HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-17; Brindisi; Tentative Map (CT) (4)MARKSTEYAERT 1-7SO-434-2451 HD7/7/96 ®6:59PM Q1/1
July 7, 1998
TO: PRINCIPAL PLANNER, DEE LANDERS
From: Park Development Coordinator
BRINDISI (CT- 17) / ZONE 19 PARK ACCESS ISSUE
I received your voice mail that was in response to my concerns that future access to .
Zone 19 Park is a problem under the current subdivision design. Your message was
that you felt Brindisi, because they have decided not to grade further into the park, has
no responsibility to assure access to the park.
I don't agree with your assessment for the following reasons:
1. Hillman was originally granted permission to grade onto the park site (by
someone in the City). Because the elevation of Poinsettia was set, this allowed
Brindisi to fit more units onto their site by allowing a lower elevation of their
buildable area closer to the joint property line of the park. Alternatively they
would have needed to build substantial retaining walls (which are expensive
and may not have been acceptable to the Planning Dept.).
2. The grading onto the park site allowed for the lowering of the Brindisi site and
consequently Ambrosia Lane, which also facilitated additional units. When the
City approved a land swap for the park site (which allowed for establishing a
developable site for Brindisi) Abrosia Lane was shown on the plan provided by
Hillman, as being 8.5' higher (allowing easier access to the park).
3. While Brindisi did not grade onto the park site themselves, they are directly
benefiting from the pre-development action of Hillman. At a minimum, they
should be responsible to assure that their project, does not preclude the use of
ALL the park site. Remember, all 24.25 acres of Zone 19 Park are supposed to
be developable.
When we met with the developer several months ago, I was under the impression that
they would provide a plan showing how access to the park will be obtained. I haven't
heard from them since and suspect they are headed for the Planning Commission.
As currently, proposed, we oppose this project! We hope you can assist us in
resolving our concerns.
Mark Steyaert
c: Associate Civil Engineer, Clyde Wickham
Recreation and Park Planning Manager
July 17,1998
TO: Clyde Wickham, Mark Steyeart
FROM: Dee Landers
RE: MP177(W),Brindisi
Discussions over the past couple of months regarding this project indicate that there is an
unresolved issue related to the interface of grading between this project and the proposed park
site located to the north of the subject site. Since this issue involves both the Engineering
Department and Parks and Recreation rather than Planning, I would like to request that I be
notified when the issue is resolved so the project can be scheduled for Planning Commission.
During that time I will ensure that any planning issues are addressed. I would appreciate it if you
could keep me apprised of the status of this issue. Thanks for your assistance.
Dee Landers
Principal Planner
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Novembers, 1997
Larry Noreen
Brehm Communities
Suite 220
2835 Camino del Rio South
San Diego, CA 92108
SUBJECT: MPA 177(W)/LCPA 97-10/CT 97-17/PUD 97-15/CDP 97-46, BRINDISI
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department
has reviewed your master plan amendment, local coastal program amendment, tentative tract
map, planned unit development permit and coastal development permit, application nos. MPA
177(W), LCPA 97-10, CT 97-17, PUD 97-15, and CDP 97-46, 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. This list of items must be submitted
directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted
simultaneously 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, 10/6/97, to either
resubmit 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, Adrienne Landers, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4451, if you
have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:AL:kr
Gary Wayne File Copy
Clyde Wickham Data Entry
Bobbie Hoder Planning Aide
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
Planning:
No. MPA 177(W)/LCPA 97-10/CT 97-17/PUD 97-15/CDP 97-46
I. Indicate the project names and the all applications on the cover sheet of the
tentative map.
Include the assessor parcel numbers on the tentative map.
Indicate the percentage of landscaping on the tentative map.
Each unit must provide a minimum of 200 square feet of recreation area. If the
unit has a rear yard with minimum dimensions 15 feet by 15 feet or a balcony
with minimum dimensions 10 feet by 10 feet, then a credit of 100 square feet can
be applied to the total common active recreation area. Please indicate how
many units meet this minimum yard or balcony dimension and the resulting
required common active recreation area requirements.
