LFMP Zone
1. The site consists of two lots, one of which is currently undeveloped. A 40 ft. wide coastal pedestrian access with public stairway exists immediately adjacent to the site on the north. There is a variety of one and two story
multi-family residential units to the east and the Pacific Ocean is to the west. The project would have a density of 20.40 dufacre which exceeds the growth control yield of 19 dufacre. In addition, the maximum density allowed for the site is exceeded due to application of the Hillside
Development regulations which reduces the total site area from .354 acres to .294 acres.
IISSIONERS
Erwin Hall
Holmes Marcus Schlehuber
Schramm
MINUTES -
The architecture of the project is reminiscent of the St.
Malo project in Oceanside with units ranging in size from 2,352 sq. ft. to 2,943 sq. ft. Each unit has a deck and storage area; however, the proposed garage tandem parking
does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A total of 3,367 cubic yards of fill is proposed to raise the western area approximately lo-12 ft. so it is above the
established 100 year flood line. A 10 ft. high seawall has also been proposed. The structure would be approximately 24 ft. high on Ocean Street and 51 ft. high when viewed from the
beach side. Since the height exceeds the beach overlay height limit of 25 ft., a variance is required. Staff is
recommending denial for the following reasons:
The Zoning Ordinance allows tandem parking only on lots
with a width of less than 50 ft. The project site has a width of 110 ft.
The side yard building setback requirement is 10 ft.
from the property line and the applicant is requesting a reduction from 10 ft. to 6 ft.
The project does not meet the required building setback
of not less than 5 feet from open parking areas; the project is proposing a zero setback.
The project design proposes grading 9,524 cubic yards per acre which is in the potentially acceptable range; however, grading could be reduced if the building were stepped down to meet the requirements of the Hillside
Development Ordinance.
The density calculations under the Hillside Development regulations allow only 5 units while 6 are proposed.
A height variance may be justifiable due to the slope of the property; however, staff cannot support the
proposed height of 51 feet on the western side which makes the structure appear to be four stories.
The project is not consistent with Section 7-12 of the Mello II segment of the Local Coastal Program which requires ocean setback of structures, including sea
walls, to follow a "string line" method. The sea wall
being proposed projects further out to the ocean than the neighboring sea wall and, therefore, has the potential to redirect wave energy and cause beach
erosion.
The project exceeds the growth control point of 19
du's/acre.
Generally, the project is too intense for the subject site, as evidenced by the five variances which were requested, and does not meet the intent of the Beach Overlay Zone. Because of the public access, it is felt
that the site requires a structure which is pedestrian friendly and this project does not meet that criteria.
Commissioner Holmes commented that all documents indicate the
height to be 51 ft. but this height is not to the rooftop which would be lo-12 ft. higher. Mr. Wayne replied that the ordinance requires the midpoint to be used for height measurement but the actual height is probably 61 ft.
July 19, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 COMMISSIONERS
MINUTES
.\ ?
July 19. 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 COMMISSIONERS
I Chairman Hall inquired if the parking would still work if the project were stepped up the hillside. Mr. Wayne replied that the project would have to be redesigned if the project were
reduced to five units. The redesign could include adequately designed parking areas.
Chairman Hall opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
Charles Rowe, who resides at 4046 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, with an office at 2910 Jefferson Street, Suite 202, addresse?
the Commission and stated that the height of several surrounding condominium projects are in excess of 50 ft. and have as many as 40 units (Beach Terrace Inn). He noted that the overall height from first floor deck to the top of the roof is 44.7 ft. Mr. Rowe disputes the reference to
insufficient parking since the parking requirement is 15 spaces and this project proposes 16 spaces. He believes this project is aesthetically pleasing and showed a slide
presentation of other projects in the area. He noted that there are many surrounding projects which have 200 ft. of frontage with only 5 ft. setbacks. In his opinion, stepping the project back would interfere with the design and occupants would lose privacy. He also stated that the
proposed sea wall would blend because it would be located in a direct line with the sea wall to the south.
