Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-07; Planning Commission; ; PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 (DEV2020-0023) - HEMLOCK COAST HOMES Item No. Application complete date: November 10, 2020 P.C. AGENDA OF: April 7, 2021 Project Planner: Chris Garcia Project Engineer: Allison McLaughlin SUBJECT: PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 (DEV2020-0023) – HEMLOCK COAST HOMES – Request for approval of a Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map to demolish an existing single-family home and construct a four-unit, residential air-space condominium project on a 0.19-acre in-fill site located at 320 Hemlock Avenue, within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The project site is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The City Planner has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 “In-Fill Development Projects” of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7411 APPROVING Planned Development Permit PUD 2020-0001, Site Development Plan SDP 2020-0004, Coastal Development Permit CDP 2020-0042, and Tentative Parcel Map MS 2020-0003 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single-family home and construct a four-unit, residential air-space condominium project on a 0.19-acre in-fill site within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ). The development of the proposed condominium project requires the processing and approval of a Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map. The Tentative Parcel Map associated with the subdivision is considered minor because it involves the division of land into four or fewer condominiums. Topographically, the site is generally flat with an elevation approximately 57 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The site is developed with a single-story, single-family residential structure and does not contain any sensitive vegetation. The proposed project contains a paved drive-aisle down the west side of the site that turns to the east. Three of the four units have attached two-car garages that have direct access to this drive-aisle. Two visitor parking spaces are also accessed from this drive-aisle. The remaining unit has an exclusive use driveway to a two-car garage facing Hemlock Avenue. Units 1, 3 and 4 contain three bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms, and range in size from 2,137 square feet to 2,172 square feet. Unit 2 is 2,349 square feet, contains three bedrooms plus an office, and has three and a half bathrooms. All units are three 1 PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report . 0 PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 – HEMLOCK COAST HOMES April 7, 2021 Page 2 stories with an overall building height of 30 feet as measured from the new finished grade. The finished grade for measuring building height is being established slightly higher than a portion of the existing grade for a uniform design and for drainage purposes. All units include private deck areas off the second and third floors. Additionally, Unit 3 and Unit 4 have an exclusive use yard at the ground level to the rear of the property. The underlying lot will be held in common interest divided between the four air-space condominiums. The common area includes, but is not limited to, the private drive aisle, guest parking spaces, and common landscaped areas. The architectural character of the project is a beach contemporary style featuring simple rectangular massing, with gable roofs and shed roof accents. Primary building materials include white smooth stucco, white and gray board and batten siding, and white and gray painted wood fascia boards. Composite asphalt shingles cover a 3:12-pitched roof on each building. Grading quantities include 75 cubic yards of cut, 15 cubic yards of fill, 60 cubic yards of export, and 850 cubic yards of remedial grading. A grading permit will be required for the project. Table “A” below includes the General Plan designations, zoning and current land uses of the project site and surrounding properties. TABLE A – SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use Site R-23 Residential 15-23 du/ac with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 19 du/ac Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone within the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) Single-family home North R-23 Residential 15-23 du/ac R-3 within BAOZ Single-family and multiple- family residential South R-23 Residential 15-23 du/ac R-3 within BAOZ Single-family and multiple- family residential East R-23 Residential 15-23 du/ac R-3 within BAOZ Single-family residential West R-23 Residential 15-23 du/ac R-3 within BAOZ Multiple-family residential Table “B” below includes the project site’s gross and net acreage, the number of dwelling units allowed by the General Plan’s Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) density and the proposed project’s number of dwelling units and density. TABLE B – PROPOSED DENSITY Gross Acres Net Acres DUs Allowed at GMCP Density (19 du/ac) DUs Proposed and Project Density 0.19 acres 0.19 acres 4 units 4 units at 21 du/ac In order to meet the City’s Inclusionary Housing requirements, the project is conditioned to pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee on a per unit basis for three units if building permits for the four-unit project have not been applied for within two years of demolishing the existing single-family residential building on-site. Otherwise, the project shall pay in-lieu fees for all four units. The project meets the City’s standards for planned developments and subdivisions, and as designed and conditioned, is in compliance with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and relevant zoning regulations of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC). PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 – HEMLOCK COAST HOMES April 7, 2021 Page 3 III. ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations: A. R-23 Residential General Plan Land Use designation; B. Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone, Planned Development Regulations and Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) (CMC Chapters 21.16, 21.45 and 21.82); C. City Council Policy Nos. 44 and 66 (Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines and Livable Neighborhoods); D. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (CMC Chapter 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203); E. Subdivision Ordinance (CMC Title 20); F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.85); and G. Growth Management Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.90) Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. The recommendation for approval of this project was determined by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. A. R-23 Residential General Plan Land Use Designation The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is R-23 Residential, which allows residential development at a density range of 15-23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 19 du/ac. The project site has a net developable acreage of 0.19 acres. At the GMCP, 4 dwelling units would be permitted on this 0.19-net-developable-acre property (3.6 dwelling units rounded up to four dwelling units). Therefore, the residential development complies with the R-23 General Plan Land Use designation for density. Lastly, the project complies with the Elements of the General Plan as outlined in Table “C” below: PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 – HEMLOCK COAST HOMES April 7, 2021 Page 4 TABLE C – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE Element Use, Classification, Goal, Objective or Program Proposed Uses & Improvements Comply? Land Use Policy 2-P.7 Do not permit residential development below the minimum of the density range except in certain circumstances. Policy 2-P.8 Do not permit residential development to exceed the applicable Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) density unless certain findings are made. The four-unit residential project density of 21 du/ac is within the R-23 Residential density range and consistent with the GMCP unit yield of four units. Yes Mobility Policy 3-P.5 Require developers to construct or pay their fair share toward improvements for all travel modes consistent with the Mobility Element, the Growth Management Plan, and specific impacts associated with their development. The proposed project has been designed to meet all circulation requirements, including vehicular access to and from Hemlock Avenue. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay any applicable traffic impact fees, prior to issuance of a building permit, that will go toward future road improvements. The proposed project will construct a sidewalk along the project frontage on Hemlock Avenue which will provide pedestrian access to and from the project. Yes Noise Goal 5-G.2 Ensure that new development is compatible with the noise environment, by continuing to use potential noise exposure as a criterion in land use planning. Policy 5.P.2 Require a noise study analysis be conducted for all discretionary development proposals located where projected noise exposure would be other than “normally acceptable.” The project consists of four residential condominiums designed as two, two- family structures. A noise study was not prepared or required since the project is not a multi-family project and is less than five units. Furthermore, the project site is approximately 150 feet beyond the 60 dB(a) CNEL future noise contour. Therefore, the project complies with required noise guidelines and policies. Yes Housing Program 3.1 For all ownership and qualifying rental projects of fewer than seven units, payment of a fee in lieu of inclusionary units is permitted. The project is conditioned to pay an in in-lieu fee on a per unit basis for three units if building permits for the two- unit project have not been applied for within two years of demolishing the existing single-family home residential project on-site. Otherwise, the project shall pay in-lieu fees for all four units. Yes PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 – HEMLOCK COAST HOMES April 7, 2021 Page 5 Element Use, Classification, Goal, Objective or Program Proposed Uses & Improvements Comply? Public Safety Goal 6-G.1 Minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from fire, flood, hazardous material release, or seismic disasters. Policy 6-P.6 Enforce the requirements of Titles 18, 20, and 21 pertaining to drainage and flood control when reviewing applications for building permits and subdivisions. Policy 6-P.34 Enforce the Uniform Building and Fire codes, adopted by the city, to provide fire protection standards for all existing and proposed structures. Policy 6-P.39 Ensure all new development complies with all applicable regulations regarding the provision of public utilities and facilities. The proposed structural improvements will be required to be designed in conformance with all seismic design standards. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with all the applicable fire safety requirements including fire sprinklers. Furthermore, the project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities. Yes B. Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone, Planned Development Regulations, and Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable land use and development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) including the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.16), Planned Developments (CMC Chapter 21.45), and the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) (CMC Chapter 21.82). The four-unit residential air-space condominium project meets or exceeds the requirements of the R-3 Zone and the BAOZ as outlined in Table “D” below. The Planned Development regulations provide most of the development standards except for those listed in the table below. The project complies with all applicable development standards for Planned Developments (CMC Chapter 21.45). Please refer to Attachment No. 4 for an analysis of project compliance with Tables C and E of the Planned Development regulations. PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 – HEMLOCK COAST HOMES April 7, 2021 Page 6 TABLE D – BAOZ AND R-3 COMPLIANCE C. City Council Policy Nos. 44 (Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines) and 66 (Livable Neighborhoods) The project is subject to City Council Policy No. 44 – Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines and City Council Policy No. 66 - Livable Neighborhoods. The proposed four-unit residential air-space condominium project proposes a deviation to architectural guideline #9 of City Council Policy No. 44 which states: The remaining total number of homes shall comply with one of the following guidelines • The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 8 feet and shall run the length of the building along one side except for tower elements. The roof covering the single- story element shall incorporate a separate roof plane and shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element. Porches and porte-cochere elements shall qualify as a single-story edge. Houses with courtyards that are a minimum of 15 feet wide located along the side of the house and setback a minimum of 15 feet from the property line are not required to have a single- story building edge. • The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet and shall run the length of the building along one side. The roof of the single-story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element of the building. • The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 3 feet for 40% of the perimeter of the building. The policy is geared toward traditional two-story, single-family development. The property’s Multiple- Family Residential (R-3) zoning allows for condominiums to go above the typical two-story requirement of the R-1 (One-Family Residential) zone. The R-3 Zone and R-23 General Plan Land Use Designation would allow up to a four-unit, attached multi-family project on the site. However, if the homes were attached, the project would be considered a multi-family project not subject to these architectural guidelines. Since these are detached, two-family condominiums, the policy applies. City Council Policy No. 44 allows an applicant to propose an architectural style that complies with the purpose and intent of the policy which states: “The purpose and intent of the architectural guidelines is to ensure that a variety of architectural elements are incorporated into single-family homes and two- family structures so that they: a) are visually interesting, b) have sufficient building articulation to reduce their bulk and mass, c) are in scale to their lot size, and d) strongly contribute to the creation of livable BAOZ Standards Required Proposed Comply? Building Height 30 feet with a minimum 3:12 roof pitch provided or 24 feet if less than a 3:12 roof pitch is provided Roof Peak = 30’ w/ 3:12 roof pitch Yes R-3 Standards Required Proposed Comply? Setbacks Interior Side: 10% Lot Width – 7’- 11” Rear: 20% Lot Width – 15’-9” Sides: 7’-11” Rear: 15’-9” Yes Lot Coverage 60% 34.1% Yes PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 – HEMLOCK COAST HOMES April 7, 2021 Page 7 neighborhoods.” A justification of how the proposed project complies with the intent and purpose of City Council Policy No. 44 is provided in Table “E” below. TABLE E – CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 44 INTENT AND PURPOSE COMPLIANCE Goal Justification Visually interesting. The proposed project provides covered first level porches for all units and second and third story balconies for the units fronting on Hemlock Avenue. All two buildings have a variety of materials consisting of colored stucco, board and batten siding, accent roof features, and a variety of window sizes. Sufficient building articulation to reduce bulk and mass. The second and third story decks provide articulation on various elevations and help reduce the bulk and mass of the project. In scale to their lot size. The project is permitted to have a lot coverage up to 60%. This project proposes a lot coverage of about half the permitted allowance (34.1%). The project is in scale with the size of the lot. Strongly contribute to the creation of livable neighborhoods. The project allows for three to four attached multi-family dwellings given the existing zoning (R-3) and General Plan Land Use (R-23 Residential). The project site is surrounded by a mix of single-family and multiple-family development. By developing two detached buildings, the project blends into the existing area and provides future tenants with more privacy than a fully attached multi-family development. Please refer to Attachment Nos. 5 and 6 for a detailed analysis of project compliance with the rest of these policies. D. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (CMC 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC 21.203) 1. Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies The proposed site is in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The project site has an LCP Land Use designation of R-23 Residential and Zoning of R-3, which are consistent with the city’s General Plan and Zoning. The project’s consistency with the R-23 Residential General Plan Land Use designation is analyzed in Section “A,” Table “C” above. The project consists of the demolition of an existing single-family home and the construction of a four-unit air-space condominium project. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding development of residential structures. The two, three-story structures will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the Coastal Zone. No agricultural uses currently exist on the previously developed site, nor are there any sensitive resources located on-site. The proposed project is not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard. Since the site does not have frontage along the coastline, no public opportunities for coastal shoreline access are available from the subject site. Furthermore, the residentially-designated site is not suited for water-oriented recreation activities. PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 – HEMLOCK COAST HOMES April 7, 2021 Page 8 2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the city’s Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban run-off, pollutants and soil erosion. The subject property does not include steep slopes (equal to or greater than 25 percent gradient) nor native vegetation. In addition, the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. E. Subdivision Ordinance The Land Development Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed Tentative Parcel Map and has found that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the city’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20) for Minor Subdivisions. The subdivision is considered minor because it involves the division of land into four or fewer condominiums (four condominiums proposed). The project has been conditioned to install all infrastructure-related improvements and the necessary easements for these improvements concurrent with the development. F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance For all residential development less than seven units, the inclusionary housing requirement may be satisfied through the payment of an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee. However, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.85.030D.3, the construction of a new residential structure which replaces a residential structure that was destroyed or demolished within two years prior to the application for a building permit for the new residential structure is exempt from affordable housing requirements. The proposal to demolish one existing single-family home and construct a four-unit residential condominium project has been conditioned to pay the applicable housing in-lieu fee for three units, or four units if building permits for the two-unit project have not been applied for within two years of demolishing the existing home. G. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the Northwest Quadrant of the city. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table “F” below. TABLE F – GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE Standard Impacts Comply City Administration 14.1 sq. ft. Yes Library 7.5 sq. ft. Yes Waste Water Treatment 4 EDU Yes Parks 0.028 acre Yes Drainage 0.78 CFS Yes Circulation 32 ADT Yes Fire Station No. 1 Yes Open Space 0 acres N/A Schools Carlsbad (E=0.36/M=0.16/HS = 0.2) Yes PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 – HEMLOCK COAST HOMES April 7, 2021 Page 9 Standard Impacts Comply Sewer Collection System 4 EDU Yes Water 1,000 GPD Yes The project proposes four dwelling units and the unit yield at the GMCP is four dwelling units. Therefore, the four-unit project will not withdraw from or deposit units in the city’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. IV.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City Planner has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) Class 32 Categorical Exemption of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project is consistent with the General Plan as well as with the Zoning Ordinance, the project site is within the city limits, is less than five acres in size, and is surrounded by urban uses; there is no evidence that the site has value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project will not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. In making this determination, the City Planner has found that the exceptions listed in Section 15300.2 of the state CEQA Guidelines do not apply to this project, including “historical resources.” Specifically, the existing structure, which is estimated to be 66 years old and is proposed to be demolished, is not included in a local register of historical resources, and qualified professionals (Anza Resource Consultants, report dated October 9, 2020) have determined that it does not meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. A Notice of Exemption will be filed by the City Planner upon final project approval. The seven-unit residential condominium project is required to comply with the city’s Climate Action Plan and the recently adopted Climate Action Plan Ordinances, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure (Ordinance No. CS-349), energy efficiency measures and solar photovoltaic systems (Ordinance No. CS-347) and new residential standards for water heating (Ordinance No. CS-348). ATTACHMENTS: 1.Planning Commission Resolution No. 7411 2.Location Map 3.Disclosure Statement 4.Planned Development Tables C & E 5.City Council Policy No. 44 Compliance Table 6.City Council Policy No. 66 Compliance Table 7.Reduced Exhibits 8.Full Size Exhibits “A” – “V” dated April 7, 2021 9. Public Comments HEMLOCK AVJUNIPER AVREDWOOD AV G A R F I E L D S T PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 (DEV2020-0023) Hemlock Coast Homes SITE MAP J SITE E L C AMINO R E ALLA COSTA AVCARLSBAD B L MELROSE DR ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 City of Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT P-1(A) Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership. include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person.___________ Corp/Part 320 Hemlock, LLC Title____________ Title,_S_e_e_a_t_ta_c_h_e_d ________ _ Address _________ _ Address, ___________ _ 2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) P-1(A) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person __________ _ Title ___________ _ Address _________ _ Corp/Part 320 Hemlock, LLC Title See attached Address ____________ _ Page 1 of 2 Revised 07/10 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non- profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust________ Non Profit/Trust _________ _ Title ___________ _ Title _____________ _ Address -----------Address ____________ _ 4. Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes l ✓I No If yes, please indicate person(s): __________ _ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 9-8-20 9-8-20 Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date Kirk Moeller -KMJ Real Estate Kirk Moeller -KMJ Real Estate Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent P-1 (A) Page 2 of 2 Revised 07/10 SCHEDULE A MEMBERS, INTERESTS & SHARING PERCENTAGES Members Address Interest & Sharing Percentage KMJ Real Estate, LLC 2888 Loker Ave. East Suite 10% 220 Carlsbad, CA 92010 Game Over, LLC 444 Executive Center Suite 14.7% 238 El Paso, TX 79902 Skeleton Canyon, LLC 444 Executive Center Suite 14.7% 238 El Paso, TX 79902 ITC World, LLC 1244 White Sands Dr., San 14.7% Marcos, CA 92078 L WC Holdings, LLC 19292 Bainter Ave., Los 11.8% Gatos, CA 95030 Tustana, LLC 1022 El Camino Lane, Santa 14.7% Ana, CA 90705 Jay Knowles 361 Springs Canyon Way, 10.6% Oceanside, CA 92057 Jason Gentile 7012 Whitewater St., 8.8% Carlsbad, CA 92011 ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT C.1 Density Per the underlying General Plan designation. When two or more general plan land use designations exist within a planned development, the density may be transferred from one general plan designation to another with a general plan amendment. N/A C.2 Arterial Setbacks All dwelling units adjacent to any arterial road shown on the Circulation Element of the General Plan shall maintain the following minimum setbacks from the right-of-way: Prime Arterial 50 Feet Major Arterial 40 Feet Secondary Arterial 30 Feet Carlsbad Boulevard 20 Feet N/A Half (50%) of the required arterial setback area located closest to the arterial shall be fully landscaped to enhance the street scene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials, and: •Shall contain a minimum of one 24” box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage; and •Shall be commonly owned and maintained N/A Project perimeter walls greater than 42 inches in height shall not be located in the required landscaped portion of the arterial setback, except noise attenuation walls that: •Are required by a noise study, and •Due to topography, are necessary to be placed within the required landscaped portion of the arterial setback. N/A C.3 Permitted Intrusions into Setbacks/ Building Separation Permitted intrusions into required building setbacks shall be the same as specified in Section 21.46.120 of this code. The same intrusions specified in Section 21.46.120 shall be permitted into required building separation. All balconies, overhangs, and architectural projections comply with the maximum two-foot allowance per CMC Section 21.46.120. C.4 Streets Private Minimum right-of-way width 56 feet N/A Minimum curb-to-curb width 34 feet Minimum parkway width (curb adjacent) 5.5 feet, including curb Minimum sidewalk width 5 feet (setback 6 inches from property line) Public Minimum right-of-way width 60 feet N/A Minimum curb-to-curb width 34 feet Minimum parkway width (curb adjacent) 7.5 feet, including curb Minimum sidewalk width 5 feet (setback 6 inches from property line) Street Trees within parkways One-family dwellings and twin homes on small-lots A minimum of one street tree (24-inch box) per lot is required to be planted in the parkway along all streets. N/A Condominium projects Street trees shall be spaced no further apart than 30 feet on center within the parkway. Street trees are shown on the conceptual landscape plan and will be approved with the final landscape plan. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. See above. C.5 Drive-aisles 3 or fewer dwelling units Minimum 12 feet wide when the drive-aisle is not required for emergency vehicle access, as determined by the Fire Chief. A 12-foot-wide drive-aisle is provided that serves 3 of the 4 units. The remaining unit has an exclusive use driveway from Hemlock Avenue. If the drive-aisle is required for emergency vehicle access, it shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 4 or more dwelling units Minimum 20 feet wide. N/A. See above. All projects No parking shall be permitted within the minimum required width of a drive-aisle. Project does not propose any parking within the drive aisle. A minimum 24-foot vehicle back-up/maneuvering area shall be provided in front of garages, carports or uncovered parking spaces (this may include driveway area, drive-aisles, and streets). All garage spaces and visitor parking spaces include a minimum 24’ vehicle back-up/maneuvering area behind each space. Additional width may be required for vehicle/emergency vehicle maneuvering area. Fire Prevention has reviewed and approved of the proposed design. Parkways and/or sidewalks may be required. N/A No more than 24 dwelling units shall be located along a single- entry drive-aisle. N/A All drive-aisles shall be enhanced with decorative pavement. Project drive-aisle has been enhanced with decorative pavers. C.6 Number of Visitor Parking Spaces Required (1) Projects with 10 units or fewer A .30 space per each unit Project proposes four units. At 0.3 spaces per unit, the four-unit project requires 1.2 spaces, or 2 spaces based on rounding up to the nearest whole number. The project provides two visitor parking spaces on-site. Additionally, the project provides two extra visitor parking spaces for Unit 1 in the exclusive use driveway. Projects 11 units or more A .25 space per each unit When calculating the required number of visitor parking spaces, if the calculation results in a fractional parking space, the required number of visitor parking spaces shall always be rounded up to the nearest whole number. C.7 Location of Visitor Parking On Private/ Public Streets On-street visitor parking is permitted on private/public streets, subject to the following: •The private/public street is a minimum 34-feet wide (curb- to-curb) •There are no restrictions that would prohibit on-street parking where the visitor parking is proposed •The visitor