HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUD 94-03A; Poinsettia Shores PA A-1; Planned Unit Development - Non-Residential (PUD) (2)City of Carlsbad
** •Mi^^^^^^MBI^^P^^^^^^HB^BBH^^BVIPlanning Department
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
June 27, 1997
Poinsettia Homebuilding Partners
4141 Jutland Drive, Suite 200
San Diego CA 92117
SUBJECT: PUD 94-03(A) - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA A-l
At the Planning Commission meeting of June 18, 1997, your application was considered. The
Commission voted 7-0 to APPROVE your request. Some decisions are final at Planning
Commission, and others automatically go forward to City Council. If you have any questions
regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at (760)
438-1161.
Sincerely,
1/UxtMM
MICHAELJTHOL
Planning Director
ILLER
MJH:AH:kr
Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolution No .4121
c: Stan Weiler
Hofman Planning Associates
2386 Faraday Ave, Suite 120
Carlsbad CA 92008
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
May8, 1997
Poinsettia Homebuilding Partners
4141 Jutland Drive
San Diego, CA 92117
SUBJECT: PUD 94-03(A)/PUD 94-04(A)/PUD 94-05(A)/PUD 94-06(A) POINSETTIA
SHORES AREAS A-1, A-2, A-3, AND A-4
Dear Colin
Staff has completed its review of the proposed amendments to the subject Planned
Development projects in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. The following corrections
are needed prior to submittal of final plans.
1. Please submit a small lot guideline compliance summary for each planning area.
The compliance exhibits submitted are for two planning areas (A-1 and A-3) and
A-2 and A-4).
2. Remove the approved lot sizes from the Lot Size table on the plan since this is a
substantial conformance issue.
3. Remove Note no. 2 on the plan indicating that rear walls under 3' are not shown.
All walls should be shown on the plan.
Planning Area A-2
1. Lot 30 - Lower wall to 3' or less.
2. Lot 46 - show side wall height.
3. Lot 32 does not have a 20' setback to garage.
Planning Area A-4
1. Upon reconsideration, the note identifying an "optional turn around for gate"
should be removed since it is in direct conflict with the Coastal Commission's
special condition prohibiting a gate at this location. Should the Coastal
Commission decide to allow the gate as part of their approval of the proposed
amendment, the gate would be allowed based on Council's original map
approval.
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (C19) 438-O894
POINSETTIA SHORES AREAS A-1, A-2, A-3, AND A-4
MAYS, 1997
PAGE 2
Two of the subject applications, PUD 94-03(A) and PUD 94-04(A) have been
tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on June 18, 1997.
However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the
required items are not received by May 27, 1997, your project will be rescheduled for a
later hearing. In the event the scheduled hearing date is the last available date for the
City to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below
have not been submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial.
1. Please submit the following plans:
A) 15 copies of your (site plans, building elevation plans, floor plans) on
24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets folded into SVz x 11"
size.
B) One 81/z" x 11" copy of your reduced site plan, building elevation and
floor plans. These copies must be of a quality which is
photographically reproducible. Only essential data should be
included on plans.
2. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please submit
the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed form:
A) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all
property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property, including
the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San Diego County
Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized assessment rolls.
B) Mailing Labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property
owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property. The list must be
typed in all CAPITAL LETTERS, left justified, void of any punctuation.
For any address other than a single family residence, an apartment or
suite number must be included but the Apartment, Suite and/or Building
Number must NOT appear in the street address line. DO NOT type
assessor's parcel number on labels. DO NOT provide addressed
envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are: Swiss 721,
Enterprise TM, Courier New (TT) no larger than 11 pt. Sample labels are
as follows:
UNACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE
Mrs. Jane Smith Mrs. Jane Smith MRS JANE SMITH
123 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 123 Magnolia Ave. APT 3
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Apt. #3 123 MAGNOLIA AVE
Carlsbad, CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
POINSETTIA SHORES AREAS A-1, A-2, A-3, AND A-4
MAY 8, 1997
PAGES
C) Radius Map - a map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all lots
entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the
subject property. Each of these lots should be consecutively numbered
and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of the map may
be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director if the required
scale is impractical.
D) Fee - a fee (check payable to the City of Carlsbad) shall be paid for
covering the cost of mailing notices. Such fee shall equal the current
postage rate times the total number of labels. Cash and credit cards are
also accepted.
Sincerely,
ANNE HYSO
Associate Planner
AH:kr
Attachment
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST AND LABELS
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ON THIS DATE REPRESENT THE
LATEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION FROM THE EQUALIZED ASSESSOR'S ROLES.
APPLICATION NAME AND NUMBER
APPLICANT OR APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
BY:
DATE:
RECEIVED BY
DATE:
BECEJVEU
APR
Verification Table for 10% ChangecrTY
^^ ^^ .
Planning Area A-1
Lot Number | Plan Type Coverage (sq.ft.) Front Yard (ft.)^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Plan 2
Planl
Plan 2R-AII
Plan3
Plan 3R
Plan 2R
Plan 3R
Plan3
Plan 2R-AM
Plan3
Plan 2R-AII
Plan3
Plan 2
Planl
Plan 3R
PlanIR
Plan 2R-AK
Plan 3R
Plan 2R-AII
PlanS
Plans
Plan 2
Planl
Plan 2-R
PlanS
Planl
Plan 3-R
Plan 2-R
Planl
PlanS
Plan 2
Plan 3-R
Plan 2-R
PlanS
Plan 2
Plan 3-R
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Proposed Total
Proposed Average per Lot
Approved Total
Approved Average per Lot
Percent Change
2090
3071
2090
2139
2139
2090
2139
2139
2090
2139
2090
2139
2090
3071
2139
3071
2090
2139
2090
2139
2139
2090
3071
2090
2139
3071
2139
2090
3071
2139
2090
2139
2090
2139
2090
2139
81,910
2,278
83,144
2,310
-1.48%
10.0
15.0
26.0
20.2
20.0
11.0
20.0
20.0
26.5
20.3
20.0
20.3
17.8
27.6
21.5
20.8
26.0
20.0
26.0
20.0
20.0
10.0
15.0
10.0
20.0
15.0
20.2
11.9
15.5
20.0
10.0
20.0
10.0
20.0
10.0
20.0
656.6
18.24
720
20.00
-8.81%
Between Buildings (ft.) (Building Height (ft.) [Open Space (sq.ft.
17.0
19.3
22.0
17.4
17.0
11.0
11.0
16.0
19.9
10.8
11.0
11.0
10.0
12.0
11.1
13.0
14.0
12.0
15.0
13.0
13.0
10.0
11.8
14.0
12.0
13.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
400.3
13.80
460
14.4
-4.14%
27.0
21.5
27.0
25.0
25.0
27.0
25.0
25.0
27.0
25.0
27.0
25.0
27.0
21.5
25.0
21.5
27.0
25.0
27.0
25.0
25.0
27.0
21.5
27.0
25.0
21.5
25.0
27.0
21.5
25.0
27.0
25.0
27.0
25.0
27.0
25.0
907.0
25.19
886
24.63
2.31%
6056
34465
2856
43,377
n/a
41,510
n/a
4.50%
4/14/97
CONSULT A/* NTS
April 11, 1997
J.N.: 96-1019
Mr. Clyde Wickham
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Engineering Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Re: Poinsettia Shores Areas A-l, A-2, A-3, and A-4
P.U.D. 94-03(A), 94-04(A), 94-05(A), and 94-06(A)
Dear Clyde:
Per your request, the following is a list of the proposed changes from the approved tentative
maps.
Planning Area A-l, C.T. 94-04, P.U.D. 94-03(A)
• New building units.
• Minor shifting of lot lines to accommodate the new units.
• Shift Lots 12 and 13.
• Alley apron to replace the driveway approaches on the emergency access and exit
road.
• Two driveways for Unit 3 replace one larger driveway.
• Additional open space lot (Lot 38).
• Additional retaining walls to lots 6, 8, 10, and 24.
Planning Area A-2, C.T. 94-05, P.U.D. 94-04(A)
• New building units.
• Minor shifting of lot lines to accommodate new building units.
• Alley apron to replace driveway approach on the exit and emergency access road.
• Two driveways for Units 3 and 4 to replace one larger driveway.
• Additional retaining walls to lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 26, 30, 31,
32, 36, 44, and 46.
• Modify intersections of Streets A and B and for Streets B and O.
• Delete retaining walls on Lots 23, 34, and 43. .RECEIVED
APR 1 * 1997
7220 Avenida Encinas Civil Engineering ^
Suite 204 Planning
Carlsbad. California 92009 Processing **^l \-. VJ */5 $Ml 'IJ&F * '
f, 19-93 l-77OH Surveying
/r1;.Y:"/<?--^'-v,,w
Mr. Clyde Wickham
April 11, 1997
Page 2
Planning Area A-3, C.T. 94-06, P.U.D. 94-05(A)
• New building units.
