HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-06; Planning Commission; ; CT 96-04|PUD 71B|HDP 96-04|SDP 96-07- BROOKFIELD MEADOWSte City of CARLSBAD Planning DepartmeS
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 6, 1996
Application complete date: June 27, 1996
Project Planner: Elaine Blackburn
Project Engineer: Ken Quon
SUBJECT: CT 96-04/PUD 7UBVHDP 96-04/SDP 96-07- BROOKFIELD MEADOWS -
Request for recommendation of approval of a Negative Declaration and Planned
Unit Development Amendment; and request for approval of a Tentative Tract
Map, Hillside Development Permit and Site Development Plan to develop 29
single-family dwelling units and 4 second dwelling units (attached), on property
generally located on the south side of Xana Way between Corintia Street and Alga
Road.
I.RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3999
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director,
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4000, 4002, and 4003 DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE CT 96-04, HDP 96-04, and SDP 96-07, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4001, RECOMMENDING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
of PUD 71(B), based on the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This application proposes the development of 29 small lot single family residences and 4 second
dwelling units at the southwest corner of the Corintia Street and Xana Way intersection. Staff is
recommending denial of the project due to non-compliance with the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) regulations as clarified by Administrative Policy No. 16 and City Council Policy No. 44.
Compliance would necessitate some project redesign and staff is recommending denial without
prejudice to allow the applicant to reapply prior to the one year limit associated with a straight
denial. The applicant currently has discretionary approvals to build 104 apartment units on the
site. However, the applicant indicates that the neighborhood residents would prefer to see a
single family detached product on the project site rather than the approved apartment
development. The applicant has worked to resolve the issues associated with the project and has
reduced them to two items (minimum distance between structures and architectural guidelines).
The final decision on this project must be made by City Council because the original approvals
were granted by Council.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map, planned unit development
amendment, hillside development permit, and site development plan to allow the construction of
29 small lot single family residences and 4 second dwelling units on a 4.39 acre site, which is
located on the south side of Xana Way between Corintia Street and Alga Road.
3
CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDPr6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD ME"S)OWS
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
PAGE 2
As shown on Exhibits "A" - "O", the project consists of 29 single family dwelling units (ranging
in size from 1748 - 2281 square feet in area), plotted on substandard residential lots (ranging in
size from 3876 - 9602 square feet). The units are double loaded along minimum 32' private
streets. Parking is provided through 2-car garages, tandem spaces in driveways for the second
dwelling units, and on-street parking for guests. The lots include private yards to satisfy private
recreation requirements. The applicant proposes to satisfy common area recreation requirements
by annexing into the neighboring Meadowbrook development, thereby sharing a swimming pool
area and pocket parks.
To satisfy inclusionary housing requirements, four of the proposed dwelling units (Lots 10, 14,
20, and 21) will include attached second dwelling units. The second dwelling units each contain
a total of 393 square feet and form a portion of the second story of the primary units over the first
floor garage. The structures are similar architecturally to the neighboring residences. They
include exteriors of stucco and painted wood siding and tile roofs with aluminum window trim.
The project site is a previously graded lot now covered with non-native grasses. The site consists
of mostly gentle slopes, with existing 2:1 slopes along the perimeter of the property and a
previously approved stockpile on the northern portion of the site.
The project site is a portion of a larger project (PUD 71) approved and amended in the early
1980's. At that time the total project area consisted of a 43.6 acre site. The area of the current
proposal is a 4.39 acre portion of that 43.6 acre site. In 1980, the Planning Commission
approved development of 300 dwelling units on the overall site. These units were to consist of
single family detached, duplex, triplex, and 4-plex units. That project was not built. Then, in
1984, the City approved discretionary permits for 324 dwelling units to consist of 220 zero lot
line single family units (on the bulk of the site) and a 104-unit apartment project (on the 4.39
acre portion of the site). The majority of the site was developed as approved. However, the
apartment project was never built. The applicant would now like to amend the PUD for the
apartment portion of the project to provide instead 29 single family detached residential units
with four attached second dwelling units.
The site has a General Plan designation of RM (Residential - Medium Density) and a zoning
designation of RD-M/Q (Residential Density-Multiple Zone and Qualified Development
Overlay).
