HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 01-13; Goetz Residence; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (3)City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
January 29, 2002
Roy Asaro
P 0 Box 8543
Rancho Santa Fe Ca 92064
SUBJECT:CDP 1-13 - GOETZ RESIDENCE
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be mailed to you
on Friday, February 1, 2002. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at
the Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on
February 11, 2002. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you
at 10:00. If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the
DCC meeting.
It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with you
to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission.
Your colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the
Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for
their review, your project could be rescheduled to a later time. If you do not plan
to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s)
here by the scheduled time above.
If you need additional information concerning
Planner, Greg Fisher at (760) 602-4629.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
this matter, please contact your
JARY'E. WAYNJ
Assistant Planning Director
GEW:GF:cs
c: Dean & Barbara Goetz, 603 N Highway 101, Ste H, Solana Beach CA 92075
File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
LAND USE REVIEW
November 20, 2001
TO: Greg Fisher - Assistant Planner
FROM: David Rick - Assistant Engineer
COMPLETENESS REVIEW -3 ' 1 :
PROJECT ID: CDP 01-13 GOETZ RESIDENCE
The Engineering Department has completed its review of ther above referenced project for
compliance with the previously determined issues. The project appears to comply with City
engineering standards and all issues have been addressed. Please add the following conditions
of approval to the approving resolution or letter:
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of a building or grading
permit, whichever occurs first.
General .;
1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally
established by the City.
Fees/Agreements
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structures, the developer shall
cause property owner to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for
the existing non-standardized concrete curb located within the public right-of-
way.
Grading
4. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
site plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and
obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for
the project.
H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATAWIISC\COMPREV
Coastal
5. If a Grading Permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can be
completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the "dry season", April 1st
to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th upon
written approval of the City Engineer, obtained in advance, and only if all erosion control
measures are in place by October 1st.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
6. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and
charges for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
7. The Developer shall install the potable water service and meter at a location
approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be
reflected on public improvement plans.
8. The Developer shall install a sewer lateral and clean-out at a location approved
by the District Engineer. The locations of the sewer lateral shall be reflected on
the public improvement plans.
9. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not
be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District
Engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available
at the time of occupancy.
If you or the applicant has any questions regarding the above, please either see or call me at 602-
2781.
David Rick
Assistant Engineer - Development Services Division
H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\MISC\COMPREV
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
August 10, 2001
Roy Asaro
PO Box 8543
Rancho Santa Fe, Ca 92064
SUBJECT: CDP 01-13 - GOETZ RESIDENCE
The items requested from you earlier to make your Coastal Development Permit,
application no. CDP 01-13 complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning
Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing.
Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical
acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication.
Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues
that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues
should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City
may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct,
or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application.
Please contact your staff planner, Greg Fisher, at (760) 602-4629, if you have any
questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:GF:cs
c: Chris DeCerbo
David Rick
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
No. CDP 01-13 - GOETZ RESIDENCE
Planning:
None
Engineering:
None
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. The proposed wall located along the northern property line exceeds the maximum
height of six feet. Please correct to meet the allowed height limit.
2. The base of the spiral staircase located in the rear yard is not permitted in the 45-
foot bluff setback. Please redesign the staircase to meet this standard and show
the new location on the site plan and elevation drawings.
3. As a reminder, the roofing material (sheet metal) must be administratively approved
by the Planning Director. Your Coastal Development Permit will not be scheduled
for Planning Commission hearing date until this occurs.
Engineering:
1. Revise the grading plan to be consistent with the revisions to the driveway
shown on the site plan. Additional concrete surface was added on the site
plan to accommodate vehicle back-up but the same revisions were not made
on the grading plan.
2. Since the sewer main is deep enough to accommodate gravity flow for the
lowest floor level, remove Note 1 on sheet 2 of the grading plan. Add a note
stating that "all on-site sewage will gravity flow to the main".
3. On the landscape plan, remove the decorative concrete from the portion of
the driveway within the public right-of-way. This portion must be
constructed of asphalt concrete or other easily removable material. Also,
remove planters from the portion of driveway that was expanded to
accommodate maneuvering of vehicles.
