Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-05; Planning Commission; ; CP 94-02 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "B-2"APPLICATION JOMPLETE DATE: DECEMBER 20. 1994 STAFF PLANNER: ERICMUNOZ STAFF ENGINEER: JIM DAVIS STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 5, 1995 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CP 94-02 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "B-2" - A request for approval of a Condominium Permit for 16 clustered single family homes within the 2.4 acre P-C (Planned Community) zoned parcel of Planning Area "B-2" in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan located north of the Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the railroad right of way, in the Coastal Zone, within Local Facilities Management Zone 9. I.RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3759, APPROVING CP 94-02, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND This project is proposing a Condominium Permit to develop Planning Area "B-2" in conformance with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan with 16 clustered single family homes. Area "B-2" was mass graded as part of the existing Rosalena single family subdivision. A Condominium Permit (CP) is required since the project addresses several components of the intent and purpose of the Planned Development Ordinance as listed in Section 21.45.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically involved are: separate ownership of units upon a parcel of land containing more than one unit (air space ownership), development in accordance with the General Plan and applicable master plan, the allowance of flexibility in project design while providing for essential development standards and the provision of development which will be compatible with existing and permitted future surrounding developments. CP 94-02 POINSETTTA SHORES PLANNING AREA "B-2" APRIL 5,1995 PAGE 2 The Master Plan designates a specific clustered single family product for Area "B-2" as conceptually depicted on Attachment "X", an excerpt from the Master Plan. The primary components of this product type are as follows: (1) air space building ownership and corresponding exclusive use area which total less than 3,500 square feet in area (average is 2,500 square feet); (2) a 15 x 15' minimum (225 square feet) or 10 x 30 minimum (300 square feet) area of exclusive use private passive recreation for each unit, and; (3) a 24 foot wide courtyard serving a maximum of 4 units. These design standards are allowed via the approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan which is the implementing zoning document for the site and therefore may contain development regulations that are either not part of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 21), or are acceptable modifications from Title 21 standards. This innovative product type is one component of the residential product type diversity incorporated into the Master Plan. The primary design benefits of this product type are: the lack of long rows of garages facing onto and dominating a streetscape; and the ability to achieve the allowed density while providing all required master plan amenities and promoting an emphasis on pedestrian circulation. A typical 4-unit cluster layout (consistent with the Master Plan) is depicted on Exhibit "B". The site has a General Plan land use designation of RM (Residential-Medium). Per the Master Plan and RM designation, Area "B-2" is allowed a density range of 4-8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The proposed project with 16 units and a density of 6.7 du/ac, therefore, is consistent with the Master Plan which designates 16 dwelling units for Area "B-2". The site layout and overall project design is depicted on Exhibit "C". The location for Planning Area "B-2" within the Master Plan is depicted on the attached Location Map. It is an existing pre-graded lot associated with the earlier approvals of a former master plan that once governed the site and at one time allowed the development of 52 condominium units. The site itself is essentially flat and has no unique topographic features or significant environmental resources. North of the site is the roadway of Windrose Circle; south of the site is the existing single family subdivision of Rosalena; east and west of the site are the vacant planning areas of "C" and "A-4", respectively. The master tentative map for Poinsettia Shores (CT 94-01) approved in August 1994 allowed the mass grading of the master plan property, the construction of the Avenida Encinas roadway and related infrastructure to allow the development of individual planning areas. Only finish grading is required to the mass graded site for the development of Area "B-2". The project's finish grading involves 1,900 cubic yards (CY) of cut, 1,100 CY of fill and 800 CY of export to another location on the master plan property. The clustered single family homes will feature three floor plan types as shown on Exhibits "D" - "F": Plan type 1 has approximately 1,665 square feet (proposed height 26 feet); Plan type 2: 1,827 square feet (proposed height 26 feet), and; Plan type C: 2,130 square feet CP 94-02 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "B-2" APRIL 5,1995 PAGE 3 (proposed height 27 feet). Elevations are depicted on Exhibits "G" - "I". No plan type exceeds two stories. The proposed architecture is contemporary with roof tile, stucco accented with wood trim and a variety of roof planes and articulation so that in combination with the typical 4-unit cluster (Exhibit "B") a streetscape is created that is not dominated by long rows of garages facing onto the internal street system. All garages face onto the internal 24 foot wide courtyard. Every unit is served by a two car garage. A shown on Exhibit "C", an internal 36 foot wide private street will serve the project with guest parking allowed on both sides, that narrows to 32 feet wide to allow guest parking on one side. Noise mitigation measures or trail segments are not required of this planning area. The project will take access from Navigator Circle via a private street. A gated entrance is proposed and designed into the project consistent with Engineering Department and Master Plan standards. The few amount of units proposed (16) does not require a secondary access to the site per Engineering Department standards. The proposed landscape concept (Exhibits "J" - "K") is designed to screen the development along the perimeter and from the Avenida Encinas and Windrose Circle roadways; and to promote land use compatibility with adjacent residential units. III. