HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 93-10; Seapointe Resort; Tentative Map (CT) (15)Hofman Planning
Associates
July 6, 1993
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: Timeshare Proposal for the Seapointe Property.
Dear Michael:
Thank you for meeting with Tim Stripe, Dave Brown, Pat O'Day, John Mattox and me on
Friday, June 25, 1993 to discuss a proposed timeshare project to be located on the Seapointe
property. A number of items were discussed and we came away with a much better
understanding of the potential issues with this project. This letter is written to confirm the
understandings and information received at this meeting. As we discussed at our meeting, for
the benefit of the lenders, we are asking for written confirmation as to the understandings
reached in the form of your signature at the bottom of this letter.
The primary issue is that the Carlsbad zoning ordinance treats a timeshare development as a
residential use requiring an underlying residential land use designation and subject to the unit
cap restrictions of the Growth Management Plan. Our contention is that a timeshare project
is more closely related to n hotel use and, therefore, should be allowed in commercially
designated areas of the city that are travel service oriented. As such, our proposal would be
to amend the zoning ordinance to add a section to the zoning ordinance that would allow a
timeshare project in travel oriented commercial land use designations. On this particular
property we believe that a General Plan designation of TS (Travel Service) and a zoning
designation of CT (Commercial Tourist) would be the most appropriate.
Your initial reaction is that a timeshare project has similarities to a hotel and that you had no
real objection to treating a timeshare as a commercial use. An issue that has to be addressed,
however, is the definition of a residential dwelling unit. Presently, a timeshare unit is
considered a residential dwelling unit for purposes of the city's Growth Management Plan. As
such, the policies, regulations and ordinances that address residential units and the growth
management quadrant caps pertain to timeshare units. It was suggested that we explore ways
of amending the code so that a timeshare unit would be treated differently than a residential
unit for purposes of the Growth Management Plan. One idea was to put a time restriction on
a timeshare unit so that there would be a limit on the number of days a unit could be
occupied by the same party. We are exploring the options and will present them to the city
upon submittal of an application.
Also, we understand that your statements regarding timeshares as a commercial use reflect
your point of view but not necessarily the Coastal Commission. We will be meeting with the
Coastal Commission in the very near future to discuss and clarify this issue.
Another issue that was raised was the proposed wording in the draft Land Use Element.
Specifically, Section 8.c. South Coast Commuter Corridor states that the City may consider a
comprehensive plan for the area. Our fear is that such a plan would take considerable time
and would be of little value on this particular site given the surrounding land uses. Such a
requirement would make this specific project infeasible due to the long delay that would
likely result.
On this issue, you stated that this wording would not affect this property at this time. First of
all, the Land Use Element is probably a year away from adoption and wouldn't have a bearing
on a project that was submitted in the next couple of months. Second, the wording does not
specifically require a comprehensive plan but instead merely states that one may be
considered in the future. Based on your response, we are proceeding with the understanding
that this wording will not affect the processing of our particular application at this time. If
our understanding is incorrect, please let me know immediately.
On our conceptual site plan, you indicated that a project planner would be assigned to review
the details and that in our short meeting you could not identify specific project issues. You
did indicate, however, that we need to pay attention to the northerly slope with the design of
our plan. Also, we discussed the definition of building height and your explanation of the
measurement for a building with a subterranean garage was very helpful and will be reflected
in our submittal. We understand that there will be specific engineering issues related to
access, grading and other site concerns. We will be meeting with the Engineering Department
staff to discuss the project in more detail.
Finally, regarding the processing of the project, you indicated that a Zone Code Amendment
as discussed above would have to be approved before the city could deem an application
complete for our specific project. We understand this and suggested that we could submit our
application and if the Zone Code Amendment is proceeding smoothly, the staff project
planner could review the project and identify issues and concerns prior to its acceptance as a
complete application. You indicated that the city may be able to do this but that you wanted
to discuss this idea with your staff. We understand that the total time involved in the
processing will be longer than first anticipated because of the sequential nature of the process.
These are the major items and understandings reached at our meeting. If there is anything
contained herein that is not your understanding, please call me as soon as possible.
Otherwise, your acknowledgement at the bottom would be appreciated for the reasons stated
above. Thank you again for your time and consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Bill Hofman
I acknowledge the understandings as stated in this letter.
(Kh
Michael J. HolzrmlTer
cc: David Brown
Tim Stripe
Pat O'Day
John Mattox