This project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan RM (Medium Density Residential) Designation;
B. Subdivision Regulations (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
C. RDM (Residential Density - Multiple) Zone Regulations (Chapter 21.24 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code;
CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDW6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
PAGE 3
D. Q (Qualified Overlay) Zone (Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) and
Site Development Plan (affordable housing projects) (Chapter 21.53 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code);
E. PUD (Planned Unit Development) Regulations (Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code);
F. Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code);
G. Inclusionary Housing Regulations (Chapters 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code);
H. Growth Management Regulations (Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6);
and,
I. Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code)and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
IV. ANALYSIS
A. GENERAL PLAN
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The
General Plan Compliance Table (below) indicates how the project relates to the goals and
policies of the General Plan.
The project site is designated for RM (Medium Density Residential) development by the General
Plan. The designated density for the site is 4-8 du/ac (6 du/ac growth management control
point). The proposed project consists of 29 primary and 4 second dwelling units. Because this
site is the final piece of a larger, already constructed project, the density calculation has been
based upon the combined total density of the existing built project and the proposed development
of the subject site. This results in a total project density of 5.89 du/ac.
The already built project includes 220 dwelling units on a 39.21 acre (gross) site. The density of
the already built portion of the project is based on gross acreage, since that is how the regulations
were written when it was built. The current project includes 33 dwelling units on a 3.70 acre
(net) site. The density of the current subject site is based on net acreage in accordance with
current regulations. Thus the project would be allowed to have a maximum of 261 units and a
maximum density of 6 du/ac on a 42.91 acre site. The proposed development will include 253
units and have a density of 5.89 du/ac. Therefore, the project is consistent with the overall range
allowed by the General Plan and is below the growth management control point.
CT96-04/PUD71(B)/HD
NOVEMBER 6,1996
PAGE 4
i-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD
The table below summarizes the relevant goals and policies contained in the General Plan and
discusses how the proposed project complies with these goals and policies.
GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE TABLE
GENERAL PLAN
ELEMENT
Land Use Element
RM Designation
(4-8 du/ac) (6 gcp)
Circulation Element
Streets & Traffic Control
Pol. A-2
Noise Element
General Policies C.I &
C.2
Housing Element
Goal 3, Objective 3.5
Open Space & Recreation
Element
Category 3 Open Space
for Outdoor Recreation
Public Safety Element
Parks/Recreation Element
DISCUSSION
The proposed residential project is designed with a density of 5.89
du/ac.
The proposed project would provide adequate circulation
infrastructure to serve the projected population of the development
and the traffic to be generated.
A noise study prepared for the project shows that the project would
not be subject to unacceptable levels of noise.
The project would contribute to provision of a range of housing
opportunities in the City, including 4 affordable attached second
dwelling units.
The project proposes to annex into the existing neighborhood
homeowners' association for purposes of sharing the existing
common recreation area.
The proposed project would provide adequate sidewalks, street
lights, and fire hydrants.
The proposed project would be required to pay park-in-lieu fees.
B.SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
The proposed Tentative Tract Map complies with most, but not all, of the requirements of the
City's Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed project would be required to construct the two
private streets within the subdivision and to provide sidewalks, street lights, and fire hydrants.
The design of the subdivision also would not conflict with any established easements. However,
the project design is not consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 21, therefore, cannot be
recommended for approval. (See Section E. Planned Unit Development of this report for a
detailed discussion of this issue.)
C. RDM (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY - MULTIPLE) ZONE
The project site is zoned RD-M/Q. Because this project is a PUD, most of the development
standards of the RD-M Zone are superseded by the standards contained in the PUD regulations.
For those standards which are not superseded by the PUD regulations, the project complies with
the RD-M standards. The table below (RD-M Zone Compliance Table) summarizes the
CT96-04/PUD71(B)/HD
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
PAGES
'-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
development standards required by the RD-M Zone and the standards incorporated into the
proposed project design.
RD-M ZONE COMPLIANCE TABLE
STANDARD
Max. Density
Min. Lot Size
Max. Lot Coverage
Min. Lot Width
Max. Building Height
Min. Front Yard Setback
Min. Side Yard Setback
Min. Rear Yard Setback
RD-M ZONE
REQUIREMENTS
per the General Plan
7500 sf
10000 sf
60%
60'
35'
20'
interior: 5'
street side: 10'
10'
PROVIDED
5.89 du/ac
See PUD Compliance Table
22%
See PUD Compliance Table
26'2"
See PUD Compliance Table
See PUD Compliance Table
See PUD Compliance Table
Second dwelling units in the RD-M Zone are required to comply with the same development
standards as primary units. In the project proposed, the second dwelling units are attached to the
primary units, occupying a portion of the second stories (above the garages). The second
dwelling units comply with all applicable requirements of the RD-M Zone. (See Sections D and
G of this report for further discussion of the proposed second dwelling units.)