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following land use plans and regulations: A. Carlsbad General Plan B. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan - MP 175(D) C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance), including: 1. Chapter 21.45 Planned Development 2. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing 3. Chapter 21.90 Growth Management D. West Batiquitos Local Coastal Program (LCP) A. GENERAL PLAN The approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan involved several findings of consistency with the City's General Plan. All development consistent with the master plan is therefore CP 94-02 PODSfSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "B-2" APRILS, 1995 PAGE 4 inherently consistent with the General Plan. By providing a product type at or below the approved density for the subject planning area, the master plan's implementation maintains consistency with the General Plan. By supplying residential market rate units per the master plan, the project is consistent with the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan. The master plan was not required to provide any additional open space beyond natural open space areas previously dedicated by the master plan property. Since natural open space dedications are not required of this planning area, this project is consistent with the Open Space Element of the General Plan. By conducting a noise study and designing the project to comply with the City's noise policy for new residential development, the project is consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan. B. POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN - MP 175(D> The proposal for Area "B-2" is in conformance with the governing master plan. The master plan allows 16 units of the clustered single family/courtyard product type (16 units are proposed). The master plan provides certain development standards and design criteria which are complied with and summarized as follows: (1) an 85 foot structural setback is maintained between the homes of Area "B-2" and the existing single family homes of Rosalena to the south; (2) the proposed clustered single family product type is consistent with the product type designated for Area "B-l" by the Master Plan; and, (3) no structures will exceed the 30 feet/two story height limit associated with this planning area. In addition, the Master Plan refers to the PD Ordinance (since a Condominium Permit is involved). Compliance with the PD Ordinance development standards is discussed in Section D.I of this report. C. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 21. C.I. Chapter 21.45, Planned Development In addition to the specific development standards established by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (as discussed above) the Planned Development (PD) Ordinance is designated as the implementing ordinance for Planning Area "B-2". All of the required findings for the granting of a Condominium Permit (governed by the PD Ordinance) are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3759 for CP 94-02. Below is an overview of the PD standards compared against the proposed project. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE DENSITY REQUIRED/ALLOWED 4-8 du/ac - 16 units PROPOSED 6.7 du/ac - 16 units CP 94-02 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "B-2" APRIL 5,1995 PAGES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE LOT SIZE FRONT YARD SETBACK BUILDING SEPARATION BUILDING HEIGHT PRIVATE STREET WIDTH PARKING RESIDENT GUEST RV STORAGE STORAGE SPACE RECREATION SPACE COMMON ACTIVE PRIVATE PASSIVE REQUIRED/ALLOWED N/A; Master Plan allows air space units w/exclusive use areas 10 feet from back of sidewalk off private streets 10 foot min. w/allowable protrusions up to 2 feet each unit 30 feet max/2 stories 30 feet - no parking on street 32 feet - parking on one side 36 feet - parking on both sides 32 covered spaces 7 spaces Provided for w/PA "E"-SDP 94-03 Satisfied by 2 car garage space Provided for w/PA "M"-SDP 94-03 PA "M" plus exclusive use private passive area with each unit PROPOSED Clustered single family product type w/exclusive use private areas 10 feet from back of sidewalk off private streets 10 foot min. w/allowable protrusions up to 2 feet each unit 26 and 27 feet for three different plan types/2 stories max 36 foot private street w/parking both sides narrowing to 32 foot parking on one side. Parking for visitors only 32 covered spaces (garages) 7 on-street spaces Provided for w/PA "E"-SDP 94-03 Satisfied by 2 car garage space Provided for w/PA "M"-SDP 94-03 PA "M" plus 15 x 15 feet min (225 square feet) or 10 x 30 feet min (300 square feet) for each unit per the Master Plan The project also is consistent with the design criteria outlined in the PD Ordinance. Findings relating to the project's conformance to these design criteria are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3759 for CP 94-02. In summary, the plan is comprehensive and innovative in that it accounts for the location, constraints (required setback/buffer from existing single family units) and shape of the site. Adequate usable open space and recreation areas are provided. Buildings are well integrated and the provision for required parking areas and vehicular and pedestrian circulation is made. Being a part of an approved master plan, there will be no disruptive elements introduced into the community by the proposed project. The internal street system is functional while not dominating the site and all common areas are accessible to the future residents and well related to each other. Finally, architectural harmony will be obtained within the area through appropriate building