Commissioner Erwin questioned the reference to the proposed
sea wall being aligned with the wall to the south. Mr. Rowe replied that the Coastal Commission will allow their sea wall to align with the existing sea wall to the left but the new
wall must be made of concrete to prevent movement caused by sea action.
Commissioner Holmes noted that the majority of structures in the area were built anywhere from 5-12 years ago and under different rules and guidelines. Commissioner Holmes does not feel that a comparison can be made between existing
structures and the proposed project because the ordinances have been changed with the Beach Overlay.
Chairman Hall inquired how many vacant lots are left along the bluff. Mr. Rowe replied that there are no more than four vacant lots remaining.
Rich Botiaty, 740 13th Street, San Diego, addressed the
Commission and explained that his density calculation excludes an area of 949 sq. ft. which is permitted under 2195.090 B(3) of the Hillside Ordinance because of the
topographic change which has occurred to the slope. He feels
that this project is consistent with Mello II because the setbacks and decks align with the adjacent building and the sea wall conforms to the intent of Mello II because it is made of reinforced concrete to inhibit rock formations. Mr. Fotiaty feels that parking meets requirements because this project will be providing one extra guest space. He feels that the extra width and length of the tandem parking spaces should be more than adequate to prevent any problems.
Bob Erickson, 7381 Almaden Lane, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is one of the participants in the St. Tropez project. He noted that the project is not being built by speculators but, rather, by people who will be
living on the premises. They are concerned about the looks of the project and feel that it will be an improvement to the area.
I .i
j-
I !
I I
I
,
j
I
I
I
!
I
MINUTES
Kathryn McKee, 1052 Knowles Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she likes to take walks with her children and look at the ocean and she is against any
structure that will block her view of the beach. She feels that as a private citizen she is entitled to a view of the beach.
John Stosher, 9109 La Alba Drive, Whittier, California,
addressed the Commission and stated that his father-in-law and brother-in-law are residents of Carlsbad and his wife grew up in Carlsbad. Their family is also one of the
investors in the project. He passed out a cost comparison of six units versus four units and noted that the cost per unit
would be increased considerably if the units were reduced to four or five. He added that his mother-in-law has a serious illness and she would like to live out her remaining years close to the beach. He would like to assist her in achieving
this desire.
Commissioner Holmes inquired how long Mr. Stosher's family
has had an interest in the project. He replied 2-3 months.
Charles Rowe, in rebuttal, commented that the distance from street level to the roof top is 24 ft. In response to Ms.
McKee's comment, he stated that this project would not encroach on the public beach access. He added that the proposed project will have a very soft appearance due to the
landscaping of the courtyard.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Hall declared the public
testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Commissioner Schlehuber requested staff to cosnnent by the applicant's engineer regarding the size of the guest parking spaces. Mr. Wayne replied that a variance would still be required but it would reduce the amount to be varied.
Commissioner Schlehuber cosznented that this area needs to follow all technicalities because the area is very sensitive. He can support the staff recommendation because he feels that
staff's position is founded. He has not been convinced otherwise.
Commissioner Marcus concurs with Commissioner Schlehuber and agrees with the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Erwin requested clarification on the sea wall
and if the wall on the property to the north would deflect the water. Mr. Wayne replied that it would because the coastline is not straight, which is the reason for using a "string line" method.
Commissioner Erwin requested staff to comment on the land
exclusion of 950 sq. ft. Mr. Wayne replied that the staff calculation was based on their diagrams and, regardless of the exclusion, this project would still exceed the growth control point.
Cosanissioner Erwin requested staff to comment on the exception in the Hillside Ordinance. Mr. Wayne replied that
Section 2195.090 B(3) is normally invoked on large properties. Staff did not feel this was applicable to a small property located in a transition zone on the beach.
July 19, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page a COMMISSIONERS
I I
,
/ . !
