HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-12-05; City Council; 10400; Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Upholding a Planning Director Decision Denying an Administrative Variance AV 89-07 Reddingw
ro
a
v
U
0
co
ca
i
G
e
U
O
ro
4
3
v;4
o p'
,J 4J
w
441
N cUy
a
v v
U �
v
b `d
0o
-�
u u
U Cbo
ON
00
Ln
I-
N
H
CIT"OF CARLSBAD -- AGENDA"SILL
AB# �O- y= TITLE: APPEAL, OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DEPT. HD.-
MTG. ! 2 / 5 / 89 DECISION UPHOLDING A PLANNING DIRECTOR CITY ATTY�
DEPT. PLN DECISION DENYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE -�
CITY MGW
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council
A'P___ R4_VE City Council Resolution No. - ,UPHOLDING a Planning
Commission decision to UPHOLD a Planning Director denial of Administrative
Variance 89-7.
ITEM EXPLANATION
On November 1, 1989 the Planning Commission upheld a Planning Director decision
denying an Administrative Variance to maintain a 6 foot wall located in the required
20' - 0" front yard setback of a single family residence. The property is located on the
north side of Janis Way directly across the street from the Ellery Reservoir in the R-
1 zone.
The applicants had a six foot high wall constructed along their front property line in
order to screen the reservoir site from view of their living room window and front yard.
The six foot high wall exceeds the 42 inch height requirement for walls in the front
yard setback, encroaches from 6 to 18 inches into the public right-of-way, and obstructs
the line -of -sight distance for vehicles backing out of the driveway.
The Planning Commission voted 6-1 upholding the Planning Director's decision to deny
AV 89-7. Denial of the Administrative Variance request requires that the applicant
reduce the wall height to forty-two inches for those portions of the wall located in the
front yard setback. The applicants must also apply for an Encroachment Permit to
maintain a portion of the wall in the public right-of-way. If an Encroachment Permit
is denied the applicants must relocate the wall entirely on the subject property.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning, Director has determined that this project is categorically exempt from
environmental review. (Class 5, Section 15305 CEQA Guidelines). On August 17,1989
a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk and documentation is on file
in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
EXHIBITS
1.yCity Council Resolution No. i Lc a--
2.,' Planning Commission Resolution No. 2932
3.,'Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes
4.-Staff Report dated July 28, 1989
5., Letter of Appeal
dated November 1, 1989
f S
7
16
16
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14j
15
16
17
.181
19)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 8 9 - 4 22
A RESOLUTIO OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CAL ORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING
COMMISSION DEC ION TO UPHOLD A PLANNING
DIRECTOR DENIAL F AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE
TO ALLOW A SIX FO T HIGH WALL IN THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK OF A INGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, ON
PROPERTY LOCATED A 2246 JANIS WAY, CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA.
AV 89-7 - REDDING (APPE
WHEREAS, on November 1, 989, the Carlsbad lanning Com issior
adopted Resolution No. 2932 upholdir,- Plannin Direct r decision d nying
Administrative Variance 89-7; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carls ad, on ece er 5, 1989
considered an appe I of the Planning mission ecision uphold ng the Planning
Director decision d ying AV 89-7; d
WHEREAS, upon considerin he requ st, the ity Council considered all
facto relating to the Administrative riance a peal.
W, THER ORE, BE IT H REB RESOLV by the City Council
of the City of arlsbad, lifornia, as follows:
1. That t above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the fi ings of the Planning Commission in Resolut n No. 2932 on
file with the City Clerk an 'n orporated herein by reference constitut the findings
of the City Council in this matt .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the
2 day of
3 1989 by the following vote, to wit:
4 AYES:
5 NOES:
6
ABSENT:
7
8
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
10
ATTEST:
11
12
13
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ
City Clerk
14
15 (SEAL)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 2
28
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19j
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2932
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING UIRECTOR'S DECISION DENYING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN OVERHEIGHT FENCE IN THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 2246 JANIS WAY, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA.
APPLICANT: REDDING
CASE NO.: AV 89-7 APPEAL
WHEREAS, an appeal for certain property, to wit:
Lot 26 of Carlsbad Tract No. 81-19 Unit No. 2, Mar Y Montanas in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 11594 filed in the office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County August 20, 1986.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, said appeal constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of November, 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 appeal of AV 89-7.
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 UPHOLDS the Planning Director's decision based on the
following findings:
Findings•
�. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to
this property that do not apply to other property in the same vicinity since several other properties on the north side of Janis Way are
visually impacted by the Ellery Reservoir and do not have overheight
fences in the front yard setback.
2
3
4
5
6
7
.911
10�11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2'
24
2;
2E
W
21
2. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity,
but which is denied to the property in question since there are
alternarequiretavvarimethods ancand t llof iprovidethe vanwof the reservoir that adequate useable privateld yard.
t
yard
3. The granting of this Variance could be materially detrimental to other
property in the vicinity in which the property is located because the
wall obstructs line -of -sight driveway visibility to vehicles backing out
into the public right-of-way.
