HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-10; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 195; Perl Family Trust AppealAPPEAL BY PERL FAMILY TRUST OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO DEWY MINOR RP 91-2
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 177 denying appeal and upholding the Design Review Board decision to DEWY minor Redevelopment Permit 91-2.
ITEM EXPLAWATION
This item is an appeal by the applicant (Per1 Family Trust/Mart O'Grady) of a Design Review Board decision of October 16, 1991 to DENY minor RP 91-2.
On April 19, 1991, the agent (Mort O'Grady) for the property owner (Per1 Family Trust) of 3055 Madison Street submitted an application for a minor redevelopment permit to change the use of one approved residential unit (880 sq.ft) to a three station beauty salon.
With a 4-l vote, the Design Review Board denied the minor redevelopment permit on October 16, 1991 based on the fact that the property owner could not meet the required parking; sixteen (16) spaces are required and only five (5) spaces can be provided on the site. Also, the agent for the property owner stated that the proposed beauty salon operator may no longer be willing to locate her business at 3055 Madison due to the various delays in obtaining the required permit(s). The Design Review Board did not feel that they could approve conversion of the one unit to a retail establishment if they did not know what type of business would be located at the site.
Attached is the staff report prepared for the Design Review Board which outlines the proposed project in more detail. It provides a summary/discussion of the various issues related to the Per1 Family Trust request.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
EXHIBITS
1. Resolution No. lly denying Minor Redevelopment Permit 91-2.
2. Notice of Appeal submitted by Morton S. O'Grady, dated October 22, 1991
3. Design Review Board Staff Report, dated October 16, 1991, with all appropriate exhibits and attachments
4. Minutes from September 18, 1991 and October 16, 1991 Design Review Board Meeting
L -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUBING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMI88ION RESOLUTION NO. 199
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOUBING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISBION OF TEE CITY OF CARLBBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENYPNG A MINOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONVERT TWO (2) EXIBTING 880 8QUARE FOOT REBIDENTIAL UNITS TO RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT8 (VIDEO STORE AND BEAUTY SALON) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE WEST BIDE OF MADIBON BTREET, 80UTH OF
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AT 3055 AND 3065 MADIBON STREET. CASE NAME: PERL FAMILY TRUST
CA8 NO: RP 91-2 E
WHEREAS, an appeal of the decision of the Design Review
Board denying minor RP 91-2 has been filed with the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal
Code, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did, on the
10th day of December, 1991, hold a duly noticed public
hearing to consider said application on property described
as:
Lots 25, 26 and 27 of Block 39, Map No. 1722 as recorded in the County of San Diego, California. APN: 203-305-12.
WHEREAB, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring
to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating
to RP 91-2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That based on the evidence presented at the public
meeting, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby
DENIES the.appeal and DENIES minor RP 91-2 for the reasons
stated by the Design Review Board at their meeting of
October 16, 1991. The findings of the Design Review Board,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
as stated in Resolution No. 175, shall constitute the
findings of the Commission in this matter.
PABBED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, California, held on the 10th day of December,
1991, by the following vote, to wit:
AYE8: Commissioners Letiris, Kulchin, Larson, Nygaard & Stanton
NOES: None
ABBENT: None
ATTEQT:
RAYMOND R. PATCHETT, Secretary
(BE=)
+v
TIEi ONLY OFF STREET PARKINGAVAILtLBM TO THIS PRO3f'ERTY
SUPPOSEDLY 5 SPACES OF WHICH ONE TENNANT HAS 3AUTOS
Pictures taken this date at It& PM
-. -
ON STREET PAR&G IN FRONT OF BUILDING
THIS IS MITH THE UNIT IN QUESTION VACW
Pfcturete taken thia date at lr45 PFi
8 cc Q, MV
OFF STREET PARKING IN FRONT OF M!f PROPERTY - mncmw (SEPARATING PROPERTY IN QUEStTON AND My PROPERTY) ' WITH OAK STREET Ih7lXRSECTION IN B&K- GROUND
Picture taken this date at 1245 PM
PROPERTY IN QUESTION' TENNANTS &THEIRGUESTS USING PARKING SP%ES ON MY PRMERTY
THISPICKUPISACTUAILYB~KING MY TENNANTS GARAGE ENTRY & MIT
Picture taken thLs date at 1:&i PM
4 CC q, /49/.
4 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REBOLUTION NO. I-
1
2
3
4
5
A REBOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLBBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A MINOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONVERT TWO (2) EXISTING 880
8QUARE FOOT REBIDENTIAL UNIT8 TO RETAIL ESTABLI8EMENT8 (VIDEO STORE AND BEAUTY 8ALON) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST BIDE OF MADIBON STREET, BOUTH OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AT 3055 AND 3065 MADISON (STREET. CA8E NAME: PERL FAMILY TRUST CASE NO: RP 91-2
6 WHEREAB, a verified application has been filed with the
7 City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board;
8 and
9 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a
10
11
request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
12 WEEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal
13 code, the Design Review Board did, on the 16th day of
14 October, 1991, hold a duly noticed public meeting to
15 consider said application on property described as:
16
17
Lots 25, 26 and 27 of Block 39, Map No. 1722 as recorded in the County of San Diego, California. APN: 203-305-12.
18 WHEREAS, at said public meeting, upon hearing and
19 considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
20 persons desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board
21 considered all factors relating to RP 91-2.
22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review
23 Board as follows:
24 1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
25 2. That based on the evidence presented at the public
26 meeting, the Design Review Board hereby DENIES RP 91-2,
27 based on the following findings and subject to the following
28 conditions:
1
2
3
4
5
1. The proposal does not satisfy u applicable regulations and development standards because the site is deficient in parking. The site cannot accommodate
additional required parking (eleven spaces) to allow the change in use from residential units to retail establishments.
6 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
7 the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California,
8 held on the 20th day of November, 1991, by the following
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
vote, to wit:
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
BAILEY NOBLE, Interim Chairman DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
27
28
. - EXHIBIT 2 .
- 1200 ELM AVENUE ‘_<. r TELEPHONE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 .-- ‘-2’ I 1 i i I <! .‘.‘.’ I- 1 (619) 434-2808
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the melGu cEvIFw
4sxhw to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): uFw1-z
%a- FAwLy Tic&T -
Date of Decision.: 16 41
Reason for Appeal: E4E C%+&lEeR'+ fbV TclEY ~~76, No7 #Z&+Sk~tit+ G&
22-7 qj
Date
Name (Please Print)
we $=-a )-M)Ly --l-RUST: _. 7 l-vLwusL’-s~e m5 w6
Address
&l”/l 75300775 l
Telephone Number
‘- -
EXHIBIT 3
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE:
IT* 19. 1991
STABI REPORT
OCTOBER 16, 1991
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
pP 91-2 - PERL FAELZI;Y TRUST - Request for approval of a Minor Redevelopment Permit to change the use of two (2) existing 880 square foot structures from residential to
retail use (beauty salon and video store) at 3055 and
3065 Madison Street in the Village Redevelopment (VR) Zone. The General Plan designation is Central Business District.
m R
Redevelopment Staff recommends that the Design Review B,oard ADOPT Resolution No. 171, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING RP 91-2, based on the findings and conditions therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The buildings located at 3055 and 3065 Madison were originally approved as residential unitsi As shown on Exhibit "A" dated' September 4, 1991, the entire property has four (4) existing structures: two 880 square foot single story buildings in front (two approved apartment units); a two story apartment building (four approved apartment units) and a 400 square foot garage used for storage. Five parking spaces are located on-site as shown on the attached exhibit.
Over time, the two single story front buildings were converted from residential units to a 880 square foot medical office and a 880 square foot retail establishment (video store). It is staff's understanding that a medical office occupied one of the buildings for approximately eleven (11) years. The video store has been in operation for approximately three to four years at the noted site. The video store is a continuing business and the t'officetl has been vacant for approximately one (1) year.
The agent (Mort OlGrady) for the property owner (Per1 Family Trust) has submitted an application for a minor redevelopment permit to change the use of the medical office to a three station beauty salon. Since the conversion of uses from the residential units to the medical office and video store were never officially
*. approved by the City, staff recommends that approval of the requested minor redevelopment permit be considered for both the video store and the beauty salon.
XII.
ISSUES. .
1. Is the proposed development in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the development standards and design criteria of the Village Design Manual?
2. Does the proposed development comply with all applicable zoning ordinances as contained in the Carlsbad Municipal Code?
DISCUSSION. .
1. Villaue Area RedeveloDment Plaa/Desicm Manual Conformance
The proposed retail uses (beauty salon and video store) are acceptable and compatible with existing surrounding land uses and permitted land uses within the Redevelopment Plan and Village Design Manual. Attached as Exhibit *@Bn is a map showing the land uses within the immediate vicinity of the noted property.