/
/
/ /
j
I .’ I
I
/
MINUTES
Commissioner Erwin shares Commissioner Schlehuber's concerns.
He feels that too many variances have been requested and is therefore support the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Schramm supports the staff recommendation and
commented that the ordinances were changed to preserve the ocean view, hillside slopes, and prevent large bulky buildings in the beach area.
Commissioner Holmes believes the building is very good looking; however, he does not feel that granting five
variances would be in the best interest of other citizens. Ordinances are changed to help retain Carlsbad's natural beauty. He can support the staff recommendation.
Chairman Hall believes the proposed project would win an award for aesthetics; he thinks it would be the best looking project on the beach. Since there are only four vacant lots
left, he feels that any project will be penalized due to the changes in the ordinances. He thought it was interesting that no property owners in the surrounding area spoke against the project. He would like to see the project go forward.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2886, 2887, and 2888 denying CT 89-101
PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3 based on the findings contained therein.
RECESS
- Request for approval nit Development for a
n on the south side of nue and Interstate 5 in e is within Local
Mike Howes. P
then reviewed the applicant south side of
Interstate 5. two older sing designation of medium-high de
south, and low the west and n property with
a slide presentation and He stated that of a 7-unit tract on the
Davis Avenue and presently occupied by s a General Plan
e is between existing uses to the east and y, detached housing to
roposes to develop this and one single family
't has a private back
yard, and it exceeds the guest parking uirements. The
proposed Mediterranean architecture wi the adjacent senior project. In addition
been scaled down in size to be compatible single family residences. Under the exis Facilities Management Plan for this site, i
that 18 du's would be located on this site an is only proposing 7 units. Staff feels that
an appropriate transition between the higher
July 19, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 COMMISSIONERS
Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus
Schlehuber Schramm
/
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk’
RECElVEil CITY CLERK'S OFFI~~LE,,oNE
fyJ JUL 25 PM 4:Yf)434-2808
cl-u 01: cAfW3AD
APPEAL FORH
I (We) appeal the following decision of the Planninq Commission
to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): St. Tropez West,
CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3
Date of Decision: July 19, 1989
Reason for Appeal: Planninq Department Denial of Six (6) Units based
on Gradinq Calculations whi.ch conflict with our enqineerinq esti.mates.
Our Proiect conforms 100% to Mello II Local Coastal Proqram. Variances
requested are not unreasonable as similar conditions exist all along
Ocean St. By qrantinq variances, a more aesthetically oleasinq /- \
project would be provided.
Charles F. Rowe
Name (Please Print)
P-0. Box 142
Address
lsbnd, CA 92008
434-3125
Telephone Number
September 21, 1989
Mr, Claude Lewis
Mayor, Car I sbad
1200 Carlsbad Uillage Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear fir, Lewis:
This letter is in regard to the St. Tropez project at 2901 Ocean Street,
which your council is scheduled to review at the September 26 meeting. Rs
the owner of the condominium adjacent to this project, at 2955 Ocean
Street, I wish to oppose the granting of variances from Carlsbad Code to
this development. The planning Commission has told me they denied three
uariances, width, height and parking, The parking variance is of no
consequence to me, Building height should blend with the other buildings.
My main objection is the width or setback variance. The 10 foot
requirement of Carlsbad Code is more than generous for this kind of
structure. A relaxation to six feet is totally unacceptable,
On September 9th I met with the builder, Charlie Rowe, to review the plans
for this project. It is a very classy deuelopment and I encourage
retention of the current design features, Particularly attractive is the
ocean window treatment, with the setback corners that improves everyone’s
triers. The main problem seems to be the building is too big for the
parcel of land.
