HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT)M&id //-/-47
City . e . l - . -
October 26, 1999
Gregg Linhoff
* Standard Pacific Homes
9335 Chesapeake Dr
San Diego CA 92123
SUBJECT: CT 98-I WPUD 98-05/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15/GDP 98-68 -
TABATA/THOMPSON
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Site
Development Plan, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit,
application no. CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/SDP 99-06/HDP 98-l 5KDP 98-68, as to its
completeness for processing.
Due to the fact that the proposed legislative actions (Zone Change ZC 98-08 and Local
Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 98-04) are being processed concurrently with quasi-
judicial actions, the Planning Department has determined that the Tentative Tract Map,
Planned Unit Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and
Hillside Development Permit applications must remain incomplete until the legislative
actions are approved by the City Council.
A list of issues of concern to staff are attached. These issues must be resolved before
scheduling the project for public hearings. Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim,
at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4499, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting
to discuss the application.
Sincerely, . 4
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:MG:
c: Gary Wayne
Chris DeCerbo
Clyde Wickham
Bobbie Hoder
Melissa Allen, Jack Henthorn & Associates
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 a9
*
ISSUES OF CONCERN
a
No. CT 98-14/PUD 98-051SDP 99-06/HDP 98-15/GDP 98-68 - TABATAlTHOMPSON
Planning:
1.
2.
As mentioned in the issues letter from the City, dated June 16, 1999, the project is ’
subject to the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance, which requires the construction of
units affordable to lower-income households on-site. If approved by the Housing
Policy .Team, these units may be constructed off-site or as part of a combined
project. Should the units be included on the project site, then a site redesign ‘may
be necessary. Should the units be provided off-site (not as a combined project),
then a Site Development Plan must be processed for that site concurrent with the
proposed tentative map and other permits. This is a major issue that must be
resolved prior to scheduling the project for hearing. If additional permits are
required, they must be processed, deemed complete and all issues resolved prior to
scheduling the project for hearing.
As mentioned in the issues letter from the City, dated June 16, 1999, the project
does not contain the required recreational vehicle (RV) storage for the PUD portion
of the site. If the RV storage is to be included on-site, then a site redesign is
necessary. If the RV storage is to be provided off-site, as allowed by the Zone 20
Specific Plan, the a Conditional Use Permit is necessary. As with the inclusionary
housing issue, the RV storage issue is major and must be resolved prior to
scheduling the project for hearing. If additional permits are required, they must be
processed, deemed complete and all issues resolved prior to scheduling the project
for hearing.
3. Planning Department staff has preliminarily begun preparation of the environmental
review documents. To complete the environmental review, a complete project
description is needed. Therefore, staff cannot complete environmental review for
the project until the outcome of the above issues is known. If environmental review
were to be undertaken prior to resolution of the above issues, then subsequent
environmental review would be necessary after issue resolution but prior to
scheduling of the project for hearing. The critical path to the project being .
scheduled for hearing is, therefore., resolution of the above listed issues. Projects
are typically scheduled for Planning Commission hearings at least seven to eight
weeks in advance.
4. A checkprint with landscape comments is attached for reference. Please return this
checkprint with any subsequent resubmittal.
Engineering:
1. The proposed drainage system east of this subdivision, adjacent to and behind lots 8
& 9 will require additional storm drain and D41 energy dissipaters to mitigate
downstream erosion. Additional easements may be required as access and
maintenance to a public storm drain.
2. Feasible access to all adjacent undeveloped property must be shown for this project.
The Sarkaria Parcel on the corner of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia Lane could be
considered landlocked and undevelopable by virtue of the proposed design. Grading
is also proposed on this parcel as well as sewer and storm drain. Contact the owner
and provide a letter of permission or support for the proposed design.
3. Offsite grading must be shown and letters of support or permission submitted. The
remnant lots owned by Std. Pacific appear to be graded by this design yet not
included in the project or subdivision boundary. This issue must be resolved prior to
support of the proposed design.
4. The offsite sewer and storm drain *west of Lonicera Street needs additional
clarification. Is the existing system in Briarwood Drive public? Was the existing
system constructed to public standards and sized for the additional flow? Has
permission been obtained from the adjacent project to encroach or extend these
facilities and to acquire easements to this site?
5. The proposed sidewalk on one side for a portion of street “A” and also for street “E”
cannot be supported. Street “A” is a collector that serves as access to a significant
number of homes to the east. Pedestrian access must be provided on both sides of
the street. Street “E” does not qualify as a Hillside Street for the single loaded street
design and would not be consistent with the existing neighborhood.
6. The sight distance and the vertical profile exhibit (sheet 9) should reflect minimum
standards for street design. The design speed for local and cul-de-sac streets is 25
MPH. Any substandard design should be specifically requested as a variance. Staff
cannot support sight distance at intersections that is less than the minimum corner
sight distance standard.