4. The granting of this Variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive
General Plan because accessory structures such as walls are compatible
with residential uses in the R-1 Zone.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of
November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Erwin, Holmes & Marcus.
NOES: Commissioner McFadden.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
MATTH W HALL, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATT EST :
�_
MICHAEL J. �ILLE�R,��
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RESO NO. 2932 -2-
-- MINUTOS
November 1, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 4 COMMISSIONERS
#13 to read that installation requirements will be in
substance as provided in Policy 80-6.
2) AV 89-7 REDDING - An appeal of the Planning Director's
Decision to deny an Administrative Variance to allow and
overheight wall located in the required 2010" front yard
setback of a single family residence. The property is
located at 2246 Janis Way in Local Facilities Management
Zone 1.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the
background of the request and stated that AV 89-7 is an
appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Redding of the Planning Director's
decision to deny an Administrative Variance to allow an
over -height wall within the front yard setback of their home
located at 2246 Janis Way in Local Facilities Management Zone
1. The property is zoned R-1 which requires a 20' front yard
setback. Codes allow only for fencing up to 42" within the
front yard setback. The subject wall is constructed at a
height of 61. The property is located directly across from
the Ellery Reservoir which is surrounded by a chain link
fence on top of a retaining wall. Pumping equipment is
visible through the chain link fence. Photo slides of the
Redding's property and the adjacent area were shown to
Commissioners and the gallery. Staff recommendation is to
uphold the Planning Director's decision.
Commissioner McFadden inquired about the reference in
paragraph 2, page 3, of the staff report which refers to two
letters and one phone call in opposition to the wall and nine
signatures on a petition in favor of the wall. She would
like additional information. Staff responded by submitting
copies of the subject petition and letters to the Commission.
Chairman Ball opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to speak.
Virginia Redding, 2246 Janis Way, Carlsbad, applicant,
addressed the Commission and stated that they are the only
home directly across from the reservoir which gives them a
view of barbed wire. In addition, the reservoir is so well
lit at night that it is a distraction which inhibits their
right to peaceful enjoymcnt of their home. They had many
problems with the contractor who assured them the fence was
being built to code and about half -way through the job he
skipped. To her knowledge, the only person who is opposing
the variance is her next door neighbor and this opposition is
a recent development. Since staff advised her that the wall
would impede visibility for pedestrians and motorists, she is
willing to install mirrors on both pillars to mitigate the
problem because the turning radius is not sufficient to
permit them to exit the driveway forward. She submitted six
more letters from neighbors and two petitions containing 20
signatures in favor of the call, which are included with
these minutes. She requested consideration'of the variance.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if they planned to install a
gate. Mrs. Redding replied that they would like to have a
wrought iron gate but if it is objectionable, they can live
without it.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired how the fence ended up on
the public right-of-way? Mrs. Redding replied that it was a
blunder of the contractor.
I~< MiNUTFS
O �►
November 1, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 rAYY�cc�nueoe 0�9�� 7iyOe�
Carbmiysioner 5chlehuber inquired about a letter from their
neighbor which states that they did not want the fence to
extend past the front of their garage. Mrs. Redding replied
that this neighbor was shown plans, walked the yard. and
voiced no objections. They even paid half of the cost for
the wall.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if any of the contractors being
interview had mentioned that the wall was higher that what
was allowable? Mrs. Redding replied that each contractor
submitted designs but no mention was made that the height was
too tall. The wall is actually situated on the property line
but the pillasters extend out 4 inches into the right-of-way.
Commissioner Holmes inquired if they had considered changing
the glass in their living room windows to something obscure
such as opaque, beveled, or stained glass. Mrs. Redding
replied that they had not considered this possibility.
Commissioner McFadden inquired about the landscaping which
was supposedly promised by the developer. Mrs. Redding
replied that Ezan had told the buyers that the reservoir
would be heavily landscaped with shrubbery and that they
i
would not be able to see the tank or equipment.
Commissioner McFadden noted that there appeared to be some
new plantings along the chain link fence and inquired how
long they had been there? Mrs. Redding replied that a few
shrubs were planted in June or July but the gardener told
them they would take 5-6 years to mature. She believes the
City planted the shrubs but is not sure.
Chairman Hall inquired when the home was built. Mrs. Redding
replied that completion was November 1988 and they are the
first owner of the home.
Dale Kubaeky, 2236 Janis Way, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that he is the next door neighbor to
the Reddings and does share the common wall between them.
Irrespective of the fact that he feels they have been
victimized by the developer and the fence contractor, he
does not like the height of the wall because it presents a
blind spot for his wife and is a safety hazard. He
acknowledged that he looked at the plans but did not realize
the wall would extend past his garage.
Patricia Faille, 2160 Janis Way, Carlsbad. addressed the
Commission and stated that she has lived in the area since
1976. long before the Egan development was built. There was
a beautiful forest there and most people didn't even know the
water tower existed. The residents were told by Ezan that
trees would be replanted and she has sympathy for the
Redding's problem because the water tank is very unsightly.
She feels that trees should be planted to hide the water
tank.