2. Com~liaace with 2oninu Ordinance
Prior to vacancy, a medical office existed at 3055 Madison Street for approximately eleven (11) years. Presently, a video store is operating out of the second building (3065 Madison Street). The City has no record of the conversion of 3055/3065 Madison Street from residential (the original use) to non-residential use (medical office and video store). For the conversion to be legally approved, internal upgrades would have been necessary to comply with the requirements of a B-2 occupancy, Title 24 and handicap provisions; no such improvements presently exist within either building. The.City has no record of a business license for any previous use.
Because the City has no official record of approval of the office and video use at 3055/3065 Madison Street, they are technically illegal non-conforming uses. A residential unit is the only use currently permitted without the property owner being required to provide additional parking and/or building upgrades.
In order to convert the two residential units to retail uses, the property owner is required to bring the entire property into compliance with current parking standards. The property currently provides a total of five (5) parking spaces. The existing (video store) and proposed (beauty salon) retail uses require a total of
.
six (6) parking spaces and the four apartment Units require ten ' (lo) spaces, per current code, site parking spaces.
for a total of sixteen (16) on- The parking deficiency for the proposed project will be a total of eleven (11) spaces.
Per Municipal Code standards, the requested change in use initiates compliance with the existing parking requirements for the entire project. However, it is worth noting that a medical office operated at 3055 Madison Street for nearly 11 years and the City has no record of any complaints regarding adequate parking or the building use. According to current standards, a medical office use is more Vfiateasive8* than a retail use; a medical office requires more parking (1 per 200 sq. ft). In addition, the video store has been operating at 3065 Madison Street for 3 to 4 years with no recorded complaint about parking or the building use.
The proposed use change does not satisfy & applicable regulations and development standards because the site is deficient in parking. Due to existing building constraints, the site cannot accommodate additional parking. It is anticipated that the future Redevelopment Master Plan will include a program (i.e., parking district) to address the problems created by proposed projects which do not meet applicable parking standards for development.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Since the project is a minor conversion of small existing buildings and involves no expansion or alteration of the exterior of the structure, the Planning Director has determined that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review as stated in Section 15303(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act and has, therefore, issued a Notice of Exemption on September 11, 1991.
v.
. .
SUMMARY
As noted above, the proposal is in conformance with the Village Design Manual and Village Area Redevelopment Plan in terms of appropriate and compatible land use. However, with the proposed uses, the property will be deficient in on-site parking. The applicant is requesting approval of a minor redevelopment permit for conversion of two residential units to retail uses.
Redevelopment Staff is supportive of the change in use because we believe that the retail uses are more desirable at this location than the two dwelling units. Also, vacant buildings are counter- productive to the Redevelopment Agency's effort to economically enhance the Village Area and eliminate blight. Therefore, we are eager to see occupation of the one building (3055 Madison Street) which is currently vacant. The surrounding community residents
. are also ruppotitivo of the two businesses (Spanish video rentals and the beauty salon).
In order to change the use of the noted structure, the property owner is required to bring the entire property into compliance with current parking standards. Based on the existing uses (video store and four residential units) and the proposed use (beauty
salon), the total parking requirement for the property will be sixteen (16) spaces. The property currently provides only five (5) parking spaces.
The applicant has made several attempts to design alternative parking plans and/or make other arrangements for parking. However, the applicant is unable to provide the total eleven (11) additional parking spaces required on-site to bring the property into compliance with current parking standards per the City Municipal Code.
As noted previously, a medical office operated at 3055 Madison Street for approximately eleven (11) years and the video store has been operating at 3065 Madison Street for three to four years without the required parking. Both uses operated without a complaint from surrounding businesses/property owners regarding the building or parking. Since the beauty salon requires less parking than the medical office, staff believes that it could also operate without impacting surrounding businesses/property owners.
The applicant has provided a letter outlining his understanding. of the history of property use for review and consideration in approving this request.
Redevelopment staff is recommending that the Design Review Board conditionally approve RP 91-2, based on the findings and conditions outlined within Resolution No. 171. However, for information purposes, the following options for action are also available for consideration by the Design Review Board:
1. The Design Review Board may APPROVE RP 91-2 based on appropriate findings and without conditions.
The Design Review Board can approve the project without any conditions. If the Board desires to exercise this option, the project should be referred back to staff for preparation of the appropriate approving resolution.
2. The Design Review Board may CONDITIONALLY APPROVH RP 91-2 based on the findings and conditions outlined in Resolution No. 171. This is the recommended action from Redevelopment Staff. However, if the Design Review Board would like to add/alter the conditions outlined within the Resolution, the project should be referred back to staff for preparation of the appropriate approving resolution.
3. The Design Review Board may DBNY RP 91-2. If the Design Review Board desires to exercise this option, the project should be referred back to staff for preparation of the appropriate resolution.
If the Board do.8 deaido to deny this request for ooaversioa from rosidoatial to ret8il ubo. Staff atroagly reaommeads that the video store bo allowed to remain as a aoa- conforming us.0 until it ceases busiaeas at thirr location with the ooaditioa that the property owaer return the building to it8 original us0 (residential) upon exit of the
video store.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
Design Review Board Resolution No. 171, conditionally approving RP 91-2, based on the findings and conditions contained therein.
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit *#B1@
Letter from
- Location Map, including surrounding land uses
Applidant regarding property history
Section 21.35 of the Municipal Code
Notice of Exemption
Notice of Public Hearing
Public Parking Lot Usage Survey Results
a.. 1 .
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
OLUTIOR NO. 17%
A RRROLDTIW OI TRB DRSIW RRVIRW BOARD Ot TRB CITY 0~ CARLSBAD, CALIPORZiIR APPROVINt3 A MINOR RRDRVRLOPM~
PERMIT To comRR2 Two (2) BXI8TIam 880 SQUARE TOOT -RRSIDRRTIbfr UNITI 'M) RR%RIL RSTARLII8EMRNT8 (VIDEO STORB MD BRRDTT SRLOM) UITR NO BfpMSIOl!l OR PROPmTY
WNERAIAY LOCATIU) 0s TRR WEST SIDE OI MADISON STREET, SOU!PR OP CARLWAD VILLAOR DRIVR AT 3055 AND 3066
MADISOR S!rRERT. CASE NAME; PER& PAMILY TRUST CA8g
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the
City of Carlsbad and referred to the Design Review Board;
and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a
request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code; and
WRRREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal
code, the Design Review Board did, on the 18th day of
September, 1991, hold a duly noticed public meeting to
consider said application on property described as:
Lots 25, 26 and 27 of Block 39, Map No. 1722 as recorded in the County of San Diego, California. APN: 203-305-12.
WEEREM, at said public meeting, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
persons desiring to be heard, said Design Review Board
considered all factors relating to RP 91-2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board as follows:
1) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2) That based on the evidence presented at the public
meeting, the Design Review Board hereby m-s RP 91-2,
based on findings and subject to the following conditions:
*:
-
,* 1 .
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
22
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Village Area Redevelopment Plan and the Village -Design Manual. The proposed retail uses (beauty salon and video store) are acceptable and compatible with existing surrounding land uses and permitted land uses within the Redevelopment Plan and Village Design Manual.
The project is consistent with the General Plan designation (Central Business District) for this area.
The building (3-055 Madison Street) for the beauty salon was previously occupied by a medical office for eleven (11) years without incident or complaint. The building at 3065 Madison Street has been occupied by a retail establishment (video store) for three to four years without incident or complaint.
Adequate public parking is available within a reasonable (300 feet) distance of this project.
A Master Plan for the Village Redevelopment Area will be completed by December 31, 1992. It will present plans and/or methods for addressing parking shortages and various illegal non-conforming uses within the Village Redevelopment Area, such as those represented within this project. . .
Conditionsi
1.
2.
3.
4.
Approval is granted for RP 91-2, as shown on Exhibit l@A@', dated September 4, 1991, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department.
c All internal upgrades to comply with the requirements of a B-2 occupancy, Title 24-and handicap provisions must be completed prior to occupation of the building by the beauty salon operator.
The project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may be required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
Approval of this request shall not excuse.compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance, excluding parking, and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance.
Ill/
/I//
.
*a. 1 6
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
a.
i
--. .
This approval shall become null and void if building I permits, for the internal upgrades, are not issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval,
-Any signs proposed for this development shall, at a minimum, be designed in conformance with the city's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the internal upgrades, complete building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department.
RP 91-2 is gr8ntOd for 8 tW0 (2) yaar period. ThB permit shall be reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment Director'on a regular basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Housing and Redevelopment Director determines that the use has such significant adverse impacts, the Housing and Redevelopment Director shall recommend that the Design Review Board, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to mitigate the significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the public's health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time upon a written application of the permittee made not less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. In granting such extension, the Design Review Board shall find that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public's health and welfare will result because of
the continuation of the permitted uses. If a substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the,public*s health and welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an original application for a minor redevelopment permit. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Design Review Board may grant.
