HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-12-21; City Council; 3794-1; GEORGE BILLINGSe* L P -:
*.V' 8 * C1'i.f 317 &2iRL.C;LlilI)
Initial
Dept e Wd
C. Attty DATE:
DE:PAR%I"IEN'i' : PiANi! 1 NG C . I4yr .
Suh-j cct : CASE NO: PUD-3
pi~~1:m2i RiLlj; I'JC. 379-1- SUPPLE -- __----.---
December 21, 1976 --"-- - -I
c_I___---
APPLICANT: GEORGE BILLINGS ------ ---.---.I-----
Statement of the Matter
The request is for an aFartment complex in the Larwin Development.
The P1 anni nq Comrni ssi on reconinended deni a1 of the request on October 13, 1976
The City Council oil Noveniher 2, 1.976, upon reviewing ?li.nnins Commission recon
hearinq I7rm the anplicant return this request to the Planninq Ccmmission for The City Council requested the applicant to redesign the project to elii' (1 i i-iate Marron %)ad, and expressed sme concern reqarding architectural desipn 0-i' hi sr
c___I__-- I-
.
The iipplkatit. redesigned the project ty deleting 8 units and acconmodat-inc all uarkinq on site with sow on Avenida de Anita. Also, the architectural desiqr
ified to procidc for more iiisFanic m3tif r'etail.
The .Planninq Comrn-r'ssion revielweci these revised plans on November 22, 1976. tic jority dcxision could not be reached. Therefore, the Planning Conmission dirc prepai'e it report to the City Counci 1 containing concerns the various Planning
expressed.
Exh-ibits:
P4emo to Cit,\/ Council from Planning Cornmission, Decenlber 6, 1976. Planning Cotni:rlission Resolution No. 1286 Staff Ileport to Planning Con;;nission, November 22, 1976
Staff Report to Planning Cominission, October 13, 1976.
, .' \ 0. *
Recomiiitiiiciat-i on:
If the City Council wishes to ap.prove-PUD-1, it is recommended that the City A directed to. prepare the necessary documents as outlined in Staff Report. of (ict chaiyinci the'cxhibits to the revised plot nlan (Exhibit F, dated November 5, 1 elevation, (Exhibit G, dated November 5, 1976) and the followinq added conditi
wood detail of the front roof 1in.e be Fx.t;ended also across the rear 1 i ne, "
"Wiss-ion tile roof be extended across the ends of the buildinq, and
.. ,.
I'
.' .(e %A+&flyp.w-/
', 0 e r ..
AGENDA BILL NO. 3794 - Supplement 1 December 21
- Council action
12-2J-76 The matter was referred to staff for preparation 1
documents as outlined in Staff Report of October
changing the exhibits to the revised plot plan (E dated November 5, 1976), revised elevation, (Exhi dated November 5, 1976) and the following added c
"Mission tile roof be extendled across the ends
building, and the wood detail of the front roof extended also across the rear roof line."
e *
F1 E MO RAN D U PI
December 6, 1976
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTP.IENT
RE: Planning Commission Report to City Council rec revised PUD-1.
On November 22, 1976 the Planning Commission reviewed a revis plan and elevation of subject application as directed by the Council. A motion was made to approve these revisions with dition contained in staff report of October 13, 1976 and wit1 condition in staff report of November 11, 1976. This motion without a majority of four. (There were 3 in favor, 2 oppose' stained, and 1 absent.
Chairman L'Heureux and Commissioner Nelson voted no and exnll they found the desiqn of the proiect did not comPlV with the Ordinance which requires that it is necessary to have a comp' plan that should have the various functions interrelated. T~ the site plan did not answer that criteria. They also felt of the area was being paved, too high a density, that these \ qarden apts., and were not in architectural harmony with the
and that this type of project would attract a very transient grouD of people into an established family oriented communit
The Planning Commission then agreed to forward to the City C staff report of October 13, 1976 and November 22, 1976 that approval of the project and the statements expressed by L'He Nelson as contained in this memo.
hood. They were also concerned about the internal street ci
hL! P2Ldk
Bud Plender ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
BP;ar
'1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
12
13 '* '5
16
l7
18
l9 '*
2 3. ''
23
24
.25
26
27
e e.
--- Fl.Al.:NING CO14l/iISSIOh ~ RESOLUTION NO. 1286 -
KESOLUTIOt4 OF THE PLI\NXII4G COt4li'iISSJOII OF TIIE CITY OF CARLSEAD, CALlFORi'lIA, DEIIYING A PLAIjNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERHIT TOR 171
APARTf4CiiT Ui.411-S ON PROPERTY LOCATED 014 THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF i0,RRON ROAD AND AVENIDA DE AIUIA.
C!iSC 110.: PUD-1 APPLICANT: GEORGE BILLINGS -
WHEREAS, a verified application for a certain propertj
wit:
That portion of Lot 'IJ" of Agua Hedionda, according to the Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1886 AND of Lots 3, 4 and 5 in Section 32, Town-
ship 11 South, Range 4 Iciest, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, according to United States Govcrnrcent surve
all being in the City of Carlsbad, County of Sat-! Diegi State of California
h(;s been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to ti
Planning Commission; and
NHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a requ
provided by Title 21 of the "Carlsbad blunicipal Code"; and
WHEREAS, the pE!blic hearing was held at the time and
the place specified in said notice on Septcniber 22,' 1976 a
continued to October 13, 1976; and 1
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and coil
the testiniony and arguments, if any, of all persons who de
be. heard, said Commission considered all factors relating
Planned Unit Development Permit and found the following ft
reasons to exist:
1) The development does not meet the design criteria rr by a PUD in ttlat it is not compatible or in architec
harmony with existing de'velopments.