D. Q (QUALIFIED OVERLAY) ZONE/SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP)
In addition to the RD-M Zone, this site is also governed by the Q Overlay Zone. Development
of more than one single-family residence on property in the Q Overlay requires approval of a Site
Development Plan (SDP). This plan must show the plotting of homes on the lots, heights of
structures, architectural elevations, and floor plans, and the SDP application complies with these
requirements.
Any affordable housing project is also required to have an SDP. This project is required to
provide 4.35 affordable units. The applicant has designed the project to include four second
dwelling units to be attached to the primary units on Lots 10, 14, 20, and 21. The second units
contain a total of 393 square feet each and occupy a portion of the second story of each of those
primary units (above the garages). Each second unit has a private entrance.
E. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
The proposed project design complies with the PUD regulations in some respects but does not
comply in all respects. The table below summarizes the development standards contained in the
PUD regulations and the standards incorporated into the proposed project design. The items in
bold in the right-hand column are the areas in which the project does not comply with the
required standards. These areas of non-compliance are discussed in detail following the table.
The second dwelling units are also required to comply with the applicable requirements of the
)R.CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HD6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
PAGE 6
PUD ordinance, including lot sizes, setbacks, frontages, and building height. The proposed
second dwelling units are designed as a part of the primary units and comply with these
requirements.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE TABLE
STANDARD
Max. Density
Min. Lot Size
Min St. Frontage:
Linear Streets
Curved Streets
Max. Building Height
Min. Front Yard Setback
Min. Side Yard Setback
Min. Distance B/t Structures
Resident Parking
Visitor Parking
Recreational Space
1 . Private
2. Common
R.V. Storage
Storage Space
Street Widths Private
PUD REQUIREMENTS
Per General Plan
3,500 sf
40'
25'
30V2 stories w/pitch
20' (pvt streets)*
10' from street**
20' (2-story units)
Primary units: 2 full-size cov'd
sp/du
2nd units: 1 sp cov'd or
uncov'd
10 sps
Overall Project/Current Req'ts:
50,600 sf Total***
(in a combination of private
and common areas)
580sf(20sf:du)
392 cf:du
30' - no parking
32' - parking 1 side
36' - parking 2 sides
PROVIDED
5.89 du/ac
3,836 sf
40'
32'
26V2 stories
20'
10' from street
10' - 15'
2-car garage/du
1 sp uncov'd (tandem) (2°d
unit)
1 0 sps on-street
Overall Project:
99,5 82 sf Total
Pvt: 72,952 sf
Cmn: 27,630 sf
To be provided off site
392 cf:du
Ct. A - 42'
The setback is measured from the right-of-way line in the case of public streets and from the edge of the driveway, curb, or
sidewalk, whichever is closer to the structure, in the case of a private street or private driveway.
**The setback is measured from the property line.
***The PUD requirements for recreation area, RV storage, etc. do not apply to the 2nd dwelling units.
CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HDTO-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
PAGE 7
PUD Non-compliance areas:
The following are the areas in which the proposed project does not comply with the requirements
of the PUD regulations.
la. The PUD regulations establish a requirement for a minimum distance between structures.
These regulations refer specifically to the distance between 1- and 2-story structures and
between 2- and 3-story structures. The Planning Department relies on Administrative
Policy No. 16 in determining the minimum required distance between 2-story structures
when there are more than 10 such structures in a row. Also, City Council Policy No. 44
"Small Lot Single Family Guidelines" is utilized when reviewing such projects. This
policy defines the term "in a row" and includes additional design guidelines to be applied
to small lot single family projects. Applying these two policies, the minimum distance
allowed between structures on "A" Court would be 20'. The proposed project design
does not comply with this minimum requirement. The proposed project includes all 2-
story structures, with "A" Court containing more than 10 structures in a row. The
distance provided between these structures ranges from approximately 10' to 15' with
one exception: the distance between Structures 9 and 10, at the curve of the cul-de-sac is
22'. The majority of the structures are shown at 10' apart. Therefore, staff believes that
the design is too intense for the site and the proposed lot sizes and results in a "crowded"
appearance which the required 20' distance between structures is intended to eliminate.