If at all possible I will attend the September 26, 1989, council meeting,
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
S i nc,e*
Tom Dignan ’
September 7, 1989
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: City Manager
APPEAL CT 89-10 CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
Regarding the above noted appeal, the applicant has been advised that the
earliest this issue can be continued to is September 26, 1989 due to the
Southeast Quadrant Meeting on September 19, 1989. Charlie Rowe has agreed to
that date and will appear at that time.
q "z RAY PATCHETT
mhs
Attachment
.-
P.O. Box 142
Carlsbad, California 92008
(619) 434-3125 l FAX (619) 729-7717
September 1, 1989
Mr. Ray Patchett City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Appeal CT-89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3
Dear Mr. Patchett:
Per our conversation this date, I hereby request a continuance of our appeal to the City Council for the above referenced project.
We request a new appeal date of Tuesday, September
19, 1989. Your cooperation in this matter would be
greatly appreciated.
for St. Tropez Partnership
CFR:dj
-
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3 - ST. TROPEZ WEST - CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
AUGUST 22, 1989 .
Thank you.
,
Assistant City Man--
..”
8/b/89
Date
,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 19, 1989, to consider approval of
a 6 condominium unit Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development, and a
Hillside Development Permit and a Variance for building height and setbacks,
tandem garage parking, reduced interior garage width, and reduced building
setbacks from open parking areas on property generally located at the southwest
corner of Ocean Street and Grand Avenue, in the R-3 Zone within Local Facilities
Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
Lot 1 of Block "b" of the Hays Land Company Addition; in the City
of Carlsbad according to Map thereof No. 1221.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Planning
Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Hillside
Development Permit and Variance in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or
prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3
APPLICANT: ST TROPEZ WEST/CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
PUBLISH: JULY 7, 1989
~TTV nC r/ID1 ‘?RAll DI ANNTNf? ffX4MTCCTnN
-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold
a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California,
at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 1989, to consider an appeal of the
Planning Commission's denial of an application for a 6 condominium unit Tentative
Tract Map and Planned Unit Development, and a Hillside Development Permit and a
Variance for building height and setbacks, tandem garage parking, reduced
interior garage width, and reduced building setbacks from open parking areas on
property generally located at the southwest corner of Ocean Street and Grand
Avenue, in the R-3 Zone within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The location
is shown below on the map and more particularly described as:
Lot 1 of Block "b" of the Hays Land Company Addition; in the City
of Carlsbad according to Map thereof No. 1221.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Planning
Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Hillside
Development Permit and Variance in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or
prior to the public hearing.
PUBLISH: August 18, 1989
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
City of hidtd
F,
PUD 89-2 !
ST. TROPEZ : WEST V 88-3
.
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of fhe City Clerk Mttg IJf (ihtrlsbab
TO: Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept.
FROM: Karen Kundtz - Clerk's Office
RE: CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3
St. Tropez West
July 25, 1989
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
,a11 parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of
.
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk’
APPEAL FOfU4
I (We) appeal the following decision of the Planning Commission
to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): St. Tropez West,
CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3
Date of Decision: July 19, 1989
Reason for Appeal: Planning Department Denial of Six (6) Units based
on Grading Calculations whichconflict with our engineering estimates.
Our Proiect conforms 100% to Mello II Local Coastal Program. Variances
reauested are not unreasonable as similar conditions exist all along
Ocean St. BY granting variances, a more aesthetically pleasing
project would be provided.
(p/K&&$
SiGtiture
Charles F. Rowe
Name (Please Print)
P.O. Box 142
Address
Carlsbad, CA 92008
434-3125
Telephone Number
-
. CITY OF CARLSBAD . 1200 ELWI ,JENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFOHNIA 92008
438-5621 ,
i.. I I. ,:fg.i+ 1 ,c,
(7
REC’DFROM UT, --f ,q J i/c 2 DATE
r,? .’ ‘j$ L~.,l,tJL? i ii
/ I
ACCOUNT Nq.
-.I, )/ 4// J )L? _),;r* CT,+‘/? d
DESCRIPTION
A iJli-)c A J-. <
RECEIPT NO. cw.67 TOTAL
AMOUNT
I I I
4 q;, I ;~-.J<-- /
’
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
DATE: July 25, 1989
TO: Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept.