28.x x x x x I,- 3 - --?& ca_4L O-UL Q$
hll h . P Rf;(A*->--.c /-2-
1
2
3
4
5
4
7
8
9
lo
11
12
13
In,
15
16
1 7
i8
19
20
21
22
- 23
24
25
* 26
* 27
28
e ~ a.
2) A port-ion of the rcqcrired parking is provided on pub streets thl are not within reasonablc ~1 king dista
to the dwellii,gs served. Guest parking on Ilarron Ro would significantly be below pad elevat4on of the de ment and therefore parking would not be functional.
3) The project -is premature in that traffic problems ha
1
yet been adequately solved on Marron Road and El Can
NOH, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Cornmi
6.
the C-ity of Carlsbad ds follows:
A) That the above recitdtions are true and correct.
B) That a Planned Unit Development Permit is denied to 171 apartment units on property located on the south corner cf Idarron Road and Avenida de Anita.
PASSED, APPROVED A!!D ADOPTED at a regular- meeting of
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission held on October 13,
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners fielson, L'Heureux, Larson an
NOtS: Cornmi ssi ot:er Fi kes.
ABSENT: Cornmi ssioner I:latsoti.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Romboiis.
$?Q-$!JJ&&kLLt!!$7 Steptie M. L' Heur uxp
ATTEST:
Donald A. Agatep, Secr6dy &L /?i,g -
-3-
e 0 "I
14 CI4 0 RAN U \I M -
November 22, 1976
TO: PLANNIF!G COllt~lISS JON
F r! 0 !vi : PLANt4ING DEPARTMENT
CASE NO: PUD -1
APPL I CAHT : GEORGE BILLII\IC;S
RECUEST:
After hearinc; the proposed project November 2, 1976, the Ci Council denied the use of on-street parking on Marron Road credit toward the on-site parkinq requirement, and requeste report back from the Planninq Commission on the redesign of Dl-oject which is reqLiircd to accommodate the change in park location,
--_
DISCUSSlON
During i'ts consideration of the proposed prclject the C voiced the following concerns:
- Design:
The Council shared the Commission's concerr! over the Arciii tectural Desiqti of the project. The applicant has sub revised Architectural Elevations (Ex. I;, attached), in wliic
1) Mission tile has been extended completelv around t
roofl.ine of the recreation buildinq;
2) Windows at the rear of the building have been give
additional wood detailinq while a stucco architect feature has been deleted.
3) The front roofline has been qiven wood deta-ilinq i of stucco detailing.
- On- S i te C i rcu 1 a ti on Par k i nu :
The Council shared the Commission's concern over on-sit culation and off-site parking. The applicant has submitted v-ised plot plan (Ex. F, attached) which;
1) Deletes six units;
2) Deletes credit for 36 parking spaces on Marron Roa
-1-
I' 0 * I,
Off-Site Circulation: ---- __-
The City Council shared the Commission's concern over t trdffic itqpacts of the proDosed project on the currently- troublesome Flarron Road-El Camino Real intersection. Larviin Southern Corporation bonded for tlie cost iof signalization of
that intersection, and for a portion of tne cost of an Elm Avlz!nue El Camino Real siqnal ririor to aDproval of its first tr3ct map. Staff believes that these bonds mitiqate the tr2ffic impacts of the Proposed project to the extent that current City pol icy a1 1 OWS. Traffic from the proposed pi-o-
ject will use Elm Avenue as well as Irlarroti Road. At such ti as traffic at that intersection warrants siqnalization the b
may be called and the siqnal constructed.
- Density:
The Council expressed concern over the dens-ity of the propo: project. The various density constraints are:
General Plan: 10-20 du/ac Waster P1 an (i ncl udi ng density transfer) : 21 du/ac
Master Plan (prior to density transfer): 17 du/ac Project as first proposed: 16 du/ac Project as revised (tx. F): 15.4 du/ac
Project Appearance:
Staff shares the Commission's and Council's concern ovi Densi ty-desiqn-parking issues. The project appears as sevl standard apartment structures set off by parking lots. The design options that could rectify this problem, i .e., under parking, tuck under parkinq, parkinq structure, etc.