• Minor shifting of lot lines to accommodate new building units.
• Alley apron to replace standard curb returns on the exit and emergency access
road.
• Two driveways for Unit 3 replaces the one larger driveway.
• Additional retaining walls for lot 16.
• Delete retaining wall for Lot 34.
Planning Area A-4, C.T. 94-07, P.U.D. 94-06(A)
• New building units.
• Minor shifting of lot lines to accommodate new building units.
• Two driveways for units 3 and 4 that replaces one larger driveway.
• Modify the intersections of Streets P and 6 and Streets P and 9 and Streets P and L.
• Additional retaining walls for lot 35.
• Delete retaining walls for Lot 29.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the proposed changes for the above
mentioned P.U.D. amendments, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
O'DAY CONSULTANTS, INC.
Tun Carroll
Project Manager
TC/th
\\ODAYl\SYS\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\96-1019\wickham.ltr
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
April 2, 1997
Anne Hysong
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: Second Resubmittal of PUD 94-03 (A), PUD 94-04 (A), PUD 94-05 (A)
and PUD 94-06 (A)
Dear Anne:
The letter accompanies the second resubmittal of the above identified projects. As we
explained during our meeting held on March 31, 1997, these projects comply with the
10% change criteria to allow for the processing of these projects as minor Planned Unit
Development Permit Amendments and address all our your concerns identified in your
letters dated February 14 and March 6, 1997.
The Deemed Complete Letter Analysis table has been updated and provides you
with the explanations regarding how your concerns were addressed. Also to assist in
your review of the site plans, we have provided a yellow highlighted site plan that
identifies where the changes have occurred. All the information that was provided on
the previous site plans has either remained as previously provided or modified to meet
your concerns. Additional information has also been provided as requested.
The Landscape Concept Plan does not accompany this submittal package. The
landscape architect is diligently working on the landscape plan and it will be provided
to you by April 18th.
As you know, we are very anxious to process these projects to Planning Commission.
If there is anything that we can be of assistance or if you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
^/JV
RECEIVEDStan Weiler
cc. John Sherritt, ColRich ^ 0 2 J997
S!ir#.<*Bt8BAD
2386 Faraday Avenue ° Suite 120 ° Carlsbad • CA 92008 ° (619)438-1465 ° Fax: (619)438-2443
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
March 6, 1997
Mr. Colin Seid
Colrich Communities, Inc.
Poinsettia Homebuilding Partners
4141 Jutland Drive
San Diego, CA 92117
SUBJECT: PUD 94-03(A) / PUD 94-04(A) / PUD 94-05(A) / PUD 94-06(A) -
POINSETTIA SHORES AREAS A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4
Dear Colin:
Pursuant to our February 14, 1997, letter indicating the completeness of the
subject applications and identifying Planning Department issues of concern, the
Engineering Department has completed their initial review and identified the
following issues of concern:
PUD 94-03(A) AREA A-1
1. The project is currently in plan check with numerous changes that I don't
believe are shown on this Site Plan. Please incorporate all proposed changes
that are planned for this project.
2. The Gated entrance and the Gated exit only should be discussed. I believe
the issue was addressed in conditions of approval and it appears that this
plan and the proposed improvement plans propose something different.
3. The secondary access or exit only mentioned above is shown as a curb
return that is skewed to match a reduction in right-or-way. The improvement
plans submitted show an angled driveway approach. Resolve which plan is
proposed and submit for comments. At this point both appear to be less
than desirable.
4. How do you propose the gated access to open? Will the gates swing in or
will they slide sideways? A detail of each system should be shown.
5. It appears that there are conflicts with sight corridor easements. Please plot
all corridors and pull back slopes and encroachments as required.
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894
0/PUD9PUD 94-03(A)/PUD 94O4(A)/PUD 94O5(A)/PUD 94O6(A) - POINSETT1A SHORES AREAS A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4
MARCH 6, 1997
PAGE 2
PUD 94-04(A) AREA A-2
1. The project is currently in plan check with numerous changes that I don't
believe are shown on this Site Plan. Please incorporate all proposed changes
that are planned for this project.
2. How do you propose the gated access to open? Will the gates swing in or
will they slide sideways? A detail of each system should be shown.
3. It appears that there are conflicts with sight corridor easements. Please plot
all corridors and pull back slopes and encroachments as required.
4. Will additional drainage systems be proposed for the tight side yards? It
appears that a landscape or yard drainage system would improve the
condition proposed.
5. It appears that there are conflicts with sight corridor easements. Please plot
all corridors and pull back slopes and encroachments as required.
PUD 94-05(A) AREA A-3
1. The project is currently in plan check with numerous changes that I don't
believe are shown on this Site Plan. Please incorporate all proposed changes
that are planned for this project.
2. Are there requested changes in the conditions of approval? The proposed
driveway on lot 24 encroaches into the required sight easement for vehicle
visibility.
3. It appears that there are conflicts with sight corridor easements. Please plot
all corridors and pull back slopes and encroachments as required.
4. Please include all street improvements. The method of not showing
"existing" Avenida Encinas is not acceptable. Are there cover sheets to the
existing tentative map missing from this proposal?
5. Offset of street "3" should be reconsidered. Try to align with street "K" or
offset a little more.
6. Will additional drainage systems be proposed for the tight side yards? It
appears that a landscape or yard drainage system would improve the
condition proposed.
PUD 94-06(A) AREA A-4
1. The project is currently in plan check with numerous changes that I don't
believe are shown on this Site Plan. Please incorporate all proposed changes
that are planned for this project.
J/Pm£PUD 94-03(A)/PUD 94O4(A)/PUD 94-05(A)/PUD 94-06(A) - POINSE1T1A SHORES AREAS A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4
MARCH 6, 1997
PAGE 3
2. The "emergency access" gated entrance on street "6" is not exactly as
shown on the approved tentative map. It appears that the pedestrian access
gates have been omitted from this plan. I believe the issue was addressed in
conditions of approval and it appears that this plan and the proposed
improvement plans propose something different.
3. The 100' and the 80' setback shown on the approved tentative map appear
to conflict with the submitted 40' dimension on the site plan.
4. The multiple driveways should not encroach over the sewer and water
laterals and they should also comply with property line and utility setbacks.
5. Access to the pump station should be shown. The specific utility should be
identified on the plan, i.e. "Sewer Pump Station".
To facilitate this review, an attached redline check print of each site plan by O'Day
Consultants is attached. Please return these check prints with the next project
submittal.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact me at
(619) 438-1161, extension 4477, or the project engineer, Clyde Wickham, at
extension 4353.
Sincerely,
ANNE HYS(
Associate Planner
AH:bk
c: Don Neu
Clyde Wickham
Hofman Planning Associates
Average Setback From Avenida Encinas Analysis
Planning Area A-1
Lot Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total Distance
Setback (ft)
26.7
' 25.0
23.8
26.8
27.0
22.2
20.0
20.0
21.9
31.5
24.4
Planning Area A-2
Lot Number
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
269.3|
Setback (ft)
20.0
31.9
40.9
43.2
36.9
27.6
27.0
Planning Area A-3
Lot Number
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
35
38
39
227.5)
Setback (ft)
21.3
20.3
32.4
23.7
20.7
28.2
20.3
20.0
20.0
24.1
32.2
Planning Area B-1 ||
Lot Number
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
263.2)
Average Setback Along Avenida Encinas
Setback (ft)
20.0
20.0
22.0
23.0
27.0
34.0
22.0
168.0
26.2272727
Special Setback Condition From Poinsettia Shores Master Plan:
"All homes shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from Avenida Encinas,
maintaining an average setback of 25 feet for all homes within the Master
Plan along Avenida Encinas"
RECEIVED
APR 0 2 1997
4/2/97 2:34 PM
San Pacifico
Verification of 40% Landscaping
RECEIVED
APR 0 2 1997
CITY OF CARLSBADPlanning Areas A-1 and A-3
Plan 1
The Plan 1 product type contains only one 16 foot wide driveway and exceeds the 40%
landscape requirement for all lots within Planning Areas A-1 and A-3. However, there are
two lots (one in Planning Area A-1 and one in Planning Area A-3) containing a Plan 1
product that appear to be questionable regarding meeting the 40% requirement. Upon
further analysis it was determined that these two lots are in compliance. The results of this
analysis are found under the Questionable Lots section on page 4.
16' Max.
