HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-23; Planning Commission; MinutesMeeting of:
Date of Meeting:
Time of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
CALL TO (R)ER:
MINUTES
PINl,!IK; CDIU5.5IOO
May 23, 1984
7:00 p.m.
City COuncil Chamers
The Meeting was Clllled to order by 01ainMn Ramtis
at 7:00 p.m.
R:>LL CAIL:
Present: 01airman Rartx>tis, Ccmnissioners
Schlehuber, smith, Marcus,
and Farrow.
M:ieent: a::.dssioner Rawlins
PLE.DGE CF M..LEX;INCE was led by Ccmnissioner Farrow.
P~ COIIH5.5IOI PRXEXJRE:
Chairmn Rcatlotis announced the Planning CCll'll'lission
Prool!&Jre wa being shown oo a transparency and asked
the audience to ~ a few minutes reading it.
Staff Metlt>ers Present:
Bill Rotan, Principal Planner
Charles Grinlll, Principal Planner
Paul Uukas, Assistant Planner
EJr--Officio Mellt>e~ Present:
Mike RolDliller, Land u~ Planning Manager
Dan Hentadlke, Allllistant City Attorney
DaYe Hal&er, Deputy City Engineer
waiter Brolm, Civil Bnglneer
1JlllalUlll'I~ lTIII:
, • 1Url9(B) -"'BlP'XH rooo· -Request for a miD:Jr _iiliient to • pn9loualy ~ planned unit
dewlqal!nt located wst of Neblina Ori ve and south of
the future Taaaradt Avienue ln the R~-10,000 zooe.
OWlrl• Griaa, Principal Planner, gave the presentatioo
on thia itea • aintained in the information llll!IIDrardal,
uaing • txanapannc.y ehowing the project site.
lb:. Grial atated thia d\ange could have been nede
adlliniatraUvely, but the 1R>lioant wanted the request
to a:aa befcn the Cmalaioo. All prq:,erty owners
within lOO feet wre notified, even though by Ol'di.nanoe
tMa -not nquired. Staff and the IIJPlicant felt it
-,_ 1 ■RtY to notify the property owners.
In .-r to ac.aiuion ~ regarding the cnoioe of
baun, staff atated then -ro partirular [NSal for
dloalling 7100 a.a. to 10,00 p.■., other than theee were
the hcun dloNr\ for pnri.OUII project.a. Staff agreed
the haun ,_.. fiaible and oould be ctlanged.
O'We1Nklner 8111th irquired about the diatanoe between
ta. tlllD1a <Dirt and the nNrHt iwighbon, and staff
ataald the ta,nia CDJrt 110111d be about 30 feet from the
pcq11ety Um .
MINUTES
P~ CIMIISSI~ May 23, 1984 Page 2
Chait'11Wl Rarbotis invited the applicant to speak oo this
11111tter at 7:09 p.m.
Mr. Nes Mudge, 4241 Jutland Drive, san Diego, the
applicant, addressed the Collnission, stating he felt the
tennis cnurt was sanething future residents would
app:-eciate.
In answer Lo Conmissioo query, Mr. Mudge stated there
would be enough space to have barbecue pits ltnd picnic
benches in additioo to the tennis oourt.
Mr. Al Heritage, 4920 Neblina Drive, addressed the
Ccadssioo, stating he lives directly behind where the
tennis court is planned. Mr. Heritage used the wall nap
to point out where his property is located. He stated
the prqxised tennis court area has been raised two feet
above his badtyai-u. Mr. Heritage stated his CDnOern abut
the lights shining into the bedrocme of his IXlne. Also,
Mr. Heritage felt there might be excessive ooise <ilring
tia!s lihen his children would be sleeping, particularly
if the time schedlle wasn't enforced.
Mrs. Kathleen Heritage, 4920 i'Eblina, addressed the
Ca.dssioo, reaffirming her husband's roncerns, and
adding that the teMis court IO.lld be closer than 30
feet. Mrs. Heritage stated there are three IXlnec that
would be directly affected by this tennis court.
Chairman Ralt>otis asked Mr. and Mrs. Heritage what they
thought the hours should be for the tennis oourt, and
they stated they felt 9:00 p.m. would be nore
appropriate.
Mr. Mudge, in response, stated the rourt oould be noved
an additiooal ten or-fifteen feet farther frail the
ptq)erty line, making it 40 to 45 feet fran the property
line. Mr. Mudge stated if the suggested hours were
objecticnable, he would listen to suggestions.
Since oo ooe else wished to speak oo this item, Olairman
Aollbotis anoounoed the public testi.mny concluded at 7: 15
p.a.