Jenny O'Brien. residing at the corner of Janis and Bedford
Circle. Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that
the Redding's wall is handsome and is an asset to the
neighborhood. She has no objection to it.
Marian McCord. 2226 Janis Way. Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that he lives two houses down from the
Reddings on the same side of the street. He has no objection
to the wall.
MINUTES
3, 9�
Nov"Wv 1, 11.989 PLANNING CL`MISSICK Page d Ct3iufMiggif3Nti'i.S
In rebuttal. Virginia Redding stated that never at any time
before, after, or during the construction of the wall did the
Kubacky's ever voice any objection to the wall. About two
months ago he asked whether he would be required to pay
additional funds with a new contractor. However, just
yesterday he mentioned that his wife objects to the wall
because she is blind in one eye. Mrs. Redding is sympathetic
to the problem but feels that Mrs. Kubaeky's eyesight must
not be too bad since she drives to San Diego at night to
attend school. She noted that Mr. Kubacky has some problem
with the City about the location of his driveway and she
hopes that it will not also become their problem.
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 Sehlehuber asked the City Attorney if both
neighbors sharing the wall have to petition for the variance.
{
Mr. Ball replied that one property owner can request a
variance but they must have permission of this other property
owner if both properties are involved. In this case the
variants request applies to the Redding's front yard and
therefore the application without additional permission is
proper and can be acted upon by the Commission. In addition
to a variance, ar. encroachment permit must be issued.
Chairman Hall asked the City Attorney to explain the
encroachment permit. Mr. Ball replied that an encroachment
permit is issued by the City under Title 11 and basically
states that the encroachment may remain on the City property
but must be removed when ordered to do so, at the permittee's
total expense.
Chairman Hall inquired about whether the encroachment is 4
inches or 18 inches. Mr. Wayne replied that staff determined
in a field visit that the pillasters encroach approximately
18 inches on the City right-of-way. It may not be entirely
accurate, however. because it was not surveyed.
Chairman Hall inquired if staff had tested the driveway
turning radius. Mr. Wayne replied that they did not test the
turning radius.
Chairman Bail asked staff to elaborate on the line of sight
problem wMaz backing out of the driveway. Mr. Wayne replied
that the sight distance does not meet the standard. Staff
attempts to maintain those standards throughout the City.
Although there is a small volume of traffic. it could still
pose a safety hazard.
Chairman Hall inquired if there has been any discussion
regarding the landscaping around the water tower across the
street. Mr. Wayne replied that the present -landscaping is
immature. The pine trees and bouganvilla will eventually
hide such of the area.
Commissioner McFadden inquired if mirrors mounted on the
pillastars would be of any value. Bob Wojcik replied that
they would be of some value but the site of the oncoming
object is greatly reduced. A pedestrian, bicyclist, or child
on a skateboard might not be seen adequately.
Commissioner McFadden inquired when the height of a fence is
measured, what base point is used when there are different
November 1. 1989
MiNUTFS
PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 7 L'Q.MMISSIONEAS
grades. Mr. Wayne replied that the fence is measured from
the lowest grade.
Commissioner Holmes commented that there are 12 houses in
that immediate area which are impacted by the water tank; he
doesn't feel that this is the only one which has a problem.
He spoke with Kurt Musser who is in charge of landscaping at
the Water District. Mr. Musser fools that the landscaping
problem can be remedied if the Raddings will go and talk to
him. He thinks that landscaping is a better answer. He
cannot support the variance because it will sat a precedent.
Commissioner Schramm is very sympathetic. She walked and
drove the area and noted that there is very poor visibility.
She would like to sea this returned to staff to work out some
mitigating measures.
Commissioner McFadden agrees with Commissioners Holmes and
Schramm. She could accept an encroachment permit for 18
inches if the Raddings would lower the wall to 42 inches.
She would like staff to sand a latter to the Water District
to encourage a correction to the landscaping.
Commissioner Erwin is impressed by the petitions but the
fence is permanent and residents are transitory. He cannot
support it because it would sat a precedence.
Commissioner Marcus has sympathy with the applicant because
she visited the site and noted a lot of service vehicles in
the area. She could accept the encroachment if the fence
were lowered to 42 inches. Otherwise she must support the
staff recommendation.
Commissioner Schlehuber has not heard enough testimony to
accept the oncroachatnt. He can support Commissioners Holmes
and Schram.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt
Resolution No. 2932 upholding the Planning Director's
decision to deny Administrative Variance No. 89-7.
Chairman Hall asked the City Attorney how the Planning
Corission can notify the Water District on the landscape
problem. Mr. Ball replied that since the Water District is a
separate legal entity, we have no control. Once the Water
District become a subsidiary district of the City than the
City Council could order the landscaping dona. Ho thnth that staff contact the Water District and resuggested
their consideration.
