The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCD 11-03; Muroya Subdivision; General Plan Amendment (GPA)_df~.A._ C I T Y 0 F ~~CARLSBAD Mcu.lecl g /10 ( 1' FILE COPY Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov August 8, 2011 Jack Henthorn and Associates P.O.Box 237 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CD 11-03 -MUROYA SUBDIVISION The Planning Director has completed a 2nd review of your application for a Consistency Determination (CO) for the Muroya Subdivision, (APN: 215-040-03-00) which primarily is a modification to the floor plans and elevations of 37 detached air-space condominium, one-family dwelling units. The proposed modifications include: 1. Minor increases in building heights of all plans. The increased building heights do not exceed the 10% criteria on any of the plans. Staff can support this increase. 2. Eliminating one plan 4X unit and replacing it with 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. 3. 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. . 4. Increase in Lot coverage due to the increase in floor area of those floor plans listed in the units above. The increase in lot coverage is less than 10% and staff has no concerns with the change. 5. 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. Staff can support this move. Architecture changes: Plan 1 -Adding an additional window to the left elevation (all plans). Adding a gable roof to the left elevation (Andalusian model). Plan 2 -Remove a post on the front porch element of all models and remove two posts from the loggia's rear elevations of all models. Add additional windows to the front porch area (all models) and to the left and right elevations (all models). Add additional shutters (all models) and decorative roof vents (Andalusian model). Plan 3-Remove the intermediate posts from the rear porch area (all models). Remove Juliet balcony from the front elevation (Andalusian & Santa Barbara models) and replace with a Bay window with deep recessed window and sloped sills. Add a Juliet balcony and French door to the left elevation (Andalusian & Santa Barbara models). Add additional windows and shutters over most elevations (all models) with brick window sills and decorative bands. ~~ . -:: · 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® CD 11-03-MUROYA SUBDIVISION August 8, 2011 Page 2 Plan 4-Remove intermediate posts on front elevations (all models). Add additional windows to the front, right, and left elevations (all models) and shutters (all models). Plan 4X-Remove a window on the rear and left elevation (all models). Add additional windows, shutters, and decorative eave vents on most elevations (all models) 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 ditte:ent from the project as originally approved. After careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding this request, the Planning Director has determined that the application qualifies for a consistency determination with the approved permit and therefore, approves the changes to the project based on Planning Division Administrative Policy No. 35. Please submit two (2) blueline copies (24" X 36") of all applicable exhibits for the project file and a reproducible 24" X 36" mylar copy of the amended site plan. The mylars must be submitted, stamped "Consistency Determination," and signed by the Planning Director prior to issuance of any building permits for the project. The Consistency Determination Title Block stamp, and other Title Block stamps, can be downloaded from the City's website at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/servicesldepartmentslplanning/Pages/applications.aspx The Title Block (stamp) is located under "Resources" on the right side of the page. CITY OF CARLSBAD ~/L 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 Cushing St, Irvine, CA 92618 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Clyde Wickham, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry Mcu lev{ LljiCJ J 11 y~ d~~ CITY OF VcARLSBAD F\LE CO~'' Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov April 18, 2011 Jack Henthorn and Associates P.OBox 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 1 0% 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. T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® 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, 1 B, 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 far;ade(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. 1 0) The proposed change would not be readily discern able 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. ~~SBAD 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 Cushing St, Irvine, CA 92618 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Clyde Wickham, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry PANGAEA LAND CONSULTANTS, INC. Muroya-Carlsbad Tract 06-27 SCE 06-27 Date: May 18, 2011 2834 La Mirada Drive Suite H Vista, California 92081 To: Clyde Wickham-City of Carlsbad, Associate Engineer Subject: Substantial Conformance Exhibit Re-submittal Response Letter The Substantial Conformance Exhibit, dated February 18, 2011, has been reviewed by the City of Carlsbad and Land Development Engineering prepared a letter with comments and concerns, dated April 4, 2011. This letter is in response to the City's comments and concerns. 1. Private Street 'A' Cul-de-sac-The curb radius of the cul-de-sac bulb radius has been revised from 42 feet to 38 feet, matching the approved Tentative Map. Per a discussion with Greg on April 22, 2011, the Fire Department will allow the 38-foot curb radius. The alignment of the cul-de-sac has been revised to again match the approved Tentative Map. 2. Basin 1 Retaining Wall -As shown in the attached exhibit, "Typical Wall and Basin Section", the retaining wall has been revised. The previous masonry wall with 6.5 feet of exposed height, topped by a view fence, is now designed as a "Verdura" plantable retaining wall with 3.5 feet of exposed height. A 5.5-foot high view fence will be set above this wall and will be located 3 feet from the face of the plantable wall. The 3-foot setback area will be landscaped and maintained by the HOA. 3. Building Setbacks -The setbacks for buildings 14, 15, 16, and 17 have been increased from the northern tract boundary. These setback increases are within the maximum deviation of ten percent ( 1 0%) or less allowed by the City from the setbacks approved as part of the Tentative Map. 4. All-Weather Access Road -An all-weather access road has been added at the end of Private Street 'A' to allow drivable access to the water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. 5. SCCWRP Down Stream Analysis -This analysis has been completed and is included as part of the resubmittal documents. The SCCWRP lateral channel erosion susceptibility is "Low". The SCCWRP vertical channel susceptibility is also "Low", resulting in the overall channel susceptibility as "Low". 6. Basin Size -The basins have been calculated using the flow-through planter method based on the Soils Engineer's requirement that the basins be lined. The northwesterly basin layout/design shown on the attached exhibit for Basin 1 meet the requirements for hydro-modification and detention. The southerly basin and swales also meet the requirements for hydro-modification; however, detention is not required for this basin. 7. Permeable Pavers-With the SCCWRP downstream analysis findings of "Low" erosion susceptibility, the basins adequately address water quality, hydro-modification, and detention. Therefore, the permeable pavers are not required and have been deleted from the design. Driveways for multiple buildings will have a 1 0-foot-wide band of decorative pavement, as shown on the approved Tentative Map, in lieu of the permeable pavers. Driveways serving single buildings will not have decorative pavement, as shown on the approved Tentative Map. 8. Retaining Walls -The retaining walls behind buildings 13 and 17 shown on the original substantial conformance exhibit have been removed, as they are no longer needed. The retaining wall on the side of building 20 shown on the original substantial conformance exhibit has been reduced in length to only the minimum wall length required for the placement of building 20. 9. Easement Fence-The fence behind buildings 19 and 20 has been removed from the SDG&E easement and has been placed just outside the edge of the easement. 10. Project Summary Table -The Project Summary Table has been revised based on reducing the cul-de-sac bulb diameter. The private use areas for buildings 14, 15, 16, and 17 have been revised based on the increased setbacks from the northern tract boundary. 11. Black Rail Road Drainage -A curb inlet will be constructed in Black Rail Road adjacent to the northern curb return of Private Street 'A' and Black Rail Road. This curb inlet will pick up Black Rail Road's public street drainage so that it will not enter the project. A small portion of half width pavement directly fronting the intersection will enter the project, which will be treated in the onsite basin. Engineer of Record Pangaea Land Consultants, Inc (760) 726-4232 rich.brasher@pangaealandconsultants.com P:\Active Projects\Muroya\Doc\Muroya Engineering Response Letter Substantial Conformance Resubmittal.docx 5' BENCH -lo----->1.---1. 0 ' 323.0 EMERGENCY OVERFLOW BASIN LINER 5' 6" HIGH METAL \.t'lEW FE BASIN 1 3.5' 3.0' -2.0' TO EMERGENCY OVERFLOW 3.0' BOTTOM BASIN 321.00 PLAN TABLE MATERIAL LAYER 1.5' BASIN LINER £LEV 317.50 13.0' 3.0' 10.0' BACK OF BUILDING 18 PAD 327.50 10.5' HIGH VERDURA PLANTABLE WALL WITH ONLY 3.5' EXPOSED BASIN LINER TOP HELD IN PLACE WITH 2: 1 FILL AGAINST WALL BOTTOM OF WALL 311. 00 TYPICAL WALL AND BASIN SECTION NTS <(_(~~' C I T Y 0 F ~CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development April4, 2011 Taylor Morrison Homes 16745 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92127 Attn: April Tornillo Pangea Land Consultants, Inc 2834 La Mirada Drive, Suite H Vista, CA 92081 Attn: Richard Brasher Jack Henthorn & Associates PO BOX 237 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attn: Jack Henthorn RE: SCE 06-27, Muroya Substantial Conformance Exhibit www.carlsbadca.gov Land Development Engineering has completed its review of the Substantial Conformance Exhibit submitted March 9, 2011. The following comments are considered issues that must be resolved before we can support the proposed changes: 1. Calculations and project stormwater management plan sizing do not support the proposed BMP Detention Basin(s). 