HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP 94-01A; Poinsettia Shores PA B-1; Condo Permit (CP) (18)Hofman Planning
Associates
July 25, 1997
Gary Wayne
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: Poinsettia Shores - Planning Area B-1; July 24, 1997 Meeting Notes
Dear Gary:
I appreciate the time that you made available on such short notice to meet with my clients and me
regarding issues surrounding the processing for Planning Area B-l in the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan. The purpose of this letter is to describe the issues discussed and ensure that we have
the same understanding regarding those issues.
Processing
With regards to the processing of a Condominium Permit for Planning Area B-l, I presented three
alternatives that could occur; 1) Minor Amendment, 2) Major Amendment and 3) New
Application.
Beginning with the new application alternative, I stated that a new application may be a good way
to process given the nature and extent of information necessary for a minor amendment
determination. In order for us to process a new application, we would need assurance that a
Coastal Development Permit would be processed though the City and not the Coastal
Commission and that a Condominium Permit with lots (air space units) less than 3,500 square feet
would be allowed.
Regarding the processing of a Coastal Development Permit, you said that you were not sure that
the City could process a new CDP on this project and that you could not provide an answer at
this time. You went on to say that you would have to confer with Rich Rudolf whether the City
could process a new CDP on a project that is very similar in design to a project that has received a
CDP from the Coastal Commission. You indicated that you would be able to have an answer for
us very soon. Your concerns were that there could be a problem with the Coastal Commission,
but that you did not see this as an issue as far as the City is concerned. Given the circumstances,
processing a new CDP through the City seemed to make sense. However, you still needed
confirmation from Mr. Rudolf. You had also requested copies of the CDP for B-l and the CDP
for the Poinsettia Shores master tentative map. We will provide you with these documents.
With regards to the minimum lot size issue, you had stated that the City made a previous
interpretation of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan that would allow for this type of product type.
Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to minimum lot size of 3,500 square feet.
Regarding the minor vs. major amendment determination, we expressed our concerns regarding
the timing and the information needed for the minor amendment determination. Based on the
initial meeting that we had with you a few months ago, we had the understanding that since this
project was not a typical single family subdivision with individual lots, then some flexibility would
be permitted in the determination. At this time, we understand that the review for a minor
amendment will be based on a unit by unit comparison with the approved Condominium Permit.
Eric Munoz stated that this determination is based on the definition of a PUD lot (CMC Section
21.04.256) which includes air space units.
Finally, the question was asked whether the timing for a major amendment would be any different
than from a new application. The response from Mr. Munoz was that the City would review both
applications in a similar manner and that both would require approval from the City Council. Our
interpretation of this response was that the timing would be the same since the issues would be
the same.
New Conditions
Regarding new conditions, there was substantial discussion. You indicated that from a planning
perspective, there probably would not be any additional conditions necessary. Many of the
changes to ordinances currently being discussed by the City should not affect this project.
However, it appeared that any new conditions would come from the Engineering Department.
Clyde Wickham had some serious concerns regarding how the project will be phased. There was
additional discussion from Jonathan Weldy and Pat OT)ay regarding feasibility. Their contention
to Mr. Wickham's concerns were that if all surface improvements are completed first, then many
of these improvements would be destroyed during the construction of the individual homes. This
issue was tabled by setting a future meeting date for August 6th to discuss phasing. You did state
that no matter how the project was processed, this phasing issue would still be an issue and that
additional conditions could be added with respect to phasing.
Project Support
It was clearly stated that the project must be functional, of good design and meet all ordinances
and requirements. You also indicated that the design should not decrease useable area.
Eric Munoz went on to say that it looked like the City could possibly support the project. He
again reiterated that additional 10' x 30' rear yards would not be acceptable. Mr. Munoz said that
he expressed his support of the project in the letter sent that deemed the application "incomplete".
Mr. Munoz also expressed support for processing a new application and stated that it would be a
much easier process.