Indicate the height, location, and materials of all proposed walls, not only the
retaining wall.
Provide fully dimensioned building elevations. Previous comments on your
Preliminary Review letter of September 15, 1997 indicated that one story
elevations should be provided along on lots proposing reduced front yard
setbacks. The proposed 5' drop to a single story roof does not meet the intent of
this requirement.
If a constraints map does not apply to the property, list it on the map as not
applicable. Any slopes should be included on a constraints map.
Provide a brief legal description on the application forms.
Include Assessor's Parcel Numbers on the PFF. Page 7 indicates that the total
number of units is 9 instead of 90. Please correct.
Submit two copies of a Circulation Impact Analysis for the project.
Provide a noise analysis to indicate whether or not noise mitigation walls will be
required.
Provide a signed "Notice of Time Limits on Discretionary Applications".
Engineering:
Engineering comments will follow.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. Staff can not respond to the proposal to reduce the Poinsettia Lane setback from
50 feet to 40 feet, because additional information is needed. This development
will be required to conduct a noise study due to its proximity to Poinsettia Lane
and the existing setback will likely be required to accommodate adequate noise
mitigation. Without the noise impact information, staff is unwilling to adjust the
Poinsettia Lane setback.
2. Staff can support the proposed reduction in master plan boundary setback along
the eastern edge of Planning Area 19 to 15 feet from top of slope, with a
minimum property line setback of 25 feet. This allows each rear yard to achieve
the necessary 15 foot by 15 foot minimum dimension while providing enough
setback from the neighboring units in the Poinsettia Hill development. Please
indicate the 15' x 15' patio areas on your revised site plan.
3. Previous preliminary review comments noted that "proposed reductions in front
yard setbacks along the main circulation pattern would only be considered for
single story elements. No second story balconies or living space should occupy
the reduced setback area. In addition, the buildings should be rotated or skewed
to reduce the amount of mass proximate to the street frontage (this comment has
been made on several previous occasions)". These comments have not been
addressed in the present submittal. Please prepare a revised site plan
addressing these issues by providing a definite one story element rather than a
dropped roof line for four feet.
"The reduced courtyard width, from 40 feet to 35 feet, may also be supported
however, as with the above comments, site design will be very important. The
proposed "cookie-cutter" site layout is unacceptable to staff. Also included in the
site design considerations would be the accessibility of guest parking. The
Planned Development Ordinance requires that guest parking be dispersed along
any private drive with a minimum five foot front yard setback. Please also
consult the Engineering and Fire Departments about minimum circulation
requirements." This item has not been addressed either. Please indicate on-
street guest parking spaces.
Please provide a more creative site plan juxtaposing units and creating a
pedestrian-friendly environment. The proposed site plan basically consists of
units placed around a driveway. The units do not appear to be designed to
provide the opportunity for interaction between residents—i.e., porch, patios,
space for a table and seats. The entry doors and living space appear to be
totally isolated from the pedestrian. Please provide more opportunities for this to
occur.
Provide sample of materials and colors. The proposed units appear to be
designed with standard beige stucco and tile roofs. Please utilize design
elements, color, etc, to identify this as a unique project rather than just another
multi-family development that could likely be found anywhere.
The pavement treatment on the driveways should include the use of color. This
concept could be carried over to pedestrian linkages, sidewalks, and street
crossing. Provide parkways between the sidewalks and street.
Please note that a minimum 10 foot street side yard setback is required for all
buildings, especially those with side yards fronting on the main entry drive (see
the unit on the south side of the entryway).