4. Where is the 50 feet of fill, as indicated on Sheet 1 of the grading plans,
proposed? It appears that all grading consists of cut only.
5. The base of the spiral staircase located in the rear yard is not permitted
within the 45-foot setback. They are shown removed from the grading plan
but not the site plan or elevation plans.
In addition, show the 45-foot bluff setback line and drainage easement on the landscape plan.
Remove any shrubs, trees or hardscape from the easement and west of the easement.
Landscaping with irrigation and hardscape in this portion of the lot would increase the
amount of runoff over the bluff edge. Drainage over the bluff is prohibited beyond
natural conditions.
6. A grading permit will be required. The grading plan check process takes
approximately 3 months to complete and cannot begin until the project has
an approved coastal development permit. The grading will need to be
completed prior to building permit issuance. This comment is for
informational purposes only and no response is necessary.
7. The post development runoff flows and velocities should not exceed pre
development storm runoff flows and velocities during a 10-year, 6-hour
storm event. The project must be designed to comply with this requirement
and hydrology calculations completed by a registered civil engineer shall be
submitted to support any findings. This information was not submitted with
your last submittal. Filtration of pollutants is already addressed by directing
flow over a landscaped permeable surface.
8. City standard requires 2% positive drainage 5 feet away from the
foundation. Any lesser distance requires written authorization from a soils
engineer. Indicate with a note on the grading plan the percent positive grade
away from foundation and the distance between foundation and drainage
swale. This information was not submitted with your last submittal.
9. Provide a soils report for this development. Previous reports have been
submitted on the property but the reports focused on analyzing bluff retreat
rates rather than determining recommendations for grade preparations, spoil
remediation and structural design for the proposed project. No report was
received with the last plan check submittal.
10. Add the following note and leader to the retaining wall on Parcel 3: "Future
retaining wall on Parcel 3 pending coastal development permit approval".
Also, lighten the existing contour lines to improve legibility of the retaining
wall heights.
11. The project can only be approved upon the condition that an encroachment
agreement is processed for the curb located within the right-of-way fronting
the subject property. This comment is for informational purposes only and
no response is necessary.
Memorandum
TO: Greg Fisher-Assistant Planner
FROM: David Rick-Assistant Engineer
DATE: August 8, 2001
CDP 01-13 GOETZ RESIDENCE
2nd CHECK WITH ISSUES
Engineering issues which still need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff
making a determination on the proposed project are as follows:
1. Revise the grading plan to be consistent with the revisions to the driveway shown
on the site plan. Additional concrete surface was added on the site plan to
accommodate vehicle back-up but the same revisions were not made on the
grading plan.
2. Since the sewer main is deep enough to accommodate gravity flow for the lowest
floor level, remove Note 1 on sheet 2 of the grading plan. Add a note stating that
"all on-site sewage will gravity flow to the main".
3. On the landscape plan, remove the decorative concrete from the portion of the
driveway within the public right-of-way. This portion must be constructed of
asphalt concrete or other easily removable material. Also, remove planters from
the portion of driveway that was expanded to accommodate maneuvering of
vehicles.
4. Where is the 50 feet of fill, as indicated on Sheet 1 of the grading plans,
proposed? It appears that all grading consists of cut only. ,
h,..,; - - - rpifni !-^ is 'v (<*'
5. fJ5er^condition=m3mber-46? the^stairs ace-not permitted within the 45-foot\§etback.
They are shown removed from the grading plan but not the site plan or elevation
plans.
In addition, show the 45-foot bluff setback line and drainage easement on the
landscape plan. Remove any shrubs, trees or hardscape from the easement
and west of the easement. Landscaping with irrigation and hardscape in this
portion of the lot would increase the amount of runoff over the bluff edge.
Drainage over the bluff is prohibited beyond natural conditions.
6. A grading permit will be required. The grading plan check process takes
approximately 3 months to complete and cannot begin until the project has an
approved coastal development permit. The grading will need to be completed
prior to building permit issuance. This comment is for informational purposes
only and no response is necessary.
