Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT) (3),-- “pMLL& qh/$y City of Carlsbad October 14, 1998 Gregg Linoff Vice President Standard Pacific Homes 933 5 Chesapeake Drive San Diego CA, 92123-1010 SUBJECT: POINSETTIA -TABATA -THOMPSON - CT 98-14/PUD 98OYHDP 9%15KDP 98-68 Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your development application No. CT 98-14iPUD 9805iHDP 98-15KDP 98-68 as to its completeness for processing. Due to the fact that legislative actions (Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment) are being processed concurrently with quasi-judicial actions the Planning Department has determined that the tentative map, planned development permit, hillside development permit and coastal development permit applications must remain incomplete until the legislative actions are approved by the City Council. Please contact your staff planner, Jeff Gibson, at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4455, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. $ii+sik~~ Planning Director MJH:JB:eh: c: Gary Wayne Adrienne Landers - Team Leader Mike Shirey - Project Engineer Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 2075 La Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @ LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED FOR STAFF REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION No. CT 9%14/PUD 9%OVHDP 9%15KDP 98-68 Planning: 1. All joint application exhibits (i.e. Tentative Map and Planned Development Permit) should be prepared at the same scale that is no smaller than 1” = 40. 2. On the tentative map cover sheet please provide the addresses of the owners whose property is proposed to be subdivided. 3. Setback dimensions for the required front, rear and side yard setbacks for all structures (product type must be shown on the PUD lots). 4. 5. Total building coverage for lots with proposed structures (PUD lots). On the landscape plan an estimate of the yearly amount of irrigation (supplemental) water required to maintain each landscape zone. Also include the percent of site used for landscaping. 6. BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS - For all condominium and planned development projects, ten (10) copies prepared on 24” x 36” sheet(s) folded to 8 l/2” x 11. Each building elevation and floor plan shall include the following information (PUD lots): A. B. C. D. E. Floor plans with square footage included. Location and size of storage areas. All buildings, structures, walls and/or fences, signs and exterior lights. Include a scale on all floor plans and building elevations. Indicate on all building elevations, compliance with Carlsbad Height Ordinance 21.04.065. 7. Submit architectural guideline compliance summary. (See Council Policy No. 44 for the development of small lots, as attached to the original application). 8. Public Facility Agreement - If only one officer signs, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under comorate seal empowering that officer to bind the corporation (Standard Pacific Corporation). 9. The constraints map needs some minor revisions per the attached redlined marked plans. - 10. 11. The proposal to rezone portions of the site with the Q-Overlay Zone requires the processing of a Site Development Plan application. The project is subject to inclusionary housing requirements, therefore, if you propose to purchase affordable housing credits from Villa Loma there is an application process that must take place before this project can proceed to Planning Commission. The City’s Combined Project Review Committee must review the proposal in accordance with City Council Policies No. 57 and 58 and make a recommendation to the Housing Commission. For more information on how to proceed when proposing an affordable housing credit purchase from Villa Loma, please contact the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Department. 12. 13. 14. Add the permit numbers in upper right hand corner of the plans (CT 9%14/PUD 9% OS/HDP 9%15KDP 98-68) The Phase I Environmental Assessment prepared by Geocon should be revised to include the entire project site (The Tabata portion of the site has been under agriculture for many years). Please revise the biological report to include a biological impact assessment and mitigation plan for the impacts associated with the selective clearing of native habitat for purposes of fire suppression in Zone 2 and 3. The project will impact coastal sage scrub habitat, therefore, California gnatcher surveys should be conducted and discussed in the report. Prior to your next resubmittal the Planning Department recommends that you consult with the resource agencies concerning the project’s biological impacts and the appropriate mitigation measures for the impacts. 15. Provide the street frontage dimensions for Lots No. 227 - 230 on the tentative map. Engineering: 1. 2. Please have all property owners sign the application. Thank you for indicating easements on Sheet 3 of 3 of the tentative map (TM). The easements, however, are not identified as existing or proposed. Please numerically identify all existing easements as listed in Schedule “B” of the August 18, 1998, Preliminary Title Report (PR). Additionally, please indicate the future dispositions of all of these easements. The easement items which must be identified are as follows: 6, 7,9, 13-16, 18-21,24, 28-33, 36, 38,40,43-45, 47, 51-58, 60, & 62-64. Also, please submit copies of recorded document items, 35 & 61. Finally, identify all proposed public and private easements. 3. Please indicate the amount of grading in cy/ac and any import/export, in accordance with Hillside Development Permit (HDP) requirements. Please be advised, acceptable grading is 7,999cy/ac, or less. 4. Please add 1” = 40’ scale sheets to the plan set for review purposes. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Please add street profiles to the plan set for streets proposed to have a gradient greater than 7% (“B, D, L, I & Z” Streets). Show intersecting streets on the profiles. Please add typical street light standards and fire hydrants to the street cross-sections, on Sheet 1 of 3. Additionally, label the cross-sections as existing or proposed, and public or private. Please indicate the distance between all intersections, inaccordance with City Standards. Please label the “Typical Lot Drainage” detail, on Sheet 1 of 3, as City Standard GS-15. On Sheet 1 of 3, a retaining wall designation is being indicated in the Legend. At the 1” = 100’ scale, staff is unable to tell where any retaining walls are being proposed. Please be advised, even if retaining walls are proposed, City Standard GS-15 still must be met. Therefore, if retaining walls are going to be proposed on any buildable lot, please show a typical design on the “Typical Lot Drainage” detail, complying with the GS-15 Standard (i.e., 5’ minimum from any structure to flow line, with 2’ minimum to the face of any retaining wall). 