Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-24; City Council; 10732; Blumenshine Subdivision AppealCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDABILL MTG. 7-74-90 DEPT.ENG. APPEAL OF CITY ENGINEER’S DECISION TO DENY MINOR SUBDMSION NO. 818 (BLUMENSHINE) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Uphold the appeal and return the project back to the City Engineer for further review and decision. ITEM EXPJJWATION: This is an appeal of the City Engineer’s decision to deny Minor Subdivision No. 818. The appellants are Robert D., Dorothy E. and Karen M. Blumenshine. On July 13, 1989 the appellants applied for a tentative parcel map to subdivide their existing property into three lots. The property is located at the north end of Highland Drive. The property site is irregularly shaped and contains 2.96 acres. One existing residence is currently located at the east side of the property upon a large relatively flat portion of the site. The remainder of the site slopes steeply down towards the Buena Vista Lagoon area to the north. A slope analysis of the site done in accordance with the Hillside Development Ordinance indicates the site contains enough unconstrained areage dispersed throughout the 2.96 acre site to allow two addtional dwelling units. However, the developable portions of the property are seriously constrained by numerous sloped areas especially in the location of the two newly proposed units. As Council is aware, the appellant requested a continuance of this item to the July 24th Council meeting. The purpose of the continuance was to continue working with staff on an alternative design that could meet all the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance and be found acceptable to staff. The appellant has apparently accomplished this task through a redesign which better utilizes the larger flat portion of the property. The redesigned project proposes grading within 40 percent slope areas; however, all such grading is required to accomplish the reconstruction of an existing damaged forty percent public storm drain and to install required street improvements. Because the site has unusual soil conditions that necessitate corrective work and grading of the slopes is necessary to restore and rehabilitate a public facility it is permissible under the Hillside Ordinance. The City will receive an added benefit in that the work will be done by the developer as a project condition. L PAGE TWO OF AB# /e yg& Since the City Engineer made a decision to deny the project on the previous development proposal no environmental noticing was prepared. At this point should Council decide to allow the redesigned project to precede there are two options as follows: 1. Deny the appeal. Require the appellant to resubmit the revised project design as a new submittal paying new application fees. 2. Uphold the appeal. Send the project back to the City Engineer for continued review and decisions. Renotice the project and complete the environmental review. Require applicant to pay only the renoticing costs. Staff recommends Option 2. The appellant and staff have been working for over a year on this project. The redesigned project represents a minor variation on the project which was denied. The bulk of staff review has already been completed. Also the project has public benefit in that it will rehabilitate a public storm drain which has been a long standing nuisance for the City. FEZAL IMPACR Denying the appeal and requiring the appellant to resubmit new applications will result in $1,800 in additional application fees for the City. EXHIBITS: 1. 2. 3. 4. ;: 7. 8. Location Map. City Engineer’s letter, dated April 2, 1990. Memo from Planning Department dated March 9, 1990. Applicant’s appeal request letter, dated April 6, 1990. Code Sections 2153.230 and 21.95.030. Letter from Karen Blumenshine requesting continuance dated May 22, 1990. Letter from Karen Blumenshine requesting continuance dated June 22, 1990. Letter from Joseph and Lily Angarola dated June 26, 1990. . - .. LOCATION MAP ” ‘ROJECT NAME F-m ND ~l4%llBlT -d&vu V~~r'r~tisrti~~fPM. M.S.8d 1 A City of Carlsbad April 2, 1990 Karen Blumenshine 2256 Jefferson St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 PROPOSED MINOR SUBDMSION NO. 818 Whereas a review of the conditions of the letter of preliminary approval was requested by the appropriate date; a hearing was held and whereas the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1973 relating to the subject proposed parcel map have been examined by the Planning Direc- tor and declared to have a non-significant impact upon the environment; and whereas negative findings delineated by Section 20.24.