Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-01; Carlsbad Beach Estates; Tentative Map (CT) (11)~ / , , : I (- ; > ,(I/ :’ “i, ;’ ) : _~ City of Carlsbad December 8, 1999 Merit Group David Buckmaster Ste 202 217 1 El Camino Real Oceanside, CA 92054 SUBJECT: CT 99-Ol/SDP 99-OZ/PUD 99-Ol/CDP 99-02 - CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES This letter is a follow-up to our recent meeting and subsequent discussions. It is intended to serve as a summary of the issues related to the project and to guide you in making specific revisions to the plans. It was staff’s intent (as we indicated in our letter of September 16) that no further changes to the plans would be allowed. However, in consideration of your situation and your recent willingness to bring your architect in to meet with staff and discuss the issues, staff is willing to allow a last set of changes to be made before scheduling the project for hearing. I urge you to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding any of the issues or corrections listed as the next submittal will definitely be the submittal which goes to a public hearing. If any of the necessary information is missing, you will not have another opportunity to add the information to the submittals. Also, if any changes are made which result in additional issues of concern (i.e., new items of non-compliance), you will not have another opportunity to make corrections. The project will have to go to hearing “as is” or be withdrawn. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4471, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, Elaine Blackburn, A.I.C.P. Senior Planner c: Jeremy Riddle File Copy 2075 Las Palmas Dr. * Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 * FAX (760) 438-0894 a9 CT 99-01 CARLSBAD I \CH ESTATES December 8, 1999 Paqe 2 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. CT 99-01 /SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01 /CDP 99-02 - CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES Planning : SHEET Al - SITE PLAN 1. Staff recommends that the information in the “Site Data” area of plan sheet Al be reorganized and revised as indicated below. Staff has suggested several tables which are intended to clarify and correct the information and eliminate any extraneous information. Where staff has suggested the use of new or revised tables, some of the information spaces on the suggested table contain question marks for you to fill in, while others have been filled in by staff based upon the project information previously provided by you. You will need to fill in the spaces that contain question marks; and, we recommend that you double check the information (calculations) already filled in to ensure that it is correct for the current plans. A. Under “Existing Lots”, staff suggests the following text and table replace what is currently shown on the plan sheet. Existing Lots Information: Existing General Plan = RMH and RH Existing Zoning = RD-M (all parcels/lots) Existing Lots: These changes are intended to: a) aggregate the existing lot information by General Plan designation rather than by lot, since the allowed density is calculated by General Plan category; b) make the calculation of allowed density easier to read; c) show the correct allowed density for the site (i.e., the low end of the ranges rather than the growth control point); d) clarify the number of dwelling units allowed on the existing lots; and, e) eliminate some information which is not pertinent to the project. B. Under “Proposed Lots And Use”, staff suggests the following text and table replace what is currently shown on the plan sheet. CT 99-01 CARLSBAD : ICH ESTATES December 8, 1999 Paqe 3 Proposed Lots Information: Proposed General Plan: RMH and RH (no change) Proposed Zoning: RD-M (no change) Min. Allowed Lot Size: 3,500 sf Max. Allowed Lot Coverage = 60% Proposed Lot Information: Prop’d Prop’d Prop’d Lot Lot Lot # Size sf Coverage 1 4,410 33% 2 3,780 44% 3 3,798 44% 4 6,930 33% 5 29,580 26% Proposed Density and Number of Dwelling Units: 5 (part) 7,110 .163 RMH Tot Tot 14,040 .322 RMH 8 du/ac Prop’d Density 10.1 dulac 9.4 du/ac Prop’d Allowed # 1 # of of DU’s D‘ 1 ----++- 2 du’s 3 du’s These changes are intended to make the following corrections: a) include the second dwelling unit in the “Proposed Density calculation; b) include the second dwelling unit in the number of “Proposed Units”; and, c) delete the “8.98 units per acre” information. (You cannot combine the densities for the RMH and the RH together to total one density figure. They must be calculated separately.) C. Under “Proposed Buildings”, staff suggests the following text and table would replace what is currently shown on the plan sheet. CT 99-01 CARLSBAD 4CH ESTATES December 8, 1999 Paqe 4 Floor DU Garage [ Lot # 1 1 2 Plan # A 2”d du B Total sf 3,256 593 2,758 Sf ??? n/a ??? 3 B 2,758 ??? 4 Existina 1,780 ??? I I 5 C ??? ??? 5 D ??? ??? 5 E ??? ??? 5 F ??? ??? 5 G ??? ??? 5 G (Rev) ??? ??? D. Please add information related to the recreation area requirements. We suggest the following: Ret areas req’d: 2,000 sf total 1,000 sf of private passive 1,000 sf of common active Ret areas provided: sf total sf in private 15x15 yards sf in common active (volleyball area) E. The information from “Owners” to the bottom of the page can remain as it is with one exception: The “Existing Zoning” and “Proposed General Plan” information should be deleted as it has been included within the tables suggested above. 2. 3. 4. 