10'20' Ivln. Setback
Total Setback Area = 785 sq.ft. = 100%
Min. Landscape Area = 465 sq.ft. = 59.2%
gg Max Driveway Area = 320 sq.ft. = 40.8%
Plan 2
With regards to lots containing detached side-loaded garages, access is gained via a single
16 foot wide driveway. The required minimum front yard setback is 10 feet for the side-
loaded garage and 20 feet for the garage facing the street. Due to the required distance
between the detached side-loaded garage and the main structure, the street facing garage
is always setback greater than the 20 foot minimum. The total setback area includes the
area necessary to meet the 10 foot setback and the area necessary to meet the 20 foot
setback.
The narrowest lot width within the setback area for any lot containing a Plan 2 product is 46
feet, with the exception of cul-de-sac lots which typically widen quickly within the setback
area. As shown below, a Plan 2 will exceed the 40% landscape requirement for a lot that is
46 feet wide within the front yard setback. Since all Plan 2 product types are located on lots
of 46 feet or greater (except lot 18 in Planning Area A-3, See Questionable Lots),
compliance with the 40% landscape requirement is verified for all Plan 2 product types
within Planning Areas A-1 and A-3.
10' Ma SetbackH^j
Max.
Mrx Setback
Total Setback Area = 705 sq.ft. = 100%
Mn. Landscape Area = 350 sq.ft. = 48.6%
Max Diva/vsy .Area = 355 sq.ft. = 50.4%
Note: There is a Plan 2 Alternative that will be utilized on five lots within Planning Area A-1
and six lots in Planning Area A-3. The footprint within the front yard setback is nearly the
same as the footprint in Plan 3.
Plan3
All lots containing a Plan 3 with dual driveways and garages facing the street must provide a
20 foot front yard setback. In order to maintain the ability to provide a minimum 40% of
landscape area within the front yard setback, the width of these lots should be 46 feet or
greater within the front yard setback. All lots meet this criteria except Lots 17 and 19 within
Planning Area 3. These lots are addressed in the Questionable Lots section on page 4.
Other questionable lots are identified under the Questionable Lots section for Planning
Areas A-1 and A-3. Based on the further analysis of these lots, it is determined that all lots
containing a Plan 3 product exceed the 40% landscape requirement for Planning Areas A-1
and A-3.
10' Max.16' Max.
20' Min. Setback
Total Setback Area = 960 sq.ft. = 100%
Mn. Landscape Area = 440 sq.ft. = 45.8%
Max. Driveway Area = 520 sq.ft. = 56.5%
Questionable Lots
The Questionable Lots are those lots that do not meet the minimum lot widths described or
are have product type that are not oriented in the typical manner. These lots are identified
below by Planning Area, lot number and plan type. The Questionable Lots have been
measured using a planimeter to determine the Total Setback Area, the Landscape Area and
the Driveway Area. The percentage of these areas is also provided. As demonstrated
below, all the Questionable Lots exceed the 40% landscaping requirement.
Planning Area A-1 -
Lot 15-Plan 3
Lot 16-Plan 1
Total Setback Area = 942 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 545 sq.ft. = 58%
Landscape Area = 397 sq.ft. = 42%
Total Setback Area = 1,042 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 546 sq.ft. = 52%
Landscape Area = 496 sq.ft. = 48%
Planning Area A-3 -
Lot 15-Plan 1
Lot 17-Plan 3
Lot 18-Plan 2
Lot 19-Plan 3
Lot 31 - Plan 3
Total Setback Area = 694 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 347 sq.ft. = 50%
Landscape Area = 347 sq.ft. = 50%
Total Setback Area = 948 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 466 sq.ft. = 49.2%
Landscape Area = 482 sq.ft. = 50.8%
Total Setback Area = 843 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 372 sq.ft. = 44.1%
Landscape Area = 471 sq.ft. = 55.9%
Total Setback Area = 992 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 445 sq.ft. = 44.9%
Landscape Area = 547 sq.ft. = 55.1%
Total Setback Area = 1,042 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 496 sq.ft. = 48%
Landscape Area = 546 sq.ft. = 52%
Planning Areas A-2 and A-4
Planl
Lots containing a Plan 1 product, which includes a single side-loaded garage, gain access
via a single 16 foot wide driveway. The front yard setback is 10 feet for the side-loaded
garage and 20 feet for the garage facing the street. The total setback area includes both
the area necessary to meet the 10 foot setback and the area necessary for the 20 foot
setback.
Using the same methodology provided in the diagram for the Plan 2 for Planning Areas A-1
and A-3 and with an assumed minimum 50 foot wide lot within the front yard setback area,
the minimum Total Setback Area would be 780 square feet with a maximum Driveway Area
of 405 square feet and a minimum Landscape Area of 375 square feet. The Landscape
Area percentage based on this scenario is 48%. Since there are no Plan 1 products on lots
less than 50 feet in width within the front yard setback area (except Lot 1 in Planning Area
A-2 - See Questionable Lots), all lots containing a Plan 1 product type exceed the 40%
landscape requirement within Planning Areas A-2 and A-4.
Plan 2
The Plan 2 product type contains only one 16 foot wide driveway and exceeds the 40%
landscape requirement for all lots within Planning Areas A-2 and A-4. There are no
questionable lots containing a Plan 2 product type.
Plan 3 and Plan 4
All lots containing dual driveways with garages facing the street must provide a 20 foot front
yard setback. In order to maintain the ability to provide a minimum 40% of landscape area
within the front yard setback, the minimum width of these lots must be 44 feet within the
setback area. Since there are no Plan 3 or Plan 4 products on lots less than 44 feet in width
within the front yard setback area (except Lot 40 in Planning Area A-2, See Questionable
Lots on page 6), all lots containing a Plan 3 or Plan 4 product type exceed the 40%
landscape requirement within Planning Areas A-2 and A-4.
There are five questionable lots containing a Plan 3 or Plan 4 product within Planning Area
A-2. These lots are addressed in the Questionable Lots section on page 6. All
questionable lots exceed the 40% landscaping requirement.
Questionable Lots
The Questionable Lots are those lots that do not meet the minimum lot widths described or
are have product type that are not oriented in the typical manner. These lots are identified
below by Planning Area, lot number and plan type. The Questionable Lots have been
measured using a planimeter to determine the Total Setback Area, the Landscape Area and
the Driveway Area. The percentage of these areas is also provided. As demonstrated
below, all the Questionable Lots exceed the 40% landscaping requirement.
Planning Area A-2
Lot 20 - Plan 1
Lot 21 - Plan 3
Lot 26 - Plan 4R
Lot 40 - Plan 3R
Lot 49 - Plan 4
Total Setback Area = 992 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 545.6 sq.ft. = 55%
Landscape Area = 446.4 sq.ft. = 45%
Lot 21 contains a Plan 3 that has a modified driveway.
Total Setback Area = 818 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 347 sq.ft. = 43%
Landscape Area = 471 sq.ft. = 57%
Lot 26 contains a Plan 4 that has a modified driveway.
Total Setback Area = 918 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 520 sq.ft. = 57%
Landscape Area = 398 sq.ft. = 43%
Lot 40 contains a Plan 3 that has a modified driveway.
Total Setback Area = 892.8 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 496 sq.ft. = 55.6%
Landscape Area = 396.8 sq.ft. = 44.4%
Lot 49 contains a Plan 4 that has a modified driveway.
Total Setback Area = 1016.8 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 595.2 sq.ft. = 58.5%
Landscape Area = 421.6 sq.ft. = 41.5%
Planning Area A-4
Lot 31 - Plan 1 Total Setback Area = 818 sq.ft. = 100%
Driveway Area = 347 sq.ft. = 43%
Landscape Area = 471 sq.ft. = 57%
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 14, 1997
Poinsettia Homebuilding Partners
4141 Jutland Drive
San Diego, CA 92117
SUBJECT: PUD 94-03(A) / PUD 94-04(A) / PUD 94-05(A) / PUD 94-06(A) -
POINSETTIA SHORES AREAS A-1, A-2, A-3, AND A-4
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed the subject planned unit development amendment
application nos. PUD 94-03(A), PUD 94-04(A), PUD 94-05(A) and PUD 94-06(A).
The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your
application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged
by the date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the
application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the
basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware
that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this
application can be scheduled for a hearing. The Planning Department will begin
processing your application as of the date of this communication.
Please contact your staff planner, Anne Hysong, at (619) 438-1161, extension
4477, if you have, any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the
application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:AH:bk
c: Gary Wayne
Don Neu
Clyde Wickham
Bobbie Hoder
Hofman Planning Associates, Inc.