Mr. Gr1-stated the tennis rourt location is 30 feet
f,xa the pcope, ty line and the nearest structure would be
another SO feet IMl'J. Be stated the landscepe plan baS
to be aubaitted to the Land Use Plaming Manager, and the
neiCjhbon <XlUld put heavy f!lll)hasis oo the landscaping.
The IA)licant indicated he we in agreement with this
SU99Ntion.
00-tNf'll"' di&a.1Nioo centered on the satisfaction of the •-uat.. neighbon and their ability to lllllke suggeations
an! challl)ea if the need aroae. There is a hcllleowners
IINOCiatia-1, but it W8 Rntimed that IIOla'l of the
nei(Jbban belong to another holleowners auociation, and
thoN s-P}e lhould be llble to have irp1t to aMrees the
paJbla.
!be 1U119Ntia-i to CNnl}e the evening hour to 9:00 p.11.
-d1eo-ss:td, with Q:aaiuioner Parrow stating he would
lib to i.... the cloeing hour at 10:00 p.a., and if it
beo ■ • prclblea. then aake my d\angee at that ti.Ille.
MINUTES . ~
May 23, 1984 Page 3 0~ ~~ 1t,.
COMMISSIONERS ~ ~\_ ~\
The Planning Camrlssion adopted the following Resolution:
RE!:aDI'I~ t«:>. 2297, APPRJIJI?,I; AN HIDCMENr 'ro PLAt~mi;
CXWU$~ RES:>Wl'I~ t«:>. 2229 AR) CITY CXXJNCIL
RE9XDl'I~ t«:>. 7472 FURSUMl' '00 SECl'I~ 21.45.160(2) OF
TBE CARLSlW) fll.JNICIPAL CIDE TO MKE A MilOR RE\TISI~ '00 A
PRBVIOOSLY APPRJIIID ~ CfiIT ~Em'~ PR>PERI'Y
GllNERALLY I.DCM'ED iESl' OF NEBL~ DRIVE AND !:1X11'H CF
TAMARACR.
The anel"'n!nt included oonditioos allowing the Land Use
Planning Manager to change the tennis CX)Urt hours to
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., if cx:,aplaints occur, and a
cxnUtioo for heavy landscaping near the tennis CX)Urt
was added.
POBLIC RFARIN:;s:
2. V-357 -NM'IVE SlJII -Request for a variance Eran the
zoning ordinance to allow the ronstruction of a six-foot
high wall within the front yard setbadt oo prq,erty
located on the rorth side of Ocean Avenue between
Mountain View Drive and Pacific Avenue.
Chainnan Ralbotis announced dle to a oonflict of interest
on this item, he l«lllld abstain fran the discussion.
Collnissioner Smitl1 raninated Camdssioner Schlehuber as
interim Chairman and Callllissioner Marcus seoonded the
ncmdnatioo. The Cclllldssion unanim:JUsly agreed that
camdssioner Schlehuber· serve as Olairman for Item t2.
Mike Holzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager, anoounoed
there ..ere letters en this item en file with the
c.c:..dssioo, and which should be inade a part of the
rerord. These four letters are: Granville Park
Prq)arty Owners Aseociatioo, signed by Donald Jadtsoo,
Pn!eident, in Cl(lp08itioo to the varianoe1 Mr. Joseph B.
Platt, stating Cl(lp08itioo to the varianoei Mr. , Mrs.
J~ Winninghan, stating qiposition to the variance, and
Mrs. Alice M. Muhbir, qiposing the variance.
Charles Grina, Principal Planner, gave the presentatioo
on this ita as contained in the staff report, explaining
the bfl> oonditions that staff CX)Uld oot fioo for granting
a variance.
Interlll Chairmr1 Schlehuber q,ened the ?Jblic hearing at
7:32 p.a. Md issued the invitation to speak.
Mr. Bcb s~, 23931 Tasman Bay, Laguna Niguel, addressed
the C.O.iuion, handing photographs to the cammsioners
whidl he then referred to in crder to justify the four
findinga needed for the variance. Mr. SUkup also stated
that the object.ioo raised to the prq>oeed wall relating
to obetroctirWJ the view .. oot valild, as there is m
viw at the pneent tiae. Re added this wall would help
the litter probl• along the front of the property and
the vai,ranta that loiter there.
Nr. Donald Jadmon, 260 Normndy Lane, representing the
Gnnrille Pan Ptaperty Qwnere Auociation, a!reeaed the
Caee1Ni'Jft, aaking peraiuion to view the photographs
prau.nted by Nr. ~-Mr. Jeckeon am ooaenta about
... ct. thoN photographa.
lultx>tis
Schlehuber
Slllith
Marcus
Farrow
X
X
X
X
X X
I
r .