The Planning ission recessed at 7:47 p.m. and reconvened
at 7:58
3) ZCA 89-2 CITY OF C - An Aaandn"t to the
Satellite Television Ant Section of the Zoning
Ordinance tot (1) stato the ant of the Satellite
Television Mtsnna Section, reco iot the presraption of the federal o
aatsllite antennas to d,rtth gCodmunicatio..tii1•
11) renumber Section 21.53.130 to ba Section 21.1i y409— u
Erwin
Hall
Holmes
Marcus
McFadden
Schlehuber
Schram
M
1PPLICATION COMPLETE DATE:
MY 28, 1989
O
: STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1989
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: REDOING AV 89-7 - An appeal to the Planning Commission of a Planning
Director's decision denying an Administrative Variance to maintain
an overheight wall located in the required 20'-0" front yard setback
of a single family residence. The property is located at 2246 Janis
Way in Local Facilities Management Zone No. 1.
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2932 UPHOLDING the Planning
Director's decision to deny Administrative Variance No. 89-7.
The parcel is located on the north side of Janis Way, in the R-1 Zone. The lot
is approximately 10,056 square feet in size, rectangular, and contains a two-
story single-family residence. Located on the south side of Janis Way directly
across the street from the subject property is the Ellery Reservoir site. The
reservoir :ite contains a large circular, brown water tank, pumping equipment,
and a chain link fence with barb wire, that sits on top of a retaining wall that
runs along the front property line on Janis Way.
To screen the water tank and associated structures from view of their living
room window and front yard, the Redding's had a six foot high wall constructed
along their front property line. The wall exceeds the R-1 Zone's, 42 inch,
height requirement for walls in the front yard setback, encroaches from 6 to 18
inches into the public right-of-way, and obstructs the line -of -sight distance
for vehicles backing out of the driveway.
The wall is partially constructed and the City of Carlsbad currently has an open
code enforcement investigation on this property relating to the overheight wall.
III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues:
1. Can the four mandatory findings for approval of a variance be found in this
case? They are as follows:
AV 89-7 REDOING
November 1, 1989
Page 2
a. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to
the property that do not apply to other properties in the same
vicinity and zone?
b. Is the granting of this Variance necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
properties in the sam9 vicinity and tone?
C. Will this Variance be detrimental vicinity? to other properties in the
d. Will this Variance adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan?
as
DISCUSSION
Yy%
_ The applicants are requesting that the Planning Commission overturn a Planning
Director's decision denying Administrative Variance 89-7. The Variance would
allow the applicant to maintain an overheight wall in the required front yard
setback along Janis Way.
There are no exceptional circumstances applicable to this property that do not
apply to other properties along the north side of Janis Way. Three other lots
also have a direct view of the reservoir site from the front yard. The subject
parcel has the most direct view from a living room window and front yard. The
residential subdivision in question was built around the reservoir site. Many
other lots in the area have partial front yard views of the water tank. The
Ellery Reservoir existed prior to the construction of this residential
subdivision.
Denial of the requested Variance will not deprive the owner of a substantial
property right. The parcel has level, useable yards located behind the front
yard setback that can be screened from the reservoir site with six foot high
walls or landscaping. Alignment of the existing driveway makes it difficult to
place a wall directly at the twenty foot front yard building setback. However,
a wall or landscaping could be located o'n the north side of the driveway. This
option brings the screening closer to the front entry way of the house.
The granting of this Variance will be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property in the vicinity because the subject wall
reduces line -of -sight driveway visibility for vehicles backing out into the
public tight -of -way. The wall also reduces the openness of the front yard
setback that runs along the block and provides visual relief from structures.
Adjoining properties to the east and west do not have overheight structures that
intrude into the front yard setback.
The granting of this Variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General
Plan because accessory structures such as walls are compatible with residential
uses in the R-I tone.
This particular Variance case has circumstances that could be interpreted as
supporting findings for approval or for denial. In other words, the findings
are borderline and could go either way. The Redding's property is impacted the
AV 89-7 REDDING
November 1, 1989
Page 3
most by the reservoir site. This can be construed as a unique circumstance even
though other properties are impacted but to a lesser degree. Also, the subject
lot is located near the end of a cul-de-sac street so the open space front yard
setback providing relief from structures as you look down the block becomes less
of a concern. Also, vehicle and pedestrian traffic is lighter on a cul-de-sac
thus reducing the potential for an accident due to the reduced driveway sight
visibility. The houses along the north side of Janis Way have side loading
garages in the front portion of the lot and their twenty -foot front yard setback
functions more like a side yard than a typical front yard.
Staff took a conservative interpretation of the required findings and denied the
Administrative Variance based on the safety issue created by the existing
configuration of the wall and some neighborhood opposition to the wall. The
Planning Department received from neighbors, two letters and one phone call in
opposition to the wall and nine signatures on a petition in favor of the wall.
Several of the neighbors were concerned with the massive appearance of the wall,
sight distance when backing out of their driveways, and the fact that the wall
is located partially in the public right-of-way.
In summary, and based on a conservative interpretation of the four findings
reces;ary to justify granting of this Variance, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny
Administrative Variance 89-7.
