Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-06; Planning Commission; ; DI 89-04 - SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE DETERMINATION FOR CT 83-04, Marlborough Development Corporationr DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISCUSS ION ITEM DI 89-4 SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE DETERMINATION FOR ~-~~j, Marlborough Development Corporation -Review of plans moa1ff~tl to- address Coastal Commission conditions for substantial conformance with original City approvals. The Windsong Shores project was approved by the Planning Commission on September 28, 1983 and the City Council on November 1, 1983. Because the site is located within the Coastal Zone an approval was then required by the Coastal Commission. Revisions were made by the Coastal Commission during their review. DISCUSSION: At issue is the substantial conformance determination of the plans which have been submitted for plan check with the Coastal Commission approval and the City of Carlsbad approval. The applicant, Marlborough Development Company, has submitted the Coastal Commission approval plan as the site plan for their proposed development. There are discrepancies between that plan and the City's approved plan. However, those changes which have been made result in a better project than the original City approval. A view corridor has been opened up at Harbor Drive; the total number of units has been reduced from 140 to 130 which, in turn, reduced building mass and reduced building height in selected areas; and, those areas which do not have building coverage would now be landscaped. The most apparent differences appear west of Harbor Drive. West of Harbor Drive 1. Generally buildings have been pulled closer to the north property line, a rough average of 10 feet, allowing more distance from the bluff edge. 2. The single large building has been broken into two buildings. 3. A satellite building has been moved and reoriented from an east/west axis to a north/south axis. (1 \ DI 89-4 -MARLBOROUGH - SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 PAGE 2 East of Harbor Drive 1. The basic shape and number of buildings remains the same, however, building locations appear to have been shifted to the west. The result is a single two-story element situated relatively close to Harbor Drive. Landscaping with the subterranean garage has been redistributed to the perimeter of the building. This change was made to create proper ventilation to the parking area and create a more viable environment for plant life. A certain percentage of the discrepancies can be attributed to scale and map accuracy. Recognizing that margin of error and a "Big Picture" analysis of the two plans, the submitted plans are not identical but are in substantial conformance with the original City approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2910 acknowledging substantial conformance of the plans submitted by Marlborough Development Company for the construction of Windsong Shores, CT 83-4. ATTACHMENT 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2910 2. Location Map 3. Letter from Paula Madson CW:af August 15, 1989 I ... ,, TH[ llGHHOOT PlAruNING GROUP 702 FOURTH STREET OCEANSIDE. CA 92054 (619) 722-1924 FAX (619) 433-7511 17919 FRONT STREET sum 20s RANCHO CALIFORNIA CA 92390 (714) 699-6190 FAX (714) 699-6193 August 18, 1989 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Windsong Shores Substantial Conformance Review (CT 83-4/CP-227} Dear Chairman and Commissioners: on behalf of Marlborough Development Corporation, we are requesting a Substantial conformance determination for a reduction in units and building footprint area, plus minor modifications to the garage landscape plan on the Windsong Shores condominium site development plan (CT 83-4/CP-227}. Windsong Shores is the last phase of a five phase condominium project begun in 1974, located south of Chinquapin Avenue, at the terminus of Harbor Drive. The Windsong Shores Tentative Tract Map and Site Plan were approved in 1983 for 140 units. Later that year, the Coastal Commission approved the project with certain conditions. Condition lb required that the public view corridor, at the terminus of Harbor Drive, be widened and Condition le required that certain buildings be reduced to a maximum of two stories or 25 feet in height in order to reduce the visual impact of the project. To comply with these conditions, the site plan was revised and the buildings reconfigured. This resulted in the number of units being decreased from 140 to 130 and the overall building area on the site was similarly decreased. These modifications to the site plan were reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission on November 23, 1986 and a signed copy is on file with the Planning Department. Planning Commission Page 2 August 18, 1989 The other minor modification involves redesigning the landscaped areas in the subterranean garage. The landscape areas were relocated and reconfigured to ensure there was sufficient sunlight and proper drainage and eliminated the need for the overhead circular air shafts. We believe the modifications to the site plan are upgrades since they reduce the density of the project and the garage landscape areas have been enhanced. Marlborough purchased the property last summer and has been working diligently with the City staff, City officials and the Coastal Commission in hopes to begin grading in September of this year. They have also continued to keep the neighborhood groups informed as to the status of the project. Your favorable consideration is respectfully requested. Sincerely, ?2c(.__:;g Ila fl,,___ Paula B. Madson Senior Planner PBM/db cc: Leonard Bedolla, Marlborough Development Corporation Richard Niec, Marlborough Development Corporation 173.07/55 • 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk <!Iitg of <!Iarln ball APPEAL FORM RECEIVEu CITY CLERK'S OF?t;t(EPHONE (619) 434-2808 89 SEP f 5 PM !2: IO CITY OF CARLSBAD I (We) appeal the following decision of the Planning Camri.ssion to the City Counc i 1 : Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): MarllX>rough Development Project/Windsong Shores Phase V --DI 89~4 Substantial Confonnance Dete:rmination Date of Decision: September 6, 1989 Reason for Appeal: The rrodified plans are not in substantial conformance with original city approvals in that: (a) The proposed condominium units were rroved back fran the bluff approximately 10 feet and will abut the existing Windsong border leaving only about 30 feet between existing buildings and proposed buildings and eliminating a 10 foot green belt; (SEE A'ITACTIED) September 15, 1989 . -\...._....__ ·.,.. .. a 1; ',,,"' . ,,. ) .. """"-~~-• " Date r , Signature DUKE, -~ERS~, ,~ & Brux;AN'I'E BY: ' " "\ • ~ -· a.__~..,,"-..... __ • -=·· Name (Please Print) WIILIAM K. SHEAR.El<, Attorneys for: WIND SONG COVE HCMED'i%:""ERS ASSOCIATION, Il.:jC. and AGUA HEDIONDA HCMED\~'ERS ASSOCIA'I'ION Address 101 West Broadway, Sixth Floor San Diego, california 92101 (619) 232-0816 Telephone Number Page Two Appeal Form Reason for Appeal (Continued): • (b) Marlborough did not provide the Planning Commission with the square footage of the proposed condominiums, and the density of units may be greater than that approved by the City; (c) The Environmental Impact Report and Traffic Study for the project may no longer be val id because of the proposed changes in the development, and because significant environmental issues were not addressed by the E.1.R.; (d) The buildings will now be configured differently than in the original proposed development; (e) The original development [including Windsong Cove, Agua Hedionda, and the proposed Marlborough project] were supposed to be a single gated community. This is no longer to be the case, and the Marlborough development wi I I unreasonably burden the easements through Windsong Cove without assurance of payment by the Marlborough project for its share of upkeep of the easement streets; (f) The Marlborough project wi I I cut off access to the lagoon enjoyed by appellant associations and their members, which access would not be interrupted if the original development scheme had been fol lowed; (g} The issue of whether or not the easement is to be burdened by emergency vehicular traffic remains unresolved; (h) Marlborough now intends to conduct grading operations during the rainy season, contrary to the requirements of Planning Commission Resolution 2186, imposing conditions on the project.