Ib. Council Policy No. 44 includes small lot architectural guidelines which would also apply
to the proposed small lot (<7500 square foot) project. These requirements are
summarized in the Architectural Guideline Compliance Summary table (attached). As
shown in that table, the proposed project complies with some of these requirements but
does not comply with Items 1, 3, or 5. The structures on Court "B" are two-story units
and there are three units in a row. However, these structures do not provide the single-
story building edge required (Item 1). Also, the project does not provide the single-story
building edges or the varied building planes required by Items 3 and 5. Therefore, staff
believes that the project design, in addition to being too intense for the site, also provides
too little architectural relief to reduce this effect. The proposed design appears both boxy
and crowded.
F. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
A Hillside Development Permit is required for any project site which contains a slope of 15% or
greater and an elevation differential of greater than 15 feet. The proposed project generally
complies with the Hillside Development regulations. The grading volumes are within the
acceptable amount, and the maximum slope height created will be 16'. Although the site meets
the criteria of a hillside site, the majority of the site consists of gentle slopes. The steeper slopes
are along the perimeter of the property. The table below summarizes the requirements of the
Hillside Development regulations and the way in which the proposed project design complies
with the requirements.
CT96-04/PUD71(B)/HD
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
PAGES
-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE TABLE
STANDARD
Max. Slope Ht
Grading Volume
Contour Grading
Roadway Design
Hillside Architecture
REQUIREMENT
30'
0-7,999 CY/AC
Provide a variety of slope
directions and undulation.
Follow the site contours.
Use terraced pads and/or
foundations.
Maintain natural slopes with
structures and roofs.
Decrease building mass with
increased steepness.
PROVIDED
16'
2,935 CY/AC
Existing slopes along
perimeter to remain.
Interior curvilinear street
provided.
Pads are stepped within the
project area.
The building area of the site
contains no significant slopes.
G. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS
The proposed project would be required to provide 4 affordable housing units and to buy a .35
credit in the Villa Loma development to satisfy it's affordable housing requirements. The project
is designed to provide 29 single family detached residences with an attached second dwelling
unit incorporated into four of those units. Each second unit contains 393 square feet each and
would have a private entrance. These units are contained within a portion of the second story of
the primary unit. Parking for the second units would be provided tandem in the driveways of the
primary units. Consistent with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, these second dwelling units
would be administered through an affordable housing agreement.
H.GROWTH MANAGEMENT
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6 in the Southeast
quadrant of the City. The impacts which would be created by this development on public facilities
and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized in the table below.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
STANDARD
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
IMPACTS
1 14.73 sf
61.19 sf
33EDU
.229 ac
N/A
330 ADT
Station #2
COMPLIANCE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
CT 96-04/PUD 71(B)/HoW6-04/SDP 96-07 - BROOKFIELD
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
PAGE 9
STANDARD
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
IMPACTS
N/A
San Marcos
33EDU
7,260 GPD
COMPLIANCE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The approved 104-unit apartment project was approved prior to the adoption of Growth
Management regulations. Therefore, those 104 units were included as existing units in the
City wide Plan. The proposed project reduces the total number of project units by 71. However,
in that the original 104 units were counted as existing units, the 71 unused units will not be
added to the excess unit bank.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project was reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act ^^ r\ w ' » 1
determined to have no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a Negativt \&U &JT*2-
issued by the Planning Director on August 26, 1996. The project qualifies u^1*^
development to the City's MEIR (MEIR 93-01) under Section 21083.3 o.
environmental review also relied upon the MEIR for analysis of cumulative air ..^ cumulative
traffic impacts. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has also been issued.
V. SUMMARY
After reviewing the proposed project, staff has concluded that the project is consistent with all
applicable policies of the General Plan but does not comply with all requirements of the PUD
regulations, Administrative Policy No. 16, and City Council Policy No. 44 (Small Lot Single
Family Guidelines). Because of these non-compliance areas, staff is unable to recommend
approval of the CT, PUD, or SDP. Although the project complies with the requirements of the
Hillside Development (HDP) regulations, the HDP cannot stand alone. Because staff believes the
project could be redesigned to be in compliance with all applicable regulations, we are
recommending denial without prejudice.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3999
