Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT) (2)city of June 16, 1999 Gregg Linhoff Standard Pacific Homes 9335 Chesapeake Drive San Diego CA 92123-1010 SUBJECT: CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/HDP 98-l 5/CDP 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 Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit, application no. CT 98-14/PUD 98-05/HDP 98-l 5KDP 98-68, as to its completeness for processing and issues of concern to staff. Due to the fact that the 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 Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit applications must remain incomplete until the legislative action 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. MJH:MG:eh MJH:MG:eh CI Gary Wayne Chris DeCerbo Michael Shirey Bob Wojcik Bobbie Hoder File Copy 2075 La palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 0 (760) 436-J 161 0 FAX (760) 436-0694 @ ISSUES OF CONCERN No. TABATAlTHOMPSON - CT 98-l 4/PUD 9B-05/HDP 98-l 5KDP 98-68 Planning: 1. The proposed Zone Change from R-1-10,000 to R-l -7,500 for that portion of the project north of Poinsettia Lane is not supported by staff because it is inconsistent with the Zone 20 Specific Plan and the neighboring developed property in the same zone. Should you wish to pursue the Zone Change, then an amendment to the Zone 20 Specific Plan would be necessary, however staff would not in support of the proposal. It is recommended that additional property be obtained, or the subdivision be redesigned, to meet the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. 2. The project proposes a manufactured slope over 30 feet in height on lot 176, which is not allowed pursuant to the Hillside Development Ordinance applicable in the Coastal Zone. At their June 10, 1999 hearing, the California Coastal Commission heard the City’s revised Hillside Development Ordinance and recommended approval with suggested modifications. These modifications must be heard and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to the revised ordinance taking affect in the Coastal Zone. The revised ordinance would allow manufactured slopes up to 40 feet in height. Therefore, if the revised ordinance is in effect at the time of staff recommendation for the Tabata/Thompson project, then the proposed slope on lot 176 would be acceptable. Should the Tabata/Thompson project precede the effective date of the revised ordinance, then the slope would need to be reduced in height to 30 feet. The timing on the hearings for the Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications to the Hillside Development Ordinance is not known at this time. It should be noted, however, that the revised Hillside Development Ordinance contains regulations regarding top of slope setbacks. For downhill perimeter slopes, the buil.dings must be setback at a ratio of 0.7 feet horizontal for every vertical foot of building face- nearest the downhill slope. It appears that several of the proposed homes would encroach into this top of slope setback, should the new ordinance apply to this project. 3. The noise study for the adjacent subdivision (Mariner’s Point - CT 91-I 2) indicates the need for noise attenuation walls between Aviara Parkway and the private rear yards, as shown in the attached report (“Acoustical Analysis for Mariner’s Point Tentative Tract 91-l 2, Carlsbad, California”). It is difficult to reconcile the difference in this report’s findings and the recommendations of the submitted noise study for the Tabata/Thompson project, which states that no noise attenuation is needed along Aviara Parkway. Please reconcile these differences and revise the acoustical study as needed. The proposed noise mitigation involves a seven-foot high solid barrier between Poinsettia Lane and the proposed homes. The maximum wall height for residential areas is six feet. Therefore, the proposed noise mitigation should include a six-foot high wall on top of an earthen berm. This is noted on the detail sheet but should be called out on the site plan and tentative map. 4. The Zone 20 Specific Plan requires recreational vehicle storage for all residential subdivisions. For those subdivisions that are standard single-family (i.e. all lots satisfying the minimum lot size), 25 percent of the lots must be designed to accommodate a 200 square foot, minimum 10 foot wide, RV parking area. These RV areas must be relatively flat in gradient and accessible from the residential driveway. The proposed 107 unit subdivision would then require a minimum of 27 lots with RV storage capability. It is unclear from the submitted site plan that there are 27 lots that meet this criteria. Please amend the site plan to indicate the lots with RV storage capacity and indicate where on the lots those RV parking areas are located (with hatching, distinct from the rear yard hatching). For those subdivisions that are Planned Developments (i.e. not all lots over the minimum lot size), then the provisions of the Planned Development Ordinance apply (Chapter 21.45 of the Zoning Ordinance). The Specific Plan dies offer an alternative to these requirements if a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is issued for off- site RV storage in the industrial area of the City. A CUP for off-site RV storage must be heard and approved concurrent with, or prior to, a hearing on the Tabata/Thompson subdivision. 