Staff does not believe, however, that the City has rea for denying the project. The aroject's density is consisten applicable plans, The pi-oject's parKi nq conforms with the a parking requirements. And the architectural desiqn of the
is as Spanish in character as other Dro,ject's approved in th
RE C 0 MlJr E N D AT T 0 I4
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reoort t
1) That PUD-1 be approved for the Findings and subjec conditions as outlined in the Staff Report of Octo 1976, subject to the.revised plot plan txhibit F, November 5, 1976, and the revised Architectural El Exhibit G, dated November 5, 1976, and the followi ditions;
following recommendation to City Council :
-2-
0 -0
2) That m-ission tile roof be extended across the ends the bu-iidinss; and that the wood detail used across the front roof line be used across the rear rooT li
3) That specific buildina materials and colors be anDr hy the Planninq Commission prior to the issudnce of
bui 1 di ng permi ts ;
ATTAC HPlE NTS :
~ --
.Staff report dated October 13, 1976
.Exhibit F, dated November 5, 1976
.Exhibit G, dated November 5, 1976
A C i"r / A R
-
I
- 3-
i 0 0
STAFF REPORT
October 13, 1976
TO: PLANN I NG co tw I s s I or4
FUOliZ: PLANN I T4G DEPARTKENT
CASK NO. : PUD-1
APFI-ICANT: GEORGE BILLINGS
REQIJEST: Approval of a Planfled Unit Develoonient Permit for 771 apart-
ment units (a portion of the Larkdin Master Plan).
RECVPi'lCPiDATION
Staff recommends that PUD-1 be zoved __ because of the fol fowi iiq f i nd-i ngi and su'ject to the following conditions.
F I ND I I4 GS
(1) The proposed use at the proposed location is necessary and de- sirable in providing a facility which will contribute to the general we1 being of the ne? ghborhood and coniinuni ty because :
(a) The project will provide inul tiple-family housinq in close
proxjm-ity to recreation and coi;ime~cial service centers;
(b) The design of the prGject will contribute to the Hispanic
(2) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or gene
motif of the El Camino Real corridor.
welfare of pcrsons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity because:
(a) The residential uses proposed are compatible with neighbc ing existing residential uses and permitted uses;
(b) ex-isting projects;
(c) congestion on nei ghborinq streets.
The design of the project is compatible with neiqhboring
Sufficient on-site parking is provided to avoid parking
,I
L. ', 0 0
(3) The project has complied with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Environnental Ordinance of 1972 by --- Prior Compliance (Section 19.04.1 53) because:
on the site; (a)
(b) Supplemental Impact information has been subxi tted;
(c) There are no substantial chancres proposed by the pro.ject or existing on-site not adequc;tely addressed by the or-iginal EIF: or its supplement.
minimum development standards set forth in Section 21.45.120 of the Munic
pal Code are met in the proposal because:
The plan is comprehensive in i ntegrati ng bui 1 dings , adequi open areas 9 recreation areas a,nd parkinq areas;
c i r c u 1 il ti o n and en;e io g e n cy v e h i c 1 e re s DO n s e ;
number of uKits allowed in thc. approved Master Plan (225);
An EIR was certified in connection with a previous project
(4) 'The design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.110 and all
(a)
(b) The internal circulation system will allow for efficient
(c) The number of units proposed. (171) is consistent with the
(d)
(e)
The yards, coverage and building height proposed meet the requirements of the PUD ord-i nance;
Covered spaces and visitor parking are provided on-site andl on adjacent streets at a ratio meeting the requirements of the PUD orcli nance;
The use of Fhrron Place and Avenida de Anita for pa.rking, meeting the project's requirexents, does not reduce the parking requirec
for the adjoi n.i ns towhouse portions of the La& n Master P1 an;
The screening of cn-site parking areas and the landscapir
of open areas in a manner meeting the requirements of the PUD ordinance
have been made condi ti ons of approval ;
Refuse areas and storaqe space have been provided meetin! the requirements of the PUD ordinance;
recrmtional areas and parking areas are provided in a manner meeting t . requirements of the PUD ordinance;
(f)
(9)
(h)
(i) Pedestrian walkways connectinq all building entrances,
- 2-
e 0
(j) The provision of adequate liqhting meeting the requireinel of the FUD ordinance has been made a condition of approval.
CON D IT I OXS -
(I) The approval is granted for the land described in the applicaf and attachments hereto, and as shown on the revised plot plan labeled Pl
Exhibit B, dated Auqust 27, 1976. The location 0:: all structuresg parki areas, landscaping, and other facilities shall be located substantially
shclwn on PUD Exhibit B, except as otherwise indicated herein. The devel merit of the project shall meet the minimum standards of the PUD llrdinaric where higher standards are not specified herein..
frclm fina'l Cixy action on the PUD application. (2) Construction of the project shall be commenced withfn 18 month
(3) A11 buildings and structures shall be of the design shown on t elevation plans labeled Exhibit D, dated Septeiiiber 10, 1976.
(4) The location of refuse pickup areas is not approved as shown i!
the plct plan Exhibit E, dated August 27, 1976. Their 1oc.ation shall be approved by the Planning Director and included in the Final PUD Plan pric to the issuance of bui 1 di irg permits .
(5) The precise location and types of recreational facilities to bt located in the recreation areas shall be approved by the Planning Direct( and included in the Final PUD Plan prior to the issuance of building perr
Precise landscape and irrigation plans for all open areas shall
Said plans shz
(a) Parking areas visible from abutting streets arid/or El Cami
(6) be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department and included in the Final PUD Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. include the following:
Real shall be effectively screened From view by a 36 inch high wall, or a landscaped area at least 20 feet in depth;
(b) All man-made slopes in excess of 5 feet in height and all
natural slopes shall be 1 andscaped with drought-resistant, erosion-contro vegeta ti on.
irrigation plan. (C) Area 'B' shall be included in the landscape anc[
.(dl Street trees.