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4000
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4001
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4002
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4003
6. Location Map
7. Background Data Sheet
8. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
9. Disclosure Form
10. Architectural Guidelines Compliance Table
11. Reduced Exhibits
12. Full size exhibits "A"-"O" dated November 6, 1996.
BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CT96-04/PUD71(B)/
HDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
^^ BAn^nwrvrTivn HATA emrirT ^^BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 96-04/PUD 7UBVHDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
CASE NAME: Brookfield Meadows
APPLICANT: Okon Development Co.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: A 30-lot residential project including 29 single family detached units
(4 of which will include attached 2nd dwelling units), located on the south side of Xana Way between
Corintia Street and Alga Road
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 224 & portion of Lot 223 CT #84-23 Map No. 11241
APN: 223-021-18 & 223-353-27 Acres: 439 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 30/33
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RM
Density Allowed: 4-8 (6) du/ac Density Proposed: 5.89 du/ac
Existing Zone: RD-M/Q Proposed Zone: n/a
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site RD-M/Q Undeveloped
North RD-M/Q Residential
South PU Undeveloped
East PC & OS Undeveloped
West PC Undeveloped
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: San Marcos Water District: Vallecitos Sewer District: Vallecitos
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity):
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: November 15, 1995
ENVntONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued August 26, 1996
| | Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
PI Other,
EBibk
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: CT 96-04/PUD 7UBVHDP 96-04/SDP 96-07
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 6 GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: RD-M/O
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Okon Development Co.
ADDRESS: P. O. Box 577. Del Mar, CA 92014
PHONE NO.: (619T755-7005 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 223-021-18 &223-353-27
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SO. FT.. DID: 4.39 ac
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 114.73
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 61.19
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 33
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = .229
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = n/a
Identify Drainage Basin = D
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADT= 330
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = n/a
I. Schools: SMSD
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 33
Identify Sub Basin = n/a
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD = 7.260
L. The project was approved prior to Growth Management for 104 apartment units.
The proposed project represents a reduction in the number of units, but will not
provide excess units for the bank.
03/30/1994 06:50 ' 6192
May 17 '96 11:10 0000 QKf T&€LDPfENT
BOCUZZO AND
TEL 619-755-C
PAGE 01
P. 3
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANTS STATCMCNT OP DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNWSHIP INTERESTS ON AU APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OR ANY APPOINTED
00ARO. COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE.
(P\*$
1.
3.
4.
Tt* following Information must ba dlsdosad:
Anpfloant
List tha names and addre**** of all person* having * financial Intaraat In the application.
Brookfield Ownersr Association,
a nonprofit mutual
Omar
List tha name* and addraisaa of all p«raen» having any ownor«hlp Interact In tha propanV involved.
kflaid Owners * Association
a nnnoroflt mutual benefit corp.
If any pcraon Wsntifltd purauant to (1) or (2) above li a corporation or partrwrahlp. list tha nam«a ar
tddrauM of all tndMduala owning mora than 10% of th» shares in tha corporation or owning any partnersh
Intaraat in tha partnarahip.
if any pwwn ld*ntlfl«d purauant to (1) or (2) abov* la a non-profit oroanization or a tru«t. l!*t tha name* ar
addr*a*a* of any parson serving as officer or director of tha norvproftt organization or aa trustaa or
of tn« trust
nwaera* AsaociationA
b'a nonprofit mutual benefit corp.
Bv; Steve West on, President of~
ld_ Owners VAssaciation_
Dls dosura Statement pag9 2
5.
03/30/1994 05:50 61923*Je7 BOCUZZO AND
17 '96 1U11 0000 OKt WELOPMENT TEL 619-755-C
you had mora than $250 worth of buslrMM transactad with any m«mb«r of City staff, Boarcs
Commissions. Committals and Council within th« post tw*lv» months?
NO jo, ft y»*. ploasa indicate parson(«) ^
i* d*flnad as: 'Any indMdual, linn. copartn«i«hip, Joint vwAura. wcocwtlon. social club, fraternal
Organization, oorporatlon, wtaia. iruA, rscotvar. synoieal*. thto and any othw county, city and county, chy
munteipalJty. dlatrict or oth»f poJItlcsl aubdlvlB>on, or any other Qroup or comolnatten ictlna as a unit.'
: Attach additional paga» as necessary.)
Sigruitur* Of Owner/data Signature of applicant/data
Steven S. Weston, President for Steven S. Weston, President for
Brookfield Owners' Association Brookfield Owners' Association
Print or typ« nama of ownar print or typ* nama of applicant
Explanations:
With respect to Number one, Applicant, the Brookfield Owners' Association states
that it may have a financial interest if the proposed Brookfield Meadows development
is successfully annexed into the: Brookfield Owners' Association upon its completion.
