Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 89-18; Cazadero Meadows; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (2)City of Carlsbad Planning Department July 6, 1995 Steve Hall 755 Cornish Drive Encinitas, CA 92024 SUBJECT: PRE 95-21 - FALCON HILLS APN: 167-112-07 Preliminary review of your project was conducted on June 29 and July 6, 1995. Listed below are the issues raised by staff. Please note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on the overall concept of your project. The preliminary review does not represent an in-depth analysis of your project. Additional issues of concern may be raised after your application is submitted and processed for a more specific and detailed review. Planning: 1. The plans submitted were very general and conceptual in nature and typically would not have sufficed for a standard preliminary review. However, the applicant's stated purpose for the preliminary review was specifically to have staff comment not on the plans, but rather on the concept of lowering the pads via double and triple split level terraces while at the same time increasing the pad area outward through the corresponding lowering of the pads and slopes. Therefore, given the agreed to conceptual nature of the review, nothing in this letter is intended to be a firm staff comment regarding architecture, landscaping, setbacks, grading quantities, or compliance with applicable development standards. 2. Staff feels that the existing pads in the subject Falcon Hills subdivision are sufficient in size to accommodate a reasonable house while complying with applicable development standards. Scaling out the footprints shown on the submitted preliminary exhibit, homes ranging upwards of 3,000 square feet are depicted. While these structures would have to be trimmed to fit on existing pads, they still appear to accommodate good sized residences. The CC&R's of Falcon Hills are apparently more restrictive than City limitations regarding height and therefore represent a constraint beyond the City's control or influence. In addition, the City's Zoning Ordinance prohibits encroachments into/onto slope greater than 40%. However, the basic concept of lowering/terracing the pad areas and increasing/extending the pad areas is supportable by staff on a conceptual level (consistent with staffs allowance for very minor encroachments for single family scenarios) with certain limitations as outlined below: 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 PRE 95-21 - Falcon Hills July 6, 1995 Page 2 * Only minimum disturbance will be allowed to the existing pads and adjacent slope area. This means wall/retaining wall heights must be 3 feet or less in order to consider any modifications to the existing site. * All pertinent aspects of the Hillside Development Ordinance must be complied with including grading quantities, slope heights, etc. * A formal amendment to the existing Hillside Development Permit would be required to gain approval of the proposed grading concept/modification. * A 10 foot minimum structural setback from the top of slope (future or existing) must be provided with the future placement of homes. * Grading and building permits will likely be required. * Adequate screening of walls/revised landscape concept and plans will likely be required. 3. It is anticipated by staff that your proposed concept will be more fully developed in conjunction with specific floor plans/architectural product types and that a second preliminary review will take place with staff prior to submitting the HDP amendment package. In this manner, staffs level of support can be gauged again during the evolution of the proposed concept. Engineering: 1. Lowering the pads and having a structure that steps down the hill would be desirable from Engineering's point of view except for the drainage issue as noted below. 2. Changing an existing grading scheme that has standard drainage to the street to one that requires this drainage to be directed to adjacent property should be undertaken only with a careful examination and full knowledge of the difficulties involved. The difficulties we see and some related comments follow: a. Although the property before grading had a drainage pattern hi the general direction proposed in this preliminary review, that is not the direction of the total amount of drainage now. There would be a requirement to keep the drainage amount no greater than the amount would be if the existing, as graded, pattern remained. PRE 95-21 - Falcon Hills July 6, 1995 Page 3 b. In order to keep the amount of drainage equal to existing, a retention system capable of reducing the 100-year frequency post development peak amount to the existing peak amount would be needed. c. Such retention facility as above would most likely need to be impervious to percolation. That is, unless a thorough examination of the underlying soil conditions and geological formations made by a qualified professional reveal that such percolation would not be a problem. d. There exists the possibility that this retention facility should be considered an underground reservoir within a hillside area and that presents very stringent design requirements. e. Also the discharge would need to be controlled to obtain an acceptable flow pattern. f. There is a shallow canyon on the downstream adjacent property that will tend to concentrate any drainage amount into a flow channel. The amount and velocities of drainage and erosive properties of the soil will need to be evaluated. g. Possibly the amount of drainage could be reduced by keeping the driveways and front yards draining to the street with as much roof drainage as possible collected and directed to the driveways. Only a detailed hydrology study would be able to tell this, but the reduction may be able to make the above retention facility a more practical size and design. h. Alternatively to retention, the developer could obtain easements and build a drainage facility to an approved drainage course. When a facility handles drainage originating only on private property, the facility would necessarily be privately maintained. Each lot contributing drainage would need to have the responsibility for maintenance clearly identified. i. Also alternatively to retention, the downstream property owners may be willing to accept the drainage increase and acknowledge this in an acceptable form such as granting the developer a drainage easement. Such an acceptance would need to be reviewed to assure the City that the owners are fully aware of the developer's specific proposal. j. In either case, the developer-owner would have to assume full responsibility and hold the City harmless for any amount of cross lot drainage. Unless such an agreement has already been recorded a Hold Harmless Agreement for Drainage would be recorded on any lot causing cross lot drainage. PRE 95-21 - Falcon Hills July 6, 1995 Page 4 Please contact Eric Munoz at (619) 438-1161, extension 4441 if you have any questions. Sincerely, JAR\7E. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director GEW:EM:b c: Don Neu Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Jim Davis PROJECT NAME: PRFT.TMTMARY REVIEW APPLICATION "tttUB> £3UfiiC3V/ I^QM APPLICANT NAME:(JU H*&4- MAILING ADDRESS: "7^ PHONE NUMBER: Q* PROJECT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S) (APN): DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL (ADD ATTACHMENT IF NECESSARY): WOULD YOU LIKE TO ORALLY PRESENT YOUR PROPOSAL TO YOUR ASSIGNED STAFF PLANNER/ENGINEER? YES NO PLEASE LIST THE NAMES OF ALL STAFF MEMBERS YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN TO REGARDING THIS PROJECT. IF NONE, PLEASE SO STATE. FOR CITY USE ONLY PROJECT NUMBER: FEE REQUIRED/DATE FEE PAID: RECEIPT NO.: RECEIVED BY: CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 434-2867 REC'D FROM DATE ACCOUNT NO. RECEIPT NO. 16371 DESCRIPTION NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL AMOUNT i Printed on recycled paper.CASH REGISTER STEPHENWHALLarchitect 755 Cornish Drive City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, Ca 92009 June 22,1995 re: Falcon Hills Please find attached a preliminary review application for the noted project. Our intent in making this application is to determine the feasibility of building split level, single family homes on the existing parcels. We have developed preliminary designs using that concept and believe that they are feasible. Our purpose in submitting this application to discover if such a concept will be in conformance with City ordinances and the conditions of approval for this project. If you have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to call me at 943-1915. Thank you for your attention to this matter. cc: Rik Floyd Pete DeProsperis 22 $ JUNE 29, 1995 TO: ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: Associate Engineer, Davis PRE 95-21 FALCON HILLS SUBDIVISION At a regular engineering staff meeting today, the preliminary review was discussed. The submitted plan itself is not considered suitable for a preliminary review. However we did review the concept of lowering pads and draining to the back of the lots. 1. Lowering the pads and having a structure that steps down the hill would be desirable from engineering's point of view except for the drainage issue, below. 2. Changing an existing grading scheme that has standard drainage to the street to one that requires this drainage to be directed to adjacent property should be undertaken only with a careful examination and full knowledge of the difficulties involved. The difficulties we see and some related comments follow: a. Although the property before grading had a drainage pattern in the general direction proposed in this preliminary review, that is not the direction of the total amount of drainage now. There would be a requirement to keep drainage amount no greater that the amount would be if the existing, as graded, pattern remained. b. In order to keep the amount of drainage equal to existing, a retention system capable of reducing the 100-year frequency post development peak amount to the existing peak amount would be needed. c. Such retention facility as above would most likely need to be impervious to percolation. That is, unless a thorough examination of the underlying soil conditions and geological formations made by a qualified professional reveal that such percolation would not be a problem. d. There exists the possibility that this retention facility should be considered an underground reservoir within a hillside area and that presents very stringent design requirements. e. Also the discharge would need to be controlled to obtain an acceptable flow pattern. f. There is a shallow canyon on the downstream adjacent property that will tend to concentrate any drainage amount into a flow channel. The amount and velocities of drainage and erosive properties of the soil will need to be evaluated. g. Possiblly the amount of drainage could be reduced by keeping the driveways and front yards draining to the street with as much roof drainage as possible collected and directed to the driveways. Only a detailed hydrology study would be able to tell this, but the reduction may be able to make the above retention facility a more practical size and design. h. Alternatively to retention, the developer could obtain easements and build a drainage facility to an approved drainage course. When a facility handles drainage originating only on private property, the facility would necessarily be privately maintained. Each lot contributing drainage would need to have the responsibility for maintenance clearly identified. i. Also alternatively to retention, the downstream property owners may be willing to accept the drainage increase and acknowledge this in an acceptable form such as granting the developer a drainage easement. Such an acceptance would need to be reviewed to assure the City that the owners are fully aware of the developer's specific proposal. j. In either case, the developer-owner would have to assume full responsibility and hold the City harmless for any amount of cross lot drainage. Unless such an agreement has already been recorded a Hold Harmless Agreement for Drainage would be recorded on any lot causing cross lot drainage. No marked check print is included. H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\DAVIS\PRE9521F.HLS City of Carlsbad Planning Department