HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-02; Pacific Pointe; Tentative Map (CT) (29)'-^ • • *V '' ^~/1 ROD BRADLEY, Urban Planner
land planning, civil engineering, surveying RONALD L HOLLOWAY, CMI Engineer
November 21, 1994
W.O. 438-0611-400
Ms. Teresa A. Woods
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
RE: RESUBMTTTAL OF CT 94-02/PUD 94-01 - PACIFIC POINTE
Dear Ms. Woods:
Pursuant to your letter dated November 9,1994, BHA has made the necessary revisions to the tentative map
and landscape concept drawings for your review and processing.
Attached please find the following:
• Ten (10) prints of the revised tentative subdivision map
• Five (5) prints of the revised landscape plan
• One (1) copy of our response to the Planning Commission Issues
• One (1) copy of map exhibits depicting locations of single family dwellings and multi-story units
The colored landscape drawings have been completed and we will deliver them to you at your request.
I hope that we have satisfied all of your comments with our revision. If you should have any questions,
please call.
Sincerely,
BHA, INC__ ___
RB:pjh
Enclosure
cc: Lucas & Mercier Development
(a:resubmittal.ltr)
NOV 2
CITYC-:
5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L o Carlsbad, California 92008-4387 o (619)931-8700 o FAX (619) 931-7780
DRAINAGE
Concern:
Response:
PACIFIC POEVTE
Planning Commission Issues
W.O. 438-0611-400
November 18, 1994
The drainage issue was raised in an effort to lower the pads
for Lots 1 and 4, assuming that they were being filled to get
positive drainage to the street.
There was a misunderstanding regarding the relationship
between our pad elevations and the neighboring property. The
Planning Commission thought that our pads were at the same
elevation as the neighboring property. Our pads are a half a
foot to one foot lower than the neighboring pads. Additionally,
the pads were designed to daylight at the property line to avoid
disturbance to the neighboring projects (i.e. construction of a
retaining wall at property line).
COMMON FENCE
Concern: Mr. McBane requested that we construct a new wall on the
common property line. It is our understanding that the
McQuades are not interested in a common wall at this time.
Response: We are not opposed to working something out with Mr.
McBane, but we do not want this as a condition to our map,
in case we cannot work things out with Mr. McBane and Mr.
McQuade.
WINDOW LOCATIONS/SETBACKS
Concern: The McQuades were concerned that we did not provide
adequate side yard setbacks and that we had too many windows
on the westerly side of our homes viewing onto their rear yard.
Response: We have flipped the units on Lots 1 and 4 to provide variable
setbacks on the west side adjacent to the McQuades. Our
average setback next to the McQuades is 10 feet (15', 12' and
5'). This setback exceeds the standard setback of the
underlying zone. With regard to the windows, this is a westerly
facing wall and windows are a necessity pursuant to the Unified
Building Code.
November 18, 1994
Re: Planning Commission Issues
Page 2
REC AREA LOCATION
Concern; Rec area was labeled Tot Lot and it was located adjacent to
McQuade's rear yard and McBane's second unit. Privacy seem
to be the concern.
Response: We have relocated the Rec area to the center of our project
and have changed the use from a Tot Lot to a more adult
oriented use. The Rec area now has a better relationship
within the project and no impact on neighboring properties.
We are providing decorative fencing with adequate landscaping
to insure privacy, while maintaining an attractive appearance.
PROJECT IS TOO TIGHT
Concern: The Planning Commission felt that we are using the minimums
for everything.
Response: We have flipped the units on Lots 1 and 4 to increase the
setbacks to an average of 10 feet, while Lots 3 and 6 already
have a 12.5 foot side yard setback. It should be noted that all
of the rear yards have a minimum 20-foot dimension, which
exceeds the City's requirements. Further, we are exceeding the
City's requirements for guest parking by four (4) spaces.
We have looked at alternate designs with only four (4) units.
However, we are unable to process plans without having a P.D.
Designation, which requires a Rec area. It is our feeling that
four (4) single family houses on 7,000± square foot lots with
a Rec area cannot be marketed.
Based on public testimony, we think it is clear that the
neighbors prefer single family detached dwellings, instead of
attached dwellings. Further, the site has too many physical
constraints to plot any type of project that does not utilize the
property's frontage on Date and Olive.
(a:issues.pc)