-3.
L ..
\ 0 -0
(7) ~11 landscapit~g and irrigation shall be insta'1ed in accordance wjth the approved Landscape and Irrigation plan
prior to occupancy.
(8) NO signs shall be permitted on the Site Other than the munity identity siqn shob~n in Exhibft E dated September 10, 1976
The community identification siqn shall be located generally bet
* the two driveway entrances to the project. The exact location s be shov!ti on the Final PUD Plan.
be constructed of concrete with an unobstructed width of four fe
(10) A lighting plan for the project shall be approved by t
Planning Director and included in the Final FUD plan prior to t issuance of building permits. The plan shall space light stand ards at the maximum effective distances and utilize the lop,,est effect i ve wattage.
Permitted above the roof line of structures.
(12) Prior to the apnrcval of the Final PUD Plan, that 4.26 portion of the rlP-5 Park site labeled "P--2" on Exhibit A dated F ust 11, 1976, shall be dedicated io the City of Carlsbad for Par purposes.
('13) Prior to the approval of the Final PUD Plan, the appl cant shall record an open space easement over those slope areas
(3s shown on Exhibit By dated August 27, 1976.
(74) Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the appli cant shall record an open space easement over Area B as shown o Exhibit By dated August 27, 1976. This requirement shall be waived if Area B has been sold to the adjoining property owner.
Prior to the issuatice of building permits, the appli-
cant hall subnit a Final Planned Unit Development plan to be approved by the Planning Dfrector. The plan shall meet the re- quirements of Section 21.45.180 of the PUD ordinance and the co ditions of this approval.
(16) Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all condi tions of this approval shall be met, except that individual bui ings may be released for occupancy if the applicant submits bon agreements for the performance of those conditions not met at t time initial occupancy is requested. If bonded agreements are niitted, they shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney to the issuance of occupancy permits.
(9) ~11 pedestrian walkways within the project bcundaries
..
(71) Individual dwelling unit television antennas sha77 no
(15)
(17) Elm Avenue right-of-way as shown in Exhibit E, dated June 19, 1975 together with construction slope easements, shall be offered for dedication Prior to approval of the Final PUD Plan. -
\ 0 0
(18) p, realjqned perpendicular intersection shall be const
ett Appian i..!ay and Elm Avenue. ~p~ian \fla,y right-0f-wa.y and slor nl(3n.ts shail \,e offered for dedication in the SalTle marlner descri
17~~~ ~1~ nifcrlue in Condition No. 15 aboveS based on a '' foot fu
L,,-jdth within tlle Master Plan bou1-ldar.Y-
(14 lhe southerly half of Marron Road shall be dedicated and improv.
to extend to the southeasterly properiy line on the basis of a 42 foot hal- st;reet sectioi-t, according 'CG City of Czi-lsbad Standards, prior to issuance
of a bu-ildirlg permit.
(29) Marsh1.
dligi.lRellt and Capacity apDu.oved by the Fire I.larshal and Cit,y Enqineer. foot water line easements shall be dedicated and construction silall be guara.nteed by bond or cash deposit prior to issuance of building permits.
In order to provide for reasonable fire protection during the construction period, the applicant shall maintain passable vehicular access to all bu-ildjnys and shall install fire hydrants and dry-stand pipes priol- to fra.mi ng constructi on.
(if'i-Si'ie f-'ire tigdrants shail be provided as required by the Fire
12
They shall be served by public vjater litie ext,pnsions !laving at]
(21.)
(22) All dead-end drives shall have a maneuvering and turn--around are
(23) All la.nd and/or easenients required shall be granted to the City
(24) Standard sidewalk ramps shall be installed in the souttheast and
approved by the City Engineer.
of Carlsbad witl-iout cost to the City, and free of all liens atld encunlbrancet
soui;hkmt curb-returns at the intersection of Marron Road and Avenida de Anita.
' (25) Parking spaces No. 202 and 203 shall not be permitted. There sha
. be 20 feet miniinurn between the street right-of-way line and any parking.
(76) Buildings 12 and 13 shall be made more accessable for
eniergencv access b.v the relocation of one or more of parking spa(
froin spaces No. 138-155. This redesign shall be approved by the
. Flanning Director and shown on the Final PUD Plan.
(27) Prior to the anprova'l of the, Final PIJD Plan, Parks-in.
..._ ~ lieu fees of !i4.!5.00 per dwelling shall be paid in conformance wit the amended Master Plan.
BACKGROUND REPORT
-- Location and Description of Property: I
The 10.71 acre (4.33 ha) site is located on the southwest corner of Marron Road and Avenida de Anita. small portion in the south corner. The site has been graded flat except for a
-5-
e 'e
Existi nu Zoning: .-.-----1-----_-
Sub.ject Property: P-C
East: P-C \)!est-,: C-2-Q -1nd 't?-p-Q
North: C-2 and R-1-10
South: P-C
<
Existinq Land Use:
_I- -~
Subject Property: Vacant North:
South: Vacant
Vacant (Shopping center ulqder construction)
Si nql e-fanii ly resi dencc a id vacant East: Townhouses West:
Past Histor-y -cI- and Realted Cases:
The proposed project is a portion of the Larwin Project. Co approved the Larwin haster Plan or: July 5, 1972 (MP-5, Ordin 9315). VIP-5 allowed 190 garde.: apartments on the project si for a density of 17.7 dwelling units per acre.