MINUTES
May 23, 1984 Page 4
The six pl()togr~ presented by Mr. SUkup were entered
Wa8 part of the ~rd.
Mr. SUkup a:mmmted a, the condolnini1.m:1 going up in the
area, wiich IIIOUld further elilllinate any view, and stated
the ..all he is requesting would be heavily landscaped and
would oot be that offensive.
Since oo ooe else wished to speak a, this item, the
public testi.mny wis roncluded at 7: 14 p.m.
DiSCU88ion aKJn9 the Colmli.SBioners reaffirmed staff's
~tion <ile to the inability to ftlke the four
necessary findings for a variance.
COlllnissiooer Farrow stated that he felt the oode should
be manged to oover situations where a proposed project
oould be justified and would be beneficial; thereby
eliminating the neaiSBity of. making the four findings for
each indivirual variance niquest.
The Planning Callldssion aoopted the following Resolution:
RmUJI'~ N). 2298, Dl!NYIKi A VARIAOCE TO ALUM A SIX-
P'CXJI' BIQI NUL wnllIN 'mE P!Ofl' YARD SEl'SBACK <EraRAILY
UXM'l!D OI '!'HE taml SID! OF OCEAN SI'REEI' Ba'WEE?il
MCXM'AIN VIBH DRIVE NE PACIFIC AVINJE.
Chairaan Raltx>tis returned to Chai r the Planning
ca.issioo for the remainder of the Agenda.
3. er 84::4/CP-275 -IA CXBl'A RIVIERA -Request to
oonatruct an 18--unit ciiil:alnlin project a, a 1. 31-acre
lot located a, the oorth side of Navarra Ori ve between
Viejo castilla Ml!ly and the La Costa Golf Course.
Charles Grial, Principal Planner, gave the presentation
on th1a item as oontained in the staff t"epOrt, using a
t~ to ahow the site.
ca.iaaioner , arrow stated staff should justify the
requeat ftt-a p:oject below density.
O\ainan ADlllbotis cpened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
ant! iuued the 1nv1 tation to speak.
Nr. Jchn P'raur, 7654 Galleon way, stated the llg)lioant
-in IIIJl'IIIPIDt with the Calditims.
Nr. Leo L•da, 3501 Mavara, Apt. 111 , addressed the
Oow1ulon, ilquiring llbout lltlether the parking was m-
•ita. Staff --.:end that it WIS.
aux. rm aw e1ae wiahed to apeak oo this it e111, the
public teatiacQy -ronclucled at 7:52 p.111.
'l'be Planning Caaiuia"l IIJPrOV'ed the Negative
DecJantlon iaaaed by the Land Uae Planning Manager Md
ldopt.cl tbe following Raeolutiau
II). 2290, APPKJVD«; M 18-onT Tl!!Hl'lll'IV! TRACI'
PlllU'l' CIC HG1CRr r QIN£AALLY UXX'l!D
llmnl 8ID8 fY MVMM DRIV! iifiWWW VIEJO °'8l'ILLA
.1111> ~ CDll'A <DI <DJMZ.
loltx>tis
Schlehuber
smith
Marcus
Far;.ow
ADlllbotia
SChlehuber
8111th
Mareua
Farrow
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
MINUTES
~ '' PI.Nim«; CDIHSSICN May 23, 1984
0~ ~~9> ~
Page 5 COMMISSIONERS ~ ~\_ ~\
4. Cl' 84-9~7 -CAJUSBAD ~ CENI'ER -Request
to allow the subdivision and dl!velqmient of 15.8 acres
into BeYen irdlstrial postage-st.MP lots and one caPlk)f\
lot, on property located oo the oorth side of Faraday
Avera>e, directly acroes fra11 Priestly Avenue.
Paul IClukas, Assistant Planner, gave the presentation en
this item as contained in the staff report, using a
tranaparency to show the site and wall exhibits showing
the entry ~ and the building placement as well as
traffic circulation.
Chainan Raltlot.is (l)ened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m.
and issued the invitation to speak.
Mr. Barry Bender, Rick !ngineering, 3088 Pio Piro, stated
the an>lioant roncu~ with the oonditions and ooly
requested re-oonside .. ,u on of O:n:lition 123. Mr. Bender
stated these fees had been paid, and if they ~id
theft, it would be oouble payment.
