Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-04-23; Planning Commission; MinutesI : CITY OF CARLSBAD * '* *8 8, ', '\ I Minutes of: ! Date of Meeting: April 23, 1963 I ', 88 88 '\ I : Flace of Meeting: Council Chambers : of '4Q8 "?&& y?? .y'& ,@ i : '8 '8 *8, 88 'r -b. I I I I b 8,8 ', ' ',, *.,'*8 I PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. NI, 1 Na me '8'. *x% ''8)&38 i :""""""""""""""""""""-.-"""""""".~~~""""""~"~"""""""" Member ?$.,p~ "" "" "84 I ROLL .CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis, I ;::::; I ;!:::I I : Ward:;. Ewald, Palmer, Jarvie and Sonneman. Also I I I : I,* i present were City Attorney Stuart C, Wilson and Planning: i I ; *x 'I' : Technician Uhland B. Melton. Commissioner Grant and i : ; :, :, * .; 'I: I i Secretary Price were absent. : Davis I : i 'j Ward ; i ;x: i I i APFROVAL OF MXNUTES: : Ewald i : :xi I i I i Falmer ; Ixjx: ; ; ! April I, 1963, were approved as submitted. i Sonneman ;x ; :x: i i I were approved as submitted, : Ward I :; I ';XI ; : I 1. I I t* I (a) Minutes of the regular adjourned meeting of : Jarvie i ; ;x; : I I ;:::;; I (b) Minutes of the regular meeting of April 9, 1943, i Cavis : :pix; i 1 i EwaLd : 11 ; !x: I i I I Falmer i :xi : : 1 Sonneman i x: :x! ; : 1 :::;:I I I :;;::: 1 (a) City Manager -re: Street lights requirement by : ;ll::i I " I 1 I I #I I I Jarvie ; ; :x: { i I WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: I i- " I *I ! subdividers for new subdivisions. -8 4::: :!!I!: ! 7 I I The Planning Technician asked that this matter be held ovkr : to the next meeting and reported that he had met with the i i San Diego Gas & Electric Co. , and the staff is in the 1 I process of getting an ordinance prepared. I 4 I 1 * I I I * (b) City Manager -re: Moratorium on major planning i changes. I I 4 0 The Council requested a moratorium on major planning ! i changes a6 the City will be having a master plan prepared: ; of the City and the surrounding areas in connection with a small craft harbor study. Memo ordered filed. t 8 1 $ 1 : ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: ! 7 - I I 1 I (a) Audience "" - on - matters """ not appearing . on agenda. i I I b i There were PO oral communications from the audience. I i on Flann ng rn3ttersr i The Flaming Technician reported that the new mayor is i Wm. Guevara and that the Council adopted the amendment!,. : to the 3-T zone; approved the final map of Shelter Cove i i Subdivision; and asked the Planning Commission to appro- ; the ingress and egress on Ocean View Subdivision. * I I I I (b) :ego& of Planning Technician on Council action ".- -I I I t ", - I I 8 I I TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - OCEAN vxmv ,continueti I u_ b * i Chairman Ewald stated that this matter was brought up i i befdre and was referred to the Council for guidance as to ; : ingress and egress. i Memorandum from the City Manager stating that the i Council referred the tentative map of Ocean View back to : the Commission and that the Planning Commission may I accept the map subject to the recommendations of the City: : Engineer. I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I The Chairman asked the Carlsbad Investment Corporationi i if they had anything more to add. 4 I ROBERT WATSON stated that he represented the Carlsbad ! Investment Corporation and had nothing new to add,excepti i that the map is to attain the FLanning Commission's feet- ; ings as to precise plan. Ne had nothing new to present I ; unless there are some questions to answer. I I 4 8 I 8 : I * 1 : I I 4 I I I 1 i : I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I * * I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i The City Engineer, Lowell A, Rathbun stated that he had made a written report and read the report; a copy of the i i report was given to the subdivider and his engineer. I I : : Mr , Melton read the reports of the various departments i and then presented proposed Resolution No, 289 incorpora! t ting the recommendations of the departments as condition;s: i for approving the tentative map. He called attention to : Item 12 in the resolution which was prepared by the City : Attorney. The City Attorney asked that the first word of Item No, 3 I I be stricken. 