7. The post development runoff flows and velocities should not exceed pre
development storm runoff flows and velocities during a 10-year, 6-hour storm
event. The project must be designed to comply with this requirement and
hydrology calculations completed by a registered civil engineer shall be
submitted to support any findings. This information was not submitted with your
last submittal. Filtration of pollutants is already addressed by directing flow over
a landscaped permeable surface.
8. City standard requires 2% positive drainage 5 feet away from the foundation.
Any lesser distance requires written authorization from a soils engineer. Indicate
with a note on the grading plan the percent positive grade away from foundation
and the distance between foundation and drainage swale. This information was
not submitted with your last submittal.
9. Provide a soils report for this development. Previous reports have been
submitted on the property but the reports focused on analyzing bluff retreat rates
rather than determining recommendations for grade preparations, spoil
remediation and structural design for the proposed project. No report was
received with the last plan check submittal.
10. Add the following note and leader to the retaining wall on Parcel 3: "Future
retaining wall on Parcel 3 pending coastal development permit approval". Also,
lighten the existing contour lines to improve legibility of the retaining wall heights.
11. The project can only be approved upon the condition that an encroachment
agreement is processed for the curb located within the right-of-way fronting the
subject property. This comment is for informational purposes only and no
response is necessary.
If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or contact me at 602-2781.
DAVID Rl(fk
Assistant Engineer
Engineering Development Services Division
Memorandimi
TO: Greg Fisher - Assistant Planner
FROM: David Rick - Assistant Engineer
DATE: April 19, 2001
CDP 01-13 GOETZ RESIDENCE
COMPLETNESS AND ISSUES REVIEW
Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for
completeness and engineering issues of concern. All items needed for engineering review are
provided for determining the application as complete. Engineering issues which need to be
resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a determination on the proposed project
are as follows:
1. Using a 24-foot minimum turning radius template for a passenger design vehicle,
design the driveway so that a driver can back out of the garage and exit the
property in a forward position.
2. How will sewage at the lower level floor flow to the street sewer main? If a pump
is proposed, then indicate so on the floor plan. Otherwise, indicate the sewer
main depth on the profiles or grading plans to verify gravity flow.
3. Per condition 13 of the approved Minor Subdivision 98-01 letter, no grading is
permitted within the 45-foot bluff setback. The plans show a daylight line within
this setback and the words "cut" and "fill" are written within the footprint of the
building. Were the words and daylight line inadvertently misaligned? Where is
the grading actually proposed? In addition, I do not see any fill on the plan.
Revise grading plans to limit grading east of the 45-foot setback line.
—^ CTM<V> Oj<. 960L fc€<*WT ,
Per condition number 16, (me stairs^nd the water sculpture are not permitted -Q ^N*
within the 45-foot setback. In addition, show the 45-foot bluff setback line and \iS^
drainage easement on the landscape plan. Remove all landscaping and l\\
stepping-stones from the easement and west of the easement. Landscaping
with irrigation and hardscape in this portion of the lot would increase the amount
of runoff over the bluff edge. Drainage over the bluff is prohibited beyond natural
conditions.
4. A grading permit will be required. The grading plan check process takes
approximately 3 months to complete and cannot begin until the project has an
approved coastal development permit. The grading will need to be completed
prior to building permit issuance. This comment is for informational purposes
only and no response is necessary.
5. The post development runoff flows and velocities should not exceed pre
development storm runoff flows and velocities during a 10-year, 6-hour storm
event. The project must be designed to comply with this requirement and
hydrology calculations completed by a registered civil engineer shall be
submitted to support any findings. Filtration of pollutants is already addressed by
directing flow over a landscaped permeable surface.
6. City standard requires 2% positive drainage 5 feet away from the foundation.
Any lesser distance requires written authorization from a soils engineer. Indicate
with a note on the grading plan the percent positive grade away from foundation
and the distance between foundation and drainage swale.
7. Where does water travel once it enters the drain inlet located at the northeast
corner of the property? Why not remove the inlet and design to surface flow
across lawn and walkway?
8. Provide a soils report for this development. Previous reports have been
submitted on the property but the reports focused on analyzing bluff retreat rates
rather than determining recommendations for grade preparations, spoil
remediation and structural design for the proposed project.
9. On each side of the property, coordinate with adjacent property owners to
determine correct illustration of existing or proposed walls. Also, some of the
wall heights have TW labeled where BW would be provided. Please correct.
