Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 87-01; H. Von Packard; Variance (V) (22)4 .* ' r DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 0 8uildlng Deporlmmt 014) 438.5- 0 Plsnnlng Doputmt (714) -1 October 5, 1981 Raymond Spangler 3774 Skyline Drive Carlsbad CA 92008 c 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSSAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 ooprrtment PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION NO; 533 .. Whereas no review of the conditions of the letter of preliminary approval was requested by the appropriate date; and whereas the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and tlie City of Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1973 relating to the subject proposed parcel map have been exanined by the Planning Director and cleclarcd to have a nonsig- nificant impact upon the environment; and whereas negative findings delineated by Section 20.24.130 of the Carlsbad Mmicipal Code have not been made; and . whereas this minor subdivision is found to be in conformity with the General Plan of the City of Carlsbad; therefore, a final decision has been made to approve the subject tentative parcel map subject to the conditions set ford1 in the preliminary approval letter. * Assistant Civil Engineer cw: 1s C: Engineer of Work - Richard Hill J 541 E. Vista Way Vista CA 92083 4 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD. CA 92008-1989 Ollicr ol rho Clry Englneor ' TELEPHONE ! (619) 438.5541 Citp of Carl~bab June 16, 1986 Raymond G. Spangler 3774 Skyline Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS ON PARK DRIVE (MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 533) Per our telephone conversation last week, the City cannot at this point agree to support your proposed development. We understand this contra- dicts our earlier approval of your tentative map and parcel map. since the time your project was approved, the City Council adopted the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan (LCP) which places additional restrictions on development in this area. However, The particular restriction severely limits our ability to approve grading on lots with slopes in excess of 25%. Since all of Lot A and most of Lot 8 fall within this restriction, we cannot support your proposed project- even given your suggested revisions. At this point you have two alternative approaches to develop your property: 1. Take the proposed project forward to the Coastal Comnission without the support of the City. Section 4.4.a. of the Agua Hedionda LCP provides exemptions to the restrictions for existing lots with all their developable area in excess of 25% slope (see attached). 2. Redesign and resubdivide the property utilizing the City's Planned Development Ordinance and concentrate development on the lower portion of the property in the areas where the slopes do not exceed 25%. tain the support of the City and resubmit the project to the Coastal Comnission. Ob- We are sorry we cannot be of any further help in this matter. questions or need help with Alternative No. 2, please contact Clyde Wickharn, If you have 4 Raymond G. Spangler June 16, 1986 Page Two , 438-5534, for assistance. Specific questions regarding provisions of the Agua Hedionda LCP should.be directed towards Gary Wayne of the Planning Staff, 438-2904. QJh& AVID A. HAUSER Assistant City Engineer DAH : cl Attachment cc: Richard Hill, w/att. R. B. Hill & Assoc. 514 E. Vista Way Vista, CA 92083 Gary Wayne, w/att. Slyde Wickham, w/att. September 26, 1986 City of Carlsbad Engineering Dept. City of Carlsbad Research Dept. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Att: Clyde Wickham, Steve Jantz Att: Gary Wayne RE: MS 533, LOT "B" Gentlemen: As per your request, I am submitting the accompanying drawings proposing the alternate access to lot IcB" of MS 533. These drawings are the result of my conversations with you gentlemen the past couple of weeks as well as a meeting I had last week with Mr. Pat and George O'Day of O'Day Engineering, the engineers of the Pannonia project. Pat and George have not yet spoken with Mr. Nordquist. I shall meet with him on October 7 to discuss the viability of the proposal. But they did acknowledge that my proposed design didn't appear to be incompatible with their project. After showing my design to you gentlemen, and as I understand our conversations, the City of Carlsbad supports my concept and would probably not require any additional hearings for approvals of modifications to the Pannonia maps. Accordingly, not hearing to the contrary, I would expect the City of Carlsbad to support my proposal as I approach the Coastal Commission for their approval. Assuming I can reach an accord with Mr. Nordquist, I should like to meet again with you to finalize drawings details that should be used, and prepare documents necessary for application to the Coastal Commission. I apprecia'te your assistance and look forward to the successful consumation of this project. Cordially, H. Von Packard cc Mr. Mark Nordquist Mr. Steve Jantz Mr. Gary Wayne c. 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Citp of QCarIa'bab (619) 438-1161 October 10, 1986 H. Von Packard Diversified Investments 725 Grand Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Packard: Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposed access drawings to lot "B" of MS 533. While the drawings show that access from the "Pannonia" project is feasible, there are still several issues that must be resolved before the City can support your proposal before the Coastal Commission. For example, the Agua Hedionda Local Costal Progroam (LCP) prohibits alteration of steep slopes (25% or greater, policy 4.4 b). It appears that your proposal creates a large flat pad which involves the grading of steep slopes. As such, the City would find it difficult to support your proposal without an LCP amendment. Although your proposal has several benefits over previous development plans it is not certain that the City could support it. Prior to City support, design as well as LCP conformance