If the applicants are willing to redesign the wall to mitigate the driveway
visibility issue and effectively address the concerns of the neighborhood, the
Planning Department would be willing to recommend approval of the Variance.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL_ REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project is categorically exempt
from environmental review based on the fact that it is a Zoning Variance not
resulting in the creation of any new parcels, (Class 5 Section 15305 CEQA
Guidelines). On August 17, 1989 a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County
Clerk and documentation is on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
ATTACHMENTS
I. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2932
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Form
5. Environmental Document
6. Variance Justification Form
7. Letter of Denial from Planning Director, AV
8. Exhibit "A" - "C", dated October 18, 1989
JG:lh
September 27, 1989
89-7, dated August 16, 1989
f
i
REDDING
Glty of WOO
AV 89-7
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: AV 89-7
APPLICANT: MR. & MRS REDDING
REQUEST AND LOCATION: MAINTAIN OVERHEIGHT WALL IN REQUIRED FRONT
YARD SETBACK AT 2246 JANIS WAY.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 26 OF CARLSBAD TRACT 81-19 MAR Y MONTANAS
t
MAP NO. 11594.
APN: 167-540-44 Acres .23 . Proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RLM
Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A _
Existing Zone RA-10-0 Proposed Zone �N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site RA-10-0 _RESIDENTIAL
x North RA-•10-0 RESIDENTIAL
t
South RA-10-0 PUBLIC UTILITY
r
s
East RA-10-0 RESIDENTIAL
s
West RA-10-0 RESIDENTIAL
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District CARLSBAD Water CARLSBAD Sewer CARLSBAD
EDU's N/A Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative declaration, issued
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other, EXEMPTION - CEOA - SECTION 15305 CLAS,E 5(a)
DISCLOSURE FORM
APPLICANT: i�brris and Virginia Redding - INDIVIDUAL HOME ONLY
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
N A
Business Address
Telephone Number
AGENT: N/A
Name
Telephone Number
MEMBERS: N/A
Name (individual, partner, joint Home Address
venture, corporation, syndication)
Business Address
Telephone Number
Name
Business Address
Telephone Number
Home Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I /We 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 b relied upon
as being true and correct until amended.
APP C ARr v
APPLICANT
BY N/A
Agent, Owner, Partner
Ciiy of Carls
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
August 17, 1989
County Clerk
County of San Diego
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Proiect Title Redding Administrative Variance 89-1
Proiect Location --Specific 2246 Janis Way - APN: 167-540-44
P
ad
rolect Location --City Carlsbad Protect Location --County San Diego
maintain an overheight wallin-
theurequiredlfront yard rsetbackVariance to
Name of Public Aaency Ao-roving Proiect Carlsbad Planning Department
Name of Person or Agency Car•rying Out Proiect M. & V. Redding
Exempt Status (Check One)
Ministerial (Sec. 15073)
Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071 (a))
Emergency Project (Sec. 15071 (b) and (c))
Categorical Exemption. State type and section
number: Section 15305 Class 5(a)
Reason Why Proiect Is Exempt: Setback Variance for wall
Contact Person Jeff Gibson (619) 438-1161
If filed by applicant:
1) Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2) Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency
approving the project? Yes _, No _
J �
MICHAEL J. HOL LLE
Planning Director
JG:lh
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161
JUSTIFICATION FOR VARI CE
By law a Variance may be approved only if certain facts are found to exist.
Please read these requirements carefully and explain how the proposed project
meets each of these facts. Use additional sheets if necessary.
1) Explain why there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply
generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone:
Subject oronerty is the ONLY property in the subdivision facing and looking
directly into the P nPing station and entrance driveway of the Ellery
Reservoir (See Exhitit A)
t
s
2) Explain why such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone but which is denied to the property in question:
Granting the variance would preserve our right to enjoyment of our property
by a ing n nioy�tle view for the eve to stop upon, rather than -a direct
I' view ints -at-= o n chain 1 i nk fence barbed wire and driveway
into the rPGPrvoi r with daily Sri ai+ c 1,. garvlCe tL'l1C,kS T e hot3se t0 the
West of st�h ler o =rty faces anA vic��e th West and the ocean The _
f subiert n onerty faces to and views the valley.
(SPP F.xh'hit Al
3) Explain why the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located:
(See attached sheet)
0
4) Explain why the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the
comprehensive plan:
The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the citizens of
Carlsbad or the environment of the inmediate or adjacent hares or
subdivisions.
e ; for 11ariar:ce
- � U$ tli ica4t�i.on
3) The wall will not change any intended use of the property. It will.
be stucco and colored the same as the house. The design blends with
the architecture and enhances the neighborhood. The wall does not
create any negative or dangerous effect on line of sight of passing
vehicles or pedestrians. We have permission fran all neighbors
within view of the wall. Granting the variance will not hinder any
neighbor's view nor infringe on their property rights. The wall
does not create any detriment to public welfare. Our street,
Janis Way is a cul-de-sac with no through traffic. There are other
hones in the area with front walls of six feet in required front
yard set back. Also, a similar variance was granted recently for
► A �/� N
a house cif Morena. ,A A 1 AG,SQ MAR
June 2, 1989
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
When we finally realized our dream of purchasing our
retirement home in Carlsbad, we made certain to set aside
enough money to beautifully landscape our home in a
manner that we, our neighbors, and the City of Carlsbad
would be proud of.
