Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUD 92-05; Casas Del Marisol; Planned Unit Development - Non-Residential (PUD) (4)City of Carlsbad Planning Department April 22, 1993 Laguna Associates, Inc. 2620 Acuna Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: PUD 92-05/MS 92-06 - CASAS DEL MARISOL This is to inform you that the items previously requested to make your Planned Unit Development Permit and Minor Subdivision, application no. PUD 92-05/MS 92-06, complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the 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 are issues that remain. These issues are listed in this correspondence and should be resolved prior to making a determination on the project. 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 Mike Grim, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4499, if you have questions or wish additional information. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMBLLER Planning Director MJH:MG:lh c: Gary Wayne Bobbie Hoder Bob Wojcik Ken Quon File Copy Data Entry Marjorie/Steve 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1 161 ISSUES OF CONCERN NO: PUD 92-05/MS 92-06 - GASAS DEL MARISOL 1. There is still a concern about water draining from the existing 18" CMP culvert, located on the east side of the project, and its ability to erode areas adjacent to the proposed retaining wall. It would be preferable to replace the existing CMP culvert with a reinforced concrete pipe and continue it through the drainage easement. Doing this will require the easement to be dedicated as a public easement, which necessitates that no sewer lines, water lines, retaining walls, driveways, and other private improvements be located within this 10' wide area. City of Carlsbad Planning Department February 5, 1993 Laguna Associates, Inc. 2620 Acuna Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: MS 92-06/PUD 92-05 - CASAS DEL MARISOL The Planning Department has received and reviewed your recent resubmittal of your Minor Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Permit, application no. MS 92-06/PUD 92-05, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as resubmitted. 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 a copy of this list must be included with your submittals. 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 are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. Please contact your staff planner, Michael Grim, at (619) 438-1161 extension 4499, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:MG:vd c: Gary Wayne Bobbie Hoder Bob Wojcik Kenneth Quon File Copy , Data Entry Marjorie/Steve Sandy Kornafel 2O75 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92OO9-1 576 - (619)438-1161 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE APPLICATION: NO: MS 92-06/PUD 92-05 - CASAS DEL MARISOL 1. Please provide information and a reference for the 100-year Flood Limit line identified on the plans. Based on a 1973 flood plain report on Agua Hedionda Creek, as prepared by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City believes that a portion of two of the three structures proposed for this project are located within the 100-year flood plain. The report identifies the 100-year flood plain level at about elevation 8.50'. ISSUES OF CONCERN 1. There is concern about water draining from the existing 18" CMP culvert, located on the east side of the project, and its ability to erode areas adjacent to the proposed retaining wall. It would be preferable to replace the existing CMP culvert with a reinforced concrete pipe and continue it through the drainage easement. Doing this will require the easement to be dedicated as a public easement, which necessitate that no sewer lines, water lines, retaining walls, driveways, and other private improvements be located within this 10* wide area. Attached is a redlined check print set of the project. Please return this plan set with the corrected plans to aide review. 120 Birmingham Dr. Suite 110 Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 (619) 943-1546 • ' December 18, 1992 *> .'""'•---" ^ 4 f£f<*$>"5 City of Carlsbad • ; 4- ;; 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 ATTN: Mike Grim Re: Response to Issues of Concern, Letter of 6/19/92 PLANNING ISSUES OF CONCERN; 1. The building on Parcel 1 has been moved to show a 10 foot setback. 2 . A note has been added to sheet 1 to address the issue of roof and road elevations. 3 . Revisions to buildings have been made per staff meeting on July 21, 1992. 4. Revision to elevations have been made (see plans per #3 above) . 5. All portions of Parcels 2 & 3 that lie south of the northern sewer easement line will be part of the common area and maintained by the HOA. See note to that effect added to sheet 3 of 6. 6. Need for a variance was discussed at a meeting on 6/29/92 and staff determined that it was only viable place for driveway. 7. The property lines have been adjusted to make sure that parcel 4 includes guard posts. 8 . See revisions to sheets 5 of 6 and 6 of 6 to reflect comments of Larry Black, (added landscape buffer) . 9. There are no plans for the portion of the existing boat ramp on-site. The 25' public access easement shown will include the boat ramp access. 10. A note has been added to sheet 3 of 6 stating that all garages must be equipped with automatic door openers. December 18, 1992 Page 2 ENGINEERING ISSUES OF CONCERN; 1. The private driveway vertical curve has been revised to be totally on site. 2. Revisions to ultimate R.O.W. on Adams Street have been made on sheet 1 of 6. 3. Per staff meeting of 6/29/92 the proposed parallel parking is discouraged but not disallowed. Some parking on Adams Street will be available once full improvements are in. 4. Revisions to sheet 1 of 6 reflect proposed sewer plans. 5. Revisions to sheet 1 of 6 reflect the proposed water service locations. 6. The location of Unit 1 has been moved west five feet and positive drainage shown. 7. See notes added to sheet 1 of 6 which indicate "overflow" directions. 8. Storm Drain System: A). Per the Bio-report and Streambed Alteration Permit with the Department of Fish and Game the outlet must be where it is so the fresh water can dissipate and provide influx to the existing wetlands off-site to the east. B). See notes at drainage inlet, sheets 1 and 2 of 6. C). Storm drain system has been revised, see sheets 1 and 2 of 6. 