If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or contact me at 602-2781.
DAVID RICK
Assistant Engineer
Engineering Development Services Division
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
April 26, 2001
Roy Asaro
P.O. Box 8543
Rancho Santa Fe, Ca 92064
SUBJECT: CDP 01-13 - GOETZ RESIDENCE
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department
has reviewed your Coastal Development Permit, application no. CDP 01-13 - Goetz Residence,
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, March 29, 2001, 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, Greg Fisher, at (760) 602-4629, if you have any questions
or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. The red-line copy needs to be returned
with the re-submittal.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:GF:cs
Chris DeCerbo
David Rick
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
No. CDP 01-13 - Goetz Residence
Planning:
1. Please provide a separate site plan showing a "stringline" exhibit. The stringline exhibit
is required by the Coastal Commission and accurately shows the horizontal alignment
between all rear yard structures, including like amenities such as decks, patios,
balconies, trellises, pools, spas, etc. The subject property must be compared to the
nearest developed properties to the north and south. Please show on the "stingline"
exhibit the approved "Jenson Residence" to the north and the proposed "Frye
Residence" to the south. Please show the complete footprint for both adjacent
properties.
2. Provide a soils report for this development. Previous reports have been submitted on
the property but the reports focused on analyzing bluff retreat rates rather than
determining recommendations for grade preparations and structural design for the
proposed project. Please make sure that the Geo-Report addresses bluff stability for at
least 75 years or the expected life time of the structure, whichever is greater.
3. Please provide a "beach profile" that would provide the following information:
Accurately depict the mean-high tide line; show all proposed structures, walls, decks,
patio areas, landscaping, etc. if any, that can be seen from the beach elevation; show
any proposed sea wall (if none, please state on site plan).
4. Provide a recent preliminary title report or grant deed of title that indicates that Dean
Goetz is the property owner.
Engineering:
1. Provide a soils report for this development. Previous reports have been submitted on
the property but the reports focused on analyzing bluff retreat rates rather than
determining recommendations for grade preparations, spoil remediation and structural
design for the proposed project.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. The proposed sheet metal roof requires Planning Director approval. Please provide a
sample as part of your resubmittal.
2. What is the height of the entryway gate? Please provide a profile. As a reminder, the
maximum height of all walls, fences and gates including decorative pilasters is 42"
within the required front yard setback. The proposed wall located along the northern
property line exceeds the maximum height of six feet. Please correct to meet the
allowed height limit. Please provide on the site plan and show in detail any proposed
fencing that runs parallel with Carlsbad Boulevard. Per the California Coastal
Commission, the fencing material must be open to allow westerly views as seen from
Carlsbad Boulevard. A solution would be to use iron rod fencing.
3. Per condition number 16, the water sculpture is not permitted within the 45-foot
setback. Please remove from all plans. In addition, show the 45-foot bluff setback line
and drainage easement on the landscape plan. Remove all landscaping and stepping-
stones from the easement and west of the easement. Landscaping with irrigation and
hardscape in this portion of the lot would increase the amount of runoff over the bluff
edge. Drainage over the bluff is prohibited beyond natural conditions.
4. Please provide the general plan designation, lot coverage and proposed building height
within the general information summary. If the total building footprint is the same as
the lot coverage, please change the plan text to lot coverage.
5. Please provide and label on the site plan the bluff top edge from which the 45' setback
is measured. Also, indicate the 45' setback by using bearing and distances as shown
on Final Map 98-01.
6. For your information, the City is reviewing and processing a Costal Development Permit
on the adjacent property to the south. The applicant's name and contact number is
Steven Ash @ 949-489-5737. It might be of some mutual benefit to contact him
regarding the "stringline" exhibit.
7. Per the California Coastal Commission, the total amount of grading allowed is limited to
the "least amount necessary" to accommodate development. The proposed grading
quantity (500 CY cut) is considered excessive. Please redesign the project to reduce
the grading quantity by half.
8. Please provide on the elevation drawings the maximum proposed height measured from
existing grade or the new grade whichever is most restrictive (lower). It appears that a
new more restrictive grade is being proposed yet the height is being measured from
existing grade. The City's building height definition is attached for your convenience.