We contacted a licensed landscape architect and con-
tractor for the job. Since ours is the only house look-
ing directly into the most unsightly pumping station in
front of Ellery Reservoir - he designed and began con-
struction on a beautiful Mediterranean wall which would
stop the eye at a lovely sight, rather than look directly
to the pumping station which is fronted by a 6' block wall
on top of which is an 8' chain link fence topped with
barbed wire.
Halfway through construction of the wall the contractor
abandoned the job and left with $13,000.00 we paid him.
We learned that he lied about obtaining permits, the
license was not his 4nd to this point neither the Police
or State Department of Consummer Affairs have been able to
help us. (See Attached)
We are in a desperate situation. We ask for the variance
because of the unique and solitary circumstance of our
home being the only one to directly face the pumps and
associated chain link and barbed wire and our living room.
window is the only one facing directly to this view. The
home to the West of us looks to the ocean. The home to
the East of us looks to the valley.
If we are now forced to have the wall removed our home would
suffer severe loss of value and the costs would prevent us
from completing the remaining landscaping. We feel the
F
Page 2
r^iain Ing uepar tritettt
variance is necessary to preserve our right to enjoy our
property just as our neighbors do.
Sincerely,
Morris
g �—
:Redd
c V gini
��
dding
.-.
lr"'`' 'i PlarinIii �De arti•tierif'
�.
August 16, 1989
M. & V. Redding
2246 Janis Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE NO. 89-07�- Request to maintain an over
height wall located in the 20'-0" required front yard setback of a
single family residence.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Redding:
The Planning Director has completed a review of your application for an
Administrative Variance at 2246 Janis Way. After careful consideration of the
circumstances surrounding this request, the Planning Director has determined that
the four findings required for granting an Administrative Variance cannot be made
and, therefore, DENIES this request based on the following findings and
conditions.
Findings
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply
generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity.
Three other singl:,-family residences on the north site of Janis Way have
front yard views of the water tank and associated retaining wall and
combination chain link and barb wire fencing. The existing water tank is
at such a height that no amount of fencing can screen it entirely from the
surrounding properties. The Ellery Reservoir and pumping station was in
place prior to the construction and occupancy of the Janis residence. The
Planning Department feels that the subject over -height wall could be placed
at the 20'-0" front setback line and still provide adequate screening of
the reservoir from the living room window and driveway area. Placement
of the wall at the setback would allow the wall to extend to 6'-0" in
height without the need for an Administrative Variance.
2. Denial of the requested variance will not deprive the owner of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone. The subject parcel has 2,660 square feet of level, useable,
front yard and west side yard all located behind the required 20'-0" front
yard setback that can be screened from the reservoir with 6'-J" high walls
and still function as a useable private yard.
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 (61 -IC, I
Page 2
3. The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
zone in which the property is located because the subject wall encroaches
0'-6" into the public right-of-way on Janis Way, reduces driveway
visibility when backing vehicles into the street, and creates a visual
intrusion into the open space front yard setback that runs along the block
and provides visual relief of structures from the public right-of-way.
4. The grant:ag of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive
General Plan because accessory structures such as walls are compatible with
residential uses in the R-I zones.
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission within ten
days of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter,
please feel free to call this V ice.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:JG:Ih
t
►f , CA!'ENO.��i.9', f�ap�el
•.........,.......................I...............J.... N...ry/.
��kruyfT 11q. ..r,AT:
v`'t
r
0 S 3 T
NRV 8
D
p� CAR��BA
c,rvices
J'
M'rris & Virginia Redding
2246 Janis Way
Carlsbad, CA. 92008.
'�ErAirYi���
?- focT
64
cA�tseAoo ory�-�lyar
sE,��,yr_
Erg1N
gEE Epp rA� R SNE,
WALE' WIA A
�08
3oo IVA
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
DATE: November 6, 1989 1,
, r,
TO: Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept.
FROM: Karen Kundtz - City Clerk's Office
RE: Planning Commission Denial of AV 89-7 - Redding
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
TELEPHONE
(619) 434.2808
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
All 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 appe
Meeting
ure
the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
0. 15. /yFy
Date
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FORM
P1:CEIVEU
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TELEPHONE
89 i10v — S AH 1 j : 4 6(619) 434.2808
CITY OF CAR! SSAO
I (We) appeal the following decision of the
—������� �I/� �'C�����•S, �'i /�� V�` to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal) : - L/'J9-j F "SJbExC
of Amis 'iy1gG/NIp Sf'Jl?//UG
tYF<r/ ill r 1-1reA/7- l�i9eP,�_tG% f4 .-11—z'AV -S?7-- 7
Date V Sin
Name (Please Print)
Address /
Telephone Number �'—
A
t
City of Carlsbad
We, the undersigned neighbors of Morris and Virginia Redding,
residing at 2246 Janis Way, Carlsbad, California, find that the front wall
that has been erected on their property, totally acceptable to us and an
asset to the neighborhood.