Engineering:
1. Engineering issues of concern will follow under separate cover.
Memorandum
TO: Senior Planner, Adrienne Landers
FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham
DATE: March 5, 1998
MPA 177(W)/LCPA 97-10/CT 97-17/PUD 97-15/CDP 97-46: BRINDISI
COMPLETENESS & ISSUES REVIEW
Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for
application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project is now
considered complete and suitable for further review. Additionally, staff has conducted a
review of the project for engineering issues of concern. Engineering issues which need to be
resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a determination on the proposed project
are as follows:
1. The previously approved grading plan shows an interim cul de sac slope and
temporary access road, show proposed disposition of this plan. Check with Mark
Steyart (434-2824 x-2855) regarding grading of Park property. The park access, and
the proposed grading ("limits of grading") on the future park have not been resolved.
2. On our last review we were referring to the park access and any access on
Ambrosia Ln. (across from street "A"). Please show any existing driveways which
are located within 300' of the proposed project. Check with Mark Steyart for
proposed park access.
Traffic and Circulation:
1. The Aviara Master Plan identified a monument sign that, if proposed, should be
shown and pulled back, clear of sight distance or clear areas. Indicate the sight lines
on the tentative map, the site plan and the landscape plan. The landscape plans
have 2 areas of concern. The intersection of Poinsettia Ln. and Ambrosia Ln., and at
the corner return at the clubhouse / cabana should be corrected to correspond to the
corner sight distance issue.
2. Please indicate the path of access for this project.
3. The proposed access to end units (check phase 3 (OK) vs the Model end (NG) will
need a hammerhead turn-around. The only place this is an issue is at the model
location.
4. Please indicate pedestrian access (i.e., ramps) on "B" street.
Sewer;
1. Please indicate sewer laterals from the proposed buildings to public sewer facilities.
Show or note that sewer clean outs and laterals are not located in driveways. Show
water laterals and meter locations similar to sewer services with the same
restrictions.
Drainage:
1. Please show the terminus of the off-site drainage at the north end of the site.
Indicate the proposed public easement that follows the storm drain through this
subdivision.
2. Submit a drainage study to validate capacity in the existing system considering the
proposed project and allowing for upstream development.
4. The proposed drainage pattern at the entrance to this project is unclear. Add spot
elevations or contours as required. Are crossgutters being proposed at
intersections? The intersection of Ambrosia Ln. with "A" street will require another
look. The drainage comments made on Jan. 27,1998 by Mr. O'Neill indicates a
drainage study was submitted. We still ask the question and need a copy of this
study. Has upstream development been considered. The January letter stated that
street drainage would run thru this site and enter a storm drainage system. We want
to review this design closely.
5. Again, the extension of a storm drain in Ambrosia may be required to handle the
proposed design.
Attached is a red-lined check print of the proposed project for the applicants use in
making the requested revisions. This check print must be returned along with
the first review, to facilitate continued staff review.
If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4353.
CLYDE WICKHAM
Associate Engineer
Land Development Division
Memorandum
TO: Senior Planner, Adrienne Landers
FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham
DATE: November 18, 1997
MPA 177(W)/LCPA 97-10/CT 97-17/PUD 97-15/CDP 97-46: BRINDISI
COMPLETENESS & ISSUES REVIEW
Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for
application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are
currently incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete
items:
1. The Preliminary Title Report indicates a different legal description than that shown
on the tentative map, the site development plan, and the application (the application
legal description was omitted).
2. Please indicate ajj easements and encumbrances, with the recordation number and
date, in accordance with the PR. Indicate the future disposition of these easements
and encumbrances either in plan view adjacent to the easement information, or, as
an easement disposition chart. Note that typically, SDG&E easements require a joint
use agreement.
3. ' The existing grading plan approved for this site (DWG # 345-5A sht.10) should be
shown as a screened base. A proposed grading plan, if needed should be designed
on top with specific attention to existing easements and off site grading issues. The
above mentioned grading plan shows an interim cul de sac slope and temporary
access road, show proposed disposition of this plan. Check with Mark Steyart (434-
2824 x-2855) regarding grading of Park property.
4. Please show any existing driveways which are located within 300' of the proposed
project. Check with Mark Steyart for proposed park access.
Additionally, staff has conducted a review of the project for engineering issues of concern.
