HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-07; Planning Commission; ; MP 177J - AVIARA PA 28 BUILDING HEIGHTAPPLICATIO:t\"-.)COMPLETE DATE:
MAY 3 1994
PROJECT PLANNER: MICHAEL GRIM
STAFF REPORT ®
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1994
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: MP 177(,J) -AVIARAPA28 BUILDING HEIGHT-Request for a master plan
amendment to revise development standards to allow 30 foot high homes
within Planning Area 28 in Phase II of the Aviara Master Plan, within Local
Facilities Management Zone 19.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission find the proposed master plan amendment to be minor in
nature but ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3674 DENYING MP 177(1) based
on the findings contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Aviara Land Associates is requesting a master plan amendment to revise the development
standards for Planning Area 28. This revision would increase the potential height of 60
percent of the future single family homes from 22 feet to 30 feet, as measured to the peak
of the roof. Exhibit "A", dated December 7, 1994 shows which lots the applicant proposes
the option of increased height. To address visual concerns associated with the increased
mass and height of the buildings, the applicant proposes architectural design criteria that
would limit the size of the second story and define the minimum number of roof planes.
Computer generated images were also prepared by the applicant to illustrate the
appearances of an all one-story development and a mixed one-story/two-story development
(Exhibits "B" & "C", dated December 7, 1994, respectively).
Planning Area 28 has been the focus of much discussion during processing of the Aviara
Master Plan and associated documents because of its proximity to Batiquitos Lagoon and
its high visibility from La Costa Avenue and Interstate 5. Both the master plan (MP 177)
and environmental impact report (EIR 83-2(A)) discuss the importance of sensitive
development in this area. Stringent development standards for areas near the lagoon is one
of the fundamental concepts of the master plan. The environmental impact report found
that development of Planning Area 28, if not done sensitively, could result in significant
adverse visual impacts.
r·•
MP 177(1) -A VIARA PA ~JBUILDING HEIGHT
DECEMBER 7, 1994
PAGE2
Acknowledging the visual prominence of Planning Area 28, the City, through the adoption
of the Aviara Master Plan, restricted the building height in Planning Area 28 to 18 feet, as
measured to the mid-point of the roof. The master plan developer agreed to incorporate
this height limit into the master plan standards but, throughout project negotiations,
indicated a preference for two-story homes within this planning area to reduce visual
monotony (see Attachment "W", Letter from HPI Development Co., dated June 11, 1987).
Staff believed at the time, and still maintains, that the central issue is not one of monotony
so much as visual prominence.
The primary objective of the City has been to ensure that the development within Planning
Area 28 is as visually subtle as possible, hence the master plan requirements for decreased
building height, larger lots, and increased setbacks (especially along the lagoon). Both the
City's General Plan and the Aviara Master Plan refer to the need for a low-lying
neighborhood. According to the Circulation Element, Batiquitos Drive is designated a
Natural Open Space Corridor. The goals for development adjacent to Open Space Corridor
roadways call for view preservation, in this case views of the lagoon. The master plan design
criteria specify that the darker colors are intended "to reduce visibility (of the development)
from La Costa Avenue and Batiquitos Drive." Specimen landscaping was also required "to
screen the dwelling units from 1-5, La Costa Avenue, and Batiquitos Drive." All of these
standards and criteria indicate that the development in Planning Area 28 was to be as
inconspicuous as possible.
As discussed in Attachment "X", Letter from Aviara Land Associates, dated October 21,
1994, the applicant is proposing to add requirements for roof planes and second story offsets
to address visual concerns about the taller buildings. These architectural criteria are an
example of items that would enhance a building's attractiveness, however they do not
necessarily reduce it's prominence. An example of this is found west of Aviara, in the
Roselina single family development. These buildings along the northern shore of the
lagoon, between Interstate 5 and the railroad tracks, possess from seven to ten roof planes.
The applicant refers to the need for two-story homes, for marketing and aesthetic reasons.
It should be clarified that the development standards for Planning Area 28 do not restrict
the number of stories, only the exterior building height. The Planning Commission has
recently approved homes in Planning Area 26 North that measure 22 feet to the peak of the
roof but contain an upstairs bedroom and bathroom. Given this, and the minimum 10,000
square foot lots, it seems that the option for homes with two levels of usable space still
exists.
