HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-01; Poinsettia Shores; Tentative Map (CT) (29)FEBRUARY 9, 1993
TO: ERIC MUNOZ
FROM: Jim Davis
VIA ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
CT 93-06, HDP 93-06, POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER TENTATIVE MAP
A project similar to this one and on the same site was submitted in May of 1993 but the
application was not accepted because it was likely to cause interference with the Master Plan
review being fast-tracked at the time. That submittal was not as a master tentative map and was
combined with PUD 93-06 and CP 93-03.
We have now completed our first review of this project. The application is now for subdivision
of the property into 9 large lots for future subdivision as a PUD and CP. For this purpose the
application is incomplete and not suitable for further engineering review. The items needed to
make the application complete follow:
INCOMPLETE ITEMS
1. The tentative map does not have legible bearings and distances of the subdivision
boundaries.
2. The 9 large lots do not have distances of the lot lines shown.
3. The grading needed for the master tentative map is not shown.
We have some issues with the project as follow:
ISSUES
1. The master tentative map is compromised by showing the numbers and areas of the
future PUD and CP lots. This application for large lot subdivision should not have these
type of details shown or alternatively show all details sufficient for a complete review.
It is Engineering's preference that the master tentative show only the large lots.
Staff suggests either submitting a map showing nine lots with sheet grading at a readable
scale and configuration that is logical (see 7 through 9 below) or submit for a subdivision
of all the lots along with PUD, SDP and CP applications with all the details required of
each of those applications.
As submitted, site design details are not legible, clear enough and may be insufficient for
H:\LffiRARY\ENO\WPDATA\DAVIS\KIZAMTM
#
.4
further review of a PUD and CP. Because we are unable to read the 100 scale site plan,
we are unable to identify the preliminary issues we may have with the future PUD or CP
except those pointed out in 9 through 11, below.
2. The traffic report dated May 17, 1993 and submitted with this application has a section,
beginning on page 42, that discusses a first phase of development that should be allowed
to proceed without the construction of Avenida Encinas across the railroad and intersect
with Carlsbad Boulevard. The report endeavors to show that such a phase meets cul-de-
sac Standard but this is not the case, as follows:
A. A cul-de-sac begins at the first point of single entry, in this case Poinsettia Lane
and Avenida Encinas, not at some intersection past the single entry point.
B. Apparently the limitation on the ultimate cul-de-sac length of one half mile is not
being considered in the discussion.
It is the preference of the Engineering Department that this section be eliminated from
the traffic report. Otherwise we will need to refer to our exception to the section
wherever needed.
3. As per the Master Plan, page 10, Avenida Encinas intersecting with Carlsbad must be
completed before any additional development other than completion of Area J, the
existing Rosalina SF development, is occupied. In light of the above traffic report section
it appears necessary to state that Engineering cannot support a development that does not
meet the cul-de-sac Standard. This position has not changed since the institution of the
cul-de-sac policy which is now the cul-de-sac standard. Processing of the Poinsettia
Shores Master Plan has not changed the position. The application of this position to this
case leads to the following statement made here in the form of a condition:
Prior to the approval of a final map for any additional development (except the
completion of Area J) in the Master Plan Area, the construction of Avenida
Encinas to intersect with Carlsbad Boulevard shall be guaranteed.
4. As per discussion at the City Council hearing of the Master Plan on January 4, 1994, a
design acceptable to the City for a drainage system east of the railroad must be
submitted. An acceptable design may include line, grade and siltation basin(s). The
existing siltation basin system may need to be analyzed for adequacy and improvements
and/or additional basins designed, if needed. Adequate environmental work needs to be
done. An environmental assessment should be done to determine the environmentally
preferred alternative, east versus west of the railroad.
5. An issue of converting the exit-only streets M and Q to entrance and exits was discussed
in the City Council hearing January 4, 1993. This issue may not be fully resolved until
H:\LIBRARy\ENa\WPDATA\DAVIS\KIZAMTM
the future PUD's planned for Lots 2,3 and 4 are brought before the City Council. Up to
now, Engineering has not seen any reason to recommend for or against making streets
M and Q entrances as well as exits but in order to follow the City Council's direction to
analyze this issue, we ask the applicant to submit a traffic analysis that shows how much
traffic would be diverted from Windrose Circle by making streets M and Q entrances as
well as exits. If the conversion of streets M and Q to entrances also is to take place, the
following points will need attention:
4 Sufficient area for a turn-around at each entrance needs to be provided.
4 Sight distance standards must be met.
4 A traffic signal warrant analysis may also be needed.
4 Analysis of adequacy of proposed roadway and need for striping modifications.
6. How will the lanes line up along Avenida Encinas and Windrose Circle? Show proposed
lane stripping and any necessary ROW and pavement transition.
7. Please clarify the notes concerning Lot 79.
8. Does the note on sheet 1 regarding multiple final maps refer to the nine proposed large
lots or further subdivision of those nine proposed lots? Please clarify on the sheet or
eliminate the note.
Although a review of the forthcoming PUD's is not being made at this time, it appears that there
may be some of these issues:
9. Lots 8 and 7 gain their proposed access from Lot 5, therefore the 3 lots will have to be
tied together in one PUD.
The same common PUD status applies to Lots 3 and 4 and to Lots 1 and 6. The same
common PUD status may also apply to concerning secondary access for Lots 1 through
5.
10. It appears that Lot 4 will violate cul-de-sac standard if it is submitted as shown.
There are more than 50 units with a single point of entry.
11. Compliance with the Master Plan and LFMP will be required. As further review takes
place some issues with compliance may arise.
H:\UBRARY\ENO\WPDATA\DAVIS\KEAMTM