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. Feasible access must be shown now for the interim, existing condition (truck access, parking, etc.), as well as, for future developed conditions. Providing access to these two properties should be fairly easy to accomplish. The “Thompson/Dennis/Green House NAP properties” can be accessed off of either proposed “A” or “G” Streets. The “Engler/Tabata(?) NAP properties” can be accessed off of proposed Lemon Leaf Drive. Please show and label these potential access points on the TM. As indicated in the February 19, 1998, preliminary review for this project, the street design still must be looked at for meeting City Standards. Proposed knuckles must have tangent sections and may not have a horizontal angle less than 90”. The current design is substantially better than the design that was previously submitted for preliminary review; however, City Standards still must be met. As indicated in the February 19, 1998, preliminary review for this project, please show a reclaimed (RC) waterline servicing the project. Please show this RC waterline on Sheet 3 of 3 of the TM. Please show typical dwelling unit sewer lateral/clean-outs and water service/valves on the “Typical Lot Drainage” detail, on Sheet 1 of 3 of the TM. Do not show these facilities within a driveway. Please be advised, this project is required to pay a fair share of the Aviara Parkway/Poinsettia Lane Bridge and Thoroughfare District fee, in accordance with the Zone 20 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP). The current estimate for this payment is $540/ADT. Since the project has been deemed incomplete, staff has not reviewed it for any engineering issues of concern. Engineering issue review, as well as, review of the Traffic. Drainage and Soils reports will be conducted when the uroiect is deemed complete. Please be advised, additional issues of concern may be identified at that time. 15. Enclosed for the applicant’s review for making the requested revisions is a red-lined check print of the project. This check print must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review. k3SUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The Planning Department is requesting that the tentative map and preliminary grading be illustrated at a more readable 40 scale before the project’s grading is analyzed by staff for compliance with standards and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Once the map is enlarged please provide the lot size information directly on each lot. To comply with the requirements of the PD Ordinance please illustrate on the plans the location and size of the recreational vehicle storage area. Also provide the size in square feet of the common passive recreational areas designated to satisfy the project’s recreational requirements (129 units x 200 square feet per unit). Constrained areas are not allowed to count towards satisfying the recreational requirement. The project may not comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance that is currently in effect in the Coastal Zone (The City’s recently revised Hillside Development Ordinance has not yet been adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program by the Coastal Commission). It appears that, manufactured slopes may potentially exceed 30 feet in height and the proposed project grading impacts manufactured slopes that are steeper than 40% along Poinsettia Lane and the Aviara Master Plan area. The project’s landscape plans do not comply with the landscape requirements of Specific Plan 203(A). Street tree requirements -70% of homes must have 1 - 24” box tree and 2 - 15 gallon trees/ 30% from the theme palette and 70% from the accent palette (See Page 90 of SP 203 (A)). The SP 203(A) Final EIR recommends landscape wind breaks (heavy landscaping) as land use compatibility mitigation between existing agricultural operations and future residential land uses. The Planning Department is recommending that a heavy landscape buffer/screening be provided along the rear of Lots No. 137 - 145. Please provide an enlarged exhibit that better illustrates how functional access and future operations are maintained for the existing greenhouses on the Weidner parcel. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. The Planning Department is questioning the lack of the provision for noise attenuation walls along the top of the slope for Lots No. 212 - 2 17 along Aviara Parkway?. Prior noise studies for the Sambi and Mariners Point projects have both indicated a need for noise attenuation walls for lots along Aviara Parkway (formerly named Alga Road). Panhandle lots are not allowed in the proposed RD-M Zone, they are only allowed in R-l Zones. This applies to Lots No. 90-92,189, 190, and 129. Lot No 22 is required to have 33 feet of frontage on a public street where 30 feet is shown. Staff agrees with the proposed delineation of the General Plan (RLM and RM) designations areas. Staff supports the proposed zoning districts and boundaries with the exception of the request to rezone the R-l -10,000 area to R-1-7,500. The area North of Poinsettia and East of the out-parcel has two existing zoning designations: R-1-10,000 on the northern portion and L-C on the southern portion. Staff supports the rezoning of the L-C portion to R-1-7,500. That request is consistent with the expected and proposed General Plan designations and with the zoning anticipated by the Zone 20 Specific Plan for that portion of the site. However, staff believes the R-l-lO,OOO-zoned portion should remain R-l- 10,000. This would maintain better compatibility with the existing development to the North and consistency with both the Specific Plan and with the City’s General Plan Land Use policies. (It should be noted that, any request to rezone the R-1-10,000 portion of the site would require that an application for a Specific Plan Amendment be processed also.) The project site is located within “Site III” of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone as identified in the Zone 20 Specific Plan. Consequently, the conversion of these agricultural lands to urban uses will require mitigation as outlined in the Specific Plan. Lots No. 212 -215 do not meet the lot size requirements of the R-l -10,000 Zone. Staff would not support a variance from the lot size standard and recommend that the remnant triangular portion of land north of these lots be purchased and brought into the boundaries of the subdivision, if at all possible. See the attached redlined marked plans for additional comments. Please return all redlined plans with the next resubmittal of the application.