parking spaces may be located: o Along one or both sides of any private/public street(s) located within the project boundary, and o Along the abutting side and portion of any existing public/private street(s) that is contiguous to the project boundary No required visitor parking is provided on the street since it is not permitted per the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ). In parking bays along public/private streets within the project boundary, provided the parking bays are outside the minimum required street right-of-way width. N/A PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS When visitor parking is provided as on-street parallel parking, not less than 24 lineal feet per space, exclusive of driveway/drive-aisle entrances and aprons, shall be provided for each parking space, except where parallel parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway/drive-aisle aprons, then 20 lineal feet may be provided. N/A Within the Beach Area Overlay Zone, on-street parking shall not count toward meeting the visitor parking requirement. No on-street visitor parking is proposed. On Drive- aisles Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays that are located outside the required minimum drive-aisle width. Project is located within the BAOZ. All required visitor parking is being provided on-site outside of the required drive-aisle. On a Driveway Outside the Beach Area Overlay Zone One required visitor parking space may be credited for each driveway in a project that has a depth of 40 feet or more. N/A For projects with 10 or fewer units, all required visitor parking may be located within driveways (located in front of a unit’s garage), provided that all dwelling units in the project have driveways with a depth of 20 feet or more. N/A Within the Beach Area Overlay Zone One required visitor parking space may be credited for each driveway in a project that has a depth of 40 feet or more. No required visitor parking is proposed within a driveway. Unit 1 provides visitor parking in the driveway in excess of the requirements. If the streets within and/or adjacent to the project allow for on-street parking on both sides of the street, then visitor parking may be located in a driveway, subject to the following: •All required visitor parking may be located within driveways (located in front of a unit’s garage), provided that all dwelling units in the project have driveways with a depth of 20 feet or more. •If less than 100% of the driveways in a project have a depth of 20 feet or more, then a .25 visitor parking space will be credited for each driveway in a project that has a depth of 20 feet or more (calculations resulting in a fractional parking space credit shall always be rounded down to the nearest whole number). See above. All projects The minimum driveway depth required for visitor parking (20 feet or 40 feet) applies to driveways for front or side-loaded garages, and is measured from the property line, back of sidewalk, or from the edge of the drive-aisle, whichever is closest to the structure. See above. Compact Parking For projects of more than 25 units, up to 25% of visitor parking may be provided as compact spaces (8 feet by 15 feet). No overhang is permitted into any required setback area or over sidewalks less than 6 feet wide. N/A PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS For all projects within the Beach Area Overlay Zone, up to 55% of the visitor parking may be provided as compact spaces (8 feet by 15 feet). N/A Distance from unit Visitor parking spaces must be located no more than 300 feet as measured in a logical walking path from the entrance of the unit it could be considered to serve. Distance from visitor parking spaces to the furthest unit is less than 300’. C.8 Screening of Parking Areas Open parking areas should be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way by either a view-obscuring wall, landscaped berm, or landscaping, except parking located within a driveway. The required visitor parking spaces are located on the sides of the rear building outside of the drive-aisle and are screened from adjacent residences by perimeter walls and fencing and screened from the public right-of-way by the buildings and landscaping. C.9 Community Recreational Space (1) Community recreational space shall be provided for all projects of 11 or more dwelling units, as follows: N/A Minimum community recreational space required Project is NOT within R-23 general plan designation 200 square feet per unit Project IS within R-23 general plan designation 150 square feet per unit Projects with 11 to 25 dwelling units Community recreational space shall be provided as either (or both) passive or active recreation facilities. N/A Projects with 26 or more dwelling units Community recreational space shall be provided as both passive and active recreational facilities with a minimum of 75% of the area allocated for active facilities. N/A Projects with 50 or more dwelling units Community recreational space shall be provided as both passive and active recreational facilities for a variety of age groups (a minimum of 75% of the area allocated for active facilities). N/A For projects consisting of one-family dwellings or twin homes on small-lots, at least 25% of the community recreation space must be provided as pocket parks. •Pocket park lots must have a minimum width of 50 feet and be located at strategic locations such as street intersections (especially “T- intersections”) and where open space vistas may be achieved. N/A All projects (with 11 or more dwelling units) Community recreational space shall be located and designed so as to be functional, usable, and easily accessible from the units it is intended to serve. N/A Credit for indoor recreation facilities shall not exceed 25% of the required community recreation area. N/A PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Required community recreation areas shall not be located in any required front yard and may not include any streets, drive-aisles, driveways, parking areas, storage areas, slopes of 5% or greater, or walkways (except those walkways that are clearly integral to the design of the recreation area). N/A Recreation Area Parking In addition to required resident and visitor parking, recreation area parking shall be provided, as follows: 1 space for each 15 residential units, or fraction thereof, for units located more than 1,000 feet from a community recreation area. N/A The location of recreation area parking shall be subject to the same location requirements as for visitor parking, except that required recreation area parking shall not be located within a driveway(s). N/A Examples of recreation facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: Active Swimming pool area Children’s playground equipment Spa Courts (tennis, racquetball, volleyball, basketball) Recreation rooms or buildings Horseshoe pits Pitch and putt Grassy play areas with a slope of less than 5% (minimum area of 5,000 square feet and a minimum dimension of 50 feet) Any other facility deemed by the City Planner to satisfy the intent of providing active recreational facilities Passive Benches Barbecues Community gardens Grassy play areas with a slope of less than 5% C.10 Lighting Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular safety shall be provided. Appropriate lighting for the four- unit project will be evaluated with the final landscape and building plans. C.11 Reserved C.12 Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage (1) Required for projects with 100 or more units, or a master or specific plan with 100 or more planned development units. Exception: RV storage is not required for projects located within the R-15 or R-23 land use designations. N/A 20 square feet per unit, not to include area required for driveways and approaches. Developments located within master plans or residential specific plans may have this requirement met by the common RV storage area provided by the master plan or residential specific plan. RV storage areas shall be designed to accommodate recreational vehicles of various sizes (i.e. motorhomes, campers, boats, personal watercraft, etc.). N/A PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS The storage of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and on any public or private streets or any other area visible to the public. A provision containing this restriction shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the project. All RV storage areas shall be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way by a view-obscuring wall and landscaping. N/A C.13 Storage Space 480 cubic feet of separate storage space per unit. Each unit provides an attached two-car garage with minimum required dimensions which satisfies the storage requirements. If all storage for each unit is located in one area, the space may be reduced to 392 cubic feet. Required storage space shall be separately enclosed for each unit and be conveniently accessible to the outdoors. Required storage space may be designed as an enlargement of a covered parking structure provided it does not extend into the area of the required parking stall, and does not impede the ability to utilize the parking stall (for vehicle parking). A garage (12’x20’ one-car, 20’x20’ two-car, or larger) satisfies the required storage space per unit. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas. (1)This standard does not apply to housing for senior citizens (see Chapter 21.84 of this code). PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT E.1 Livable Neighborho od Policy Must comply with City Council Policy 66, Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods. See separate compliance table attached to the project staff report. E.2 Architectural Requiremen ts One-family and two-family dwellings Must comply with City Council Policy 44, Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines See separate compliance table attached to the project staff report. Multiple-family dwellings There shall be at least three separate building planes on all building elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to, building walls, windows, and roofs. N/A All building elevations shall incorporate a minimum of four complimentary design elements, including but not limited to: •A variety of roof planes; •Windows and doors recessed a minimum of 2 inches; •Decorative window or door frames; •Exposed roof rafter tails; •Dormers; •Columns; •Arched elements; •Varied window shapes; •Exterior wood elements; •Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood, or siding; •Knee braces; and •Towers. N/A E.3 Maximum Coverage 60% of total project net developable acreage. Proposed building coverage is 34.1% of the lot area (8,243 square feet). E.4 Maximum Building Height Same as required by the underlying zone, and not to exceed three stories (1)(7) The project is located within the BAOZ, and therefore pursuant to Footnote #1 below, building height shall be subject to the requirements of CMC Chapter 21.82. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.82.050, no residential structure shall exceed 30’ when providing a minimum 3:12 roof pitch, or 24’ when providing less than a 3:12 roof pitch. The project is proposing two, three-story buildings with heights up to 30’ with a 3:12 roof pitch. No allowed projections per CMC Section 21.46.020 are proposed. Projects within the R- 23 general plan designation (1)(7) 40 feet, if roof pitch is 3:12 or greater N/A. The project is in the R-23 General Plan Land Use designation but is subject to the BAOZ for building height purposes. 35 feet, if roof pitch is less than 3:12 Building height shall not exceed three stories PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT E.5 Minimum Building Setbacks From a private or public street(2)(3) Residential structure 10 feet Hemlock Avenue is a public street. The residential structures are set back at least 10’ as measured from the outside edge of the ultimate street right-of- way width. The direct entry garage for Unit 1 is setback 20’. Some roof eaves, balconies and architectural features encroach up to two feet into the front setback. Direct entry garage 20 feet From a drive-aisle(4) Residential structure (except as specified below) 5 feet, fully landscaped (walkways providing access to dwelling entryways may be located within required landscaped area) N/A. Project is less than 25 units and located within the R-23 General Plan designation (see section below for compliance). Residential structure – directly above a garage 0 feet when projecting over the front of a garage. N/A. Project is less than 25 units and located within the R-23 General Plan designation (see section below for compliance). Garage 3 feet N/A. Project is less than 25 units and located within the R-23 General Plan designation (see section below for compliance). Garages facing directly onto a drive-aisle shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Projects of 25 units or less within the R-15 and R-23 general plan designations 0 feet (residential structure and garage) Residential structure and garage is set back ≥ 0’ from the required 12-foot drive- aisle. Garages facing directly onto a drive-aisle shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Each garage is equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Balconies/decks (unenclosed and uncovered) 0 feet The project’s balconies cantilever over the required 12-foot drive aisle but meet required setbacks, building separation, and fire requirements. May cantilever over a drive-aisle, provided the balcony/deck complies with all other applicable requirements, such as: •Setbacks from property lines •Building separation •Fire and Engineering Department requirements From the perimeter property lines of the project site (not adjacent to a public/private street) The building setback from an interior side or rear perimeter property line shall be the same as required by the underlying zone for an interior side or rear yard setback. The underlying zone for the project is R-3. The required interior side yard setbacks are 7’-11” and the project proposes interior side yard setbacks of 7’-11”. The required rear yard setback is 15’-9” and the project proposes a rear setback of 15’9”. E.6 Minimum Building Separation 10 feet The homes are separated by at least 10’. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT E.7 Resident Parking (6) All dwelling types If a project is located within the R-23 general plan designation, resident parking shall be provided as specified below, and may also be provided as follows: •25% of the units in the project may include a tandem two-car garage (minimum 12 feet x 40 feet). •Calculations for this provision resulting in a fractional unit may be rounded up to the next whole number. Tandem parking is not proposed. One-family and two- family dwellings 2 spaces per unit, provided as either: •a two-car garage (minimum 20 feet x 20 feet), or •2 separate one-car garages (minimum 12 feet x 20 feet each) •In the R-W Zone, the 2 required parking spaces may be provided as 1 covered space and 1 uncovered space (5) An attached two-car garage with minimum required dimensions is provided for each unit. Multiple- family dwellings Studio and one- bedroom units 1.5 spaces per unit, 1 of which must be covered (5) N/A When calculating the required number of parking spaces, if the calculation results in a fractional parking space, the required number of parking spaces shall always be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Units with two or more bedrooms 2 spaces per unit, provided as either: •a one-car garage (12 feet x 20 feet) and 1 covered or uncovered space; or (5) •a two-car garage (minimum 20 feet x 20 feet), or •2 separate one-car garages (minimum 12 feet x 20 feet each) •In the R-W Zone and the Beach Area Overlay Zone, the 2 required parking spaces may be provided as 1 covered space and 1 uncovered space (5) N/A Required parking may be provided within an enclosed parking garage with multiple, open parking spaces, subject to the following: •Each parking space shall maintain a standard stall size of 8.5 feet by 20 feet, exclusive of supporting columns; and •A backup distance of 24 feet shall be maintained in addition to a minimum 5 feet turning bump-out located at the end of any stall series. N/A Required resident parking spaces shall be located no more than 150 feet as measured in a logical walking path from the entrance of the units it could be considered to serve. Each unit provides an attached garage and, therefore, within 150 feet of the unit it is intended to serve. E.8 Private Recreational Space One-family, two-family, and multiple- family dwellings Required private recreational space shall be designed so as to be functional, usable, and easily accessible from the dwelling it is intended to serve. Each home provides a private recreation area in the form of ground level area, and/or second and third level balconies which meet or exceed the 60- square-foot requirement. The private recreation areas are easily accessible from the interior living area of each unit. The required areas do not encroach within the required front yard setback, nor include any Required private recreational space shall be located adjacent to the unit the area is intended to serve. Required private recreational space shall not be located within any required front yard setback area, and may not include any driveways, parking areas, storage areas, or common walkways. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT driveways, parking areas, storage areas, or common walkways. One-family and two- family dwellings Minimum total area per unit Projects not within the R- 15 or R-23 general plan designations 400 square feet The project is within the R- 23 GPLU designation, and therefore, provides at least 200 square feet of private recreational space per unit. Projects within the R-15 or R-23 general plan designations 200 square feet May consist of more than one recreational space. Consists of multiple spaces. May be provided at ground level and/or as a deck/balcony on a second/third floor or roof. Consists of ground level areas, and/or second and third level balconies. If provided at ground level Minimum dimension Not within the R-15 or R- 23 general plan designations 15 feet The project is within the R- 23 GPLU designation, and therefore, provides at least 10-foot minimum dimensions for ground level recreational space. Within the R- 15 or R-23 general plan designations 10 feet Shall not have a slope gradient greater than 5%. Recreation area do not have a slope gradient greater than 5%. Attached solid patio covers and decks/balconies may project into a required private recreational space, subject to the following: •The depth of the projection shall not exceed 6 feet (measured from the wall of the dwelling that is contiguous to the patio/deck/balcony). The length of the projection shall not be limited, except as required by any setback or lot coverage standards. No patio covers or decks/balconies project into required recreational space provided at ground level. Open or lattice-top patio covers may be located within the required private recreation space (provided the patio cover complies with all applicable standards, including the required setbacks). N/A If provided above ground level as a deck/ balcony or roof deck Minimum dimension 6 feet Balconies provided for required recreation space have dimensions of at least six feet and are at least 60 square feet in area. Minimum area 60 square feet Multiple-family dwellings Minimum total area per unit (patio, porch, or balcony) 60 square feet N/A Minimum dimension of patio, porch or balcony 6 feet N/A Projects of 11 or more units that are within the R-23 general plan designation may opt to provide an additional 75 square feet of community recreation space per unit (subject to the standards N/A PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT specified in Table C of this Chapter), in lieu of providing the per unit private recreational space specified above. (1)If a project is located within the Beach Area Overlay Zone, building height shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 21.82 of this code. (2)See Table C in Section 21.45.060 for required setbacks from an arterial street. (3)Building setbacks shall be measured from the outside edge of the required street right-of-way width, whichever is closest to the building. (4)Building setbacks shall be measured from one of the following (whichever is closest to the building): a) the outside edge of the required drive-aisle width; b) the back of sidewalk; or c) the nearest side of a parking bay located contiguous to a drive- aisle (excluding parking located in a driveway in front of a unit’s garage). (5)Any uncovered required parking space in the R-W zone may be located within a required front yard setback and may be tandem. (6)This standard does not apply to housing for senior citizens (see Chapter 21.84 of this code). (7)Protrusions above the height limit shall be allowed pursuant to Section 21.46.020 of this code. Such protrusions include protective barriers for balconies and roof decks. I CITY COUNCIL POLICY 44 – NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES Architectural Guideline Compliance Comments Floor Plans and Elevations 1 All residential projects shall be required to have a minimum number of different floor plans, different front and corresponding matching rear elevations with different color schemes as identified below: 2-4 dwelling units shall provide 1 floor plan and 2 different elevations. 5-12 dwelling units shall provide 2 different floor plans and 2 different elevations. 13-20 dwelling units shall provide 2 different floor plans and 3 different elevations. 21+ dwelling units shall provide 3 different floor plans and 3 different elevations. The project is two buildings containing two residential units per building. Building A has different floor plans and elevations than Building B. 2 Every house should have a coherent architectural style. All elevations of a house, including front, side and rear, should have the same design integrity of forms, details and materials. All elevations of the project have consistent design on all elevations with similar coastal craftsman design integrity. 3 In addition to the previous requirements, design details should reinforce and enhance the architectural form and style of every house and differ from other elevations of the same floor plan. A minimum of 4 complimentary design details, including but not limited to those listed below, shall be incorporated into each of the front, rear and street side building façade(s) of the house. Design Details Buildings have been designed to incorporate the following six (6) design details: balconies, decorative eaves and fascia, knee braces, columns, decorative exterior wood elements (accent wood framed shed roof), accent material (board and batten siding). Balconies Decorative eaves and fascia Exposed roof rafter tails Arched elements Towers Knee braces Dormers Columns Exterior wood elements Accent materials (i.e.; brick, stone, shingles, wood or siding) 4 Floor plans in a project shall exhibit a variety of roof ridges and roof heights within a neighborhood. The pitched roof provides a variety of roof ridges and Building B provides additional roof elements above the first floor. ATTACHMENT 5 ~ □ □ □ ~ ~ ~ □ □ ~ □ ~ □ ~ CITY COUNCIL POLICY 44 – NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES Architectural Guideline Compliance Comments Single Story Requirements 9 The remaining total number of homes shall comply with one of the following guidelines: The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 8 feet and shall run the length of the building along one side except for tower elements. The roof covering the single- story element shall incorporate a separate roof plane and shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element. Porches and porte-cochere elements shall qualify as a single-story edge. Houses with courtyards that are a minimum of 15 feet wide located along the side of the house and setback a minimum of 15 feet from the property line are not required to have a single-story building edge. The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 5 feet and shall run the length of the building along one side. The roof of the single-story element shall be substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element of the building. The home shall have a single-story building edge with a depth of not less than 3 feet for 40% of the perimeter of the building. Both two-unit buildings are three stories in height and this guideline mainly applies to two- story single-family homes. The project does not technically meet this guideline. However, the project meets the purpose and intent of City Council Policy 44 which provides guidelines for homes to be visually interesting, have sufficient building articulation to reduce their bulk and mass, are in scale to their lot size and contribute to the creation of livable neighborhoods. Additionally, single-story roof lines have been incorporated into the project. See Section III.C of the staff report for more information. Multiple Building Planes 10 For at least 66% of the homes in a project, there shall be at least 3 separate building planes on street side elevations of lots with 45 feet of street frontage or less and 4 separate building planes on street side elevations of lots with a street frontage greater than 45 feet. Balconies and covered porches qualify as a building plane. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to, building walls, windows, porches and roofs. The minimum depth between the faces of the forward-most plane and the rear plane on the front elevation shall be 10 feet. A plane must be a minimum of 30 sq. ft. to receive credit under this section. The project has at least four separate building planes on the Hemlock Avenue elevation. 11 Rear elevations shall adhere to the same criteria outlined in Number 10 above for front elevations except that the minimum depth between front and back planes on the rear elevation shall be 4 feet. Rear balconies qualify as a building plane. The project has at least four separate building planes on the rear elevation of Building B. Since Building A faces internally to the site, only Building B was evaluated for this guideline. Windows/Doors 13 At least 66% of exterior openings (door/windows) on every home in the project shall be recessed or projected a minimum of 2 inches and shall be constructed with wood, vinyl or colored aluminum window frames (no mill finishes). All windows and doors have a minimum 2” projecting decorative wood frame which gives them a recessed appearance. □ □ □ 14 Windows shall reinforce and enhance the architectural form and style of the house through, the use of signature windows and varied window shapes and sizes. Each dwelling unit provides multiple window shapes and sizes. Front Porches 15 Fifty percent (50%) of the homes shall be designed with a covered front porch, open courtyard, or balcony (each with a minimum depth of 6 feet and a minimum area of 60 square feet) located at the front of the dwelling. The minimum depth for a covered front porch shall be measured from the front façade of the home to the inside of any supporting porch posts. The front and sides of porches shall be open except for required and/or ornamental guardrails. A variety of roof elements shall be provided over porches. Porches may not be converted to living space. Both units of Building A (50% of the homes) have second and third floor balconies facing Hemlock Avenue that comply with the minimum dimension requirements. Front Entries 16 Seventy-five percent (75%) of the homes must have a front entry to the home that is clearly visible from the street. Walkways from the front door to the street are encouraged. Both units in Building A have been designed with a front entry directly facing Hemlock Avenue. Both units in Building B have clear entries from the project drive aisle which they face onto. Chimneys 17 Chimneys and chimney caps shall be in scale with the size of the home. No more than 2 chimneys shall be allowed for homes on lots in planned developments having an area less than 7,500 square feet. No chimneys are proposed. Garage Doors 18 Garage doors for 3 or 4 cars in a row that directly face the street must have a minimum of an 18” plane change between the garage doors after the 2-car garage door. One, two-car garage faces Hemlock Avenue. The remaining garages face internal to the site. Note #1: Fractional units of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next whole number and located in a manner to achieve the best project design as determined by the project planner. When a percentage of units are described in the guidelines, the intent is to have that percentage spread throughout the entire project. ATTACHMENT 6 CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 – LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Principle Compliance Comments 1. Building Facades, Front Entries, Porches Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. Clearly identifiable front doors and porches enhance the street scene and create opportunities for greater social interaction within the neighborhood. Building entries and windows should face the street. Front porches, bay windows, courtyards and balconies are encouraged. The south/front elevation architecture of Building A provides multiple material finishes and colors, varied window shapes, articulated building planes and roof planes, and balconies facing the street. In addition, the front units along Hemlock Avenue have been designed with entry doors facing the street. 2. Garages Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in relation to the street. A variety of garage configurations should be used to improve the street scene. This may include tandem garages, side- loaded garages, front-loaded garages, alley-loaded garages and recessed garages. Each dwelling unit includes an attached two-car garage. Three of the four garages are accessed from a private drive-aisle and do not face the street. The remaining garage faces Hemlock Avenue and provides additional articulation and variation for the project’s street frontage. 