Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 91-07; La Vercia Condominiums; Tentative Map (CT) (31)City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 18, 1992 Michael Dooley ARC Group 5751 Palmer Way, Suite H Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 91-07/CP 91-04 - LA VERC3A CONDOMINIUMS Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit, application no. CT 91-07 and CP 91-04, as to its completeness for processing. The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4471, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Since: HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:EB:vd cc: Gary Wayne Robert Green Erin Letsch Bob Wojcik Jim Davis File Copy Data Entry Marjorie/Steve 2O75 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 - (619) 438-1161 ISSUES OF CONCERN No. CT 91-07/CP 91-04 - La Vercia Condominiums PLANNING: 1. As discussed in our telephone conversation of March 10, this project may be required to pay an in-lieu fee for affordable housing at a later date should the City Council adopt an ordinance requiring such a fee. 2. As noted in our previous letter, the RD-M Zone is "Residential Density - Multiple." This correction should be made on the plans. 3. The plans should include more detail (per our conversation) regarding calculation of the open space recreation areas proposed. Indicate the amounts of private recreation areas (patios and balconies) and common recreation area separately, as well as a total amount. 4. The following comments relate to the existing and proposed fences/walls. a) The elevations don't show the existing easterly adjacent wall/fence correctly. They don't show the change in height in that wall/fence. b) It is not clear whether the existing wooden fence (on top of the retaining wall on the eastern side of the property is to remain or will be removed and/or replaced. The Tentative Map and Floor Plans show a 4'6" chain link fence; the Elevations and the Fence Detail B-B show the chain link to be 3'6". Please clarify and correct the appropriate plans and/or details. In addition to spot elevations, etc., a note of clarification on the plans identifying portions to be removed or altered would help. c) All walls/fences must comply with the Zoning Code and all applicable City policies and standards. A 6 foot high fence along the eastern edge of the property, when combined with the existing retaining wall results in a total height of approximately 11 feet. The Planning Department recommends that you revise the proposed stucco fence to have a maximum height of 3'6" or revise the proposed fence material to wrought iron or a combination of wrought iron and stucco. The fence should also include some landscaping. d) The Planning Department suggests that you eliminate the chain link fencing along the rear of the garage. Access to area could be minimized by some type of barrier and the proposed landscaping. 5. Based on the spot elevations shown on the plans, the structure heights proposed seem to be within the maximum height allowed (35 feet). However, elevations for the existing grade should be shown to verify this. (The elevation drawings currently show spot elevations for the finished grade. Building height must be measured per Chapter 21.04.065 (copy attached).) 6. The building elevation drawings should call out any proposed popouts and/or recesses and materials. ENGINEERING: 1. The resubmitted project appears to meet engineering standards. One item requires resolution or confirmation before the Engineering Department can condition the Project. This item is a 12" PVC drainage lateral in Tamarack Avenue. The site drainage as proposed will not work without a lateral. City standards require a minimum 18" lateral. This item needs to progress to some completion or resolution before we can recommend approval with conditions. 2. You must show on the Tentative Map a cross-section of the driveway/private street. 3. You must add a revision date to the Tentative Map. This T.M. shows a preparation date of 3/22/91. The T.M. has had a major revision since that date. 4. The elevations shown on the easterly side of the site are confusing. Two-to-one slopes would be required to meet these elevations. Drainage from around the structures should have a failsafe overflow path to the driveway or street. Structures such as patio decks would need to be below foundation elevation and above outflow elevation to accomplish this provision of a failsafe path.