Staff agrees that there could be a potential for visual monotony if the homes were
insensitively designed. However, attentive implementation of the existing design criteria and
guidelines, which include strong architectural relief and offsets, combined with the variety
of site designs afforded by larger lots, should remedy any potential for a visually
monotonous development.
('""' '
MP 177(J) -AVIARA PA }:tr'BUILDING HEIGHT
DECEMBER 7, 1994
PAGE3
III.
1.
2.
ANALYSIS
Is the proposed master plan amendment minor in nature, as defined by
Section 21.38.120(a)(3) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC)?
Is the proposed master plan amendment consistent with the intent of the
Aviara Master Plan (MP 177) and its amendments (MP 177(B) & MP
177(F))?
DISCUSSION
1. Nature of Amendment
According to Section 21.38.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Planning Commission
may consider a master plan amendment to be minor in nature and make a determination
on the amendment without the need for a public hearing or City Council review. For a
master plan amendment to be considered minor, it cannot "change the densities or the
boundaries of the subject property, or involve an addition of a new use or group of uses not
shown on the original master plan or the rearrangement of uses within the master plan."
The proposed revision of the building height development standards for Planning Area 28
does not involve the addition of any dwelling units to the approved tentative map or any
revisions to the planning area boundaries. No additional uses or rearrangement of the
existing single family use is proposed. Therefore, the proposed master plan amendment
meets the criteria outlined in Section 21.38.120(a)(3) and qualifies as a minor master plan
amendment.
Since the original master plan approval, this planning area has been before the Planning
Commission on three occasions. The Phase II master plan amendment (MP 177(B)) and
the Planning Area 28 tentative map (CT 90-31) both described the development in this
planning area as one-story, custom homes. When the city-wide method for measuring
building height changed, it necessitated a revision to the building height in Planning Area
28 (MP 177(F)) to 22 feet, as measured to the peak of the roof. On this occasion, as
previously, the development had been represented as a low-lying, custom home
neighborhood.
Staff agrees that this proposed development standards revision technically qualifies as a
minor master plan amendment. However, as a minor master plan amendment, it doesn't
require or allow for public input or City Council review. Given all of the aforementioned
concerns and findings regarding the visual prominence of Planning Area 28 ( as evidenced
by the mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 83-02(A) and the building height
restrictions for PA 28 incorporated in City Council adopted Master Plan 177), it may be
inappropriate in this case to process this request without the benefit of public input and
Council consideration. Section 21.38.120(a3) CMC allows the commission to determine that
even if an amendment is minor, the Planning Commission can still determine that it is
MP 177(J) -AVIARA PA 2:tr'BUILDING HEIGHT
DECEMBER 7, 1994
PAGE4
necessary to set the item for a public hearing. If the matter is set for a public hearing
Section 21.38.120(a6) CMC requires that it be processed similar to a master plan with the
Council being the final decision maker. Therefore, should the Planning Commission want
to approve MP 177(1), it could consider finding that a public hearing is necessary thus
requiring public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
2. Master Plan Consistency
There are several references in the Aviara Master Plan and certified environmental impact
report, both general and specific, relating to development along the lagoon shoreline and
Planning Area 28. A common theme throughout these references is the need for small scale
development that is sensitive to the extreme visibility of the planning area. When referring
to the public views of Aviara from Interstate 5 and the La Costa Avenue interchange, the
environmental impact report stated that "the most significant adverse impact would occur
from development of the single-family homes proposed in Planning Area 28." The EIR also
states that, despite restricted building height (28 feet measured to the mid-point of the roof)
and setback from the lagoon, development of the neighborhood "would significantly impact
the visual character of the northern shoreline by altering its most visually prominent
section."
In describing the fundamental concepts of the Aviara Master Plan, the master plan text
states that "open space .. .is the predominant land use which serves as ... a means for providing
visual relief. Batiquitos Lagoon is the focal point of the open space system. Stringent
development standards will be applied to all planning areas in proximity to this sensitive and
valuable ecological resource."
In concert with this fundamental concept, restricted building height, darker colored building
materials, strong architectural relief, increased lot size and setbacks, enhanced ornamental
landscaping, and preservation of existing tree groves and slopes were all incorporated into
the master plan. Review and approval of the subsequent master plan amendments (MP
177(B) & MP 177(F)) reaffirmed the established need for a low-lying planning area.