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
ISSUES OF CONCERN
PUD 94-03(A)/PUD 94-04(A)/PUD 94-05(A)/PUD 94-06(A) - POINSETTIA SHORES AREAS
A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4
Planning:
General comments:
1. The proposed amendments have been reviewed as major PUD amendments (new
projects) which are subject to all current ordinances and policies. In order to avoid
compliance with Planning Department Administrative Policy 16 (separation between
two-story structures), the projects must qualify as minor PUD amendments. As
minor amendments, the only acceptable area of non-compliance with the City's
ordinances, policies, and Master Plan development requirements would be Policy No.
16 since the projects were previously approved by the decision makers without
compliance with this policy.
2. Please remove "Substantial Conformance Exhibit" from all plans submitted.
3. Please verify that an average 25' setback from Avenida Encinas is provided in
accordance with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
PUD 93-04(A)-(Area A-1)
1. Please change lot numbers on the site plan to correspond with the approved
tentative map. Since the approved PUD units are shown on the tentative map,
please use the TM with proposed changes for this PUD amendment so that all
relevant information is shown such as spot elevations, noise walls, retaining walls
along the western boundary, and the trail along the northern boundary.
2. Lots 9, 10, 11: Please provide units on these lots which avoid the necessity of 5-6'
retaining walls which are minimally separated from a 6' high noise wall. Walls
should be limited to no higher than 3' (planter wall) due to the 6' noise wall located
along the rear property lines.
3. Please verify that every single family lot proposed is 5,000 square feet or greater in
area as required by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
4. In accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance, please dimension front
yard/street side yard setbacks from the back of curb. Also, since an average
setback of 15' must be maintained, please specify the average front yard setback
on the plan.
5. Please verify that 40% of front yards will be landscaped as required by the PD
Ordinance.
6. Although all of the Plan 3 building footprints show driveways, the Plan 3 elevations
do not include the proposed optional front loaded third car garage door If the third
car garage is one of two options, why are all of the Plan 3 building footprints shown
with a driveway. Please provide the third garage door elevation and eliminate some
of the driveways shown for Plan 3 on the site plan.
7. According to the "Small Lot Single Family Guidelines", rear elevations must have 4
separate building planes. Plans 1 and 3 are proposed with 3 separate building
planes which does not satisfy this requirement.
8. Please submit a revised Landscape Concept Plan for the project. Include building
elevations of all proposed courtyard walls and specify color and materials.
9. Where walls are shown attaching main and accessory structures, please identify on
the plan as a 6' courtyard wall.
10. The proposed detached single story side loaded garage/bedroom option is a
relatively new product type in Planned Development projects which is not typically
seen by the decision makers. The project appears to satisfy the 15' average front
yard setback with 40% landscaping required by the Planned Development
Ordinance. Staff is supportive of this proposal due to the variation in front yard
setbacks which the side loaded garages/bedrooms afford and the reduction in three
car garage doors facing the street. However, the project poses some risk in
acceptance since the proposed amendment would result in a reduction of visible
open space which the previously approved uniform 20' front yard setbacks
provided.
PUD 94-04(A) - (Area A-2)
1. In accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance (Section 21.45.090(b)(5)),
structures plotted on lots 1 through 20 and 21 through 32 which constitute more
than 10 structures in a row require 20' between two-story structures (Planning
Department Administrative Policy No. 16). Please correct plans in accordance with
this policy.
2. Please change lot numbers on the site plan to correspond with the approved
tentative map. Since the approved PUD units are shown on the tentative map,
please use the TM for this PUD amendment so that all relevant information is shown
and labeled such as spot elevations, perimeter walls, and trails.
3. According to the pad elevations shown on the approved tentative map for Lots
identified as 1 through 10 on the plans submitted, a 5' retaining wall should not be
necessary in rear yards to accommodate these units. Walls shown on the approved
map do not exceed 2'-3'. Please remove any unnecessary retaining walls and
submit the project on the tentative map with spot elevations on each lot.
4. Please submit a revised Landscape Concept Plan for the project. Include all
proposed walls and where retaining walls separate lots along the side yards, identify
locations where the combination of fences and walls will not exceed 6' in height in
accordance with the fence height ordinance.
5. Please verify that every single family lot proposed is 5,000 square feet or greater in
area as required by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
6. Please verify that 40% of front yards will be landscaped as required by the PD
Ordinance.
7. Structural projections into setbacks must be included in the building footprint for the
purpose of measuring setbacks. For example, the proposed Plan 2 covered entry
and porch is part of the structure; therefore, the setback must be measured from
this structure to the back of sidewalk. Setbacks must average 15' throughout the
project.
8. As previously stated, 8' wide fireplaces are permitted to encroach 2' into setbacks,
however, home entertainment units adjacent to fireplaces are not. Please correct plans
accordingly.
PUD 94-05(Al - (Area A-3)
1. Since the approved PUD units are shown on the tentative map, please use the TM
with proposed changes for this PUD amendment so that all relevant information is
shown and labeled such as noise walls, retaining walls along the western boundary,
and the trail along the northern boundary.
2. In accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance (Section 21.45.090(b)(5)),
structures plotted on lots 40 through 50 which constitute more than 10 structures
in a row require 20' between two-story structures (Planning Department
Administrative Policy No. 16) and 15' between one and two story structures.
Please correct plans in accordance with this standard.
3. In accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance, please dimension front
yard/street side yard setbacks from the back of curb. Also, since an average
setback of 15' must be maintained, please specify the average front yard setback
on the plan. If sidewalks are proposed along private driveways 1, 2, 3, and 4, the
sidewalk must be shown and setbacks measured from behind the sidewalk.
4. Although all of the Plan 3 building footprints show driveways, the Plan 3 elevations
do not include the proposed optional front loaded third car garage door. If the third
car garage is one of two options, why are all of the Plan 3 building footprints shown
with a driveway. Please provide the third car garage elevation and eliminate some of
the driveways shown for Plan 3 on the site plan.
5. Where walls are shown attaching main and accessory structures, please identify on
the plan as a stucco coated 6' courtyard wall.
6. Please submit a revised Landscape Concept Plan for the project. Include building
elevations of all proposed courtyard walls and specify color and materials.
7. The driveway on Lot 15 is unacceptable since it crosses the property line.
8. What necessitates a 3' retaining wall on Lot 31. The previous map indicates only a
1' difference in the pad elevation at the location now proposed for the garage. Staff
also recommends that Plan 3 be proposed without the third car garage at this
location; please remove the driveway.
9. According to the "Small Lot Single Family Guidelines", rear elevations must have 4
separate building planes. Plans 1 and 3 are proposed with 3 separate building
planes which does not satisfy this requirement.
10. According to the approved tentative map, the pad elevations of Lots 42 and 44
should not require 3'-4' high retaining walls to accommodate the rear yards. Please
explain.
11. Please verify that every single family lot proposed is 5,000 square feet or greater in
area as required by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
12. The proposed detached single story side loaded garage/bedroom option is a
relatively new product type in Planned Development projects which is not typically
seen by the decision makers. The project appears to satisfy the 15' average front
yard setback with 40% landscaping required by the Planned Development
Ordinance. Staff is supportive of this proposal due to the variation in front yard
setbacks which the side loaded garages/bedrooms afford as well as the reduction in
three car garage doors facing the street. However, the project poses some risk in
acceptance since the proposed amendment would result in a reduction of visible
open space which the previously approved uniform 20' front yard setbacks
provided.
PUD 94-05(A) - (Area A-4)
1. Since the approved PUD units are shown on the tentative map, please use the TM
for this PUD amendment so that all relevant information is shown and labeled such
as spot elevations, perimeter walls and trails. The plan needs to identify the 80'
and 100' rear setbacks from the bluff-top.
2. In accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance (Section 21.45.090(b)(5)),
structures plotted on lots 1 through 11 and 50 through 61, which constitute more
than 10 structures in a row, require 20' between two-story structures (Planning
Department Administrative Policy No. 16). Please correct plans in accordance with
this policy.
3. In accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance, please dimension front
yard/street side yard setbacks from the back of curb. Also, since an average setback
of 15' must be maintained, please specify the average front yard setback on the
plan. If sidewalks are proposed along private driveways 7 and 8, the sidewalk must
be shown and setbacks measured from behind the sidewalk.
4. Please submit a revised Landscape Concept Plan for the project. Include all proposed
fence/walls and where retaining walls separate lots along the side yards, identify
locations where the combination of fences and walls shall not exceed 6' in height in
accordance with the fence height ordinance.
5. Please verify that every single family lot proposed is 5,000 square feet or greater in
area as required by the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
6. Please verify that 40% of front yards will be landscaped as required by the Planned
Development Ordinance.
7. Structural projections into setbacks must be included in the building footprint for the
purpose of measuring setbacks. For example, the proposed Plan 2 covered entry
and porch is part of the structure; therefore, the setback must be measured from
this structure to the back of sidewalk. Setbacks must average 15' throughout the
project.
