Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-01; Carlsbad Beach Estates; Tentative Map (CT) (12)city of July 6, 1999 Merit Group, Inc. Suite 202 2171 El Camino Real Oceanside, CA 92054 SUBJECT: CT 99-011SDP 99-02/PUD 99-011CDP 99-02 - CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES The items requested from you earlier to make your tentative tract map, site development plan, planned unit development, and coastal development permit, application no. CT 99-01, SDP 99-02, PUD 99-01, and CDP 99-02, complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged as June 26, 1999. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4471, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, Planning Director MJH:EB:mh c: Gary Wayne Dennis Turner Ken Quon Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 l (760) 438-l 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @ .- ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. The square footage (by floor, etc.) for the various living units needs to appear on the floor plan drawings. Please move this information from sheet 1 to the appropriate floor plan drawings or add the information to the floor plan drawings. 2. Please add a dimension showing the structure heights to the peaks of the roofs for I each of the architectural elevations. 3. The existing zoning (RD-M) is shown on the plan sheets (sheet 1) but is identified as the existing/proposed General Plan land use designation. Please revise this information to show that the RD-M is the existing zoning (for the entire site) and to add the existing General Plan designations. The General Plan designation is RH (for parcels 10 and 1 1) and RMH (for parcel 12). The existing zoning on all three parcels is RD-M. 4. Please add the following information to the Landscape Plan: A. a graphic indication of the landscape zones per the City’s Landscape Manual; B. the quantity of each plans species and their size for each planting zone; C. D. an estimate of the amount of irrigation (supplemental) water required to maintain each zone; and, the landscape maintenance responsibility (private or common) for all areas. 5. Although the lot sizes identified on the site plan and the tentative map sheet are the same, the lot dimensions called out differ between the two sheets. 6. Please indicate the location and size of the storage areas (required by the PUD regulations). 7. Since you are proposing a lot line between the units on Lots 2 and 3, they are considered “zero lot line” units rather than “duplex” units. Therefore, the setbacks on the west side of Lot 2 and the east side of Lot 3 w’ill need to be increased to offset the reduction in the required side yard setbacks on the east side of Lot 2 and the west side of Lot 3. For example, if the required side yard setbacks on both lots is 5’ on each side, and you propose an attached structure (i.e., common wall), then you are essentially reducing one required side yard setback on each lot to zero. Therefore, the remaining side yard setback on each lot must be increased by the same amount, resulting in a 10’ side yard setback on the west side of Lot 2 and a 10’ setback on the east side of Lot 3. 8. Staff did not find in your resubmittal the completed Small Lot Single-Family Architectural Guidelines compliance table for the project. (This was Item 7 of the Planning Department Issues of Concern in our letter of February 24.) Please provide this information within two weeks from receipt of this letter. (Planning staff will provide another sample table if you need one.) 9. It is not necessary for you to provide updated/revised proposed findings for the project with your resubmittals. Staff will devise the appropriate wording for these findings when the staff recommendation is finalized and the staff report is drafted. Engineering: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Please provide on the grading plan additional elevations along the proposed retaining walls. As a minimum, indicate the top and bottom elevations at both ends of each wall, in the middle, and at the worst condition elevation. A five foot wide right-of-way dedication is to be provided along the project frontage on Chinquapin Avenue to conform to the City’s standard for local streets, which requires a width of 30’ as measured from centerline to right-of-way line. This issue was not previously identified due to the lack of typical street cross sections on the plans. In general, the City requires private streets to be designed to public street standards. Therefore, the proposed cross section for the private street requires a crown with a minimum 2% cross-slope. The applicant may wish to consider eliminating the 2’ wide sidewalk that is proposed for the north side of the private street, south of Lot 2. Please provide an invert elevation at the point of connection to the sewer main to demonstrate there is adequate grade for sewer service for the units located at the rear of the private street. It appears that Lot 1, adjacent to the garage, does not appear to meet the side yard drainage requirement of providing a positive drainage of 2% to a swale located a minimum 5’ away from the face of the building. If this is not possible, the applicant’s soils engineer must provide with the next project submittal a letter indicating their approval of the proposed drainage design. The Engineering Department has reviewed your letter, dated May 24, 1999. In that letter, you referred to comments from the preliminary review application of August, 1998 being different from the issues .raised from the first formal review of the project in January, 1999; and a request to “fast track” the processing of this project. Comments from the preliminary review application were not to be construed as an in-depth analysis of this project. The City’s letter of preliminary review, dated August 18, 1998, clearly states that “additional issues of concern may be raised after the application is submitted for a more specific and detailed review,” which took place with the first formal review of the project in January, 1999. Finally, the City does not have in place a system to “fast track” the processing of this project and take priority over other proposed development projects. However, City staff will continue to respond to each project submittal in a timely and orderly manner. 8. Attached is a redlined check print set of the project. Please forward this plan set to the applicant for corrections and changes as noted. The applicant must return this plan set with the corrected plans to assist us in our continued review. If you have questions, please contact me at extension 4380.