5. Density - As we have discussed previously, the proposed density exceeds the allowed density at the low end of the range for on the RMH portion of the project. Approval of the proposed additional density would have to be approved by the Planning Commission on the basis of special findings contained in the City’s General Plan. Please revise the site plan drawing to add the General Plan designation boundary line which splits the property to the drawing and label the area on the right as “RMH” and the area on the left as “RH”. Please revise the site plan drawing to delineate the private 15x1 5 rear yards clearly on the plan. Please revise the site plan drawing to correct the square footage and label on the common ret area to call out only the square footage of that area. It is currently labeled as “1 230 sf of passive/active ret area”. This figure is not correct. Also, the common ret area cannot be passive. It must be active ret area. CT 99-01 CARLSBAD E-dZH ESTATES December 8, 1999 Paqe 5 6. Please revise the site plan drawing to incorporate the guest parking changes made following our recent meeting. Staff has reviewed the proposed guest parking revisions (Faxed to staff on December 1). The revised design provides the required 5’ setback from nearby buildings. 7. Revise the site plan drawing to show a wrought iron enclosure for the RV parking area (per our meeting discussion). The view of the RV parking area from the adjacent residential unit (Plan G) will also need to be screened by landscaping. SHEETS A3-A, A3.B, A3C-E (2 PAGES), A3.F, A3.G, 3 of 3, and A4 - ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS 8. Building Height - The building height measurements shown on previous architectural elevations plans have been deleted from the current set of plans. The proposed building height must be called out for every building. The current plans set contains two sheets (A4 and A5) which call out the maximum allowed building height (30’1, but do not call out the actual height of the proposed buildings. They show only the tops of some of the proposed buildings as being somewhere below the 30’ line and show only the elevations visible from the street. The building height information must be complete and must clearly demonstrate compliance with the City’s building height regulations for all buildings/locations in the project. 9. Building Articulation - The architectural elevations for each of the single-family detached units must call out the depth and length/width of all popouts and recesses (i.e., all planes) on all four elevations of those single-family structures. While the project as designed does not appear to comply fully with the City’s policy of achieving significant building articulation through the use of varying building planes on single-family structures on small lots, this information will verify the extent to which the project does provide this articulation. Since this is a policy matter, staff has some flexibility in determining whether the project meets the intent, if not the letter, of this policy. (You have indicated on several occasions that any reduction of the floor area of these units is infeasible. Therefore, staff assumes that the current design of the single-family units is the final design.) Staff recommends that you also call out the amount of building articulation provided on the buildings on Lot 5 (the elevations for Plans C - G Rev). While this part of the project is not subject to a specific policy or strict amount, it is important that the building articulation of the structures be demonstrated. SHEETS A2-A, A2.B. A2.C-E, A2.F, A2.G - FLOOR PLANS 10. The floor plans for Plans “G” and “G-Rev/d” show an enclosed room identified as a possible “loft”. This room does not meet the City’s definition of a loft. Therefore, it must be treated as a typical room and must be included in the calculation of the building height, floor area, and any other relevant calculations. The term “loft” must be deleted from the floor plans. 11. The various floor plans call for “over-hood” storage in the garages. This storage appears to encroach into the parking “stall” area. In our discussion recently, you indicated that this was not the case. Staff suggests you call this storage something else (e.g., “suspended” storage?) as the term “over-hood” seems to be misleading. Also, staff would appreciate any clarification you can provide on these drawings to more clearly show how this storage works and exactly how and where it fits into the garages. 12. The various floor plans show calculations of storage areas provided and include storage identified as “under stair” (in the house). This “under stair” type of storage cannot count toward the calculation of storage for purposes of complying with the PD ordinance. Please revise these calculations to delete these under stair areas from the storage area calculations. LANDSCAPE PLANS 13. The City’s Landscape Architect has provided a number of comments and changes on the proposed landscape plan (sheets Al .l and Al .2). These comments are located directly on those plan sheets and are not repeated in this letter. The changes should be made as soon as possible, and the revised sheets should be resubmitted to your staff planner (Elaine Blackburn). 14. Please note that the RV parking area will need to be screened from the adjacent unit (Plan G) by landscaping (previously mentioned above), the front yards of the single-family detached units (Lots 1-4) will need to be fully and heavily landscaped, and the parking areas will need to be landscaped. Engineering: 1. There are no remaining Engineering issues of concern.