No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 97-04; Cornerstone Corporate Centre; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (12)June 16,1997 TO: ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: Associate Planner Terri Woods SUBJECT: CORNERSTONE - RESOLUTION OF GRADINGMILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES I met with the Cornerstone development team on the proposed alternative designs which address the following major planning issues on the project: 1. Proposed fill on Lot 1 1 and the resulting slope design and slope heights adjacent to Palomar 2. Proposed retaining wall heights throughout the project; and 3. Proposed encroachment onto existing manufactured slopes on the east side of Lot 1 1. Airport Road; Although the applicant has greatly improved the design of the proposed project, it still does not comply with Planning Department policies regarding encroachment onto existing manufactured slopes and proposed heights of retaining walls. It is obvious that this site was not designed for a project of the proposed magnitude, as evidenced by the proposed amount of fill on Lot 11 (19.3 feet), the height and number of proposed retaining walls, and the proposed encroachment onto existing slopes. Regardless of this observation, I understand that the City does not currently have large, vacant, readily-available Planned Industrial designated sites, which could accommodate such a large project, and it may be in the best interest of the City to relax established Department policies to accommodate this project. Please review the information provided below and provide me with the necessary policy direction to proceed on the review of this project. The following is a summary of the applicants’ proposed alternatives to the above raised issues. Also included, is my recommendation on the proposed alternatives to the original project design. Please provide a response to the proposed alternatives at your earliest convenience. Newport National has already called twice since I met with them on Wednesday. I anticipate you, and everyone else will receive calls shortly. If you have questions, please let me know. 1. PROPOSED FILL ON LOT 11 AND THE RESULTING SLOPE DESIGN AND SLOPE HEIGHTS ADJACENT TO PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD Amlicants ProDosal The original project design and all proposed alternatives include 19.3 feet of fill on Lot 1 1. As designed, the fill is provided to bring Lot 1 1 to the approximate existing height of Lot 8. The applicant has stated that the lots must be level in order to design a “campus” type project which would include a shared court yard located between two buildings. This fill results in an up-slope fiom Palomar Airport Road of approximately 50 feet in height (30 feet existing plus 20 feet of proposed fill). The applicants have proposed two alternatives to the original design of the Palomar Airport Road up- slope. The original design proposed the regrading of a portion (40-feet) of the existing slope, creating new 2: 1 manufactured slopes, and the installation of a 13 to 14 foot high retaining wall at the top of slope. The following is a summary of the alternatives proposed. Alternative #1 This alternative involves the contour-grading of the entire 50 foot high slope (30 foot existing plus proposed 20 feet of fill). All mature vegetation would be removed and new landscaping planted. The grading would provide 2: 1 manufactured slopes that would undulate horizontally and vertically across the slope face. This alternative would require approximately 14 foot high retaining walls at the east and west corners of the pad which could be screened by landscaping. As all mature landscaping would be removed form the existing 30 foot high slopes, this alternative would have significant visual impacts as viewed from Palomar Airport Road. It would likely take five or more years before the landscaping would mature enough to blend with the remainder of the slope on Palomar Airport Road (see attached exhibits). Alternative #2 This alternative involves the regrading of the northern 10 feet of the existing slope, and installing 6 to 8 foot high retaining walls, to be staggered on the slope. Also, similar to Alternative #1, retaining walls to 14 feet in height, would be required at the east and west corners of the pad which could be screened by landscaping. The regraded slope would be manufactured at 1.5: 1. A geotechnical report would be required to determine the acceptability of the 1.5: 1 manufactured slopes. As only the top 10 feet of the existing slope would be regraded, 20 feet of mature landscaping could be retained adjacent to Plaomar Airport Road. Staff Recommendation Request a tree and vegetation survey on the slope adjacent to Palomar Airport Raod (PAR), and if a fair number of mature trees would be retained under Alternative #2, recommend the implementation of Alternative #2. Under Alternative #2, retaining wall design alternatives must be explored to ensure that as viewed fkom PAR, the slope is as attractive and natural as possible. The applicants have proposed an interlocking-planted retaining wall which may be satisfactory. In addition, under Alternative #2, the applicant should be conditioned to install additional landscaping on the 20 feet of existing slope which is to remain. This additional landscaping should be installed prior to the commencement of the grading on the project. The additional landscaping will help obscure the grading activities as viewed from PAR. Finally, the project should be conditioned to install a large percentage (40-50%) of 24” box trees than normally required on such a project. The larger specimen trees will help to reduce the initial impacts of the proposed grading and slope height as viewed from PAR. 2. PROPOSED RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT Amlicants Pronosal -. --. The applicants have revised the proposed plans reducing most of the retaining wall heights from 3’-27’ in height to 3’ to 14’ in height. One of the areas of concern is the western property line. The applicants have proposed to constuct 7’ to 12’ high retaining walls along this property line to increase the building pad size. These walls will be very visible from the adjacent undeveloped site, Although the wall heights have been reduced, the number of retaining walls and proposed wall heights are still greater than the Planning Department generally supports (see attached exhibits). Staff Recommendation None. Please provide staff with the policy direction regarding the use of retaining walls on this project. 3. PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT ONTO EXISTING MANUFACTURED SLOPES ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF LOT 11 Applicants Proposal The applicants have revised the proposed grading on the east property line. Their original proposal included the placement of a pool near the east property line and included fill on the existing manufactured slope on the east property line. The original plan proposed 57 feet of encroachment on the existing slope and proposed a 27 foot high retaining wall. The applicants proposed this design to create a larger building pad for the project. The proposed alternative moves the pool to the west, adjacent to the buildings. On the eastern portion of the property, the existing 2: 1 manufactured slope is regraded and retaining walls are placed on the eastern side of the slope so as not to be visible from the project site. The proposed retaining walls will vary from 3 to 1 0-feet in height. As part of this redesign, the applicants have proposed to recess, below grade, the equipment enclosures on the east property, so that no more than 6 feet of the screen wall is visible (see attached exhibits). Staff Recommendation None. Although the redesigned project improves the visual impacts of the development, the project still encroaches onto the existing 2: 1 manufactured slope 57 feet. Therefore, this encroachment exceeds staffs’ policy of 12 feet of encroachment with a 6 foot high wall. Please provide staff with the policy direction regarding the encroachment onto existing manufactured slopes for this project. C: Adrienne Landers