9. There are no plans for the existing boat ramps. (To remain) 10. See revised Parcel line for parcels 1 and 4. 120 Birmingham Dr. Suite 110 Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 (619) 943-1546 December 7, 1992 City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 ATTN: Mike Grim ,' Re: Response to Issues letter dated 5/14/92 INCOMPLETE ITEMS; 1. Application for Hillside Development Permit is not required (see revisions to Constraints Map, sheet 4 of 6 which details exclusions.) 2. The existing easement is not able to be plotted (see enclosed copy of document). See "Preliminary Title Report" on sheet 1 of 6 (revised to show #5 not plotted) 3. The existing sewer main is now shown where it crosses the property. Carlsbad M.W.D. has been contacted and a plan proposed. ISSUES OF CONCERN; 1. Ultimate improvements to Adams Street have been revised to reflect worst case scenario as required. 2. Revised Preliminary Tentative Map is as shown on sheet 2 of 6. See attached letter from Hofman Planning for reference that this concern has been addressed adequately already. Staff and applicant meeting of June 29, 1992 resolved this issue. Sincerely, Alesandra M. Kornafel AMK:bb Attachments Hofman Planning Associates © o © Planning Project Management Fiscal Analysis June 29, 1992 Mike Grim Planning Department 2075 Las palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA. 92008 SUBJECT: MS 92-06/PUD 92-05 - Casas Del Marisol Dear Mike: The intent of this letter is to address the Planning Department's "Issue of Concern" as identified as item 2 in the letter sent to Laguna Associates, Inc. from Bob Wojcik dated May 14, 1992. Item 2. states that the preliminary tentative map provided with the PUD 92-05 application provides lots which are not in conformance with all applicable zoning and subdivision standards. Specifically, the proposed panhandle lots do not meet the minimum lot size as required by the R-l-15,000 portion of the zoning ordinance. We are currently revising the preliminary tentative map for this site to show two lots which are in conformance with all applicable zoning and subdivision standards. However, the intent of this requirement by the PD Ordinance is not to limit the number units which could possibly be developed on this site. Section 21.45.040(6) of the Planned Development Ordinance states "This map [preliminary tentative] shall illustrate how many standard lots conforming to applicable zoning and subdivision standards served by public streets could fit on the site." In no portion of the PD Ordinance does it state that the total number of units allowed within a PUD must not exceed that which would be permitted if the site was developed as a standard lot subdivision. The General Plan designation of RLM allows for a density range of 0-4 du/ac. Upon approval of the Growth Management Ordinance, the maximum density for areas with a RLM land use designation is 3.2 du/net acre. The density for this site as proposed is 3.1 du/net acre which is below that which is allowable by ordinance. Additionally, the intent of the PD Ordinance, as stated in Section 21.45.010(3) and (4) is to provide a set of development standards which "encourage creatively designed projects using the concepts contained in the City's adopted design policy as contained in the design guidelines manual" and "encourage development which is sensitive to the natural topography of the site, minimizes alterations to the land and maintains and enhances significant natural resources". The PD Ordinance "encourages" creative and sensitive development. We feel that this project is 2386 Faraday Avenue • Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • (619)438-1465 • Fax: (619)438-2443 creative in design and sensitive to the natural resources and existing topography. As required by the PD Ordinance, we have enclosed additional items which serve to prove that, "the proposed Planned Development will result in superior residential development consistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter." Please see attachments: Planned Development, "Intent and Purpose" and "Application". We have also provided an assessor's map to show the nearby properties and the types of existing uses of those properties. This project, as proposed, serves as a transition between the large homes on large lots to the west and the condominium/townhome projects to the east in Bristol Cove. The property immediately to the east is designated as RM and will probably be developed with multi-family units. In conclusion, we feel that we have proposed a project which is in conformance with all applicable development standards, have demonstrated that this development is superior to a standard lot subdivision and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Development Ordinance. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely,A * Mike Howes Enclosures Chapter 21.45 - Planned Development Section: 21.45.010 - Intent and Purpose The following provides a statement of the intent and purpose portion of the Planned Development Ordinance with an explanation how this project is in compliance. (1) Ensure that projects develop in accordance with the general plan and all applicable specific and master plans; This site has recently received approval for a General Plan Amendment which changed the General Plan land use designation from RC (Recreation Commercial) to RLM (Residential Low-Medium density). The density of the site equates to 3.1 du/net acre while the maximum allowable on this site per Growth Management is 3.2 du/net acre, thereby demonstrating conformance with the General Plan. The proposed project is in conformance with the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan by providing a 25' pedestrian beach access across the property, designing structures which do not project above the crown elevation of Adams Street, designing structures which have varying roof lines, orienting the structures such that they do not cast shadows over the lagoon and providing a large setback from the water edge in order to minimize the disturbance to natural landforms. This project has also been favorably reviewed by the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation. There are no other specific or master plans which are applicable. (2) Allow flexibility in project design while providing for essential development standards; The ability to be flexible in project design has resulted in a project