Considering the above proclamations, the proposed increase in building height cannot be
considered consistent with the intent of the Aviara Master Plan and its amendments.
The project applicant, Aviara Land Associates, submitted a letter to the City regarding this
master plan amendment request (see Attachment "X"). The specific comments of this letter
have either been addressed within the staff report or Attachment "Y", response letter from
Planning Director.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The certified environmental impact report for the Aviara Master Plan (EIR 83-2(A))
reviewed the single family homes in Planning Area 28 under a potential height of 28 feet,
MP 177(1) -AVIARA PA,!oBUILDING HEIGHT
DECEMBER 7, 1994
PAGES
as measured to the mid-point of the roof. As discussed above, the sensitivity of the area
caused staff and the applicant to settle on an 18 foot height restriction. A decrease in the
stringency of development standards within the master plan and along the lagoon could
create visual design issues without necessarily producing significant adverse environmental
impacts, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act. Since the project still
involves single family homes within the height described in the project description of the
EIR, the Planning Director determined that the project is in Prior Environmental
Compliance with previous environmental review (EIR 83-2(A)).
V. SUMMARY
Although the proposed master plan amendment technically meets the criteria for a minor
amendment, it does not demonstrate consistency with the intent of the Aviara Master Plan
or its amendments and therefore staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny MP
177(J).
ATIACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3674
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Form
5. Exhibits "A" -"C", dated December 7, 1994
6. Attachment "W", Letter from HPI Development Co., dated June 11, 1987
7. Attachment "X", Letter from Aviara Land Associates, dated October 21, 1994
8. Attachment "Y", response letter from Planning Director, dated November 7, 1994.
MG:vd:lh
November 3, 1994
AIRPORT
LHH■1•11•: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :'"•-= : : .......... : : , ..... : :
• • • • • • -. . • • • -. . • • • • • • • • • ........... : • • • • • • • .......... :
•
City of Carlsbad
AVIARA P.A. 28, BUILDING HEIGHT MP 177(J)
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: .... MP ........... -=-17.....,7..._{J .... } ___________________ _
CASE NAME: A viara Planning Area 28 -Building Height
APPLICANT: A viara Land Associates
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Revise Master Plan development standards to allow 30 foot
high homes within A viara Planning Area 28.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7 of Carlsbad Tract No. 89-37 according to Map No. 12967, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder September 16, 1992, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California
APN: 215-644-04 Acres 44.1 ------~---Proposed No. of Lots/Units __ N ..... I ___ A _______ _
(Assessor's Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RLM
Density Allowed 4.0 du/acre Density Proposed NIA
Existing Zone P-C Proposed Zone ..... N ..... /~A __ _
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site P-C Vacant, partially graded
North P-C Vacant, partially graded
South P-C Batiquitos Lagoon
East P-C Vacant, partially graded
West P-C Vacant, partially graded
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) __ N .... / ___ A-----_____________ _
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated __ N_./ .... A-----_______________ _
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
_ Negative Declaration, issued ___________________ _
_ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated _____________ _
Other, Exempt per Section 15270 of the State CEOA Guidelines
MG:vd
City of Carlsbad
_ -4&i,i,ii,t-i•t4-61,•.,t4,II
.a,;tatJC.:.NrS r.:.~EN'T' CF :1sc--:si.Jr1e OF~~ OWNE~S,_. ... INT'Ei=lesTS ON J.U. AJ:IDI.JOTlONS ~ WIU. ::ec:..,iai:
.::sc~E'ilCN.\~ .a.c-:-=CN CN :;..e ~~ CF i'rtE c::-, C:::t:.-c:L. OR ~y ~ 8CAAC. c:MMISSICN c~ C:MMm-=.
r Please ?rrnr)
Toa tctlowing intormation must ca disC:osed:
. ,,
1. · . ...Acplic3nt
List ttie names and accressas ot aJI persons riaving a ffnanc::at interest in tna applicancn.