Walter Brown, Civil nEngineer, stated if the fees had
been paid, then Condition 123 had been satisfied.
ec.d.ssioner Slllith asJted about dangerous chemicals and
staff armwered that Conditioo 133 was written to take
care <i. that oonoern.
Paul IClukas stated staff had a list of chemicals to be
uaed by the CXllpal1y, and rot al 1 of them would be used in
Carlsbad.
Since oo one else wished to speak oo this natter, the
public testilnony we ooncluded at 8:01 p.m.
COlllliuioner Farrow (JJeetiooed the signature page 1
specifically, the first b«> signatures and the Assistant
City Attorney asured the o:i.dssioner any conflict would
not be with ., individual.
The Planning CClllliuion approyed the Negative Declaration
iuu.! by the Land Uae Planning MaMgP.r and adopted the
following Reeolution:
Rl!91Dl'IOI II). 2300, ~ AN BIQll' Ull' DIXJSJ.'RIAL
stli>fOiiffiii IN> PLNH!D tJm' ~ CN PR>PBRl'Y
Gll'laflU,Y UXM'l!D CN 15. 8 ~ CN THE 1Dffli SIDE CF
PAIWlAY ttVIHJB, DIRl!CI'LV 100lS ~ PRIBSl'LY AVIHJE.
The aMed anlition that if the City Engineer dl!tendnes
the feell have been paid, 0:lnditioo 123 would be stricken.
5. V-359 -DBVBUBU!Hl' O'.HlJID.'Ml'S -Requeet for-a
variinai ol the aonlng crdlnanoe to tX>nBtruct a 10-foot
temia fence within the rear yard eetback of a through-
lot at 7117 CIJeliaoo Circle.
Paul Duua, Allaiatant Planner, gave the presentation
cm t:hia ita • aontained in the staff report, ~ing a
t~ lhawing the site. A cr:ou-eection ws shown
inclicatinl) the prq,oaed fence and wall.
In ---to ow-1uial (f.lerY • to ..tlether there would
be 1JX111 enaugtl to ooild thi.a fence wit.hoot • variance,
•tdf Rated then would be. "°'"8r, there are plane tx:,
build• pool and cabana...,. and a t.enni.a .... tching area.
Rollbotis
Schlehuber
Sllith
Marcus
Farrow
(f)
X
X
X X
X
X
MINUTES
PLMNIM; CDIUSSI<Jf May 23, 1984 Page 6
OUrlrNn R::llt>otis ~ the public heari~ at 8: 10 p.m.
and issued the invitatioo to speak.
Mr. Joe Sa.'ldy, 2956 Roosevelt, representing the
applicant, addreued the ca.issioo, answering the ~
regarding the size of the lot, and using a wall 1111P to
indicate what I01ld be required if the tennis oourt ~
llJVl8d back. He stated that would be too expensive and
not practictl.
At this point, Olairmn Ralh>tis asked for a few lllirutes
break to enable the caraissioners to view the wall
chart.
Mr. sandy ex>ntirued, stating how the lot IO.lld be
backfilled and dense landacaping used to camuflage the
fence. This property NJUld be given the same treatment
as the property to the north. Mr. Sandy gave a ropy of
the juatif'icatioo for the four variance findings to the
Colllissioo for their perusal. He stated this is an
wuaua1 area of La Costa, with seven through lots, and
an area lihere there ..., never any intentioo to oonstruct
houaes fronting oo this side of the street.
Since no one el&_ wished to speak a, this item, the
public testinlny Wll!IS concluded at 8: 18 p. m.
Caai.Mioner Marcus stated she felt it was a good
deaign. Cclllliuioner Farrow stated he CDUld llllke the
four findings to approve the variance. ca.dssioner
Schlehuber cx,ncurred with the other t:wo Ccmnissioners.
The Planning ca.iuioo returned V-359 to staff to
prep111:e cb:.ulents ~ing the variance, due to the
through lots and elc>vatioo of. the property, lihich
enabled the Colllissioo to make the four findings for the
variance.
6. Cl' 83-19/IU>-56 -CAIAVERA BIUS CDIPMY -Request
for a '66-unit tentative tract ap arid planned unit
devel.qaent in Village T in the oortheast corner of the
calawra Bills Master Plan area in the ~ JJOne.
Paul nutaa, Aaaistant Plamer, gave the pr-esentatioo a,
thia it.• oontained in the staff report, calling
attenticn bo the __.antbl dated Nay 2 3, 1984,
oontaining certain revieia'lil, and stating the -.m-&ndum
ahowd be~ to .:ait t34 and t4fi: that these revert
back to the wrding of the original conditioo. A
uanaparency ... UNd to llbaw the site and a wll exhibit
abowing the ptq..cA&d typM of. hcaed.
