Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-58A; Carlsbad Park Estates; Coastal Development Permit (CDP)Caflsbad Estates LK 110 Juniper St. San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 702-2042 Fax (619) 702-5154 April 22,1999 Ms. Anne Hysong Associate Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Tract 97-241CDP 9758A Coastal Development Pennit Dear Ms. Hysong: We are currently going through the City process to obtain the Coastal Development Permit for (JT 97-24. While we have had no past experience with this process I am hopeful that our initial submittal package is not only complete but also reflects the sensitivity of design (home and site plan) that we understood was important as a result of the previous public hearings and neighborhood meetings. As a result of the public input and our commitment to “work with the neighbors” we took the following steps in developing the plans for the project. Specifically: r Neighborhood Interaction Reflective of our desire to “work with the neighbors” we have attended two community meetings to discuss the proposed project, review concepts and gather input. On August 3,1998 I attended a small reception, with Mr. May, at 3955 Monroe. At that time I discussed the T.M., our general development plans, and fielded questions fm surrounding neighbors. Many of the questions asked related to the lot sizes, house sizes, architectural concepts and proposed sales prices. I felt at the time, aside from the rezone, the key elements of feedback focused on a desire by the neighbors for us to create an architectural theme that did not feature heavy stucco and uniform red tile roofs, but did provide for a more traditional feel (craftsman?). On March 24, 1999 we hosted a neighborhood reception at the ban residence at 3%5 MONW Street. We displayed in concept form the site plan you now have as an exhibit, and four different building elevations, two of each plan. In addition we had several sets of architectural plans available for review. The meeting was noticed by flyer (attached herewith) which had been distributed around the neighborhood by Mrs. Ortman. While this was not meant to be a formal meeting it was held as a result of my commitment to the City Council to involve the interested neighbors in the process. Ms. Anne Hysong 4122199 Page 2 The meeting lasted approximately 90 minutes. I started the meeting by reviewing the site plan exhibit and talking about design and plotting issues. We then proceeded to field questions fmm the audience. The range of questions touched on everything fnrm hours of construction operations to projected sales price, curb and gutters, drainage, trees and house sizes. In summary I believe this session was very productive, provided the requested interaction and positively reinforced the compatibility issues. Product Desim and Plotting From an architectural standpoint we have developed a product we feel would be considered compatible but also has several design features incorporated that serve to “set it apart” from a standard subdivision. Features such as garages designed to the rear of home and as a single story element (except the granny flat concept on two homes) minimize bulk, enhance the front streetscape and provide for sensitive placement of windows on the second story rear element of each house. The incorporation of horizontal siding and vertical shingles and the minimizing of stucco surfaces, again, we feel are positive exterior architectural touches that soften the mass and provide a warm and compatible appearance to the eye. Relating to the plotting for the subdivision, here again I feel we have been sensitive to the issues. We focused particularly on the plotting for lots 1, 2, 3, and 14. Taking each one separately. Lot 1 - We oriented the home so that the single story garage element, the closest portion of the home to the southern boundary, is set back greater than 17 feet from the property line and has no side window element.. Additionally the closest window to that side property line on a two story element of the home are fixed windows (in the master bedroom) set back approximately 45 feet from the property line. Lot 2 - We oriented the house so that the closest portion of the home to the southern property line (setback 20 feet) is the single story garage which has no window opening. In designing this floor plan (1) it turns out that the closest two-story window element to the southern property line is set back approximately 35 feet. Lot 3 - Here again we were sensitive to the plotting issues. The closest two-story element of the home is approximately 35 feet from the property line and the garage is single story. Lot 14 - The plotting here followed the same concept as defined for Lot 1. The garage is single story, the closest two-story element with windows (fixed) is approximately 40 feet from the side property line. c Ms. Anne Hysong 4/22/99 Page 3 Concerning the question of view corridors, Lots 2 and 3 sit above the neighbors to the south and would have no impact. Concerning Lot 4 the finished pad elevation is approximately 7 feet below the elevation of the pool deck for the home to the east. The finished pad elevation for Lot 5 sits approximately 15 feet below the pool deck elevation of the existing home at the north eastern comer of the proposed subdivision. In each case I believe the various design elements (single story garages, the two-story offset feature, the lower pad grades in relation to the contiguous properties to the east) all serve to provide for a sensitive, compatible neighbor to the existing home. In summary, I m hopeful this letter will provide you with a thorough explanation of how we planned the project and assist you in your review process. At this point if I can answer any questions or provide you or your staff with additional information please call. Sincerely, ~ I encl Hp. bgt