Ayiara lrand Associates I imita4 Partnersh~i!'l!!pi---------------
2011 Palomar Ain,0 rt Bri
Suite 206
Carlsbad. CA 92009
2. Owner
List the names and addresses ot aJI parsons having any ownership interest in tne property invotvea. Aviara Land Associates Limited Partners~h.i.p ______________ _
2011 Palomar Airport Rd.
Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
1 If any person identffied pursuant to (1) or (2) accve is a =r,:,0ra1i0n or pannersnio. list tne names ar
addresses ot au individua1s owning more ttian , 0% ot ttie shares in tne c:=r,:0rati0n or owning any parmersr.:
interest in tne partnersnip.
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2l abcVe is a non~rcnt orgamzaticn or a trust list ttia names ar
addresses ot any parson serving as offlcar or direCt0r at tt,e nan~ organlZ3licn or as trustee or ~enetic:a
ot the trtJst.
NIA
FRM00013 8/90
20 75 Las ~a1mas Onve • Car1soaa. C..uiforn,a 92009 1 859 • ( 6, 9) ~a-, , 6,
Oisdcsure Statement
(Over1
?age 2
5. r;ave you had niora tnan S250 warm ot business transacad witn arry member ot cay staff. Scare:
C.:Jmmrssions. Ccmmittaes and C:unc:ii·within tt,e past twetva mamns?
Yes _ Na ~ If yes. please indicate perscn(s) ___________________ _
~ •• cerinea u: -~,,., ,nCSMCUa. lirffl. coaannW1a. 10llffv_,,., 11romman.. -■6auo, IWwo,qatllDDOft. con,o,aon. niue. t:Ua&.
,ecav..,, syncs,-, tni• anc an, ocnw coumy, =, UICI~• =, ~. ~ o, aanw OCIIIIICa ~ ~ u,y omw ;rauo or
camatnllllOft acm,c; u • 1U11t. •
{NOT;~ Attacn additionat pages as necassary.)
Owner:
Aviara Land Associates Limited
Parm.ership, a Delaware limited
partnership
BY: Aviara ~Colnpany, a Delaware ~ l General Partner
By: --,, A-v
D. L. Clemens/Vice President
By: 9-P:1.~
fed L. Hoover/ Assistant Seacwy
Date: -----------4/25/94
By: 2-zJ/. ~
Ted L. Hoover/Assistant Secretary
Date: 4/25/94
FRM00013 8/90
Applicant:
Aviara Land Associates Limited
Partnership, a Delaware limited
partnership
BY:
By:
ompany, a Delaware
G nerai Partner
D. L. ens/Vice President
~--Jl,1../~ > . Ted L. Hoover/ Assistant Secretary
Date: 4/25/94
D. L. Cli.unDa1--vlCC President
By:9J)~~
Ted L. Hoover/ Assisranc Secretary
Date: 4/25/94
l I
i I
• ATTACI-NENT "W"
HPI
DEVELOPMENT co.
June 11, 1987
Mr. Chris De Cerbo
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
. .
SUBJECT: Updating of Pacific Rim Country Club • Resort
Master Plan
Dear Chris:
Enclosed for your review and approval is an up-date modification
and revision summary for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort
Master Plan (September 3, 1986).
The revisions are categorized under four headings-:
1. Updates:
2. Policy Issues :
3. Design Issues:
4. Clarifications:
Changes to plan to bring into
conformance with new rules, and
regulations.
Changes in a policy area of the
plan.
Changes to design regulations of the
plan.
Changes resulting from unclear
discussion in the plan.
A review of the au~ will reveal that there are relatively few
items left for revision, and these are essentially updates and
clarifications necessitated by new City ordinances and policies.
Several items remain as issues; I would anticipate reaching a
quick and successful resolution of these.
I would propose that your office analyze and respond to the
summary sheet as soon as possible; we then hold one meeting of
discussion or negotiation; after which we either agree, or agree
to disagree, on each item. . .. : ~
7707 El Camino Real • Carlsbad, California 92QU8 • 619/436-0907 • Telecopier 619/436-6839
,.
Mr. Chris De Carbo
June 11, 1987
Page Two
In any case, we would anticipate a maximum review and resolution
period to take no longer than 3 or 4 weeks, depending upon your
availability to review the Master Plan concurrently with our Zone
19 plan. ,
Please call if you would like any further information.
Sincerely,
HPI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
L~.,,
D. L. Clemens
Vice President
DLC/pro
Enclosure
cc: Charles Grimm
Paul Klukas &.--
Randi Coopersmith
Kim Post
...
