HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP 97-02; Calavera Hills Village L-1; Condo Permit (CP) (14)FROM 8. 4.1997 10=47 P. 2
Hofman Planning
Associates
r--'t ;;!sca: Analysis
August 4, 1997
Chris DeCerbo
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
RE: CT 77-04/CP 97-02/SDP 97-03 Calavera Hills Village L-l
Dear Chris:
On Friday, July 25, 1997, we received the attached memo from Clyde Wickham addressing
his concerns with the proposed project. Since Clyde Wickham was on vacation last week,
Lex Williman met with Bob Wojcik to discuss the issues in Clyde's memo on Thursday July
31, 1997.
As shown by Bob Wojcik's initials on the attached memo, they were able to resolve the issues
brought up by Clyde.
1. No setback would be required from the top of the exiting slope nor would a 20
foot bench be required if we could provide a letter from our soils engineer
showing that it was acceptable to grade as proposed.
2. The grading is acceptable as proposed.
3. Half width street improvement along with and extra 12 feet as shown is
acceptable.
4. The foot print as shown on Lot 28 is acceptable, since reversing the foot print
would not improve the situation and it is a low speed private roadway serving a
limited number of units.
It is my understanding that there are no unresolved issues as far as Planning is concerned.
With the resolution of these issues, we do not believe that there are any outstanding issues
that should prevent this project from being scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing.
We will be submitting a letter from the soils engineer addressing item number 1 this week.
FROM —- 3. 4.1997 10:47 P. 3
Please call me if there are any additional issues that could prevent this project from being
scheduled for a public hearing in September.
Sincerely,
Mike Howes
cc Bob Wojcik:
Clyde Wickham
Lex Williman
Don Clurman
attachment
S. 4.1997 10:48
FROM
Memorandum
TO: Sanior Piannar. t>.ri* Daeirbo
Assasiate EiTBinee:. Ciyde '.VieW^m
DATE: Juiy 25, 1987
RE: CT97-04/ CD 9? • 02> SDP 97 -03, CAUVERA HILLS VILLAS E L-1
/st\ ft-
l\ ")0
We hsv* cc>nnp!*t»d our 2"" reviow of the Tentative Map, Site Dfrvetoprnent Plan
and Ccm'.ai Oevaipprvent Parmit laamifieo' above. We have < cutstaror.g issues
/ inal shcuid be raaoiveci prio' to approval.'
\ , The proposed S'cp* mu*t &e setback a\ ieasi 2 fron existing siope or t
A*J ^ b»neh per City Siandaras is requires. Th*re simply is not enojjh rcsm to
" /^ S^aa* a 20' bar.cn and gredirg of the existing slops '$ not supported.
^-// H yj'/'J. Tne Engin»«r »hyui<3 reconsidiif ihe propssdc! fill on the wssi sids Cf 'his
\6 /^' oroj«ct. Th4 propospo siop« fe ±onftider«d unnecessary anc perhaps the
' / V existing g-aced pa<s i^oulc b« used. The n»w grading croln&^ce provides an
. ^ j ]f- •* «x«mpijon <or existing gradad pads »na inls project could fall ;n\o the
5 "' category, with revision
' S. It appears tnat Edgs'war« Way may only ssrve r,:s subclivisiar.. Tn«
..v 'T. remaining viliafie scijac«nt tc this $tr«ai may net DS d»v-«i»pei or accaas ai
y /T I /^ this (ocatio^ mity .^t b* ftetsibla, par me propossfl OotiJ*. We »ftl«ve B
condition for fyli Imprcvtment witn a 50% reirnbursemer.t ajraerntn1. co jld
be thwanswsrtc Uii
| <ri*'* 'atl *6Slja W8S ie*ntifi** cn ^* 'e chftcK ang' t^a: is to Keep Jhs sight
eorr;aors j|»tr and visible. Lot 28 •footprint should be reversed ",o allow for
visibility and t9 move driveway a iitve funhar from the erstrance
A ^if yog • wouia liKt to dis?j*s this projsct further, pi«ase g;v«
ill it T'
fi WlCKHAM
ciato Enfiinttr
Land D*v*iopm»nt Cwi«icn
TOTAL
***END***