3. Street Design An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs when there are no topographic or environmental constraints. Interconnected streets provide pedestrians and automobiles many alternative routes to follow, disperse traffic and reduce the volume of cars on any one street in the neighborhood. Streets should be designed to provide both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity by minimizing the use of cul-de-sacs. The street network should also be designed to create a safer, more comfortable pedestrian and bicycling environment. Local residential streets should have travel and parking lanes, be sufficiently narrow to slow traffic, provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles and emergency evacuation routes for residents and include parkways with trees to form a pleasing canopy over the street. Local residential streets are the public open space in which children often play and around which neighborhoods interact. Within this context, vehicular movement should be additionally influenced through the use of City-accepted designs for traffic calming measures. The project is developing on an existing multi-family residentially zoned lot adjacent to an existing public street (Hemlock Avenue) presently developed as part of an existing interconnected modified street pattern south of the Carlsbad Village area. The existing street design in this area has curb, gutter and sidewalk segments. The project is conditioned to provide a complete sidewalk along the project’s frontage. CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 – LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Principle Compliance Comments 4. Parkways Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. A curb-adjacent parkway is not proposed on the entire frontage of Hemlock Avenue. Therefore, street trees will be provided in the parkway and behind the curb- adjacent sidewalk along Hemlock Avenue. 5. Pedestrian Walkways Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. Walkways (sidewalks or trails) should provide clear, comfortable and direct access to neighborhood schools, parks/plazas and transit stops. Primary pedestrian routes should be bordered by residential fronts, parks or plazas. Where street connections are not feasible (at the end of cul-de-sacs), pedestrian paths should also be provided. The project provides for pedestrian circulation in the form of a sidewalk along its frontage with Hemlock Avenue. 6. Centralized Community Recreation Areas Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. As frequently as possible, these parks/plazas should be designed for both active and passive uses for residents of all ages and should be centrally located within the project. Parks and plazas should not be sited on residual parcels, used as buffers from surrounding developments or to separate buildings from streets. The project consists of only four units and is not required to provide community recreation areas. ATTACHMENT 7GENERAL NOTES NOTE: ALL PROJECT SIGNAGE TO BE UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT NOTE: ENTIRE BUILDING SHALL BE FIRE SPRINKLERED PER NFPA STANDARD 13 AND CITY OF CARLSBAD REGULATIONS. A WET STANDPIPE PER NFPA 24 SHALL ALSO BE PROVIDED. PLANS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AFIRE DEPARTMENT DEFERRED SUBMITTAL FOR FIRE SPRINKLER AND FIRE ALARM PLANS. NOTE: FLAMMABLE ANO COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CFC 5705.3.5.2. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CBC 307.1(1) AND 307.1(2). NOTE: SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS FOR DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE, WHO SHALL REVIEW THEM AND FORWARD THEM TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WITH A NOTATION INDICATING THAT THE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING. THE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THEIR DESIGN AND SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. CONDOMINIUM NOTE THIS IS A MAP OF A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 4125 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS FILED PURSUANTTO THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. THE NUMBER OF CONDOMINIUM UNITS IS 4. ACOUSTICAL NOTE THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN A NOISE CRITICAL AREA (CNEL CONTOUR OF 60 dB) AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC RESIDENTIAL 8 TRIPS PER D.U. X4UNITS = 32ADT PLUMBING CALCULATIONS PROPOSED WATER USAGE RESIDENTIAL 250 GPD X4 UNITS= 1,000 GPD PROPOSED SEWER USAGE RESIDENTIAL (EDU)= 220 GAL/DAYX4 DUX (1 EDU PER/DU)= 880 GAL/DAY PROPOSED DRAINAGE DISCHARGE I BASIN DRAINAGE BASINI HYDROLOGICAL AREA: CARLSBAD/ BUENA VISTA CREEK/ BASIN 'B" PER MASTER PLAN PEAK DRAINAGE DISCHARGE POST DEVELOPMENT (Q100) = .74 C.F.S. CODES 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE NORTHEASTERLY 78 112 FEET OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 105 FEET OF LOT TWO, BLOCK "R' OF PALISADES NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1803, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,AUGUST 25, 1924. UTILITY/ SERVICE PROVIDERS SEWER DISTRICT: WATER DISTRICT: GAS: ELECTRIC: TELCO: SCHOOL DISTRICT: FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT: DEFERRED SUBMITTAL$ SPECIAL INSPECTIONS CARLSBAD WASTEWATER DIVISION CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SDGE SDGE AT&T CARLSBAD UNIFIED CARLSBAD FIRE HEMLOCK COAST HOMES PROJECT INFORMATION ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: ADDRESS: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: OCCUPANCY/ SEPARATED OR NON-SEPARATED: USE: FIRE SPRINKLERS: FIRE ALARM: STORIES: HEIGHT (MAXIMUM): GENERAL PLAN ZONING COASTAL ZONE BEACH OVERLAY ZONE: BUILDING AREA ANALYSIS LOT AREA: EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOT: EXISTING BUILDING: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE INCLUDING GARAGE TO BE REMOVED RESIDENTIAL UNITS: TOTAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS DWELLING UNIT DENSITY: .19 ACX 19 D.U./AC = 3.61 UNITS ALLOWED (GMCP) DENSITY PROPOSED= 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE BUILDING I LOT COVERAGE: TOTAL GRADE USEABLE AREA AND GARAGES AREAS: UNIT 1: 1ST FLOOR AREA: 2ND FLOOR AREA: 3RD FLOOR AREA: TOTAL FLOOR AREA (CONDITIONED): GARAGE AREA: 2ND FLOOR DECK: 3RD FLOOR DECK: UNIT2: 1ST FLOOR AREA: 2ND FLOOR AREA: 3RD FLOOR AREA: TOTAL FLOOR AREA (CONDITIONED): GARAGE AREA: 2ND FLOOR DECK: 3RD FLOOR DECK: UNIT3: 1ST FLOOR AREA: 2ND FLOOR AREA: 3RD FLOOR AREA: TOTAL FLOOR AREA (CONDITIONED): GARAGE AREA: 2ND FLOOR DECK: 3RD FLOOR BALCONY: UNIT4: 1ST FLOOR AREA: 2ND FLOOR AREA: 3RD FLOOR AREA: TOTAL FLOOR AREA (CONDITIONED): GARAGE AREA: 2ND FLOOR DECK: 3RD FLOOR BALCONY: TOTAL FLOOR AREA (CONDITIONED): SCOPE OF WORK 204-24040-00 320 HEMLOCK AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA VB R-3/U/SEPARATED RESIDENTIAL YES, NFPA 13D NO 3 30'-0" R-23 R.J YES YES 8,243S.F./.19AC 1,513 SF 4 UNITS 2,810 SF 134.0% 179 S.F. 942 S.F. 1020 S.F. 2,141 S.F. 473 S.F. 124 S.F. 87 S.F. 387 S.F. 942 S.F. 1,020 S.F. 2,349 S.F. 445 S.F. 124 S.F. 87 S.F. 179 S.F. 826 S.F. 944 S.F. 1,949 S.F. 4B4 S.F. 51 S.F. 16 S.F. 179 S.F. 826 S.F. 944 S.F. 1,949 S.F. 4B4 S.F. 51 S.F. 16 S.F. 8,388 S.F. REMOVAL OF A RESIDENTIAL UNOCCUPIED STRUCTURE CONTAINING A (2) CAR GARAGE. CONSTRUCTION OF A (4) UNIT, 3 STORY, DOUBLE TWIN HOME RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 320 HEMLOCK AVE. PROJECT DIRECTORY DEVELOPER: CIVIL: ARCHITECT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: KMJ REAL ESTATE LLC CONTACT: JOHN NORUM I KIRK MOELLER 2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92010 949-678-4927 I 760-8D3-8□06 PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES (PLSA) CONTACT: TYLER LAWSON 535 N HIGHWAY 101 STE A SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 T: 858-259-8212 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. CONTACT: KIRK MOELLER 2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92010 760-803-1!006 DAEDALUS DESIGN GROUP CONTACT: JEFF SMITH 2725 JEFFERSON ST, STE 15B CARLSBAD, CA 92010 T: 760-720-4337 PARKING ANALYSIS PARKING REQUIRED MULTI FAMILY CONDO (4-3 BDRM. UNITSX2) B.O.Z. GUEST PARKING TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED MULTI FAMILY CONDO (4-3 BDRM. UNITSX2) B.O.Z. GUEST PARKING TOTAL PRIVATE RECREATION SPACE CALCULATIONS AREAS: UNIT 1: 2ND FLOOR DECK AREA: 3RD FLOOR DECK AREA: TOTAL PRIVATE DECK AREA (MIN. 6' DIMENSION): UNIT2: 2ND FLOOR DECK AREA: 3RD FLOOR DECK AREA: TOTAL PRIVATE DECK AREA (MIN. 6' DIMENSION): UNIT3: GRADE LEVEL YARD AREA (MIN.10' DIMENSION): UNIT4: GRADE LEVEL YARD AREA (MIN. 10' DIMENSION): 8 GARAGE SPACES .3X4UNITS=1.2 10 SPACES 8 GARAGE SPACES 2 SPACES 10 SPACES 124 S.F. 87 S.F. 211 S.F. 124 S.F. 87 S.F. 211 S.F. 618 S.F. 616 S.F. SHEET INDEX ARCHITECTURAL A0.1 COVER SHEET A1.1 SITE PLAN A2.1A FIRST FLOOR PLAN -BUILDING A UNITS 1 & 2 A2.2A SECOND FLOOR PLAN -BUILDING A UNITS 1 & 2 A2.3A THIRD FLOOR PLAN -BUILDING A UNITS 1 & 2 A2.4A ROOF PLAN -BUILDING A UNITS 1 & 2 A3.1A BUILDING ELEVATIONS -BUILDING A UNITS 1 &2 A3.2A BUILDING ELEVATIONS -BUILDING A UNITS 1 & 2 A2.1B FIRST FLOOR PLAN-BUILDING B UNITS 3 &4 A2.2B SECOND FLOOR PLAN -BUILDING B UNITS 3 & 4 A2.3B THIRD FLOOR PLAN -BUILDING B UNITS 3 & 4 A2.4B ROOF PLAN -BUILDING B UNITS 3 & 4 A3.1B BUILDING ELEVATIONS -BUILDING B UNITS 3 &4 A3.2B BUILDING ELEVATIONS -BUILDING B UNITS 3 &4 CIVIL C-1 COVER SHEET C-2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C-3 SECTIONS AND DETAILS LANDSCAPE L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 TREE SURVEY PLAN CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN WATER CONSERVATION PLAN LANDSCAPE WATER USE EXHIBIT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY APPROVALS APPROVED THIS IS THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP/SITE PLAN FOR PROJECT NO. ___ PER CONDITION NO. ___ OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO __ _ PLANNING DMSION DATE ENGINEERING DMSION DATE VICINITY MAP c/'"' \ ' Q Pac7,,~<~,6,ao ✓--SITE q>,,,,,·,ec0<,J., N (9 ./ PUD 2020-0001 SDP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITEC:T5, INC. 2888 L□KER AVE. EAST, STE 2ZD CARLSBAD, CA 9207 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 76□-814-81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. en w :E 0 J: .... en <C 0 u <( ~ ~ (.J (.J u -0 C 0 ...J <( ..J :!\\: m w u, :E :I: ...J w 0 ct:: <( J: N cw, (.J Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A0.1 Revisions: ,1-_ PLANNING SU BM ITT AL 12-21-20 &PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: TITLE SHEET Sheet Number. A0.1 , NEIGHBOR DRIVEWAY , EXISTING MUL Tl-FAMILY 6 s I "' ~ ~ Cl! C ;= CJ z -" -~ EXISTING 2 STORY BUILDING I[ s: ....--··· . :, ( " ',i>Rlfj?~ARD ~ a so:FT. z " EXISTING 2 STORY BUILDING ... j\.L ... I ~ ctj _, ~ "' >--o:' "'"'" EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY , "' I~ -~ I/,,,..-_r \ 'i -~ '" I~ ~ 11 I / ~ s rJ~ &-s ~ s s s "ii "ii~ s ~ ~-~--~s--=== ..-s==~s--==-<se-===~s.-==~"tl ==~s.-. 1111 ,,,.ll~ I iJI ;11 HEMLOCKAVENUE -~"'----1 ~;~ ~~~ I _o~ I ;;::--.~.,,~ =a: ::::h,~ ~i"i =a: c:: c:: .0:: ;;;i~~ ~~rii I w--w--w--w--:!I :• liiJ--~ 2 H:~LOCKilVE •!I :~ow :1 -i~ j ~--w--w--w--w--w--w--w-L __ !ill ________ "'-i; ___ \ ___ J -OE --OE --OE --OE --OE --OE --OE --OE --OE --OE --OE ~~OE --OE --OE --OE -=--0 O~E , " --OE --~ --OE --OE --OE --OE --OE --OE --OE --~ SITE PLAN 0 5' 10' 20' ! " SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" N NEIGHBOR DRIVEWAY . ---APPROVED THIS IS THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP/SITE PLAN FOR PROJECT NO, ___ PER CONDITION NO. ___ OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO __ _ PLANNING DIVISION DATE ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2B8B LOK.ER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 9201□ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 76□-814-B 1 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS. INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. u, w ~ 0 :::c: t-u, <C 0 0 <( ~ ::.::: 0 0 0 .. 0 C 0 ...J <( ..J :E m w en ~ :::c: ...J w 0 ~ <( :::c: N M 0 Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A1.1 Revisions: Lt,PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 &-,PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: SITE PLAN Sheet Number: A1.1 ., ·' .,. 9 " ~ 3'-11" 3'-11" r----1 i --I I lw I I e; I 1! I I~ I I~ I is I I ----[:] I----I-[:] -1----1----[] 1----~ I--- -co STAIR I------., "" 3'-10 1/2" i a CLOSET b -M ---, UP ~ I 7'-1 1112" 9 ,., -FOYER I ' 28'-9 112" 28'-91/2" 24'-10112" 23'-3112" 11'-11" 6'-0" 6'-11 1/2" 1'-11118" 16'-0" LINE OF SHED R OF ABO E 7 LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE ' I I I I I I I I I I I cc! ~ I --------.-------------,----------7 I I I I ,---71----, I ,---71----, I I I\ I I I\ I I I \ I I I I \ I I I I I I \ I I I I \ I I I I \ I I I \ I I I \ I I I I \ I I 2ofo· I I I \ I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ GARl)GE I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I : I / I I I I I I \ ~ I / I I I I iLJ lif111 I I I I I I I / I I I 3 ~~d~l~S I I I / \ I I / 2, 13~ SQ} FT. \ I I / \ I 1/ I I : Ii \1 L _______ ~ L _______ ~ I I ' I I 1 I I I I I I ' ' I LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE ------~--------------I I ' ' I I I I I 1-------7 I 1-------7 11 ,1 I\ / I I I I / I I I \ / I I I I I \ / I I I \ / I I \ / I I \ / I I I I \ I I I \ I I I I I I \ I I I I \ I I I I I I \ I 201-0" I I I I ' , I I ' ' I I I \ I I ~AR1GE \ I I I \ I I \ I i, I I I \ I I \ I iii I \ I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I w~ IT 2 I I I I I I I I I I 3 s:ri1 fRIES\ I I I I I I I : \ / 2,349 pQ. FT~,/ : L---~---~ L---~---~ I I L----------~----------. 12'-6112" \ I. 7'-11" 5'-4 318" □ ., 8 I I I 8 I I I □ I I I I 2'-81/2" '. I I CLOSET LJ LJ 5'-6" 3'-11" ------· --------------'f ----ss, ----STAIR -----"'-~" ~ b -M . UP 9 ,., -7'-9" FOYER 1'-7" ' ' I I I I z =i I I--_J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -7 I I I I I I I I I I I "-..___ l l'-s ?-~-,-~-----~-·-----, ~ ------. BONUS ROOM I ,J I Ll I I ...._ I I I I I □ □ I L_ LINE OF DECK ABOVE 2'-0" 1'-91/4" 5'-0" 1'-91/4" 1'-10" 8'-6 318" I -I I I I I I LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE T----------r--------I I ___ _J L ____ _l,IN OF SHED OOF ABOVE __ 1ST FLOOR= 179 SF 16'-0" 2'-5 114" 4'-9 1/2" 20'-3 118' 28'-9 112" I I __ _J 1 ST FLOOR = 387 SF 5'-0" BUILDING A -RESIDENCES 1 AND 2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN / BATHR~ -I I I (J Q I □ I I I I I I I L __ LINE OF DECK ABOVE _ _J 2'-0" 3'-5" 31 ' 5'-0" 1'-91/4" 21'-2 112· 7'-7" 28'-9112" 0 r• 2' 4' 8' " SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" N ., ·' .,. 