height limitations, perimeter screening/buffering and proper planning of adjacent planning areas. CP 94-02 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "B-2" APRIL 5,1995 PAGE 6 C2. Chapter 21.85, Inclusionary Housing This project's inclusionary affordable housing requirement is satisfied by the approval and development of Planning Area "D" within the Master Plan (CT 94-10/CP 94-03/SDP 94-08) or the approval of an offsite Affordable Housing Agreement. Either case will result in the provision of 90 affordable housing units, consistent with the Master Plan. A detailed summary of master plan affordable housing provisions is contained in the staff report for Area "D" (CT 94-10). While no units in the subject subdivision are required to be restricted as affordable housing units, the project will be conditioned so that no final map approval will be granted until the on-site project for Area "D" (CT 94-10) receives final map approval; or an off-site Affordable Housing Agreement is approved by the Planning Director and Community Development Director. C3. Chapter 21.90, Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 9 in the Southwest Quadrant of the City. Zone 9 has an approved Finance Plan which outlines the provision of facilities and services for the buildout of the master plan, including the allowable density of the proposed project. The impacts created by this development on public facilities and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: FACILITY CITY ADMINISTRATION LIBRARY WASTE WATER TREATMENT PARKS DRAINAGE CIRCULATION FIRE OPEN SPACE SCHOOLS SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM WATER IMPACTS 59 square feet 32 square feet 16 EDUs N/A N/A 160 ADT Station No. 4 N/A CUSD 160 EDUs 3,520 GPD COMPLIANCE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The project is 3 dwelling units below the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance, 0.7 units above the Growth Management Control Point, for the property as permitted by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. This project can be approved above the growth control point CP 94-02 POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "B-2" APRIL 5,1995 PAGE? since the quadrant cap for the southwest quadrant of the City will not be exceeded and facilities serving the density in excess of the growth control point will be provided. All required facilities and services will be available to serve the project and the anticipated buildout of the master plan. All required Growth Management findings are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3759 for CP 94-02. D. WEST BATIQUTTOS LCP The approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan in January 1994 included a Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment (LCPA 91-02) for the West Batiquitos LCP which was approved by the California Coastal Commission on May 12, 1994. Coastal Commission's certification of LCPA 91-02 established the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as the implementing ordinance/document for the West Batiquitos LCP. All development consistent with the master plan, such as the proposal for this planning area, is therefore in conformance with the West Batiquitos LCP and all applicable coastal regulations. A Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission will be required prior to final map approval. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As discussed in the Initial Study for this project (Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part II), all potential environmental impacts associated with the development of this planning area have already been identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance. Environmental analysis and documentation for the master plan and subsequent planning areas was conducted for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175 (D)) and the master tentative map (CT 94-01) resulting in the issuance and approval of Mitigated Negative Declarations. Since all applicable mitigation measures have either been completed or designed into the project (i.e. noise attenuation and noise policy compliance), no environmental impacts will result from the proposed development of this planning area. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance was issued and duly noticed on January 30, 1995. V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed project is in compliance with the Carlsbad General Plan, Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, West Batiquitos LCP and Carlsbad Municipal Code, Titles 20 and 21 as described in this report. Therefore, staff recommends approval of CT 94-04 and PUD 94- 03, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained within their respective resolutions. CP 94-02 POINSETITA SHORES PLANNING AREA "B-2" APRIL 5, 1995 PAGES ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3759 2. Location Map 3. Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part II dated February 22, 1995 4. Notice of Prior Compliance dated March 2, 1995 5. Background Data Sheet 6. Disclosure Form 7. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 8. Attachment "X", dated April 5, 1995 (excerpt of Exhibit 37 from Master Plan) 9. Reduced Exhibits "A" - "K" 10. Exhibits "A" - "K", dated April 5, 1995. BATIQUITOS LAGOON POINSETTIA SHORES RA. B-2--CP 94-02 LOCATION MAP ~ BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CP 94^02 CASE NAME: Poinsettia Shores Planning Area "B-2" APPLICANT: Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation REQUEST AND LOCATION: 16 clustered single family homes within Planning Area "B-2" consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Lot 79. of Map No. 11616. recorded September 12. 1986 as file no. 86-402404. per certificate of compliance recorded October 17. 1989 as file no. 89-561703. APN: 216-420-82 Acres 2.4 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 16 units (Assessor's Parcel Number) GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation Residential-Medium - RM Density Allowed 4-8 du/ac Density Proposed 6.7 du/ac Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone PC Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site PC Vacant (PA "B-2" North PC Windrose Circle South PC Existing Single Family East PC Vacant (PA "C") West PC Vacant (PA PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 16 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated December 9. 