///I
///I
///I
///I
//I/
//I/
//I/
.
1
c . PAUBD, APPRm, A2ID ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California,
held m the 18th day of September, 1991, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
I ABSENT:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19 I
20 ~
21
22
2i
24
25
26
27
28
CLARENCE 8CNMNUEER, Chairman DESIGN RRVIEU BOARD
ATTEST:
RATEI? aANzhN ~ Rousing and R+developmont Diroator
. BACKGROUND DATA WEEI -AT+ACHMENT Z
? . CASE NO.: RP 91-2
. ,' CASENAMe= PcrfTiust
APPLICANT: 46= o’Q&lv
REQUEST AND LocATION: . Ream to allow a retd bcautv salon use to be located
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots & 26 and 27 of Block 39. MaD No. 1722 int e
Countv of San Diestaq APN: 203-305-12
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
Acres .24 Proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A
Land Use Designation Cent
Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone VR Proposed Zone VR
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
zoninn Land
Site VR Vacant
south VR Video Store
East VR
west VR
PUBLIC FACIm
School Distr&m Water District &&ad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 1
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated N/A
- Negative De&don, issued
- Certitkd Environmental tmpact Report, dated . . . . Other, wlv to a mlect B or m bv a
Ai-TAC-iiMENT 3
Oisclorure Statamwtt
-
: Ciava YOU rad core than c~~~lss;ons. C~~r!~a S253 wCrt!T of hsirtess transacted with a7.y renter Cf :.:+ ST:’ 3 : :.
as af‘2 Counc:l wthn tke past rhelve mcn:f;s?
Yes - No & If yes. gease imca:e perscn(s)
::
,
‘a, I
I OJ~Q~ ,s dr/inrd aa: ‘Any ~t~1vlCb.d 'If-9 'JC4Rnof¶n~o ,c~m‘~8Nif8 uYaC:8tlon. rcc.ri :!uD 'rmrr~l or;,n,r,pc,a :;:fC'y' :- +l'i'+ '.:'
i
r,C,,r,r rrn01c8t8, ml8 l o l nv 0tn.f csbrrf c.y ana :c;ry. cy mmc.081q~ cwet or otnw xj,flica, ,b.ocav ,,<” :, a-, 1.-e. ;.: .: :
cJmeln8tlan rctq 88 8 WC
(NOTE: Anacn additional pages as necessary.)
WorzforJ 5. b’GRRc3c? Pnnt or type name of appucarit
,
FRMoao13 w90
‘
.
,
I.
-” 1.’
I. ATTLGHMENT 4 -LI
v,c;\ti\7y W-lpjO ,b t!%d.L’r.-_,
.zz%--. ._-__-__ _.__ -_c. I‘;;-- :r
/sd3&Z,e.“l-,
.- _ ..__ - .- .- _ . . . .-- _--.- ~--- -- .- ..-..- -.- .-... -._ _ . . =-I
p&vJe’, -y-Q (i&q) 433 - - <i-r 5 I./
N47ea 1’ C~~&&a~~/~~~~ $?I&$& Mj,d,fl, cd;‘;) $2:~ -‘Lq>;
?5u4/k3Lh,
l-hd, 4Lti~~‘, j (&Iq) yy I y*py,
&p.-J*f7-#&.&*>::.
.___ .__ ~zY--Tz-_‘.I=-Y-T-2-----” ‘-‘-Y- . -- --
.+7w3 taAJt31 &hi :_:’ ST
?l2Li2LWAO, a #
t&&&L’ ,.:’ :: , h-.-m.--- -.--- _ - _ -._._._-.-__ ---- ---.- _Ic__---. -- _p_I_---- ._ . - -.--- ._. .-.__._ . -. ‘Z
l-o-Pw2~,2&;2~ I l3w-i 233 ‘Mpp 4 1722
q3T-y DF LpCWQ~ I &pJijp; q= cwi Qik&3; L.,..l- (
AF=N 2U+- ?%+-\CL
~)Jyprvsw - - .- _ _-__-- _.._ _I_d..- ---.-.. -- --. -.-- _ _ ____._ _
--
. A:TAcHMENT s
‘% 0
‘.
I, .
EXHIBIT “B”
.
City d Cd&d
PERLFAMKYTFKlsT RP 91-2
l
_I __-_ -_c
II
.~__. ..--~- ---
I.
e)JI”pbcv -~,---zL----~- -c- ---, _. -_ -.-- ..-- -- ..__-- . . . _..
- .\ _. .- ._ .--- -__
:‘lTY fll i AT:: ‘, f,1\;1
“L nr,:g,:,r: , ,‘::,,q?.!i’; ,,I,
, I PC ~-~~-~~~~-~-,c~c/.--~~~.~.~~
j : .“. : 1,” lYE._9_L.~L-__ _._._ -
pJT‘!,l <i;- (--,t- “)I \.ty ..e...m...- . . . ..S.W” . ..w .- “mm-m ._,... I -_.. .
* : 11 id<i d’-/ t-c/_i~ A ___ :A!\ _ ---
- ____-._ - _.-... _-_-.I .--..--.-. .
‘44’09. MAffCHESYER AYE. SftfrF ‘906
I _ _ _- _ - - -. -~
1
r& ------I piLeT
‘& e$ ! w IF I
g 1 P v
$jLcy~m..-, -I ti
177 j - --yy I ‘Y m 4% ’ g, , ‘1 - P 4% .” N 8 ‘j.
j
d II
-.
- t -P-- ii
* . /A h -e ,c I- -F;-*-- I-n
.i 1-t j i--j j------~
.-. .*- ..--_.-_ __ . I _ _. .-._ .--...,=7-1.^ -...,._
AT;ACiiMENT 6
‘.
MORTON S. O'GRADY 4407 MANCHESTER AVE. SUITE 206
ENCINITAS, CA. 92024
619-753-0779
10 SEPT. 91.
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT 2965 ROOSEVELT ST. SUITE 8.
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
RE: RP 91-2 PERL FAMILY TRUST.
GENERAL BACKGROUND OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
BASED ON INTERVIEW WITH MR. EDDIE ROBINSON OF PACIFIC CARLSBAD INSURANCE AGENCY.
IN THE EARLY 1950'5, S1,52 THE TWO FRONT BUILDINGS WERE BUILT, PRIOR TO THE CITY HOOD OF CARLSBAD. THE CITY HAS NO RECORDS OF THE BUILDING PERMITS ON FILE.
IN THE MID 1960'S THE FOUR UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED.
IN THE HID 1970'S (74, 75) MR. ROBINSON AND HIS PARTNER MR. McCOMUS OF PACIFIC CARLSBAD INSURANCE AGENCY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND COVERTED THE TWO FRONT STRUCTURES TO THE . PRESENT OFF,?CE/COMMERCIAL USES. THEY OCCUPIED THE PROPERTIES UNIT 1980. THEY MOVED THEIR INSURANCE BUSINESS NEXT IjOOR INTO THEIR NEW OFFICE BUILDING. THEY CONTINUED TO RENT THE PROPERTY AS OFFICES.
IN 1985 MR. & MRS. PERL PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM MR. ROBINSON AND THEY TO CONTINUED TO RENT THE PROPERTY AS OFFICES (DOCTOR'S OFFICES). AT PRESENT 3065 MADISON IS RENTED TO A VIDEO RENTAL STORE AND 3055 MADISON IS VACANT.WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO OBTAIN A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A HAIR
SALON TO.OCCUPY THE EMPTY BUILDING SINCE MARCH OF THIS YEAR.
ACCORDING TO THE CITIES BUSINESS LICENSING OFFICE, INSURANCZ
AGENCIES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE BUSINESS LICENSES. THE
ONLY RECORDS OF BUSINESS LICENSES IS OF CURRENT LICENSES. THE CITY DOES NOT POLICE THE BUSINESSES FOR BUSINESS LICENSES, ITS ON YOUR HONOR AT THE PRESENT TIME.
BECAUSE WE HAVE AN HONORABLE PERSON WANTING TO LEASE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND APPLIED FOR A BUSINESS LICENSE FOR HER . NEW LOCATION (SARA'S HAIR STYLES LOCATED AT 243 CARLSBAD
BLVD.) WE BECAME INVOLVED IN WHAT THE CITY SAYS ARE NON CONFORl'fING USES.
UNFORTUNATELY NONE OF US KNOW HOW OR WHAT THE PROCEDURES
WERE WHEN MR. ROBINSON CONVERTED THE BUILDINGS BACK IN 1974.