4 I ! 15 lettsrs of protest opposing a road through Lot 59 of Seai i egress to Ocean View subdivision were read from the ; following: * I 1 * I 8 0 crest Estates rubdivision in order to have ingrcsrr and i t I P I b I Rosamond S. Prescott and Robert B. Prescott, 3303 Bell4 : Lane, Carlsbad I John E, Jardine, 111, 3301 Belle Lane : Mrs. Hilma Jacobs and Charies C. Jacobs, 3465 Ridgecrcit i Mr. and Mrs. Don L, Wilson I : Lt. Col. T. E.Metsgcr , 3590 Ridgecrest Drive I Jack H. Hsarn and Ethel K. Hearn, 3435 Bidgecrest Drive i Richard Condry. Owner, Lat #5,3909 Diablo Drive. Los : ; Angelcs 8. b i E, 33. Wyllie , 3424 Ridgecrest Drive 8 :Allan H. and Henrietta B, Salm, .3500 Ridgecrest Drive !Lo E. Veigel, 3521 Cbarkr Oak Drive I :Mr. and Mrs. Albert F. Fitch, 3334 Seacrest Drive 4 1 John B. Burt, 0. I). , and Dorothy J. Burt, 3324 Seacrest 6r. :,C.H.Patterson & Pearl E. Patterson,3521 Ridgeerest Dr.! I' Mr. and Mrs. Paul Walker, 3700 West Haven Drive : :Henry A, Starks Lot 82 I i Ruth L. Starks, Lot 82 : John Kenneth Fisler , Lot 49 i Frances Virdeen Fisler, Lot 49 : Edward M. McCann, Lot 51 I I Mrs. Paul Walker, Lot 50 : Kathryn M. Markey, Lot 48 ! Letter from Honda Bros. , Inc. . 3544 Monroe objecting !to the extension of Donna Drive through their property on : !the grounds that it would deprive them of their income frd i raising carnations and livlihood for their families, i There was discussion that it was up to the subdivider to i :provide ingress and egress to this subdivision. I :The City Engineer pointed out that it w,qs: ~~q~aribte to get I :into this property from 4 directions but tw-from Chestnut! :or El Camino Real would be a long distaace. I 8 MR. WATSON stated that in or*r to consider a landlocked :piece of property such au +ire;;, it was necessary to have o i : precise plan and approvd-of the City for this tentative man be€ore spending thouodds sf dollars on committments. i Tho rcsponsilility of providing an acce 8s Lies with the 0 I ; subdivider. They believe the access from Donna Drive I i would best serve the 7 acres. They have a precise and ; ; acceptabk plan and this is the oniy approach they know of i that would be recep$ive, The Hondas are the fee owner8 : (of the property through which Donna Drive would be I : extended. With the Planning Commission's approval of ! 1 the map, they will discuss this with the E:~ndas, The I tartsbad Investment Corporation feel this is a precise pia+ : for the map and is adequately spelled out. Xe pointsd out I @ ! 0 1 4 I I I I 0 0 b 0 I I 0 # * 0 I I I I I 1 1 I I 0 1 .- I I I I ', 8, '\ 8, ', t, * I 1 I I ',, 8, '** ', '. '\ I I ., ', '\ ', b, I -3- ., ',,'., '\, 8. ', : of "9 Q8, , ,$-, : I I ::;;:; I I t 1 I I I I Name ", '*!& ","$* i I : Member $lq3\ %% @.$y?\,O, Q +$?\.tc. I '\ .% I :~~""""""""""""""""""""""~""~""""""""""*";"~"""""""-"""~""-~~ i that the entire hill was formerly under agriculture and i :::;,I : this part will not remain under agriculture. i Commissioner Sonneman stated that she feels this was i : approached backwards and egress and ingress should : have been provided before submitting the map. MRS. DON KENNE'CY, 3480 Hillcrest Circle asked if the; Commission did not approve the ingress and egress I I i through Donna Drive, would the subdivision put a street i : through Lot 59. I I The Chairman stated that the Commission are only 6 considering the subdivision map as presented and it is up : to the subdivider to provide access. I I Commissioner Talmer asked if this subdivision map is approved, if the whole meaning of Item 12 if approved in i : the resolution weuld work as a "tool" to go by, I t I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I t I I I I I I I I I t The City Attorney stated that it is still up to the subdivid& : to acquire this property. Approving this will not give Mr; I Watson any help in getting the property. The map meets k'' ' : all of the requirements of the ordinance if they acquire a? i of the items in the resolution. I I I I I MR. WATSON stated they did not want to get cornmittme& : unless the City approves of the map. I It was the feeling of part of the Commission that the lettei from the man holding the property for ingress and egress: ; controls this; that