Subsequently, Larwin purchased a 5-acre (2.c) ha) parcel on ti southern boundary of the Master Plan. Phis parcel is known l the "Avendian Parcel 'I.
The Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Master I September 22, 1976, which included the Aveciian parcel in the Master Plan as additional park area. The 35 residential uni allowed on the Avedian parcel were transferred to the apartm site, making a total of 225 units approved for the site. Th
maximuni a1 lowabl e density on the site was thereby increased 17.7 un-its per acre to 21 units per acre. The present proposal of 16 dwellinq units per acre is lower than either.
EnvSronmentaI Jiiipact 1tI-Soi-r;iiiti on:
City Council certified EIR-57 on December 19, la72 in connection with thi subdivision map for Larwin's first townhouse phase.
This information is attached,
The supplement recommends the following mitigation measures:
The applicant has supplied supplemental information on the impacts of the apartment; project
1)
2)
Screen parking f:.cing Mat-ron Road with a masonry wall or
Explore the possibility of heating the swimrning pool and
solid row of landscaping.
saunas with solar panels .
C
e -0
3) 1 eve7 5,
4)
Set hot watki* hcalei- thermostats to the 'jov~est effective
Spwially insulate hot water 1 ines to iiidjvjdual apaitnielitr;
Judiciously spa.ce outdooi. 1 ight-iiiy atid use the loccst ef.fccti\
to prevent heat loss.
5) wa ttagc.
6) Design the 6pZr.tmetlf; units to .take full ad\rantage of bjj IItpr sun.
7) Spcc-ia'lly insulate the apartment uti-its. ..
8) Encourage tenants to turn off appliances and lights when not
in use 2nd keep thernnstats tit G8' during colder iuonths.
IJ,U~.SU~ZS 1 and 5 l?a\re been included in the staff ,report a.s conditions
of approval (Conditions 7 and IO).
M~;~~upus 2, 4* and 7 arc applicable to all cieveIopmiit in the city.
St.aff uiiercfol-e believes that if the Con?mission wishes to include
tt2elIl as ~onditi~ns of approval on' FLd-I , it should also i-ecol11ifiel-id them as arnencin?ents to the Ruilding Code to the City Council .
fdeasures 3 alid '8 can be rnet by requiring the use of tlieriwstats with low mar,.imui.n temperature sett-i ngs. ment is also appl-;cable to all development in tic City and should be
hatxiled in a inanner silo-iiar 'LO Iicasur?s 2, 4, and 7.
To wet Measure 6, it v:ould be necessary for the front of each build- ing to face t,he south (-the area. in vhich the wititer SU~ lies), The
projcct has been designed around on-site recrcaticn faci 1 i ties and an inktardly-oi-.ientc-d cornnivnitg. Consequently, ouly 4 of the 13 bui?din:gs
face south. Staff believes that iticing all buildings in one direci:io:i
is undesiral,ly monotonous and detracts frcirn a sense of coimuni ty, fore, the design of the project should not be faulted fcr not rneetir:g I4C"ilscl~e G.
Based on the original EIR and the supplemental information provided, the
L ning Director has deternrined that the project has complied with the requ- ments of the CEPO of 1972 throuqh Prior Compl i ance (Section 19.04.53)
General Plan Information:
The project site is designated for medium-hiqh residential use, 10 to 20
'dwelling units/acre.
Staff bel -ievcs that such a rcquirc-
There.
A
-
The proposed density of 16.0 units per acre is with . this range,
-7-
e @
. .' Putif i c Faci 1 i ti c.s :
The pro.iect is within service areas of the City of Car1sba.d (w and sewer) and the Car1sba.d Unified School District.. As of thi (jate, the School Distri'ct Itas not zssured the ai'aiiibility of Taci 'I i ti es coricurrent vi th need.
-I
Ma j or P 1 a n n i n 9 Co n s i d e'r a ti o n s :
'Does the site plan meet the intent of the PUD ordinance?
Does the architecture of the project meet the Hispanic charact
of the EUR corridov?
DISCUSSION
The proposed apartment project is being processed by PUD periii-i t bemuse it
. is a part of the Lamin Master-Plan. That Master Plan does not conform to requirements of the new Planned Community zone. Therefore, under thc rc- quireiiient? of the Planned Ccinlrnaiiity zone, the apartment phase can only be devel oped by PUD periiii t.
Parking Requirements:
'The parking reqxirerrlcnts of the PUD zone are one and one-half ccvered space per unit, plus one visitor space per unit. The applicant has proposed loca ting most of the visitors parki'ng on Avenida de Anita and Marron Road.
The .PUD zone permits such an arrangement lnrovided the street is totally vrit
the project and a parking lane is permit-Led. Since both streets have been
dedicated to the public, they are not within the boundary of the project p~ However, staff feels th,at the applicant's proposal meets the intent of the ordinance for the foll owing reasons :
The on-site parking is accessable to the site (stairs are to be provided up the slope from Marron Road);
The parking on both streets is of little use for the townhouse ar to the east because of the hillside between the townhouse Pr Avenida de Anit
The parking on both streets will not be needed to meet the parkir requirements of the undeveloped Phase I townhouses (2.75 spaces/uni t) becau those requirements can be met on other streets in Phase I.