I KNOW THE PROCEDURES HAVE CHANGED CONSIDERABLELY IN ALL
CITIES IN THE PAST FEW YEARS.
DEBBIE, I HOPE THIS INFORMATION WILL BE OF SOME HELP.
. - .
-
2135.02@
2l3m3O
2135.04@
233S.OSO
2133.06@
213SO70
2135.080
213S.083
213SWO
2135.100
2135.110
2135.115
2135.120
2135.130
213S.140
2135JSO
Inteta8ltd~
1neorpondarrd-m
pha and da@a aunrrrl b
referetlca Lamd dectd by thir cbaptec
hnmittduuc
Coadldonrl-
-nlphdoar.
-w-t-
MfwrPw-
hnnit nppik8ti-
-Thmsntittal to d&a review
Daignrtrkubo8fdacd~.
mmlt@~~
rtdevtiopnltnt comaItiioc
Hoes@ urd redweloprneat
commis8ion acdolL
consolid8tion of other ptrlnit
rquirements.
Emnptiontm
Compliance with othw
provisions of this code.
Amtndnitntt.
2135.010 Intent and purpose.
The village rcdcvelopmcnt tone is intended to
establish land use ckssifications and develop
standards and proccdurcs for that area of the city
d&bal in the Car&ad village arca rcdcvelop
mcnt plu as adopted by city council Ordinance
No. 9591. This zone adopts the land use classifi-
cations and dcvclopmcat standards of the Carl+
bad village arca rcdcwlopment plan and of the villqc design manual adopted pursuant to the
rcdtwlopmeat plaIl aa the zoaing for the arca
desigmed. (Oni. 9639 91 (part), 1982)
ATTACHMENT 7
2135.02@ haqoda ohbtlopanmt
P~~bdp=Udb
fef-
Thccatiskd~~raievelopmeatplaa
as tdopted by carisbad city couacil ordiaanco
No. 9S91 and the village design manual as
adopted by Carlsbad housing and rcdevclop
mcnt commission RcAution No. 14 arc her&y
adopted by rcfercncc and incorporated into this
chapter. (Or& 9639 0 1 (part), 1982)
2135.030 Land affected by Ms chaptes
,This chapttr shall apply only to lands locarted
within the bouadariu of the carkbad village arcwheboundariuofwhicharedc&bedintha cadbed village are8 redevdo~eat plan, (Od
9639 $ I (part), 1982)
213M40 W&ted usea.
only the uses spedal in the carisbad vii- law area redevelopment plan and the villm
dtsiga miud as pennittcd uses for partiCuW
properry in the village redevelopment area shall p
be permitted (Ord. 9639 9 1 (part), 1982) ’
2135.050 Conditiorul uses. Uses permitted as conditional uses by the
Carlsbad village area redevelopment plan and
the village design manual shall be permitted upon issuance of -a redevelopment permit approved according to this chapter. (Ord. 9639 $
1 (part), 1982)
2135.060 Gental regulations.
Subject to the provisions of Section 11.35.130
andexcept asotherwise provided by the Carlsbad
village redevelopment plan or the village design
manual, the regulations of this title which apply
to usts gtncralIy or g&rally to all zoning classi- fications shall apply to property and uses in this
tone. (Ord. 9639 $1 (part), 1982)
2135.070 Redevelopcntnt ptrmit.
No development, rcdevciopmcat. building or rebuilding shall occur in the arca subject to this
646
-
21.3S.070
&#iUVdthOOh~ --m-P=-- h8Yingbrsmblth8~m4~ opmnr(co- 0% fb? mime projrco
ddlaad in B 21.33.08& by the m
review bat& (Od 9639 $1 (put), 19821
2135Me Mfr#rPwcS
A minor project incl*
(a) Requests not involving a structural
C-m (b) Projects involving a structural chang8
costing1U8thrnfiftythOwPadd0Unn; (c) Use ch8ngea in existing buildine;
(d)Newsignsorchangestoexist@rigpr
(Od. 9679 9 I (pm), 1983: Od. 9639 8 I (part),
1982)
213s.Oss Rndt rpplicatba
(a) An appktioa for a rcdevdopment JNP
mitm8ybemde.bytherecordowueforownm
of the pmperty ou wliich~~e devdopnmt is
proposed to be corwucted or the auth0riM
agents them% The application shail be fikt with
the director of building and planning upon forms
provided by the director, and shall be accom-
panied by plans in sufkient detaii to. allow
review pursuant to this chapter, a legal &scrip
tion of the property involved and an explanation
andde&ptioaoftheproposeduse.Thedk!or
of building and housing may prescribe the form
and content for such application. if the project involves the suWivision of tan& the application
shall be accompanied by a tentative map or ten- tative pad map, which shail be filed in accord-
ance with the provisions of Title 20 of this code.
If a subdivision map has previously been
recorded on the lot permitting the use of the
propcrtyforthepurposr# stated in the redevelop
ment permit applicatioa then a tentative m* or tentative pad map need not be fited The direc-
torofbuWngandp&nningsha4forwardthe
apolicsrtiontotheapptopriatecitydepurmeno
647
W neat not hold a public hearingonthe~u.ffthewmmittwdow . notceportoatheapplic&ati~t&tydays
ofthedatethsappIicatioaisnkrredtoit,the application shall bcdeemaito have kn recom-
mended for approval. Pursuant to Section
341205 of the Health and Safety Code. the corn-
mittee may, by m~lution, exciude ftom its
review m for aU or any ciadiation of
mojccts subkct to this chmtq
(c) Theappbtion3&llbeaazompanidbyr fwintheamountestW&edbycityc0UCil
resolution. (Ord. 1256 8 3 (part,, 1982: Otd 9639
9 1 @art), 1982)
2135.090 IhasmiW to &aim review bmrd.
Afbr ail nccasuy repom aed recommenda-
tiom hwe been recdved the director of building
and planning shall tmsmit the application for the redevelopment permit together with the
reportrr and the recommendations of the appro-
priate departments to the design review board for a public hearing. ANotice of the public hearing shall ix given as provided in Section 2 1.54.060( 1) of this code. (Ord. 1256 0 3 (part). 1982: Ord. . 9639 4 1 (part). 1982)
2135.100 Design review board action.
(a) The design review board shall hold a pub-
lic hearing on all redevelopment permits except
for minor projects. (b) For minor projects defined, in Section 21.35.080, the design review board shah consider the evidence and by resolution approve. condi-
tionally approve or deny the project. Such dcter- minatioo shall be made in accordance with this
code, the general plan, the Cartsbad village area
rcdeve!opment plan and the village design man- UaL
: . 21.35.1~
:a * .
(c) Rmll-~tb~~con- ,idertilesnidraorr~~~- tothaW~
approvtl, --- wmwloftlnprajectot
deaUoftheproject.~tirrsolutioashrll~
I moagothertbingsdhefactsandreasoaswhy L thebouddetembdtheappmva4condition8i appr0val or de&J to be co&tent with this chaptw The action of the board to deny the
permit is final unless appealed to the comm* sion. The action to approve or condition~y amve ia advisory to the commission and the
city cicrl~ &&l set the matten to public hearing before the c0mmisaiOa within thirty daya after
the adoption of the resolutioa.
(d) Notice of public hearings shall be given aa provided in Section 21.54.060(l) of this de.
(Ord. 9679 $1 (part). 1983: 0113.9639 9 1 (part). 1982)
2133.110 Appeal to hoasiag and
redevdopulmt commiukr_ Any inted m may appeal a design review board decision on a minor project or denial of any other project by filing a written appeal with the city cleric within ten days of the date of the decision. (Ord. 9679 8 1 (part), 1983:..
Ord. 9639 8 1 (part), 1982)
2 135.115 Housing and redeveiopawat
commission action. The housing and redevelopment commission shall hold a public hearing on a redevefopment permit which has been appealed or for which the
design review board has filed a report with the
city clerk At the public hearing, the housing and
redevelopment commission shall review the
design review boani’r report. shall consider the evidence and shall approve, conditionally * approve. or disapprove the permit. Such deter- mination shall be made in accordance with this code, the general plan, the Caclsbad village area redevelopment plan and the village design man-
ual. The housing and redevelopment coma&-
sion my nfkr the permit to the housing and
-.
rrdavdopwr#~~mmitcsfor~
~~-a.suchrepottaad~m. meada-~be~withiathLtydoysof
~--~hWillgUbIi~Op meWldvisoryc0~tteeneednot hoUapubli0
hearing on the P@a Notice of the public ha-
ing shall be given as provided in Section 21.54.06W) of this code. (CM. 97Sg 4 7, 1983; Ord. 9639 8 1 (part), 1982)
2135.120 Consolidadoa of otbw pennit
rquirefneatsm Whenever a project would require a permit or
approval under the pnwisioas of this title, not-
tithsUafS4 this chapter, the redevelopment
permitsbUbedeem~to~thefq~
menO for web peratit or appm* proviw
however, that in cckidering the redevelopment
pemtit for said project the design review board
and the housingaad redevdopment commission
shaUapplytheprwisionsofthischapterandthe
provisions of this title othenvise applicable t0 such other permit or approval for the projen
(Ord. 9639 91 (part), 1982) . .