SUBJECT
I UPDATES
1. Chapter VI
2. Table A
3. Waiver of Rights
4. Park Improvements
PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CLUB AND RESORT PROPOSED REVISIONS
PAGB
196
20
24
26
RPI POSITION
Chapter VI, Public Facilities, is no longer necessary and should be
eliminated since its contents are discussed in greater detail in the Zone
19 Local Facilities Management Plan. A note referencing the reader to
this document should probably be included.
As a result of the Zone 19 Local Facilities Plan analysis, the total
growth control unit count on the site has been decreased and five
Planning Area D/U numbers have been adjusted. These should be updated as
follows:
PA
18
19
21
26
30
Total
No. Units
Growth Control
62
74
90
169
135
2836
Density
DU/AC
3.1
4.8
3.5
2.2
1.9
3.10
Condition No. 24 (Waiver of Legal Challenge) no longer applies since al)'
required public facility information is now available. Developers of the
Master Plan either fulfill the conditions or the project cannot be
constructed.
Park site acreage is discussed In greater detall In the Zone 19 plan.
The 28.5 acres figure Is maximum based on ultimate density allowed.
Under existing City ordinances and the Quimby Act, the project would only
be required to dedicate 24.3 acres (2836 D/U growth control yield).
A).so, "Turn-key Improvements (to park) may be funded by others". ts no
longer applicable. Reader should be referred to the Zone 19 document.
SUBJECT
5. Development Review Process
6. Lagoon Restoration
II POLICY ISSUES
1. Lagoon Dedication
PAGE
31
35
24
BPI POSITION
Since it is assumed the Zone 19 Plan will have been approved, the
Development Review Process chart should be revised to more accurately
reflect process, consistent with page 13 of staff report. A revised
'.!hart is attached.
Resource preservation section includes requirements that "The developer
shall participate in the restoration of a significant lagoon and wetland
resource area". This was a requirement of the previous growth management
exemption consideration, and since no exemption was or is intended to be
given, the requirement no longer applies.
Condition No. 26 states that lagoon dedication shall take place "Prior to
the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Master Plan". This
should be revised to:
26. The applicant shall dedicate by deed the Batiquitoa Lagoon and
wetland areas as shown on the Batiquitoa Lagoon Wetlands
Boundary Legal Description, set forth in Attachment A of this
Master Plan, to the appropriate State agency. The dedication
shall be made when each of the following events occurs:
(a) The City approves an ordinance adopting the Master
Plan; and
(b) The California State Lands Commission states in
writing its agreement to accept the property described in
Attachment A of this Master Plan in full and final
satisfaction of any and all claims of right it may have on
behalf of the State of California against property owned by
the applicant; and
(c) The California Attorney General's Office states In
writing that the dedications required of applicant under the
Master Plan (including but not limited to the dedication of
the lagoon as required under this paragraph) shall constitute
full and final satisfaction of any and all claims of right Jt
may have against property owned by the applicant; and
SUB.JECT PAGE
2. Planning Area 32 Various
III DESIGN ISSUES
1. Block Wall Requirement 17
2. Golf Clubhouse Length 76
3. Private Recreation Facility 101
Requirements
105
125
179
183
HPI POSITION
( d) The California Coastal Commission issues a "Notice
of Intent to Issue Permit," or a successor agency issues an
equivalent notice, for the development of any uplands owned by
applicant within the geographical boundaries of this Master
Plan; and
(e) Applicant requests and the California Coastal
Commission transmits and issues a final permit, or a successor
agency issues and transmits an equivalent final permit, for
such development.
Planning Area 32 (restaurant, lagoon monitoring station, educational
classrooms) has been deleted from the Plan. HPI position is that this
is consistent with the City General Plan and should be included in
Master Plan. Actual site plan approval is not being processed for
approval.
The requirement for a "Block wall a minimum of six feet in height •••
between residential development and agriculture areas to the north" is
impractical and unnecessary. Wall could be over three miles in length,
be unsightly, gather graffiti, etc. The requirement should be deleted.
Required setbacks are sufficient to buffer uses from temporary
agriculture uses.
Reduction of proposed length from 200 feet to 125 feet is not supported
by any valid architectural concem and would be detrimental to the
functionality of the structure, and therefore, should remain at 200
feet.