5. There are several submitted reports and/or studies that do not include the recently proposed development upon the Weidner/Dennis property. These include the Phase I Health Assessment (Geocon), Water System and Off-site Sewer (Wilson Engineering), and the Geotechnical Investigation (Geocon). Please review and revise or amend these reports and studies as needed. 6. This residential subdivision is subject to the requirements of the City’s lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. Please provide documentation as to the disposition of affordable housing for this subdivision. If affordable housing must be provided on site, then a project redesign may be needed, therefore this issue should be resolved so that the project design can be finalized. 7. If only one officer signs the required Public Facilities Fee Agreement, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under comorate seal empowering that officer to bind the corporation (in this case Standard Pacific Corporation). 8. The side yard dimension for lot 12 is missing. In addition, there are several lots that do not comply with the required setback(s). With regard to the standard single-family subdivision portion of the project, lot 37 needs a 9.5 foot side yard; lot 43 needs a 9.2 foot side yard and an 18.4 foot rear yard; lot 54 needs a 7.5 foot side yard; and lot 153 needs a 8.0 foot side yard. With regard to the Planned Development portion of the project, the RD-M zone allows a reduction of the required front yard from 20 feet to 15 feet if and only if carport or garage openings do not face onto the front yard (i.e. towards the street). According to both the submitted floor plans and site plan, none of the units proposed for the Planned Development portion meet this requirement since none of them contain exclusively side-loaded garages. All floor plans show a garage opening facing the street, therefore a 20 foot setback is required for all proposed units in the RD-M zone. 9. Several areas of the project have retaining walls. When retaining walls are located in the side yard, a three foot wide plantable area should be provided between the retaining wall and the closest property line. This reduces the combined visual impact of the retaining wall with the property line privacy fencing. Retaining walls should not be located directly adjacent to the street right-of-way as they interfere with the provision of street trees. Street trees must be provided at 40 foot intervals and must be located a minimum of three feet outside of the public right- of-way. Please verify that the side yard retaining walls have an adequate plantable setback from the closest property line and that the retaining walls along the public right-of-way provide enough space for street trees in accordance with the City’s Landscape Manual. 10. The cover sheet of the Site Development Plan exhibit indicates that 38 guest parking spaces are required but does not clearly identify where these parking spaces are located. No guest parking credit can be given for driveways. The Planning Commission may allow street guest parking, but the spaces must meet the dimensional requirements of Section 21.45.090(d)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. Engineering: Traffic & Transoortation 1. As indicated in the February 19, 1998, preliminary review for this project, staff has serious concern regarding providing access to the two “Not A Part” (NAP) properties. Now the “Thompson/Dennis/Green House NAP properties” are part of the project. However, the Dennis residence is not, and could be developed in the future. The Tabata NAP property also has future development potential. As previously indicated, access for the future development of both of these properties must be considered with this tentative map (TM). To accomplish this, the following must be shown on the TM: a) Tabata property, north of Poinsettia Lane - Connection from the proposed terminus of Lemon Leaf Drive through to proposed Lonicera Street, including: l Public right of way dedication (based on 40’ curb to curb/60’ row); l grading: l half-street + 12’ improvements l utility connection “stubs”; l deed restrictions on lot’s 215 through 234, and 235 through 253 for future street connection. b) Dennis property, south of Poinsettia Lane - Connection from proposed ‘A’ Street, including: l 56’ public right of way dedication (based on 36’ curb to curb/56’ row); l grading; l interim A/C driveway; l deed restrictions on lot’s 23 through 25, 162 and 163, and 174 through 176 for future street connection. Please be advised, this is a maior staff issue of concern and access to these properties will be a condition of approval for this TM. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Please be advised, the “Tabata connection” referenced above, is also required to meet the City’s Cul-de-sac Standard. The City is now strictly enforcing this Standard, and since the proposed driveways are not spaced 150’ or more apart, a second street connection must be provided. Thank you for plotting the street profiles on sheet 9 of 14. As previously requested, however, please also show the intersecting streets on the profiles and plot the Caltrans vertical sight distance. Thank you for revising the street design to meet City Standards. However, two streets still must be slightly modified. In accordance with City Standards, 50’ tangents must be shown from the prolongation of the intersection curb lines at the ‘D’/‘E’ and ‘B’/‘F’ Street intersections (on ‘D’ and ‘F’ Street). The Easement Table indicates that Easement Item No. 42 (30’ City Street and Utility easement), adjacent to proposed lot 215, will remain; however, sheet 6 of 14 indicates that it will be vacated. Please be advised, the City will not vacate this existing 30’ easement. Please revise the applicable plan sheets. It seems at some of the proposed intersections that only the City Standard 25’ sight distance sight triangle is being shown (e.g., ‘A’/‘I’ Street intersection). Caltrans Corner Sight Distance also must be shown at all intersections. A minimum of 330’ of clear sight line must be shown. Again, look at the proposed ‘A’/‘I’ Street intersection, the proposed retaining walls probably obstruct the line of sight. Please verify and revise at all intersections. Please show the above sight distance sight lines on the Conceptual Landscape plan. Also please add the following note to the Conceptual Landscape plan: “Proposed mature landscaping and vegetation encroaching into the sight line can only have a maximum height of 30 inches and a minimum tree canopy of 8’. Any proposed monument signs or walls encroaching into the sight line can only have a maximum height of 30 inches.” Traffic ReDort Issues I. Please explain the differences in the ICU/LOS values for the Poinsettia LanelAviara Parkway & Snap Dragon Drive intersections in Table 4-2 of the Traffic Report and page 2 of 2 of the USA update Memorandum (memo) to Greg Linhoff of Standard Pacific Homes, dated March 3, 1999. Memo Alternative No. 1 should be the same as Table 4-2. Additionally, page 2 of 3 and figure 3-l of the Memo do not match. Please verify and revise as necessary. 2. The memo investigated deleting some of the proposed connections to existing adjacent developments. Please be advised, staff supports the proposed three connection design and currently does not support deletion of any of the connections. 3. Please include a “Cumulative Project” trip generation Table in the report for other projects which are in the vicinity of this project. For example, include, Sambi, Mariner’s Pointe, Parkside, Ocean Bluff, Roesch, Lohf, Cobblestone, etc. Compare these trip generation rates with Carlsbad Traffic Model TAZ 450, 451,. 460 and 464. Does the trip generation from the TAZ’s match the approved projects within those TAZ’s? Please compare and contrast in the report and adjust any LOS as necessary. 4. Traffic Report, Figure 5-2, Year 2005, indicates various heavy right and left turn movements. For example, three legs of the intersection indicate dedicated right turn lanes to handle the substantial number of turning vehicles. The report indicates that 25% of project traffic will utilize this intersection. Additionally, Figure 6-2, indicates that there are two dual left turn lanes, as well as, the dedicated right turn lanes. The appendix indicates that the LOS for this intersection was calculated based on these turn lanes being installed. This is incorrect. The LOS should be calculated using the existing intersection lane configuration. Then if the intersection is impacted, these additional turn lanes would be added as mitigation measures. Therefore, please recalculate the LOS of this, and any other intersection, with the correct lane configurations, and then indicate additional turn lanes as mitigation. Please revise the various Figures, Tables and text in the report to address this issue. Gradinq & Drainaae 1. Retaining walls are now being proposed on various lots and the Typical Drainage detail on sheet 2 of 14 now shows a typical retaining wall drainage design. This design is acceptable, provided that the project Soils Engineer submits documentation that a reduced flow line around the dwelling unit will function acceptably. Please be advised, the minimum acceptable distance from any structure to the flow line is 3’ and the minimum distance from the structure to any retaining wall is 5’. 