9 " PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·B 14·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE Date: u, w :E 0 :::c: t-u, ARCHITECT. <C 0 u ~ ~ ~ u O -og~ ...J ~ m -=::: w Cl) -=== :::c ..J W O 0::: :::c: ~ ~ 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A2.1A Revisions: Lr-.PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 &PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING A FIRST FLOOR PLAN Sheet Number: A2.1A 28'-9 112" 28'-91/2" 4'-r 11·-r 13'-13/4" 13'-1 3/4" 11'-7" 4'-1" 1'-0" 4'-r 2'-10 114" 2'-0" 1'-10 1/2" 2'-0" 2'-101/4" 2'-31/2" 2'-0" 4'-5" 2'-0" 2'-5 1/4" 2'-5 1W 2'-0" 4'-5" 2'-0" 2'-31/2" 2'-101/4" 2'-0" 1'-101/2" 2'-0" 2'-10114" 4'-1" 1'-0" I ---LINE OF SHED R OF ABOVE I I D I I I I I I I D I I I 0 -., i ---4'-1" CLOSET );-s" F-;-5'-9" -6'-8112" J,•.5• POWDER~ \ ~CLOSET --~7 . lw ~ - I / -~__/ POWDER -I\ I\ wl I 6 I 61 ' .. 'C ...J' I$! [)< X $! I ~ (\ (\ ~ I i5 ~ 8 a i5 I I~ D w Q Q w D ~I I~ ~I ' I~ .. ~I l'ii ~ MIC. I I 000 I I 000 I I MIC. I 'ii I I I I I I I::, PANTRY ~I I I I I I PANTRY =i I NOE-R-1-- - -_J L_ ____ 7 ,-------' L - - ---, UIIDERcj I 0 0 0 0 I I L , -" L " L _J -I I --i-------I I -----9 I I -~--t------" KITCHEN I I KITCHEN t------I I I------I I --~-r--_ -i GG GG --1------!o I I I -----v -·' I D~V DIW -~ 1------I I I -------I • BAR -'--<? 000 000 BAR ----I I -------" ~ --w I I "' --' I I -----UP UP 4'-6" 8'-0 318" 9'-0" 4'-0" 2'-0" , • , -~ I I ~ ~ I I ~ -~ ,= =a n n \ . ~ --· [[ -]] 111 Ill DINING DINING G g -'== = D D I I ~ ,---------J I DECK 9 ~ I DECK 124 S.F. "' I I I I I 124 S.F. I □ -_____ _J □ 15'-7112" I I 15'-7112" 2ND FLOOR= 94~-~ __ _ _ 2ND jOOR = 942 S.F. LINE OF SHED OOFABO E ------------" 1'-0" 1'-0" 3'-8 314" 6'-0" 3'-8 314" 1 '-5" 2'-0" 7'-9" 2'-0" 2'-2" 2'-2" 2'-0" 7'-9" 2'-0" 1 '-5" 3'-8 314" 6'-0" 3'-8 314" 1'-0" 1'-0" 13'-5112" 15'-4" 15'-4" 13'-5112" 28'-9 112" 28'-9 112" BUILDING A -RESIDENCES 1 AND 2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 0 r• 2' 4' 8' " SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" N 0 -., I:; "" -·' ':-~ M 0, '>! 2' 9 ., !o -· N '.-1' -~ ~ ~ b ·' N PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·B 14·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. u, w :E 0 :::c: t-u, <C 0 u <C ~ ~ 0 u 0 -0 C 0 ...J <C ...J ~ m w en :E :::c ...J w 0 ~ <C N :::c: M 0 Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: K1..2A Revisions: Lr-.PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 &PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING A SECOND FLR. PLAN Sheet Number: A2.2A 28'-9 112" " 4'-r 11·-r 13'-13/4" ,. 1'-0" 4'-r 2'-10 1/4" 2'-0" 1'-10 1/2' 2'-0" 2'-101/4" 4'-9 3/4" 5'-0" 3'-3 3/4' ,, ,, ,, ,----f-LINE OF SHED 5' I -I I D I I I :r • ~ i ---~ I ,,, I ':l ~ I :l: "! ~ l><I 18 --BEDROOM2 ~ ~ I~ b '-'! DN -~ I~ 0 -I~ 1/L "' -MASTER q I~ CLOSET :r '" I :::a 4'-r ~ 8'-111/2" 3'-11" 11'-5" ' ~ ~ , / ~~ ----;! -1------I ~ CLOSET I\) \ I------STAIR ,_ I-------~ ~ -~ □ 1------\ J ':, ----"? BATHROOM 1 -/ !c, -----_, N -----~ I r, -28'-91/2" " 13'-1 3/4" 11'-7" ,. 3'-3 314' 5'-0" 4'-9 314' 2'-101/4" 2'-0" 1'-101/2" 2'-0" ,, " ,, ROOF BELOW-----7 I I I I D --BEDROOM 2 l><I -~ MASTER CLOSET -( \ -CLOSET \ J • -.J ,r-----. \_ r BATHROOM2 I 4'-1" , 2'-101/4" 4'-1" 1'-0" , I I --~7 "' I ':l I :l: I ~ 81 ~I DN ~I ~I -~I :::a I ' --~-----------STAIR -----------□ ---------------5' -:r --~ -"! ~ '-'! 0 --"' 9 '" -~ -. ~ ':, !c, _, N -PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·B 14·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE u, w ARCHITECT. t ~ (\ I(\ Q Q Q G) -(0 "' ~ 1-----------~ _, ~ M 0 MA HER MASTER 0 b BATf ROOM '1' ___ 717 ~ r,----------------------;, II , / ii I 6'-Q" I r.;, ,__ ~ LIN. ' I LIN. ,__ I /' I I CLO~ !\SET I \ G) LL - - -_'>.J_J I I I I ::::i ~ ,, I I I I ~ ) I I I I ~ -~ • . , / ~ l.-/ ~ 6'-0" ~ / -r.;, . ~ '" MASTER ~ _j _, DECK -~ BEDROOM ~ -BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 1 87 S.F. b 1/l--_, ~ 12'-11112" 11'-5" • q -a-I I I I I I ~ I I 3RD FLOOR= 1020 S.F L ____ LINE OF SHED ROOF BELOW ____ _J f-----I------1'-0" 1'-0" 4'-0" 3'-41/2" 5'-0" 3'-3 1/2" 4'-9 3/4" 5'-0" 3'-3 3/4" 3'-3 314' 5'-0" ,, ,, ,, . 15'-8" 13'-13/4" 13'-1 314" 28'-9 112" , , BUILDING A -RESIDENCES 1 AND 2 THIRD FLOOR PLAN '1' ___ 717 BATHROOM 11 ,/ i' I /' I LL ---_'>.J_J (D ( ~-LI I • ~ --MASTER ~ ~ -BEDROOM ~ ~ • I I I BR□ FLOOR= 1,020 S.F. 4'-9 314' 3'-3 1/2' 5'-0" 3'-41/2" ,, 15'-8" 28'-9 112" 0 2' 4' r• SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" r.;, ,__ --6'-0" ~ DECK . 87 S.F. b _, ~ . b ·' --I ~ -4'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 8' " N b -~ _, ~ -0 :::c: t-u, <C 0 u ~ ~ ~ u O -og~ ...J ~ m -=::: w Cl) -=== :::c ..J W O 0::: :::c: ~ ~ Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A2.3A Revisions: Lr-.PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 &PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING A THIRD FLR. PLAN Sheet Number: A2.3A LINE OF BUILDING BELOW ------7_ '.'i' -i --I 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 3:12 ~1 I I RIDGE 1•.5• I ~1 ~1 ~1 ~ RIDGE RIDGE 1'-0" ~1 ~1 ~1 RIDGE ---------7 r---------7 r---------7 ~1 [8J L --SOLAR ZONE SOLAR ZONE SOLAR ZONE I PER CAP PER CAP PER CAP REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS I I 3:12 3:12 DECK I BELOW I I L _________ _J L _________ _J L _________ _J I 3:12 3:12 3:12 L ___ --- -_ _J ~ --.... LINE OF BUILDING BELOW BUILDING A -RESIDENCES 1 AND 2 ROOF PLAN 5' --_J 7 3:12 3:12 I I I I 1'-6" 1~ RIDGE ~ 1~ 1'-0" N -a; r---------RIDGE [8J ~ a; --_J SOLAR ZONE I PER CAP REQUIREMENTS I 3:12 3:12 I I DECK I BELOW L _________ _J I 3:12 I --_J 7_ ----5' 0 r• 2' 4' 8' " SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" N PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·B 14·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. u, w :E 0 :::c: t-u, <C 0 u <C ~ ~ 0 0 u -0 C 0 ...J <C ...J ~ m w en :E :::c ...J w 0 ~ <C :::c: N M 0 Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A2.4A Revisions: Lr-. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 ,&. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING A ROOF PLAN Sheet Number: A2.4A GENERAL NOTES 1. T.0.P. = TOP OF PARAPET ELEVATION. 2. F.F.E. = FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. 3. ALL NOTES ARE TYPICAL. 4. ALL PAINT COLOR CHANGES TO OCCUR AT INSIDE CORNERS U.N.O. 5. ALL PAINT FINISHES ARE TO BE FLAT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6. ALL ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREENED BY BUILDING PARAPET. PAINT HATCH LEGEND □ MAIN BODY PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE 0 BUILDING A . [] LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATON DECORATIVE SIDING 0 [] LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATON DECORATIVE SIDING® COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE 0 LIGHT COLOR SAND FINISH STUCCO 20130 -SW7551 GREEK VILLA 0 MEDIUM PAINTED ACCENT DECORATIVE BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING -SW7015 REPOSE GRAY © WHITE PAINTED ACCENTS (TRIM, BALCONY FASCIA, 2" WINDOW TRIM PROJECTIONS, ETC.) -SW7551 GREEKVILLA ® LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATTEN DECORATIVE SIDING -SW7551 GREEK VILLA © DARK COMPOSITE ACCENT GUARDRAIL -SW7069 IRON ORE 0 CHARCOAL PAINTED FRONT DOORS © CLEAR RESIDENTIAL GLAZING WITH BLACK TRIM ® DARK GRAY COMPOSITE ASPHALT SHINGLES 0 DARK GRAY PRE-FINISHED STANDING SEAIM METAL SHED ROOF ACCENT @ DECORATIVE WHITE PAINTED WOOD FEATURE (KNEE BRACES, COLUMNS, ETC.) -SW7551 GREEK VILLA © DECORATIVE GARAGE DOOR -SW7069 IRON ORE ® DARK ACCENT ROOF FASCIA -SW7069 IRON ORE KEYNOTES <D DECORATIVE EXTERIOR BLACK WALL SCONCE LOCATION. @ BUILDING ADDRESS (BLACK) LOCATION PER CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS BUILDING HEIGHT ESTABLISH BUILDING HEIGHT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BASED ON THE NEW PAD ELEVATION ESTABLISHED FOR THE CARLSBAD MUICIPLE CODE SECTION 21.04.065 ITEM #2. E H G C B A L K A C J I 3 I I 2 0 I\ ' I BUILDING A SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING A WEST ELEVATION C 12 ""=3 M B C I \I ' 11 I 2 --00 I r-----0 I 0 ...--0 ...----I -O> N 2 c.o I -2 O> FINISH FLOOR FINISH GRADE 0 2' 4' 8' L■ SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" --00 I -r---0 0 I ...----0 I O> ...----N --c.o I -O> FINISH FLOOR 0 2' 4' 8' L■ SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·B 14·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. u, w :E 0 :::c: t-u, <C 0 u <C ~ ~ 0 0 u -0 C 0 ...J <C ...J ~ m w en :E :::c ...J w 0 ~ <C :::c: N M 0 Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A3.1A Revisions: Lr-. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 ,&. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING ELEVATIONS Sheet Number: A3.1A GENERAL NOTES 1. T.0.P. • TOP OF PARAPET ELEVATION. 2. F.F.E. • FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. 3. ALL NOTES ARE TYPICAL. 4. ALL PAINT COLOR CHANGES TO OCCUR AT INSIDE CORNERS U.N.O. 5. ALL PAINT FINISHES ARE TO BE FLAT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6. ALL ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREENED BY BUILDING PARAPET. PAINT HATCH LEGEND □ MAIN BODY PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE 0 BUILDING A IT] LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATON DECORATIVE SIDING© IT] LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATON DECORATIVE SIDING® COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE 0 LIGHT COLOR SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 -SW7551 GREEK VILLA © MEDIUM PAINTED ACCENT DECORATIVE BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING -SW7015 REPOSE GRAY © WHITE PAINTED ACCENTS (TRIM, BALCONY FASCIA, 2" WINDOW TRIM PROJECTIONS, ETC.) -SW7551 GREEK VILLA ® LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATTEN DECORATIVE SIDING -SW7551 GREEK VILLA © DARK COMPOSITE ACCENT GUARDRAIL -SW7069 IRON ORE 0 CHARCOAL PAINTED FRONT DOORS © CLEAR RESIDENTIAL GLAZING WITH BLACK TRIM 0 DARK GRAY COMPOSITE ASPHALT SHINGLES 0 DARK GRAY PRE-FINISHED STANDING SEAM METAL SHED ROOF ACCENT 0 DECORATIVE WHITE PAINTED WOOD FEATURE (KNEE BRACES, COLUMNS, ETC.) -SW7551 GREEK VILLA © DECORATIVE GARAGE DOOR -SW7069 IRON ORE ® DARK ACCENT ROOF FASCIA -SW7069 IRON ORE KEYNOTES (D DECORATIVE EXTERIOR BLACK WALL SCONCE LOCATION. @ BUILDING ADDRESS (BLACK) LOCATION PER CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS BUILDING HEIGHT ESTABLISH BUILDING HEIGHT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BASED ON THE NEW PAD ELEVATION ESTABLISHED FOR THE CARLSBAD MUICIPLE CODE SECTION 21.04.065 ITEM #2. H M G C D L A C J BUILDING A NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING A EAST ELEVATION C K A 12 --=a 3 --CX) I r-----0 0 I ..--I 0 -O> ..-N co _, O> FINISH FLOOR 0 2' 4' B' r• SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" --CX) I -r---0 0 I ..-0 I O> ..-N --co I -O> FINISH FLOOR FINISH GRADE 0 2' 4' 8' r• SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·B 14·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. u, w :E 0 :::c: t-u, <C 0 u <C ~ ~ 0 0 u -0 C 0 ...J <C ...J ~ m w en :E :::c ...J w 0 ~ <C :::c: N M 0 Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A3.2A Revisions: Lr-. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 ,&. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING ELEVATIONS Sheet Number: A3.2A 29'-3" 2'-1" 4'-10" 3'-0" 21'-5" ,-LINE O SHED ROOF BOVE 7 I LINE OF BALCONY ABOVE 7 i ~ Cl w :c "' ~ 0 w z :::, r----.------, I I I I I I I CLOSET I-----I-----i-------i-------3'-11" UP -' ' ~I I ENTRY L------------L ______________ _ 10'-4" I I I I I I i M LLWORK GJ [J [J ! T R G ~.,_.,__. □ 9 C, N " I I I I I I ' I I 1ST FLOOR= 179 S.F. LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE LINE OF SHED ROOF ABOVE 21'-0 1/4' ' ' □ 29'-3" 21'-5" 3'-0" 4'-10" 2'-1" I LINE OF BALCONY ABOVE 7 I I ,------LINE FSHEDROO ABOVE----I 5' -N I I .. I I I I I MILLWO K I I I I ' I I 1ST FLOOR= 179 S.F. ' □ 6r-----------LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE _____ _ ,:. LINE OF SHED ROOF ABOVE --------------------------21'-01/4" ' ' 4'-4" ENTRY ----------~ ·--, -~-....... -~---' I I CLOSET --------------------3'-11" UP / -I I I I I I I i ~ Cl w :c "' ~ 0 w z :::, ------------~-~---~~-~ _______________ _J 10'-4" BUILDING B -RESIDENCES 3 AND 4 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0 r• 2' 4' 8' " SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" N PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·B 14·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE Date: u, w :E 0 :::c: t-u, ARCHITECT. <C 0 u ~ ~ ~ u O -og~ ...J ~ m -=::: w Cl) -=== :::c ..J W O 0::: :::c: ~ ~ 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A2.1B Revisions: Lr-.PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 &PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING B FIRST FLOOR PLAN Sheet Number: A2.1B 31'-4~ 31'-4" " 14'-4" 4'-0" 13'-0" 13'-0" 4'-0" 14'-4" " 3•.5• 2•-on 3'-9" 2'-0" 3'-2" 1'-o· 2'-0" 1•-on 4'-0" 6'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0n 6'-0" 4•.on 1'-0" 2'-0" 1'-o· 3'-2" 2'-0" 3'-9" 2'-0" 3'-5" ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. 'I 'I 'I 'I ,, ~ 'I 1 'I 'I I Q I I I I ~ I ~ I I I I ~ ~ DECK I DECK ~ , -, 50S.F. 50S.F. " I I b I ·' I N I I I I DN D,. I -I 22'-3" I -I I I I I I I 1--. ~---,1 I -~ ~ -I :d-LIVING LIVING - I n ------~'-.., E =ru __ -,i,,....:;:::--,,.:r--...r--. c..-~ --111 Ill _, \ -------I ,_ ~ ~ '" V -,_ ' -~ ~ --' ' ' -DINING :g :g DINING --' I E =ru 111 Ill ---I I -~ ~ --I I 2'-4" ~p 3'-10" ~ 4'-1" 2'•5n 3'-11" 5•.gn 5'-9" 3'-11" 2'-5" 4'-1n s:l'.11" 3'-10" u~ 2•-4• I I I ' -i-I I X ~ I I F-;-B B F-;-I I ,., ,., I PANTIU'... ---EANTRY -----r----7 ,---------, "---'I< . I I < G;J G;J ) I ' I c~ (cl ', I ' I I I I I I ~ I ~ ~F J -I -I ~ I -I oo I re;, re;, " I oo "' "' 0 I -~ _.L__ _ _j_ -I 0 !<--------,-§ §_) ___ ------= ~ I I oo I LINEN WASH H LINEN I oo REF I KITCHEN ~ I ~ KITCHEN 7 I I r I I I I I I ~ ~ I I I I I I I ' (D G) ' I l-------------1-1)~ 111 ° II O 11 PO ~DER POWDER ~I fllW_t _____________ J r------b-f---------_J L-------b----------, I ~ ·' I --N I ...J o 11 11 I I c' I I I .I 9 I I I ;t 2ND FLOOR= 826 S.F. N 2ND FLOOR= 826 S.F. ,, L __LJNE 0£. HED RO( FABOVE _ _J L _!INEO£. HED RO( F ABOVE _ _J -~ ---~--8'-9" 4'-0" 11'-8" 2'-0~ 4'-11" 4'-11" 2'-0" 11 '-8~ 4'-0" 8'-9" 31'-4" 31'-4" BUILDING B -RESIDENCES 3 AND 4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 0 r• 2' 4' 8' " SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" N '.'i' ~ "'" -i-" ~ -~ -~ 9 6 ,., ~ ~ 't ,., -' PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 L□KER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·814·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. u, w :E 0 :::c: t-u, <C 0 u <C ~ ~ 0 0 u -0 C 0 ...J <C ...J ~ m w en :E :::c ...J w 0 ~ <C :::c: N M 0 Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A2.2B Revisions: Lr-.PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 &PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING B SECOND FLR PLAN Sheet Number: A2.2B 31'-4" 31'-4" " 14'-4" 7'-0" 8'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" ,, " , 3•.5• 2•-on 3'-9" 2'-0" 3'-2" 1·-0· 2'-0" 5'-0" 6'-0" 3'-0" 3'-Qn 6'-0" 5'-0" 2'-0" 1'-0" ,. ,, ,. ,, ,, ,, ,. ,, ·1 ·1 ·1 ·1 ', -, 5' I I I I I I ~ BALC. BALC. ~ -16 S.F. 16S.F. ~ " ' J ' a-2'-5 ' 3'-6" 10'-1" 3'-1. 