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
FROM: Karen Kundtz - Clerk's Office
RE: CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3
St. Tropez West
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
,a11 parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
--------------_-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of .
Signature Date
1200 ELM AVENUE CAALSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk. Mitg of Marlsbab
RECEIW CrTY CLERKS IXFicgLEPHONE
fyJ JfJfi, 25 pH 4: g!q 434-2808
CrrY OF CARLSBAD
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the Planning Commission
to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): St. Tropez West,
CT 89-lO/PUD 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3
Date of Decision: July 19, 1989
Reason for Appeal: Planning Deoartment Denial of Six (6) Units based
on Gradinq Calculations which conflict with our engineering estimates.
Our Proiect conforms 100% to Mello II Local Coastal Program. Variances
recuested are not unreasonable as similar conditions exist all along
Ocean St. Bv granting variances, a more aestheticallv pleasing
project would be
Charles F. Rowe
Name (Please Print)
P-0. Box 142
Address
Carlsbad, CA 92008
434-3125
Telephone Number
CITY OF CARLSBAD * I 1200 ELIin AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALlFCiRNlA 92008
438-5621
, REC’D FROM ._, 7 < -; I\ 3 & i; DATE ,
ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION
I
I
fqg-;-j- i/
I RECEIPT NO. TOTAL 5-B L&J
-- ..-” __... -__- _“.‘_ --.., “. ._.. -.-
Jay F. & Maryon Hoffman - , Fred z. Havens, or. -
4991 El. Camino Real
Carlsbad, , 2139 Archdale St. CA 92009 !; Riverside, CA 92506
,
Frank J. & Evelyn Rose
32791'Lumeria Lane Laguna Nignel, CA 92677
Robt. W. & Agus Phipps
3015 Ocean St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 I
James T. Hawthorne 1250 Idaho Ave. Escondido, CA 92027
St. Michael's by the Sea
P.O. Box 127
Carlsbad,CA 92008"
Robert E. & H. Wailes
2687 Garfield St. ! Earl & Karen Shultz 1 2901 Ocean Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 / Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad Inn Ltd.
P.O. Box 4068
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Rex W. Young
2955 Ocean St. # 11
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Arthur C. & Vicki Perry
P.O. Box 1102 Charles & Sarah Garner 25775 toluca Dr.
Rancho Santa Fer CA g2067 San Bernardino, CA 92404
Frank & Patricia Maldonado
4213 Beach Bluff Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
International Real Estate'Arthur A. & Alice J. Brown
2537 Summit Dr. 5137 Shore Dr.
Escondido, CA 92025 Carlsbad, CA 92008
-$!p) s Q; [‘,;:.g c%\ /j 2 ’
--- ~. -__-
Bell Family Partners
P.O. Box 151
Anaheim, CA 92805
Robert & Eliz. Bryant
P.O. Box 101
Carlsbad, CA 92008
:/I*? ‘;, I . :. ‘)1 /I” ,*/,;; . .
1 l‘li. L 1’/ L;c1111y L. bulIllIl1y
4818 N. 22nd St. # 102
Phoenix, .,AZ 85016
Seaslope Estates Owners
Assn. (Carp)
P.O. Box 1300 Riverside, CA 92502
TOBO Investments 2785 Roosevelt St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Rapp Luxembourg Develop.
201 Lomas Santa Fe
Suite 460 Solana Beach, CA 92075
California Lutheran Homes
2400 S. Fremont Ave.
Alhambra, CA 91803
De1 Mar Properties P.O. Box 5466
El Monte, CA 91734
RR/Alice Robinson 2977 Ocean St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Connie M. Miller 2955 Ocean St. # 1 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Harold/Eva McMillan 1525 Heather Lanee
Riverside, CA 92504
Thomas 0. Nick 4851 E. Orchid Lane Scottsdale, AZ 85253
Zimmermali & Donaldson -
8303 N. 75th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
.