21.04.065 Building height.
(a) The height of a building shall be measured as follows:
(1) "Building height" means the vertical distance of a structure measured
from the more restrictive (lowest) of finished or existing grade. The
vertical distance is measured from all points at grade along and within
the building coverage to the highest point of the structure directly above
that point of measurement.
(2) "Existing grade," for the purposes of measuring building height,
means the ground level elevation which existed on or before August 1,
1991 and prior to any grading or other site preparation related to, or to
be incorporated into, a proposed new development or alteration of
existing developments unless a discretionary permit for such
developments or alterations is approved. In that case, existing grade shall
mean the grade after the property is developed or improved in
accordance with the grading plans which implement the approved
discretionary permit. For nondiscretionary permits where retaining walls,
fill or other grading are utilized to create finished grade higher in elevation
than existing grade as defined in this subsection and as determined by
the planning director, then existing grade shall be used in the
determination of building height.(3) Building height measurements include
basements and other subterranean areas that are above existing grade. In
the case of basements, cellars and underground parking, building height
is measured from existing grade, excluding the area below existing grade.
(4) Building height is measured to the peak of the structure. Per Section
21.46.020 of this title, roof structures specifically for the housing of
elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans or similar equipment required
to operate and maintain the building; fire or parapet walls, skylights,
architectural towers, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, wireless masts
and similar structures may be erected above the height limits prescribed
in this title, but no roof structure or any other space above the height
limit prescribed for the zone in which the building is located shall be
allowed for the purpose of providing additional floor space, or be taller
than the minimum height requirement to accommodate or enclose the
intended use. (Ord. NS-204 § 2, 1992: Ord. NS-180 § 3, 1991: Ord.
9667, 1983: Ord. 9498 § 1, 1978: Ord. 9141 § 1: Ord. 9060 § 212)
Engineering:
9. Using a 24-foot minimum turning radius template for a passenger design vehicle, design
the driveway so that a driver can back out of the garage and exit the property in a
forward position.
10. How will sewage at the lower level floor flow to the street sewer main? If a pump is
proposed, then indicate so on the floor plan. Otherwise, indicate the sewer main depth
on the profiles or grading plans to verify gravity flow.
11. Per condition 13 of the approved Minor Subdivision 98-01 letter, no grading is
permitted within the 45-foot bluff setback. The plans show a daylight line within this
setback and the words "cut" and "fill" are written within the footprint of the building.
Were the words and daylight line inadvertently misaligned? Where is the grading
actually proposed? In addition, I do not see any fill on the plan. Revise grading plans to
limit grading east of the 45-foot setback line.
Per condition number 16, the stairs and the water sculpture are not permitted within the
45-foot setback. In addition, show the 45-foot bluff setback line and drainage
easement on the landscape plan. Remove all landscaping and stepping-stones from the
easement and west of the easement. Landscaping with irrigation and hardscape in this
portion of the lot would increase the amount of runoff over the bluff edge. Drainage
over the bluff is prohibited beyond natural conditions.
12. A grading permit will be required. The grading plan check process takes approximately
3 months to complete and cannot begin until the project has an approved coastal
development permit. The grading will need to be completed prior to building permit
issuance. This comment is for informational purposes only and no response is
necessary.
13. The post development runoff flows and velocities should not exceed pre development
storm runoff flows and velocities during a 10-year, 6-hour storm event. The project
must be designed to comply with this requirement and hydrology calculations completed
by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to support any findings. Filtration of
pollutants is already addressed by directing flow over a landscaped permeable surface.
14. City standard requires 2% positive drainage 5 feet away from the foundation. Any
lesser distance requires written authorization from a soils engineer. Indicate with a note
on the grading plan the percent positive grade away from foundation and the distance
between foundation and drainage swale.
1 5. Where does water travel once it enters the drain inlet located at the northeast corner of
the property? Why not remove the inlet and design to surface flow across lawn and
walkway?
1 6. On each side of the property, coordinate with adjacent property owners to determine
correct illustration of existing or proposed walls. Also, some of the wall heights have
TW labeled where BW would be provided. Please correct.