(1)
(2)
(3)
8
0 0
Archi1,cctural Elevations:
SP-104( 13) covering the townhouse ar:eas, requires that the towdiouses be 1 signed witth a Hispanic motif. Since the apartments will be at least as v
from El Cariiinu Real, staff has enccuraged the applicant to propose buildit
of a [lispai?.ic motif, which are attached For the Con:iiission's review and approval (Condition t49. 4).
Elm RvenGe I_- 8. Park Site:
Staff has recommended that, as conditions of approval, Elm Av
and a .nortion of the adjacent Park Site be dedicated. cations are reauirements of Larwins Yastcr Plan as amended. feels that their dedication at this tine is desirable since i taken so long for Larwin-Southern to move forward on i.ts Mast, Plan.
___ I____- -.__--.
These
AREA 'B'
Area B, the triangular piece of property on the southeast cor of Marron Road, and Aveiiida de Anita , is not functionally a i of the Larwin Master Pfa.n, particularly the apartment site.
this reason the applicant has resisted irrigatinij the area ani being responsible for its maintenance. Staff has recomrnended that a:, open space easement be placed on Area B (Condition 14: because it is too small by itself to be properlp developed. 1 however, the area is consolidated wfth the parcel to the east,
ment problem would be solved. Staff has worded Condition 14 1 allow for such a consolidation to occur.
both the applicant's maintenance problem and the City's deveh
At.taChments: (submi tted. with previous report)
Locat-ion Map Exhibit 13. Revised Plat Plan, dated August 27, 1976 Exhibit D, Revised Architectural Elevations, dated September 1976 Exhibit E, Community Identification by Sign, dated September 1976 Environmental Inpact Report Supplement
c)
--.--___yy ,-_w____w_r
..
.I , *
* Coast i’ernii t Area:
a.
9 qa
I *( ‘ . h *“LA, *--+I* ~42“ -I- - J-...- -.2- >lal . .! .c : b - - j/ ~ A I - - . ..I .a. .& , -
2
4i
,-t 3
--
.- -
h
I I,
/I
- il I I I
i i
1 ’
2 1’ I
3 1 I i
5 i
61
I 71
8’
g
10;
I 11
l2 13 I
4 ,
I I
I 1
I
i
I
I
I
~
I. L 14
. -._ 15
I
I 16 I
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
- 24
25
26
28 27i
29
30 i 31 I
32 I I
I
’I L i
IMPROVE?IENT AGREEWXNT (PRIVATE DEVELOPMEtJT )
DATE OF AGREEMENT:
NAYE OF’ DEVELOPKENT: pL/D -. / , E/LL/NGs pp&,7&
MAEfl / 7 , i 9 7 7
1
I
DEVELOPER/OWNER: H &L/X /fSSWAZs, A L7G! ,F~%QT’%
00 ESTIXATED TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENT: $ 2@[m. -
TIME LIMIT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEPIENT COMPLETION: /B &~r/2;
PARTIES: The parties to this agreement are the City
Carlsbad, California, a Municipal Corporation of the State
California, hereinafter referred to as CITY; and the Devel
Owner named on Line 3 of Page 1 hereof, hereinafter collec
referred to as DEVELOPER/O:QJER.
WITNESSETH :
WHEWAS , DEVELOFER/OWNER proposes to LOA’ST%WcT/
LWq- Ap APTMei7- PRarE7-
within the City of Carlsbad to be known as PUD - /
WHEFCEAS, DEVELOPXR/OWNER proposes to construct street
other public improvements in connection with said developr:
required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code and as hereinafter
NOW, THE-WFORE, in consideration of their mutual pron
the parties hereto agree as follows: @W%?lK,i- U)HeeL &fMP AND WAT&WA/n/ FAC///.r/FS /X/ /4@QQ4_L
~/77 CITY OF CYWLSAAD D24u/NG L86-8 ~477.W /t
COVENANTS : I
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties here
follows:.
1. DEVELOPER/OWNER agrees to complete all improvement WOY
accordance with plans and specifications approved by t
Engineer, including all improvenents require6 by the h
Code which were not specifically wailved by khe Plannir
0 a
Commission or City Council in approving the developmer
any additional improvements required by the Planninc, C
or City Council as a condition of approving the develc
The conditions imposed by the Planning Commission or C
Council are incorporated here by reference and made a
hereof as though fully set forth.
DEVELOPER/O'VNER shall furnish to CITY good and suffici
improvement security on forms approved by CITY, in the
of 100% of said amount stated on Line 4 of Page 1 here
2.
assure faithful performance of this Agreement.
3. The City Engineer or his duly authorized representativ
request of DEVELOPER/OWNER, shall inspect the improvem
herein agreed to be constructed and installed by DEVZL
OWNE2, and, if determined to be in accordance with app
City standards, shall recommend the acceptance of such
improvements by CITY.
