Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-51; Cristalla; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (9)City of May 18, 1998 Richmond O’Neill Brehm - Aviara III Development Assoc. 2835 Camino del Rio North, Suite 220 San Diego CA 92108-3882 SUBJECT: MP 177(X)/LCPA 97-11 /CT 97-20/PUD 97-17/GDP 97-51 - CRISTALLA The Planning Department has reviewed the resubmittal of your Master Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit, application no. MP 177(X)/LCPA 97-l l/CT 97-20/PUD 97-l 7KDP 97-5. The project still contains some issues of concern. These issues, listed below, must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. The Engineering Department is currently reviewing your resubmittal and will forward their comments/concerns to you under a separate correspondence. 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, Mike Grim, at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4499, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application, Sincerely, . Planning Director MJH: MG:mh Attachments c: Gary Wayne Dennis Turner Clyde Wickham Bobbie Hoder File Copy 2075 La Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 e3 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. MP 177(X)/LCPA 97-l 1 /CT 97-20/PUD 97-l 7KDP 97-51 - CRISTALLA Planning: 1. The proposed master plan text amendments are acceptable to staff, including the revised unit allocation, the front yard setback clarification and Coastal Commission text regarding future trails in the planning area. 2. The submitted noise study by Mestre Greve Associates, dated March 9, 1998, adequately reviews the potential noise impacts on the property from Aviara Parkway and the proposed mitigation does not raise any issues of concern. Compliance with the recommended noise mitigation measures will be a condition of approval for the project. The site is also subject to aircraft noise and overflight and a noise notice will be required to be posted in the sales office and recorded on the title of the property. 3. The proposed small lot single family development is subject to the Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance) and the Small Lot Single Family Guidelines (City Council Policy Statement No. 44). Following is a discussion of the compliance with the intent of the documents. Guidelines No. I, 2 and 3 of Policy No. 44 state that 33 percent of the units should meet the single story edge guidelines. The submitted compliance chart states that Plan 2 satisfies these guidelines, however there are only 19 Plan 2 units in the 61 unit project. Please add two additional Plan 2 units to the project, preferably in areas along “E” Street and “F” Street, where there are more than three units in a row without a Plan 2 unit. The proposed architecture appears to comply with the other six architectural guidelines listed in Policy No. 44. If both the guidelines and the intent of the Small Lot Single Family Guidelines have been met, the project should not appear “boxy” or as “row housing”. If this is the case, the proposed recreation area on the south side of “C” Street could be revised to not continue through to the southerly project boundary. The remaining comments about recreation areas are contained in item number 5 below. 4. There are still some dimensions needed on the site plan, namely side yard setback dimensions for most of the lots and front setbacks for Lots 58 and 61. The 15 foot by 15 foot usable rear yard areas have been hatched on the plans, however it appears that the yards on Lots 3, 15 and 19 can be relocated to be contained completely within the lot. If a 15’x15’ usable yard will not fit within the property lines, please do not show the hatched area. 5. The total number of lots with 15’ xl 5’ private recreation areas, including Lots 3,15 and 19, is 43. Therefore, the total amount of common passive or active recreation area required is 7,900 square feet I(61 total du x 200 sq ft/du) - (43 du x 100 sq ft/du credit)]. The Planning Department supports the use of small “pocket parks” throughout the development, provided there is also some connecting pedestrian access. It appears that additional common recreation area could be added on the north end of the “C” Street cul-de-sac bulb. 5. The proposed retaining walls over six feet raise issues of concern. While these walls are named “landscape walls”, there is no reference to planting on or around the walls on the landscape plans. The proposed over 11 foot high “landscape” wall at the “A” Street entry would be extremely visible from the Black Rail Road public right-of-way. The proposed over nine (9) foot high wall behind Lot 9 would also be quite visible from the Aviara Parkway public right-of-way. Please redesign these areas to reduce the heights and/or visual impacts of these walls. As a general note, all retaining walls that are adjacent to streets should be setback sufficiently to allow for planting between the wall and right-of-way or sidewalk. This would include those walls adjacent to “C” Street and “D” Street, as well as those mentioned above. 6. The proposed fire suppression zones need some adjustment. No Zone 1 fire suppression areas can be located within the Coastal Commission deed restricted area, as proposed behind Lots 45 - 47. According to original master plan exhibits, there may also be Coastal Commission deed restricted open space to the west of the project, behind Lots 5 - 9. If this is the case, the proposed fire suppression zones, and possibly the grading scheme, would need revisions. The title report for the property should include a legal description of all deed restricted open space. 7. The total number of guest parking spaces exceeds that required by the Planned Development Ordinance. Given that streets without marked guest parking (i.e. “E” Street and “G” Street) have minimum 20 foot long driveways and 32 foot wide street, the distribution of marked guest parking spaces is adequate. It is recommended that all areas suitable for guest parking be marked as such to alert visitors as to the safe parking areas, whether used as required guest parking or not. 8. The proposed granting of an exclusive use easement from one side yard of each unit to the adjacent property is acceptable, provided no physical improvements are allowed in this area (including driveways) and all future improvements are setback from the property line, not the easement line. All restrictions on these exclusive use areas must be clearly described in the project CC&Rs and approved by the Planning Department prior to final map recordation.