Olaiman Rallbotifl q,ened the public hearing at 8:25 p.111. a i.-.t the invitatioo to epeak.
Nr. Anthcny Bcnforte, 110 Weat C Street, San Diego,
adc1uuJ the Cclllliuioo, stating hews present to -r lffJ cpeetiona. Be did request the C<aaissioo to
001Widar the bnguage dw,.ngee in f34 and t46, as he felt
tblN changee clarified what the awlicant felt proper
fer tbia p:oject.
Mr. Bonfarte nferred to the site plan wall chart and the
four principal houaing type& for Village T. Be stated
the IFPlicant felt thi■ IOlld be an attractive additioo
to the City ol. CUlabad.
laltx>tis
Schlehuber
Slldth
Marcus
Farro'/$
X
X
X
X
X X
MINUTES
PLNlfltl:; CDIUSSIOf May 23, 1984 Page 7
In anewer to Caaisaion ~, Mr. Bonforte stated he
felt f46 was cnl.y clarificetion of the language, not the
aaning, and f:34 had to cb with access to a portion of.
the property oot of. Village T and was not part of. this
plan.
O:W.iuioner Saith stated he was concerned abut the
denaity at this project and asked Mr. Bonforte why the
higheet density of. 3.99 had been l.lSed. Mr. Bonforte
stated staff '°1ld not ceawb.d the tg,er range of.
density I.Wltil land unless the developer dem:lnstrated
that it '°1ld be an open type of construction design.
Mr. Larry Elston, 3565 Madisoo, addressed the caaaission,
asking abut th>! illp.:ovetne(lts to be axipleted by the
developer. Mr. Wlllter Brown answered that all streets
fronting school p!:q>erty '°1ld be fully developed by the
~loper. Mr. Elston asked whether the ti.Jne had beer,
identified and Mr. Brown stated that College Avenue would
be cn111pleted with the first lD'lits of. the project.
Taaradt IO.lld be develq,ed before 120 units would be
0011pleted, and the t:elance IO.lld be in response to market
preuure. Mr. Elston stated he was a developer and he
had to oonsider the school district and felt this
dewloper should have to cb the same. Mr. Brown said
there we a 24-tlllnth limit, or lD'ltil the tentative nep
expired. Mr. Elston asked t'IOlf oontiguous pieces of.
piq>erty IO.lld be eened specifically to the south-and
Mr. !UukM stated College IOlld ~ to the south of this
project.
The !"\Stiistant City Attorney stated this was all part of
p"Lq>erty covered by the aster plan. Part of. the
~of.College is off-site frcn the subdivision.
Thia pu.perty is part of. the meter plan and that
requiree all public facilities to be oonstructed as a
condition of. the .. ter plan. Timing is determined by
the -ter plan and the SJbdivision aap. There '°1ld be
nqui~ dldication of full width College frail the
southerly boundary to Bl.a and half-street ilprovements.
Mr. Brown said mnditions of. the Nater plan and this
s ubdivision require the dweloper to iaprove and put
College Avoeme in place froa State Route 78 aootherly oo
both eidNJ then ocntirue froa the eootherly line of. the
l\ub!Jvi■ion to Ila w1th half-street illpr<M!aents. The
raaining half I01ld be dwelq>ed with eubeequent
claftlqanta. Mr. Brown stated this IMS covered in
canditicn 33, u-ita e.
tltal a■Jted hia or.cam, Mr. Elston stated he didn't want
the dnelq>er to b.lild a half street if that didn't
Nti■fy the neecll of. the other property owners.
llr. v. Prank Maro, 411 8rookee Aveooe, San Diego,
,~.,.lting the Lake CalaYera Bills Aseociatee,
a&ktaec! the Coaiuion expreuing mncern about access
to Vil~ R. Be referred to the tentative ap and
ehcMlcJ where acaa to Village R '°11 have to paas
aas:m■ pcq,arty ol. a third party, with no guarantee of.
pem1Nlcn--t..hat it is laMl.ocked. Mr. Asaro a,ggeeted
an altematift mute through aubdivision property. using
the -11 -.;,, Mr. Maro indicated the alternate acceea
route., ■tatiniJ it IOlld be llhorter, ooet lees, and IOlld
be with mt C)l'ec!ing rather than fill.
MINUTES
May 23, 1984 Page 8
Mr. Bl'CMl stated staff was .are of this problem and had
looked at the different poesibilities. He read Conditioo
34, llhich pertained to this, and stated there had been an
effort to bring the parties together to reach an
agr,!'enent. Several routes had been considered am Mr .