2. Downstream information for location of spillway and proposed outfall (Basin 1 and Basin 2) is necessary before we can support proposed changes to the approved basin size, spillway and configuration. 3. All weather access road is required over proposed sewer, water and storm drain facilities at the end of Private Street "A". 4. Deletion of BMP details shown on sheet 3 cannot be supported at this time. Calculations and Low impact development standards require treatment of stormwater. Deletion of these details will reduce treatment. As stated above, calculations do not support the deletion of stormwater treatment (BMP details). 5. The soils report stated that the soil was not conducive to filtration. Geocon recommended against water filtration adjacent to structures, improvements, compacted fill and slopes. In addition the soils Engineer discussed down gradient property damage, springs, seepage and also damage to utility pipe zones. Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-2740 I 760-602-8558 fax SCE 06-27 MUROYA April 4, 2011 Page 2 Planning Department comments: 1. Staff cannot support the proposed 11' to 8' retaining walls around the basin enclosure. Retaining walls in general may not exceed six feet in height per the City of Carlsbad Hillside Development Regulations (CMC 21.95.120(C)(1) and the Yards Section (21.46.130). Please redesign to conform to these standards. 2. The drainage basin needs to be designed so it can blend into the landscaping of the south end of the lot. The landscaping plans associated with CD 11-03 are not adequate in screening the detention basin. Please revise. 3. Please provide a letter from SDGE that will allow the open rear yard areas of Lot 19 &20 to be constructed as proposed. 4. Provide fencing detail lots that are adjacent to the basin. Any retaining wall and or combination of retaining wall and fence cannot exceed 6 feet in height. Lot 18 appears to be adjacent to a 11' or 7' high retaining wall/basin. The requirement for a safety fence would then increase the size of this wall/fence. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact the Project Engineer, Clyde Wickham at 760-602-2742. If you have any planning-related questions, please contact the Project Planner, Dan Halverson, at 760-602-4631. Sincerely, Clyde Wickham, PLS Associate Engineer cc: Senior Civil Engineer, Glen Van Peski Project Planner, Dan Halverson File: CT 06-27 Land Development Engineering Request for Project Review RETURN to Terie Rowley, Senior Office Specialist (SOS), Land Dev Eng by: 3130111 To: 0Building Will Foss OF ire Fire Marshal 0Parks-Trees, Medians Mike Bliss OParks & Rec-Trails Liz Ketabian IZ!Pianning Dan Halverson DTransportation Nick Rogue 0Transportation-P&P Alfred Romero From:Ciyde Wickham Attached: D Improvement Plans D Grading Plans 0 Final/Parcel Map 0Transportation-Traffic John Kim OUtilities-Design Bill Plummer DUtilities-Storm Drain Clayton Dobbs 0Utilities-Wastewater Don Wasko DUtilities-Water JaseWarner D D , Project Engineer (PE), ext: 2742 Date: 3/11/11 ~Other: Substantial Conformance Exhibit Project ID:_C=-'-T--=0=6-=-2:..:... 7 _______ _ DWG No.: SCE0627 Plancheck No.:_.1 __ Project Name: Mur·""o..,ya:::..::S.=.u::cbd=.,iv.:.:i~si"""o.:.:.n ______________ _ Engineer of Work (EOW):__,_,R.:.:::ic"-'h=ar:.:::d,_,B=.:r.:::a""'sh..,.,e::.:.r ________ _ EOW Ph: 760-726-4232 EOW Firm: Pangaea Land Consultants Planchecker (PCE): Wickham INSTRUCTIONS Recipient -Please review attached plans and complete "Department Comments" section below (attach additional pages if necessary). Please return by date above even if no comments. LDE SOS-Log date received from recipient and initial below. Forward all documents to PE. When received from PE, notify EOW (copy notification toPE and PCE) and enter date below. If comments are written on plans, forward plans to counter for EOW. Distribute form as indicated below. PE -Review comments. Initial and date below. Return to SOS. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS (see instructions above) 0Comments on plans 0No comments ~ ~ <7sm G c9: <-f f.p 3 f._· -~3 !~31.!..)...:.:.,1_ Initials Teleohone oaf! Reviewer's Printed Name SOS: Logged ~ fL · EOW Notified al-laB) \' inotial date PE: Comments reviewed c/VJ ~ Initial date Distribution: Original to file, copy to PCE, copy to EOW (!) z -z z <( I -0 Doc ER-99-32 0210812011 C..\clo .. J-.1 ~Jil-. Planning Department MEMORANDUM March 31,2011 TO: Engineering Department -Clyde Wickham FROM: Planning Department -Dan Halverson SCE 06-27 Muroya Subdivision Change 1ST REVIEW- Planning Department staff has completed a preliminary review of the above-referenced project. Prior to approval of the Substantial Conformance the following items must be adequately resolved/ addressed: 1. Staff cannot support the proposed 11' to 8' retaining walls around the basin enclosure. Retaining walls in general may not exceed six feet in height per the City of Carlsbad Hillside Development Regulations (CMC 21.95.120(C)(1) and the Yards Section (21.46.130). Please redesign to conform to these standards. 2. The drainage basin needs to be designed so it can blend into the landscaping of the south end of the lot. The landscaping plans associated with CD 11-03 are not adequate in screening the detention basin. Please revise. 3. Please provide a letter from SDGE that will allow the open rear yard areas of Lot 19 &20 to be constructed as proposed. 4. Provide fencing detail lots that are adjacent to the basin. Any retaining wall and or combination of retaining wall and fence cannot exceed 6 feet in height. Lot 18 appears to be adjacent to a 11' or 7' high retaining wall/basin. The requirement for a safety fence would then increase the size of this wall/fence. If you or the applicant has any questions, please contact Dan Halverson at extension 760-602- 4631. Dan Halverson, Assistant Planner March 15, 2011 Dan Halverson City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92018 Jack Henthorn & Associates P.O. Box 237 Carlsbad, California 92018-0237 _ I/ _ O ~ (760) 438-4o9o c., D ~ Fax (760) 438-0981 RECEIVED MAR 1 ~ 2011 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT SUBJECT: Consistency Determination Dear Dan, GPA 06-09/ ZC 06-08/ SPA 2030/ LCPA 06-09/ CT 06-27/ CP 06-19/ COP 06-32/ HOP 06-10/ HMPP 07-02-MUROYA SUBDIVISION Attached is a Consistency Determination submittal for the above referenced project. A separate and concurrent application and set of plans has been submitted to the Engineering Department for processing under Engineering Department Substantial Conformance procedures for subdivisions. All ten of the Consistency Determination Criteria contained in Policy 35 are met and the proposed architectural revisions represent an upgrade in overall design features. The information below describes the proposed revisions. TENTATIVE MAP AND ENGINEERING The primary reason for the revisions to the Tentative Map and Condominium Permit is to address the new requirements set forth in the \ Storm Water Permit that was amended and effective on January 14, 2011. The project has been revised to address the new Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP) regulations. As discussed with the City Engineering Department, the consequence of meeting the new criteria and calculations for the onsite Bio-retention treatment areas and volumes resulted in a larger basin design for the Northwesterly portion of the site than was shown on the approved Tentative Map. Also, during engineering plan check process it was noted that the approved Tentative Map private street profiles were not within the City of Carlsbad 25 mph design tolerances. This submittal includes the changes that were necessary to achieve the 25 mph criteria. Finally, additional modifications include an increase in cul-de-sac bulb design for Private Street A from a radius of 38' to 42'. The cul-de-sac bulb has been reconfigured as requested to meet the City's minimum radius and current standards. '' 1902 Wright Place, Ste 200, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Page 2 of 11 Re: Consistency Determination, CT 06-27 March 11, 2011 As a result of the issues mentioned above it was necessary to make revisions to the Tentative Map/Condominium Permit plotting. The enlarged basin located in the northwest portion of the property required plotting of units 13 to 20 to be reconfigured. The Consistency Determination Exhibit "A" shows the original approved Tentative Map with an overlay of the proposed re:configured design -of units printed in red. Original and revised landscape plans are also included in this submittal and are included in the request for consistency determination. The northwest basin is now located at the same general elevation as the proposed units and not at the lower elevation of the existing neighboring development as previously designed. The proposed basin design now allows for greater ease of access and maintenance. In summary, the proposed plan has been configured to use the open area northwest of unit 21, which was not accounted for as any sort of open space area or recreation area in the original approval. Utilizing the open area northwest of unit 21 in the replotting of the condominium units, the project has been able to retain the same unit count and general design concept while meeting engineering design criteria for basin and cul-de- sac size. The proposed plan is generally consistent with the original approval and the detailed changes will be discussed further in the sections below. TENTATIVE MAP/CONDOMINIUM PERMIT The Earthwork I Grading Quantities on Sheet 1 reflect the proposed area and quantities. The increase in Total Graded Area is due to the increase in basin size and reflects changes made to the design since 2006. No grading is proposed outside of the project boundary. A brief summary the changes, by plan set sheet, is presented below: Sheet 1, note 12 has been modified. The proposed total building coverage is approximately 1.4 acres, 63,146 sq. ft., representing an increase of 3.1% over the original 1.4 acres, 61,236 sq. ft. The revisions to Building Coverage are explained in the Architecture section below. The revised portions of the Project Summary table on Sheet 2 are shown below. The increase in Street Coverage is due to the increase in cul-de-sac area. The increase in Building Coverage is explained further in the Architecture section below. The Private Open Spaces Area within the Project Summary table includes the side yards and rear loggias. Page 3 of 11 Re: Consistency Determination, CT 06-27 March 11, 2011 The decrease