2135.130 Exemptioai (a) The housing and redevelopment commis-
sion is authorized to grant exceptions from the
limits. restrictions and controls established by this chapter if the commission finds that:
(1) The application of certain provisions of this chapter would result in practical diffkuitics or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the general pur-
pose and intent of the Carlsbad village area rede-
velopment plan: (2) There are exceptional circumstances or
conditions unique to the property or the pro- posed development which do not generally apply to other properties or developments which have
the same standards. nstrictiork and controls: (3) The granting of an exemption will not be
injurious or materially detrimental to the public
wdf’ other properties or improvements in the
project m and
648
a ---
21.33.130 ’
(4) The$mnh@ofra~~will not
cotmdkttbr- -8blh&diatb~
Rwim-~4mbtio8~~
shalneplvcesdiEths~m8lmu~
lishatbythisC~for1~~
mit. In grantinn an exemption, the housin$ and
mbvdopamt commission my imm Such
conditions as are am to ~roaecl the public k&h, s&ty and weIf=. (Ord. 9639 !jl (part).
1982)
2135.140 Com@hnca with othrs pnwisbm
ofthiscoda
Rojecu developed pumlaat to this chapter shall be subject to all other applicable pwisionr
of the C&i&& MU&@& Code, indw b
mt limited to those provisioa~ of Titles 18, 19 and 20. NM= 9639 9 1 (part), 1982)
2135.159 Awdr#b AmendmenU to t&e Carhbad village are8
fcdcYeiopmentplanortheviilngtdesiga manual
Shdlb8damcdtOkameadmeaatOthiSChap w, provided, however, that such amendments
are prowsed and aoticcd in a manner whick
meets the rquirements of Chapter 21.52 of this
code. Amendment of the village design manual
by housing and redevelopment commissioa tcs~
0l~tion shall be deemed to sairpy the require
mentsofChapterZL32 OfthhCOd&plWi&dall
otherrequirementsaremtt.(Ord.9639 9 1 (par%
1982)
649
Notice of Exemption ATTXtiMENT 8
. To: _ Office of Planning and Research prom: Crty of Carlsbad * 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Planning Department
Sacramento, CA 95014 2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carkbad, CA 92009
x county Clerk (619) 438-l 161 County of San Diego Attn: Mail Drop C-l 1
220 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Project Title RP 91-2 - PERL FAMILY TRUST
Project Location - Specific 3055 and 3065 MADISON STREET - APN: 203-305-12
Project Location - City: C&bad Project Wtion - County San Dieno
Description of Project: THE CONVERSION OF TWO SINGLE STORY. FREE STANDING 880
c s u RES/USE$.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: CtTY OF CARLSBAD
Name of Person or Agency Carrying out Project: MORT O’GRADY
Exempt Status: (Check one)
- Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(l); 15268);
- Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
- Emergency Project (Get. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
x Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: C&SS 3
- Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt: CONVERSION OF TWO 880 SOUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES TO NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES/USES.
L=bF=Y
Contact Person: ERIC MUNOZ Area Code/Telephone/: (6191 438-1161. X 4441
If filed by applicant: Extension
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? _ Yes _ No
Signature: MICHAEL J. HOLZMKLER Date: Title: Planninn Director
0 Signed by Lead Agency
q Signed by Applicant
Date received for filing at OPR:
ENM:lh
.
Reid October 1969
c
--’ I Mail all c&respondence regarding public no&e a&e$i$$ to
W.C.C.N. Inc. P - Box 230878, Encinitas, CA 9202 7878 (619) 7534543
ATTACHMENT 9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
Proof of Publication
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal, a newspaper of general circulation,
published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which newspaper
is published for the dissemination of loca1 news and intelhgence of a genera1 character, and which
newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular intervals in the
said City of Oceanside, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year next
preceding the date of publication of the
NOTICE OF NallZIufwCordrdLatbe~
~~hn&oso, Callfomia. MN: notice hereinafter referred to; and that the PUBIJC HEARING Those porsow rtrluos to weak on tht1 proposal mu cordI& ~~~
notice.of which the annexed is a printed
ad to attend the public heorlos If you hove ooy qoeitlooh PAW- Cd
copy, has been published in each regular
Debbie FouaWo IO the HoulioS and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof on the follow-
ing dates, to-wit:
N0TK.Z IS HSRBRY GIVEN that thdWgORWl~UBOUdOfth.Cl4 of cubed till held a public hear- i~atthecouoeuclumbeN1100 Cadabad VIIlase Drive (foroierb mm AVWUO~, CarhhmL California. It 5:09 p.n 00 WedwsdaY, October ia i9w 00 ~00stder l ppr0-I or a request for l Minor RedwoloP mwt Fumit to chwge the we of two (SI m oquum foot residential st~ctu~# to &all l stoblkahmenCI l ,(RW3999NdtU~StNdI0th vulaga Rdawlopmti (VR) zona The Oeaeral Plro driglotloo Ir CentA Bualoeu DIatrkt oo prop- erty geoerally locad at 3aMw99 Mad-0 Street ood more paticu- Iarly Aercribd u:
and Fledevelopmoot Deportmoot ot awasa If you eluIb~ the Yioor Rede- velopmeot Permit in ceourt, you my be limited to raising only thor luuea you oc umeoo. elaa Niaod
l t the public her&u dwcribed 10 this 00Uee or in wruteo eorNrPob dmcedellveredtolhoCl~~~Cul, hod l t or prior to the public bear- October 03 1991
m. Cue File: RP 91-S ~ppllcrot: Per1 Family Rub CITY OF CAMSBAD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
19-
19- Lot ?a, 29 and n of Block 39. rap
19-
I certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Carlsbad, Count..hlf3$q Diego, State of California on
day of October, 1991
/ Clerk of the Printer
!
.. - t- .
I .- ,L
.
ATT-CH-MENT 10
= 3 ga
B s E d d 6 8
I % nf if t 3P
Meet
MINUTE: EXHIBIT 4
.ing of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (Regular Meeting) \
\ a Date of Meeting: October 16, 1991 Time of Meeting: 5:oo p-m. Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers
Acting Chairman Norby called the Meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Board Members Norby, Erwin, Gonzales,
Noble and Savary.
Absent: None.
Staff Present: Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney Kathy Graham, Director, Housing and Redevelopment
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management
Analyst
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Acting Chairman Norby.
PUBLIC coMMBNT:
There were no requests to speak on a non-agenda item.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the Meeting held September 4, 1991, were
approved as presented.
Minutes of the Meeting held September 18, 1991, were approved as presented.
Kathy Graham introduced the new Board Members; Planning
Commissioners Noble, Erwin and Savary. She stated the material distributed to the new Members was for their information and she hopes to schedule a workshop in the
near future to go through this material and discuss the goals to be accomplished by this Board.
DEPARTMENTAL/CONTINUED:
1. RP 91-2 - PERL FAMILY TRUST:
Request for approval of a Minor Redevelopment Permit to change the use of an existing 880 square foot structure to a beauty salon at 3055 Madison Street in the Village Redevelopment (VR) Zone. Th
General Plan designation is Central Business District.
MEMBERS
Norby Erwin
Gonzales Noble Savary
Norby
Erwin Gonzales
Noble Savary
,
MINUTE:
nr+nh-~ lr; lqql DESTGN Paae 2
PUBLIC BEARING: (Continued)
Debbie Fountain gave the staff report, stating thj
item was continued in order to notify the propert] owners within 600 feet and publish a notice in the newspaper. A transparency showing the locator maI
was used to show this site in relation to the otht properties within the surrounding area.
The property in question currently has four existing structures; two 880-square foot single story buildings in front (two approved apartment
units), a two-story apartment building (four approved apartment units)ad a 400-square foot
garage used for storage. There are five parking spaces on-site.
The two-single story front buildings were converts from residential units to a 880-square foot medica
office and a 880-square foot retail establishment (video store). The medical office occupied one 01 the buildings for approximately eleven years, and
the video store has been in operation for approximately three to four years.. The video sto!
is a continuing business and the office has been vacant for approximately one year.
The original application was submitted by Mort
O'Grady for the property owner. This was to chant the use of the medical office to a three-station beauty salon. Since the residential units were never legally converted to the medical office and video store, staff recommended they be included ir
this request.