2. The Typical Lot Drainage plan view indicates surface drainage for the proposed lots. Yard drains can also be proposed with one standard D-27 curb drain. Due to drainage deficiencies that have recently been occurring in the field, a final lot drainage design must be included at the tentative map stage of the proposed project. Once a design is finalized, a Typical Lot Drainage plan view (already shown) and cross-section must be shown on the tentative map. If the developer is sure that they are not going to use yard drains then what is submitted is acceptable; however, what is approved on this TM is .what must eventually be constructed in the field. Please be advised, this is a maior staff issue of concern. 3. Some minimum off-site grading is being proposed for the lot southwest of proposed lot 214. What is being planned for this lot? Who owns this lot? Staff will condition that the existing gate and A/C driveway .be removed, curb and gutter be installed along Poinsettia Lane, at the former driveway, and this area be irrigated and landscaped and included in the landscape maintenance for this 4. 5. project. Please show this on the TM. Please meet City Standard GS-14 setback requirements along the northeasterly property boundary north of Poinsettia Lane (see sheet 3). A curb outlet is being proposed at lot 148. Where is the closest curb inlet located in the adjacent subdivision to the south to catch flows from this outlet? Please investigate tying this proposed outlet into a storm drain system (see sheet 8). 6. Can the 90” corner handle the flows for the proposed brow ditch at lot’s 189/l 90? Please indicate the Q (cfs) and V (fps) at this corner for a 2-year storm event (see sheet 8). 7. Due to the potential for constant nuisance water generated by slope irrigation, please tie the proposed outlet at lot 176 into a storm drain within ‘A’ Street. 8. Please indicate fail-safe overflow measures at the two sumps located on proposed Lemon Leaf Drive and Lonicera Street. Vegetated swales, additional inlets and redundant storm drains could be used (see sheet’s 3 & 6). 9. Whenever a public easement is proposed between two structures, the easement must be increased to 20’ in width. Please revise the proposed 15’ easements at lot’s 101/102- and 239/240. Also please revise the proposed IO’ private storm drain easements at lot’s 229/230 and lot 222 to 20’ public easements. 10. Please indicate that the existing 1 :I slope adjacent to proposed lot 235 will be re-graded to a standard 2:1 slope configuration (see sheet 3). Hvdroloov ReDort Issues 1. Please explain the differences in the Basin ‘B’ existing and developed 0100 flows between the Crosby, Mead, Benton Report and the Hydrology Report for this project (see report page 7). 2. Staff has concern over the Basin ‘D’ analysis methodology. Please more fully explain why a “weighted” runoff coefficient of .75 was used in a mostly undeveloped area. Also, please -conduct the same analysis using a runoff coefficient of .45, rather than .75, and compare the existing and developed Q’s (see report page 7). 3. Analysis for basin ‘F’ indicates an existing 0100 of 4cfs. Exhibit ‘A’ seems to indicate an existing QlOO of 2.9cfs. Therefore the increase is greater than 2.2cfs in the developed (6.2cfs) condition. Please verify and revise as necessary. Is an increase of 3.3cfs acceptable? What is the existing and developed “depth of flow” in the gutter, based on these figures (see report page 7)? 4.. 5. Analysis for basin ‘G’ indicates a proposed QIOO of 8cfs. Exhibit ‘B’ indicates various Ql 00’s of 1 .I, 8.4, and 9.5cfs. Please verify and revise/explain as necessary. Analysis for basin ‘I’ indicates that an existing brow *ditch located south of Poinsettia Lane, directly east of proposed lot 8, may not have sufficient capacity to carry the proposed QIOO of 12.lcfs, and that further analysis will be done at the final design stage of the project. This is unacceptable. The capacity of the existing brow ditch must be determined now. If a pipe must be installed to handle the proposed Q, environmental review must be completed at the discretionary stage of the project. 