PA-8;
PA-9;
PA-14;
PA-28;
PA-29;
Private facilities unnecessary; Easy walking distance to
community recreation faclllties.
Private facilities unnecessary; Easy walking distance to
community recreation faclllties.
Private faclllties unnecessary; Easy walking distance to
community recreation faclllties.
Private facilities unnecessary; Minimum 10,000 sq.ft. lots,
sufficient size for yard recreation.
Private facilities unnecessary; Minimum 7,500 sq.ft. lots,
sufficient size for yard recreation.
SUBIECT
4. Building Separation PA-10
5. Setbacks PA-11
6. Standards PA-23
7. Height Lim.it PA-28
8. Setbacks PA-29
IV CLARIFICATIONS
1. Agriculture Mitigation
PAGB
109
113
159-161
179
183
13
BPI POSITION
Requirement that PA-10 structures maintain a "Minimum of 200 feet from
the nearest residential structure" is not supported by any valid planning
concern, and such a setback is required nowhere else in the City. Major
changes to central core design may result from this arbitrary
requirement.
Setback from "L" Street has been increased to• feet which impacts
agreed-upon restaurants design concept; 15-foot parking setback severely
restricts ability to provide adequate parking for restaurants; 20-foot
setback requirement from planning area boundaries is an arbitrary setback
requirement from a hypothetical line.
Setback from Alga Road aW)l'OJU"late and dgjrable. Northerly and easterly
setbacks for parking of 1~ ff!d and ~0 f P.et ''l'espectively are excessive
and unnecessary. Tl.ming requirement that PA-23 development not allowed
until 1000 building permits is unnecessary, counter-productive, and may
increase off-site traffic.
Maximum structural height in this planning area has been reduced to 118
feet, by far the lowest limit in the City. It would seem that some 2-
story structures should be allowed, simply to avoid visual monotony.
Since the latest proposed design of PA-29 adjacent to Spinnaker Hill
seems to have made no one happy, we propose taking the large open space
setback area in the north"'l'est corner and re-allocating its area boundary.
This would result in greater equity of adjacent open space allocation
amongst Spinnaker Hill residents. This adjustment would double minimum
setbacks along this . boundary and avoid aggregating the majority open
space acreage for the benefit and enjoyment of only a few perimeter
Spinniker Hill residents.
Discussion of the option of agriculture mitigation does not acknowledge
the fact that there are actually three California Coastal Commission
approved alternative methods of mitigating agricultural conversion. The
other two pre-approved methods of agriculture mitigation should be
included in this section of the Master Plan.
SUB.JBCT PAGB
2. Combination District 14
3. Growth Management Plan 23
4. Winter Grading 17, 22, 38
5. Standards Precedence 18
BPI POSITION
The .re.vfs,ed G-ral 'PJan confiP!'lltion for the site ( Co~lJiMffon
Dhitrict) ls ef\own R)'aphi~ on page 14 bat m> text ~plaining its use
or relatibn to the ~stP-P. Plan is ln~d. ·
Condition 121 states that "No residential building permits shall be
issued until all Growth Management p1ans have been prepared to the
satisfaction oTthe City Council" (emphasis added). This should read
that ". . • until the Zone 19 Growth Management P1an has been
prepared . "
fhe allowance for winter grading of the site prior to lagoon enhancement
il' inconsistent in Its discussion of whether and when it may occur.
~10uld read that "Grading may not take p1ace between October-Kand April
-., unless otherwise allowed by the California Coastal Commission.
Provision 12 states that "Where a conflict in development standards
occur, the more restrictive standard will take precedent". This
statement ls inconsistent with section 21.38.030(d) of the Zoning
Ordinance which states; "Where a conflict in regu1ation occurs• the
regu1ations speclficed in this chapter or the approved Master Plan shall
control". In addition• if the project has been planned properly, making
a b1anket statement such as this is not in keeping with the concept of
a master p1anned community. Both more-restrictive and less-restrictive
regulations are inserted into Master P1ans based on their own individual
merits and characteristics.
I
AVIARA
October 21, 1994
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: MP 177-J; Aviara Planning Area 28
Dear Mike:
ATTACI-MENT "X"
We are distressed to learn that the Planning staff has decided to oppose our
request to amend wording in the Aviara Master Plan to allow a limited amount of two-
story homes within Aviara Planning Area 28. As you know, we have proposed strict
architectural standards, more ·in line with the mitigation required by the EIR, as
replacement mitigation for the minimal (8 foot maximum) increase in height for these
homes.