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, Notice of Prior Compliance issued March 2. 1995 CJity of Carlsbari Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANTS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REOUiPE ACTION CN THE ?A«T OF THE OTY COUNCIL. OB ANY APPOINTED aoAfiO. COMMISSION OR COMMOTES. (Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: 1. Applicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation 7220 Avenida Enemas Suite 200 carisoaa, Cft Owner List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation 7220 Avenida Encinas buice 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names anc addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any pannersn:? interest in the partnership. Saiga California, Inc. _^___ 7220 Avenida *ricinas Suite 200 If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names anc addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. FRM00013 8/90 2O7-S Las Paimas Drive - Carlsoad. California 92009--1S59 • (619) *38-i Disclosure Statement (Over) Page 2 5. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Scares Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s) a«f»en i* dafinad t»: 'Any individual, firm. copartnership, joint ventura, aaaociaton. MCI*) club. fratamal organization, corporation, cstata. trust. '•caivar. jyndicaw. tftia and any otn«r county, city and county, city municipality, diatnct or other political *ubdivi«ion. or any oth«r grouo or combination acting aa a unit* (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Signature of Owner/data Print or type name of owner Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of applicant CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Poinsettia Shores Planning Area "B-2" - CP 94-02 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 9 GENERAL PLAN: RM ZONING: PC DEVELOPER'S NAME: Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation ADDRESS: 7220 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200. Carlsbad. CA 92009 PHONE NO: (619) 931-9100 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 216-420-82 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC, SQ. FT., DU): 2 - 4 acres ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage - 59 B. Library: Demand in Square Footage - 32 C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) D. Park: Demand hi Acreage - N/A E. Drainage: Demand hi CFS - N/A Identify Drainage Basin = B (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand hi ADTs - 160 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. - 4 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided - N/A I. Schools: N/A (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer: Demand hi EDUs - 16 Identify Sub Basin - N/A (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand hi GPD - 3.520 L. The project is at the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 6 ACTION: Amended Motion was made by Commissioner Noble to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 3757 and 3758 recommend- ing approval of CT 9408 and CP 94-01 respectively based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and including a new finding to Resolution No. 3757 to read as follows: "The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impacts caused by the project." VOTE: 6-1 AYES: Chairman Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Noble, Monroy, Savary, and Nielsen NOES: Erwin ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Erwin explained that he thought this was a bad precedent by exceeding the Growth Management Control Point in this area. 3. CP 94-02 - PQINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "B-2" - A request for approval of a Condominium Permit for 16 clustered single family homes within the 2.4 acre P-C (Planned Community) zoned parcel of Planning "B-2" in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan located north of the Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the railroad right of way, in the Coastal Zone, within Local Facilities Management Zone 9. Eric Muftoz gave the staff report on this Item. He showed two slides and described the location of the project. He explained that it was a 16 unit project, maintained 85' of structural setback from the existing Rosatena homes, and that it complied with the innovative product type allowed by the Master Plan. He indicated that the project exceeded the Growth Management Control Point and that the Master Plan allowed for a maximum of 16 dwelling units in this area. Mr. Mufioz mentioned that if all the development standards could be met, there was no reason why the proposed project should not be allowed. He also reviewed the Errata Sheet dated April 5, 1995, and stated that the following should be added: "1. Add a new finding #18 to Resolution 3759 to read as follows: "The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impacts caused by the project. 2. On page 5 of Resolution 3759, Approval Condition #1, the reference to City Council's final action will be changed to Planning Commission's final action since the City Council will not review the B-2 project (less than 50 units), unless appealed. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 7 3. On page 5 of the staff report, in the Planned Development Ordinance Compliance table, the proposed number of guest parking spaces will be changed from 7 to 16 guest parking spaces to accurately reflect the provision of guest parking spaces. 