that meets or exceeds most of the development standards for both a planned unit development or a standard subdivision. These items are outlined on the attached "Application" list of positive and negative elements of a PUD. (3) Encourage creatively designed projects using the concepts contained in the City's adopted design policy as contained in the design guidelines manual; This project began with in depth review of all design criteria and policies in order to thoroughly engineer a complete and creative design. The following describes how this project includes many of the items discussed in the Carlsbad Design Guidelines Manual: a) Pedestrian walkways are included in the project site which link the parking area to the beach area as well as a 25' access easement across the property adjacent to the lagoon edge. b) All units have private balconies or patios. Also the common area is centrally located adjacent to the lagoon at the terminus of a private pedestrian corridor. c) The form and shape of the structures provide unique custom designs which provide an exceptional number of offsets, recesses, and variation of roof lines. d) There are a multitude of changes in the roof direction which also exemplifies the architectural relief provided. e) Substantial consideration was given to the design of the structures to visually draw a visitor to the front door while minimizing the appearance of the garage door. f) The orientation of the units as well as the placement of windows maximizes the preservation of views onto the lagoon. g) The units adjacent to the open space area provide large windows and open patios which visually bring the open spaces into the interior of the units. h) The orientation of the units and provision of large windows maximizes the southern exposure to the sun. (4) Encourage development which is sensitive to the natural topography of the site, minimizes alterations to the land and maintains and enhances significant natural resources; The proposed development is in compliance with the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Plan requirement that no structures are permitted higher in elevation than the crown elevation of Adams Street. The existing beach area of Agua Hedionda Lagoon will be preserved in its entirety by the maintenance of a 100' setback from the water edge. The proposed development is sensitive to the topography in that the foundations of the units are stepped down towards the lagoon at approximately the same angle of the existing slope in order to minimize any physical or visual impacts. Additionally the California Department of Fish and Game has recently issued a 1603 - Streambed Alteration Permit which allows for the alteration of urban runoff gully along the eastern property boundary. (5) Provide for projects which are compatible with surrounding developments; Unlike other neighboring properties that are surrounded by R-l-15,000 zoning, this proposed development actually serves to increase the compatibility of the surrounding land uses by creating a transition between the larger single family lots to the west and the higher density condominium units to the east. Additionally, the property east of and adjacent to this development site is designated as RM and will probably be developed as a multi-family /to wnhome type project. (6) Ensure that the project's circulation system is designated to be efficient and well integrated with the overall city circulation system and which does not dominate the project; The project is relatively small scale but the location of the entrance driveway maximizes the available sight distance and lessens the impacts to Adams Street which could result from the multiple driveways of a standard subdivision. (7) Provide a method to approve separate ownership of units within multiple-unit buildings or upon a parcel of land containing more than one unit; This statement is not applicable to this project since this project does not contain multiple-unit buildings and does not contain more than one unit per lot. (8) Provide for a method to approve separate ownership of planned unit development lots a defined in this title; This project as proposed will allow for separate ownership of the of the single family homes as well at the lot upon which the unit rests. The common areas will be maintained by the home owners association and jointly owned by all three homeowners. (9) Regulate the design and location of buildings in condominium subdivisions to insure that the quality of development is reasonably consistent with other forms of development intended for separate ownership; This project is not a condominium subdivision. The land as well as the unit will be included in the ownership. Also included is joint ownership of the common area. The quality of the development is consistent with nearby single family residences and it will exceed the quality of a typical single family lot development because of the common area maintenance requirements. (10) Provide for conversion of existing developments to condominiums, provided such conversion meets the intent of this chapter and standards which apply to units constructed as condominiums. This statement is not applicable to the project. There is no intent to convert this project to condominiums. APPLICATION (1) Reasons for proposing a planned development vs. a standard subdivision. POSITIVE ELEMENTS OF PUD INCLUDE: a). Common area maintenance. b). Complete, coherent design of entire site with buildings and landscaping. c). City has control over design and architecture with PUD process. d). Less grading (less than 4000 C.Y. total). e). Only one driveway opening located at position with best sight distance. f). No panhandle type lots. g). Bulk and scale creates transition between existing project on east and west side. h). Three units have no significant impact on services (vs. two units), i). Compatible with surrounding community, j). Density calculations allow for three units. NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF STANDARD 2 LOT SUBDIVISION INCLUDE: a). No mandatory maintenance agreements are required. b). Possible clash of architecture, etc. with two single lots. c). City has less control of design aspects. d). Potential for greater lot coverage area and no common areas. e). Two driveway openings (one for each lot). f). Panhandle type lot layout is needed. g). Two lots may actually be less compatible with surrounding sites.