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code have not been made; and whereas this minor subdivision is not in conformity with the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad; therefore, a final decision has been made to deny the subject tentative parcel map subject to the conditions set forth in the preliminary approval letter. ROBERT J. WOJCIK Principal Civil Engineer RJW:JM:rp 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carkba’d, CFlifprnia 92009-4859 - 4wba44f 2 (819) 438-i 161 h ,I I -/ - MARC’1 I 9, IWO TO:. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FROM: Planning Department HlLLSlDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ‘89-24/VAFUANCE 89-4/MS-818 The Planning Department has reviewed the latest submittal for Minor Subdivision 818 received March 2, 1990, and has determined that the project’s exhibits which include a slope analysis, slope profiles and a Tentative Parcel Map/Site Plan are complete and det;tilccl enough to recommt’nd a decision on the Hillside Development Permit 89-24 and Variance X9-4. The latest site plan revisions have eliminated the need for a lot width variance, therefore, Variance 89-4 will be officially withdrawn. Sixty feet of lot width measured at the twenty foot front yard setback has been provided for all three lots as required by the underlying R-l Zone. Based on the amount of staff time dedicated to ,reviewing this project, the applicant will not receive any refunds on the Variance application. All hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which shows existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages. Given the information presented with this Minor Subdivision, the Planning Director is recommending denial of Hillside Development Permit W-24 based on the following finding: A. Development and grading will occur in an undevelopable portion of the site. Section 21.95.03(5) of the Municipal Code states that, “no development or grading shall occur in those portions of the property which are undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.53.230.” This section prohibits development on slopes with an inclination of greater than forty percent or more. The code does not differentiate between “natural” or “man-made” slopes, therefore, it has been a policy of the Planing Department to apply Section 21.53.23 restrictions to both types of slopes, “natural” and “man- made”. In this case, the existing “natural” slope, prior to the deposition of the unconsolidated fill, also exceeded forty percent and was even steeper than the current “man-made” fill slope. * * ;*’ c // In addition to slope constraints, staff is concerned that the approximate, 3,200 sq. ft. pad .> size of parcel 2 is inadequate to allow the construction of a custom view home with useable yards. Even though the lot size of parcel 2 is in excess of 7,500 sq. ft., most of the p;~rcei is totally unusabI~, thus creating a situation more typical of a small lot Planned Development. The small size and irregular shape of the building pad, steep topography .i and the argument for reasonable use of the lot creates the potential need for setback variances at a later date, therefore, staff recommends that the subdivision not be approved. MICHAELLH~~~~MILLER Planning Director MJM:JG/af -2- ;/’ / Robert D., Dorothy E., and Karen M. Blumenshine 2256 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Office of the City Clerk City of Carlsbad Carlabad, California 92008 April 6, 1990 ' To Whom it may concern: : An appeal to Carlsbad City Council is hereby requested on Yinor Subdivision 818 on property located at the north end of Highland Drive at 2202 Highland Drive. Please find the enclosed appeal fee of $450.00. This project has been denied on the basis that it proposes a small amount of grading on slopes greater than 40%. We wish to appeal this decision to the City Council to consider it for an exclusion. We feel that we qualify for this under CMC.21.95.090 (Exclusions). The proposed grading is totally within an area previously disturbed by authorized grading which is unstable according to geotechnical investigation. The other pertinent items that we think Council should be . aware of are: (1) The existing fill on site is not compacted and has settled causing failure of the City's storm drain pipe for Highland Dr., which crosses our property. (2) The large sink hole created by that failure has ruptured the water system to our grove,allowing deterioration due ta lack of water supply. (3) Mr. Chuck Mitchell of the City Street Department has con- firmed that said storm drain needs replacing. This would req- uire considerable grading through the center of the area proposed for