4. On page 4 of the staff report, underneath the Growth Management Table, 0.7 units above the Growth Management Control Point will be changed to 1.6 units above the Growth Management Control Point to correctly reflect the units proposed above the control point." Commissioner Monroy asked for a status of the trails in this project and how the trails will fit with the City trail system. Mr. Mufioz explained that the approved Master Plan has public and private trails in this area. He referred to the slide showing Poinsettia Shores and discussed the public vs. private trails, adjacent to the existing Rosalena subdivision, in detail. He indicated there was only one outstanding public trail segment of the Master Plan and explained that the developer had expressed willingness to build the outstanding trail segment. He added that staff was working with the Coastal Commission to split the trails into two segments and outlined the status. Commissioner Compas pointed out that on #4 under B-2 of the Errata Sheet, the reference to page 4 should be page 6 of the staff report. Mr. Rudolf also pointed out that on Approval Condition #1 of Resolution No. 3759, "recommended approval" should be deleted and "approve" should be substituted. Chairman Welshons invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Doug Avis, Project Director, 2300 Alga Road, Carlsbad, pointed out that there were only 16 units in this project but it had more visibility because it was adjacent to the Rosalena Homes. He briefly discussed the history of the trails and mentioned that he could respond to it later. Mr. Avis indicated that the biggest issue of the project was to create a level of sensitivity for the backs of people's houses along Rosalena. He pointed to the project drawing and indicated that there was originally a massive building scheduled but that this project was being built instead. He explained that on the east side of the project sensitivity lessened because of topographic changes and indicated that they were able to resolve the issue with most of the people. Mr. Avis stated that they would put in a vertical separation by the last two houses and discussed the history of the road and what they attempted to do. He indicated that they now created a landscaped area between the back of the project and those houses and said that he thought it solved the problem. Mr. Avis mentioned that he would promise some additional consideration, by going into the area and doing specific landscape design, although he was not sure what it would be. He said that they would work with the people who lived there. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 8 He asked that he be allowed to respond to specific questions, and reiterated that the outstanding Rosalena trail segment should not be attached to the project. Commissioner Monroy expressed concern that the trails had been discussed for a long time and that perhaps the project could not be approved until the outstanding trail issue was resolved. Mr. Avis mentioned two historical points about the issue and said that his company was willing to solve the outstanding problem. He mentioned that they had also accepted the requirement for fences and trellis and explained that they had spent $70,000 designing the trail, in addition to putting up a bond to guarantee the trail. Mr. Avis indicated that the problem at the present time was that they could not get title and explained why he did not feel there was a nexus between the outstanding trail and the approval of B-2. Chairman Welshons asked if Commissioner Monroy proposed a new condition and Mr. Wayne responded that the trail was a Master Plan issue. He stated that even though Kaiza amended the Master Plan, Rosalena was still part of the Master Plan. He explained that there was a requirement for that trail, and since the Planning Commission was considering one of the planning areas, if the Commission believed that the Master Plan was not in compliance, it could be discussed. Mr. Wayne also stated that Mr. Avis did not feel there would be a nexus but Mr. Wayne expressed his belief that it was not necessarily so. Mr. Avis referred to the language of the Master Plan section under trails and mentioned that this was discussed early in the planning of the project. He further stated that it was a question of entitlement and the ability to construct the western point of the trail on the east side of the desiltation basin. Mr. Avis mentioned that they could not get financing until they received title on the property and that it was an issue that his company could not individually resolve. Commissioner Compas asked about the condition for landscaping and Mr. Munoz suggested the following language: "Prior to final map approval, the southwest corner of Planning Area B-2 adjacent to the Rosalena homes to the south shall have a landscaping plan approved with special emphasis given to screening any development to the north through the use of mature landscaping, screening walls up to 42" in height or other means to the satisfaction of the Planning Director." Commissioner Erwin queried as to how much had been put up by the developer for the Rosalena trail, and Mr. Avis responded that so far it was approximately $70,000 for the planning and $102,000 for the bond. Mr. Muftoz clarified that the City Engineer was holding $102,000 in the event the trail construction was initiated but not completed. Mr. Jeff McGee, 6060 Navigator Court, Carlsbad, stated that his house was the third house on the left and pointed to his house on the drawing. He mentioned that when he bought the property he was told that there would be a greenbelt behind his house. He also MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 9 said he was concerned about the extensive grading which took place over the past 5-6 months. He addressed the issue of the fence and indicated that he would prefer to see it along the side. Mr. McGee said that it was almost impossible to do landscaping to preserve his unit and explained why. He indicated that lights would shine into his living and dining rooms and that he was not looking forward to the potential of cars parking outside his fence while he and his family were sitting in their yard. He mentioned he would prefer to see a retaining wall at the location rather than an iron fence and explained that during the winter months, shrubbery would not solve the problem. He stated that he was concerned about street lamps and added that his immediate neighbors who could not attend the meeting were also concerned about the road. Commissioner Erwin asked Mr. McGee to point out his house again. Mr. McGee