8. As previously stated, 8' wide fireplaces are permitted to encroach 2' into setbacks,
however, home entertainment units adjacent to fireplaces are not. Please correct
plans accordingly.
Engineering:
Engineering issues will be forwarded under separate cover.
03
03^5
OJ
0.
O
13
§
5'
en
2£sr3
srftdo"
2 335T o
% 3s' §OQ 3
_
to
OJ1
ON
cr 33 H
Q S*"a ^ B'
o < 3,n 2. crC/5 ^T* *•«c/3 a8.3:1
in -• 5'3 32 a* ^
i£J. 3 5>
° £ -o25'3
ided to Anne Hysonis no longer neededD Amendments.en OQ
3* P9
ft O3
r-t> OQj2F* OQft "i
03 "
CD fhJ3pi. *T3
3 3ft 0S §en <->•
** 03^ 00&• ft— en
OJ0
D
133
ft
5'
o"
8w
OQft
2 33O3 O3 Hi3 3
_" 03
00 3
^to
VJDON
1"! ?
§ i si2 £ S?en aft S±. 3ex. sT. £2.
S -. 5-"33
0??*iSi. 3 soO 3 en
-» ST3
25'3G 3 <ided to Anne Hysonis no longer neededD Amendments.en 003' s0 w
ft 03
<-* 003" OQ
1 ft
11ft «3Q.T3
3 ft1-1
ft O
3- a
O3s.°°— en
OJ
CT"
^ °3. g?
fti
5'
en
033
o
oT
00ft
o
2 33
03 O
i 3*5' SOQ 3
^J
to
OJ1
ON
Ifr-
- i Si2 £ jf
l.3:|
S -• o3 3
S o5 ^
iE». 2 soO 3 en
° S-o25'3
CH 3 <ided to Anne Hysonis no longer neededD Amendments.en OQ5' to
0 «"ft BOr^ 003* OQ
ft
11ft n3o-ts
3 Qft O
3 g
tf5,00
~" f5
OJ
03
= 0
=' %OQ «
03 ft=1 3ft O03 ft
5'
en
C03
3
o
oT
OQfto
2 S
03 O
1. 1
00 3
_J
1
\jQ
ON
f|g« i §i
en J~i «60 3.p. sr pa
S ~ o'5^ 3 3
i£i. 3 ^
° S-o
25'3CZ D <ided to Anne Hysonis no longer neededD Amendments.en 00
O ""ft SB<->• Oo
3-00ft "^ft
1 °w
n> ??"3
CX *^3
3 3ft O
3 2«•» 3tn X
^ 03^ 00=-• ft— en
to
3 2
O3 03"> 3^- en
» 3a. c
03 S3.
3 tn
O
X
—*^!
^^03
Oa03
1
^D
"^
|
a-ft
T33
5Jfta.
p|*
M3en
cr
?*"
i
, .
fP ^
1 P3
^ r+03 O
Lr 3
2.ft
1.o
en
O5
\^
O
D
•-*
toOh'_
ON
03 O. HO. ft a»
{o 2 *""
1 1. s'ft 3 C• ft ft
<
9* 03
03 M
£V.
«" o" cST en
3"S- SO
^K. ^*
^J ^^&S*
ft —
w toS Ohen >
£ 3
ll.3 3
0 °°
§ |.•^ u
^^
s "_— CJyL £^*
03 ^3 •
^ S1^ f*
O3en
cS"
^«
| §
*^ C/5
CT;
Oo
3 03 W
ft CP
f?CL
1
„__
j^.
2
^*
n*.
5•J
i
^
5?
5j
§
C/3
CD
65
C/3•c
os
«
cr
•n
J"*
S
0>\r
1
(73
H
H
O
oO
H
Wa
CO
to
053
OJ
-
0
o
03
en
O3
03
o"f-*-
2 s
03 O
— -1OQ 3
to
VJD
3 £ »
i.i.1«•» CX t«
°' cr -iO CD fis
® "O O2-. 3 <"
c 8 S.
ft en ^^ en Si< n
M. CX P3
^ 8 3Mrf CD
0 ^ ft
r> "o'00
TO S ^
i >%SL 3 O
5- o.^.
g jj
? |f
_ ! ^_j
5^ ^H
™ Hre O
o J>
a 3
** 3^j CX
i 3
— • 3_
IM ^^3
O
^•4
;JD AMENDM1
l
£
Z
3d
<J
C/3
-?
^O
7!
to
Exhibit showifootprints witv> 00
&2 T3
g-o
c
•*
O
D
v^
S
iS
^H ^1 NN«— - O ^"^03 ^3 <3 c <
g- S ""
*^ 3 rt
O OQ S/
3 ^ §
3 P 5'
So' tn 2j£. g. ^.
' 3 S- »
MM 3 ***•
^ 03 «
I 8 S
o IS:"^ 1 srf 3 «3 03
2,8 3
3£§t* r*
^ 3 S
5' g- £J. en
Ct. 03
1 8-3
I -3 SJ
' ?'^r: 0
— O>c :;IV
S- 3n or*
—
1 5-g
g > »
CX W 00
3 Rs S
ft M*.
2 > 3
-P>. O
8 is g.1' ^
S 8o> rt
i 8-J. -•
O g
Oo03
z
^
2
0
•o"H.o'
cr
^*-O
203
3.3*
00^cs03
~
CO
JBSTANTIALno
o
j>
nPI
1
^M S
Bi (*^j~ ^5
5" S3
a;a>
no
3 °T3 05
fP fB
cL
C/3
N^BANNING:NH
S
Oo
"S.»"g-
•^
?6
3V)
a
65
C/3
a.
0
O
0
§cr»
^
vo
VO
r»
^^n**
CA"D
a"-i&3^-o'3
e>
D
3'n3en
£?'
3
0
VI3-O
<
»_*
0
cr
51
OQ
Oa03
VO
Will be provided wisr
ccrJ3
Ei^ji
u>
'O
y
T5
lo_n'{•)i~^
3C3crn
O
"H.
033
S-ft
od03
1
1
-J
cra
T33
ex'
CX
Sr
ecr3
^i_
i
UJ
n
v'application complet ^O)
•3n
O
<->•
cf
3
A
r*
1'
£
r+
o?r*^i
3
03
5'3
1-1
1=
1
CX
i
0>
3OI-*
fi^
o>
SS.en5'
0«•*•
aa
§
"2.
a5
CX
^s.
CM
?en
1
1
S.
CX
S5
O
"S.
3en
03«-^
tn_
CX
»^iS*^CX
en
ftcr
O5^*en
1Lft
structure encroacheCX
1
^.(Pen
CX
^sp^
1
P-
3.
ft-.o?
3-03
Oo
T3
ftnCX
-U
=
0
w
J.yC
Cfl_
™
o
3O*™^
ft
o
0
03
sr
rjT
o
D03
S'
1'
V!DON
IS
if
1s
£
03
CX
>^.
'
n
a,sroo
g
3*
3
r*'-
ct>
9)STj3_
038
r>
58 2^ o> o
CO=1
to
*.Use requirem<T>
<-*•en
O
*••»
09
3O
^*d
§
0
O»^c
^_»
N>
\D
VJDON
^ < H• £ i*-^' >.
7T |
g!
« g
S cr< n>
I3O. Q.
en en'S-' On c•o gr a
si-5. 3-
? §» 0.
13^ r^-
3 3-< ni? ?
Q. 3
< 09
ML • ^^3^^_. SS ««C/5 fiaV JJJC *-n?^* *^11s <09 n>~~ O-0 cr3 v<
- W
' 0"^ r*f*
U) ^
U)Show current?^*ft*\v
s'
o5
3
S-
5'3
0o
05lj*<^c
^^to
*o
MD
ON
vo ^ H
• t Lv^T J2.^ enrT 5/5
C
£=-5 B
S cr< n>K' «C/3 H
CX Q.
en en±1* On c
T3 K
S8.;i-S: 3-z; ojcr 3
» Q.•o «-••^ *"^_? j^O n
< U,5: S5
8.1
^ B
S|B»
<* fvien *
C ^3°"2§•1II§^
- CO
i.8-u>1
to
•o -o oo111
Is
0 Q.§•§•s §n ££.O5 3T" o••* 3o S
09 O)-0 3
T3 Q.
0
Oa.
O
D09V^1
^^
^_is>
M3
vloOs
^q < H• f i"-^' 2.9r- enp M
si5 sn cr< n5T §
8.5.
en Eo'
Si' Oft C
•a K
§ 2.
^ ^.<! «-»•=: 3-
^§» Q.