the Zondas property interests should bt/ i safeguarded and that eventually Donna Drive will be put ; : through; although the subdivision itself seems very desira)ble I i they would rather approve this after access has been : approved. : Chairman Ewald stated that since the Subdivision meets i all of the requirements of Ordinance No. 9050, he sees : : no reason for turning it down. I I ; It was agreed that this map should be disapproved and I that the foilowing facts exist: I I I I I I t I * * I I 1 1 b I I I I t I I 1. There is no access to the propoeed subdivision. : I 2. That access to the subdivision by extending Donna ; I 3. To enter the proposed subdivision area through i I * I I I 1 Drive is not the City's responsibility. I I J I I I Lot 59 would be nullifying deed restrictions and covenant? : on that property. I I I I I I I I I I : A recess was called at 9:05. 3econvened at 9:14 F.M. i I With the consent of the Commission, Chairman Ewald i ; recommended that the Tentative subdivision map of I I i Falcon WilL Unit No. 2 and the Reclassification of the I I ; Rorick property be combined and that the reclassificatio< : be considered first. I I I I 1 I I t I I I I I I I I b I I I 0 I I I I ! I I ! PUBLIS I-I%AI?ING: I "- I I RECLASSIFICATION - From 2-A (iiesidential Agricult- I ural) to 3 -1 (Single-family Residential Zone) on property I located on the northerly side of Basswood Avenue, betweeb I Canon Steet and Donna Drive. Applicant: Maureen Mc ; i Inerny Xorick. I Notice of hearing was read. The Acting Secretary t certified as to publication of notice of hearing and the I i mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The : Acting Secretary then read the application setting forth I I I I I I I I 1 the reasons for requesting this reclassification. 24 letters of protest on reclassification from Tone R-A i f to R -1 were read: * I ! John E. Jardine, 111, 3301. Belle Lane I Kenneth Ness, 3275 Meadowlark Lane i Douglas A. Hasselo, 3482 Donna Drive i Gregory VI .Losa and Katherine J. Losa i Henry P.Dourke, Ethel H.Bourke, 3410 Donna Drive I I I David Freistadt and Phyllis JXreistadt 3325 Seacrest Dr i i Carl L. Dernhardt, Llewellyn R.Bernhardt,T.G.Box 22 : : Theron and Marguerite Iierrin, 331 1 Belle Lane R. M. Condry, Owner Lot 5, Seacrest Estates. : 3909 Don Siablo Drive, Los Angeles 8, Mr. and Mrs. George 3. Metzinger, 3324 zidgecrest : I Jack €3. and Ethel K. Eearn, 3435 Ridgecrest Drive I i Mr. and Mr s . Don L. YJilson : Don M. Moss, 3302 Belle Lane : 3303 Belle Lane i Col. T. I?. Xaffner , 2195 Basswood Avenue ; Mrs. Nancy McGlynn, 3420 Donna Drive : Margot Fraser and Frances M. Schnider,3450 Donna Dr. i Georg Geiger, Attorney at Law, 1834 So, Xill ,Qceanside : : Joseph Leon and Mrs. Joseph Leon, 3430 Donna Crive I i Kelly E. Day, 3302 Donna Dri've : Marjorie Montague Davis, 41 3 So. McCadden Place, , I I I I I I 1 I I I 8 I 4 I I I I , I I 8 I I Lt. Col. T. E. Metzger , USMC ,3590 Ridgecrest John B. Burt, 3. D., and Dorothy J.Burt.3324 Seacrest qr. I I 8 I I I I 4 I I t I 1 I I 6 I I I I , , 8 I I .2osamond S. Prescott and Robert B. Prescott, G , 'Z , Elliott and Dorothy X. Elliott, 3305 Belle Lane I 4 8 I * I I I I I os Angeles 5. I I I The Chairman asked for the proponent or representative 1 to speak. I I 1 I I I CAVID XORICK, 1 10 So. Pacific St. I Gceanside, stated i that he represented his wife, and that the Commission 1 : have the tentative map before them. They have a reputable i buyer and bonded seller making the deal. If the Commission ! do not feel this is proper use it will be all right with him. i The case is made on the basis of the map, i No one else spoke in favor of this reclassification. i The Chairman asked those opposed to speak, except those! i who had written letters unless they had something further: : to add. I I I 1 t I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I CARL L. BERNHARDT, P.O.Box 22, showed the road used to get to his property on the tentative map and reported ; that this road has been used for 40 years and they have i i prescriptive rights. He asked what they would do for a : ; road to their place if the subdivision goes in as it would i be a question of getting in and out and who will pay for thii. HENRY T. BOURKE, M.D. 3410 Donna Drive, stated i that many property owners have been here 3 times and : : asked if they were going to have to have to appear here i I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I * I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I * I I I I I I I I 1 I -5- ."""""