issues would have to be resolved. If you have questions regarding this letter or the City's position regarding the LCP, please do not hesitate to contact me. GW:dm cc: David Hauser C 1 y d e Wi ck ham Steve Jantz October 10, 1986 Mr. Mark Nordquist Nordquist Development 580 Beech St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT Dear Mark: I appreciate your taking time to meet with me Tuesday to discuss the viability of including an ingress/egress easement to your Pannonia project to provide access to my lot. I truly appreciate the concerns you have to including a drive- way on the bicycle/pedestrian easement. Your proposed design has tremendous aesthetic merit. I acknowledge that adding a drive would diminish the natural impact. I have enclosed another revised drawing showing the proposed walls to be less significant than on my first design. Making the walls in crib block construction and planting them would even further diminish the negative impact, along with planting the slopes in natural foliage. In reference to potential legal/injury liability, I'm sure documents identifying responsibility and including necessary waivers and disclaimers would mitigate any problems. Finally, as I mentioned to you, Ciyde Wickham of the Engineering Department indicated to me that any modifications that I had shown him and you to accomodate this proposal change would most likely not require any hearings. All review/approvals would be done administratively. In conjunction, Clyde, Steve Jantz and Gary Wayne haave all reviewed my proposal and in- dicated they feel it has sufficient merit to receive their support. My desires are to be as accomodating as necessary to have the least impact on your project. I appreciate your open- mindedness and trust that we can work together, regarding this easement, to a successful conclusion. Cordially, H. VON PACKARD - 380-A Beech Ave. Carlsbad. Calif. 92008 (6191 729-71 18 October 17, 1986 Von Packard P.O. Box 4517 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Access to westerly lot Dear Von: Confirming our telephone conversation we will not be able to grant you access over our pedestrian trail. The impact of a driveway would destroy the atomsphere we are creating with the nature walk. If I can be of assistance in some other way please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Mark Nordquist President rh October 20, 1986 Mr. Mike Holtzmiller Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92008 PERSONAL DELIVERY RE: MS 533 LOT "B" INGRESS/EGRESS Dear Mike: As head of the Planning Department for the City, I am writing you regarding the Pannonia project (CT 85-18), Unit 1 currently under construction, and Unit 2 (Phases 3 and 4) under submittal for Final Map approval. I am the owner of Lot laB" of MS 533 (see Exhibit I1A*') approved in 1981 by the City. My lot is contiguous to the Pannonia project (see Exhibit "B"). Access for my lot as per the approved map is to come off Park Drive, but the Coastal Commi- ssion is denying that access. Conversation with both Gary Wayne of the City and Adam Birnbaum of the Coastal Commission indicate that access off the top of the hill (through the Pannonia project) would be an acceptable approach. Accordingly, my only alternative would be to secure access off Sunnyhill Drive as projected to exist in the Pannonia project. I am concerned that Unit 2 of the Pannonia project that abutts my lot would be finaled without addressing the issue of pro- viding me access through perhaps a panhandle easement. I have discussed the matter at length with Steve Jantz, Clyde Wickham and Gary Wayne, and received excellent input from them. I subsequently met with Mr. Mark Nordquist, owner of the Pannonia property on October 7 respecting the possibility of including in the 25 foot pedestrian/bicycle easement an ingress/egress easement for my lot (see Exhibit llC'l). Mr Nordquist was extremely cordial and understanding, but ultimately decided it wasn't in their best interests to include a private drive in the easement. I appreciate his position. I am going to approach Mr. Nordquist this week with another proposal of a separate 16' ingress/egress easement (see Exhibit *ID*'). It will require a variance from the City as to width and length but in anticipation of being a resolution to this problem, I would anticipate the City would accomodate the variance. I hope this will be a viable alternative acceptable to him. Unfortunately, this matter wasn't resolved prior to the Pannonia receivincj Tentative Map approval. was aware of the Coastal Commission's disapproval of the lot access and under the discretionary approval process of the Pannonia Tentative could have mandated an ingress/egress easement to my lot. As you recall, I was required to provide The City certainly -. access rights by the City on my Syme Drive project (CT 84-42) to my neighbors to the east. It is for t.his reason that I am now addressing this matter. The City still retains final discretionary approval of Phases 3 and 4 of the Pannonia project. I would request that the City assist me in securing an access off Sunnyhill Drive to my lot that shall be acceptable to the Coastal Commission. I shall approach Mr. Nordquist with my alternative proposal. If I am unsuccessful, I shall solicit the City's input and intercession so I may be able to develope my lot. I shall be in touch with you respecting my meeting with Mr. Nordquist. I appreciate your anticipated cooperation. Cordially, H. Von Packard, Jr. cc: Steve Jantz Clyde Wickham Gary Wayne _- March 19, 1987 Mr. Adam Birnbaum California Coastal Commission San Diego Coast District 1333 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. 