Engineering issues which need to be resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a
determination on the proposed project are as follows:
Traffic and Circulation:
1. Please indicate Corner Sight Distance sight lines, in accordance with CalTrans
criteria, for both directions at the proposed entrance to this project and internally
around the streets "B,C,D & E". Also show sight visibility at the Ambrosia and
Poinsettia Lane intersection. The Aviara Master Plan identified a monument sign that
should also be shown and pulled back, clear of this vehicle visibility corridor. Indicate
the sight lines on the tentative map, the site plan and the landscape plan.
2. Please indicate the path of access for this project. Will Poinsettia Lane be
constructed to the west, or will Ambrosia be the road to serve this project. This
information could be shown on sheet 1.
3. The proposed cul de sac and knuckle design does not meet current City Standards.
Look at Std. GS 2,3 & 4 and revise as required.
4. The proposed access to the units on the outside of the streets "B, C, D & E" cannot
be approved. Use standard driveway approach and separate the cluster units from
the single or side loaded units. It appears that 5 or 6 units are taking access from a
40' curved driveway.
5. Please indicate pedestrian access (i.e., concrete sidewalk) and ramps on "B" street.
Sewer;
1. Please indicate sewer laterals from the proposed buildings to public sewer facilities.
Show or note that sewer clean outs and laterals are not located in driveways. Show
water laterals and meter locations similar to sewer services with the same
restrictions.
Drainage:
1. Please show the terminus of the off-site drainage at the north end of the site.
Indicate the proposed public easement that follows the storm drain through this
subdivision.
2. Submit a drainage study to validate capacity in the existing system considering the
proposed project and allowing for upstream development.
4. The proposed drainage pattern at the entrance to this project is unclear. Add spot
elevations or contours as required. Are crossgutters being proposed at
intersections?
5. The extension of the storm drain in Ambrosia may be required to handle the
proposed design.
Attached is a red-lined check print of the proposed project for the applicants use in
making the requested revisions. This check print must be returned with the
project revisions to facilitate continued staff review.
If you or the ^ipplj|eanj(|hp\^ j^nyfafestions, please either see or contact me at extension 4353.
Associate Engineer
Land Development Division
MEMORANDUM
September 15, 1997
TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER - MIKE GRIM
FROM: Associate Engineer - Land Use Review
PRE 97-54: AVIARA PHASE III P.A. 19 - PRELIMINARY REVIEW
Engineering Department staff have completed a preliminary review of the above-referenced
project. Prior to formal application submittal the following items must be adequately
resolved/addressed:
1. Dedication of Cassia Road per Aviara Phase III - Unit 1 map needs to be
completed.
2. Alignment (line and grade) of Poinsettia Lane to the west needs to be verified.
3. Improvements of Ambrosia Lane, Poinsettia Lane, and Cassia Road need to be
completed.
4. Grading needs to be coordinated with the Parks Department (Mark Steyaert).
5. Easements will be required for any off-site grading.
6. Slope at the east side of the project drains to adjacent property. Slope needs to
comply with Engineering Standards.
7. A minimum of 1 % fall is recommended for all paving to avoid standing water.
Please show drainage patterns and where water is discharged.
8. No parking will be allowed directly across the entrance.
9. Please show typical dimensions of auto courts (25 feet minimum width).
10. Distance between driveway entrances to auto courts should be a minimum of 24
feet to allow parking.
Please provide a 5-foot buffer at all garage doors and parking stalls.
Please eliminate or redesign the landscaped islands at the east side of the
driveway, they create some traffic confusion and possible conflicts.
JE 97-54: AVIARA PHASE III - PA 19
PRELIMINARY REVIEW
M. GRIM MEMO; SEPTEMBER 15, 1997
PAGE: 2
13. Please show the 25-ft by 25-ft sight distance corridors at the entrance and all
corners.
A red-lined check print is enclosed for the applicant's use in the final design. If you or the
applicant have any questions, please either see or call me at extension 4501.
FRANK J.JIMENO
Associate Engineer
Attachment
c Principal Civil Engineer - Land Development