mentioned that there was no space for mature shrubbery, and that when cars turned around, the lights would go into his house. Chairman Welshons pointed out that his questions would be answered after the public testimony. Commissioner Nielsen asked if Mr. McGee had discussed his concerns with the developer, and Mr. McGee responded that although the homeowners association may have been in contact with the developer, he was not notified or aware of any meetings to discuss the potential problems. Jim Gault, 7552 Navigator Circle, Carlsbad, expressed concern about the traffic pattern. He described how the Rosalena homeowners maintained and controlled traffic on the private road and added that there are a lot of children in the area. He stated that since construction of the project, speed limits have increased and skateboarders were using the road as a speedway. Mr. Gault also mentioned his concern about parked cars and how it would cut down visibility, and also stated that there would not be enough parking places. Commissioner Welshons pointed out that his questions would be answered after the public testimony. Mr. Larry Baker, 614 Navigator Court, Carlsbad, pointed out his house on the drawing and discussed several issues. He indicated that he was pleased that the amount of units were reduced substantially, but was disappointed in the aesthetic appearance of the units. He also stated that he was disappointed that the developer had not advised the homeowners and told them about the type of homes being constructed. Mr. Baker requested that the developer answer questions regarding the exterior, type of roof, and whether the exterior walls were framed. He explained that the lighting in the entire project was a concern of the homeowners and discussed the grading of the project. He continued that parking was another issue and mentioned that he did not feel the Planning Commission should make a decision that evening until the developer set up a meeting with the property owners. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 10 Mr. Avis responded to Mr. Baker's questions by indicating that the circulation issue was the predominant issue and mentioned that the site was very limited. He explained how they brought the recreation area to the other side of the project due to the request of the Rosalena homeowners which resulted in a difficult property to develop. Mr. Avis described other alternatives and why they would not work. He mentioned that they put a limited amount of product on the property and worked out the separate issues but that it was difficult to put a new project adjacent to an existing project. He pointed out that there were more problems with the 16 units project than with the 158 project unit heard earlier. Mr. Avis also explained that they met with the homeowners and that his office was available for comments from the homeowners. He stated that the project was good for density and that it was necessary to look at the whole Master Plan. He added that the landscape condition proposed would set up a process to work with some of the people in order to attempt to gain satisfaction and demonstrate such satisfaction to the Planning Director. He indicated that the project may end up in front of the Planning Commission again on a separate issue. Commissioner Savary asked about the roof and exterior material, and Mr. Avis replied that the roof material was cement tile or shingle. He mentioned that the quality would be comparable to that of the Rosalena roofs. He indicated that the exterior would be stucco and verified that it would not be frame. Commissioner Erwin stated that it would be unusual for Mr. Avis not to talk to any of the homeowners. Brian Murphy, Project Director, responded that he or Mr. Avis had contacted the homeowner's association officially about 8-10 times. In response to Commissioner Erwin's query, Mr. Avis responded that there would be an entry statement rather than a gated entrances for the project. Commissioner Erwin also asked about the road, and Mr. Avis replied that it will generate 160 trips a day, resulting in approximately 8-12 trips an hour going in and out of the project. Commissioner Erwin asked for clarification of the elevations, and Chairman Welshons responded that this would be addressed later after the public testimony was completed. Mr. Muftoz pointed out that the project showed a gated entrance but that it could be removed at the developer's discretion. He mentioned that all other planning areas except Areas A-3 and A-4 were planning gated entrances. He added that if the gate went in, there would be less concern for lost people having to turn their cars around, but if there wasn't a gate, that may be a problem, but not a serious problem since only 16 units are proposed. Rosalena currently has 70 units. He referred to the Avenida Encinas roadway designated as a secondary arterial roadway and how the original plans were changed, resulting in a major roadway being shifted away from the Rosalena homes. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 11 Mr. Mufioz described the history of the site again and mentioned that the previous project proposed a green belt but this had been changed. He discussed the issue of parking on the proposed street and indicated that parking was allowed for visitor parking on that side of the street. He mentioned that there was still a separation roadway and that the proposed roadway appeared to be the logical place to put the separation, as opposed to having dwelling units abut the Rosalena property. He addressed the 85' setback and passive recreation amenities and stated that perhaps property values cannot be easily compared with the Rosalena project, for a variety of factors. Mr. Muftoz added that the two units to the south could be blocked by emphasizing evergreen landscaping and the Planning Commission should feel comfortable that the landscaping would be satisfactory. Chairman Welshons asked about the grade separation and Mr. Wojcik explained that the closest corner to Mr. McGee's rear fence would be 12' away from the street with the farthest corner being 21' for an average of 16 1/2' away from the street. He further stated