HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP 98-05; Poinsettia Shores Planning Area C; Condo Permit (CP) (2)November 4,1998
Stan Weiler
Hofman Planning Associates
5900 Pasteur Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7317
SUBJECT: CT 98-06/CP 98-05/HDP 98-04/CDP 98-27 -
PLANNING AREA C - POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN
Dear Stan:
The Planning and Engineering Departments have completed their review of your
October 15, 1998 submittal of the subject project, and the following issues remain
unresolved. Please review staffs comments and advise how you wish to proceed. If
the applicant wishes to proceed with the current design, staff will be unable to support
the project and it will be necessary to recommend denial.
Planning:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Please widen Street C to a minimum of 30’ at all locations along the southern end of
the project. Please revise the setback table accordingly (my review indicated that
the percentages would still comply with the Master Plan requirements).
The project consists of 28 PUD lots with 56 airspace condo units. The project will
be conditioned to require CC&R’s which provide for: 1) the general maintenance
requirements for all residential lots and structures within the project; 2) the areas
shared in common by owners of 28 duplex lots; and 3) areas shared in common by
owners of each duplex lot (exclusive use areas, etc.)
As the Engineering Department points out below, the proposed trail connection to
the adjacent property is located on a 2:1 slope. Please provide a section identifying
how this trail will be improved. Are stairs proposed down the slope?
Please provide a disclosure statement with signatures of current owners as required
to attach to the staff report for Planning Commission/City Council hearings.
Engineering:
AROUND AT MAIN ENTRANCE:
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-11610 FAX (760) 438-0894 @
CT 98-061CP 98-05/HDP 98-04/CDP 98-27 - POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN
NOVEMBER 4,1998
The previous comments from this department on the proposed gate systems is that a
visitor (“P” vehicle) must be able to turn around and exit the project if entry is not
available, Not a 3 point turn, not a multiple forward and back motion just a simple
sweeping turn similar to a cul de sac. The design proposed has not been shown to
provide this simple “P” vehicle maneuver. We have asked that a detail be provided to
show these (two) gated systems and the specific design features associated with each.
SECONDARY ACCESS FROM NAVIGATOR CIRCLE:
As desianed. seconda ry access to this developmnt is required. The point of access on
Navigator Circle is identified in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and both the
entrance and exit maneuver is considered access. Emergency entrance and resident
exit only is not acceptable in terms of secondary access. Gates are optional and if
provided must include a turnaround for a design “P” vehicle. We have compromised
our position on Navigator Circle as a “residents only” entrance with out a visitor call box,
with signage, and with a vehicle activated gate opener. The Knox Box access for police
and fire is still required as on any gated system.
Stan’s letter states that they respectfully disagree with the Engineering Departments
request for full access at this location. The same paragraph misquotes Fire Chief Smith
and then in closing adds “ As a compromise . . . . Although we prefer the exit only
concept, we accept the compromise.. ..‘I The plans have a comment from the design
engineer that says “We propose an exit only. ..”
We could approve 3 scenarios:
1. Reduce the project by 3 units, widen the main entrance to 2 lanes each direction to
a point that meets cul de sac policy standards, and leave the gate system as exit
only.
2. Remove the gate system on Navigator Circle, leave the project as designed.
3. Sign the Navigator Circle entrance as “RESIDENTS ONLY” include a detail on the
tentative map of the entrance and show Knox Box locations.
Think about which design you wish to develop and let us know the direction you decide.
Please let the Rosalina Homeowners association know your decision as well.
CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE:
The applicants Engineer and Planner have stated that the project is designed with
AASHTO standards for sight distance. AASHTO standards do not address residential or
condominium streets.. Therefore I ask, to what standard is Stan and Tim designing to?
CT 98-06/CP 98-05/HDP 98-04/CDP 98-27 - POINSETTIA ShCRES MASTER PLAN
NOVEMBER 4,1998
The concept is to provide a 25’ corner cut-off on each side of an intersection. This clear
area is an open triangle to give a safe visible area for the mix of pedestrians, bicycles
and vehicles within the designed street system. We ask that the lot lines be pulled back,
that slopes be reduced and that an effort be shown to meet what we think, is an
important safety issue.
DEVELOPER MUST SIGN THE TENTATIVE MAP:
Stan says the-map is signed, Tim says not until we’re done. The plan must be signed,
thiseis a complete/incomplete requirement.
TRAIL ACCESS STAIRS AND ADJACENT IMPROVEMENTS:
The requirement to show the proposed improvements and to accommodate the
construction was made on the last review where the plan said “trail by others”. The plan
265-28 is not in the City for reference, the proposed walk runs off of a 2:l slope, a pad
or view point is not provided, and the connection to existing improvements is not
shown. The proposed improvements related to the tentative map simply are not clear.
As called out in the master plan, the trail improvements will be required to be
constructed with this project. Exactly what is proposed for this development?
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact me at (760)
438-l 161, extension 4477 or Clyde Wickham at extension 4353.
Sincerely,
ANNE HYSON
Associate Planner
AH:mh
Attachment
c: Adrienne Landers
Clyde Wickham