grading,whether the project is approved or not. (4) The area to be altered by grading is very small compared, to the entire parcel. (.I35 ac. graded"/ 3.15 ac. total or 4.3$), 2 (5) The Purpose and Intent of the Hillside Ordinance have been integrated into this proposal and the Hillside Ordinance has been complied with. (a) No coastal sage scrub or chaparral will be affected by the grading proposed. (b) Less than 10% of the area with greater than 25% slopes will be affected. .' (c) Residential density talcs have been met per developable acre. (d) The volume of earth proposed to be moved is within acceptable limits set by the Hillside Ordinance. (e) The project conforms to guidelines for contour grading, screening, and hydrology. (6) We have had an extensive Soils Investigation performed by consultants to substantiate the safety and feasibility of this proposal. (7) We feel that the newly submitted plan satisfies all objections - raised by the letter submitted by our neighbor, Jean A. Gibbs. Furthermore, this proposal will provide the following: (1) Increased frontage to lots (currently we have 33 feet for the two.) Our plan will increase frontage to within standard limits. (2) A turn-around for cars at the end of Highland Dr. with curbs, lights, sidewalks, increased fire hydrant capacity, etc. thereby increasing attendant facilities. (3) A functional storm drain for Highland to be installed during site grading. (4) Stabilization for a slope which is currently composed of loose and highly erodable soil with a potential for surficial failures. We have worked on this proposal for several years now and have modified it many times to conform with the ever-evolving ordinances and municipal codes. e - . We feel that denial of this project would deprive us of our right of enjoyment of this property. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of our appeal. . . Sincerely, . , I Karen M Blumenshine, for Robert D., Dorothy E., and Karen M. Blumenshine cc. Conrad Hammon - Brian-Smith Engineers Robert D. and Dorothy E. Blumenshine 21.53.150 (8) Land upon which other significant envi- ronmental features as determined by the envi- ronmental review process for a project are 21.53.230 Residential density calculations, residential development restrictions on open space and environmentally sensitive lands. (a) For the purposes of Titles 20 and 2 1 of this code, residential density shah be determined based on the number of dwelling units per devel- (2) Permanent bodies of water, (4) Slopes with an inclination of greater than forty percent or more; (5) Significant wetlands; (6) Significant riparian or woodland habitats; (7) Land subject to major power transmis (9) Railroad track beds. (c) No residential development shah occur oy any property listed in subsection (b). Subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.31 and 21.33, the city council may permit limited development of such property if, when considering the property as a whole, the prohibition against development would constitute an unconstitutional depriva- tion of property. The planning commission or city council, whichever the final discretionary body for a residential development may permit accessory facilities, including, but not limited to, recreational facilities, view areas, and vehicular parking areas, to be located in floodplains (subect to Chapter 21.31) and on land subject to major power transmission easements. (d) Residential development on slopes with an inclination of twenty-five to forty percent, inclusive, shall be designed to minimize the amount of grading necessary to accommodate 752-l (Carlsbad 2-90) 21.53.230 the project. For projects within the coastal zone, the grading provisions of the Carlsbad local coastal program shah apply. (e) Projects which have received all discre- tionary approvals under the provisions of Titles 20 and 2 1 prior to the effective date of the ordi- nance codified in thissection may obtain a final map without complying with this section for a period of two years from the date of the tentative map approval. Any time during which approval of the final map is prohibited by Ordinance No. 9791 or any other growth management ordi- nance, shah be added to the two-year period. Upon expiration of the tentative map, the stan- dards of this ordinance shah apply to the prop erty. (f) Projects with’ all discretionary approvals under the provisions of Titles 20 and 2 1 and with a final map approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section or approved pursuant to subsection (e), or for which a subdivision map is not required, may obtain building permits without complying with this section for a period of two years from the