The application for amendment for this single issue has been under Planning
Department review since May 3, 1994. During these 6 months of review, staff has
identified several different issues, each of which we believe can be refuted as
insignificant non-issues. Please consider the following discussion of these issues as we
understand them:
1) Staff position: The EIR identifies PA 28 as visually prominent and allowing G!JX
two-story homes to be visible from La Costa Avenue or the Park & Ride will
result in a significant visual environmental impact.
Aviara's position: The EIR does indeed identify PA 28 as a visually
prominent area. It does not, however, require, or even suggest, that a
blanket single-story requirement over all visible homes is necessary. In fact,
it suggests "a variety of roof angles" as a preferred method of visual impact
mitigation.
Aviara's proposed solution is to restrict the homes to a variety of heights
(40% @ 1 story and 60% @ 2 story). One story is defined as 22 feet high,
two story as 30 feet. And in addition, include new regulations for all PA 28
homes including a minimum of 10 roof planes per house, and additional wall
offsets and setbacks for second stories. Aviara's proposal more directly
2011 1-'Al.Lli\l,\I~ AIRPORT i{L),\I J Su I Tl 206 C\IU.'>I\J\ll, C\UI LlRNI,\ '-12009 (61'-1) '-131-1190 E,x:(019) 9.11-7950
f .•
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
October 21, 1994
Page 2
provides "a variety of roof angles". Thus Aviara's proposal provides an
improved method (more in line with the EIR) of mitigating the identified
impact. And under Aviara's proposal, PA 28 will continue to be the most
restricted, low-lying neighborhood within Aviara.
2) Staff position: The addition of eight feet of height onto 60% of the PA 28
homes will constitute a significant visual impact.
Aviara's position: A computerized graphical scale model of the neighborhood
plotted on a Hewlett rackard Designjet 650C at 30" x 40", under both City
staff and Aviara proposals, has been prepared and provided to City Staff.
This model analysis clearly demonstrates· that the ~sual impact difference
between the two scenarios is almost imperceptible. As a result, a conclusion
must be reached that the Aviara proposal does not constitute a significant
visual impact over the staff position, which has already been found to
mitigate the identified impact. Additionally, there ~ three other north
shore two story products that are equally as prominent, that have not been
problematic (Cantata; Clubhouse; Pavona).
3) Staff position: Aviara has not provided a satisfactory indication of what has
changed to justify the proposed amendment.
Aviara's position: It is Aviara's goal to provide a more saleable, more viable
residential product to meet the present market demand. This includes a
variety of home types, consistent with the Master Plan and EIR requirements.
The opportunity for Aviara to provide according to market demand has a
direct bearing on the success of the project. And we understand that the City
is ''business friendly" and is our teammate in our endeavor for success of the
project.
The need to provide additional "justification" is particularly puzzling under
the existing circumstances wherein Aviara is requesting applicable
. replacement regulations, and not simply an elimination of regulations.
4) Staff position: The Mas~er Plan already requires ''strong architectural relief
features'~ and as a result, the proposed architectural standards are superfluous.
Aviara's position: The definition of what exactly constitutes "strong
architectural relief' is debatable. Is four roof planes "strong relief'? Is three
wall planes "strong relief'?
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
October 21, 1994
Page 3
Aviara's proposed wording requires:
a) A minimum 40% single story homes, interspersed throughout the
development.
b) A minimum 10 separate roof planes per house.
c) A minimum 10 foot second story offsets in the front and rear on 2
story homes.
d) A minimum 3 foot second story offsets for side walls in 2 story
homes.
These strict (the strictest of any neighborhood in Carlsbad) standards will
create the format with which to judge the architecture of each and every
house within Planning Area 28 and this program is architecturally and visually
superior to a series of monotonous single story homes.
5) Staff position: The proposed variety of heights may constitute an administrative
problem for the staff during plan.check review.
Aviara's position: The proposed building height amendment will not·
constitute an administrative problem for the City. Aviara's amendment
proposal includes a list of allowable heights for each individual lot consistent
with the 60%/40% height limit split. Easy analysis of allowable height for
each of the 61 lots is provided so development under either a merchant
builder program or an estate lot (individual owner) program can be readily
accommodated by referring to the Master Plan.
