Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 91-07; La Vercia Condominiums; Tentative Map (CT) (11)City of Carlsbad Planning Department May 31, 1991 Michael Dooley/A.R.C. Group 5751 Palmer Way, Suite H Carlsbad, CA 92008 cr - IA VEROA CONDOS Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Map, application no. CT 91-7, as to its completeness for processing. The application is 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 at the Community Development Building counter and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. 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, May 2, 1991, to either re-submit 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 If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted.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, Elaine Blackburn, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4471, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. Planning Director MJH:EB:vd cc: Gary Wayne Robert Green Erin Letsch Bob Wojcik LLER Data Entry Marjorie/Steve 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION: No. CT 91-7/CP 91-4 - La Vercia Condos PLANNING: 1. The proposed project must include an application and support materials for processing a Site Development Plan (SDP) per Chapter 21.82 of the Municipal Code for properties in the Beach Area Overlay Zone (information attached). 2. The project must meet all requirements of the Mello II segment of the Coastal Zone Program. Policy 4-3 of the program requires the preparation of a site-specific report prepared by a qualified professional identifying mitigation measures needed to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion. The project must not result in any net increase in runoff over that of the undeveloped site. 3. Plans must include more detailed information about the proposed stucco wall. Provide information regarding the footings of the proposed wall, and indicate top and bottom elevations at several points along the extent of the proposed wall. Total height may not exceed 42 inches in the required front yard setback and 6 feet in required side and rear yard setbacks. Provide 3 sectional drawings of the wall. Clarify the materials to be used. The plans indicate stucco, but the fence detail indicates chain link. Fence detail drawings must be drawn to scale. 4. All plans must include the application numbers CT 91-7/CP 91-4 in the upper right corner. 5. The RD-M Zone in the CT notes is not "Residential Density - Medium". It should indicate "Residential Density - Multiple". 6. East elevations must be provided which clearly show the effects of the proposed wall sections. ENGINEERING: 1. A preliminary soils report. The report should include: a. A statement specifically addressing the proposed drainage along the westerly side of the property which is designed to allow for sump conditions 3 feet away from the buildings. b. An evaluation as to whether thr existing wall can handle the loading proposed by this project. 2. Clarification of the wall(s) proposed adjacent to the easterly property line is needed. The Tentative Map/Site Development Plan shows a 5 foot safety fence. The Preliminary Landscape Plans show a 5 foot stucco wall. No. CT 91-7/CP 91-4 - La Vercia Condos 3. Additional spot elevations along the westerly property line are needed in order to evaluate the grading proposed in this area. ISSUES OF CONCERN PLANNING: 1. Condominium projects are required to meet the standards of the Planned Development ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Development Code. The project as proposed does not satisfy the PUD requirement for provision of recreation areas. 2. The current plan provides insufficient landscaping and a large amount of paving and building areas. The project should include more landscaping throughout and buffer landscaping around the perimeter of the site and against the interior walls to soften the transition between paving and buildings. The landscape plan must indicate the size and quantity of proposed plantings. The landscaping at the front of the site is not adequate to justify the reduction in the front yard setback to 10 feet. 3. The project must be redesigned to eliminate parking from the setback. The compact space at the rear of the property is not practicable. Because the site as designed is dominated by landscape and building, staff recommends that you consider underground parkingS k/u-/ 4. The project does not provide adequate yard setbacks. Setbacks must be provided as follows: a) front yard - 20 feet per Chapter 21.45.090; b) rear yard - minimum 10 feet per Chapter 21.24.070; c) side yard - minimum 5 feet per Chapter 21.24.050. 5. Roof decks shown along the outside of the building could infringe on the privacy of adjacent buildings. Staff recommends that they be relocated to the interior portions of the site. 6. The above comments are being provided prior to any environmental review. After environmental review additional information may be needed and/or additional issues may arise. 7. The Planning Department recommends that the elevations be revised as follows: a. The narrow, linear shape of the site requires a project design which breaks up the linear appearance. This might be accomplished by several means including, but not limited to, building design, facade treatments, and the use of landscaping. b. The western elevation must incorporate design elements to break up the long, flat appearance of the facade. Variation should be provided through pop-out/recessed areas and variation in materials,or by dividing into separate building masses. No. CT 91-7/CP 91-4 - La Verda Condos c. The eastern elevation provides more variation than the west, however, this can be evaluated more fully with the elevations requested in Item 6 above. The Planning Department recommends that the stamped concrete be consolidated and enlarged into larger masses at entry areas or focal areas to break up the linear appearance of the project. ENGINEERING: 1. The garage and visitor parking area adjacent to Unit 5 will not accommodate the required 3 point turn-around. 2. Clarification of the intent of the proposed wall along the easterly property line. 3. Guardrail should be placed along the easterly property line. 4. The drainage pattern along the westerly property line does not have an overflow path (2nd outfall). A statement from the Soils Engineer specifically allowing this is required prior to approval. 5. If off-site grading is proposed, a Letter of Permission to grade from the adjacent property owner is required. 6. A 20 foot queuing distance from the back to the future sidewalk to the first parking space is required. 7. The garage at Unit 5 and the adjacent parking space do not allow for a 3 point turn-around. 8. The easterly driveway apron must be a minimum of 3 feet from the easterly property line. 9. Show the proposed sewer lateral or private sewer line. 10. Show the proposed water lateral or private water line. 11. Off-site drainage improvements may be required. Show proposed construction for the storm drain if Tamarack Avenue improvements are not in place prior to construction of this project. 12. If drainage pattern at the southwest side of the project is proposed as shown on the SDP, rain-gutters should be added to prevent roof runoff from entering that area. The roof drainage should drain to the driveway to connect directly into the underground storm drain system. 13. Grading along the westerly property line appears to show slopes steeper than 2:1. 14. Address condition of existing retaining wall. Can the existing wall support the load proposed by this project?