T3t-i p^-
3 £T< »
If
^ S^. ^*3-^
- 09n *>en U
C »n
11r^ -*«-> <.o> n— ex
q cr3 v;
— CO
-S-U) "i
.- P3
3- G« S
•a «»^J O3
1 3O rt
i|
"2. g
§ &
" 3a.
enO£Lo>
O9en
O3
Oos^^
M-t
10
VJD
MDOS
vo <! H
SI|'
^ -.v> enr* en
C
3^3-5 ga cr< n>S' <*en IM
8.5.
S-8'n c
•o Srs.en <^ S-s; 3-
?g» a.
"0 ~^1 f5T*3 RS. «»5: o5
8.1^ »
&I>••
^ W5a Men p»c 2cr'a1-if+ ^
ES-o cr
3 "<
- CO7^ o— cr
U)
'
oT NGINEERI^O• •
*B>49oo3
"H.<"T
£
?d ??"
C 9L_I t/3 32s "S ^
K O M
3- S a?^< c/l ••— . wacr
CD*
0O3 O
H. 55-O* C6<-*•C6a.
^^?
^^nT
C/2
na
09
2!o
»Sa-n•i^^^
h- *vovoo\
r«
^-£"i
O OJ
UJ
1/3
Olnacr
S»
I
o 3 :
2 =-• B
OQ 3
« o
£ <.
^ 2-d
S
OQP3.
OQ
O
3^'
to
o\
D. S8 Hr^ H3 CO ^v<: J* S. o>
3 s.3 8
5»' 3n
S.
o * s •.« s: g
1*8
£ 1 «/fc C >-l were detega.A memo was pi< »J »
2. s*
S g
•o n
.Eh <
£ 0 OQ
n =?' r> ^*•*• 3 v3 •*3 10 ST «-!•
ta
n u>O.-
g s-s.«. cr oS>p3 S -
^ 2 S
C; 3 en
.S 5' PC OQ co
3n
pore
-> a
» St-»- C
i1!<-»• "iS". o
n P
« &OQ 3
8o>«•
I
n
no
aoO-
o(—hCD
2!
O
VI
n
no3
09p
oS
3crn
to
P > 733 ' nB -^ P
rrangement oflwould requirendmentP O
3 S
f §"
" >1
^j
5^
H-^2,
>
?^^
P•o
"S.
8'cr
a
pi^o
^T"<
^&9
OQIiyP
^
r-
^*" S^3- >« ,!_,P »
1?
(S w
o. 3
IICO <->•
3? S-r^. taJ
8|r» 3
g"^r*ST" 3*2- »s? **
Oo&3•5
—o\
vb•~J
2 3 »e •§ ^§ S s§• S «»t» - • ».TO 3 «
C?^§
1^13 P 3'Is Su
s* o* «•»2 w cr3 «•» PL* p S-» 3 rt-2 n-. cr
5 P »l-o 8P S S—• 3 X_s,?!S- a **'M^ !T7 03S P™ 3 Phd o gc5 n °H 0. 30 ft a
ct S »3 3 0>
Si80- P Sg cr. S
» S 53, a -•to T3 >-»>• a. <!? s
c-» Po 3
sr 3« Or*
p— 1
<-»•
CD
J«CD<-rt 00
?o
5 3^ Cfl5j
CD
Oo3 t-j
T3 M^ PJ
cT CD"
aa.
2;o_
CD00
IS
2!
O
NEERING:^•<
«e
S
"H.?r<^-?&(a«fr
oe
CD65
U>ftQ.
OS
O«o«Scrft
KJ
*>*^p
h— i
VO^Oc>\
C^fta-
ff•n
vo
3
P^3
VO
~
Oortv>
CO
cT
03Q.ex.
o'
03
TO
3OQrt
OQ
03
K)
S
Q 3 *— •2 crc vi
? ££ °"
03 O 3co O coIff2 E «B 3 cr3 cr. «
" § §
<8 8, 3
^ p^ ^<ex. or a5' » ^TO ex. o-
& < mCft Ct> l-^-J
S:|f
i 8 8
| 8 §'% TOQ5 wO
n d 3-CO *«» /Tjco n>"n "-Irt rt
° to'
-n g.
3 gj-
3' co
a. 5.'
i— i
I
M
0gf^ i.P*o
Oo
3 0
n a
ft
1
V
z
0
^-^
P3
P3
^^
^^S
0
Cff
e
CMo•*>
Oo
•^
3
03
CA
a.
o
J
0
i
5T
H-l
K*
SO^oos
S3
Os
•o o
J. So 3.
3
CO
CO
03
0.
3*
E?Q.
COO
•ono
2 53pj O3 i5
TO 3
i
VD-J
1Since the proposed amendments will be processed as Major PUDAmendments and the design meets all ordinances and design guidelithe overall mass is no longer an ordinance issue. Planning staff wilreview the proposed product based on its aesthetic value. PlanningCommission may have some concerns."~° 3
CO
<*n
N3O
ft
0
3>o3
COo!
$
05
w
2 53pT o
||
TO 3
K>
VO
Since the proposed amendments will be processed as Major PUDAmendments and the design meets all ordinances and design guidelithe 20 foot setback is no longer an ordinance issue. Planning staff^review the proposed product based on its aesthetic value. PlanningCommission may have some concerns.< 5£• to
*>.
O 50
X ^-K(uh-H ^h§85
c/a8^*5'
XWbd,
CAsex.
2 aju O§ i5
S* os
TO »
—vo
-J
Based on a meeting with the City on 1-2-97, this is no longer an issThe PUD Amendments will be processed as Major PUD Amendme3- gfa 5*
UJ
3 C/3
H «_. n>
a gi °-
2- nco qq_
>bL
'**'
O
C3s
*O
This issue has been discussed with Bob Wojcik. Mr. Wojcik indicathe City is still in the process of deciding how this issue must be ad<Planning and Engineering must meet to resolve this issue. Mr. Wojsaid that the next submittal does not need to show how the projectmeet A.D.A. requirements.? G. =T ae*-8 ^g" 8 S-S S. £
ON
(a
Cfa
VO
ON
Private stidrivewayI
3c3
0.
o
0a
ON
a H
n
a. »
£r g
^ S.
g B-
3 SO. enA ^co n
S -
>| -is
11.
2 OQ
^ ^
0 S
£'Q
1 O
r> 50IEn 305
S-o
OQ
o1
i
ON
H
8"
3Q.
en
I
8"
I
I
I'
O1a
GVn
03Q.
Q.
5'
P_
c"3
9
O
to
I
ON
OQ£ «
li
.
3 w'
^ S
a- S-
8L
C NOCJ. ON
f 3
ft
IIOQ g:
C fP
a
u>
g- oS n£ fc>a" !»OQ CO
C «n-i »S. OQ
co ™O.
Of
B.o.
o'3
ro
i
ON
C O. H
S: 2- ET
N' § w'03 3 55'5' 5' cs n n
111
we
"^ O p»t 3 S-
g- a C3N
TO Q. 3c fp 2BCL «* rrS? 5' a'
n r»ftp -^
M rt
to Q
o •?'
>-t *"^CT> **
NJ
to
O
f
03
to
o\e z z
a. H
S 2".J5 en
S. COD C
8-
3- 2
5 Sa en
s'S.5 &
If
fstu in
&^=6 CTs
5* 3S »e, scr 5'
•i ar• n
o
K)
CO
y
hrt
•lease verify that an average 25' setback fromAvenida Encinas is provided in accordance withe Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.p^
ff<Tft"
3
cron
T3^§fta-g.
r-t
D.ft3O§?f?
C/loog
"S.i0ft
x
>Completed - Miw
tr
os-
to
Please remove "Substantial ConformanceExhibit" from all plans submitted.o3S
cr83
33O.<-nS.
o
D
Completed - Mi»•nr>ST
00s-
r
rhe proposed amendments have been reviewedas major PUD amendments (new projects) whiare Subject to all current ordinances and policiIn order to avoid compliance with PlanningDepartment Admmistrative Policy 16 (separatibetween two-story structures), the projects mu:qualify as minor PUD amendments. As minoramendments, the only acceptable area of non-compliance with the City's ordinances, policie!and Master Plan development requirementswould be Policy No. 16 since the projects wenpreviously approved by the decision makerswithout compliance with this policy.w - ft O ft O3 <" 3"
< ^ ^ ^
Hi y -a v.