6. Please conduct a Q10 analysis. Land Title & MaDDinq 1. Thank you for labeling the easements throughout the plan set and providing the updated 8% n x 1 1 II Easement Table. Please replace the existing Easement Table with the revised Table on sheet 2 of 14 of the tentative map (TM). Also, under the easement Table heading, indicate that this Table is based on the Amended Preliminary Title Report (PR), dated, February 19, 1999, No. 835 1360-U50. 2. 3. 4. 5. Please plot easement Item No.‘s 8, 38 and 56 on the TM plan set. The proposed ‘A’ Street/Poinsettia Lane intersection, and grading, encroaches into City owned property. Please be advised, the developer may have to acquire fee title to this property. Does vacating a portion of the existing Open Space/Slope Maintenance easement (easement #55, see sheet 3) decrease any previous project cumulative open space ? Provide documentation from Planning Department staff regarding this issue. Are the existing Slope Maintenance easements public or private (easement #55, see sheet 3)? 6. 7. 8. Please label the proposed Slope Maintenance easements as private (e.g., adjacent to lot 90, sheet 7). Please increase the frontage width at proposed lot 155 (see TM & SDP sheet 5) to a minimum of 33’. Slightly relocate the lot 155 property lines to achieve this frontage width. This will achieve a greater separation between the lot 155 driveway and lot 154 property line. Is the developer planning on recording this map in phases? If so, the phasing (units) must be indicated on the TM, with the lot numbers consecutively numbered. 9. Please label the “Not a Part” (NAP) Dennis and Tabata parcels as “Remainder Parcels.” Sewer & Water 1. Again, as previously indicated, please show a reclaimed (RC) waterline servicing the project. 2. Please change a proposed Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) public easements to a 20’ minimum width. 3. In accordance with the City’s Master Plan of Sewage and the Wilson Engineering Project Sewer Analysis, dated, September 10, 1998, please contact CMWD regarding the construction/funding of Master Sewer Plan facility NBT3A. Provide documentation of CMWD’s response. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Regarding item No. 3 above, make sure that CMWD staff take into account that the project sewer analysis indicates that the “ultimate” system operates at 71% capacity and that capacity of the system is generally reached at 75-85%. Provide CMWD documentation on this issue also. At a meeting held on October 8, 1998 with City staff and the developer, the CMWD District Engineer indicated that he wanted the sewer flow for the portion of the project being proposed north of Poinsettia Lane to gravity flow to the north. Please review this with CMWD staff, and provide documentation of the outcome of those discussions. Provide documentation of CMWD approval to relinquish easement item’s 39, 44, 45, & 46 (see sheet 3 of the TM). Indicate that CMWD easement item 53 and the existing fire hydrant will be relocated, in accordance with the Lemon Leaf Drive/Lonicera Street connection (see, sheet 3). Contact CMWD to see if they will require a “looped’ water system in the Lemon Leaf Drive/Lonicera Street connection (see sheet 3). Provide documentation from CMWD regarding this issue. The revised Easement Table indicates that CMWD easement item’s 13, 27 and 61 “will remain,” while easement 14 is “vacated.” What is the difference? All of these existing easements go through proposed lots (see sheet 5). Please verify and revise. Miscellaneous 1. The developer was previously informed that they will be required to pay a fair share of the Aviara Parkway/Poinsettia Lane Bridge and Thoroughfare District fee prior to recordation of any final map, in accordance with the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP). Please be advised that since that information was provided, the estimate for this payment has changed from $540/ADT to $566/ADT. 2. Please be advised, the City Council (CC), at the Tuesday, April 27, 1999, CC meeting, enacted an Urgency Ordinance for traffic mitigation measures for Local Facility Management Plan (LFMP) Zone’s 5, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21. Projects within these zones are required to sign an agreement to pay a traffic mitigation fee of $1 O/ADT. This fee will be collected at issuance of any building permit for a project. This proposed project is located within LFMP Zone 20. 3. Previously distributed for the applicant’s review for making the requested revisions were red-lined check prints of the project. These check prints must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review.