Date Address Eholle
s Vf'Z'
C% !�F ' oc1 ZZt�` �bli Z2 %Zy'—o670
6J.6,A) ffi'b��
LJ Lv c�N�'` ai�t,nti�r�. z3 S. n,�c 3 I
L;L( gx
�, 4
6 `'J �v -? Z.?5 /5'
� 3lv Rro}s G/ft y
a 2z -19 �3
JAVIS
Don )P
13
T
c
Jack Antonissen
.2266 Janis Way
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
(619) 434-2580
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
I reside at 2266 Janis Way, two doors east of the Redding residence.
I have received your notice of the public hearing regarding the front yard
wall at 2246 Janis Way. Unfortunately, my schedule does not permit me to
attend the meeting on November 1, 1989. However, I wish to voice my
opinion in this letter and go on record as if i were there.
Homeowners should be entitled to enjoy their home and enhance their
property to the highest possible level. None of us, and I'm sure none of you,
could enjoy our homes with the undesirable view the Reddings have from
inside their home. Their solution of a Spanish wail to eliminate that
condition was brilliant The construct' on of the wall is identical to the city's
wall directly across the street in height and in distance from the curb. It
balances the street.
The permit for that house was issued to the developer, by the City of
Carlsbad. Was any thought given as to how the potential owner of that house
could deal -,with the direct view of the pumps? The developer should have
been made to enhance that area of the reservoir through screens, plants,
trees, or whatever. Instead, the Reddings had to take on that burden at
their expense.
Considering the extenuating circumstances surrounding the situation, I
feel any additional hardships, emotionally or financially would be
unnecessary. I therefore urge the planning commission to approve the
appeal for the administrative variance.
Sincerely,
Jack Antonissen
NA,
October?,0,1989
4
Carlsbad Planning Commission
Carlsbad, CA
Dear Planning Commission,
This letter is in support of my neighbors Morris and Virginia Redding at 2246 Janis Way, Carlsbad,
CA. They have begun construction of a wall to screen an unpleasant view of the Carlsbad City
water holding tank directly across the street from their home. This wall In no way offends,
causes damage or discomfort to me.
I support the completion of the wall as planned. I believe this will be an asset to our
neighborhood.
! I can be reached during the day at (619) 259-7240 if there are questions or comments on my
t position.
Sincerely,
x Virgin a Sandstrom O'Brien
3501 Bedford Circle
Carlsbad; CA 92008
t
4
e '
t
31 October 1989
From: Marion McCord, 2226 Janis Way, Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
To: City of Carlsbad Plannning Commission
Subj: CASE FILE AV 89-7, REDDING APPLICANT
I have no objections to the overheight fence in the front
yard set back on the property located at 2246 Janis Way. When
finished, I believe that the fence will not be unsightly.
Marion McCord
SUdbud ,PAU ih
2276 3W4 IWOV
Carlsbad, Ca 92"
City of Cartdod Vanning Comndssion
a Ihm at the end of the wt-ode-sao on Canis OWay, and J am in
support of the 2adir4s in them' appeal f r the wall. Ot does not hinder
my view or daract f tom the boo d of the neighborhood. at is =U designed
aid J haute 1w ohje Ahm to the wail mnabdng wham it is.
2idat+d P'.etwA
10/219/89
t
i
i
h'
e
Ken Swift
2256 Janis Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
2075 Las Palmas Drive
-Carlsbad, CA 92009 '
Dear Sirs:
I live directly -east of the Reddings on Janis Way, and I
have no objeotion to their wall.
Sincerely,
'Ken Swift
4
A =
rc�a.-r fwn 7w::-w7e •t ?'i >..a — - •�: �,,_ : .�q` _ /,; �c� .w•y.
_ sc.- �f ' +,� i•,.t y. �j. '.+'_.� . � �. 'i, :•➢�t.+"^?�vc�i�•,i�'� �. '1,' . ru - e1i ,��,� �� :: ' "r; P 'i:' ~'xt. . r'{ • �,
16
Ir
'tr ,... .�� "`"� .. ':tip .<; �s•..: .. i.r,�.. .,�t
_ � , ' " �( � I '� .. ^tea F .> � _•'•�,
n
��,,����LL ' i•
r► ear ^ � � � . .
1 , r
it .. . •.•+•r'�
q i
='� May '.. ., '' 4 � •
t
s�
Carlsbad
a
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by urnal
the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice adverlising to
North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P.O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024
(619) 753-6543
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of C matter.
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligen a of ar of general circulation,
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a boric fide subscription
and which
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published ae iptio character, and
the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, fora period exceeding crtegul list to paying
t regular intervals in
preceding the date of publyear next
tatioofthe notice
hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of
which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
Published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaperand not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to -wit;
I202.2M•12/87
November 24........ 19. 89,
19, .. .
................................ 19....
......... 19....
..................... 19....