effe. tive date of the ordinance codified in this section: Once building permits are obtained, construc- tion must be diligently pursued to completion or the provisions of this section shah apply. Upon expiration of the two-year period or the building permits, the standards of this section shall apply to the property. (Ord. 9795 9 1, 1986) 21.53.240 Nonresidential development restrictions on open space and environmentaily sensitive lands. Nonresidential development shah be designed to,avoid development on lands identified in Sec- tion 21.53.230. (Ord. 9795 0 2, 1986) . (Ord. NS-87 9 2,1989) 753 (Carlsbad 12-89) 21.95.020 rawn with a solid heavy line. Exis hy, structures and infrastructure with a thin or dashed line; rawn along those locati test alteration 0 parallel to each othe to existing contour les shall be roughly s and existing con- attesting to the fact tha slope profiles have been . (Ord. 9826 9 2 (part), 1987) 21.95.030 General restrictions. No property with a slope of fifteen percent or more and an elevation differential greater than fifteen feet shall be developed unless a hillside development permit has been issued. An application for a hillside development permit shall be processed and approved concurrently with any other development permits required by Titles 11, 18, 20 or 21 of this code. The same decisionmaking body or oflicial which has the authority to approve the other development per- mits required for the project shall have the authority to approve a hillside development per- mit. If no permits other than a building or grad- ing permit are required for the project, the planning director shall have the authority to approve or deny hillside development permits subject to appeal to the planning commission. Such appeal shall be made within ten days after the planning director’s decision. A hillside devel- opment permit shall be approved only if all ofthe following findings can be made: (1) That hillside conditions have been prop- erly identified; (2) That undevelopable areas of the project have been properly identified; (3) That the development proposal and all applicable development approvals and permits are consistent with the purpose, intent and requirements of this chapter, occur in those portions of the property which are [ (4) That no development or grading will undevelopable pursuant to the provisions of Sec- tion 21.53.230; 1 (5) That the project design and lot configura- tion minimizes disturbance of hillside lands; (6) That the project design substantially con- forms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the hillside development guidelines manual. (Ord. NS-37 § 1 (part), 1988; Ord. 9826 $2 (part), 1987) .040 Residential density calculation. eas of a site in slopes greater .tha excluded from resi ions consistent wi 21.53.230. slopes may be utiliz residential densit lculating allowable t with Section 807 inimum development provisions of this chapter shall be (Cnrlsbad I-89) - ROBERT D. BLUMENSHINE DOROTHY E. BLUMENSHINE KAREN M. BLUMENSHINE 2256 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 May 22, 1990 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue . Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Mayor Bud Lewis SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 818 Dear Mr. Mayor: We believe in the spirit of the Hillside Ordinance. We believed that we qualified under "Exclusions" (21.95.090) and never intended to request for a variance from the actual Hillside Ordinance. Apparently the interpretation is not clear-cut as to whether we would qualify. Therefore, we would like to request a continuance in order to make revisions in the plan so it would be in accordance with the Hillside Ordinance and satisfy the concerns of the staff. Respectfully yoursr L 3?29---- Karen M. Blumenshine cc: Ray Patchett, City Manager Conrad C. Hammann, Engineer e Robert D. Blumenshine Dorothy e. Blumenshine Karen M. Blumenshine 2256 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, California June 22, 1990 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Ray Patchett, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION El8 Dear Mr. Patchett: We are requesting a continuance of our appeal at the urging of staff. Staff needs more details of our revised plan and additional time to review it. It is currently scheduled for June 26 and it has been suggested that July 17, 1990 may be the next best time to reschedule. Sincerely, z' au,7;1(a- Karen M. Biumenshine (for Karen, Robert, and Dorothy Blumenshine) C. Lee Rautenkranz - City Clerk Jim Murray - Staff engineer Conrad Hammonn - project engineer Robert D. & Dorothy E. Blumenshine ROBERT D. BLUMENSHINE DOROTHY E. BLUMENSHINE KAREN