The major issue is parking, and to convert the USE to retail would require bringing the entire property into compliance with the current parking standards. This would make a total of 16 parking spaces for the retail use and the four apartment units. (As previously noted, there are only five spaces on-site.)
Staff recommended a conditional approval since tha
two front buildings would be better utilised as retail and mixed use projects are desirable in ths
Redevelopment Area. Ms. Fountain indicated that the video store has ben operating with a business license at 3065 Madison for four years without a
parking problem. The previous medical offices at 3055 were there many years without complaints with regard to parking.
MS. Fountain stated the conditional approval would allow issuance of a permit for a two-year period and allow staff. to better assess the use and impac on the surrounding area.
\ 1
MEMBERS
MINUTE:
October 16, 1991 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued)
Member Erwin stated he had spoken with former Design Review Board Members Schlehuber and Hall
regarding this request. He said that one of the
items discussed was the condition that they would
provide "x" number of parking spaces in a future
parking district. Mr. Erwin inquired that was an option and whether that was what staff meant. He
also asked what the status was of a future parking
district.
Kathy Graham stated that a number of projects in the Redevelopment Area were conditioned for a
future parking district, and she has been advised by the City Attorney's Office that conditioning projects to belong to a not-yet established parkin
district is not the procedure to follow. This topic is to be included in the Master Plan and the parking district matter will be settled then.
Mr. Erwin asked how this application could be
brought into conformance with no condition and the Master Plan to be approved at a later time. He added that if the project were to be approved
tonight without a parking condition, that requirement would be waived for this project.
Ms. Graham stated that a conditional approval indicates that the Board wants to look at this project within two years, and if a parking distric is established at that time, consideration could bm
given to a condition then.
Assistant City Attorney Ron Ball stated that a permit is good for the term that the Board gives
it, and this is recommended for two years. At the end of that two years, they would have to apply fo
a new permit or extension, and the Board could put conditions on it at that time, including parking
conditions.
Mr. Erwin inquired whether the use could revert back to residential uses. Mr. Ball said if that ii without permits or was the previous status.
In reply to query regarding how many other project! with a lack of parking had been approved, Ms. Graham said she was going to prepare a chart showing the lack of parking in the Redevelopment
Area.
Member Savary asked that when the parking goes into effect, what the cost of obtaining a parking space would be and who would be responsible for paying for that space--the owner or the tenant.
Ms. Graham said that is one of the biggest questions before the Design Review Board and the
Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee, and until a district is established and the area benefits defined, costs cannot be determined. However, the idea is not to charge the user.
\ 1
MEMBERS
October 16, 1991 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 4
(Continued) PUBLIC HEARINQ:
Member Gonzales inquired whether one of the five
parking spaces would be for the handicapped. Ms. Fountain said that she had checked with the
Building Department, and most likely one would be unless the owner could show hardship. The space would not be designated for the handicapped, but
would be available for that parking. The applicant said he would provide this without taking out any
parking spaces.
In reply to query from Ms. Gonzales regarding the
number of spaces needed for the apartments, Ms. Fountain said that if that is left residential, no
additional parking spaces are required.
MS. Graham added that the parking standards for the City have changed since this use went in.
Acting Chairman Norby opened the Public Hearing at 6:22 p.m., and issued the invitation to speak.
Morton O'Grady, Architect and Agent for Mr. and Mrs. Perl, stated they had gone to the City in 1985
to verify the zones and uses on the property, and they found that the property was in two sones--
split down the middle--and the apartments and doctor's office were permitted uses. The property
as developed now has become non-conforming because of continuing changes in City ordinances, codes and procedures. The property has been used as mixed-
use for 17 years and the owners are not proposing to add to or intensify uses. They wish to continue the uses as it was when the property was purchased. He stated that staff had reported the uses proposed
are compatible with the neighborhood.
.-
Mr. O'Grady said the video store does have a
business license, and he had worked with staff to come up with several other parking arrangements--
but none proved to be satisfactory. However, he stated the two uses there now are sharing the parking at different times of the day, with the
retail using it during the day and the residential in the evening.
Acting Chairman Norby inquired whether the beauty salon was definitely going to be in the building, and Mr. O'Grady said this has changed and the owner of the beauty salon has reserved the right not to go in there because of the constraints on the
permit.
Mr. Norby inquired what the garage area was being used for at the present time, and Mr. O-Grady said
he didn't know. Mr. Norby said there are garage sales there on the weekends and a sign on the garage door asking for the doorway not to be blocked. Mr. O'Grady said that just meant people were to pull up so the garage door could be opened.
Mr. Norby said the space for the handicapped parking was less than seven feet wide and the law says that space should be 14 feet wide.
MINUTE;
October 16, 1991 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 5
PUBLIC BBARINQ: (Continued)
Ed Robinson, owner of the property at 3081-83 and
85 Madison, stated his only objection was the lack
of parking, and that is a very critical area. He
stated he has four tenants in his building at this time and is upset because the video store is
located at 3065 Madison. He said the video store
customers use his tenants' parking area, which the: causes his tenants' clients to either not be able
to find parking or to be blocked.
Mr. Robinson felt this application would only
compound the parking problem. He also pointed out that in two of the existing five spaces for this
application there are cars that are inoperative an have been there two years. There are garage sales
conducted on these parking spaces at the back of the garage and that also compounds the parking problem.
Acting Chairman Norby stated he had a conversation
with the Branch Manager of the San Dieguito Bank 01 the other side of this property in question, and his primary concern was that the bank's public parking is directly adjacent and the closest
proximity to the beauty salon, and he was very concerned that his parking would be impacted. He had talked with the lady who was to operate the
beauty salon and felt he could live with that; however, upon hearing that she may not be there, hc
does not want to live with whatever goes in there.
Since no one else wished to speak on this matter, Acting Chairman Norby closed the Public Hearing at 5:39 p.m.
Member Noble stated he felt the parking could be solved, as it has not been a problem in the past.
He felt this was a worthwhile project and the beauty shop is needed in that area.
Member Erwin stated he would vote to deny this request, and also recommend that staff allow the video store to remain there as long as it stays in
that spot; but then to return this use to residential. There is a tremendous parking problem
there and Mr. Erwin said he could not make the finding that the public parking lot would serve this project.
Member Gonzales stated there is a serious problem
with the parking as it exists, and she did not fee. the public parking lot would be used. She said she could not support the request.
Member Savary stated her concern about the use-of
the building and felt that an exception could not be made for one retail business and not for others that would further impact the parking problem. She felt this wae premature until there is a parking authority or whatever vehicle is established to solve the parking in this area.
MINUTE,
October 16, 1991 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 6
puBLIc: (Continued)
Acting Chairman Norby stated that in that block Mr. Robinson had been held to standards, and if this
request is allowed, other requests would have to be allowed, and he was not prepared to do that. If
the project were only a few spaces short, he could possibly make an allowance, but this project is
just too short of parking to be permitted.
Member Noble asked how many parking lots are now built downtown and how many will be coming on line.
MS. Graham referred to the attachment in the packet showing the recent parking survey staff had made of the existing parking lots that are currently public
parking lots. There are no immediate plans to build any more parking lots in the downtown area,
but the percentage of usage shown at the bottom of that chart indicated that none of the existing lots approached 50 percent usage.
The Design Review Board denied RP 91-2, and
directed staff to prepare the appropriate resolution.
By proper motion, the Meeting of October 16, 1991, was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
KATHY GPAHAM Housing and Redevelopment Director
Harriett Babbitt
Minutes Clerk
MEMBERS \;
Norby Erwin
Gonzales Noble Savary
Meeting of: Design Review Board Date of Meeting.: September 18, 1991
Time of Meeting: 5:oo P.M. Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Schlehuber called the Meeting to order at
5:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Schlehuber, Board Members Hall, Norby, Gonzales and Schramm
Absent: None.
Staff Present: Kathy L. Graham, Housing and Redevelopment Director; Debbie Fountain, Senior Management
Analyst, Housing and Redevelopment.
Ron Ball, Assistant City
Attorney.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Schlehuber.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no requests to speak on a non-agenda item.
DEPARTMENTAL
1. RP 91-2 PERL FAMILY TRUST:
Request for approval of a Minor Redevelopment
Permit to change the use of an existing 880 square foot structure to a beauty salon at 3055 Madison Street in the Village Redevelopment (VR) Zone. The
General Plan designation is Central Business District.
Kathy L. Graham, Housing and Redevelopment Director introduced Senior Management Analyst Debbie
Fountain to present staff report.
Debbie Fountain stated that this was a request to convert a residential unit at 3055 Madison Street to a beauty salon which is a retail use. Ms
Fountain further stated that the application entailed one use but there is a video store at 3065 Madison Street which is currently a non-conforming
use and did not go through City approvals to change the use. Staff would like to include the video store as part of the application. Staff is
requesting that the Board consider both uses.
