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.