10'-5" -10'-5" '-5" 3'-1" " ~ DN ----., ., --";---r-;-,.__ ,.__ ~ C CL CL 0 I a BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 1 I --~ I MASTER I --I I I ~OSET I "' I "' I _, 1/4-~ _, I ~ ~ ~ I I .__ ____ I I \ r .,. I I ,.__ ~ -----I I □ □ -----~ ----' ., ., I------G) :r __, ~ -. ~ ~v-~ ~ ·,,----,-~~-~ - -£::! (8 \ I \ I ,/ G) ~ ~ ~ ( r-----~ MASTER G) ! t lATH 2 BATHROOM (8 I-"\ G) ' ( ) I \ I i ( ) ,__ --' ~ ~ __,~ ~ ~ '" --717 I ,.-~ ;i ~ O'f!" 7'-1" 7'-1" 5\, ,. Ir<:", -,711 I~ / ii ~ ,. / " , ~ " I '.9-= I 11,.,_· ' I --I 7 ''-..J I --L" ---..J_J ., ., JL_ ~ "J I'J -T1-......., I~ n/ .--\ I BALC. I/ ~ ~ 16 S.F. 14'-2" 3'-11" '--....__ --__/ 3'-11" ,. BEDROOM 2 --BEDROOM2 MASTER CL CL BEDROOM ~ ~ ~ ~ "' --"' ~ i □ □ i -= ,., l!'-o" I I C? _, M °' ,, 1 ' ' ' q ~ --, I I l!!J I I I I a-I I I I -3RD FLOOR-994 S.F. L _!INE £..SHED ROOF BELOW _J L IN!_ 0£.. SHED ROOF~ OW _ _J 1·-0· 1·-r 2'-0" 7'-5" 9'-1" 5'-0" 2'-11" 2'-11" 5'-0" 14'-4" 17'-0" 17'-0" 31'-4" 31'-4" BUILDING B -RESIDENCES 3 AND 4 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 14'-4" 3'-2" 2'-0" 3'-9" ,. ,, ,, ·1 1 ·1 I I I I 10'-1" DN " " I I I MASTER I I I CLO/ I I I I J I -(D ® MASTER BATHROOM ' ' 14'-2" MASTER BEDROOM Ir I I ~ I -3RD FLOOR -994 S.F. 1'-4" 2'-0" 7'-5" 14'-4" 0 2' 4' 8' r• SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2'-0" 3'-5" ,. ·1 I I 5' -~ a-3'-6" -~ -~ 0 ;;;: ----------~ ----------:r -v-~ - - -\ ~ .._ ,__ ~ ~ = BALC. 16S.F. ~ -= 1'-0l ~ " I r-9 a-2'-0" 1·-r 1'-0" " N £::! -,:_ ~ 6 M ~ ~ <? °' ' ' PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·B 14·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE u, w :E 0 :::c: t-u, ARCHITECT. <C 0 u ~ ~ ~ u O -og~ ...J ~ m -=::: w Cl) -=== :::c ...J W O 0::: :::c: ~ ~ Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A2.3B Revisions: Lr-.PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 &PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING B THIRD FLR PLAN Sheet Number: A2.3B i I I I I I I 1 •.5• I RIDGE 3:12 3:12 3:12 w "' D °' 3:12 ,-----------, SOLAR ZONE PER CAP REQUIREMENTS '------------' 7 RIDGE 3:12 3:12 ,-----------, SOLAR ZONE PER CAP REQUIREMENTS '------------' w "' D °' BALCONY BELOW 3:12 3:12 LINE OF BUILDING BELOW RIDGE BUILDING B -RESIDENCES 3 AND 4 ROOF PLAN BALCONY BELOW 3:12 3:12 w "' D °' 3:12 SOLAR ZONE PER CAP REQUIREMENTS '------------' LINE OF BUILDING BELOW ,---0 r• 3:12 3:12 ,-------SOLAR ZONE PER CAP REQUIREMENTS '------------' 2' 4' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" w "' D °' 3:12 3:12 8' RIDGE " N 7 I I I I I I I 1'-6" 1'-0" PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·B 14·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. u, w :E 0 :::c: t-u, <C 0 u <C ~ ~ 0 0 u -0 C 0 ...J <C ...J ~ m w en :E :::c ...J w 0 ~ <C :::c: N M 0 Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A2.4B Revisions: Lr-. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 ,&. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING B ROOF PLAN Sheet Number: A2.4B E G B C H M A K J C C L J A 2 GENERAL NOTES 1. T.O.P. = TOP OF PARAPET ELEVATION. 2. F.F.E. = FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. 3. ALL NOTES ARE TYPICAL. 4. ALL PAINT COLOR CHANGES TO OCCUR AT INSIDE CORNERS U.N.O. 5. ALL PAINT FINISHES ARE TO BE FLAT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6. ALL ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREENED BY BUILDING PARAPET. PAINT HATCH LEGEND □ MAIN BODY PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE 0 BUILDING A . []] LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATON DECORATIVE SIDING 0 []] LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATON DECORATIVE SIDING 0 COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE 0 LIGHT COLOR SAND FINISH STUCCO 20130 -SW7551 GREEK VILLA 0 MEDIUM PAINTED ACCENT DECORATIVE BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING -SW7015 REPOSE GRAY © WHITE PAINTED ACCENTS (TRIM, BALCONY FASCIA, 2" WINDOW TRIM PROJECTIONS, ETC.) -SW7551 GREEK VILLA 0 LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATTEN DECORATIVE SIDING -SW7551 GREEK VILLA I I 3 rn ' ffl 11 2 2 © DARK COMPOSITE ACCENT GUARDRAIL -SW7069 IRON ORE 0 CHARCOAL PAINTED FRONT DOORS © CLEAR RESIDENTIAL GLAZING WITH BLACK TRIM 4 6 I\ ' I 0 DARK GRAY COMPOSITE ASPHALT SHINGLES CD DARK GRAY PRE-FINISHED STAINDING SEAIM METAL SHED ROOF ACCENT ® DECORATIVE WHITE PAINTED WOOD FEATURE (KNEE BRACES, COLUMNS, ETC.) -SW7551 GREEK VILLA CD DECORATIVE GARAGE DOOR -SW7069 IRON ORE ® DARK ACCENT ROOF FASCIA -SW7069 IRON ORE KEYNOTES (D DECORATIVE EXTERIOR BLACK WALL SCONCE LOCATION. (D BUILDING ADDRESS (BLACK) LOCATION PER CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS BUILDING B SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING HEIGHT ESTABLISH BUILDING HEIGHT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BASED ON THE NEW PAD ELEVATION ESTABLISHED FOR THE CARLSBAD MUICIPLE CODE SECTION 21.04.065 ITEM #2. BUILDING B WEST ELEVATION K -(0 I -r----0 0 I I -0 0 ,..... C") \ ' -(0 I -0) ' ii I FINISH FLOOR FINISH GRADE 0 2' 4' 8' r• SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" --(0 I r----0 0 I I -0 0 ,..... C") ffl (0 I -0) FINISH FLOOR 0 2' 4' 8' r• SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·B 14·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. u, w :E 0 :::c: t-u, <C 0 u <C ~ ~ 0 0 u -0 C 0 ...J <C ...J ~ m w en :E :::c ...J w 0 ~ <C :::c: N M 0 Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A3.1B Revisions: Lr-. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 ,&. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING ELEVATIONS Sheet Number: A3.1B GENERAL NOTES 1. T.O.P. • TOP OF PARAPET ELEVATION. 2. F.F.E. • FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. 3. ALL NOTES ARE TYPICAL. 4. ALL PAINT COLOR CHANGES TO OCCUR AT INSIDE CORNERS U.N.O. 5. ALL PAINT FINISHES ARE TO BE FLAT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6. ALL ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREENED BY BUILDING PARAPET. PAINT HATCH LEGEND □ MAIN BODY PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE 0 BUILDING A IT] LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATON DECORATIVE SIDING 0 IT] LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATON DECORATIVE SIDING 0 COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE 0 LIGHT COLOR SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 -SW7551 GREEK VILLA 0 MEDIUM PAINTED ACCENT DECORATIVE BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING -SW7015 REPOSE GRAY © WHITE PAINTED ACCENTS (TRIM, BALCONY FASCIA, 2" WINDOW TRIM PROJECTIONS, ETC.) -SW7551 GREEK VILLA 0 LIGHT PAINTED BOARD AND BATTEN DECORATIVE SIDING -SW7551 GREEK VILLA © DARK COMPOSITE ACCENT GUARDRAIL -SW7069 IRON ORE 0 CHARCOAL PAINTED FRONT DOORS © CLEAR RESIDENTIAL GLAZING WITH BLACK TRIM 0 DARK GRAY COMPOSITE ASPHALT SHINGLES 0 DARK GRAY PRE-FINISHED STANDING SEAM METAL SHED ROOF ACCENT © DECORATIVE WHITE PAINTED WOOD FEATURE (KNEE BRACES, COLUMNS, ETC.) -SW7551 GREEK VILLA CD DECORATIVE GARAGE DOOR -SW7069 IRON ORE ® DARK ACCENT ROOF FASCIA -SW7069 IRON ORE KEYNOTES (D DECORATIVE EXTERIOR BLACK WALL SCONCE LOCATION. (D BUILDING ADDRESS (BLACK) LOCATION PER CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS BUILDING HEIGHT ESTABLISH BUILDING HEIGHT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BASED ON THE NEW PAD ELEVATION ESTABLISHED FOR THE CARLSBAD MUICIPLE CODE SECTION 21.04.065 ITEM #2. E G C K H ffl BUILDING B NORTH ELEVATION M C E E 12 :'."':::J3 ffl A C 2'-1 II -co I -r---0 0 I I 0 0 ..-M -co I -0) FINISH FLOOR 0 2' 4' 8' •• SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" --co I r----0 0 I I -0 0 ..-M co I -0) FINISH FLOOR ___________ ....,...., __ ..._ _______ .._ _______________________ ....,_:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,_:"'"":::::'.'.::'.:::~~:_-~J.F~INISH GRADE BUILDING B EAST ELEVATION 0 2' 4' 8' •• SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PUD 2020-0001 SOP 2020-0004 CDP 2020-0042 MS 2020-0003 KIRK M□ELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 22□ CARLSBAD, CA 92□1 □ KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.C□M 7Ei□·B 14·81 28 ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. u, w :E 0 :::c: t-u, <C 0 u <C ~ ~ 0 0 u -0 C 0 ...J <C ...J ~ m w en :E :::c ...J w 0 ~ <C :::c: N M 0 Date: 9-15-20 Project: HEMLOCK COAST File: A3.2B Revisions: Lr-. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 12-21-20 ,&. PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1-15-21 Sheet Title: BUILDING ELEVATIONS Sheet Number: A3.2B PARCEL 1 PM 16596 POR LOT 3 BLOCK R PALISADES #2 MAP 1803 POR LOT 3 BLOCK R PALISADES #2 MAP 1803 POR LOT 2 BLOCK R PALISADES #2 MAP 1803 HEMLOCK AVENUEROWN 56°00'25" E 78.49'N 56°00'25" E78.49'N 34°01'00" W 105.00' N 34°01'00" W 105.00' APN: 204-240-56 APN: 204-240-39-00 SUBJECT PROPERTY GROSS = 8,241 SF (0.189 AC) APN: 204-240-40-00 POR LOT 2 BLOCK R PALISADES #2 MAP 1803 ROWROWCLCLROW 25' 25' 50' 25' 25' 50' APN: 204-240-32-00 SITE TAMA R A C K AVE IN TERS TA TE 5 CHEST N UT AVECO A S T HW Y 1 01 PLSA 3392-01 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TITLE SHEET FOR: 1 3 10 20 30 GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 10' 010 OWNER INFORMATION SUBDIVIDER INFORMATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION SITE ADDRESS TOPOGRAPHY BENCHMARK SITE ACREAGE EARTHWORK / PROJECT GRADING ACCESS ENGINEER OF WORK PREPARED BY JOHN NORUM FOR: KMJ REAL ESTATE 2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST, SUITE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010PH: (949) 678-4927 320 HEMLOCK AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 APN: 204-240-40-00 TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED BY FIELD SURVEY ON AUGUST 5, 2020 PREPARED BY: PASCO, LARET, SUITER & ASSOCIATES BRYAN KNAPP, PE #86542 DATE THE NORTHEASTERLY 78 1/2 FEET OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 105 FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK "R" OF PALISADES NO. 2 IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1803 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 25,1924 (MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTYRECORDER AS DOCUMENT NO. 2005-0034892, O.R. ) GROSS:8,241 SF (0.189 AC) NET DEVELOPABLE:8,241 SF (0.189 AC) EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA:2,760 SF (0.063 AC)PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (ONSITE): 4,760 SF (0.109 AC) INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA:2,000 SF DISTURBED AREA:8,241 SF (0.189 AC) CUT: 75 CY MAX CUT HEIGHT: 1.3 FT FILL: 15 CY MAX FILL HEIGHT: 1.0 FT EXPORT: 60 CY REMEDIAL: 850 CY VOLUME OF CUT (PER PRELIM GRADING PLAN): 75 CYVOLUME OF OTHER EXCAVATIONS: N/ATOTAL GRADED AREA: 8,241 SF (0.189 AC) 75 CY / 0.189 AC = 397 CY / ACRE *PROJECT DOES NOT PROPOSE TO GRADE, ERECT, OR CONSTRUCT INTO OR ON TOP OF A NATURAL OR MANUFACTURED SLOPE WHICH HAS A GRADIENT OF FIFTEEN PERCENT OR MORE, THEREFORE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PURSUANT TO C.M.C. 21.95.140(D)(2) DO NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT THESE QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND DETAILING HEMLOCK AVENUE, A PUBLIC ROAD PREPARED BY:PASCO, LARET, SUITER & ASSOCIATES535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 PH: (858) 259-8212 ELEVATIONS SHOW HEREON ARE BASED ON A FOUND 2-1/2 INCH DISK IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A VAULT ADJACENT TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHBOUND COAST HIGHWAY 101 BRIDGE OVERTHE AGUA HEDIONA LAGOON 0.1 MI SOUTH OF TAMARACK AVENUE, 38 FT EAST OF THE EDGE OFPAVEMENT BY A SINGLE PARKING SPACE FOR THE FACILITY, BASED ON POINT NUMBER 141, AS SHOWN ONCITY OF CARLSBAD CONTROL RECORD OF SURVEY 17271. ELEVATION = 26.52 DATUM = NGVD 29 STERLING A. EDWARDS AND MILDRED A. EDWARDS, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE EDWARDS FAMILY TRUST320 HEMLOCK AVENUECARLSBAD, CA 92008 GENERAL NOTES SHEET INDEX REFERENCED DRAWINGS VICINITY MAP SCALE: NTS DENSITY CALCULATIONS CONDOMINIUM NOTE MS 2020-0003 / CDP 2020-0042 / PUD 2020-0001 / SDP 2020-0004 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP HEMLOCK COAST HOMES - 320 HEMLOCK AVE LAND USE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NUMBER OF LOTS 1 LOT SEWER DISTRICT CITY OF CARLSBAD WASTEWATER DIVISION WATER DISTRICT CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SCHOOL DISTRICT CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTELECTRICSAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRICTELEPHONEAT&T CATV TIME WARNER CABLE DRAINAGE BASIN / HYDROLOGIC AREA AGUA HEDIONDA / LOS MONOS FIRE CITY OF CARLSBAD PROPOSED DENSITY 21.2 DU / AC (RESIDENTIAL) PROPOSED # OF UNITS 4.0 UNITS EXISTING ZONING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY - MULTIPLE (R-3)BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE (BAOZ) PROPOSED ZONING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY - MULTIPLE (R-3)BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE (BAOZ) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION R-23, RESIDENTIAL 15-23 DU/AC PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION R-23, RESIDENTIAL 15-23 DU/AC TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TITLE SHEET 1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 2 SECTIONS AND DETAILS 3 CR 14998 MAP 1803 PM 16596 PM 21185 PM 21364 THIS IS A MAP OF AN AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION PROJECT ASDEFINED IN SECTION 4125 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AND IS PURSUANT TO THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. THIS PROJECT IS COMPRISED OF A ONE LOT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION AND CONTAINS A MAXIMUM OF 4 AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL UNITS GROSS ACREAGE = 8,241 SF / 0.189 ACRES LESS BEACHES = 0 SF / 0 ACRESLESS PERMANENT BODIES OF WATER = 0 SF / 0 ACRESLESS FLOODWAYS = 0 SF / 0 ACRESLESS SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS = 0 SF / 0 ACRES LESS SIGNIFICANT WOODLAND HABITATS = 0 SF / 0 ACRES LESS LAND SUBJECT TO MAJOR POWER TRANSMISSION EASEMENTS = 0 SF / 0 ACRES LESS RAILROAD TRACK BEDS = 0 SF / 0 ACRES NET ACRES = 8,241 SF / 0.189 ACRES SLOPES AREA (SF / ACRES)DENSITY (DU)*DWELLING UNITS 0% - 25%8,241 SF / 0.189 ACRES 15-23 2.8 - 4.325% - 40%0 SF / 0 ACRES 15-23 0 40% +0 SF / 0 ACRES 15-23 0 *PER THE LAND USE ELEMENT - R-23: 15-23 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TOTAL = 2.8 - 4.3 DWG 473-3 DWG 139-3 DWG 223-4 PLAN VIEW - SITE LAYOUT SCALE: 1" = 10' HORIZONTAL HEMLOCK COAST HOMES320 HEMLOCK AVENUE J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3392 NORUM HEMLOCK\CIVIL\DRAWING\DISCRETIONARY