Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 93-09; Ocean Bluff; Tentative Map (CT) (37)City of Carlsbad Rlanning Department June 23, 1994 Jack Henthorn & Associates 5431 Avenida Encinas, Suite G Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CT 93-09/HDP 93-09/SDP 93-07/ZC 93-04 - OCEANBLUFF SUBDIVISION Thank you for your resubmittal of the subject application on May 12, 26, and June 2,1994. The following issues requiring resolution remain. Some of these issues have been repeatedly identified; therefore, staffs recommendation will be as follows: 1. Staff is requesting that the SO* greenway/setback issue be reviewed by the Open Space Advisory Committee for a determination on the intent of the 50* greenway approved as Zone 20 Specific Plan Open Space along Poinsettia Lane. The tentatively scheduled meeting date is July 7, 1994 at 5:00 p.m. Staffs recommendation, based on the understanding that greenways are not be to developed for urbanized uses, is to prohibit the encroachment of private development including usable yard areas and sound walls into the required 50' greenway/setback. 2. The entire remainder parcel (including developable acreage) shall be preserved in perpetuity, and it shall be placed in an open space easement dedicated to the City of Carlsbad and maintenance easement dedicated to the HOA for the detention basin. The maintenance easement shall also include the 2:1 landscaped slope abutting the remainder parcel The developable acreage within the remainder parcel was included in the total developable acreage used to calculate density; therefore, no additional development shall be permitted within this acreage. This recommendation is also consistent with the EIR mitigation requiring substantial conformance with Figure 3.4-3 (Biological Mitigation Map) which is the preferred open space network system. 3. A deed restriction shall be recorded restricting uses within the 60* buffer zone adjacent to the open space easement to yards, fences and walls. No structures shall be permitted within this buffer zone, and landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. 4. In lieu of a site development plan prior to the issuance of the first final map to address the visual impacts of development at this location, staff will recommend the following: The project requires approval of a hillside development permit which requires compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance architectural guidelines. In lieu of requiring specific architectural guidelines for this project as part of the hillside development permit, a condition will be imposed requiring that prior to the issuance of building permits, an amended hillside development permit must be submitted showing compliance with hillside architectural standards. The hillside development permit will require Planning Director approval of a site plan indicating building footprints and specifying setback variation, architectural elevations and floor plans with locations of one and two story units specified 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619)438-1161 Jack Henthorn & Associates June 23, 1994 Page 2 on the site plan. This approval will also require consistency with the Specific Plan Architectural Standards requiring variation in roof and wall materials and colors, roof mass, height and direction, architectural accent features, (varying) building facades for each floor plan, window and door enhancement, individualized entry treatments, garage facades and orientations, one and two story structures and one and two story elements within single structures, and articulated building forms (roof/wall). 5. The phasing shown on the tentative map must account for the need to construct the affordable housing units prior to Phase III. Although the actual timing for construction will be determined by the affordable housing agreement required prior to approval of the first final map, the proposed phasing must not preclude development of the site as part of the first phase. 6. As previously stated, the maximum wall height permitted is 6'; provide a combination of berm and wall to reduce the necessary wall height to 6* or less along the southern property lines of 86 and 87. 7. In lieu of a detailed soils testing and analysis report prior to approval of the Oceanbluff tentative map, a condition shall be imposed requiring the report prior to the issuance of a grading permit 8. Trails: According to the Specific Plan, all trails identified shall be constructed by the individual developer, then dedicated to the City. These trails shall not be open to the general public until the City of Carlsbad accepts their dedication and established a Citywide Open Space Maintenance District to assume maintenance and liability for the trail network. The width of the trail easement shall be determined after agreement is reached regarding the design of the 50' greenway/setback along Poinsettia. 9. The proposed 25 foot wide offsite agricultural setback requires evidence of an easement agreement. Please define the boundaries on the Tentative Map around all affected areas and specify that an open space easement over this area is required. 10. A condition will be imposed requiring that prior to the issuance of building permits for individual units, a solid wall or fence and landscaped windbreaks shall be shown on the construction plans between open field agricultural operations and adjacent lot lines in order to reduce public nuisance effects of adjacent pesticide spraying and dust generation from farm vehicles and operations. This wall shall be constructed prior to final occupancy of any unit 11. As previously requested, show on the map the 20* wide trail segment 30 easement within the 50' wide greenway/setback along Poinsettia. 12. Please make the following minor changes to the tentative map: a. Place a note above the typical lot drainage illustrations stating "setbacks shown are for drainage purposes only". Jack Henthom & Associates June 23, 1994 Page 3 13. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The project as proposed requires a density increase. The issue of whether or not this increase can be granted without requesting a density bonus and satisfying the requirements of the Density Bonus Ordinance is currently under review by the City. Therefore, comments regarding the affordable requirements for this project will be forwarded under separate cover. Should the project necessitate the use of the density bonus ordinance and the option to purchase credits in an approved offsite project is pursued, then the affordable requirement will be based upon 96 lots (20% of 96 = 19.2). Submit full sized exhibits of the site plan and elevations (both buildings) for the affordable site. A landscape plan should also be included. The landscape plan should address the need to break up the length and mass of Building 1. The placement of a low (42") stucco coated masonry wall (separated into sections by pilasters to break it up) would provide more privacy to residents in first story units. The architectural elevations for Buildings 1 and 2 should show some detailing of the first level such as recessed or paned windows and/or wainscots to add interest. Staff will not support the proposed Timing of Units" specified under the Risks and Conditions section of the Affordable Housing supplemental information exhibit. It is anticipated that the affordable units will be constructed concurrent with Phase I or prior to Phase II. Please correct the reference on the second page to 94 single family units. Also, the original Exhibit "C" in the affordable housing supplemental information identified 1 and 2 bedroom units although the text identified 2 and 3 bedroom units. The latest submittal identifies 2 and 3 bedroom units. The 2 and 3 bedroom units require 2 additional parking spaces unless this represents a request for a standards modification. Please address this. Since the project is greater than 50 units, we are required to take the project before the Housing Commission for review and advisory recommendation prior to City Council action. After the above issues have been resolved, this project will be scheduled for hearing before the Housing Commission. 14. Please respond to Larry Black's October 7,1993 comments on the conceptual landscape plan for affordable site (attached). Larry Black's June 10, 1994 landscape comments are attached. Please note comment regarding the SO1 greenway along Poinsettia. Jack Henthorn & Associates June 23, 1994 Page 4 Engineering Issues: 1. The applicant has not met our requirements for a secondary access as specified in our March 15, 1994 letter to Jack Henthorn. It appears that the applicant has not understood our requirements or for some other reason needs to have more specific details of what is needed, since the submittals so far have been sketchy and imprecise. Following are the requirements as in the letter but in more detail: * The details of design should be similar to the one for Blackrail Court; however, a scale of at least 50 to one is preferred. * The secondary access must be a part of the tentative map. ' The secondary access must meet City Standards for a local street as to line, grade and structural section. * The secondary access must be a 30 foot wide publicly dedicated easement Note: Easement documents will be required to be recorded prior to final map approval However, the City is not interested in condemnation for the easements. ' A minimum of 28 feet of paving width is required. * Show approximate bearings and distances along the alignment and relationship to all parcel lines. The applicant may choose the alignment * Show all horizonal and vertical curves. ' Show all grades in percent Show profiles of all sections with grades of 8 percent or more. Show approximate elevations at all grade changes, at the beginning and ending of all vertical and horizontal curves and all high and low points. Show how drainage will be handled. * Show all slopes required to grade the roadbed. * State grading quantities. * Show any utility relocations required. * Show all topographical features effected by the grading, such as fences, structures and major vegetation. * An assessment of all the biological impacts of the grading and construction should be prepared. Alternatively to the above, the applicant could meet the secondary access requirements by constructing two travel lanes of a full major arterial graded Poinsettia Lane to another street connected to the public street system, such as Ambrosia Lane (east) or to Alga Road (west). Since Aviara Phase HI also has a requirement to construct Poinsettia Lane from Ambrosia Lane to Blackrail Court, the easterly option appears to offer the possibility of some help on costs. Another alternative could be to extend Street "A" to an intersection with Poinsettia Lane and construct, as above, a two lane fully graded Poinsettia Lane to Alga Road. Constructing the section between Street "A" and Blackrail Court would not be required other than project frontage improvements. Until Poinsettia Lane is constructed from Street "A" to Blackrail Court, Engineering believes the "interim" opening of Street "D" to Blackrail Court will be needed. We do support showing this opening as a 30 foot "interim" easement Jack Henthom & Associates June 23, 1994 Page 5 Any construction of Poinsettia Lane offsite will enable the project to be eligible for credit toward the forthcoming Poinsettia Lane fees. 2. Note No. 15 on the tentative map states that multiple final maps are intended. In that case a phased grading plan should be submitted. An alternative may be phasing the construction after grading the entire site with one final map. In that case, Note No. 15 should be removed. Phased construction requires that facilities needed for the phase be constructed. See also issue 3, below. 3. The phase lines as shown on the map are acceptable to Engineering; however facilities to serve Lot 93 in Phase III will be required as a part of Phase I since Lot 93 is also the affordable housing site unless the affordable housing issue is otherwise resolved. We suggest you review the intention of filing multiple final maps bearing in mind the order of need, the improvements required, the grading and the fact that secondary access is needed before any units in any phase can be occupied. 4. The 20 percent grade on the detention basin access road exceeds the 14 percent maximum. 5. There is a sump drainage condition near the knuckle on Street "H". Show an overflow drainage swale between Lots 33 and 34. 6. Show an offer to dedicate portions of Lots 21 and 22 for general access and utilities easement minimum 56 feet wide to serve APN 212-040-30, CT 84-32, Cobblestone. 7. The northerly end of Blackrail Court needs to curve across Lots 32 and 33 to the west and be able to line up parallel to the SDG&E easement 8. We need written confirmation from CMWD that a sewer lift station will be allowed in Phase III. 9. One other outstanding engineering issue is the drainage to the easterly property, De Jong. This can be handled by a condition to comply with the Master Drainage Plan. Sincerely, ANNE HYSONC Assistant Planner c: Chris DeCerbo