_ ." , - " I I I I 1 I I I I I :"""""""""""-""""""""" . ." - """"I - I I I I I The Chairman informed him that whenever an applicant : applies for a request, it ha& to be considered. DONALD B. KENNEDY, 3450 Hillcrest Circle, I'egisterec) I objection iri view of the above protests. I * I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I GEORC': GEIGER, Atty. at Law, 1834 So. Hill St. i Oceanside stated that he had a Letter in and there is only i one reason that concerns him personally. Thl trees are : : Rorick's and he can chop them down, He purchased his i I lot from the Roricks and previously discussed this property : with Mr. Rorick. We understood the area under consider j ation would be developed in 12 or 15 years, after the I I 1 development of Falcon Hill Unit No. I. He was told he i could search the rocords of the City for a plat map, whicht : he showed. He believes that this was Visrepresentation. I i It is now too late for him to change his mind as he has go* : to considerable expense to obtain this property. l I ; DCN MOSS, 3302 Belle Lane, read from the City Code I i book the duties of the Planning Commission, and asked : that they preserve the natural assets. 1 i MR. RORICK asked how extensive would it be if all the I I I I I I I I I subdivision were all 10,000 sq. ft. lots I I I * I t i DAVID FREISTADT, 3325 Seacres Drive, asked for a : show of hands regarding the 10,000 sq. ft. I 1 : No others present spoke in oppositi an. I I I I t I * I I I * I I I I I The public hearing was closed at 10:25 P. M. The Chairman asked the Planning Technician to explain I I i the size of the lots on the map. I I I I I 1 The Planning Technician stated that the property is now : zoned R -A -1 0.000 sq . ft. , and pointed out that FaLcon ; I Hill Unit No, 1 and Seacrest Estates is 3-A but that i restrictive uses were put in by covenants and deed restri4- ; tions. He pointed out the lots that wouid be 10.000, 9, OO?. : 8 I 000 and 7875 sq. ft. No lots are below 7,875 sq. ft. : The lots on Basswood would be larger than those across tye street on Donna Drive. I I I I I I 1 L I I I MR. BERNHARDT stated there is an established easement to McKinnon's property, but he has prescriptive rights i since the road has been used for 40 years. The City Attorney stated that he could establish this by i court action, if he wishes to go to court and establish this right. There are many aspects to getting a road ease:- ment. MR. B ERNHADT stated that he believes the Lots cannot b$ developed until Elm Street is extended and that this part ; of the subdivision could not be developed as the grade woufd have to be established at Elm and Donna Drive. Commissioner Sonneman asked if the lot sizes would be : 7875 Sq. Ft. in a portion of the subdivision and was told it would be. She stated that the subdivision is much more stringent now and all of the improvements must be put in. i MR. GEIGER asked the Chairman how these lots €it in wit$ Xorick's previous lot sizes and the Chairman reported i that no map was submitted before to the City. I I I I I I .. . - I '; e I I I I I I I I I * I I I I I I I I I I I I ! The Commissinn discussed how many lots there would bd if they were all 10,000 and what would happen if the I I Rorick’s did not bring in a map with larger lots. The City Attorney stated that the Commission can act on: the map tonight if they wish but it does not necessarily i mean they would submit a final map. The zoning would I create the size of the lots. I I I I I I 1 I The Elanning Technician statad that the Commission can! revert this property back to R-A if this subdivision does: not go through and pointed out the zoning that could be used for specific lots in the subdivision. It was agreed that the lots of Falcon Kill Subdivision Unii . No. 2 be zoned as follows: I 1 I I I I I I. Lot 1 lots 117 through 126 inclusive shall be ~-l-!O,000 sq. ft. I I I 1 2. Lots 2 through 10 inclusive, and tots 20 through I 