in Private Open Spaces Area is attributable to the increase in basin and cul-de-sac area. See Private Open Space section below for further information on rear yard Private Open Space as depicted in the PVT OS SUMMARY on Sheet 3. The Remaining Common Open Space category has increased due to changes associated with design modifications and basin relocation .. PROJECT SUMMARY ' ORIGINAL TENTATIVE MAP PROPOSED TENTATIVE MAP SQ. FT. ACRES %OF SITE SQ. FT. ACRES %OF SITE SQ. FT. CHANGE %CHANGE TOTAL SITE AREA 883,099 20.3 100% 883,099 20.3 100% 0 0.00% STREET COVERAGE (INTERNAL STREETS) 72,223 1.7 8.2% 72,479 1.7 8.2% 256 0.35% BUILDING COVERAGE 61,122 1.4 6.9% 63,146 1.4 7.2% 2,024 3.31% PRIVATE OPEN SPACES AREA 85,917 2.0 9.7% 81,113 1.9 9.2% -4,804 -5.59% REMAINING COMMON OPEN SPACE 83,435 1.9 9.4% 85,959 2.0 9.7% 2,S24 3.03% Sheet 2, Architectural Summary has been revised. See Architectural Summary table in the Architecture section below. Sheet 3. The addition of the sections titled, "Driveway Pervious Paver", "1 0' Wide Bio- Retention Swale", "Section A-A Bio-Retention Basin", and "Section B-B Bio-Retention Basin", all stem from the required SUSMP compliance. Sheet 4. The Street 'A' Plan and Profile at Entry has been revised to comply with the standards for a 25 mph street design. Sheet 5. The revisions on Sheet 5 reflect most of the changes in further detail at 1" = 40' scale. Additional revision notes are numbered on the plan. Sheet 6. Revision to southern basin was made to meet current SUSMP design standards. Cross section A-A and B-B are shown depicting the line of sight from the neighboring development. PLOTTING CHANGES The Consistency Determination Exhibit "A" highlights the plotting changes in red overlay format. The majority of the changes are on units 13 through 20, resulting from the revisions to the northwest basin and the enlarged cul-de-sac. Other changes occur on units 28 and 29.These two units have been slightly repositioned. The changes to unit 29 consist of moving the house back approximately 6' to provide adequate building separation due to the addition of a front porch. The front porch on Unit 29 creates differentiation between the two units, 28 and 29, and provides a varied street scene. Other changes consist of replotting the new footprints of each plan type .. In most cases, the footprint changes are minor and are discussed in the Architectural section below. Page 4 of 11 Re: Consistency Determination, CT 06-27 March 11, 2011 The result of the replotting for units 13 through 17 to accommodate basin design and cui de sac modifications is a better house orientation in that it creates view corridors to the Pacific Ocean in between the units for the adjacent residents. Every effort was made to create the same setback as in the original approval, and this plan is the result of the efforts, although there was a decrease on units 16 and 17. ARCHITECTURE The Original Approved Architectural Summary table, on Sheet 2, is shown below in comparison with the Proposed Architectural Summary table shown-only the line items that have been revised are shown. The revisions to the unit mix and square footage are noted in the Architectural Summary tables below. The unit mix has increased the plotting of the Plan 2 by one unit and decreased the plotting of the plan 4X by one unit. The reason for the unit mix change stems from the increase in the northwest basin size and increase in cul-de-sac bulb, which encroached into building area for the units .. The architecture design has been upgraded in the process as evidenced in the Building Elevation Design Elements Table. SQUARE FOOTAGE INCREASE -FOOTPRINT REVISIONS. As noted in the Proposed Architectural Summary table the square footage of all plan types have increased a small amount. The Plan 1 increased 115 square feet. The Plan 2 decreased 9 square feet. The Plan 3 increased 67 square feet. The Plan 4 increased 134 square feet. And the Plan 4X increased 241 square feet. Most of these changes are the result of moving from hand drawn plans to more precise CAD based drawings. BUILDING COVERAGE INCREASE. Sheet 1, note 12 -total building coverage: approximately 1.4 acres (63, 146 sq. ft) was revised from the ori?inal 1.4 acres (61 ,236 sq. ft.). The Building Coverage increase stems from the 15 floor square footage increase. The 1st floor square footage increase occurs on all Plans, but with minimal increases on the Plan 2, 3, and 4 as shown in the Architectural Summary table below. ?\ f 8od--(v'/(? + \l ') ~{~ '?~ -.20lob -<1 ole -'1 L\. \ \ :) : d-~S5' -+U, I d-'lo P~~ d-8d..\ --+ ~~ i ~0)0 f> t.{x~d-BG-1 -+-a-'-\\ 81o ~~-~----~·-···-~~------ Page 5 ofll Re: Consistency Determination, CT 06-27 March 11, 2011 APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP ARCHITECTURAL SUMMARY PLAN #OF %UNIT TYPE UNITS MIX 1 6 16.2% 2 15 40.5% 3 9 24.3% 4 3 8.1% 4X 4 10.8% TOTAL 37 100.0% PROPOSED TENTATIVE MAP ARCHITECTURAL SUMMARY PLAN #OF TYPE UNITS 1 6 2 16 3 9 4 3 4X 3 TOTAL 37 PLAN CHANGES Plan 1 1. Floor Plan %UNIT MIX 16.2% 43.2% 24.3% 8.1% 8.1% 100.0% #OF BDRMS 3 3 3 4 4 #OF BDRMS 3 3 3 4 4 1ST 2ND LIVING TOTAL FLOOR FLOOR AREA SQ. GARAGE UNIT SQ. SQ. FT. SQ. FT. FT. SQ. FT. FT. 1,802 -1,802 446 2,248 956 1,108 2,064 425 2,489 1,113 1,372 2,465 438 2,923 1,532 1,336 2,868 448 3,316 1,307 1,437 2,744 448 3,192 1ST 2ND LIVING TOTAL FLOOR FLOOR AREA SQ. GARAGE UNIT SQ. SQ. FT. SQ. FT. FT. SQ. FT. FT. 1,923 -1,923 440 2,363 990 1,056 2,046 434 2,480 1,139 1,409 2,548 442 2,990 1,533 1,449 2,982 468 3,450 1,516 1,449 2,965 468 3,433 a. Modifications include replacement of the front entry Loggia with a courtyard and a prominent foyer entrance. This modification allows for the main entrance of the home to become more visibly connected to the house. The direct entrance from the street provides for a better relationship and cohesiveness with the surrounding neighbors. b. The area of Bedroom 2, Bedroom 3, and Bath 2 has been reconfigured to a more usable floor plan creating a shared bathroom separate from the Great Room area. The reconfiguration of the bedrooms added another window and shutter to the front elevation. c. The reconfiguration of the master bath and toilet area created another opportunity to add a window to the left elevation. Page 6 of 11 Re: Consistency Determination, CT 06-27 March 11, 2011 2. Foot Print a. The depth of the footprint decreased from 51 '6" to 50'. 3. Elevations a. At front elevation, the replacement of the front entry Loggia with the courtyard is the most prominent revision. The 2"d story "tower" element is now set back in the center of the house. The 2"d story tower has been retained to create an upgraded element in contrast to a typical single-level house. 4. Roof Plan 2 a. The shed roof over the garage has been changed to a gable end. The roof revision was due to the relocation of the tower element and had to be revised _in conjunction with the change. 1 ,. . , ", b. Roof height increased from 19' to 22' 2" on "A" elevation. \~ .Lt c. Roof height increased from 19' to 21' 9" on "B" elevation. 1 ·~ , ~I"',:( ·-• · ': ,. ~ 1. Floor Plan a. Modifications include the reconfiguration of the stairway, which then revised the upstairs Laundry. In addition, the Master Bath area was reconfigured to create a better internal composition to the floor plan. 2. Foot Print a. The Loggia was increased to 6' in depth to meet current design guidelines. b. The depth of the house increased from 54' 6" to 56'. 3. Elevations a. Front elevation at upstairs stair landing had two windows. One window has been omitted and the other window has been centered, increased in size, and a shutter added resulting in a similar effect. b. The front porch eliminated the center post feature creating enhanced usability. The front porch has also been upgraded by enclosing the area and adding an arch or decorative wood lintel element, depending on the elevation, to the left elevation. c. At left elevation, Bedroom 3 has an added window. d. At left elevation, shutters have been added to the 2"d floor at stair. e. At right elevation, two windows have been added to the Great Room. At rear elevation, two windows have been swapped out for a larger single window resulting in the same window area at the Great Room f. Window at Bedroom 2 has been enlarged. g. At rear elevation, the center posts have been removed from the Rear Loggia creating enhanced usability. The Loggia has been upgraded by enclosing the area and adding an arch or decorative wood lintel element, depending on the elevation, to the right elevation. h. Windows have been varied due to room reconfiguration at Master and Master Bath. The result is a net gain in window area with the addition of a shutter being added to the Walk In Closet window. 1. The added shutters improve upon textile variation. Page 7 of 11 Re: Consistency Determination, CT 06-27 March 11, 2011 J. Decorative wood lintel has been added to the garage on the 2A. Decorative wood lintel has been added to the garage and porch on the 2B. 4. Roof ,, / ( ~·"1 , t .• r .. a. Roof height increased from 24' 10" to 25' 5" on "A" elevation. b. Roof height increased from 24' 1 0" to 25' 5" on "B" elevation. c. Roof height increased from 25' 6" to 27' 3" on "C" elevation. ·<*· •'p j ;__· Plan 3 1. Floor Plan a. The Plan 3 has undergone extensive redesign resulting in a much better utilization of the floor plan and room configurations. The overall square footage has increased 83 square feet with much of the gain on the 2nd floor. 2. Foot Print a. The foot print dimensions remain the same with subtle changes to the front porch and rear loggia. The addition of another arch at front porch right elevation added a post to the current footprint. 3. Elevations a. At front elevation, a new window has been added to Master Bath on 2nd floor. b. Front elevation on "A" elevation has extensive decorative wood element at second story Bath 2. Front elevation on "B" elevation has removed the Juliet Balcony and replaced it with a larger furred out window element with roof covering. Front Elevation of "C" elevation has removed the Juliet Balcony and replaced it with a larger furred out window element with roof covering and exposed support beams. c. Left elevation of "B" and "C" elevations have an added a Juliet Balcony to bedroom 3. One additional window has been added to left elevation at Kitchen. Decorative wood lintel at garage door has been added to left elevation on "B" and "C" elevations. Currently, there are five arches at front porch left elevation where previously there were four arches. d. Right elevation has increased windows from a total of 11 to a proposed total of 14. The A and C elevations have added shutters to the right elevation. e. The Deck on the rear elevation has been removed due to construction concerns and warranty issues. Due to the removal of the deck the door has been removed and the window has been enlarged and centered with added shutters. New door has been added to garage at rear elevation. Center posts were removed at Rear Loggia to create a more usable space. f. The added shutters improve upon wall variation. Page 8 of 11 Re: Consistency Determination, CT 06-27 March 11, 2011 4. Roof \ a. Roof height increased from 23' 10" to 24' 11" on "A" elevation.