S 0^0
£ ° 0 g1 3*i
r-f P P*p9 (JQ M jnZ s> i S?r _- o- ww rt d PCr* ^— • ji{ ft
C* O Hrt<5 13 o £r*<5 o S wrt p o <T3 w O- °M ^3 ^*1 OfD p3 "jj ^
"^ S g §
S. § w 3
ft" •- " I3 § ^ >-io a. s °D % & n
^T i^ ^ w
1 l^§era • o^ g.o ob0 3 ~3 g ffT3 ^ O)
i' ^ 1O *-t Oft ft ft0<3 3£> «.
ft °" 3"^r &3P g£. asw ft
2 ft
^ftft3
5 o
> 1
0 00 03 3"E "E
n nD. 0.i i
* 2n =:
oos-
2
^ining Department Issues:O5
1ERAL COMMENTSsli; !•j!
i ; i
'idi
'c
jjjjlj!;' ijij
..!'«!'!f "' i '•I •*'', fv?' !s''''iM
. '•! |,!• 1•„' 1
''•''I
nc'Sgh*p
^>.$.
''li-.'1
' ''V
.::-•'
V.'v
'1 T'l'ill /] •';i!!' i
i,1!*!!'1!
/'ill
1 ''I1'!
'''pi' ''i
_
•na
t/5H
j_4
>3
a e
no
oer
no5
3c0
V)
GO
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
December 17, 1996
Stan Weiler
Hofman Planning Associates
2386 Faraday Avenue Suite 120
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: -PUD 94-03(A) / PUD 94-04(A) / PUD 94-05(A) / PUD 94-06(A) -
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREAS A1-A4
Dear Stan:
As you are aware, two simultaneous application requests are currently under review
for the subject project. The first is a request for an administrative finding that
proposed changes to the approved tentative maps and planned development
permits for all four planning areas are in substantial conformance with the approved
design. The second request involves applications for planned unit development
amendments to change the approved building footprints, driveway design, and
architecture on each lot in all four of the subject planning areas. Pursuant to
staff's meeting with Colin Seid of ColRich, the project architects, O'Day
Engineering, Bill Hofman and yourself, in which you requested a determination
regarding the processing of these application requests, the Planning Department
has reviewed the information provided for the subject projects and determined the
following:
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE:
1. The proposed changes in lot and street design in Planning Areas A-3 and A-4
result in the rearrangement of uses which are not in substantial conformance
with the approved design. The proposed changes to the approved project
require a major amendment to the Planned Development Permit.
2. Prior to a determination of substantial conformance with the approved
Planned Development permits for Planning Areas A-1 and A-2, assurance is
needed that the approved units will fit on the adjusted lots as proposed on
the substantial conformance exhibit in a manner that is substantially the
same. Therefore, an exhibit showing the approved unit footprints,
dimensioned setbacks and rear yards must be submitted for staff review.
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894
"(A) / PUD 94-05(A) / PUD 94-06(A) - PCPUD 94-03(A) / PUD 94-W(A) / PUD 94-05(A) / PUD 94-06(A) - POINSETTIA SHORES
PLANNING AREAS A1-A4
DECEMBER 19, 1996
PAGE 2
PUD AMENDMENT - MINOR VS MAJOR
1. The tables provided for review indicate the aggregate change for lot
coverage, building height, and average distance between structures. These
items, with the addition of front yard setbacks, are considered on a lot by lot
basis and must be calculated for each lot to determine whether or not a
change of greater than 10% will occur. Changes of greater than 10% on
any of these items (on any lot) require a major amendment to the approved
planned development permit.
2. As a major amendment, the project requires a public hearing before the
Planning Commission and City Council, if applicable, and is subject to new
conditions.
If you have additional questions regarding the above staff determinations, please
contact Anne Hysong at (619) 438-1161, extension 4477.
Sincerely,
GARY E. WAYNE,
Assistant Planning Director
GEW:AH:bk
Colin Seid, ColRich Communities
Brian Hunter
Anne Hysong
Bob Wojcik
File Copy
City of Carlsbad
Engineering Department
December 20, 1996
Pat O'Day
O'DAY CONSULTANTS
7220 Avenida Encinas, Suite 204
Carlsbad, CA 92009
POINSETTIA SHORES: PLANNING AREAS A-1 THROUGH A-4
We have completed our reviews of the substantial conformance exhibits submitted and
have the following comments:
Planning Areas A-1 and A-2 need additional information to be submitted. Since the
maps were approved as planned unit developments, assurance is needed that the
approved units will fit on the lots (as proposed in the substantial conformance exhibit)
in a manner that is substantially the same, i.e., setbacks, coverage, etc. If they do not,
then a major PUD amendment is required and a possible tentative map amendment.
For Planning Areas A-1 and A-2, please resubmit the substantial conformance exhibit
with the approved units (footprints) shown on each lot. All setbacks/rear-yard
dimensions must be provided for comparison with the approved map.
Due to the rearrangement of lots proposed on the substantial conformance exhibit, for
Planning Areas A-3 and A-4, we cannot find that the proposed changes are in
substantial conformance and a major PUD amendment would be required.
If you have any questions, please call me at 438-1161, extension 4333.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. WOJCIK, P.E.
Principal Civil Engineer
RJWjb
c: Assistant City Engineer
Associate Planner, Anne Hysong i/
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1 576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
Sa
8
S
oCO.0
1
1
1
Oc
•*-* _.OT ^7*
^^ CT2h- 1 v_/
CO ^°
•o '3bo CQ
11
< ffl
00c
is
ffl ^
i5 -2If
o ^
•*-> Octf bnW) of
LN QJ
00 O< U
00
"S /j-j
'3 •
If
u p,
00 "oop o^ rri
oiV
*00_c
COS
•8S
2
CL,
•1
"8enO0.
&
"S1Q.0,
•8
1
l!
"8
0
UiIX,
1
|
1
1.2a.
1g
I
>n
^H°
CS
cs
Os
en
^
S
Ocs
oo00
•*»;ff)
m
CO
ONr^
csoo
3
oo
^
^(
ON
ooCS
O
o
2
,
rr
00CS^
ON
t-H
ON
CS
cs
ff)
ON
oo
o"CSr~l
cs0
rs.,
2
cs
^t
ooocs
o
cscs
^cs
1-H
,
cs
«n
§
I
cs
fim
ON
CS
ONO
wo"
t-H
1—1
ON
cs"
mi
in
CSen
in
>n
t-H
CS
»— *
m
ON
t\
ONvo
CS
men
rn
cs
in1—1
°°«
B"
^.
^4
C-;
O
ONO
00
o
en
ON
0in
m
ONONON,
(^
cs
~*
oocsf— H
w-,
oo
o"C"*-
^
cs
oo"
h*J
OH
in
i
?-;
1
e
I-H
?
F-H
+
V.O
T3 «J
& t)f) Vleg1 3lu < u
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis memorandum
date: Decembers, 1996
to: Anne Hysong
from: Stan Weiler
project: San Pacifica (Poinsettia Shores Master Plan); Areas A-1 Through A-4
subject: Visitor Parking
The purpose of this memo is to clarify any confusion resulting from the project
descriptions for Planning Areas A-1 through A-4 regarding visitor parking.
Upon taking another look at the project description, it is apparent that further
explanation is needed to fully understand how the detached third car garages and
in-set third car tandem parking within some garages will contribute to the provision of
additional visitor parking spaces.
As stated during the meeting held with you on November 26th, all of the proposed
additional visitor parking spaces for Planning Areas A-1 through A-4 will be provided on
the street. Many of these additional spaces were obtained in front of the lots containing
the third car detached garages and the third car tandem parking garages. The
approved architecture for all four planning areas provided three car garages accessed
via a 26' wide driveway. This wide driveway area reduced the amount of length
available on the street to provide visitor parking. The proposed changes to the
architecture provided side loaded detached third car garages and the in-set third car
tandem parking garages for many of the lots by which access is gained via a 16'
driveway. Reduction in the driveway widths resulted in an increase in the availability of
on-street visitor parking.
I hope this memo provides clarification of this issue and that it is clear that the third car
garages were not intended for nor counted towards meeting the visitor parking
requirements for these planning areas. Since there is an abundant number of visitor
parking available beyond the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance,
visitor parking should no longer be an issue.
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.
cc. Colin Seid
2386 Faraday Avenue ° Suite 120 ° Carlsbad ° CA 92008 <• (619)438-1465 <> Fax: (619)438-2443
Hofman Planning
Associates
Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis
memorandum
date: December 6, 1996
to: Anne Hysong
from: Stan Weiler
project: San Pacifica (Poinsettia Shores Master Plan)
subject: Revised Percent Change Tables For Planning Areas A-2 & A-4
The tables that were provided to you on December 4th have been revised to reflect the
latest change to building height for the product in Planning Areas A-2 and A-4. The
tables that were previously provided assumed the reduction in building height of 0.5' for
the plan 3 and 1.0' for the plan 4. However, Robert Hidey Architects proposes to
decrease the roof pitch from 4:12 to 3.5:12 which will lower the height of the structures
by one foot for all four floor plans. The new overall structural heights will be as follows:
Plan 1 24'-0"
Plan 2 25'-0"
Plan 3 26'-6"
Plan 4 28'-0"
This results in an aggregate height percent change of +7.2% for Planning Area A-2 and
+1.6% for Planning Area A-4. These building heights will be shown on the revised
elevations to be resubmitted in the near future.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 438-1465.
cc Colin Seid
2386 Faraday Avenue ° Suite 120 ° Carlsbad » CA 92008 « (619)438-1465 ° Fax: (619)438-2443
POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN
PLANNING AREA A-l
* ,'' '•• ' /, ^ •> % ,
* ,.'•.', "'•" •.' > " '' % ' ,,„}>,
Number of Units
Aggregate Building Footprint
(sq. ft.)