4. Any changes, alterations or additions to the Improveme
or improvements, not exceeding ten.percent (10%) of th
original estimated cost of the improvement, which are
agreed upon by CITY and DEVELOPER/OWNER, shall not re1
the improvement security given for faithful performanc
the improvement. In the event such changes, alteratio
additions exceed ten percent (10%) of the original est
cost of the improvement, DEVELOPER/OWNER shall provide
ment security for faithful performance as required by
2 of the Covenants hereof in the amount of fifty perce
of the total estimated cost of the improvement as chan
altered, or amended, minus any completed partial relea
.
5. DEVELOPER/Oi?NER shall guarantee such improvements for
of one (1) year following the completion by DEVELOPER/
and acceptance by CITY against any defective work or 1
done, or defective materials furnished, in the perform
L -3-
I
1
2
3
4
5 1 I
6 I 7l 8'
10 ~ I
11 ~
I 9,
I 13
'I 14 1
15
.- l2I
16
17
18
19
20 1 21
22
23 ~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
L
0 0
this agreement by DEVELOPER/'OWNER.
In the event that DEVELOPER/OWNER fails to perform any
tion hereunder, DEVELOPER/UNPJER authorizes CITY to per
such obligation twenty (20) days after mailing written
of default to DEVELOPER/OWNER at the address given bel
6.
agrees to pay the entire cost of such performance by C
. In the event that DEVELOPER/OWNER fails to perform any ' tion hereunder, DEVELOPER/OW-NER agrees to pay all cost
expenses incurred by CITY in securing performance of s
obligations, including costs of suit and reasonable at
fees.
DEVELOPER/OWNER hereby ,binds itself, its executors, ad
tors and assigns, and agrees to indemnify and hold CIT
from any losses, claims, demands, actions, or causes o
of any nature whatsoever, arising out of or in any way
with the improvements agreed to be constructed and ins
hereunder by DEVELOPER/OWNER, including costs of suit
reasonable attorney's fees for a period of one (1) yea
the acceptance of said improvements by CITY.
Said CITY shall not, nor shall any officer or employee
be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or dam
happening or occurring to the work or improvements spe
this agreement prior to the completion and acceptance
same, nor shall said CITY, nor any officer or employee
be liable for any persons or property injured by reaso
work or improvements, but all of said liabilities shal
assumed by said DEVELOPER/OhTNER. Said DEVELOPER/OWNER
agrees to protect said CITY and the officers thereof f
liability or claim because of, or aris-ing out of, the
any patent or patented article in the construction of
improvements. 9
It is further agreed that said DEVELOPER/OWNER will at
8.
9.
-3-
e e
I
I
I
1 ii
2 ii
I
/j
!I 3 /j
times from the acceptance bl7 the City Coiincil of the
and/or ezsements, offercd for iredica" - on in said devc
up to the ccrnpletion and acceptance of said :cork apd
meats by said Ccilncil, give good an& adequate warr?inc
traveling public of each and every dangeroas collditic
in said streets and/or ezsements or any of their,, and
protect the traveling public from such defective or (
- 8i conditiors. That it is understood and ayre~d that UI
coir1;:ietion of all the in~rc-~~~rnents j1erej-x ayreed to 1
formed, each of said streets and/or easc:wnis not acc
-~ iaproved shall be under the charge of said DEVELOPER,
for the prpcses of this agreement, and said DEVELOPl
rLay close all or a portion of any street
necessary to 2rotect ?:he trzveling public (7i!i?~-i~ng tl:c
/I
jj
, A !I -1
!
!j 14 ;\ /I
,l7 7 15 of th? _s !i?reip agreed io be :y&;<p. 1 ,', p :; j
O\k??JER hereby ~grses to pay for silch insyection of s-t
or easements 2s r:,a17 he r=.quix?d by the City 5~22
City 02 CarlsSad.
;zz aq?l-T2-s tc c
-. 5 Qn lJl,?e Ea of I.
21 ;I hzr-of- It ?_s :-~~-t::ez a-c:---d J - '-~- by ,532 '=e~-vv,-~~ the ?ax
, ', ' 1 c 1 r 3.. 5 ;2 , c ,. L -- 22 ;-!ereto C.ESt, .-_I_
23
24 t:zis agr,?.em?nt, sal~ c-xicnsiofi
25
.-
9 .c
57 '
23
-, li
-0
CITY by CARL~~AD 23 I t
;: 1 \\
1 30 11
-2 :e;:- -~ ~ - q- '. L Paul 5. Bussey:
City Manager 51 ;j
T 7 ;i v -3
'I ii
I
i :I -4- .I
. 9 9 .A
I
Ii
! 1 ;i STATE OF CALIZCR?C;Ik )
!j COUNTY OF SiN DTEGO ) ss.
6 I'
public corpsratio!
ged to me that sucj
4
.-.- ~~.._ .. ___.__.. ~ .~~ - . --
TITU INSURA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I ATlCOR COMPANY
San Diego 1 ss. COUNTY OF _______ ~~__
On ..._ ~-..~ ~__~ ~ __~ -..-. ~--___
before me. the uodersiened; a Nctaiy Public in 2nd for said State, personally appeared----
- ~___-.__-- March 17, 1977 hi 1 , George F. Billings -.- w u:
I w .___~ .... ______-- " ____ ~__~~ .__--
.___. .~ ~~~___ _____ _~-___
____ kno.iun % me
1.0 be_~.. ~~~ on'? _~- --of the partners cf the parzxrship
that e;;scuted ths wiihin instrument, ana acknoM-ic.tiged to me
~__ I
Signature % ,/KAAPd i
i ;"!