Thomas J./Jean E.Dignan Robert W./Maria Tate
3 Shenandoah
Irvine, CA 92770
' Thomas 0. Nick Dale Mahan P.O. Box 1678 Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067
Barbara D.Powell P.O. Box 1300 Riverside, CA 92502
Mary R. Carson
P.O. Box 8583 Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067
Charles W. Dutton, Jr.
Margaret S. Dutton
2520 Raeburn Dr.
Riverside, CA 92506
Rex W./Linda K. Young 3737 N. Seventh St;
Suite 2.00
Phoenix , AZ 85014
,I
Mary Jernegan
Jane Krekoriam
2955 Ocean St. # 5
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Philip P.Scheerer
Alice C. Scheerer 7519 N. Third St.
Phoenix, AZ 85020
I Donald Powell
/ P.0. Box 1300 Riverside, CA 92502
Charles H. Garner Sarah M. Garner 25775 Toluca Dr. San Bernardino, CA 92404
Gary L. MC Millan
Patricia A. McMillan
4125 Sandia Creek Dr.
Temecula, CA 92390
II
Barbara S. Mazzetti
P.O. Box 1350
/ Riverside, CA 92502
W.R./Tonia Skousen P.O. Box R
I Mesa, AZ 85201
Thomas C. Purdom Dale 0. Mahan
8101 N. 54th St.
Paradise Valley,
II
AZ 85253
Jeffrey M./Nanette Carlson 3027 N. Broadway
Escondido, CA 92026
s Richard E./JGahnne Chipman Ellen Crockett et al c/o D.K. Norton
Consolidated Cap Corp.
4600 Holladay Blvd. Salt Lake City, UT 84117
Howard Marx Kathleen Marx
2995 Ocean St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mr. Charles F. Rowe California Builders
P. 0. Box 142
Carlsbad, CA 92008
c
. :
203-140-23
Robert M. & Elizabeth Bryant 2731 Ocean St.
203-140-24
Fred Z. Havens, Jr.
2747 Ocean St.
203-140-27
Robert E. & H. Wailes
2729 Ocean St.
203-143-07
St. Michael's by the Sea
2775 Carlsbad Blvd.
203-144-01
Fred Z. & Barbara J. Havens Vacant - Oceans Street
203-144-03 : TOBO Investments
2785 Roosevelt St.
203-231-01 California Lutheran Homes 2855 Carlsbad Blvd.
203-23.2-03
Charles H. & Sarah Garner 2939 Carlsbad Blvd.
203-232-04 Charles H. & Sarah Garner 2939 Carlsbad Blvd.
.
203-232-05 Charles H. & Sarah? Garner 2968 Garfield
203-232-08
Frank & Patricia Maldonado
2975 Carlsbad Blvd.
203-232-09 Frank & Patricia Maldonado
2975 Carlsbad Blvd.
203-232-13
Charles H. & Sarah Garner Garfield (Vacant)
203-232-15 California Lutheran Homes .
201 Grand Ave.
203-232-16
G&G (P/F)Arthur A. & Alice J. Brown
264 Elm Avenue
203-233-03 DelMar Properties
2950 Ocean
203-234-01
Earl H. & Karen Shultz
2901 Ocean St.
203-234-02
Earl H. & Karen Shultz .'
2901 Ocean St.
203-234-04 R.R. & Alice Robinson
2977 Ocean St.
203-234-05
Howard & K. Marx
2995 Ocean St.
203-234-06-01 Connie M. Miller : ;
2995 Ocean St. +I 1
203-234-06-02 -
L .-Harold C. & E. Millan
2955 Ocean St. # 2
203-234-06-03 Thomas 0. Nick 2955 Ocean St. R 3
203-234-06-04 John D. & Diann Goddard
2955 Ocean St. # 4
203-234-06-0.5
Mary W. Jernagan
2955 Ocean St. #5
203-234-06-o 6
Thomas 0. Nick & Mahan
2955 Ocean St. #6
203-234-06-07
Barbar D. Powell
2955 Ocean St. #7
203-234-06-08 Donald F. Powell
2955 Ocean St. # 8
203-234-06-09
Mary R. Carson
2955 Ocean St. # 9
203-234-06-10
Margaret S. Dutton
2955 Ocean St. # 10
203-234-06-11
Rex W. Young
2955 Ocean St. # 11
203-234-06-12
P. PhiliP & A. Scheerer
2955 Ocean St. # 12
203-234-06-13.