Ms Fountain gave staff report as contained in agenda packet stating the conversion from
residential to retail at this location was appropriate and is compatible with surrounding areas. Ms Fountain referred to agenda packet map
to depict compatible surrounding uses. Staff is
requesting conditional approval of conversion of
residential units to retail uses. Permit would be
conditional for two years so staff can keep track and review permit to allow study impact of parking in the area. At the end of two years, applicant or
property owner would be required to ask for
\ 2
MEMBERS
MINUTE ’
- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 18, 1991 PAGE 2
extension of permit. If at that time the Board
decides there is an impact of parking, then the permit extension could be denied. Condition also added that the internal upgrades to bring the
building into conformance must be completed before the beauty salon opens for business.
Chairman Schlehuber questioned whether an
environmental review or negative impact report was necessary. Debbie Fountain answered query stated that because it was an existing structure, it was
exempt from further environmental review.
Member Hall asked if the video store currently had
a business license. Ms Fountain stated that it was her understanding that they currently did not have
a business license.
Member Gonzales asked whether the second condition
of permit approval was limited to beauty salon or video store as well. Ron Ball, Assistant City
Attorney, stated that both stores would have to be in compliance.
Member Norby asked if one of the five parking spaces in the back had to be handicapped. Also, if
two parking spaces would have to be combined to accommodate handicap space and therefore have a net of four parking spaces.
Member Schramm asked about the apartment building in the back. Staff stated that the permit was
requested for the two buildings in the front which have separate addresses then the apartment building in the back of the lot so there would not be any
trouble differentiating. It would be easy to condition the site [lot] so that the back four
units remain residential.
Member Hall asked if agent for the property was
empowered to agree to any conditions imposed on site. Member Schlehuber stated that the Board could impose conditions and notify property owners and it is up to the owner to agree or appeal.
Member Norby asked whether the beauty salon and video store was retail or professional and if they
are retail, do they fit in residential/professional
area. Ms Fountain stated that both uses were considered retail uses and the Village Design
Manual does allow retail use in this area.
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney stated that any permit, including redevelopment permits, must comply with all the elements of the law including the zoning ordinance as embellished or amplified by
the redevelopment plan and village design manual and those requirements are spelled out in the village design manual.
Member Hall asked if notification was given to
property owners 300 feet surrounding site. Staff member Debbie Fountain stated that this item was a
minor permit, not a public hearing item, so noticing was not required. Chairman Schlehuber
\ 4
MEMBERS
_L.. MINUTc3 *
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 18, 1991 PAGE 3
asked the Assistant City Attorney for comment on major change of'use. Ron Ball stated that he would
like to check the public noticing requirements specifically in the code.
Mort O'Grady, architect and agent for the applicant addressed the Board stating that he did not have
any problem with some of the conditions. Mr. O'Grady did want clarification with condition
regarding all internal upgrades to comply with B-2 occupancy. Chairman Schlehuber stated that the condition was not going to go beyond what it says.
Mr. O'Grady asked what mitigating measures for zone
1 were. Mr. Schlehuber stated all permits have to
comply with mitigating measures.
Member Hall asked Mr. O'Grady if he wished to
respond to parking district item. Mr. O'Grady stated that he had spoken to the owner of the property and he would be willing if it were a
reasonable dollar amount, but no one seems to know what that dollar amount would be.
Chairman Schlehuber asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak on this item.
Mario Manzano, 4704 Amberwood Court, real estate
agent, spoke in favor of the project.
Since no one else wished to speak public testimony closed.
Ron Ball stated that the code states there is no notice requirements since this a minor redevelopment permit.
Member Hall stated that he supported the hair salon, however, feels notification should be given
because of the parking waiver and changing use from residential to office/retail. Member Hall asked that further study be put into this request and did
not feel that he could support it at this time.
Chairman Schlehuber felt that this proposal did necessitate a public hearing and staff should
follow noticing requirements. Mr. Schlehuber stated that a Parking District is essential and would like to reserve recommendation until after public hearing.
Member Schramm asked if video store was aware of
being added to application. Member Schramm stated
that she could not approve permit at this time.
Ron Ball stated that the Board needed to direct staff regarding public noticing.
MEMBERS
_- MINUTL-; ’
,
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD September 18, 1991 PAGE 4
Member Norby stated he was concerned about handicap parking requirements and shortage of parking. He would like staff to come up with a kind of reference point of cost per parking space.
Motion made to continue item to meeting of October 16, 1991, with noticing of proposal to include
advertisement in newspaper and notices to property
owners within 600 feet of project site.
Respectfully Submitted,
KATHY L. GRAHAM
Housing and Redevelopment Director
BIB1 LEAK
Acting Minutes Clerk Secretary II/Housing and Redevelopment
:a1
\ ’
\
\
5
?
MEMBERS
CHLEHUBER
ALL ORBY
ONZALES CHRAMM
LdITE IT - DON’T SAY I f=!
0 Reply Wanted
q lNo Reply Necessary
3 v!l ICi ; i-. i 1 !
:
i :i
; i;-, I.~ !
PA1NTED IN USA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
RP 91-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m.,
on Tuesday, December 10, 1991, to consider an appeal of the Design Review Board
denial of an application for a Minor Redevelopment Permit to change the use of
two (2) 880 square foot residential structures to retail establishments on property located at 3055/3065 Madison Street, in the Village Redevelopment (VR) Zone, and designated Central Business District by the General Plan.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Debbie Fountain of
the Housing and Redevelopment Department at 434-2811.
If you challenge the appeal of the Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else 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.
APPELLANT: Morton O/Grady for Per1 Family Trust PUBLISH: November 27, 1991
I1 II, , I I , I “1 ’ noommi sx II1
EXHIBIT “B”
CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
.CHESTER&LAHOMA -THOMAS &MARYBETZ -BENJAMIN &YAFFABALSAM
SAITERLY, 3240 DONNADRIVE AND ELISHA& DAFNAGILBOA 1349 MELROSEWAY CARLSBAD,CA 92008 820W.FLETCHERAVENUE -wSTA, CA 92083 ORANGE,CA 92665
GEORGE WILLIS &JACKYETRS. NADYAZ.GUZELIMIAN & JERRYPETERS 539 CARLSBADVILLAGEDR ZAVEN&ANARIDBALIAN 224BIRMINGHAMDR#lB #201 P.O. BOX206 CARDIFF,CA 92007 CARLSBAD,CA 92008 SOLANABEACH,CA 92075
ELMERC.ANDERSON JAMES&MARILYNSIMS 3644 CAMPUSDRIVE 2820WILSON STREET OCEANSIDE, CA 92056 CARLSBAD,CA 92008
IlTCONTINENTALBAKINGCO., P.O.BOX731
RYE,NY 10580
SARAMORALES 305 DATEAVE CARLSBAD,CA 92008
GILBERTACUNA ILARIO&MARIE,MANNO 91MAyNARD AVE 3067ROOSEVELTST. NEWBURYPARK, CA 91320 CARLSBAD,CA 92008
RICHARDV.MADAMA&
EVELYNE.ROZANCE 5719 CAMELLIAAVE.
TEMPLECITY,CA 91780
ITTCONTINENTALBAKINGCO. JOHNNOBEL P.O. BOX 731 1150GARNETAVE RYE,NY 10580 PACIFIC BEACH, CA 92109
GLEN&AUDREYMCCOMAS 1265 CYNTHIALANE CARLSBAD,CA 92008
EDDIE&BOBBYROBINSON 2022 ESTEROSTREET OCEANSIDECA 92054
LEONPERL 215 N.PALM DR BEVERLYHILLS,CA 90210
SHERYLBULLOCK SHERYLBULLOCKTR, PACIFICSOUTHWESTREALTY
C/O PACIFIC SW REALTY CO., C/OSOUTHWESTBANK C/O CORPORATETAXH20-12
P.O. BOX 2097 275 S.VALENCIA P.O. BOX2097
LOSANGELES,CA 90051 BREA,CA 92621 LOSANGELES,CA 90051
JOHNMONTALBANO&
ANN SAMUELS
2503VIARANCHEROS
FALLBROOKCA 92028
MELVIN&BARBARA
HALVERSON
P.O.BOX192
DELMAR,CA 92014
FRED&ANNPARKER 14088 RUEMONACO
DELMAR,CA 92014
LLOYD&BARBARAMCCARTHY ROY&PATRICIAATKIN FEDERICOMELENDEZ
549 S.THIRDAVE 3565TRIESTEDR 3091JEFFERSON ST #l/2
AVOCADO HEIGHT&CA 91746 CARLSBAD,CA 92008 CARLSBAD,CA 92008
NICHOLASCRUMPTON MARTHABARKER FRANK&THELMAVITALIE
3071JEFFERSON ST. 2435 MARKCIRCLE 3037JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD,CA 92008 CARLSBAD,CA 92008 CARLSBAD,CA 92008
-EUGENE SIEGEL -KFCNATIONALMANAGEMENT - MACG.MORRISII& 4930ELCAJONBLVD. P.O. BOX35910 JANETVENABLE S&'-I DIEGO,CA 92115 LOUISVILLEKY 40232 3680 FELIZ CREEKRD. . HOPLAND,CA 95449
GOODSHEPHERDASSEMBLY LLOYD&RiEDAVIESAND MILDRED CROWLEY& OFGOD GEORGE&MARYMERKLE JOHNFORAN P.O. BOX1035 1067 SANDALWOOD 2928 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD,CA 92008 ELCENTRO,CA 92243 CARLSBAD,CA 92008
FRED&PHYLLISNORMAN 2673VANCOUVERST.
