Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 02-06; Tavelman Tennis Court; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (6)c - City of Carlsbad February 22,2002 San Dieguito Engineering 4407 Manchester Avenue Suite 105 Encinitas, CA 92024 SUBJECT: PCD 01-02 - TAVELMAN TENNIS COURT Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Planning Commission Determination Permit, application no. PCD 01-02 - Tavelman Tennis Court, as to its completeness for processing. The items requested from you earlier to make your Planning Commission Determination Permit, application no. PCD 01 -02 - Tavelman Tennis Court 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 by the date of this communication. 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, Greg Fisher, at (760) 602-4629, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOrZMlLLER Planning Director MIH:GF:jt Attachment C: Chris DeCerbo David Rick File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION NO. PCD 01 -02 - TAVELMAN TENNIS COURT Planning: None Engineering: None ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. Please correctly identify and label the required rear yard 20 foot setback on the site plan. The plan incorrectly shows a 10 foot setback. 2. In reference to the rear yard retaining wall located behind the tennis court within the required rear yard setback, please change the wall design from a vertical retaining wall to a crib wall design. The crib wall should be completely landscaped to help reduce the visual impacts to the adjacent neighbor. Engineering: 1. On the sitdgrading plan: a. b. d. e. f. g. h. C. Draw the cross sections to a 1 :1 scale. It is important not only for measurement but for illustration purposes for staff and the decision makers. Explain what "EX. FG" means. Be consistent in illustrating the slopes between the cross section and site plan. Include TW/BW elevation on all walls shown on Section A-A and B-B. In addition, the wall heights near the southwest comer of the lot are illegible. at the Correct the EX FG at the toe of the slope on Section A-A. The elevation "278.0 is incorrect. On the legend, either distinguish between cut and fill slopes with a symbol (do not use shading) or if all slopes shown are cut, then remove fill. Where do the stairs located west of the pool lead to? Is the series of retaining walls that it leads to for planters? The stairs along the south property line must have a landing every 12 vertical feet per the Uniform Building Code. 2. Placing the rip-rap at the top of most westerly slope is not an acceptable means of dissipating the drainage as this design will lead to slope erosion. Propose another design to handle discharge. 3. The drainage and rip-rap design on the east side of the pad and deck does not work do to the grade differential. The riprap is uphill from the receiving drainage. Redesign accordingly. 4. If the most westerly slope is graded to 2:1, then the toe of slope must be 2 feet from property line. Since it appears that this slope is already at 40%, it probably does not need to be graded and can remain as is. 5. As mentioned previously, the City’s infill grading standards discourages fill between 3 feet and 10 feet in height unless such fill is justified. Because the infill grading ordinance also encourages grading sites which are balanced as much as possible, staff could support fill above three feet in height to reduce the amount of export. However, to prevent an excessive amount of fill, we would limit the amount of fill to no higher than 6 vertical feet. Per the standards, the developer is required to submit a written request with justification to obtain approval for fill above 3 feet. Please submit said request and revise plans accordingly. Staff would be more than willing to review schematic plans before revising the final grading plan to help guide the right balance between the cut and fill and vertical fill limits. The amount of cut, fill and export resulting from the revised plans will greatly influence our recommendation to the decision makers.