Brown stated staff 1110Uld weloome arrt suggestions and
poasible aolutia'IS to this problem. However, Mr. Brown
stated the aJ temotive suggested by Mr. Asaro was under
an SDGloE eueaent and mt viable.
Mr. Charles Olristensen, Attomey, 444 West C Street,
San Diego, teptesenting the developer, addressed the
CallRisaioo stating the t34 access had been arrived at
with four oonferencee with the City Engineer. He stated
Nr. Bedman liked this aligrwnent best, am the pr-operty
belongs either to the water district oc the City of
carlsbad, with the aeseeSOI' shewing the owner as the City
of carlsbad. He stated the property in questioo was
owned by Mr. Sanders, but oould revert back to Mr. ward.
Be introduced into the re(X)['d a letter dated May 21,
1984, traa Tranaaierica, stating the property is owned by
Mr. Sandet-a.
Since no one else wished to speak oo this item, the
public testimny ~ ooncluded at 8:58 p.m.
The Assistant City Attorney, in answer to query, stated
Conditioo t34 would take mre of the issue am conform.
Ccaliesioner Schlehuber s~ted he had a problem with the
density oo this project and would like to see it dtq.ped
to acae degree. Be stated as a Mefth!r of the
Circulation ca.dttee, he 1110Uld like to report that a
cq,y of the <Xllplter stooy had been r:eceived am there
are acme serioos traffic proble'l'S. This will go before
the ca.issioo June 13, 1984. If projects Me built l4>
to the auhun, there will be a qigantic traffic problem.
Caaissionera Farrow and Marcus agreed they .ere
oonoemed about the density.
The Plannirw:J ca..iaaioo oontinued this item to July 1 1 ,
1984, to enable the caaissioo to stooy the traffic
factor ax! the clrculatioo report. It was suggested that
ataff aeJt SNIW; to look at the possible problem if
develop.a at the tq> density of four.
The lllPlioant: npreued the desire for a vote to be taken
tanigbt, but the Aaaiatant City Attomey stated that was
not namaary if ttw-O:--tuioo felt it needed additional
intonation in OC'der to act ~ the ntqUest.
The 111Plicant -■ infc:rmd of his right to appeal the
Notion of the Ccalliuioo to the City Cnmcil attl have
tha direct tt.t 0:--iufon to reconsider.
7. C'1' 83-32~ -CAIAVBRA HILLS CXMPANY -Request for -wcwil~t:entatlve ai&Uvlaloo.., and plamed
unit &welcpllnt fee:-204 units in the Village O in the
nartheMt pcrtioo <1 the Cal.avera Billa Master Plan area
in the P--C acne.
lulbotis
Schlehuber
Sllith
Marcus
Parrow
X
X X
X
X
X
MINUTES
~ CDIIIISSICN May 23, 1984 Page 9
Paul IUukaa, Anistant Planner, gave the presentatioo at
this itea • oontained in the staff report, URing a
trarwparency to ehow the project sit e, referring to a
-=iranlhn <ated May 23, 1984, to the Plaming Comnissioo,
and rec, ue.,,:Ung the ca.iBSioo revert to original
Conditioo tu.
Olairmn Ralb.)tis q,ened the public hearing at 9 :03
p.m. and i.88ued the invitatioo to speak.
Mr. Anthony Bonforte, Ceeex> Developent, 110 West C
Street, 8!Ul Diego, addressed the ec-issioo, explaining
the project n the streets to be oonstructed. Re
referred to the -1111111P, stating the IBSter plan
Bhould be reviewed, • the ca.issioo was atly seeing
fragaents of the total 1BSter plan, in which the
traffic problem had ~ived aple oonsideratioo. Re
pointed out the large q>el'I areas oo the nap and stated
he cbjected to being pidted at a, fragments of the
project instead of the total plan which has already
been oonaidered. Mr. Bonforte asked for a vote at this
item tcnight.
The Planning Caaissioo ex>ntinued this item to the July
11, 1984, meeting, for the saae reasau1 as Item t6.
The applicant was again reninded of his ability to appeal
this mtion to the City Ckluncil.
INPCHIM'ICN rrBM:
8. DPAPr REPCR' CN ~ICNM. V!BICIE PARICIN:i IN THE
P'IQff'"YAll).
Mike Rolailler, Lam Use ?laming Manager, reported
there ws no action needed oo this item.
The Mimtee of the April 25, 1984, meeting were ~
as presented.
The Nimtee of the Nay 9, 1984, meeting were approved as
preaented.