6) Staff position: Staff would possibly be able to support the proposed amendment
if it were accompanied by a full site development plan so the eventual homes
could be reviewed at the same time.
Aviara's position: It is not possible nor reasonable to require the owner to
prepare full architectural drawings for each home at this time. Particularly in
light of the fact that PA 28 may be developed as a individual custom home
development. We have proposed specific development standards, to be
incorporate into the Master Plan, for each lot within the planning area. We
would expect that the Planning Department can utilize their planning
experience to visualize development of the area under the strict standards
proposed by Aviara. We must remind ourselves that planning is a process. It
is not static. Our proposal is simply a logical refinement of standards for
development of a planning area.
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
October 21, 1994
Page 4
In addition, we prepared the graphic model study to be utilized as a tool to
visually demonstrate the impact of the proposed amendment on the eventual
development.
7) Staff position: Staff has reconsidered its position that the proposed amendmelit
constitutes a minor amendment, and now is of the opinion that it constitutes a
major amendment.
Aviara's position: Section 21.38 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth that a
minor Master Plan ~endment is one which does not "change the densities
or the boundaries of the subject property, or involve an addition of a new use
or group of uses not shown on the original Master Plan or the rearrangement
of uses within the Master Plan". Since the proposed amendment does not
propose any of the above actions, we conclude that it fully qualifies as a
minor amendment. A staff determination that this amendment is major in
nature will only lengthen an approval process which already looks like it will
push a full year period.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Please distribute this letter to
the Planning Commissioners with the staff packet.
Sincerely,
lJn-J
D. L Clemens
Vice President/General Manager
DLC/er
cc: Mike Grim
Marty Orenyak
Gary Wayne \
ATTACtAENT "Y"
City of Carlsbad
■Adiihhh·l•JA•GliheiAeii
November 9. 1994
D. L. Clemens
A viara Land Associates
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad~ CA 92008
SUBJECT: MP 177(J) -AVIARA PA 28 BUILDING HEIGHT
Dear Larry,
This letter is in response to your October 21, 1994 correspondence regarding the processing of
your master plan amendment. Many of the items that you discuss are explained in the project
staff report, however some of the comments are more appropriately addressed through
correspondence. As you know, staff and the decision makers have always felt very strongly
about a low-lying development within Planning Area 28, however, in an effort to be "business
friendly", the Plm:uung Depanment has attempted to reconcile the conflicts between your master
plan amendment request and the objectives of the City's General Plan and the A viara Master
Plan.
With regard to the timing of the application processing, you may remember that your project was
scheduled on the July 6, 1994 Planning Commission hearing but was continued at your request.
The purpose of this continuation was to allow your representatives additional time to prepare
graphical representations of your proposal in hopes of changing staffs recommendation.
Throughout August, September and October staff reviewed your various resubmittals and met
with representatives from Aviara until it was concluded that an agreement would not be reached.
During review of the project, staff determined that potentially six of the lots in Planning Area
28 could perhaps support a home with 30 foot high elements, however, in that the General Plan
Circulation Element policies (C.l and C.2) and Scenic Corridor Guidelines specify that views of
the lagoon must also be preserved, staff requested that A viara process a site development plan
(SOP) concurrent wjth the master plan amendment. This process would enable staff to determine
whether the proposed · additional building height conformed with the intent and goals of the
A viara Master Plan and policies of the General Plan. However this SDP option was rejected as
impossible and unreasonable by A viara.
The master plan development standards and design criteria for Planning Area 28 came about
through project negotiation and tere purposefully restrictive because of the extreme visibility of
the neighborhood. After many reviews of your potential replacement restrictions, staff cannot
2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad. California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161
D.L. Clemens
A viara Land AS.10iatcs
November 9, 1994
Page 2
agree that an: increase in allowed building height does not decrease the visual quality of · the
surrounding open space amenities (Batiquitos Lagoon and its shoreline). A draft staff report for
MP 177(J) will be available fo.r your review and comment on November 18, 1994. Please feel
free to contact myself or the project planner, Mike Grim, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4499, if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Planning Director
c: Gary Wayne
Chris DeCerbo
File Copy MJH:MO:la
MPtnJI.C.L11l