December 5, 1989 Ken Long 527 N. Highway 101 "B" Sol ana Beach, CA 92075 RE: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 89-18 This is to inform you that the items previously requested to make your Hillside Development Permit, application no. HDP 89-18, 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 information required for this application. The Planning Department will begin processing your application, as of the date of this communication. Please contact Don Neu, at (619) 438-1161 ext. 4446, if you have questions or wish additional information. / MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:DN:kd Gary Wayne Erin Letsch Bob Wojcik Angelina/Crystal Data Entry Bart Billings 2767 Vista Del Oro Carlsbad, CA 92009 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 Clinical & Consulting Psychology Management Consulting ' Licensed Clinical 'fscfiolcgiit Licensed Marriage, family and Child Counselor / 4282 Qenesee Avenue • 5uite IDJ • 5aw (619)331-1883 ra - / 9 - City of Carlsbad Planning Department October 16, 1989 Ken Long 527 N. Highway 101 "8" So/ana Beach, CA 92075 SUBJECT: RESUBMITTAL OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 89-18 The Planning and Engineering Department have reviewed the revised plan you submitted on September 19, 1989 for a Hillside Development Permit, application no. HDP 89-18, as to its completeness for processing. The application is still incomplete. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. All list items must be submitted simultaneously at the Community Development Building counter, and to the attention of Erin Letsch. A copy of this list must be included with your submittal. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials have been submitted as outlined above, the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. The required information to make the application complete must be submitted by November 17, 1989 as six months have passed since the application was initially filed. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 Ken Long October 16, 1989 Page Two Please contact your staff planner, Don Neu, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4446, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:DN/af Attachment c: Charles Grimm Erin Letsch Bob Wojcik Crystal/Angelina Bart Billings, 2767 Vista Del Oro, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Al Virgilio LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION: No. HDP 89-18 PLANNING: 1. Label proposed contour lines shown on the driveway. 2. Correct the lot number for the site address on the plans from 744 to 743. 3. The datum source indicated on the plan references improvement plans for Alls ma Street. Should this be Altisma Way? 4. Include the HDP file number on the plans. 5. Enclosed is a redlined checkprint of the project for corrections and/or revisions. Please return the checkprint with the appropriate revisions. ENGINEERING: 1. Show calculations on 20 foot vertical curve. 2. Show additional Section D-D. 3. Enclosed is a redlined checkprint of the project for corrections and/or revisions. Please return the checkprint with the appropriate revisions. ISSUES OF CONCERN PLANNING: 1. In the building plan set, delete the proposed second floor kitchen and the proposed kitchen plumbing. 2. Revise building plan sheet C-1 to include a correct site plan which conforms to the proposed Hillside Development Permit Grading Plan. Gity of Carlsbad v ••^•^^•^•••^^•••^•^••••••••••MiPlanning Department April 13, 1989 Ken Long Civil Engineering 527 N. Highway 101 "B" Sol ana Beach, CA 92075 SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 89-18 Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Hillside Development Permit, application no. HDP 89-18, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be provided to complete your application. The second list is issues of concern to staff. To help speed processing of the application, it is suggested that all required information on the lists be submitted at one time, as no processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make this determination. In>addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, March 20, 1989, to either re-submit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Don Neu, at (619) 438-1161, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZWILLER Planning Director MJH:DN/af cc: Charles Grimm Mark Granich Erin Letsch 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION: No. HDP 89-18 PLANNING: 1. Assurance of accurate hillside mapping is required pursuant to Section 21.95.020(c) of the Zoning Ordinance. Both the slope analysis and slope profiles are required to be stamped and signed by either a registered landscape architect, civil engineer, or land surveyor. 2. Indicate the datum and source of topographic data used in the slope analysis and slope profiles. 3. Provide contour information for the driveway and indicate the proposed slope percentage. Consult engineering standards for permitted maximum slope. ENGINEERING: 1. Existing slope at Cazadero Drive is too steep. Will require filling to 2:1 or installation of retaining wall. 2. Setbacks from property line are insufficient. 3. Cross lot drainage will not be allowed. 4. Title report is too old. ISSUES OF CONCERN PLANNING: 1. Volume of fill and area of grading. The site design should utilize a development approach requiring a minimal amount of grading consistent with the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations. One alternative is to build into the existing slope of the site and limit the area to be graded as has been accomplished on neighboring properties. The applicant should consult the Hillside Development Guidelines. 2. Vertical nature of proposed crib retaining wall slope. Graded slopes should not exceed 2:1. Crib walls should not be used as proposed adjacent to the existing sewer easement because of their vertical nature which does not blend in with the existing topography. 3. Screening of graded slopes. Graded slopes should be obscured from view by utilizing landscaping screens such as trees downslope in addition to placing a berm or small block wall along the top of the north facing slope.