125 San Diego, CA 92108-3520 RE: PACKARD/SPANGLER PROPERTY I had a chance to review the Proposed Plat Adjust that Mr. Spangler and Mr. Packard are processing through the City of Carlsbad. From what I can determine, the lines shown on the Adjustment Plat will accomodate structures resulting in no need for encroachment in to the Open Space area for clearance or other disturbance of vegetation for fire prevention methods. Should I be of any further assistance, please feel free to call. Cordially, Mike Smith Fire Marshall City of Carlsbad cc Von Packard Ray Spangler GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor ::AYE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY - CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SA14 DIEGO COAST DISTRICT 1333 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH, SUITE 125 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-3520 (6 19) 297-9740 March 31,1987 Von Packard P.O. Box 4517 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Re: Project Proposal for the Carlsbad-Spangler Site Dear Mr. Packard, At the outset, let me apologize for the delay in responding to you inquiry. The number of permit applications received in this office has increased, unfortunately, the number of permit analysts has not. In regard to the proposed project in Carlsbad, I would offer the following comments which may prove useful in the ultimate design of the project and in your meetings with City staff. As you are aware, the property has been the subject of two previous applications for coastal development permits. Each of these, for subdivison of the site, was denied by the Coastal Commission. The basis for denial basically centered on the potential impacts the subdivision would have had on the steep-sloping hillsides of the site and the downstream resources of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. The resources of the site have not changed since the earlier subdivision proposals were denied by the Commission. A new permit application for development of the property, including subdivision, would be reviewed for consistency with the policies of the Coastal Act and the policies of the certified Aqua Hedionda Land Use Plan. As discussed in our pre-application meetings, the Aqua Hedionda Land Use Plan prohibits the development of the steep sloping hillsides of the plan area, save for encroachment into these areas for access roads to the flatter, more developable portions of a property. I have reviewed your plans for a four lot'subdivision of the Spangler site. As I understand the proposal, one of the lots along the higher elevation of the site (#3), would be developed with a single family home with access from above, off of the I1Sky-Lineit site. Two other building lots (#l and 2) would be established along Park Drive with a single access to be used for both homes. The fourth and most northerly lot would be transferred, by boundary adjustment, to the property to the Von Packard March 31, 1987 Page 2 north, currently owned by a Mr. Files. The ultimate use of lot #4 would be as as a pool site for the existing Files residence . Staffs concerns with the submitted proposal involve the same issues previously addressed by the Commission in review of permits for the site, namely preservation of the steep sloping hillsides. The proposal that you have submitted is designed in such a manner as to alleviate most of the concerns of staff, and would with the following provisions, be recommended for approval with conditions. However, I would offer the following comments as to those aspects of the plan which still raise concern as to consistency with the Coastal Act and the polices of the Aqua Hedionda LUP. We have discussed the requirements of the Aqua Hedionda Plan and the allowance under the plan for encroachment into steep slope areas for access roads. The resolution which we had, was that a plan for the site would be acceptable (to staff) if it included no more than a 10% encroachment into the total acreage of the steep slopes of the site. This would include all encroachment for roads, manufactured slopes, structures and associated uses. It would also include all removal of veqetation for purposes of creatinq a fire break or yard area. The exhibit which you have provided appears to meet the requirement of less than 10% encroachment. However, I have not yet planimetered the encroachment areas shown on the exhibit and, as a result, can give no commitment that the project, as proposed, meets this specified requirement. The open space restriction language noted on the map appears consistent with that normally used in coastal development permits. Another concern arises from the fact that the portion of the property outside of the encroachment area proposed on the grading plan does not conform to the proposed open space deed restriction area shown on the map. I understand that there will need to be some llgracell area between the grading limit and the open space restriction area to accommodate any minor changes in grading plans that are ultimately submitted for the building sites. However, it appears that the open space line could be adjusted to include some additional areas which are not proposed for grading or other development. A further concern involves the creation of a separate parcel or boundary adjustment over an area composed almost entirely of steep slopes (lot #4). I understand that the only proposed use is as a pool site for the Files residence. However, the creation of a separate lot of that size holds the potential for Von Packard March 31, 1987 Page 3 the current or future property owner to pursue the use of the lot as a home site. Construction of a home and access road on lot #4 at a later date would involve additional encroachment into steep slopes in conflict with the intent of the 10% allowance and open space deed restriction. The Commission staff will therefore want adequate assurance that the creation of lot #4 will also include measures to prohibit, in perpetuity, its use as a home site in future. Finally I would caution you that the discussions we have had in past meetings and these comments reflect the view of the Commission staff only. The project will require review by the Coastal Commission itself which holds the discretion to approve, deny, or the conditionally approve the project in an entirely different manner than what has been discussed. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at the office listed above. Sincerely, cc: Planning Department-City of Carlsbad (1541L)