28 inclusive shall be R -1 -9,000 sq. ft. I I I I I 1 I I I I 3. The balance of the subdivision lots shall be R-1-7500 sq. ft, I It was agreed that reclassification from zone R-A- i 10,000 to R-1-10,000, 9,000 and 7500 sq. ft. be granted for the following reasons: I I I I 1. That such reclassification will not be materially i detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in i which the property is located. I I 7 I I I 2. That it would be the best usage of the land and : would be compatible with surrounding property. + I 3. That such reclassification will not adversely I I the comprehensive general plan. Xesolution No. 293. I; RESOLUTION OF TXE LrARLSBkD kL OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED FROPERTY IN TEE SIZY 9,000 and 7 $500 S? FT. , was adopted. I I I I mmmmc; W COMMISSION XECOMMENDING AFPII~V CF CARLSBAD F3OM X-A-10.000 TO R-I-10,000, f I I $ D , The F’lanning Technician asked that the subdivision map i be deferred to the next meeting for revision, I I MR. GEIGER stated that since the proponent is still in I the room, notice of appeal is hereby made. I I I I I I PUBLIC HEARING: YI”” I RECLASSIFICATION - From Zone 2-2 (Two-family : Zesidential ‘Zone) to Zone 3 -3 (Multiple-family Residenhil Zone) on property located on the southwest corner of Falm Ave. , and Warding Street. Applicants: Guy C. and Eunice C. Sensiba. Notice of hearing was read. The Acting Secretary certified as to publication of notice of hearing and the mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Acting Secretary then read the application setting forth the reasons for requesting this reclassification. 1 s I I I 8 8 4 f There were no written communications. The Chairman asked the prop nent to speak first. .- I I EON DRESSELHAUS, 3535 flarding Street stated that he i : is purchasing the property under contract of sale and the ! fee title is still in the name of Sensibas. E-Ie contacted Mrt i in favor of the rezonihg. IIe described the location of the : t property and stated that there is R-3 zoning across from I the Fine Street school, and there is the telephone building: i on I-krding and the baseball field across the street from ; him which is used for commercial purposes. Back of him! ; the area is nonconforming 3-1 zone. When he first moved there, a developer came in and built 3 nice duplexes. The! i area has been upgrading the last 5 years. He owns the f large home on an R-2 lot and felt this would be the best i I design for continuous use of the land. He did not believe ; ! it would be detrimental and did not realize there would be any opposition. Xf there is much opposition, he will drop i ; the request $or reclassification as he did not wish to i squabble with his neighbors. IC I sensiba regarding the rezoning of the property and he was i I I I , I I I I i MR. CLAUDE A. LEWIS 3596 Harding stated that he ow& i:;::: : property across the street and if the property is allowed : l:;l*$ i R-3, it would increase the traffic and it wilt take away his: I:&;## privacy. Renters coming in do not take care of the propetty , 6 111(1 I ::!I:; -1 11 :::::; It 11 I ! i MRS. CRUZE, 3463 Harding question the baseball field ; I being considered commercial. She stated that she believek I it would downfall her property. I ! I I I I ; JOE: EPPINC stated that he Lives in Escondido but owns : ;i;:;; ;l:'t; I property adjoining this at Harding and Avocado and believes ;::::I I it would devaluate his property. If it would help his 1:;::: I :;::;: I property, he would be for this, but felt it would hurt the I ::: 1') : value of his property. I *)I 1;: I I:#; : MR. DRESSELMUS, ia rebuttal, stated that the property! Ill(Ifi easterly is upgraded but that they sell hot dogs, peanuts : f::::; : and pop at the ball park and his property has suffered fro$, this ball park. He likes the ball park but the children puis up his plants and cause his property to devaluate and the 1:;;;l The Planning Technician stated that it was his recommenb- ;i:::: ation that this would not be in the best interest of the Sity as this would be spot zoning. Eie asked for a continuation : of the hearing and that the staff be instructed to contact i i other property owners to see if they wished their property: Gavis