M. BLUMENSHINE 2256 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 May 22, 1990 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Mayor Bud Lewis SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 818 Dear Mr. Mayor: We believe in the spirit of the Hillside Ordinance. We believed that we qualified under "Exclusions" (21.95.090) and never intended to request for a variance from the actual Hillside Ordinance. Apparently the interpretation is not clear-cut as to whether we would qualify. Therefore, we would like to request a continuance in order to make revisions in the plan so it would be in accordance with the Hillside Ordinance and satisfy the concerns of the staff. Respectfully yours, P < .J -2, ,q--- ,mLz.r,u- ,_ .’ Karen M. Blumenshine cc: Ray Patchett, City Manager Conrad C. Hammann, Engineer NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 818 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Ave.) Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, to consider an appeal of the City Engineer's denial of a tentative parcel map to subdivide two residential lots into three residential lots on property generally located at the north end of Highland Drive, north of Ratcliff Road, and more particularly described as 2202 Highland Drive. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Engineering Department at 438-1161. If you challenge the tentative parcel map 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 City Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing. APPELLANTS: Robert, Dorothy and Karen Blumenshine PUBLISH: May 12, 1990 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL LOCATION MAP ” I r July 19th, 1989 DATE NOTICE OF FILING OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 818 Notice is hereby given that a Tentative Parcel Map has been filed on property generally located at the north end of Highland Drive north of Ratcliff Road and more particularly described as 2202 _, Highland Drive. The project involved is described as subdividing 128,938 sqaure feet of 2 residnetial lots into three residential lots. APPLICANT: Blumenshine, Robert, Dorothy and Karen STATEMENT OF THE MATTER: This project is a minor subdivision (four units or less), which by subdivision ordinance, does not require a public hearing. A minor subdivision is processed by the City staff and must comply with all applicable codes, regulations, and zoning. Each property owner may request, in writing, the opportunity to be heard on the Tentative Parcel Map. Such written request must be filed with the City Engineer within fifteen (15) days of this notice. Failure to so file shall be deemed a waiver of your rights with regard to this matter. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Jim Murray of our office at 438-1161. /-z$&-Jg~+ ROBERT J. WOJCIK Principal Civil Engineer RJW:HE:rp Attachment 2075 f-as Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-l 161 . , J.N. 0545 /&?54fzr. OWNERSHIP LIs'~FoR 300' RADIUS MAP . FOR DLLMENSH~ * Awea I h(of&+,~yI 11.&~ i,2,3,4,5 ; 17. 156-051-15 Rwetz, Vircjie 2265 Highland Drive CarlsJ.md, Cn 92008 I,.-- .~ Brim Smith Lnyineers, Inc 26% state street Carlsbad, Cn 92008 City of Carl&ad 156-080-18,11,10 154-140-30,29 6. 154-140-32 State of California 7. 156-031-12 Angarola, Joseph & Lily 2240 Jefferson Street I'. 0. Bax 332 Carlsbad, CA 92008 - 8. 156-031-11 20. 156-270-05 " Call, Clinton & Eleanore Johnson, Kuniko 2248 Jefferson Street 1800 Ratcliff Road Carlsbad, CR 92008 Carl&ad, CA 92008 9,10,11,12 Siegel, IJ&ert C. 2300 Pi0 Pica Carlslxd, CA 32008 156-031-09, 156-051-18,19,23 13. 156-051-11 Ilenderson, Alan & Kathryn A. , 2305 Highland Drive Garlsbad, CA 92008 '14. 156-051-12 Joseph, Douglas & Suzanne 1905 E Pointe Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 14. 156-051-12 occupant 2295 Highland Drive Car&&d, CA.92008 15. 156-051-13 Pate, Alvin & Margaxet 2285 Ux$bnd Drive Car&bad, CA.92008 16. 156-051-14 Ilogan, Esther-Walker,Eleanor 2275 flighland Drive -77-1 r-1 >-1r7 cfi c)ZO()fl 27. 156-270-14 1X.3 EQrtne& 814 Windcrest Drive Carlslxd, CA 92008 18. 156-051-16 Gibbs, Jean A. 2255 l~ighland Drive Carl&ad, CA 92008 . 28. 156-270-13 Ccx:lirr.u1,Ilugh & Betty 1788 Guevara. Road Carl&ad, CA 92008 is. 156-270-04 '. bUmdreti,Clayton & Arnetta 1790 Ratcliff Road CarlsLad, CA 92008'1 29. 156-270-12 Slnughter, QLlentin 244 Avalon Drive Vista, CA 92083 . & Leone 29. 156-270-12 Occupant 1778 Guevara RDad Carlsbad, CA 92008 21. 156-270-06 ' ibush, Kenneth & Susan El810 Ratcliff Road cjarlsbd, cn 9:': %I 30. 156-270-11 Wickhnm, Charles & Silvana 1789 Ratcliff Road CarlsiUl, CA 92008 22. 156-270-07 Lb&r, Willim b; Ailecn 1821 Ratcliff Ibad Carl&ad, CR 92008 31. 