\_. b. Roof height increased from 24' 9" to 24' 11" on "B" elevation. ,/ c. Roof height increased from 24' 6" to 24' 11" on "C" elevation./' Plan4 1. Floor Plan a. 2"d story floor plan has been reconfigured slightly; the Laundry and Loft have swapped locations. 2. Foot Print a. The dimensions of the footprint have not changed. The addition of square footage to the plan is due to the increase in area at the courtyard. The 1st floor has been revised slightly enlarging rooms and hall. In addition, the chimney has been pushed out of the Great Room enhancing the left and rear elevations by creating another plane. 3. Elevations a. At front elevation, center posts have been removed from Front Porch to create a more usable area. At front elevation, two windows have been added to Bedroom 3 on 2"d story. b. At left elevation, a window has been added to Bedroom 3, and two windows have been added to Great Room. c. At rear elevation one window has been removed from Walk In Closet at Master Bedroom due to the lack of usability. At rear elevation, a new door has been added to the garage. Chimney has been pushed out of Great Room to create a separate rear elevation plane and is now more distinct. d. Decorative wood lintel has been added to "B" elevation Front Porch and Garage at left elevation, right elevation, and front elevation. 4. Roof _.;.... t:d( .,./ (~7 a. Roof height increased from 22' 9" to 25' 6" on "B" elevation. -t <:J · b. Roof height increased from 23' 5" to 25' on "C" elevation. t,1l/,;.r Plan 4X -See Changes to Plan 4 1. Elevations a. At front elevation (garage side), two windows were added and a portico/porch was added with brick enhancements. b. Decorative wood lintel has been added to the "B" elevation at Garage. c. Added windows and shutters to both front and rear elevations. 2. Roof a. Slight roof plan change occurs over garage creating a single-story element to reduce volume and incorporate variation to garage side elevation. b. Roof height increased from 25' to 25' 6" at 4XB Plan c. Roof height increased from 23' 5" to 25' at 4XC Plan. ·~. ;_, ': t!"> Page 9 of 11 Re: Consistency Determination, CT 06-27 March 11, 2011 LOT AREAS The Lot Summary table on Sheet 2 changed slightly due to the increase in cul-de-sac bulb area. Lot 5 increased by .1 acre and Lot 1 decreased by .1 acre resulting in no net difference in total acreage. The lot acreage change is also reflected on the Lotting Detail on Sheet 4. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE The PVT O.S. Summary table on Sheet 3 has changed due to the revisions to units 13 through 20, and units 28 and 29. The majority of the changes stem from the increase in the northwest basin size and the increase in cul-de-sac bulb area. Due to the change in "lot" configurations for units 13 through 20 it is difficult to assess the changes on a "lot- by-lot" comparison basis. Therefore, the aggregate change in private open space area has been analyzed resulting in a net decrease of 1,144 square feet. The intent for the reconfiguration of "lots" was to primarily address the basin requirements, and the related plotting of homes to retain the private open space area. In order to maximize the private open space, retaining walls were necessary to create private open space pad area. The overall result of private open space was a net decrease of 1,144 square feet units 13 through 20. Units 28 and 29 have increased private open space in the aggregate amount of 116 square feet. LANDSCAPE I RETAINING WALLS Sheet 1, note 13 -percent of landscape changed from 55% to 54.2%. This reduction in area stems from the decrease in landscaped slope area. WALLS Due to the revisions to the basin and cul-de-sac design, the addition or enlargement of retaining walls was necessary to create pad area for the homes. The retaining walls in the area of units 13 through 20 have increased in lineal footage and increased slightly in height. The walls proposed in the area of the current units 13 through 17 have increased in length and generally increased slightly in height ranging from .3' to 1.6'. All walls in the area of units 13 through 17 do not exceed 4.83' in height. All walls in the area of units 13 through 17 are not visible from the public right-of-way, and only slightly visible by neighboring residents of the project since the walls are located in the rear yards. A retaining wall at 7' in height above finished surface is proposed to accommodate for the northwest basin revisions. The height of the wall was kept to a minimum while still meeting the basin design criteria. The 7' wall is not visible from the neighboring development to the west as depicted in Section A-A and Section B-8 line of sight cross sections on Sheet 6. The 7' wall is not visible from within the development since it is below pad level and out of sight. Page 10 of 11 Re: Consistency Determination, CT 06-27 March 11, 2011 POLICY 44 The information from the original approved Policy 44 has been retained and the proposed changes, if any, have been notated under the heading "March 2011 Submittal" in bold print. For this submittal, Criteria 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, 17, and 18 of Policy 44 have not changed. See Policy 44 for revisions to Criteria 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 16. BUILDING ELEVATION DESIGN ELEMENTS The Building Elevation Design Elements Table has been updated to account for the revisions to the elevations. One addition to the Table was the addition of a "balcony or Juliet balcony" element row. As discussed in the Architecture section, the overall design of all of the elevations has been upgraded and reflected in the Table. One way of analyzing the proposed changes accompanying this submittal is to look at the total elements provided by the architecture design. The revised design has accounted for 175 elements. The original approval only accounted for 137 elements. In summary, the proposed architectural design is an upgrade to the original approval. A few of the upgraded elements are in the areas of Arched Elements, Exterior Wood Elements, Accent Materials, and Balconies. POLICY 66 All information within Policy 66 remains the same and no revisions are necessary. TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Reference No. C.4, Streets, Private. Private Street "A" was originally approved with a 56' right-of-way and is now proposed with a 58' right-of-way and includes a minimum of 5.5' of landscaped parkways and 5' of sidewalks. Reference No. C.4, Streets, Street Trees Within Parkways. The project is proposing Cassia Leptophylla and Rhus Lancea trees predominately along Street "A". The Rhus Lancea was changed from Rhus Laurina. TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT Reference No. E.4. Roof heights have been revised to the following: Plan 1 = 22' 2" Max. - 1 story; Plan 2 = 27' 3" Max. - 2 story; Plan 3 = 24' 11" Max. - 2 story; Plan 4 = 25' 6" Max. - 2 story. Heights listed are maximums per Plan and vary per elevation. These changes were necessary due to refinement in design from concept to CAD. In this process, conflicts between adjacent roof planes and lack of space to accommodate mechanical equipment were discovered and corrected. In conclusion, the redesign of the project due to the basin and cul-de-sac has dictated the changes to the site plan. The compliance with recent water quality regulation which drove changes in the_water quality basin is the underlying reason to make the revisions and the water quality basin will ensure best management practice in treating onsite Page 11 of 11 Re: Consistency Determination, CT 06-27 March 11, 2011 runoff. Every effort was made to upgrade the development with this submittal. The architecture has increased in square footage resulting in a marginal increase in Building Coverage. However, the extensive upgrades to the elevation elements prove to enhance the architecture far beyond the original designs. We anticipate that you will determine this submittal to be consistent with the original approval and an upgrade to overall design elements. If you should have any questions or concerns, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Jack Henthorn & Associates Jack Henthorn Cc: April Tornillo, Taylor Morrison of CA, LLC, 15 Cushing, Irvine, CA 92618 Chris DeCerbo, Team Leader Clyde Wickham, Project Engineer File Copy . ' Architectural Guideline Policy 44 Criteria Compliance Table Muroya Property Tavlor Morrison Standard (f .. 0 ~ Comments Floor Plans and Elevations 2 3 4 Site Planning 5 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 as identified below: • • • • 2-4 dwelling units shall provide 1 floor plan and 2 different elevations. 5-12 dwelling units shall provide 2 different floor plans and 2 different elevations. 13-20 dwelling units shall provide 2 different floor plans and 3 different elevations. 21+ dwelling units shall provide 3 different floor plans and 3 different elevations. 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. 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 facades) of the house. • • • • • • • • • • DESIGN DETAILS Balconies Decorative eaves and fascia Exposed roof rafter tails Arched elements Towers Knee braces Downers Columns Exterior wood elements Accent materials I.e.; brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding) Floor plans in a project shall exhibit a variety of roof ridges and roof heights within a neighborhood. Houses with both the same floor plan and elevation style shall not occur on adjacent lots. The project proposal includes 37 detached condominium units. There are 4 floor plans proposed with three distinct architectural styles for the elevations, Adobe Ranch, Andalusian and Santa Barbara. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: The project proposal includes 37 detached condominium units. There are 4 floor plans proposed with three distinct architectural styles for the elevations; "A" -Adobe Ranch, "B"- Andalusian, and "C" -Santa Barbara. The three architectural styles proposed for the project include Adobe Ranch, Andalusian and Santa Barbara. These styles incorporate the forms and detailing that are conducive with the styles of architecture. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: There are three distinct architectural styles for the elevations; "A" -Adobe Ranch, "B"-Andalusian, and "C" -Santa Barbara. These styles incorporate the forms and detailing that are conducive with the styles of architecture. All elevation styles comply. Please refer to the attached "Building Elevation Design Elements" matrix. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: See Revised Building Elevation Design Elements matrix. The following elements are incorporated into the architecture: • Balconies • Decorative eaves and fascia • Exposed roof rafter tails • Arched elements • Towers • Columns • Exterior wood elements • Accent materials (i.e.; brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding) • Window and door lintels, and window surround. • Varied window shapes All floor plans and elevation styles comply. Please refer roof plans of the enclosed architecture plans for details. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: All floor plans and elevation styles comply. Refer to roof plans of the enclosed architecture plans for details. As shown on the enclosed site plan, units with the same floor plan and elevation style do not occur on adjacent lots. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: Units 28 and 29 were originally approved with the same plotting occurring on adjacent lots. Due to site constraints Units 28 and 29 are still plotted with the same plan type on adjacent lots. However, to differentiate the units the following has been Page 1 ·. Policy 44 Criteria Compliance Table Muroya Property Tavlor Morrison Architectural Guideline Standard Comments proposed: 1) Each unit is plotted with a different elevation; 2) a porch is included on unit 29; 3) to further differentiate the houses, unit 29 has a greater front yard setback than unit 28; 4) unit 28 is plotted on a unique "lof' size and shape; and 5) unit 28 is plotted with a 45 degree offset as compared to unit 29, which creates a unique street scene. 6 Reverse floor plans shall be included where possible to add variety Where possible reverse floor plans have been plotted. to the street scene. Single Story Requirements 7 A minimum of 15% of the total number of homes shall be single- story structures. Single-story is defined as a maximum plate-line of 15 feet and a maximum building height of 20 feet. Lofts are permitted subject to CMC Section 21.04.330. 8 or A minimum of 10% of the total number of homes shall be single- story structures and 15% shall be reduced second story structures. A reduced second story structure shall comply with the following criteria: • A minimum of 60% of the roofline shall be single story; • A 2-story element may be added in the central portion of the front and rear elevation; and • The second story element may be no greater than 25% of the floor area of the first floor of the house (including garage). or For alley-loaded product, a minimum of 20% of the homes shall be single-story for the front 20% of the home (overall depth of house times20%). A maximum of 20% of the total number of h o m e s a r e exempt from the requirement to have a single-story building edge. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: Where possible reverse floor plans have been j)lotted. The enclosed proposal includes a total of 37 units, which equates to a requirement of 5.55 units being single-story or six (6) units per Note #1 of the policy. Plan 1 of the proposal is a single-story unit and is plotted six (6) within the development complying with the guideline. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: The enclosed proposal includes a total of 37 units, which equates to a requirement of 5.55 units being single-story or six (6) units per Note #1 of the policy. Plan 1 of the proposal is a single-story unit and (6) six houses are plotted within the development complying with the guideline. 20% of the total number of proposed units is 7.4 units. The remaining thirty -one (31) units comply with Guideline No. 9 below. Lot 5, 13, 14,28, 29, and 36 are exempt from the single-story building edge requirement. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: 20% of the total number of proposed units is 7.4 units. The remaining thirty (30) units comply with Guideline No. 9 below. Page2 Policy 44 Criteria Compliance Table Muroya Property Architectural Guideline 9 Tavlor Morrison Standard The remaining total number of homes shall comply with one of the following guidelines: • The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 8 feet and shall run the length of the building along one side except for tower elements. The roof covering the single-story element shall incorporate a separate roof plane and shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element. Porches and porte-cochere elements shall qualify as a single-story edge. Houses with courtyards that are a minimum of 15 feet wide located along the side of the house and setback a minimum of 15 feet from the property line are not required to have a single- story building edge. • • The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet and shall run the length of the building along one side. The roof of the single- story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element of the building. The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 3 feet for 40% of the perimeter of the building. Multiple Building Planes 10 For at least 66% of the homes in a project, there shall be at least 3 separate building planes on street side elevations of lots with 45 feet of street frontage or less and 4 separate building planes on street side elevations of lots with a street frontage greater than 45 feet. Balconies and covered porches qualify as a building plane. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to, building walls, windows, porches and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a minimum of 30 sq. ft. to receive credit under this section. Comments The project complies with this guideline by providing a single-story building edge with a minimum depth of 3 feet for more than 40% of the perimeter for Plan types 2, 3, 4 and 4X. The single story building edges are calculated as follows: • Plan 2-Perimeter Length= 173'-0" Single Story Edge= 69'-0" or 40% • Plan 3-Perimeter Length= 230'-0" Single Story Edge= 104'-11" or 45.6% • Plan 4-Perimeter Length = 246'-0" Single Story Edge= 128'-0" or 52.0% • Plan 4X-Perimeter Length= 250'-0" Single Story Edge= 129'-0" or 51.6% MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: The project complies with this guideline by providing a single-story building edge with a minimum depth of 3 feet for at least 40% of the perimeter for Plan types 2, 3, 4 and 4X. The single story building edges are calculated as follows: Plan 1 -Single story Plan 2-Perimeter Length= 173' Single Story Edge = 69' or 40% Plan 3 • Perimeter Length = 230' Single Story Edge= 105' or 46% Plan 4 -Perimeter Length = 246' Single Story Edge= 128' or 52% Plan 4X -Perimeter Length = 250' Single Story Edge= 100' or 40% 66% of the total number of proposed units is 24.42 units or 24 units per Note #1 of the policy. Plan types 2 & 3 are plotted on a total of 24 lots within the development and meet the minimum number of four building planes on the street side elevation. Plan 1 = 3 Planes Plan 2 = 4 Planes Plan 3 = 4 Planes Plan 4 = 4 Planes Plan 4X = 3 Planes MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: Plan 1 = 57' wide Plan 2 & 2X = 32' wide Plan 3 & 3X = 42' wide Plan 4 & 4X = 39' wide 66% of the total number of proposed units is 24.64 units or 25 units per Note #1 of the policy. All 37 of the plan types meet the minjmum number of building planes on the street side elevation. The number of planes for each plan type is below. Plan 1 = 4 Planes Plan 2 = 5 Planes Plan 3 = 5 Planes Plan 4 = 4 Planes Plan 4X = 4 Planes Page 3 ' . Architectural Guideline 11 12 Windows/Doors 13 14 Front Porches 15 Policy 44 Criteria Compliance Table Muroya Property Tavlor Morrison Standard Comments Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in The following plan types for the development meet the Number 10 above for front elevations except that the minimum minimum number of four building planes on the rear depth between front and back planes on the rear elevation elevation. shall be 4 feet. Rear balconies qualify as a building plane. Plan 1 = 3 Planes Plan 2 = 4 Planes Plan 3 = 4 Planes Plan 4 = 5 Planes Plan 4X = 5 Planes MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: 66% of the total number of proposed units is 24.64 units or 25 units per Note #1 of the policy. 31 lots meet the minimum number of building planes for rear elevations. The number of planes for each plan type is below. Plan 1 = 3 Planes Plan 2 = 5 Planes Plan3 = 5 Planes Plan4 = 6 Planes Plan 4X = 6 Planes For at least 66% of the homes in a project, one side elevation Plan types 1, 3, 4 and 4X incorporate side yard cutouts shall have sufficient offsets or cutouts so that the side yard and offsets that average a minimum of 8.5 feet. In setback averages a minimum of 8.5 feet. addition there are six (6) instances where the Plan 2 has a side yard setback that averages greater than 8.5 feet, at Lot 5, 13, 14,28, 29, and 36. These plan types are plotted on 28 lots or 75.6% of the total unit mix. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: 66% of the homes equates to 25 buildings. Plan types 3, 3X, 4 & 4X, for a total of 15 buildings, incorporate side yard cutouts and offsets that average a minimum of 8.5 feet. In addition there are 3 instances where the Plan 1, buildings 18, 34, and 35, has a side yard setback that averages greater than 8.5 feet, and there are 7 instances where the Plan 2, on buildings 12, 13, 17, 19, 28, 29, and 36, has a side yard setback that averages greater than 8.5 feet. These plan types are plotted on 25 lots or 68% of the total unit mix. At least 66% of exterior openings (door/windows) on every All of the exterior openings are either recessed or inset home in the project shall be recessed or projected a minimum of a minimum of 2" or trimmed with a minimum 2" thick 2 inches and shall be constructed with wood, vinyl or colored foam trim. aluminum window frames (no mill finishes). MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: All of the exterior openings are either recessed or inset a minimum of 2" or trimmed with a minimum 2" thick foam trim. Windows shall reinforce and enhance the architectural form Varied window shapes and sizes have been used and style of the house through, the use of signature windows throughout the proposed elevations. Please refer to and varied window shapes and sizes. the enclosed architecture plans for details. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: Varied window shapes and sizes have been used throughout the proposed elevations. Please refer to the enclosed architecture plans for details. Fifty percent (50%) of the homes shall be designed with a covered 67.6% of the proposed units incorporate either a porch front porch, open courtyard, or balcony (each with a minimum depth or balcony with a minimum area of 60 square feet. The of 6 feet and a minimum area of 60 square feet) located at the front 67.6% or 25 units is made up of the following: of the dwelling. The minimum depth for a covered front porch shall be measured from the front facade of the home to the inside of any -24.3%, or 9 units, of the Plan 2 include a front porch supporting porch posts. The front and sides of porches shall be (Plan 2 A, B, C.-63 SF) open except for required and/or ornamental guardrails. A variety -24.3%, or 9 units, of the Plan 3 include a front porch Page4 Architectural Guideline Front Entries 16 Chimneys 17 Garage Doors 18 Policy 44 Criteria Compliance Table Muroya Property Tavlor Morrison Standard Comments of roof elements shall be provided over porches. Porches may not (Plan 3 A, B, C-123 SF) be converted to living space. -18.9%, or 7 units, of the Plan 4 include a front porch (Plan 4 & 4X B, C.-100.5 SF) MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: Plan 1 has an open courtyard Plan 2 has a porch Plan 3 has a porch Plan 4 has a porch 83.8%, or 31, of the proposed units incorporate either a porch or courtyard with a minimum area of 60 square feet. The 83.8% or 31 of the units is made up of the following: -All 6 units of the Plan 1 include an open courtyard - 1 0 units of the Plan 2 include a porch -All 9 units ofthe Plan 3 include a porch -All 6 units of the Plan 4 include a porch Seventy-five percent (75%) of the homes must have a front entry 78.3%, or 29, of the units have a front entry that is to the home that is clearly visible from the street. Walkways from visible from the street. Lots that meet this requirement the front door to the street are encouraged. include Lot 1 ,2,3,4, 11, 12, 13, 15,16.17 .18,20,through 37. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: 36 of the 37 units have a front entry that is visible from the street. Lot 37 is the only unit that does not have a visible front entty from the street. Chimneys and chimney caps shall be in scale with the size of the Proposed chimneys and chimney caps are in scale home. No more than 2 chimneys shall be allowed for homes on with the size of the home. Please refer to the enclosed lots in planned developments having an area less than 7,500 architecture plans. square feet. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: Proposed chimneys and chimney caps are in scale with the size of the home. Please refer to the enclosed architecture plans. Garage doors for 3 or 4 cars in a row that directly face the street The proposed project does not include any garage must have a minimum of an 18" plane change between the garage doors for 3 or 4 cars in a row. doors after the 2 car garage door. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: The proposed project does not include any garage doors for 3 or 4 cars in a row. Note #1. Fract1onal umts of. 5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next whole number and located m a manner to ach1eve the best project design as determined by the project planner, When a percentage of units are described in the guidelines, the intent is to have that percentage spread throughout the entire project. PageS CITY OF CARLSBAD APPLICATION FORM FOR CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION APPLICATION PROJECT NAME: Muroya Subdivision Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 215-040-03 --------------------------------------------------------Description of proposal (add attachment if necessary): See attachment. Would you like to orally present your proposal to your assigned staff planner/engineer? Yes No D Please list the staff members you have previously spoken to regarding this project. If none, please so state. Dan Halverson OWNER NAME (Print): MAILING ADDRESS: Akira Muroya & Toshiko Muroya P.O. Box 131016 APPLICANT NAME (Print): Taylor Morrison of CA, LLC MAILING ADDRESS:_...;.1..;;..5_C:;_U:;_S:....;.h...;.in-"'g"-------- CITY, STATE, ZIP: Carlsbad, CA 92013 TELEPHONE: 760-438-7691 EMAIL ADDRESS: *Owner's signature indicates permission to conduct a preliminary review for a development proposal. CITY, STATE, ZIP: Irvine. CA 92618 TELEPHONE: 949-341-1289 EMAIL ADDRESS: a torn illo@taylormorrison .com APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE (Print): Jack Henthorn and Associates ----------------------------------------------------MAILING ADDRESS: 1902 Wright Place, Suite 200 CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL ADDRESS: Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (760) 438 4090 henthorn@jhenthorn .com EGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND F NOWLEDGE. 3-11 ... /f DATE FEE REQUIRED/DATE FEE PAID: MAR 1 ~ 2011 CITY OF CARLSBAD PlANNING DEPT RECEIVEDBY: ~~~~· ------------------------------------------------- P-16 Page 2 of2 Revised 07/10 CITY OF CARLSBAD REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO FILE COPY DATE : MARCH 14, 2011 PROJECT NO(S): Q:}:ll-03 '\ REVIEW NO: r t-, ~=---------------------------------- PROJECT TITLE: MUROYA SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES/JACK HENTHORN TO: iZSI t ancl Development Engineering-ene Rowle~ D Police Department-J. Sa sway D Fire Department-James Weigand D Building Department-Will Foss D Recreation-Mark Steyaert D Public Works Department (Streets)-Nick Roque D Water/Sewer District D Landscape Plancheck Consultant-PELA D School District D North County Transit District -Planning Department D Sempra Energy-Land Management D Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5) D Parks/Trails-Liz Ketabian *ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to th ""'""-'====-~~ in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, b 128{11. If you have "No Comments/' please so state. If you determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the application "complete" for processing, please immediately contact the applicant and/or their representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know. Thank you COMMENTS : ___________________________ _ Signature Date PLANS ATIACHED Review & Comment 03/10 To: }ACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Dan Halveson From: Jack E. Henthorn Of: City of Carlsbad Of: Jack Henthorn & Associates 1635 Faraday Avenue P.O. Box 237 Carlsbad, California 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92018 Phone: 760 602 4631 Phone: (760) 438-4090 Fax: 760 602 8559 Fax: (760) 438-0981 Date: 3/12/11 Time: 12:40:32 PM RE: Muroya Consistency Determination Request FORWARDED BY: 0 HAND DELIVERY 0 U.S. MAIL 0 FAX 0 COURIER 0 PRINTER 0 PICK-UP Pages Description 1 Transmittal 1 Application content inventory with documents COMMENTS: If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to call our office at (760) 438-4090. Copies to: File RECENED t.\~R \ ~ 2\l\\ C\TY OF CARLSBAD rt.l' "''..,""'G OEPT APPLICATION CONTENT INVENTORY MUROYA CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 1. Application form -executed by owner and applicant 2. Fee check -Taylor Morrison #1202 in the amount of$656.00 3. Detailed written description of the proposed revisions 4. Two (2) sets of the: a. original approved site plan folded to 8.5 X 11 b. original approved landscape plan folded to 8.5 X 11 c. original approved architectural plans folded to 8.5 X 11 5. Two (2) sets of the: a. revised site plan folded to 8.5 X 11 b. revised landscape plan folded to 8.5 X 11 (Ja. c. revised approved architectural plans folded to 8.5 X 11 -lV C01\A-fl\1'l.p;:jl 1)(:-~ 6. Two (2) copies of Policy 44 Criteria Compliance Table 7. Two (2) copies of Building Elevation Design Elements matrix 8. Two (2) copies of Consistency Determination Criteria repsonse 9. T'rVd:... 7.) Copt e 5 tl X t 7 Nett 1 r-8:-1" u n 11-z... P '-J77./ s w rt h c...o 1'\A-r"' v .... A , \A2._ ~ ..Jv y'-1 a f-~ --- \ Architectural Guideline Policy 44 Criteria Compliance Table Muroya Property Tavlor Morrison Standard Comments Floor Plans and Elevations 2 3 4 Site Planning 5 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 as identified below: • • • • 2-4 dwelling units shall provide 1 floor plan and 2 different elevations. 5-12 dwelling units shall provide 2 different floor plans and 2 different elevations. 13-20 dwelling units shall provide 2 different floor plans and 3 different elevations. 21 + dwelling units shall provide 3 different floor plans and 3 different elevations. 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. 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 facades) of the house. • • • • • • • • • • DESIGN DETAILS Balconies Decorative eaves and fascia Exposed roof rafter tails Arched elements Towers Knee braces Downers Columns Exterior wood elements Accent materials I.e.; brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding) Floor plans in a project shall exhibit a variety of roof ridges and roof heights within a neighborhood. Houses with both the same floor plan and elevation style shall not occur on adjacent lots. The project proposal includes 37 detached condominium units. There are 4 floor plans proposed with three distinct architectural styles for the elevations, Adobe Ranch, Andalusian and Santa Barbara. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: The project proposal includes 37 detached condominium units. There are 4 floor plans proposed with three distinct architectural styles for the elevations; "A"-Adobe Ranch, "B"- Andalusian, and "C" -Santa Barbara. The three architectural styles proposed for the project include Adobe Ranch, Andalusian and Santa Barbara. These styles incorporate the forms and detailing that are conducive with the styles of architecture. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: There are three distinct architectural styles for the elevations; "A" -Adobe Ranch, "B"-Andalusian, and "C" -Santa Barbara. These styles incorporate the forms and detailing that are conducive with the styles of architecture. All elevation styles comply. Please refer to the attached "Building Elevation Design Elements" matrix. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: See Revised Building Elevation Design Elements matrix. The following elements are incorporated into the architecture: • Balconies • Decorative eaves and fascia • Exposed roof rafter tails • Arched elements • Towers • Columns • Exterior wood elements • Accent materials (i.e.; brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding) • Window and door lintels, and window surround. • Varied window shapes All floor plans and elevation styles comply. Please refer roof plans of the enclosed architecture plans for details. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: All floor plans and elevation styles comply. Refer to roof plans of the enclosed architecture plans for details. As shown on the enclosed site plan, units with the same floor plan and elevation style do not occur on adjacent lots. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: Units 28 and 29 were originally approved with the same plotting occurring on adjacent lots. Due to site constraints Units 28 and 29 are still plotted with the same plan type on adjacent lots. However, to differentiate the units the following has been Page 1 Architectural Policy 44 Criteria Compliance Table Muroya Property Tavlor Morrison Guideline Standard Comments proposed: 1) Each unit is plotted with a different elevation; 2) a porch is included on unit 29; 3) to further differentiate the houses, unit 29 has a greater front yard setback than unit 28; 4) unit 28 is plotted on a unique "lof' size and shape; and 5) unit 28 is plotted with a 45 degree offset as compared to unit 29, which creates a unique street scene. 6 Reverse floor plans shall be included where possible to add variety Where possible reverse floor plans have been plotted. to the street scene. Single Story Requirements 7 8 A minimum of 15% of the total number of homes shall be single- story structures. Single-story is defined as a maximum plate-line of 15 feet and a maximum building height of 20 feet. Lofts are permitted subject to CMC Section 21.04.330. or A minimum of 10% of the total number of homes shall be single- story structures and 15% shall be reduced second story structures. A reduced second story structure shall comply with the following criteria: • A minimum of 60% of the roofline shall be single story; • A 2-story element may be added in the central portion of the front and rear elevation; and • The second story element may be no greater than 25% of the floor area of the first floor of the house (including garage). or For alley-loaded product, a minimum of 20% of the homes shall be single-story for the front 20% of the home (overall depth of house times 20%). A maximum of 20% of the total number of h o m e s a r e exempt from the requirement to have a single-story building edge. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: Where possible reverse floor plans have been plotted. The enclosed proposal includes a total of 37 units, which equates to a requirement of 5.55 units being single-story or six (6) units per Note #1 of the policy. Plan 1 of the proposal is a single-story unit and is plotted six (6) within the development complying with the guideline. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: The enclosed proposal includes a total of 37 units, which equates to a requirement of 5.55 units being single-story or six (6) units per Note #1 of the policy. Plan 1 of the proposal is a single-story unit and (6) six houses are plotted within the development complying with the guideline. 20% of the total number of proposed units is 7.4 units. The remaining thirty -one (31) units comply with Guideline No.9 below. Lot 5,13,14,28, 29, and 36 are exempt from the single-story building edge requirement. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: 20% of the total number of proposed units is 7.4 units. The remaining thirty (30) units comply with Guideline No. 9 below. Page2 Policy 44 Criteria Compliance Table Muroya Property Architectural Guideline 9 Taylor Morrison Standard The remaining total number of homes shall comply with one of the following guidelines: • The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 8 feet and shall run the length of the building along one side except for tower elements. The roof covering the single-story element shall incorporate a separate roof plane and shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element. Porches and porte-cochere elements shall qualify as a single-story edge. Houses with courtyards that are a minimum of 15 feet wide located along the side of the house and setback a minimum of 15 feet from the property line are not required to have a single- story building edge. • • The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet and shall run the length of the building along one side. The roof of the single- story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element of the building. The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 3 feet for 40% of the perimeter of the building. Multiple Building Planes 10 For at least 66% of the homes in a project, there shall be at least 3 separate building planes on street side elevations of lots with 45 feet of street frontage or less and 4 separate building planes on street side elevations of lots with a street frontage greater than 45 feet. Balconies and covered porches qualify as a building plane. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to, building walls, windows, porches and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a minimum of 30 sq. ft. to receive credit under this section. Comments The project complies with this guideline by providing a single-story building edge with a minimum depth of 3 feet for more than 40% of the perimeter for Plan types 2, 3, 4 and 4X. The single story building edges are calculated as follows: • Plan 2-Perimeter Length= 173'-0" Single Story Edge = 69'-0" or 40% • Plan 3-Perimeter Length= 230'-0" Single Story Edge = 1 04'-11" or 45.6% • Plan 4 -Perimeter Length = 246' -0" Single Story Edge= 128'-0" or 52.0% • Plan 4X-Perimeter Length = 250'-0" Single Story Edge= 129'-0" or 51.6% MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: The project complies with this guideline by providing a single-story building edge with a minimum depth of 3 feet for at least 40% of the perimeter for Plan types 2, 3, 4 and 4X. The single story building edges are calculated as follows: Plan 1 -Single story Plan 2-Perimeter Length= 173' Single Story Edge = 69' or 40% Plan 3 -Perimeter Length = 230' Single Story Edge= 105' or 46% Plan 4 -Perimeter Length = 246' Single Story Edge= 128' or 52% Plan 4X -Perimeter Length = 250' Sillgle St()l'}' E(jge = 1 00' or 40% 66% of the total number of proposed units is 24.42 units or 24 units per Note #1 of the policy. Plan types 2 & 3 are plotted on a total of 24 lots within the development and meet the minimum number of four building planes on the street side elevation. Plan 1 = 3 Planes Plan 2 = 4 Planes Plan 3 = 4 Planes Plan 4 = 4 Planes Plan 4X = 3 Planes MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: Plan 1 = 57' wide Plan 2 & 2X = 32' wide Plan 3 & 3X = 42' wide Plan 4 & 4X = 39' wide 66% of the total number of proposed units is 24.64 units or 25 units per Note #1 of the policy. All37 of the plan types meet the minimum number of building planes on the street side elevation. The number of planes for each plan type is below. Plan 1 = 4 Planes Plan 2 = 5 Planes Plan 3 = 5 Planes Plan 4 = 4 Planes Plan 4X = 4 Planes Page 3 Architectural Guideline 11 12 Windows/Doors 13 14 Front Porches 15 Policy 44 Criteria Compliance Table Muroya Property Tavlor Morrison Standard Comments Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in The following plan types for the development meet the Number 10 above for front elevations except that the minimum minimum number of four building planes on the rear depth between front and back planes on the rear elevation elevation. shall be 4 feet. Rear balconies qualify as a building plane. Plan 1 = 3 Planes Plan 2 = 4 Planes Plan 3 = 4 Planes Plan 4 = 5 Planes Plan 4X = 5 Planes MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: 66% of the total number of proposed units is 24.64 units or 25 units per Note #1 of the policy. 31 lots meet the minimum number of building planes for rear elevations. The number of planes for each plan type is below. Plan 1 = 3 Planes Plan2 = 5 Planes Plan3 = 5 Planes Plan4 = 6 Planes Plan 4X = 6 Planes For at least 66% of the homes in a project, one side elevation Plan types 1, 3, 4 and 4X incorporate side yard cutouts shall have sufficient offsets or cutouts so that the side yard and offsets that average a minimum of 8.5 feet. In setback averages a minimum of 8.5 feet. addition there are six (6) instances where the Plan 2 has a side yard setback that averages greater than 8.5 feet, at Lot 5, 13, 14,28, 29, and 36. These plan types are plotted on 28 lots or 75.6% of the total unit mix. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: 66% of the homes equates to 25 buildings. Plan types 3, 3X, 4 & 4X, for a total of 15 buildings, incorporate side yard cutouts and offsets that average a minimum of 8.5 feet. In addition there are 3 instances where the Plan 1, buildings 18, 34, and 35, has a side yard setback that averages greater than 8.5 feet, and there are 7 instances where the Plan 2, on buildings 12, 13, 17, 19, 28, 29, and 36, has a side yard setback that averages greater than 8.5 feet. These plan types are plotted on 25 lots or 68% of the total unit mix. At least 66% of exterior openings (door/windows) on every All of the exterior openings are either recessed or inset home in the project shall be recessed or projected a minimum of a minimum of 2" or trimmed with a minimum 2" thick 2 inches and shall be constructed with wood, vinyl or colored foam trim. aluminum window frames (no mill finishes). MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: All of the exterior openings are either recessed or inset a minimum of 2" or trimmed with a minimum 2" thick foam trim. Windows shall reinforce and enhance the architectural form Varied window shapes and sizes have been used and style of the house through, the use of signature windows throughout the proposed elevations. Please refer to and varied window shapes and sizes. the enclosed architecture plans for details. MARCH 2011 SUBMITTAL: Varied window shapes and sizes have been used throughout the proposed elevations. Please refer to the enclosed architecture plans for details. Fifty percent (50%) of the homes shall be designed with a covered 67.6% of the proposed units incorporate either a porch front porch, open courtyard, or balcony (each with a minimum depth or balcony with a minimum area of 60 square feet. The of 6 feet and a minimum area of 60 square feet) located at the front 67.6% or 25 units is made up of the following: of the dwelling. The minimum depth for a covered front porch shall be measured from the front facade of the home to the inside of any -24.3%, or 9 units, of the Plan 2 include a front porch supporting porch posts. The front and sides of porches shall be (Plan 2 A, B, C.