Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-01; Carlsbad Beach Estates; Tentative Map (CT) (18)\^ ••««*•''City of Carlsbad J •F^Pi^B^I>V^HH^^B>^MMi^HHIHi^^HM^BBB^Planning Department September 16, 1999 Merit Group David Buckmaster 2171 El Camino Real, Suite 202 Oceanside, CA 92054 SUBJECT: CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01/CDP 99-02 ESTATES CARLSBAD BEACH Attached is a list of issues of concern to staff for the above-referenced project. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling for a public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for this application. Please contact your staff planner, Elaine Blackburn, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4471, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, ELAINE BLACKBURN, AICP Senior Planner MJH:EB:eh c: Gary Wayne Dennis Turner Jeremy Riddle Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1 161 • FAX (760) 438-O894 ® ISSUES OF CONCERN No. CT 99-01/SDP 99-02/PUD 99-01/CDP 99-02 - CARLSBAD BEACH ESTATES Planning: 1. General Comment/Processing - Staff notes that this project has been reviewed several times and still has some issues which will require further corrections. (The project application was deemed "complete" on June 26, 1999.) In most cases where significant redesign/corrections must be made after the project is deemed complete, staff generally advises the applicant to withdraw the application and resubmit when the project is in a more approvable condition. However, in this instance and in an effort to assist the applicant, staff has not advised withdrawal and has continued to process the application. However, numerous issues still remain which must be resolved. Staff could not recommend approval of the project in its current design since it does not meet or exceed minimum City requirements. Due to the processing time constraints, staff must require that the next resubmittal made be the final design. No changes can be made after the next resubmittal. That project, as submitted, will be the project which goes forward for public hearing. Obviously, therefore, staff cannot guarantee the nature of the staff recommendation for the project's approval or denial, since we do not know how or whether that submittal will meet or exceed minimum requirements. Staff is enclosing two copies of the primary pertinent regulations from the City's Municipal Code. We urge you and your architect to carefully review these regulations. If you have questions about this information, please contact City staff for explanations and/or clarifications. Also, please remember that, in the case of overlapping regulations, the more restrictive requirement applies. The following comments relate to specific problems identified with the current design: 2. Guest Parking - You are proposing a total of 10 dwelling units (excluding the 2nd dwelling units). Therefore, you must provide a total of 5 guest parking spaces. The driveways of the proposed single-family units cannot be utilized to provide this guest parking. The PUD regulations do not allow "tandem" guest parking in driveways to satisfy the guest parking requirement unless the project site is an existing duplex lot. The proposed units are single family rather than duplex and are not existing duplex lots. The PUD regulations do allow guest parking for single- family detached units to be provided on the adjacent local street, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. However, the Beach Area Overlay Zone prohibits provision of the required parking on the street. The more restrictive regulations (i.e., no required parking on the street) would apply. 3. Resident Parking - You are proposing 4 single-family detached dwelling units (2 with 2nd dwelling units) and 6 condominium units. The resident parking requirements for the project would be as follows: a) a 2-car garage (minimum size of 20'x20') for each single-family (detached or attached) unit; and, b) 1 space (covered or uncovered) for each 2nd dwelling unit; The required resident parking space for the second dwelling unit can be satisfied by a tandem space (provided that the covered parking spaces for the primary dwelling unit are located within a 2-car garage and that the garage is set back a minimum of 20' from the property line) or in the front yard setback. 4. Inclusionary Housing - On the basis of a total of 10 proposed units, your inclusionary (affordable) housing requirement is 1.5 affordable dwelling units (or 1 unit and purchase of a .5 credit). 5. Recreation Area - The PUD regulations require that you provide a recreation area of 200 square feet per unit. On the basis of a total of 10 units, this project is required to provide a total recreation area of 2000 square feet. Since the project units do not have a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet each, you must provide both common and private recreation areas. Although the project includes some multi-family units, it would not be required to provide an active common recreation area if the proposed density does not exceed the minimum density allowed by the General Plan designation. In that case, the required common recreation area could be passive rather than active. You will need to show on your plans that the project satisfies this density criteria to justify the passive common rec area, (i.e., Provide a calculation of the relevant density on the plans.) 6. Setbacks - It appears that some of the proposed balconies, yards, etc. encroach into required setbacks. This is not allowed. Engineering: 1. It is our understanding that plans will be revised to include a recreation area south of Lot 1. Address the impacts to proposed parking stalls and vehicular turnaround. Parking lot standards must still be met on the revised plans. 2. Revise the grading plans to include typical cross-sections along the southwest property line. Depict the property line, the retaining wall, footing location, temporary and cutback slopes. Provide verification that adjacent off-site grading is not required for the construction of these walls. 3. Revise the plans to incorporate a sight distance corridor (no object higher than 30- inches shall be placed here) at the 90-degree turn in the private street. The sight distance corridor shall be measured 25-feet from the curb returns, in accordance with private street standards. Attached is a redlined check print set of sheets 1 and 2 of the Tentative Map. You must return these plan sheets with the corrected plans to assist us in our continued review. Any modified plans are subject to our review, which may generate additional comments from Engineering.