CARLSBAD,CA 92008
JAMES&IDASCANLON 7306 BORLAPLACE
CARLSBAD,CA 92009
CHARLOTTETHATCHER& ROBERTSONNEMAN
P.O. BOX 7600
LOSANGELES,CA 90051
JAMES&LANABESAW JOHN&MARYGRANT GORDEN&MARILYNLARSEN 34300 LANTERN BAYDR. #31 C/OO.MAYINVESTMENTS C/OBANKOFCALIFORNIA
DANAPOINT,CA 92629 2945 HARDING ST.#lll 400 CALIFORNIAST.
CARLSBAD,CA 92008 SAN FRANCISCOCA 94104
EDMONDSHEHAB& SANDRASHEHAB
6321ESPLANADE
PLAYADELREY,CA 90293
GERALDKELLY& HOWARDMURPHY
400 N.LACOSTADR.
CARLSBAD,CA 92008
JEANENEENTERF'RISESINC. STUART&MARILYNWILSON JOSEPHINEKINGSTON
2879JEFFERSON ST.#J 1846AVOCADORD. 786GRANDAVE
CARLSBAD,CA 92008 OCEANSIDECA 92054 CARLSBAD,CA 92008
TAMARACKINVESTMENTS& BRENT &JENNIFERBEAZLEY HOWARDMURPHY&
ROOSEVELTCENTER- C/OTHEENTERPRISE GERALD KELLY
23282 MILLCREEKROAD #220 1616VENTUR'iBLVD.,STE.301 400 N.LACOSTADRIVE LAGUNAHILLSCA 92653 ENCINO,CA 91436 CARLSBAD,CA 92008
SIDNEY&FRANCESSMITH MENAHEM &ESTERAHRONEE DONALD&JEANMACDONALD
ANDDAVID&HAZELHORWITZ 560GRANDAVE. 6546 CORTEVALDEZ P.O. BOX 864 CARLSBAD,CA 92008 CARLSBADCA 92009
CARLSBAD,CA 92008
DONALD&LAELDEWHURST RAYMOND &CELESTINE ARTHURT.HOWARD-JONESTR
3425 SEACRESTDR. NORMANDINE 2748WATERBURYWAY
CARLSBADCA 92008 P.O. 731 CARLSBAD,CA 92008
BONSALL,CA 92003
CLIFFORD D. WARD,JR. & JOHNH.GRANT& ABEL & OPHELIAGARCIA FLORENCEM.WARD,TRS., MARYC.GRANT 1438 LEMON STREET 945-D S.ORANGE GROVE BLVD 7173 OBELISCOCIRCLE OCEANSIDE,CA 92054
PASADENA,CA 91105 CARLSBADCA 92009
ABEL GARCIA
2960 STATE STREET
CA&LSBAD,CA 92008 P
THELMAWILLIAMS 2921ROOSEVELTST CARLSBAD,CA 92008
UNOKASKLA&
FREDERICKWOOD
403 N.OAKHURSTDR.#203 BEVERLYHILLS,CA 90210
MINNIECARPENTER& LOUISE WILLIAMS 2922 ROOSEVELTST. CARLSBADCA 92008
JODE GILBERT 4350 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBADCA 92008
GENE&MARGARERAYAND
SACHIO&TAEKOMATSUBARA
2959JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD,CA 92008
--LEO&DIANNAPACHECO
2100 CHESTNUTST.
CARLSBAD,CA 92008
HAROLD8cCATHERINERK.E 824CAMINITODELREPOSO CARLSBAD,CA 92008
CLARK& SHELLEYKNAPP 2508 CONGRESS ST SAN DIEGO,CA 92110
CARLSBADEQUITYPROP.
C/OBRYNEVANS
2965 ROOSEVELT ST.STE.A
CARLSBAD,CA 92008
OAKLEYPARKER 3215 MAEZELLANE CARLSBAD,CA 92008
MARK&MARYGOMBARAND JOHN&BARBARAGOMBAR P.O.BOX1667
CARLSBAD,CA 92008
PACKARDDEV. CORP.
725GRANDAVE.
CARLSBAD,CA 92008
LAJOLLABANK&TRUSTCO.,
P.O.BOX22629
SAN DIEGO,CA 92122
CAROLANDERSON
4783 FLYINGCLOUDWAY
CARLSBAD,CA 92008
MARVIN&IDELLAHUMPHREYS
14OACACIAAVE
CARLSBAD,CA 92008
ROYBOYER&NANCYBOYER 602 S. PACIFIC STREET OCEANSIDE,CA 92054
VEBLEN&NATALIEVERMILYEA
645GRANDAVE.
CARLSBAD,CA 92008
OCEANSIDEFEDERALSAVINGS &LOANASSN., 1901NEWPORTBLVD., COSTAMESA, CA 92627
ROBERT&DARLENEPEARSON 2125WOODWINDDRIVE
OLl-VENHAIN,CA 92024
HOMESAVINGS&LOANASSN., C/OYVONNEBARBIERI
1001COMMERCEDRLVE
IRWINDALE& 91706
, * 1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
DATE: October 22, 1991
TO: Debbie Fountain (Redevelopment Dept.)
FROM: Karen Kundtz (Clerk's Office) az
RE: Appeal - RP 91-2
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE &ZZ'Kx%WW%Ix HOUSING & RED. COMMISSION
Commission
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the BZ~jrx@an~tt
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.
heduled for the City Council
November 12, 1991
MORT S. O’GRADY
4407 MANCHESTER AVENUE
SUITE206
F!.NCINlTAS,ck 92024
RE: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION OF O<=TOBER 16, 1991
DENIAL OF RP 91-2, PERL FAMILY TRUST
Dear Mort:
Please accept this letter as confirmation of your discussion with Kathy Graham, Housing
and Redevelopment Director, on November 12, 1991 regarding the appeal hearing for RP
91-2, Per1 Family Trust request to convert two residential units to retail establishments at
3055/65 Madison Street. Per your telephone conversation with Kathy, we received your
permission to extend the public hearing date to December 3, 1991.
We appreciate your cooperativeness on this matter! This item will be noticed to the public
as required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Thank you for your continued patience in this
matter. If you have any questions regarding the public hearing before the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission on your appeal of the Design Review Board decision denying
RP 91-2, please contact my office at 434-2935.
Sincerely,
F>- ._. : t;y ( , - ._ -.
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
c: CityClerk
2965 Roosevelt St., Suite B - Carlsbad, California 92008-2389 - (619) 434-281 O/281 1 643
,
,
- 1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92006
Office of fhe Cify Clerk
DATE: October 22, 1991
TELEPHONE
(619) 4342608
Td: Debbie Fountain (Redevelopment Dept.)
FROM: Karen Kundtz (Clerk's Office)
RE. . Appeal - RP 91-2
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE &E%Xx%WtW&Ix HOUSING & RED. COMMISSION
Commission
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the Qt%Ky@Z¶W8&%
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
* 1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
/ _ i.i TELEPHONE _ . I ,” / ‘-” : -.- : i -_/ (619) 434-2808
, i r-v:-- ‘;r- i>‘? j I’ .- I. c- i 1 i, 1 <.; .,:
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the DefGN cEvlEw
~A~ to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): 7zFmLZ
Date of Decision: 16 I
Reason for Appeal: 7?4& QV+&bCiZ'+ ay TeV a NOT wwa I
Y tubI - c4xlFoRWkti~ . 7k.E pp*r. #q&g&7 & ple#l2sm &at&e , L
Id OEBN3L~f~~ isE4 IulfC~ az?U~ Z&U 1 d aaqQ&Q&~
tAjif& 7& V/Lj&& &&#j rcr7 wm
csUA7fW dl& OKD&)&lJcq
I
22-7 qj
Date
Name (Please Print)
jqq& f254zL jQM)Ly -RUST:
+?I6
Address
EtSwwne‘ CA * qzc?z&
&ej 753 -077~ l
Telephone Number