By ~ mtic.c., the meting of May 2 3, 1984, was
8l!joumec! at 9:23 p.L
Reapectfully aubaitted,
Harriett Batibitt, Mimtea Clerlt
NBIIL'DUI MIi Mal TAPID All> lBPl' CN l'IIB {Nl'IL 'lBE
NDl1l'BS All AIIPIOIII>.
Ar.:llltx>tis
Schlehuber
Smith
Marcus
Farrow
lolbotis
Schlehuber
Saith
Marcus
Farrow
IUYbotis
Schlehuber
Saith
Marcus
Farrow
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
Tra11■1n11 ~
Tltte SeMcee
T
May 21, ;_994
Mr. Charles 8. Christensen
Tranumerlca
Title Insurance Company
4355 Ruffin Road
Box 1&600
San Otego, Callfornla 92116
(619) 5e!5·8131
CHARLES W. CHRISTENSEN & ASSOCIATES
444 West "C" Street, Suit~ 400
San Diego, California 92101
Subject: Carlsbad Tract No. CT-83-19
Dear Mr. Christensen,
I n accordance with your recent request, we have reviewed
the title informati~~ concerning Village "T" in the
Calavera Hills area of the City of Carlsbad as shown on
the tentative tract map, CT-83-19/PUD-56, including an
approximate 5 acre parcel entitled Village R-1, adjoin-
ing but not a part of the tentative tract map for Village
"T".
Fleaae be advised that from the record information on
file with the County Recorders Office, Cedric E. Sanders,
a married man, is the fee owner of the property and
neither Roy Ward nor Lake Calavera Hills Associates have
any record fee title to said property.
Please be further advised that as to the approximate 2
acre parcel adjoini ng the northeast corner of Village
"T", neither Roy Ward nor Lake Calavera Hills Associates
appear as owner of record.
If I can be of any further assistance to you concerning
this matter, do not hesitate to conta ct me.
ruly ;:?,~rs,/
p~
, Special Projects
Tit Officer for
TRANSAMBRICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
GT/mmr
MllS. SIDNEY f . MASHBIR ;z_4 ').r:.2,: :-:
TWENn' FOUR NINET'I OCEAN STilEET n,rf> . ..,
CAJU.SBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 f\~'\, ~ ~ ~~ )\ \\i. 1,~ ~ ~c -(5) "\ ~ ai~~~ ~,r-::_A r:::: ,.. ,,., cf!" .... ~ ~ ;~~~
,~~, ..... : "-.<}. ' .. ~ \
fc.1 ·. ~a~ I~ S\&."'-l': 'i L l5._ '_: ~
'tt\,\ ·. V -~5'1
~~~ 'fi>u,•i"j ~,t.
I UMd\.r~t-".l. ~\.\'"'L \.i \o ~1.
a. ~ta"i ~-, ~ ~.'1 "2 ~ n -tei"
C.On ~,n.11c:"\o._, o1 a t. • ~ u..>a\\,
ON ~\ V\Otl-~ ,~4\. 0~ 6)c.\.&""-'
stt,\-t .
Q.a~, l(.now-4'a-t l im o~yo~"4,
to ~is. vo,i~"'" r~~~.
s-cin.'-'.
~(.\ 1¾. ~\\~
C&rl■lad Planing Departaent
1200 Ela Aftnue
Carl■lad, C&llfornta 92008
Dear Sir■,
Re a NATI VE SUN
File• V-J.5?
A■ n■identa of the area llhich would be aftected, we wi■h to
proteat the encUon or a ■ix-foot -11 at the north ■1de or
Ocean Street u propoaed by the •uw Sun CorporaUon.
1be beautU'ul ocean new and spectacular ■unaeta afford a
gnat cleal of pleuure not only to Carlalad c1Usena but to
our ll&IIJ tour1■ta. In our opinion, th1• atructure would be
an eyeac,re and a bl~t on the ll&in attracUon of our village.
Ve ■trongl.y urge you to deny the wr1ance request pera1tt1ng
the conatruction or auch a -11.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Nra. Jaaea P. V1nn1nghu
2)2) Ocean Street IJJ
Carlalad, California 92008
@
( ..
C. (,
"
}Y_) 7 .. .: .:.1
-c: _,\.(~I L
l /c ~ ~;,, 'ltt/
;,. ,.. ~ . ,. . · --r ."//,,...,j.:l·'( I
. .
