Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP 98-05; Poinsettia Shores Planning Area C; Condo Permit (CP) (3)City of Carlsbad August 24,1998 Stan Weiler Hofman Planning Associates 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 98-06/CP 98-05KDP 98-27/HDP 98-04 - PLANNING AREA C - POIN- SETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your tentative map, condominium permit, coastal development permit, and hillside development permit, applications no. CT 98-06, CP 98-05, CDP 98-27, and HDP 98-04, as to their completeness for processing. The items requested from you earlier to make your application complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. 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, Anne Hysong, at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4477, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. MICHkEL J. HOLZiWILLER Planning Director MJH:AH:b c: Gary Wayne Adrienne Landers, Team Leader Clyde Wickham, Project Engineer Bobbie Hoder File Copy Brian Nestoroff, Greystone Homes Data Entry Planning Aide 2075 La Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 l (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 @ CT 98-06KP 98-05/CDP9&7/HDP 98-04 POINSETTIA SHORES 1vlASTER PLAN PLANNING AREA C August 24,1998 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The reduced exhibits submitted on July 24, 1998 are not legible enough to attach to the staff report for distribution to the Planning Commissioners. It may be necessary to prepare and submit a reduced site plan to reduce the amount of detail. Your application consists of both a request for a small lot PUD subdivision and airspace subdivision of duplex units on each lot for the purpose of separate ownership. This would result in shared ownership of the open space lots and private streets within the planning area & shared ownership of each individual lot. For the purposes of clarifying proposed ownership, exclusive use areas, and HOA maintenance responsibility, please submit an exhibit defining each. The retaining walls proposed at the property line along Windrose Circle would result in encroachment into the right-of-way and are not consistent with the need for landscaping in front of the walls outside the right of way and inside the area requiring HOA maintenance. Please return the walls to a location behind the property line. The perimeter retaining walls along Windrose Circle must be consistent with the approved Poinsettia Shores wall plan. Walls proposed around the corner at the intersection of Avenida Encinas and Windrose Circle are proposed with cultured stone. Since a fieldstone veneer wall, which is a real stone veneer, is proposed as a part of the entry at that corner, the proposed walls surrounding the entry statement and continuing around the corner should also be fieldstone veneer. When the wall transitions into another style, it must be consistent (including pilasters) with the approved perimeter wall illustrated in the approved wall program and shown by Detail 2 on Sheet 2 of 4 of the Preliminary Landscape Plan. Also, at that point, walls at higher elevations should also be consistent with the perimeter wall as shown by Detail 2a of the Preliminary Landscape Plan, in which pilasters are eliminated. The Planning Department’s policy has been to require a 15’ structural setback from the top of slope. The proposed balcony/deck and trellis/patio cover plan encroaches into the structural setback and specifies that it can encroach up to 5’ from the community wall/fence which is located at the top of slope in most cases. Please revise plan in accordance with the 15’ setback requirement. The percentage of setbacks for each building (rather than unit) at 20’ or greater, is below the 30% requirement. Please provide a table on the plan showing the setback percentages for each building as required by the Master Plan. Engineering: As previously agreed, we have contacted the engineer of work directly to resolve issues and expedite this project. CT 98-06/CP 98-05/CDP9, A~/HDP 98-04 POINSETTIA SHOREs ,JIASTER PLAN PLANNING AREA C August 24,1998 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Access to project to and from Navigator Circle must be provided. This is because of the number of units proposed, because of the length of cul-de-sac onsite, and in conformance with the approved master plan. If you wish to gate the access, a turnaround must be provided. The turnaround design shown on street “A” is acceptable. Access to the project from Navigator Circle also includes Homeowner, CC&R revision and Maintenance responsibility with Rosalena Development. A note should be added to the tentative map clarifying this responsibility. The proposed access to the Lamb property, (south-east comer, cul de sac “C”) should be detailed. It is unclear how a 6’ sound wall gate is proposed. The 5’ wide public access trail is shown onsite as “future”. I believe this is called out in the Master Plan and is to be constructed with development. Also the trail shown drops off a steep slope at the most southerly comer onto the adjacent Rosalena lot. Slope setback from subdivision boundary should comply with City Standard GS 14. The minimum u setback is 6.5’ and if the slope is between 10’ and 20’, the setback is 7’. The proposed section “B-B” shows this area to be 4’ with a combined slope and drainage area to be included in a 5’ minimum. Revise to comply with standard. The sections shown on sheet 3 & 4 should include railing and sound walls. Some cases appear to propose an 11’ face of wall. Slope setback (side and rear) and wall encroachment along Windrose Circle should be redesigned. The Soils report by Leighton & Associates shows a footing detail that would encroach into public right of way. The footing and base of wall is close to utilities, fire hydrants and street lights. Just to the right of section “C-C” it appears that an existing PVC riser is under the proposed wall. The typical 25’ sight distance comer cut-off at Windrose Circle and Avenida Encinas has retaining wall encroachment. The intersection of “A” street at Windrose Circle has similar sight distance encroachment. The Intersection of “B” street and Navigator Circle has similar encroachment and onsite intersections “A”, “ B”, and “C” should remove encroachments and redesign walls or slopes to comply with standards. The proposed subdivision of “duplex” lots should be discussed. The number of lots and the number of units means an airspace or duplex condition will occur. The concept is a little unclear, is it addressed in the master plan ? 10. The owner/developer and the title of the person who signs should be completed on sheet 1 of the tentative map.