that at the closest corner to the street, the 12' distance, there was a 3.2' high retaining wall so there should be no car lights coming into Mr. McGee's rear yard. He addressed Mr. Baker's concern about the effect of the traffic on Navigator Circle as a private street and indicated that the public had access to the street. He stated that the private homeowner's association may have some control over limiting parking, etc., since they maintained that street. Regarding the passive recreation area, Mr. Wojcik mentioned that the closest corner of the property to the street was 35' and there was approximately 8' of the high slope. He stated that the street lighting, and landscaping issues were already addressed in the conditions of the approval. Mr. Wojcik added that overall from the east end as Mr. Avis indicated, the home grades were higher than the proposed street until the west end where they were the same. He said that the east end of the street has a 9' elevation difference and that the overall grading of the Area B-2 was in conformance with the approved master tentative map. He pointed out that what Mr. Baker had referred to pertained to the old Master Plan. Mr. Wojcik also mentioned that the green belt was part of the old Master Plan. Mr. Wayne asked what was being done for guest parking at the Rosalena project, and a member of the audience responded that parking permits were given out. Mr. Wayne expressed concern that required guest parking was not available at the Rosalena project. Commissioner Monroy asked for clarification on the private street in the entrances that Rosalena maintained and controlled coming to the main street. He added that this project would be using part of the street but that maintenance was being done by the Rosalena homeowners association. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 12 Mr. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, stated that as part of the Master Plan, this would be part of the Master Plan homeowners association and that this subdivision would be assessed with the homeowners. Chairman Welshons asked if there was a provision in the CC&Rs and wanted to know if it was necessary. Mr. Avis responded that they were not able to get the Rosalena's homeowner's association to agree or not agree to be part of the master homeowner's association and that it was a question that needed to be resolve. He added that they were given a timeframe based on entitlement and that at this time, it was unknown as to whether they will be part of the association. Mr. Wojcik referred to Resolution No. 3759, page 9, condition #29 which referred to private streets, sidewalks and street lights and said that maintenance shall be included with the CC&Rs subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuing a building permit. Commissioner Erwin asked about the difference of the elevation between Mr. McGee's property and the roadway, and Mr. Wojcik responded that there was a 3.2' retaining wall and slight slope, about 4' between the lower roadway and yard. In answer to Commissioner Erwin's query about street lights, Mr. Wojcik responded that the street lights were not plotted since it was a private community and referred to Resolution 3759, page 8, # 4 which required an exterior lighting plan to be approved by the Planning Director prior to final map approval, including all lighting to be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes and properties. Commissioner Erwin expressed concern about parking and asked if it would abut the side of the new road, and Mr. Wojcik responded that it was correct. Mr. Wayne discussed condition #29, page 9, and pointed out that the Item being discussed was not a subdivision. » Mr. Avis mentioned the existing historical agreement and said that if the decision was not to come into the master homeowner association, then the developer pays the fair share of maintenance for that section of the road. Chairman Welshons asked the audience if there were any comments on the condition read by Mr. Munoz, and Mr. McGee reiterated that if additional landscaping was to be done, it should be brought to the people, not the homeowner's association. Mr. Muftoz restated the condition again which was as follows: "Prior to final map approval, a landscape plan shall be prepared which provides additional screening through planting and/or garden walls up to 42" for the southwest portion of Planning Area B-2 emphasizing mature evergreen landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 13 Mr. Mufioz also recommended including an obligation that the developer consults the appropriate homeowners as opposed to the homeowners association as requested by Mr. McGee. Chairman Welshons asked Mr. Avis if the consultation with appropriate homeowners would be agreeable to Mr. Avis so that a new condition would not have to be added, and Mr. Avis responded that it was. Commissioner Monroy indicated that he would like to get past the issue of the trails and Mr. Mufioz suggested that the Commission approve B-2 tonight and that when Areas A-3 and A-4 came to the Commission, tentatively scheduled for May 3, 1995, they would at least see some physical construction of the trail and be satisfied. Mr. Rudolf added that page 8 of Resolution No. 3750, condition 17 in the middle of the page followed by a dangling bold sentence would become condition # 18, the new condition would become condition #19, existing condition #18 would become condition #20, and the rest of the conditions would be renumbered accordingly. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic. Chairman Welshons declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Compas with the additional four items from the errata sheet as well as an additional item #5: 1. Add a new finding to Resolution 3759 to read as follows: The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impacts caused by the project. 2. On page 5 of Resolution 3759, Approval Condition #1, the reference to City Council's final action will be changed to Planning Commission's final action since the City Council will not review the B-2 project (less than 50 units), unless appealed. Also "recommended approval" would be deleted from #1 under Approval Condition #1 and the word "approved" would be substituted. 