,·, .,,;1,_1.~ _1'll-t 1:•-( )1,.7 >-" j_il1'1.'I -~., ,,. ?'!J..,yt(•:M ~ ~ 11 . -·'-, ,I :1. tv'-'i rJf
' l ,'I @
·,,. t"..., ~~1-;_,:, 'f .~)' .,• J~ •,... '"11t,: • .' !, "I\, , . ;l :1 '/_'_·,; •f f..•Jt).'J'P ./''rJ/~
.T'-/il• ,..-,}~'• ••,:a.' I ' •1.• I., .... , ·. ·!. /'r I . I I I • , /' ,,,., . I I ' j
, --I 1· :'
·-~' '[ ,,,. ? .., ,._.; ",, _.., ., r 'T ·_, :, "". ,,. ''(', ., J f,Y>'?"~
/ . -r -. .. -r :1 I ~~ ,,-,, r' . _7'r , ) ,, , .:,,_ ;. ,J ,G /.,, ~· ,_.,;.-'1 .; . ' • / /;1{1 i t 71,' 7 7
----. ' . I . I '
·---:-"' • ''{..:-Jr,,.<., Y7., '~ /, • 0
./ ,: [ -~ ~-V . N .. ,r/ :· •·,'' • I , '• J' ,;"-;Jn1.,rr.// ., ·fJ It r / , · ,,. •
J-\., I ·" '· ·• I I
·~ ,;-r , ,,, ;, , ... ' I. . I • '/-. .. •· ' •,. ...,.-·;-',• , // .J h • I ry ·~, .•.. I ,, Y:•L'L.AI ,,, --'-, , t . , , , .. . I . ,.. . I . ,. , ' I . • .... -·~ ''V
' -:-1 ,--
/' ,,-r."'(/ ·11 /j 14' l ......,,,::0--,~"' )t,r.~•• rt •; '/J.
-r' r;• ~ I , r / • •
-. . 1/Pfl"" 1-lf ,/r~l~, r 'ft'r
·uq/ ,, )L~.,-Prt:;, , ;t' ?J?:'w "'\ef -,, J ; ' pzff?"h? i",:, . j/ ,.~. I
/o7 •,,>.,;--r< ?',f. "-' 1'71-/~F '~, 'tm_c ~i } ~ 'r,rfl I'll j,,,,
;Jl"f"P ~:-77,l--p,,i // J 1, •.,• / / )7[,/r ,,. i":?;. 7 ): -'11 ;// :n~'11/ ',-r\! I '--v)'l' --r // 'I ./'., ~ . ;--f lf .
g" ,1 ,t""/' '. ;r f .J?' ✓.' ; '"~ / J 7'"1
1 ·> 11•r71 7 o/1/ ~ ~ ,.; 'JI t t.1 ~ ?'_1f1. •p ., 4-1.17'71.-u ,..,......,,,-,. p.,7
-#. '.,t .f ,(,,.,, 11~17.?\•I/ •ifiJ,"
I •
L _5 [ -· 7 7), '!. ; '. :; · /~ 1:'J~P!{ 1 Fr{[
J-,.,"'rG ~.J ~;/1:) ~r>7J ~'~~tJl"''-1 ... ~ I 4 /f ,,_fJv' _L ,.
Pl' I f' ~", ~-~-✓ 7 ;h." '-:•, -a-~
}, P,/ "Z: C "VJt{ . . (~ 4l'I' i
l / g-,.:J.,,J (' 1-V) ~ ~ ... ""V' ~
. ('.'>r:x? 't/, !I ,,. ; · · 1 \1~ y 1' 4'.&.
"")??'tr"P :1r}, ?JI //'ti ~6'~ ~,
. ( "~~~
v \._.,
GRANVILLE PARK PROPERTY OWNERS ASS OC.
( A Non Profit Organization)
2445 Mountain View Dr.
Ci t y of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
City Hall
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California
92008
May 22, 1984
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re I NATIVE SUN
File: V-J57, Carlsbad Planning Dept.
Dear Commissioners:
The Granville Park Property Owners Association opposes
the proposed variance of a six foot high wall within tr · front
yard setback on the north side of Ocean Street for the following
reasons1
1. There are no exceptional nor extraordinary circumstances
nor conditions applicable to the property nor to the intended
use that do not apply to other property in the same vicinity.
2. The requested variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of rights provided by other
property in the same vicinity but denied to the property in
question. J. The granting of this variance would be materially
detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property
and improvements in the vicinity because a six foot high wall
within the front setback would interfere with traffic sight-
distance and surrounding view corridors.
Therefore, the Granville Park Property Owners Association
requests the Planning Commission~deny the proposed variance.
Sincerely , 'J
QJ:11,~
Donald E. Jackson,
President
r