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County
Californiaon of San Diego, State of
day of
U
Clerk of the Printer
it
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
AV 89_7
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hol
a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, d
California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, December 5
of the Planning Commission denial of an Administrative,Varianceitoralan
lowpanal overheight fence in the front yard setback of a single family residence on
property generally located at 2246 Janis Wayand more particularly described as:
Lot 26 of Carlsbad Tract No. 81-19, Unit No. 2
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, Mar Y Montanas
California, according to Mao. g State of
Office of the County Recorder tOfrSan DiegolCount594, f, in the
August 20, 1986. y, on
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning
Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Administrative Variance in court
ou may be
raising only those issues you or someone else raised atythe publiclimited described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
City of Carlsbad, City Clerk's Office, at or prior to the public hearing.
APPELLANT: Redding
PUBLISH: November 24, 1989
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
0
q
�CAW
AV 8
,(v
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING''`
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public bearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, November 1, 1989, to consider an appeal of a Planning Director's denial of an
Administrative Variance to allow an overheight fence in the front yard setback of a single family
residence on property generally located at 2246 Janis Way and more particularly described as:
Lot 26 of Carlsbad Tract No. 81-19 Unit No. 2, Mar Y Montanas in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.
11594 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County August 20,
1986.
i
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 Administrative Variance in court, you may be limited to raising only those
It issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
i correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. i
r
i }
CASE FILE: AV 89-7
APPLICANT: Redding
PUBLISH: October 20, 1989
i
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
4
w,
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice _
AV 89-7 - REDDING (APPEAL)
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
DEC. 5, 1989
Thank you.
Assistant City Man
11/16/89
Date
41
t
G.W. & C.K. Bryan
W.I. & H.J. Gullett
Occupant
Po Box 748
2520 Ridgecrest Dr
3561 Celinda Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
J.D. & D.S. White
Occupant
Occupant
3531 Ridgecrest Dr
3500 Bedford Cr
2220 Sara Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad Ca 92008
L.J. & P.A. Bonagura
Elleiy Reservoir
Occupant
3521 Ridgecrest Dr
2220 Sara Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
.`
MacMurray, D. &Wagner, J.K.
Occupant
Occupant
3511 Ridgecrest Dr
3481 Celinda Dr
2210 Sara Way
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
William V. Daly
Occupant
Occupant
3570 Ridgecrest Dr.
3501 Celinda Dr
3451 Celinda Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
x
;:.
Roberta R. Whitlock
Occupant
Occupant
3560 Ridgecrest Dr
3511 Celinda Dr
3461 Celinda Dr
i
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
I
1�
M.P. & R.M. Taloue
Occupant
Occupant
3550 Ridgecrest Dr
3531 Celinda Dr
3471 Celinda Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
D.H. & O.H. Gellhorn
Occupant
Occupant
3540 Ridgecrest Dr
3541 Celinda Dr
2160 Janis Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008.
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
P.J. & L, Langlols
Occupant
Occupant
3530 Ridgecrest Dr
2551 Celinda Dr
2216 Janis Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
Carlsbad CA 92008
Y
t
W
mm Frances McCord
2226 Janis Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008
Dale Rubacki
2236 Janis Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008
Morris Redding
2246 Janis Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008
Ken & Pat Swift
2256 Janis Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008
Occupant
2276 Janis-Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008
Geoff & Chris Armour
2286 Janis Wy
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Janet Nakaws
2235 Janis Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008
Occupant
2225 Janis Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008
Occupant
2215 Janis Wy
Carlsbad CA 92008
q- "
y
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Of/Ice of the City Clerk
DATE: November 6, 1989
TO: Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept.
FROM: _Kasen Kundtz - Cit Clerk's Office
RE: Plannin Commission Denial of AV 89-7
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 b
all parties.) y
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 C;.ty Council
Meeting of
Signature .
Date
tJ.
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
O111ee of the City Clerk
CITY CLEWS OFFICE TELEPHONE
89 Pdov _6 Ali 11 S 40'(619) 434.2808
CITY OF CARLSBAD
I (We) appeal the following decision of the
���� < ALA to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): 4 i A 7,x- 1 F
Ci Aa&I's i V1R(ttNIA
Date Sin
Name (Please Print)
n2 z y.�/iti�.
Address
Telephone Number
q-S
r
k
¢ f
CITY OF t ARLSBAD
1200 ELM ,.,iENUE CA'ALSBAD, CALIFO.AIA 92008
438.6621
t
REC'D
DATE- 0
{
In ',99 VI6
9 199,090 TL',
ACCO!!NT NO.
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
OF
I
Mom
I
i
I
i
I
t
RECEIPT NO. 94822 TOTAL
I
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
November 6, 1989
Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept.
Karen Kundtz - Cit Clerk's Office
Plannin Commission Denial of AV 89-7 - Reddin
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
TELEPHONE
(619) 434.2808
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
all 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 appear the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting o x y
r�
Sftta ure
Date -
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office o/ the City Clerk
APPEAL FORM
RECEIVC%o
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TELEPHONE
89 NOV - 6 Ali l (: 4 6(619) 434.2808
CITY OF CAR! SCAO
/I (We) appeal the following decision of the
�� � to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal):
flllC' F
ot
Oate Si�n
//t'�=/�r/i
Name (Please Print)
Address
ell
Telephone Number