The financial interest is primarily the probable decrease in membership assessment
obligations.
With respect to Number two, Owner, the Brookfiedl Owners' Association states that it
may be an Owner if the proposed Brookfield Meadows development is successfully
annexed into the Brookfield Owners' Association. The Ownership Interest would be
primarily limited to the new common maintenance arears which the Brookfield Owners'
Association would be responsible to maintain if the Brookfield Meadows development
is annexed into the Brookfield Owners' Association.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APOLICANTS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL SEC
OiSCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD. COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant vr MAR261S9S
CuVC^'c..';".:':" -
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interestjn the application,
OKONI DEVELOPMENT'. CO " ""^
P.O. BOX 577
DEL MAR. CA 92014
2. Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
EDGECREST INVESTMENT, LTD
P.O. BOX 577
DEL MAR, CA 92014
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names arc
addresses of ail individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnersr.;:
interest in the partnership.
IRVING OKOVITA ALFRED SAIJEH
POST OFFICE BOX 577 L1440 SCARBORO RD.
DEL MAR, CA 92014 MONTREAL, QUEBEC, H3P251
CANADA
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names an-
addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficlar
of the trust ''
FRM 13 4/91 Page 1 of 2
2O75 Las Palm*» Driv« • Carlsbad. California 920O9-4659 • (619)438-1161
Disclosure Statement
(Over)
Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Scares.
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No X If yes, please indicate person(s)
Parson i» d«<in«d a*: 'Any individual, firm. copartnarthio. joint vantura. aaaociation. »ooal club. fratarnal organization, corporation. »stitt trust.
.-•caivar. jyndicata. tfiia and toy otfi«r county, city and county, city municipality, district ot om«f polite*! subdivision, or try oOi«r grouo or
combination acting M a unit'
(NQTS. Attacn additional pagaa as n«c«ssa/y.)
4*Signature ot Own«r/dat«
EDGECREST INVESTMENT, LTD.
IRVING OKOVITA, ITS ATTORNEY IN FACT
Print or typ« nam« of owrw
Signature QK&oplicaflt/d&iiOKON DEVELOPMENT CO
IRVING OKOVITA, PRESIDENT
Pnnt or type nam« of applicant
FRM13 4/91 Page 2 of 2
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
PUD-71 (Amended) - Phase VI September 3, 1996
Item Guideline
Minimum
Standard
Brookfield
Meadows Results
Where three (3) two-story units occur in a row and they are situated
less than fifteen (15) feet apart, at least one (1) unit must have a
single story building edge not less than ten (10) feet in depth.
1 of 3
This project conforms to the design of the
existing neighborhood but does not meet
the minimum policy standard.
Where three (3) two-story units occur in a row and they are situated
fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet apart, at least one (1) unit must have
a single story building edge not less than five (5) feet in depth.
1 of 3 n/a n/a
Per project, thirty-three percent (33%) of all units shall have a single
story edge a minimum of forty percent (40%) of the total perimeter.33%0%
While not meeting the minimum policy
standard, the project does contain:
# Units
11
4
14
Floor Plan
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
% Single Story
30.4 %
15.0 %
28.6 %
Per project, fifty percent (50%) of all units with a lot frontage less
than forty-five (45) feet must have three (3) separate building
planes on the front elevation.
Those with a lot frontage greater than forty-five (45) feet must
have four (4) separate building planes.
50%
50%
100%
100%
Exceeding minimum policy standard in all
cases.
Exceeding minimum policy standard in all
cases.
Per project, fifty percent (50%) of all units with a lot frontage less
than forty-five (45) feet must have three (3) separate building
planes on the rear elevation.
Those with a lot frontage greater than forty-five feet (45) must
have four (4) separate building planes.
50%
50%
0%
0%
This project conforms to the design of the
existing neighborhood but does not meet
this minimum policy standard.r
Per project, fifty percent (50%) of all units shall have one (1) side
elevation with a seven (7) foot average side yard setback.50%100%
Exceeding minimum policy standard in all
cases.
Three-car garages are limited to seventy-five percent (75%) of the
total units where the average lot size is five thousand (5,000) square
feet or less.
75%n/a
No three-car garages are proposed.
8.Fifty percent (50%) of exterior door and window openings shall
be projected or recessed a minimum of two (2) inches.50%50%
This meets the minimum policy standard.
Revised 9/3/96
03-268-1.170