Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 02-14; Bressi Ranch Residential; Tentative Map (CT) (13)•V- T^p, City of Carlsbad Planning Department November 20, 2002 Lennar Communities Kristine Zortman 5780 Fleet Street Suite 320 Carlsbad CA 92008 SUBJECT: MP 178(A)/CT 02-14/PUD 02-06/CUP 02-17 BRESSI RANCH RESIDENTIAL Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your development applications nos. MP 178(A), CT 02-14, PUD 02-06, and CUP 02-17 as to their completeness for processing. The applications are incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including five (5) sets of plans. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, July 12, 2002, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614, or staff engineer Clyde Wickham at (760) 602-2717, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:CW:sn c: Don Neu, Team Leader Clyde Wickham, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. MP 178(A)/CT 02-14/PUD 02-06/CUP 02-17 Bressi Ranch Residential Planning: 1. More detail should be provided for the park lots. Although we don't need working drawing level plans, the plans should clearly show: pavement treatments, fencing, overhead structures, seating and tables, play structures and areas, lighting and materials, etc. 2. Plans have not been submitted for the design of the Village Green. 3. Choose one home style to illustrate the floorplan and identify which style it is. Because the single story edges and balconies and porches and patios vary between each of the styles, it is important to clearly see the distinctions between styles for the purpose of understanding how the mix of styles comply with Policy 44. 4. The PA 8 and PA 12 plans have the best graphic description of Policy 44 plane and single story edge compliance. I recommend that each of the architectural sets include the same graphic tool. 5. Provide a table for each planning area tabulating how many of each floorplan model are being proposed. 6. A meandering trail is required on the north side of Poinsettia Lane from El Fuerte to the west, connecting to the Villages of La Costa meandering trail. Show this trail on the landscape plans along with a detail and cross section of the trail design. Provide the same information for the trail in Open Space lots 4 and 6. 7. Residential lot coverage calculations are based on net pad area as defined 21.45.030(E) 8. The fencing plans must include the product plotting so that a more complete picture can be created. Side, rear and return fencing should be shown on the plans to create private yard areas for each lot but not at the expense of the streetscape. A concept is illustrated on sheets 4 and 6. If any floorplans include low garden walls, include them on this plan. My concern is the potential of fencing becoming a dominant feature of the streetscape. 9. The fencing designs shown on the plans are very generic. Please think about the fencing needed for the project and design it so that it becomes a coordinated addition of the overall design theme. 10. Provide typical sections to illustrate how side yard fencing relates to the street for both upslope and downslope conditions. Also show sections for lots with sideyard retaining walls and fence conditions for those lots. 11. Provide a section between Gateway Center Drive and Alley X. 12. Include the courtyard in PA7 Plan 4 plotting. Correct single story edge identification on PA 12 Plan 2. 13. Include single story shading in PA9 on Plan 3 plotting. 14. Provide a focused fencing and future homeowner landscape opportunity study for Lots 278, 294 and 333. My concern is how the easement can be used and incorporated into the future homeowner's use of the lot and how that will affect the neighborhood visually. Engineering: 1. Poinsettia Lane (offsite) is required to support this project must be shown. The Engineer can identify this road as "proposed per drawing # DWG ". 2. The Owner / subdivider and the Engineer should sign the map. 3. Provide an amendment to the approved preliminary storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that identifies "pollutants of concern" that could be generated by this type of project. The SWPPP should show how this project conforms to the SWPPP approved with the Master Plan. The preliminary SWPPP shall address what structural and non- structural best management practices BMP's are (or will be) implemented to capture and treat storm runoff to ensure compliance with new NPDES regulations. We anticipate private NPDES Basins or facilities to be located on property owned and maintained by the Homeowners association. 4. The application submittal package needs to include a preliminary Geotechnical study that identifies feasibility of, and recommendations for, the proposed development as it relates to the site. I received a packet of 1TX17" locations of proposed borings, but nothing else. 5. Please include the approved "Utility Plan for street cross sections (sheet 2). Show the locations of meters, cleanouts, SDG&E vaults, cable TV and phone vaults where service is anticipated. The cross sections for streets built as backbone or "A" map infrastructure can be screened back a little. We are very concerned with what is proposed with this project. 6. Complete the slope condition near each intersection. The slope lines disappear, a sight distance corner issue is evident. Again include the intersection detail necessary to support this design, pop outs, sidewalks, parking, and landscaped corners. 7. The proposed utility access and easements from planning area 9 and planning area 8 need to contain a detail of fencing and open status of the easements. The recycled water lines need to be included as well. Check with Dexter Wilson for a copy of the (October 22nd) Water study for this project. 8. Show all corner cutoffs for intersections and for traffic circles. 9. Show alley type returns (GS20) where alleys meet streets I believe additional right of way is necessary. 10. The Tentative Map must use numbered lots (no lettered lots will be permitted). W ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: Architecture 1 . All floor plans must have a minimum 20'X20' clear garage floor area. Water heaters, shelving, workbenches, or any other such thing may occupy any part of that space. 2. Some elevations may benefit from the use of composite roll-up doors that have the look of wood and are designed to look like swing out gates/doors. Examples can be seen locally at the Arroyo Vista project by Continental Homes in southeast Carlsbad. 