1 that such pairnership exzcutec: the same.
li).:TNESS r.;y haixi and oficiai seal.
8
t+> "L'eijc-CAL
FR! h! c I PAL 0 F;ICE Y
%k OlEGO C;a;;JTY
t t I (This area for official notariai seal)
uu 32 Ii
25 ; City Ak:!-::l2q
i? -
&,:, 2,
.- .. .< i
$3
5. ,>
I I
?'9 :I 51 I I
I j
I
I i 1
! -
0 0
.I.
I
. - .~_ ..- . . ~.. ~._
CITY OF CAZLSW.D 1200 ELM AvEgy~ e CA~RLSSAZ,. CAL’--~’- ,r -.Tq!A ?XCi
729 - 1181
4,
4
A< /- ,‘,d
/-- - ?. _, ,/’ .’ ,-
8,. :’,/ , ’. /-’4 f i =< - ., ,/ - ;’ ./ . .. .,
CATE -~ _.-------- .--‘.-/,.-< (,pl-.-’-< j
-~_-._ .~ __ ._-- -__ d- ---=. ~ -- ---. -.: I_ .. = -. . c -v__:-.---
-~_~__ - ~ ~ ~- - ~ - -~~ __ ~-
DE SC’”.! F 7 i SN
-~ ____--- --- ~ ~__-- ~- ~ ~ .~ ~ ____ -L __.- - - ~- -- I
-.--.~iL ~ ..----
j-
! -I /
-~ 1 -i /,,.- :- I I,. ,.
:,-‘:----!j::L ~ .< ~ ~~ - ~ ’ ,
*,_ j 1 ,/ -i /- __- ,.--<:-,>: -’
__.-_.-- i Q<-:L- --..- ---<:F/,:-.~:>---- - x ~__~_. _.~_ -. ~----
~~_~_~ -
, - 7,:- ~-, - 1-5 - -1:c -:: ., ;3 :‘ i’i _- -
? I z :- :’ .-
1 -2.i ..,
I --c-.
/-- - / -:.’ ,- >.^ ! _~___ -~-.---
.- , - .. - *. -
-,_ - a, - *
k- -____- f’ / i, \ 1 ,.?-t:<:...> c ,,>A Le -;:.<L.
.___~ --__ ---- ----- ’ . --___
/ fl -r r -2,. ’ .? f \ ;,,. j -,: i
:!A
; 7-! .< -7 ; ____ :.=- ____- ----
f 5,; ’i YL2& p,&:, - -.L,?G- -_.___ - LZ-Y,. <_I I ___ ____- - -~
-~ _____ -.----
A
+/
-.~ ._-.-- ---
--__-
__ - - .-~ ___. ~-.. - - -- - _.-.- __-.--
CI’Z:‘ OF Ci‘:~{;.S:{j’;]]
A e a
TO:: fl -cr ATTrn#qy 1 OF6;‘;CI;:
F)iOM t mG/hB&k& Dpr
---~---“..-..il_”~~~ll^~~-,l~j.~~~ &/k&,,GS. Hz II --,.-.,, ~
,‘I c1 * f n t c 1: ~- 0 L z .IC: e Cor rc spo 1.3 dc ;IC e
_----I_- - -.-...---...-.- .I---_ _^_.I_. ~--.”--.~--- -.-_-__ ~ I.___ _._.l.l___,l________ __-_______ - .~-. -
*.-.-“--.---..--I _._____-_-_ - .-..-- ~ -____ .-- .-.-- .. .---..--.-.~..-lllI_ -----..-I_. - I-______ ”. ____ i
---I--- .--~--~ ._.__._ -.-_ !-C_LT?- .--.....- I..-._ ~ ---,
SUBJECT: --- pa& NO, /
------I--- I--. ~- i i i .-._.--”--- -.l_sll.llllll.l----ll-_ll --__ _____-__
: -*- &$w?+/7/97 x-- - I-*- 4.. --,. .,-
---------I- _ll_l_ x---II ___~
i ----..-._I_-1---1_-_I___ .__.,-__ __ ___-___,_ 1-” -.---I-. _-.~..-_.-.“-1.._ .l.-ll.----...l___ ---. ____ _-_- --- ---------....-__-.----.---I_--,-- ~ I--_ ^____-__ “__l I^.____ __- ,_-__ ___
i4.1; :; ,T ;;., s p; :
pLHc& Afp@m A8 zo- FWly‘ TIvf!? ffr7K3
//L/pmKEuw7- &m=~~7- FOR su&R-=.7- L
/qm77 /A CM! Dq@=)S/7- OF- 5& qJm fwd
pm. AFm j4a2kP @pmL / PL5
BBWAED 70 THL C/T- e-4 q~~f’l
p/;2 HEmvd wG-#pmu<.
..
----.-p11-11.1I_.- -. ~--
---111--- _I_- I___~ __-.
P -i Attachments: . -. xx Reply requested:
Signature:
~ I__-___
_I_-
-- _.I -l-_l_
REPLY :
Date : Signature :