Aggregate Lot Coverage (%)
Aggregate Building Heights (ft.)
Average Side Yard Distance
Between Buildings (ft.)
Average Rear Yard Setback (ft.)
Approved
36
83,144
33.3
886.5
14.4
21.9
Proposed
36
82,793
33.4
920.5
13.9
21.5
% Change
No Change
- 0.4%
0.0%
+ 3.8%
-3.5%
- 1.8%
Decembers, 1996 Q:\COLRICH\DOC\WP\AGGREG2.DOC
EXHIBIT 1
POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN
PLANNING AREA A-1
. .' % ' i
Number of Units
Building Square Footage:
Planl
Plan 2
Plan3
Building Heights:
Planl
Plan 2
Plan 3
Average Side Yard Distance
Between Buildings
Average Rear Yard Setback
Visitor Parking Spaces
Approved
36
2,282 sq. ft
2,549 sq. ft.
2,760 sq. ft.
20.5'
26.5'
25.0'
14.4'
21.9'
55
Proposed
36
2,350 sq. ft.
2,547 sq ft.
2,798 sq. ft.
21.5'
27.0'
26.5'
13.9'
21.5'
85
Difference
No Change
+ 68 sq. ft.
- 2 sq. ft.
+ 38 sq.ft.
+ 1.0'
+ 0.5'
+ 1.5'
-0.5'
-0.4'
+ 30
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
November 1, 1996
Poinsettia Homebuilding Partners L.P.
4141 Jutland Drive
San Diego, CA 921 17
SUBJECT: PUD 94-03IA) - POINSETTIA SHORES AREA 1
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed your Planned Unit Development Amendment, application no.
PUD 94-03(A), as to its completeness for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is
information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items
must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be
submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals.
No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be
complete. The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials
are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the
application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application
will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the
application was initially filed, October 3, 1996, to either resubmit the application or
submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the
materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to
constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed
withdrawn, a new application must be submitted.
Please contact your staff planner, Anne Hysong, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4477
after November 15, 1996, or Chris DeCerbo, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4445, in
the intervening time if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss
the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:CD:bk
c: Gary Wayne File Copy
Brian Hunter Data Entry
Bobbie Hoder Planning Aide
Bob Wojcik Chris DeCerbo
2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894
I
3.
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
No. PUD 94-03(A) - POINSETTIA SHORES AREA 1
Planning:
As required on the project application submittal list, the plans must show top
and bottom elevations for all fences, walls, and retaining walls. These elevations
should be shown at each end of each wall, at some point(s) in the middle of
each wall, and the worst condition elevation. Please show the top and bottom
elevations from the top of the footings.
The plans must show all required 15'x15' flat yards (as approved in the original
PUD) to demonstrate that the proposed amendment will not result in any loss of
private recreation area.
Please provide the following information regarding the approved and proposed
designs:
a. the total aggregate square footage of living area for the Planning Area for
the approved design and for the proposed design, and the % difference in
the two figures; (Note: The square footage for the proposed design must
include all of the detached structures shown, since they are identified as
habitable areas (bedrooms and offices).);
b. the total aggregate square footage of yards for the approved and the
proposed design, and the % difference in the two figures;
c. the total aggregate lot coverage for the approved and the proposed
design, and the % difference in the two figures; and,
e. the % difference in the approved and the proposed structure heights.
The side yards shown for the proposed design appear to be measured in a
manner not consistent with Zoning Ordinance regulations. The proposed plans
appear to show entertainment areas "popping out" into the required setbacks.
Section 21.46.120 of the Municipal Code identifies permitted intrusions into
required yards and the degree of encroachment allowed. The plans submitted
appear to show living areas (e.g., entertainment centers) as "pop-outs" into the
required yard setbacks. These areas would not meet the criteria of Section
21.46.120. Therefore, they would need to be removed from the required yards,
or the yard dimensions would need to be revised to be measured from the
outside edge of these areas (i.e., the outermost edge of the proposed
structures).
Please include the current project number (PUD 94-03(A) in the upper right-hand
corner of the plan sheets on future submittals.
6. Please provide dimensions on the plans to demonstrate compliance with the
required minimum 10' separation between structures on all lots. (Some of the
relevant lots do not have this dimension called out.)
Engineering:
1.
2.
Use the same format and scale as the approved subdivision,
exhibits A through I.
Specifically
Show lot dimensions and proposed changes to the approved subdivision.
Retaining walls, driveways, drainage patterns and improvement modifications
should be shown.
3. Show current title information, including existing and proposed easements.
4. Follow the requirements for a new subdivision of PUD (see application
requirements).
ISSUES OF CONCERN
The project description indicates that the proposed design changes will result in
30 additional guest parking spaces to be provided by the proposed detached
structures. However, the project description identifies these structures as
potential offices and/or bedrooms. Therefore, they could not be counted as
parking spaces. The best way to demonstrate the number of guest spaces to
be provided would be to show the proposed guest parking on a plan sheet.
The project design should incorporate a minimum 3' space between proposed
adjacent walls/fences (on lots with different elevations) to allow room for
planting of landscaping to provide visual relief.
This project will have to comply with all applicable State and regional A.D.A.
requirements, including those pertaining to placement, width, and grade of
sidewalks.
The project description indicates that this application is being processed per
Section "XI.C" of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan which discusses PUD
Amendments which only address architecture. Staff must conclude that you
meant to refer to Section "XI.B" of the Master Plan. Section XI.B permits PUD
amendments through Noticed Planned Development Permit Amendments and
limits the addition of new conditions. However, because of the cumulative
effect of the proposed changes, including rotation of lots, additional driveway
cuts, etc., staff believes that the proposed amendment exceeds the amount
and types of change allowed under Section XI.B.
This proposed amendment will be compared to the existing approved PUD. All
units of the approved PUD are setback (in the front yard) a minimum of 20'
from the back of sidewalk. With this in mind, it is staff's position that all
structures (garages or habitable areas) shall also be required to comply with this
setback. Given the structural intensification proposed per small single family
lot, staff cannot justify supporting a reduction in this approved project front
yard setback.
At this stage of review, staff finds it difficult to support the proposed
amendment as currently designed. The proposed design appears to include too
much total mass on the proposed lots. The proposed amendment increases the
total square footage of each previously approved floor plan. By providing some
of that square footage in a detached structure, and placing that structure close
to the street, the design generally increases the apparent mass of the
development. Since the proposed detached structure design would be placed
on almost all of the lots in the subdivision (approximately 30 out of a possible
36), the overall effect of the change is to increase the visual mass of the overall
project considerably. Many of the proposed detached structures are shown to
be accessed from the lot front by providing an additional separate driveway.
This results in a large number of driveways very near each other throughout the
subdivision, thus emphasizing the "hardscape" aspect of the development.
Staff suggests the project would be more supportable if revised to address
these concerns.
We understand that some members of the Planning staff met with you
previously regarding a possible amendment to this project, and the staff
response was generally favorable. However, the design presented at that
meeting was different in key respects from the design submitted with this
application. That design apparently included some detached structures which
were identified as garages (not habitable spaces) which were all to be side-
loaded from the existing driveway and which were intended to provide
enhanced architectural relief.
Engineering:
1. Vehicular access to the proposed additional unit or garage should be addressed.
2. A 24' backup area is needed to turn around in driveways.
3. Will there be CC&Rs to restrict the conversion of these to additional dwelling
units?
4. Will the units be plumbed and set up for a Studio type use? Will further
development be restricted? The worst case looks like all could be rented or
occupied, creating the demand for additional onstreet parking. Perhaps the
applicant could accommodate the additional demand as a worst case scenario.
\
5. From a quick review of the plans submitted, it appears that a few minor
changes to retaining walls, to grading, and to driveway locations have been
made. A red-lined plan showing all proposed changes from the original
approved exhibit would be helpful.
6. The originally approved (PUD 94-03) Exhibit "A" shows the private street as a
curb returned street. The proposed amendment shows the private street as a
driveway cut. I believe this is an error.
Enclosed is a redlined checkprint for your use in making corrections and/or changes.
Please include this checkprint when making a resubmittal.