3. PAT a. Plan 1/Spanish and Monterey left second story. Add shutters to bedroom 2 windows. b. Plan 2/Cottage left and right second stories. Add siding detail to gables. c. Plan 3/Create a more clear differentiation on the rear elevations between the three styles. Also, create more interest on the left second story elevation. d. Plan 4/Cottage and Monterey right second story. Add shutters to the windows at the family room. e. The 1 0 foot separation between planes can be satisfied with the addition of six inches to the nook/master bath on Plan 4. 4. PAS a. Plan 1/Spanish left and right second stories need more interest. b. Plan 2/Monterey left and right second stories need more interest. c. Plan 3/rear second story. The only thing differentiating all three styles is the window surrounds. The addition of a gable to the Federal and use of shingles on the Victorian may be enough to visually separate them. d. 20% ( 2 of 9) of the models must have a front single story edge equal to 20% of the building depth. An addition of 3 feet to the porches along the entire front length of the traditional and farm house models will satisfy the requirement. 5. PA9 a. Plan 2/right side and rear second stories need more interest. 6. PA6and10 a. Number the Woodley plans as four through six. b. Plan 5/right second story needs more interest. c. Plan 6/right side first floor complete siding to the end of the parlor wall. d. Only nine models (Plans 2, 5, and 6) are proposed with side single story edges. Eleven are required. Plans 4 through 6 do not have side cutouts to achieve an average of an 8.5 foot sideyard setback. 7. PA12 a. Plan 3/Spanish left and rear second stories. Pick up some elements from the front of the style and put them on these elevations. b. Plan 4/Covered entry stoops/porches should be at least 4 feet. Add elements from the front of the Monterey style to the right side and rear second story elevations. c. As a tradeoff for allowing no single story floorplans in PA 12, the master plan stipulates that 20% of the homes are suppose to be single story dominant. Although not specifically stated, the intention was that the single story domination would be at the front of the home (consistent with Policy 44) so that it added to diversify the streetscape. d. Seven of the twelve models must have a single story edge along an entire side or 40% of the entire building perimeter or may have a 15 foot by 15 foot side courtyard when combined with a 15 foot sideyard building setback. Only Plan one satisfies the criteria (40%) and Plan two satisfies the 15 foot '"cutout" accounting for six of the twelve models. e. Considering the lots in this planning area will dictate a typical 6 foot side yard setback, plans 1 and 3 should be redesigned to bring the front door to the front of the structure or much closer to the front so that there is a visual cue from the street where the entrance is located. Site Plan 1. We should discuss the distribution of open space/parks on the plan. It seems that the park in PA 6/10 is very close to the Village Green and therefore has diminished value as a neighborhood open space. Have you considered relocating it to the western side of PA 6 north of Town Garden Road? In addition, I am not convinced that the park in PA 12 is large enough to have any real neighborhood park value. 2. If single family detached lots are lost for the benefit of getting a better distribution of parks throughout the project, consider replacing them with row house style condominiums or something similar in PA 15 as allowed by the Master Plan. 3. Covered front porches may be located 8 feet from the front property line. All other parts of the structure must be a minimum of 10 feet from the front property line. Side yard setbacks for lots 60 feet in width and greater are 10% (PAs 6,8,9,and 10). Lots less than 60 feet in width must have a combined 25% of the lot width dedicated to side yard setback with a minimum of 5 feet (PAs 7 and 12). 4. Planning Area 12 floorplans 1 and 3 do not have front entries that are clearly visible form the street and therefore contribute to the Planning Area not meeting the Policy 44 minimum requirement of providing visible front entries for 75% of the lots. 5. There is still a concern over the height of the slopes between the two parts of Planning Area 9. It seems that the designs of the lower part of PA 9 and the northern part of PA 12 are the driving force. Is there some way of creating a third intermediary step along Street "B" in between PA 9 and PA 12 which could allow all or a part of PA 9 to be raised to about 320. Maybe there are other solutions to the issue. Please explore. Fire: 1. The fire hydrant in front of lot 380 Street KK should be relocated to the corner of Street KK and Street L in front of Lot 348. 2. The fire hydrant in between Lots 2 and 3 on Street K should be relocated to the corner in front of Lot 341. 3. Add a fire hydrant at the corner of Streets DD and V in front of Lot 92. 4. Add a fire hydrant on Street I between Lots 252 and 253. 5. Add a fire hydrant on Street I between Lots 244 and 245. 6. Add a fire hydrant at the corner of Street MM and Street PP in front of Lot 210. 7. Add a fire hydrant on the opposite side of Street PP between Lots 207 and 208. 8. Add a fire hydrant on Gardengate at the corner of Street HH in front of Lot 172. 9. Move the fire hydrant between Lots 215 and 216 to the corner of Streets GG and MM near Lot 217. 10. Add a fire hydrant to the end of Street HHH 380 linear feet south of the hydrant plotted on the same side of the street. 11. Move the fire hydrant on Street FF in front of Lot 292 between Lot 293 and the Public Utility Easement. 12. Add a fire hydrant between Lot 289 and the Home Owner's Association lot Engineering: 1. Traffic has raised the issue regarding semi truck access (Moving & Storage vans). Show plan view details for traffic circles. Upon review of the recent plan, the truck turns do not flow through the intersections without hitting and running over curb and in some cases sidewalks. It looks like they could work if the intersections were wider, or opened up a little. 2. The Knuckle return must comply with the approved livable street standard. The proposed parking interferes with the corner sight distance corridor (sheet 2). 3. Consider Design Speed for profiles shown on sheets 10 through 12. Sight Distance issues, street lighting and safety concerns will stretch out proposed vertical curves. The design speed of local and cul de sac streets is identified, as 25 MPH. Corner sight distance is 275'.