3. On page 5 of the staff report, in the Planned Development Ordinance Compliance table, the proposed number of guest parking spaces will be changed from 7 to 16 guest parking spaces to accurately reflect the provisions of guest parking spaces. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 1995 Page 14 4. On page 6 of the staff report, underneath the Growth management able, 0.7 units above the Growth Management Control Point will be changed to 1.6 units above the Growth Management Control Point to correctly reflect the units proposed above the control point. 5. Page 8, Resolution No. 3750, condition 17 in the middle of the page followed by a dangling bold sentence would become condition #18, the new condition would become condition #19, existing condition #18 would become condition #20, and the rest of the conditions would be renumbered accordingly. VOTE: 6-1 AYES: Chairman Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Noble, Monroy, Savary, and Nielsen NOES: Erwin ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Erwin stated that he voted no because the project exceeded the Growth Management Control Point and established a bad precedence. 4. PI 95-01 - PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES - REVIEW AND READOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES Mr. Wayne stated that staff recommended continuation of the Item to May 3, 1995 in order to make some additional modifications suggested by the City Attorney's office. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin to continue Item #4 - Dl 95-01 to the May 3, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairman Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Noble, Monroy, Savary, Nielsen, and Erwin NOES: None ABSTAIN: None STAFF ITEMS AND REPORTS: Mr. Wayne reported on the Planning Commission Institute in Monterey. Commissioner Erwin referred to correspondence between him and Mr. Larry Clemens and distributed a packet to each of the Commissioners for their review. Commissioner Nielsen recommended that staff discuss the Growth Management Control Point and what was being allowed, and Chairman Welshons suggested that staff determine the appropriate time to address the issue, with the stipulation that it be discussed within the next two months. MINUTES oo GO Guest Parking 36' WIDE PRIVATE STREET Guest Parking Guest Parking TYPICAL CLUSTER PLAN - 4 UNITS MAX. POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN. KAIZA POINSETTIA CORPORATION - Note: See Design Criteria for provisions of private recreation areas. Minimum lineal dimension shall be 10 feet. Note: There are no individual lot lines separating houses, the units may be air space condos or a similar type of ownership concept. X I i i EXHIBIT 37 EASEMENT NOTES: 10 unurr. *cccs> ii numwc we. tea NO. mi* */'i/M MRiis1 jftifljM-UZU9.0* 10/31/U PARKING SUMMARY: srauwsw GENERAL NOTES; s unco. no. IHOKS UUTQI P OOTMO MM**. UMi OCMNtnON MQMMB flCNCHM. PUM OOCMMIM SHEET 1 OF 3 SHEETS C.P. 94-02 CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA B-2 LEGEND: LOT 0 GRADING ANALYSIS: ft MTWCT » MTWCT >CC DNLf TTWT1C (SCE GJUOWG W"tV5*S) CMUVO UMna 5000. oamcr CMLIBW UUMCV«L WTCK fWTWCT « «ote woss ACbCCarw. tor NOTE: tV(H TIMUTNC I** IS * COMOOHWMuyT KM HCTION «4j4 or THCSKM i*^ «cr. .CMQMQ »Vt TMf PLANNMI MWA «MXv«: CUT: I.MO CT. ni: 1.100 CT. ilKOIIT^ - tXFO*T: 000 Or. BENCHMARK: ON NOOTM MVTMCMT or CAST i ioc*"o* MWIOI. MO net BUT* or SOUTH CMT*T 3 «!IwwI5c^»oti*^??-fc* ON nmo smar woec »«> •OOK. HOC tjj NO. ot a M.3M M.SJ. «*« W«M ft M.M. smor UONT mcc . I §<M I O vot f tuocx n MO^OSCD OUMtOMM. (l*-l) LOT k WSTD nao* l»'*ir Whttft P*£SM KCC. MCA iroir ponuTf hssfwc KC. MICA LEGAL DESCRIPTION: or WT n. & w* NO, M*K,11 IH« u nj NO. M-«oi«e*.'1' ""^ oeTO< CtVIL ENGINEER/LAND SURVEYOR. OffNER/SUBDIVlDER! NOMKO IMM At - »*tf NOV. it*J EXHIBIT "A" ==^ Trnea. trcnoM - cram/a tuvxurof cnctf TTPKM. secnw - onsrmo mwmsr oiKtf (nnx>/wo Avnmu CHCIHJU OH-SITJ mmx> X xfenoN - mmrr srvrrr sza^s StCTWM /»-/»nxcii. stenoH - mvurt omvtVAr*tou AC Of PU MOOT SfCTIOH A-A fAT FHD UNITS} SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS C.P. 94-02 ~m/a83 ICAL srenaH - AVTHDA meium TffKAL CLUSTtlt BfJUtUeC DtTUL BENCHMARK:CIK""W £"3R.°£&,nt?is,'iS£iM* 88383sf,'K ttNiWLMe or wvm KXtNO CK*> ON »QMTO 1TKCCT IMiOCI 10. ATM) NOttTH COUM1Y VUTICM. CON"•00*. HCt IJS NO. OC 01*1 EXHIBIT "B' SHEEr 3 OF 3 SHEETS C.P. 94-02 EXHIBIT "C' SECOND FLOOR PLAN MAR 0 8 1995 CITY OF ' PLAN 1 1665 S.F. FIRST FLOOR PLAN ru—iSCALI t l/<-.r«- • 1 4 I PLANNING AREA B-l AND B-2 THE VILLAGE OF BRIGHTON I OPU 10F6 EXHIBIT "D" SECOND FLOOR PLAN RECEIVED MAR 0 8 1995 CITY OF CAMLSI PLAN 2 1827 S.F. FIRST FLOOR PLAN ICALI i vr.r-r 114 L T EGEND MVH .WMHIft.MNHTM'MMMTWO*M••MWMHM MMPIACITtLBVlMM PLANNING AREA B-l A, THE VILLAGE OF BRIGHT ;;,111 CO O II-H a bM Oco a CO 8 2 OF 6 EXHIBIT "E" SECOND FLOOR PLAN RLCtiiv'ED MAR 0 8 1995 PLAN 3 2130 S.F. FIRST FLOOR PLAN KALI i IM-.I-4- • I 4 I LCQENO PLANNING AREA B 1 AND B 2 TUB VILLAOK OF BRIGHTON Iill **^§ §O 5 co 8 3 or 6 FXHIBIT "F" <£> ten, PLAN1 FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION MAR 0 8 1995 Cl ' PLANNING AREA B 1 AND B 2 TUB VILLAGE OP BRIGHTON I CO S O KCO 1 § £& 8 4 or 6 .,- * . • i ..* EXHIBIT "G" LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION PLAN 2 FRONT ELEVATION KAUi.IM-.l--r n_i—i• 14 • REAR ELEVATION MA7 0 8 1195 PLANNING AREA B 1 AND H 2 • THE VILLAGE OF BRIGHTON i gto W 6 or 6 EXHIBIT "H1 LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION MAI? 0 8 1995 cr PLAN 3 FHONT ELEVATION I REAR ELEVATION CO sod, PLANNING AREA B-l AND B2 THE VILLAGE OP BRIGHTON 6 or 8 FXrtBIT '1" PLANT MATERIAL PALETTE JJflffl, ™* """* ' " """** ""*•' »-\ >" "~ "~'i IT'""-— DSCAPE CQKGEEta/AN . , .. fc# $£& 9 - ^ EXHIBIT "J" MVISIONC »T ( ^ 1 fltnjECT WALL ELEVATION 2 \ WALI-/PM.ASTF-B KLEVA.'I SonulLi* 3 \ VILLAGE IDENTITY SIGN/ " *c*it </•*« —sss."!S.1sv,r " f- !*• •• «••" w-- -"-' JHTCHIOR ygMCIMO scM.es/4-. 1-0- LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN POINSETTIA SHORES, AREA B-2 PL-2 EXHIBIT "K"