Gary L. & Pat McMillan
2955 Ocean St. # 13
203-234-06-14
Barbara S. Mazetti
2955 Ocean St. # 14
1 c ,
203-234-06-15 W.R. & Tonia Skousen
2955 Ocean St. # 15
203-234-06-16 Thomas Purdom 2955 Ocean St. # 16
203-234-06-17 Jeffrey & N. Carlson 2955 Ocean St. # 17
203-234-06-18
Richard E. & J. Chipman
2955 Ocean St. # 18
203-234-06-19
Thomas & Jean Dignan
2955 Ocean St. 19 19
203-234-06-.20
Larry & Penny Gunning
2955 Ocean St. # 20
203-234-06-21
Seaslope Estates Own
2955 Ocean St. # Vacant
203-235-01
Bell Family Partners
2751 Ocean St.
203-235-02 TOBO Investments 2775 Ocean St.
203-235-03
TOBO INvestments
2775 Ocean St.
203-235-04 Rapp & Luxenberg Developers 2805 Ocean St.
. .-
203-235-05 California Lutheran Homes
Vacant Land - Ocean St.
203-235-06 De1 Mar Properties
2895 Ocean St.
203-251-01
Jay F. & Maryon Hoffman 3001 Ocean St.
203-251-02 Frank J. & Evelyn Rose 3009 Ocean St.
203-251-03
Robert W. & A. Phipps 3015 Ocean St.
203-251-04 Arthur & Vicki Perry 3021 Ocean St.
203-251-05 Carlsbad Inn Ltd.
Vacant - Ocean St.
203-251-06 International Real Estate 3053 Ocean St.
“‘.I
“. .* Carlsbad Journal
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024 (6 19) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ssm
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of jhe county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice we&kly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in
the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next preceding the date of publication of the notice
hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of
which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
ma! and more particularly de- published in each regular and entire issue of said
scribed as: newsoaoer and not in any supplement thereof on
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING APPEAL CT 69.IOiPUD 69-2lHDP 69-231 v 88-3
NOTWE IS HEREBY’GIVEN that the City Council ofthe City ofCar]s- bad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers izoo Elm Avenue. Carlsbad, Califbrnia at 6:90 P.M.. on Tuesday. Septemb& 6.1969. toconsideran appeal ofthe Planning Commission’s denial of an aPPHCation for a Gcondominium unit Tenta#ve Tract Map and PI.&- ned Unit Development. and a Hill- side Development Permit and a Variance for building height and setbacks, tandem garage parking reducfl interior garage width, and’ reduced building setbacks from open parking areas on property generally located at the southwest
f.@t 1 Of Block “b” of the H
Land Company Addition. in t”h’,” Cib’ of Carlsbad according’ to Map thereof NO. 1221. Tbqse persons wishing to speak on this Proposal are eotiially’in. vited to attend the public bearing.
the fdlldwing dates, to-wit:
August 18
*f you have any questions please Call the Planning Departkent at 4381161.
If You challenge the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Develop. m$nt. Hillside Development Per- mrt and Varinncein court, you mi lY be limited to raising only thos Issues “till nr m,.----- * ;e
..,..,,,,,........... ...“...... 19.8?.
.
-- -- YLWUC neanng described i this n,,+in,, +.- i- - -... ~~-- ----L=, VL 111 wntten Corres- Pon&nce delivered to the City of ca*lshsA .%I A.. -2 . --- -L w pnor to the _^ publi e
. . . .
., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . 19....
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on the 18th
day of
Clerk of the Printer