156-270-10 Drcbcn lk~rvey t; Steva 1799 :titcliff -Itid Carlsbad, CA 92008 23. 156-270-17 Wickland, Jams & Cecil 1812 Cuevarra Rmd Carlsbad, CA 92008 32. 156-270-09 Hunter, Kim c/o The Lefferdink CO. 543 mcinitas Mvd. #ill &xitlitas, Cn 92024 . 24. 156-270-U MElrtinez, Mxrk & Linda 1814 Guevarra Ibad Carlsbad, CA 92008 32. 156-270-09 occ!u~n t 1801 Ratcliff Itid Carl&ad, CA 92008 25. 156-270-16 Moreno, Mary-bbrerio, Rudy 1810 Guevarra l?fxd Carlsbad, CA 92008 33. 156-270-08 st.evens, Donna 1811 Ibtcliff J?cmd Carlsbad, CA 92008 26. 156-270-15 Applicant Hannunan, Phillip-llanneman,C~xol Karen Blumnshine 1800 Guevarra Rmd P. 0. Box 850 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carpinteria, CA 93013 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk DATE: TO: FROM: RE: - APR 13990 TELEPHONE (619) 434-2808 April 11, 1990 Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Karen Kundtz, Assistant City Clerk Minor Subdivision No. 818 - Blumenshine 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 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 appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting of A& 2&z, /990. * S/F/w Date' s Robert D., Dorothy E., and Karen M. Blumenshine 2256 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Office of the City Clerk City of Car&bad Carlabad, California 92008 April 6, 1990 ' To Whom it may concern: '. An appeal to Carlsbad City Council is hereby requested on Yinor Subdivision 818 on property located at the north end of Highland Drive at 2202 Highland Drive. Please find the enclosed appeal fee of $450.00. This project has been denied on the basis that it proposes a small amount of grading on slopes greater than 40%. We wish to appeal this decision to the City Council to consider it for an exclusion. We feel that we qualify for this under CMC.21.95.090 (Exclusions). The proposed grading is totally within an area previously disturbed by authorized grading which is unstable according to geotechnical investigation. The other pertinent items that we think Council should be aware of are: (1) The existing fill on site is not compacted and has settled causing failure of the City's storm drain pipe for Highland Dr., which crosses our property. (2) The large sink hole created by that failure has ruptured the water system to our grove,allowing deterioration due to lack of water supply. (3) Mr. Chuck Mitchell of the City Street Department has con- firmed that said storm drain needs replacing. This would req- uire considerable grading through the center of the area proposed for grading,whether the project is approved or not. (4) The area to be altered by grading is very small compared to the entire parcel. (.135 ac. graded// 3.15 ac. total or 4.3%1 2 . .I . . (5) The Purpose and Intent of the Hillside Ordinance have been integrated into this proposal and the Hillside Ordinance has been complied with. (a) No coastal sage scrub or chaparral will be affected by the grading proposed. (b) Less than 10% of the area with greater than 25% slopes will be affected. (c) Residential density talcs have been met per developable acre. (d) The volume of earth proposed to be moved is within acceptable limits set by the Hillside Ordinance. (e) The project conforms to guidelines for contour grading, screening, and hydrology. (6) We have had an extensive Soils Investigation performed by consultants to substantiate the safety and feasibility of this proposal. (7) We feel that the newly submitted plan satisfies all objections raised by the letter submitted by our neighbor, Jean A. Gibbs. Furthermore, this proposal will provide the following: (1) Increased frontage to lots (currently we have 33 feet for .the two.) Our plan will increase frontage to within standard limits. (2) A turn-around for cars at the end of Highland Dr. with curbs, lights, sidewalks, increased fire hydrant capacity, etc. thereby increasing attendant facilities. (3) A functional storm drain for Highland to be installed during site grading. (4) Stabilization for a slope which is currently composed of loose and highly erodable soil with a potential for surficial failures. We have worked on this proposal for several years now and have modified it many times to conform with the ever-evolving ordinances and municipal codes, . 3 . . We feel that denial of this project would deprive us of our right of enjoyment of this property. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of our appeal. Sincerely, Karen M Blumenshine, for Robert D., Dorothy E., and Karen M. Blumenshine cc. Conrad Hammon - Brian-Smith Engineers Robert D. and Dorothy E. Blumenshine ,(.” ” ‘I’ ,_ .>a ::. CliY OF CARLSBAD - 1200 ELlh AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFMNIA 92008 438-5621 ,,l.Ll//i:r - /I ii $&J &$Q)j.f I 1 I / REC’D FROM #GQ<cti 7-n. 23~u~=osN/h5 DATE ‘+- //- 9 ~5 - ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION (pD/- g/ 3- ou- 00 -mBfdJ )935&s - fsuI/?jAj Em5kx AMOUNT I Y 52; 00 I I I I ” *A I I . I i : I I c-l-9 Iti I I RECEIPT NO. 98230 TOTAL I -. ..---I. ..-..,- -.... -. -.I - ._._^^. _.- ._ _ ..~_. ._... j..-. -_ __- -..__ ~ _11_1-I-- -_.L i- _._L ---..-L.-r----.-.- _...-. -__ -._. . . .I200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk h .- TELEPHONE (619) 434-2808 DATE: April 11, 1990 TO: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer FROM: Karen Kundtz, Assistant City Clerk RE: Minor Subdivision No. 818 - Blumenshine 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 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 appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting of . Signature Date Robert D., Dorothy E., and Karen M. Blumenshine 2256 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Office of the City Clerk City of Carlsbad Carlabad, California 92008 April 6, 1990 ' To Whom it may concern: An appeal to Carlsbad City Council is hereby requested on Minor Subdivision 818 on property located at the north end of Highland Drive at 2202 Highland Drive, Please find the enclosed appeal fee of $450.00. This project has been denied on the basis that it proposes a small amount of grading on slopes greater than 40%. We wish to appeal this decision to the City Council to consider it for an exclusion. We feel that we qualify for this under CMC.21.95.090 (Exclusions). The proposed grading is totally within an area previously disturbed by authorized grading which is unstable according to geotechnical investigation. The other pertinent items that we think Council should be aware of are: (1) The existing fill on site is not compacted and has settled causing failure of the City's storm drain pipe for Highland Dr., which crosses our property. (2) The large sink hole created by that failure has ruptured the water system to our grove,allowing deterioration due So lack of water supply. (3) Mr. Chuck Mitchell of the City Street Department has con- firmed that said storm drain needs replacing. This would req- uire considerable grading through the center of the area proposed for grading,whether the project is approved or not. (4) The area to be altered by grading is very small compared to the entire parcel. (.135 ac. graded--/ 3.15 ac. total or 4.351 . _- 2 (5) The Purpose and Intent of the Hillside Ordinance have been integrated into this proposal and the Hillside Ordinance has been complied with. (a) No coastal sage scrub or chaparral will be affected by the grading proposed. (b) Less than 10% of the area with greater than 25% slopes will be affected. (c) Residential density talcs have been met per developable acre. (d) The volume of earth proposed to be moved is within acceptable limits set by the Hillside Ordinance. (e) The project conforms to guidelines for contour grading, screening, and hydrology, (6) We have had an extensive Soils Investigation performed by consultants to substantiate the safety and feasibility of this proposal. (7) We feel that the newly submitted plan satisfies all objections raised by the letter submitted by our neighbor, Jean A. Gibbs. Furthermore, this proposal will provide the following: (1) Increased frontage to lots (currently we have 33 feet for the two,) Our plan will increase frontage to within standard limits. (2) A turn-around for cars at the end of Highland Dr. with curbs, lights, sidewalks, increased fire hydrant capacity, etc. thereby increasing attendant facilities. (3) A functional storm drain for Highland to be installed during site grading. (4) Stabilization for a slope which is currently composed of loose and highly erodable soil with a potential for surficial failures. We have worked on this proposal for several years now and have modified it many times to conform with the ever-evolving ordinances and municipal codes. . P . We feel that denial of this pro.ject would deprive us of our right of enjoyment of this property. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of our appeal. Sincerely, Karen M Blumenshine, for Robert D., Dorothy E., and Karen M. Blumenshine cc. Conrad Hammon - Brian-Smith Engineers Robert D. and Dorothy E. Blumenshine 7x-- ; ‘-ci;‘;rq- _ bZ --+yq?E ------7----. *. ;~> - CT-- .‘.* CITY OF CARLSBAD - i _ 1200 ELM &EWE . CARLSBAD, CALlFOddt 92008 . L - , 438-5821 I r*,/ I_ . .i,I, g&j &y$$jif +I . L . REC’D FROM rnccti m. &L/+=tiSN/hlE DATE ‘6 /I. 7 6 ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I I RECEIPT NO. 98230 TOTAL /-I 95 up0