The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCD 11-03; Muroya Subdivision; Consistency Determination (CD)CITY OF VCARLSBAD Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov April 18,2011 Jack Henthorn and Associates P.O.Box 237 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CD 11 -03 - MUROYA SUBDIVISION CHANGES The Planning Director has completed a review of your application for a Consistency Determination (CD) for the Muroya Subdivision, (APN: 215-040-03-00) which is a modification to the grading and development of 37 detached air-space condominium, one-family dwelling units. The proposed modifications include: 1. Enlarge a bio-retention basin in the northwest corner of the lot to accommodate new hydro- modifications standards. To construct the basin, large (8 to 11 foot tall) retaining walls are being proposed. Retaining walls in general shall not exceed six feet in height per the City of Carlsbad Hillside Development Regulations (CMC 21.95.120(C)(1). This change cannot be supported by staff. 2. The repositioning of 10 of the 37 approved dwelling units (27% of the total dwelling units) exceeds the 10% criteria that can be approved via CD and therefore is not supported by staff. Staff also has concerns in that this redesign also creates additional curb cuts, new retaining walls, lots 19 & 20 will now have rear yards under the SDGE lines, and also eliminates a grassy recreational overlook area at the end of the cul-de-sac. 3. Eliminating a passive grassy recreational overlook (5,890 sq ft). The project is required to have 7,400 sq ft of community recreational space, with 75% as active space. With the grassy passive area at the end of the cul-de-sac, there exists 12,290 sq ft of approved community recreational open space. The elimination of the passive area would leave the project with a 1,000 sq ft deficit and eliminate public views from the private street "A". Staff cannot support this proposed change. 4. Relocating visitor parking space P-15 from along the east side of Private Drive "C" to the other proposed visitor parking spaces located adjacent to the community recreational area. While staff can support the relocation of the space, the amount of community recreational space lost with this relocation must be replaced. 5. Several driveway entryways have no pervious pavers. All driveway/entryways were approved with decorative or stamped pervious paving. Staff has concerns that if fewer pavers are included in the project, that the detention basin will increase in size. This is not supported by staff and cannot be approved administratively. 6. A decreased setback on units 16 & 17 from 29.8 feet to 21.5 feet and 20 feet respectively, exceeds the 10% criteria that can be approved via CD. This is not supported by staff and cannot be approved administratively. 7. Eliminating one plan 4X unit and adding a Plan 2 unit. This switch is a two-story unit for a two-story unit. Staff has no concerns and can support this change. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 0 8. An increase in floor area on 4 plans (Plan 1 by 115 sq ft, Plan 3 by 67 sq ft, Plan 4 by 134 sq ft, and Plan 4X by 241 sq ft.) These increases are less than the maximum 10% increase allowed by a CD and can be supported. 9. Increase in Lot coverage due to increase in floor area. The minor increase is less than 10% and staff has no concerns with the change. 10. Increase building heights of all plans. The increased building heights exceed the 10% criteria on Plan 1A, 1B, and Plan 4A. Staff cannot administratively approve this increase. Architecture: In general, the proposed architectural changes, in aggregate, cannot be administratively approved because they include a reduction in overall design quality. In addition, it appears the project is not in full compliance with Policy 44 (as discussed below): Architectural Guideline #1 - All residential projects shall be required to have a minimum number of different floor plans, different front and corresponding matching rear elevations with different color schemes. While the project still has four floor plans, the three different distinct architectural styles are not distinctly different with the proposed changes. The front and rear elevations have been diminished with the subtraction of the decorative elements. Architectural Guideline #2 - Every house should have a coherent architectural style. All elevations of a house, including front, side and rear, should have the same design integrity of forms, details and materials. See answer to #1 above. Architectural Guideline #3 - In addition to the previous requirements, design details should reinforce and enhance the architectural form and style of every house and differ from other elevations of the same floor plan. A minimum of 4 complimentary design details, including but not limited to those listed below, shall be incorporated into each of the front, rear and street side building facade(s) of the house. As proposed, many of the plans lose many of the design details required to comply with the list. In particular, the shrinking or elimination of exposed rafter tails, shrinking or elimination of decorative eaves and fascia, and the elimination of accent materials cannot be supported. Architectural Guideline #4 - Floor plans in a project shall exhibit a variety of roof ridges and roof heights within a neighborhood. Roof elevations changed on several of the proposed plans. The change is most dramatic on plan 1, which eliminated the tower entryway and pushed the tower to the center of the house. The varying roof lines were eliminated and the proposed roof lines are flat. The change has taken a predominant element, the tower and sloping roof and eliminated it. This elimination results in a bland architecture design that does not match the theme provided. Architectural Guideline #13 - At least 66% of exterior openings (door/windows) on every home in the project shall be recessed or projected a minimum of 2 inches and shall be constructed with wood, vinyl or colored aluminum window frames (no mill finishes). The proposed change to the windows appears to have reduced the amount of window accessories and/or have eliminated windows all together. During the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 2010 the commissioners added a condition to improve the windows on the side elevations of the plans. The condition reads: "Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall modify the architectural side elevations of all plans to include additional enhanced architectural features as similarly displayed features on the front and rear elevations. The final design shall be shown on the building plans and shall be subject to the Planning Directors approval." The proposed reduction in window amenities does not meet the intent of the architectural guidelines or the added condition. Architectural Guideline #14 - Windows shall reinforce and enhance the architectural form and style of the house through, the use of signature windows and varied window shapes and sizes. See answer to #13 above. In order for a Discretionary Permit Consistency Determination to be approved, all of the following findings must be made: 1) No project condition, feature, facility or amenity is changed or deleted that had been considered essential to the project's design, quality, safety or function. 2) The request represents an upgrade in overall design features and or materials and improves upon the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 3) The proposed revision does not change the density or boundary of the subject property. 4) The proposed revision does not involve the addition of a new land use not shown on the original permit. 5) The proposed revision does not rearrange the major land uses within the development. 6) The proposed revision does not create changes of greater than ten percent provided that compliance will be maintained with the applicable development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 7) The proposed change will not result in any significant environmental impact, and/or require additional mitigation. 8) The proposed change would not result in any health, safety or welfare impacts. 9) There were not any major issues or controversies associated with the original project which would be exacerbated with the proposed change. 10) The proposed change would not be readily discemable to the decision makers as being substantially different from the project as originally approved. The projects design and quality have been significantly downgraded. Accordingly, all of the CD findings above cannot be made. After careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding this request, the Planning Director has determined that the application does not qualify for a consistency determination with the approved permit and therefore, denies the changes to the project based on Planning Division Administrative Policy No. 35. CITY OF CARLSBAD DON NEU, AICP Planning Director DN:DH:bd c: Akira & Toshiko Muroya, P.O. Box 131016, Carlsbad, CA 92013 Taylor Morrison Homes, Attn: April Tornillo, 15 Gushing St, Irvine, CA 92618 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Clyde Wickham, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry