Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 89-23; St. Tropez West; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (2)/ - o 3 • - City of Carlsbad Planning Department July 2, 1989 Charlie Rowe PO Box 142 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Report CT 89-10/PUD. 89-2/HDP 89-23/V 88-3 - ST. TROPEZ Preliminary Staff The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be available for you to pick up on Friday, July 7, 1989, after 8 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the Development Coordinating Committee (D.C.C.) meeting which will be held on Monday, July 10, 1989. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:30 a.m. If you have any questions concerning your project, you should attend the D.C.C. meeting. It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with you to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s) here by the scheduled time above. If you need additional Planning Department at CITY OF CARLSBAD information 438-1161. concerning this matter, please contact the MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director By: Planning Department DN:MJH\lh 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 City of Carlsbad w& HI^^^^^HHVl>tWBMWHn!9nMV™^HB^^HMW^HMB^BHMHPlannlnci Department June 26, 1989 Charles Rowe California Builders PO Box 142 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: REVISED PLANS FOR THE ST. TROPEZ WEST PROJECT APPLICATION NOS: PUD 89-02/CT 89-10/HDP 89-23/V 88-03. Dear Mr. Rowe, The St. Tropez West project has been scheduled for the July 19, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. In order for the project to remain on schedule the following items must be submitted by June 29, 1989: 1. 15 copies of the plan with revisions as noted below: a. Include 600 foot radius map sheet from original set. b. Number the Preliminary Landscape Plan sheet. 2. Provide an 8 1/2 x 11 inch copy of the site plan and building elevations that can be used to make legible copies from. If the requested items are not received by the above specified date, the project will be removed from the agenda and rescheduled for a future meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, DON NEU Associate Planner c: Eric Fatiadi 740 13th St. - Ste 407 San Diego, CA 92101 DN:lh sttropez.ltr 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 City of Carlsbad** pppiu-i.Ennii.ui- Riai mijuuiiiiui June 22, 1989 Charles Rowe Cal ifornia Builders P.O. Box 142 Carlsbad, CA 92008 This is to inform you that the items previously requested lo make your Planned Unit Development, Tentative Tract, Hillside Development Permit, and Variance, application nos. PUD 89-2/CT 89-10/HDP 89-23/V 88-3, complete have boon 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 Neil, at (619) 438-1161, if you have questions or wish additional information. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:DN/af cc: Charles Grimm Erin Letsch Bob Wojcik John/Crystal 2O75 Las Palmas LJiive • Carlsbad. California <?:>( M><> -1 M!.'> - (c,|<i) .I:<M Cafifozuta 3uiCdez& P.O. Box 142 Carlsbad, California 92008 (619)434-3125 • FAX (61 9) 729-771 7 May 18, 1989 RECEIVED JUN G1939Mr. Don Neu, Assistant Planner City of Carlsbad r»iTv /M? *•»*«,Planning Department WIY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Drive DEVELOP. PROC. SERV. DIV. Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 REF. NO. PUD - 89-02/CT 89-10/HDP 89-23/V 88-3 Dear Don: This letter is in response to our meeting of this date and is in reply to your request to address the following Items. ISSUES OF CONCERN Page 1 Planning Item No. 11 We request that your requirement for side yard setbacks be reduced from ten (10) feet to six (6) feet. Our north and south property lines show a ten foot set back. This ten foot setback is from the front property line toward the ocean, approximately forty eight feet. It then changes to six feet. In measuring other property line set backs along the Westerly side of Ocean Street, all properties except for two, have more than five feet of set back. The Best Western Motel has only five feet as do a number of new projects finalized in 1988 and 1989. There are numerous properties with less than five feet of setbacks. Item No. 13 A new Site Development Plan will not be required as we believe it is imperative to have six units to proceed with this project. Mr. Don Neu City of Carlsbad Planning Dept. May 18, 1989 Page Two of Three ISSUES OF CONCERN Page 2 •Planning Item No. 2 The building was designed by a qualified registered architect. The properties to the north and the south of our project extend westerly to maximize their views. Our project extends westerly to maximize our view also. We are within the site line setbacks for both our building and decks as required by the California Coastal Commission. In our opinion, the building to the South of our property is much more architecturally and aesthetically pleasing than the building to the North which is boxy and unappealing. In addition, by stacking our units vertically, each floor has virtually the same view, more privacy as top units do not look down on neighbors' patios, and square footage is approximately the same. We believe our design, which breaks the front line at the middle and recesses the north and south corners, along with extensive brick veneer, is much more pleasing than the projects to the North and to the South. Planning Item Nos. 5 and 9 As our property is only 110' wide, a driveway serving underground parking would be difficult , if not impossible to design. Our major concern would be the angle of the driveway. Tandem parking was allowed on a recent project at 2599, 2601, 2603 Ocean St. Their garages have three openings. Each door serves two parking spaces which are tandem. The total width of this garage is thirty feet (outside measurement). In addition, they have guest parking which is adjacent to their garage. Their property line to garage is less than ten feet. Mr. Don Neu City of Carlsbad Planning Dept. May 18, 1989 Page Three of Three Another project which was recently completed in 1989 is 2679 Ocean St. (Two condo units). They have a three car garage which is a total of thirty feet wide (outside measurement). Their guest parking is adjacent to their garage . It is ten feet from their garage to property line. In addition, their side yard setbacks go from ten feet (parking space) to five feet. A project still under construction at 2751 Ocean St. has side by side double garages. The total clearance from wall to wall (inside) is only 18'9". I would like to point out that there are four (4) existing older apartments on one of our lots. At this time there is not one parking space provided on site. Our project requires fifteen parking spaces and we are providing sixteen. Planning Item No. 7 We request that a wave study and geotechnical report be waived until our project is approved. As discussed with you, this can be done at a later date under Conditions of Approval. Engineering, Page 3 Item No. 2 Upon approval of our Civil Drawings (Improvement & Grading) appropriate pemits would be issued for both grading and hauling. I don't foresee any undue problems as the commercial project one block East of us (Village Faire) exported both trash and dirt far exceeding our requirements. I have worked with the California Coastal Commission on a number of beach front projects and do not anticipate problems. All they require is adequate notice of intent, and exclude working during the summer months of June, July and August. Please contact me for further discussion or clarification. Charles F. Rowe cc: Michael Holzmiller JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE By law a Variance' may be approved only if certain facts are found to exist. Please read these requirements carefully and explain how the proposed project meets each of these facts. Use additional sheets if necessary. 1) Explain why there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone: All the property located on the West side of De-pan st-rpp>oviard the beach. We all have the same exceptional or extraordinary circumstances / Requesting 10' sideyard setback be reduced to 6'.Designated tandem parking with interior of garages 10' clear space.3 Building setbacks from open parking be reduced to Q'. See examples of existing conditions below. 2) Explain why such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question: * 1. 2459 Ocean St . Three (3) unit condo 75' frontage, 5' side setback, guest parking adjacent to garage. ' 2. Beach Terrace Inn (Best Western)235'frontage, 5' side setbacks 3. 2955 Ocean St. (Sea Slope) 21 unit condo, 225' frontage, 10' side set back * 4. 2599,2601, 2603 Ocean St. Three (3) unit condo, garage is tandem parking for six cars. Three door openings. Guest parking adjacent to garage. See attached sheet (continued) *• 3) Explain why the granting of such varia'nce*-will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located: ThprQ a.-0 ^^^f^, Fo.ir (4) older rental units on the property. The existing building is a two (2) story structure with a storage area under the building. There is currently no on-site parking. The new project requires fifteen (15) parking spaces and sixteen (16) would be provided on site. By providing a project with all parking on site, we feel that this is not detrimental to the Public Welfare or injurious to the property or improvements. 4) Explain why the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan: The West side of Ocean St. creates a unique set of circumstances not found anywhere, else in our city. Virtually every property owner has the same conditions described above . Similar projects have been approved in the past. Future projects will require same. In our opinion, granting such variances would not adversely affect JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE ATTACHMENT 1 2. Continued * 5. 2679 Ocean St. Two (2) units, three car garage with guest parking adjacent to each side of garage. 6. 2977 Ocean St. 75' frontage, 5' side yard setback 7. 3053 Ocean St. 75' frontage, 5' sideyard setback 8T* 8. 3083 & 303^ Ocean St. Two (2) condos, 70' frontage, 5' sideyard setback. * Additional five (5) feet not provided from garage to parking space. City of Carlsbad Planning Department May 3, 1989 Charles Rowe California Builders P.O. Box 142 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Planned Unit Development 89-02, Tentative Tract 89-10, Hillside Development Permit 89-23, and Variance 88-3 Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Planned Unit Development, Tentative Tract, Hillside Development Permit and Variance, application nos. PUD 89-02/CT 89-10/HDP 89-23 and V 88-3, 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, April 5, 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 questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER/^ Planning Director MJH:DN/af Enclosure cc: Charles Grimm Mark Granich Erin Let?'1 2075 I LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION: No. PUD 89-02/CT 89-10/HDP 89-23/V 88-3 PLANNING: 1. The project data section of the site plan should be revised to indicate that the existing use is a 4 unit multiple family residential structure and the proposed use is 6 condominium units. 2. On the title page, provide the area in square feet for the following: A. Building coverage B. Landscape coverage C. Balconies D. Hardscape E. Open/recreational space F. Each individual unit 3. Clearly show and label the 100 year flood line for the before and after conditions of the project. Refer to FEMA Community Panel Number 0602850004D. 4. Label the location, height, and materials of walls and fences. Specify the height of retaining walls on both the site plan and building elevations. 5. Provide details and information for the proposed seawall including: A. Height and where it is measured from B. Width C. Color E. Texture F. Location in relation to property line including any proposed rock. 6. Label the location of wheel stops. 7. Label each room on the floor plans. 8. On the .preliminary landscape plan indicate landscape maintenance responsibility (private or common) for all areas. 9. Indicate the location and type of any proposed exterior lights. 10. Indicate the datum and source of topographic data used in the slope analysis and slope profiles. 11. If the building design will not be modified the proposed height variance application shall be revised to also include a variance request for the rear and side setbacks. A letter will need to be submitted requesting the variance be expanded to include the setbacks along with an additional justification for variance form. 12. Indicate the location of the exterior property lines on the front and rear building elevations. 13. A Site Development Plan application will be required pursuant to the Beach Area Overlay Zone if the project is redesigned to consist of four or less units. ENGINEERING: 1. Need to show an additional 5 ft. dedication along Ocean Street. 2. Need to show existing street light, fire hydrant and proposed sewer and water laterals. 3. Need to show your proposed contours and state your import amount. 4. Need to provide some spot elevations to clarify your proposed drainage. 5. Need to submit an up-dated title report (ownership). 6. Need to calculate your "Volume of Hillside Grading". ISSUES OF CONCERN PLANNING: 1. The project exceeds the maximum density allowed for the property by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A total of 6 units are proposed while a maximum of 4 units could be allowed under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The building does not step down the slope as is the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations. This results in a building with a large mass and strong vertical appearance as viewed from the beach level. 3. The project exceeds the acceptable amount of grading per the Hillside Development Regulations. The amount of grading proposed falls into the relatively unacceptable range of the Hillside Development Regulations. This is primarily due to the amount of fill proposed. 4. The proposed seawall, building, and decks violate the stringline setbacks required by the Coastal Plan. In addition the building encroaches into the side yard setbacks. 5. Tandem parking is not permitted. Also, proposed garages are not wide enough as the Zoning Ordinance requires minimum interior dimensions of 12 feet by 20 feet. 6. Building height. While there does appear to be some justification for a height variance due to the slope of the property, the building height near the center and western portion of the site is excessive as a result of the amount of fill proposed and the design not stepping the building down the slope. 7. A wave study and a geotechnical report are needed to support the proposed seawall design. The geotechnical report should express a professional opinion as to whether the project can be designed or located so that it will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the lifespan of the project. 8. Screening of visitor parking areas immediately adjacent to residential uses requires a view obscuring wall or landscaping. 9. The Zoning Ordinance requires that building setbacks from open parking areas shall not be less than 5 feet. 10. Height of retaining walls. 11. The Planned Development Standards require the provision of common active and passive recreational facilities. The minimum area requirements appear to be satisfied, although the required facilities are not provided. Consult Zoning Ordinance Section 21.45.090(g)(3) and (4) for the acceptable types of facilities. ENGINEERING: 1. Your project may require a private sewer pump into the Ocean Street sewer. 2. The construction of your project, as proposed is going to require select fill (per your soils report). We have concerns about staging and hauling operations in regards to both Ocean Street and also any use of the beach area (would require permission from state beaches and also Coastal Commission). 3. Also, attached is a redlined check print of the site plan. Please return the redlined print with the corrected site plans to assist us in our continued review.