-63 SF) open except for required and/or ornamental guardrails. A varietv -24.3%, or 9 units, of the Plan 3 include a front porch Page 4 Architectural Guideline Front Entries 16 Chimneys 17 Garage Doors 18 Policy 44 Criteria Compliance Table Muroya Property Tavlor Morrison Standard Comments of roof elements shall be provided over porches. Porches may not (Plan 3 A, B, C-123 SF) be converted to living space. -18.9%, or 7 units, of the Plan 4 include a front porch (Plan 4 & 4X B, C.-100.5 SF) MARCH 2011 SUBMITIAL: Plan 1 has an open courtyard Plan 2 has a porch Plan 3 has a porch Plan 4 has a porch 83.8%, or 31, of the proposed units incorporate either a porch or courtyard with a minimum area of 60 square feet. The 83.8% or 31 of the units is made up of the following: -All 6 units of the Plan 1 include an open courtyard -10 units of the Plan 2 include a porch -All 9 units of the Plan 3 include a porch -All 6 units of the Plan 4 include a porch Seventy-five percent (75%) of the homes must have a front entry 78.3%, or 29, of the units have a front entry that is to the home that is clearly visible from the street. Walkways from visible from the street. Lots that meet this requirement the front door to the street are encouraged. include Lot 1 ,2,3,4, 11, 12, 13, 15,16.17 .18,20,through 37. MARCH 2011 SUBMITIAL: 36 of the 37 units have a front entry that is visible from the street. Lot 37 is the only unit that does not have a visible front entry from the street. Chimneys and chimney caps shall be in scale with the size of the Proposed chimneys and chimney caps are in scale home. No more than 2 chimneys shall be allowed for homes on with the size of the home. Please refer to the enclosed lots in planned developments having an area less than 7,500 architecture plans. square feet. MARCH 2011 SUBMITIAL: Proposed chimneys and chimney caps are in scale with the size of the home. Please refer to the enclosed architecture plans. Garage doors for 3 or 4 cars in a row that directly face the street The proposed project does not include any garage must have a minimum of an 18" plane change between the garage doors for 3 or 4 cars in a row. doors after the 2 car garage door. MARCH 2011 SUBMITIAL: The proposed project does not include any garage doors for 3 or 4 cars in a row. Note #1: Fractional umts of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next whole number and located m a manner to achteve the best project design as determined by the project planner, When a percentage of units are described in the guidelines, the intent is to have that percentage spread throughout the entire project. PageS PLAN ONE DESIGN ELEMENTS Adobe Ranch Andalusian Front Side R= From Side R.., I a. Knee Braces b. Exposed Roof Beams or Rafter Tails "' "' "' "' "' "' c. Arched Elements "' Window and Door Lintels, and d. "' "' I "' "' "' "' bottom surround e. Towers "' "' "' "' "' "' f. Varied Window Shapes "' "' I "' "' "' "' g. Dormers h. Columns I I i. Exterior Wood Elements "' "' i I "' "' "' Accent Materials such as brick, stone, I j. shingles, wood or siding I "' k. Balcony or Juliet Balcony Taylor Morrison Homes, Inc Muroya Property BUILDING ELEVATION DESIGN ELEMENTS PLAN TWO Adobe Ranch Andalusian Santa Barbara Adobe Ranch From Side Reai fwn't Side Rem front Side\ Rear Front Side Rear "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' I "' "' "' "' I I "' "' "' "' ! "' "' "' I "' "' "' "' I "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "'' "' "' "' I "' "' "' "' I "' "' "'' "' "' "' "' "' "' j i "'I "' "' "' "' I "' "'I I "' "' ! Muroya-Building Elevation Design Elements 2011 03 04.xls PLAN THREE PLAN FOUR Andalusian Santa Barbara Andalusian Santa Barbara Front Side Rear Front Side Rear Front Side Rear Front Side Rear "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' l "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' :"' "' '"' "' "' "' "' "' "' 'fj "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "'!"' "' "' "' CD ll -0 !> Consistency Determination Criteria MUROYA PROPERTY GPA 06-09/ZC 06-08/CT 06-27/HDP 06-10/CDP 06-32/HMPP 07-02 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; • All essential conditions, features, facilities and amenities have been retained to insure the project's approved design, quality, safety or function in that the site has simply been rearranged slightly to comply with recently enacted storm water criteria. Architectural enhancement modifications are proposed within the limits of policy 35. 2) The request represents an upgrade in overall design features and or materials and improves upon the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; • The request includes modifications to the architectural plans that upgrade the interior floor plans and enhance the exterior elevations. These items are specifically identified in the accompanying detailed written request and architectural tables. Additionally, the reconfiguration of the northern portion of the site has opened view opportunities to adjacent residents that were not available with the originally approved plotting. 3) The proposed revision does not change the density (i.e. the addition of units) or boundary of the subject property; • The request does not modify the density of the approval since it simply entails the rearrangement of the previously approved units. The boundary of the subject project and the approved lots have not changed. 4) The proposed revision does not involve the addition of a new land use not shown on the original permit (e.g. adding a commercial use to a residential project, replacing single family units with attached residential units, vice versa for each example, etc.); • There are no additions of new land uses. All land uses as shown on the original permit remain unchanged. RECEIVED MAR 1 ~ 2011 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT 5) The proposed revision does not rearrange the major land uses within the development (e.g. it does not exchange the locations of the single family units with attached units); • The approved project included one single s~le family unit on an independent lot and 3 7 detached condominium units. The single family unit remains in the originally approved location. 6) The proposed revision does not create changes of greater than ten percent ( 1 0% ), provided that compliance will be maintained with the applicable development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as follows: Per individual lot or structure -yards, setbacks, coverage or height (height reductions of> 10% are permitted); On an aggregate project basis -parking, open space common area or landscaping: • All proposed revisions are within the 10% limits and comply with applicable development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Supporting detail is provided in the accompaning revised documents and tables. 7) The proposed change will not result in any significant environmental impact, and/or require additional mitigation; • All changes are proposed within the originally approved grading envelop with the exception of a small area (1800 square feet) in a public easement in the extreme northwest portion of the site. This area is adjacent to the SDG&E easement and does not create any environmental impact or require additional mitigation. The purpose of the grading is to provide better access to public utilities located within the easement. 8) The proposed change will not result in any health, safety, or welfare impacts; • The modifications proposed will improve treatment of storm water runoff thereby improving the quality of health, safety and welfare and will also bring the circulation system into compliance with Carlsbad street design criteria. 9) There were not any major issues or controversies associated with the original project which would be exacerbated with the proposed change; and • Public testimony was provided by adjacent residents regarding concerns with unit placement along the common property line. The proposed revisions reduce viewshed impacts and improve architectural appearance beyond the original approval. ' . , 1 0) The proposed change would not be readily discernible to the decision makers as being substantially different from the project as originally approved. • The proposed changes to the plotting would not be discernible to decision makers as being substantially different since the basin location was originally approved in the northwestern portion of the site. The basin has simply been moved away from Nightshade creating more landscaped area. The basin remains at the extreme end of the project. The original architectural styles, materials and colors have been maintained. The changes have improved street exposure and enhanced the exterior appearance of the units. The proposed revision does comply with all of the above listed Consistency Determination findings, and a determination of consistency .£!!!! be made. City of Car·lsbad Faraday Center Faraday Cashierlng 001 1107301-2 03/14/2011 98 Men, Mar 14, 2011 11:44 AM Receipt Ref Nbr: R1107301-2/0032 PERMITS -PERMITS Tran Ref Nbr: 110730102 0032 0034 Trans/Rcpt#: R0083591 SET #: CD110003 Amount: I tern Subtotal : Item Total: ITEM(S) TOTAL: Check (Chk# 001202) Total Received: Have a nice day! 1 @ $656.00 $656.00 $656.00 $656.00 $656.00 $655.00 **************CUSTOMER COPY************* City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 IIIM~IIIIII~ 111111111111111111~ Ill Applicant: TAYLOR MORRISON OF CA, LLC Description Amount CD110003 656.00 6697 BLACK RAIL RD CBAD Receipt Number: R0083591 Transaction ID: R0083591 Transaction Date: 03/14/2011 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 656.00 Transaction Amount: 656.00 I