i i !XI ; ; i to be zoned 3-3. Ward ; jx:x: i i It was agreed that this hearing be continued as it would be! Palmer :x: 'I I : "spot zoning" and that they accept the staff's recommends), Sarvie :X: :xi , I i tions. ; Sonneman i :X: I i PUBLIC HEARING: i R-I -4000 sq.ft. (Water Front one-family residential zoire) :;I, : Resolution of Intention No. 38 of the Carlsbad City Davis : ;x:xi ; i :I i Flanning Commission to amend Ordinance No. 9060 to i Vkrd :I1 : create an 2-1 -4000 sq. ft. (Water front one-family Ewald ; I :xi i i { residential zone). i Paher ;xi !X; ; It was agreed that this matter be held over to the next ! Sonneman I ; i I I t I:: @:I;;, I6 :::;: ::::;: ;:::I; I * :,::::! t 1 iiiiii /:'I: :'I :!I;:; i::;:fi I I : Ewald : f :xi ; : 4 I :;:::I I I ::+I @I/:: I !:I:;: ;I, Ix: : I * : Jarvie ; : ;xi i : I I ::.::: I I :;I::; 1 I :$:: I I !ii;ii :::i:: ::;::: I' i:::;: I ;::a,; I I 1:4;; i City has rezoned him into a commercial area. 4 I l'lt:: I I I I- I ,::I: I i meeting. : PUBLIC HEARING: : VARIANCE - To create two "Panhandle lot splits on ! the north side of Knowles between Davis Ave. and U. S. : : 101 Freeway on Por,of Lot 14 (A.M. 65) in the City of i I I I I" " "" Carlsbad. Applicant: Jesse 0. Kinrnan. I :!::I' I I I I Notice of hearing was read. The Acting Secretady certified as to publication of notice of hearing and the i mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The : Acting Secretary then read the application setting forth t$e reasons for requesting this variance, Letter from Lowell A, Rathbun, City Engineer, stating : that since the proposed lot split did not comply with the i Pubdivision ordinance it would be necessary for the applicant to apply for a variance. There was no other correspondence on this matter. DONALD CTEEGAR, 3174 Donna Drive, stated that he represented the applicant and has inspected the property.: The property is landlocked and a portion of it adjoins the: U. 5. 101 Freeway. Since the City Engineer recommen+d that they apply for a variance in order to aplit their * I property by having "panhandle" lot splits, he believes this is the best they can do with this property. MRS. F. L. PRIME, 2535 Davis stated that her properti is 9 000 sq. ft, , and she is concerned with the property I around them. She does not want to devalue their properti. AS long as there will be property in excess of 9,000 sq. ft. * it would be satisfactory with her. I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I No one spoke in opposition. The public hewing was closed at 11:54 f e M. I I I 1 I 1 l 1 I a After a brief discussion about the lots having been divided beforetit was agreed that this request for said i variance be granted with the "panhandle;' lying parallel : with and contiguous to the westerly property line of Lot 14 for the following reasons: I I I I 1 I 6 I, That it i s the only possible method of utilizing I the property, I I I l 2. That it would not be injurious to surrounding i properties. I I I 3, That it conforms with the "Panhandle" Lot Split 4 I policy of the City of Carlsbad. I 1 I b I It was also agreed that the Lot split be surveyed, and i monumented, and street improvements constructed in ; Xnowles Avenue, in accordance with Ordinance No. 9'136j Resolution No. 292.11 XESOLUTICN OF THE CARLSBA? Davis OPJMISSION GZUPITING TWO "PAN- : Ward I-IANDLE" LCT SFLITS GN PORTICNS OF LCTS 14 AND! Ewald TICN 6, T. 12 S. 2. 4 W. S.B."I IN TXE C,ITY CF [ Jarvie I + 15 (A. Ad. 65) GI? A FO2TION OF THE N.V. 1/4 C.Z SEC. Palmer CARLSBAD, was adopted. : Sonneman PUBLIC MEARING: I 1 I 8 I 1 I "- - VARIANCE - For reductinn of the northerly side yard ; setback from 10' to 5' on Lot 38, Lebarr Estates No. 2, : Map 4944, in the City of Carlsbad. Applicants: Rabuco Development Corp. * Notice of hearing was read. The Acting Secretary 1 certified as to publication of notice of hearing and the : mailing of notices to property owners in the area. The Acting Secretary then read the application setting forth : I 4;:::: ::#:*I the reasons for requesting this variance. There was no written correspondence on this matter. : :::::: I!!;!: I I I I * I I 1 I I ::I::: l;h:; I I 11s 1 I iii;:: 8 I i:i:ii I ! l:'l:l NEW BUSINESS: There was no new ADJCUZNMENT: """-