PLANS\3392-CV-TMAP-01-TITLE.DWG LEGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARY CENTERLINE OF ROAD ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SETBACK LINE EXISTING CONTOUR LINE PROPOSED CONTOUR LINE PROPOSED FLOWLINE PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED 6" PCC CURB PER SDRSD G-2 PROPOSED SAWCUT OF EXISTING PAVEMENT PROPOSED STEM WALL PER SEPARATE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN PROPOSED PCC PAVEMENT PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVERS:COLOR AND FINISH PER SEPARATE PLAN PROPOSED TRENCH RESURFACING PER CITY OF CARLSBAD GS-26, GS-28 PROPOSED FENCE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING WATER MAIN (SIZE PER PLAN) EXISTING SEWER MAIN (SIZE PER PLAN) EXISTING GAS MAIN (SIZE PER PLAN) PROPOSED 1" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICEWITH FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM; 1" METER AND 1" BACKFLOW DEVICE PER CMWD W-3A, W-20 PROPOSED STANDARD SEWER MANHOLE PER CITY OF CARLSBAD S-1, S-4 PROPOSED 4" PVC SEWER LATERAL WITH CLEANOUT PER CITY OF CARLSBAD S-7 PROPOSED PCC DRIVEWAY APRON PER SDRSDG-14A (WIDTH PER PLAN) PROPOSED 6" PRIVATE PVC SEWER LATERAL PER CITY OF CARLSBAD S-5 X X W W S S G G W S S 64 64 S S X X GENERAL NOTES CONTINUED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATED 32 TRIPS (4 UNITS * 8 ADT / DU RESIDENTIAL) SEWER GENERATION FIGURE 1 EDU / DU TOTAL SEWER GENERATION 4 EDU POTABLE WATER FIGURE 250 GPD / DU (RESIDENTIAL - MIXED USE) TOTAL POTABLE WATER (250 GPU / DU X 4 DU) = 1,000 GPU PRE-DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGE (Q100)0.58 CFS (TOTAL FOR SITE)POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGE (Q100)0.78 CFS (TOTAL FOR SITE; UNMITIGATED) S S S -------- I ii I/ Ii ii it ii ii Ii I I i i I I I I i i I I I j j j j j j j j j j j j 0) ---0 /,t--1 ---------t,.I"' I I I I I I - - - - I I - - - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - I ....: ' ., , i-,... PASCO LAREY SUITER ~ #\,$$!0llCl#\,llE$ San Diego I Solana Beach I Orange County Phone 858.259.8212 I www.plsaengineering.com DA TE PREPARED: 09/07 /'JD21J I SHEET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP I ENGINEER OF WORK: I DWN BY: BE DATE: CHKD BY: BAK RCE: 88542 RVWD BY: TGI,, BRYAN KNAPP XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXOE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OEEG WOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS5757 5757 57575756 565655 5555 54ASPHALT CONC. CONC./BRICK LAWN CONC.X X X X X X X X X X X X XXSCREEN FENCE PLAY STRUCTURE SAND SAND PIT HOSE BIB XXXLAWN SAND EXISTING 1 STORY BUILDING 56.3 57.0 57.0 57.1 57.2 57.0 56.8 56.5 56.5 56.5 57.1 57.157.1 GFF 56.8 57.0 57.7 FF 56.9 56.5 56.6 56.2 55.6 55.9 56.6 56.456.4 56.5 57.1 56.957.2 57.2 57.1 57.1 57.456.8 56.3 56.1 56.7 56.2 55.3 56.4 56.9 54.555.7 54.9 55.7 55.9 55.6 54.09TC 54.40TC 53.93FL 54.96TC 54.50FL 54.78TC 54.67FL 55.06TC 54.96FL 55.59TC 55.11FL 55.91TC 55.42FL 55.93TC 55.45FL X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSSSSSSSSSS W W W W W W W W G G G G G G G G G G WWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SSS SS SSS SS WWWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LIMIT OF ROOF LINE ABOVE (TYP.) 25' 17' TO TC8' PKWY PARCEL 1 PM 16596 POR LOT 3 BLOCK R PALISADES #2 MAP 1803 POR LOT 3 BLOCK R PALISADES #2 MAP 1803 POR LOT 2 BLOCK R PALISADES #2 MAP 1803 HEMLOCK AVENUEPL 1.0% 57.1 FL 1.0% 2.0% 8.5%1.5% 2.0%N 56°00'25" E 78.49'N 56°00'25" E78.49'N 34°01'00" W 1 0 5 . 0 0 ' N 34°01'00" W 1 0 5 . 0 0 ' 56.0 FL 1.0% 54.9 FL 54.6 FS (55.9 FS) 56.85 FL UNIT 1 FF = 57.8 PAD = 57.1UNIT 3 FF = 57.8 PAD = 57.1 UNIT 4 FF = 57.8 PAD = 57.1 UNIT 2 FF = 57.8 PAD = 57.1GF = 57.1GF = 57.1GF = 57.1GF = 57.12.0%(3.2%)(54.0 FL) (54.7 FL) (54.5 FL)(0.2%)56.15 FL 56.5 FL 56.7 FL 57.0 FL 57.05 TC 57.05 FL 57.05 TC 57.05 FL 56.8 TC 56.8 FL (57.7 TW) 57.3 TW@FG (57.2 TW@EG) (57.2 BW@FG) (57.4 TW@FG) 57.3 BW@FG (57.1 BW@EG) (57.05 FG)(57.05 FG)1.4%1.4%(57.1 TW@EG) 57.1 TW@FG (56.8 BW)@FG (57.2 FG) 55.6 FS 56.1 FG (56.8 FG) (56.4 FG) (56.8 FG) 56.95 FS (57.1 FG) EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO BE REMOVED MATCH TO EXISTING PCC C&G; (55.6 TC); (55.1 FL) 9.7% 2.0% 57.8 FS (56.8 FG) EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED FENCE 56.0 FS 57.8 FS 56.4 FS (56.1 FG) (56.9 TW) (55.9 TW@FG) (55.1 BW@FG) (56.7 TW) (56.15 TW@FG) (56.8 BW@FG)(55.1 FG) (55.8 FS) 56.4 FL 4.8% 56.95 FS 56.25 TC 56.25 FL 5.7% 56.6 FS 56.8 FG 55.2 FS 56.4 FG 2.0%2.0% 57.8 FS 1.0% IN GARAGE 1.0% IN GARAGE 1.0% IN GARAGE DEEPENED FOOTING (TYP.) 4.0%2.0% 55.8 FS 9.0% 57.8 FS 1.0% IN GARAGE 1.0% IN GARAGE 1.0% INGARAGE 56.0 FS HIGH POINT IN FLOWLINE; (55.95 TC); (55.45 FL) VISITOR PARKING 55.2 FS 8.0% 7.5% 57.1 FS (56.8 TW) 56.8 TW@FG (56.3 TW@EG) (56.1 BW@FG) (56.8 TW) (56.7 TW@EG) 56.5 BW@FG (56.2 BW@EG) 56.7 TC 56.7 FL (57.1 FG) 8.5' 8.5'PROPOSED 6" PVC PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL @ 2.0% APPROX. LOCATION JOINT TRENCH FOR PRIVATE WATER SERVICE TO EACH UNIT 2 3 4 4 4 3 5 EXISTING 1-1/2" HP GAS MAIN PER DWG 473-3 EXISTING 8" VCP SEWER MAIN PER DWG 473-3 EXISTING 6" ACPWATER MAIN PER DWG 223-4 4 EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN A A B B PROP. SEWER MH (54.8 RIM) 47.3 IE IN NORTH (47.1 IE IN WEST) (47.0 IE OUT) 54.55 RIM 47.8 IE PROPOSED 12' WIDE PCC DRIVEWAY APRON PER SDRSD G-14A CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN REMOVE EXISTING WATER SERVICE 1.7' C C 56.8 RIM 50.0 IE5 56.1 RIM48.9 IE 5 49.85 IE@MAIN 51.05 IE@LAT 49.95 IE@MAIN 51.15 IE@LAT 49.5 IE@MAIN 50.6 IE@LAT DEEPENED FOOTING (TYP.) 56.4 FG 6.0% 2.0% 10' FYSB 15' 9" RYSB SSSS49.4 IE@MAIN 50.6 IE@LAT 12'DWY 24' DWY 3' 3' 1.0'1 1 REMOVE EXISTING SEWER LATERAL EXISTING 12" RCP STORM DRAIN PER DWG 139-7 EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES TO REMAINEXISTING GAS METER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING GAS SERVICE TO BE DISCONNECTED EXISTING PCC CURB & GUTTER TO REMAIN SAWCUT EXISTING AC PAVEMENT; SEE DETAIL SHEET 3 57.1 FG 57.3 FG 57.1 FG 56.2 FS PROPOSED STEM WALL (TYP.) 58.0 TSW 57.4 FG 8.0'SYSB 8.0' SYSBCROSSING PROPOSED 6" SEWER AND EXIST 12" STORM DRAIN 25.5' 7 8 8 5.5' 2.5' MATCH EX. SDWK; (54.45 FS) 57.1 FG 57.3 FG OHE TO EXISTING RESIDENCE TO BE REMOVED LA LA 57.05 FS 3 6.3' 9.6'LA 8 57.8 FS 57.4 FG 57.8 FS 57.8 FS LA TURF LA TURF LA PCC PATIO PCC PATIO 57.3 FS PROPOSED DG WALKWAY PER LANDSCAPE PLAN 6.0' 6.0'PROPOSED FENCE PER SEPARATE LS PLAN (TYP.) 150' CALTRANS STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE VIEW CORRIDOR 3.0'1.0% 2.0% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% (55.1 FL) EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN PROPOSED 14' WIDE PCC DRIVEWAY APRON PER SDRSD G-14A 6.0% 4.0% 56.8 FS 56.9 FS 4.5'SDWK 5.5' 20.3'11.5% 8.8% 55.75 FS 4.0% LIMIT OF ROOF LINE ABOVE (TYP.) END NEW PCC SIDEWALK; 56.2 FS 2.0% 1 2.0% 5.0% MIN(TYP.) 57.3 HP VISITOR PARKING (NO PARKING) BACKUP SPACE 5' MATCH TO EXISTING PCC C&G; (54.5 TC); (54.0 FL) PROPOSED TRANSFORMER 1.0% IN GARAGE 57.1 FS 57.8 FS 57.8 FS 57.4 FG 57.1 TC 57.1 FS 57.1 TC 57.1 FS 57.0 FS 1.8% 56.4 FS 55.8 FS 55.1 FS 2 33 COLUMN (TYP.) 9 9 9 6 HVAC HVACHVACLIMIT OF 2" AC GRIND AND OVERLAY (TYP.) LIMIT OF FULL-WIDTH 2" AC GRIND AND OVERLAY (TYP.) 2' 1 2' LA LA LA 5 10 15 GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 5' 05 HEMLOCK COAST HOMES320 HEMLOCK AVENUE CONSTRUCTION NOTES EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENT SHALL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. MONUMENT SHALL BE REPLACED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR WHO SHALL FILE A CORNER RECORD WITH THE COUNTY IF DISTURBED OR DESTROYED PROPOSED 3' WIDE PCC RIBBON GUTTER; SEE DETAILSHEET 3 1 2 PROPOSED 6" X 16" PCC FLUSH CURB PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVERS PER DETAIL SHEET 3; PAVERS TO VARY IN STYLE, COLOR AND FINISH - SEE SEPARATE LS PLAN FOR DETAILS PROPOSED 6" SEWER CLEANOUT WITH 12"CAST IRON LID PER CITY OF CARLSBAD S-7 4 5 ADDITIONAL NOTES 1. ALL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON PER BEST AVAILABLE RECORDINFORMATION. 2. ALL EXISTING ONSITE STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. ALL EXISTING ONSITE TREES TO BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PLSA 3392-01 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR: 2 3 3 J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3392 NORUM HEMLOCK\CIVIL\DRAWING\DISCRETIONARY PLANS\3392-CV-TMAP-02-PGP.DWG 4. ALL ONSITE WATER, SEWER, AND STORM DRAIN FACILITIES TO BEPRIVATELY MAINTAINED. 5. HARDSCAPE SHALL DRAIN AWAY FROM PROPOSED STRUCTURES AT A MINIMUM OF 2.0% FOR 10 FEET, AND LANDSCAPE FOR A MINIMUM OF 5.0% IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SECTION 1804.4. ANY DEVIATION SHALL REQUIRE RECOMMENDATION FROM PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE PER CITY OF CARLSBAD S-1, S-4 PROPOSED 6" PCC CURB & GUTTER PER SDRSD G-2 PROPOSED TRENCH RESURFACING OF ACPAVEMENT PER CITY OF CARLSBADSTANDARD GS-26, GS-28 7 6 SEE SHEET 1 FOR FULL LEGEND SEE SHEET 1 FOR FULL LEGEND 8 EASEMENT NOTES PROPOSED 2.0' WIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 1 PROPOSED 4" THICK PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-7 9 I --------.. I I I I X ,_,..____ l'------"'--D ---_____ ) - -+--+-- - - ------- I ■I :1 ■I ■I l ■I :1 l ■I ■I I d ! <7 -□ 17 ~ 1------=-·~ ... , ... ~ t 7 L ---------- - - - C7 - C7 - 0 0 0 0 0 \_ / I / ----. I ------ v , ' ____,q ~ ~ ----7 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I ---7 C7 _J ,--,r------L.~-==f-::------1 ·-- \ I I \ I I I I I I - I I I 1/- I"' r ·~ <)(_· :.. 1 --'"1,1 ' I · I 17 I I I ---------'~ -. ~ J I j"' LI .1· . . . \ .. I _j___ ---I_ - -____ ........... ,------":.....--.+-:+----,-zi--__ ~ I \ _/11 I V I I I I 1t+-·.·----1-,,4-----1--1 ~ - -, I I ..----l1 I\ ( ~ j / I y ~ - 0 0 0 0 \ - □ ' ' ' ,'\. I I PASCO LAREY SUITER ~ #\,$$!0llCl#\,llE$ San Diego I Solana Beach I Orange County Phone 858.259.8212 I www.plsaengineering.com 0 DA TE PREPARED: 09/07 /'JD21J I SHEET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP I ENGINEER OF WORK: I DWN BY: BE iiivi.,;;;:;;.,;;;------!1D~ATE:~· __ CHKD BY: BAK RCE: 8854 R\/WD • 2 BY: TGI,, 3.0' 1.5' 1.5'PROPOSED PERVIOUSPAVER DRIVE AISLE PERDETAIL THIS SHEET 0.1'FL + 0.1'FL PROPOSED 3' WIDE,5" THICK PCCRIBBON GUTTER VARIES VARIES SUBGRADE 5" DEEPEN RIBBON GUTTER TO EXTEND BENEATH GRAVEL SECTION; EMBED 6" INTO COMPACTED SOILS (TYP.)GUTTER LINESAWCUT LINE2.0' MIN 3.0' MIN 6" AB6" PCC CURB & GUTTER PER SDRSD G-2 COLD PLANE AND OVERLAY (2" MIN. DEPTH) TO PROVIDE SMOOTH TRANSITION STRUCTURAL SECTION 4" AC OVER 6" CLASS II AB OVER NATIVE SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 95% REL. COMP. EXISTING AC PAVEMENT EXTEND BASE 6" BEHIND CURB CL PL ROW 1.5%2.0% EXISTING AC PAVEMENTVARIES 2% TYP VARIES 2% TYP 34.0'8.0' 50.0' 8.0' HEMLOCK AVE ROWPROJECTSITE 17.0' TO TC 17.0' TO TC PROPOSED 6" PCCCURB AND GUTTERPER SDRSD G-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING 1-1/2" H.P. GAS MAIN PER DWG 473-3 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING 6" A.C. WATER MAIN PER DWG 139-7 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING 8" VCP SEWER MAIN PER DWG 473-3 EXISTING PCC CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED GRADED PARKWAY 25.0'25.0' 5.0' PROPOSED 4" THICK PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-7 XXXXXXXXXXE G 57 5757CONC./BRICKXXXXXXSCREEN FENCESANDHOSE BIBLAWNEXISTING 1 STORY BUILDINGEXISTING 1 STORY BUILDING57.057.157.256.857.057.7 FF56.956.957.256.9XXXXXXXXXXXXX 8.5' WIDE PARKING 24' 25.5'UNIT 1 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 UNIT 2 GF = 57.1GF = 57.1 GF = 57.1 GF = 57.1 19' LONG PASSENGER CAR MANUEVER OUT OF PARKING STALL 12'COLUMN (TYP.) 8.5' WIDEBACKUP LIMIT OF ROOF LINE ABOVE (TYP.) BACKUP SPACE ONLY PL PROPOSED BUILDING 57.8 FF 57.1 PAD PL XXXXXXXXPROPOSED 6"X16" PCC FLUSH CURB PROPOSED 6"X16" PCC FLUSH CURB PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVER PARKING; SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET PROPOSED PERVIOUSPAVER PARKING; SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET EXISTING CHAIN-LINK FENCE TO REMAIN PROPOSED FENCEPER SEPARATELANDSCAPE PLAN EXISTING CMU WALL TO REMAIN 8.5' PARKING 8.5' PARKING 0.5' 0.5' DASHED LINEREPRESENTSEXISTING GRADE (56.8 TW) (56.7 TW@EG) 56.7 BW@FG (56.2 BW@EG) 10.0' PROPOSED STEM WALL; 57.8 TSW (57.1 FG) 10.0' PROPOSED 6"X16" PCC FLUSH CURB 1.0' PL PL XXXXXXXXPROPOSED PRIVATE 6" PVC SEWER LATERAL; 48.3 IE PROPOSED PCC RIBBON GUTTER PER DETAIL THIS SHEET; 55.9 FLEXISTINGCMU WALLTO REMAIN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PRIVATE WATER SERVICE JOINT TRENCH PROPOSED 6"X16" PCC FLUSH CURB EXISTING CHAIN-LINK FENCEPROPOSED FENCE PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLAN EXISTING BRICK WALL TO BE REMOVED 12.0' DWY 0.7' TO FACEOF WALL PROPOSED BUILDING 57.8 FF 57.1 PAD 56.9 FLPROPOSED DEEPENED FOOTING; ENSURE MINIMUM EMBEDMENT INTO COMPACTED SOILS ADJACENT TO PERVIOUS PAVERSPER GEOTECH RECOMMENDATION DASHED LINEREPRESENTSEXISTING GRADE PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVERS PER DETAILTHIS SHEET 2.0% 13.0' (57.1 FG)5.0% MIN 8.0' 3.0' WALKWAY 3.0'WALKWAY 2.0% PL PL XXXXPROPOSED FENCE PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLAN EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO BEREMOVED PROPOSED PCC RIBBON GUTTER PER DETAIL THIS SHEET PROPOSPED PRIVATE 6" PVC SEWER LATERAL; 49.6 IE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PRIVATE WATER SERVICE JOINT TRENCH 5.0% MIN EXISTING CMU WALL TO REMAIN 10.5' 10.5' 3.0' 15.0' TO FACE OF WALL 57.1 FL 10.0'0.8' TO PL PROPOSED BUILDING 57.8 FF 57.1 PAD PROPOSED BUILDING 57.8 FF 57.1 PAD PROPOSED DEEPENED FOOTING; ENSURE MINIMUM EMBEDMENT INTO COMPACTED SOILS ADJACENT TO PERVIOUS PAVERSPER GEOTECH RECOMMENDATION PROPOSED DEEPENED FOOTING; ENSURE MINIMUM EMBEDMENT INTO COMPACTED SOILS ADJACENT TO PERVIOUS PAVERS PER GEOTECH RECOMMENDATION EXISTING GRADE PROPOSEDGRADEDPARKWAY PROPOSED PERVIOUSPAVERS PER SECTIONTHIS SHEET 2.0% 5.0%MIN PROPOSED STEMWALL; 58.0 TSW 5.7%5.7% 24.0' DRIVE AISLE PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVERS PER DETAIL THIS SHEET 15.8' HEMLOCK AVENUE 10' (TYP.) 6" 4"2" NOTE: -ALL AGGREGATE MUST BE CLEAN/WASHED AND FREE OF FINES (SAND, SILT, ETC.) -THE PAVERS SHALL NOT BE SEALED ONCE THE VOID FILLER HAS BEEN ADDED -EACH COURSE SHALL BE VIBRATORY COMPACTED BEFORE PLACEMENT OF NEXT COURSE -NO IMPERVIOUS LINER OR FILTER FABRIC IS TO BE USED -SPECIAL APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR USE IN HIGHLY EXPANSIVE SOIL-SUBDRAIN MAY BE REQUIRED SOIL SUBGRADE MIN. 6" THICK OF 34" CRUSHED ROCK CHOKER COURSE-4" THICK OF 38"TO 12" (NO.57) CRUSHED ROCK BEDDING COURSE-2" THICK OF 18" TO 38" (NO.8) AGGREGATE VOID FILLER-18" TO 38" (NO.8)AGGREGATE IN VOIDS APPROVED PERVIOUSPAVERS W/ MIN. 38" VOID 6" X 16" PCC FLUSH CURB OR DEEPENED G-1 CURB PAD = PER PLAN STEM WALL PER SEPARATE ARCH PLAN FG = PER PLAN 8" MIN FF = PER PLAN PAD = PER PLAN SLAB THICKNESS AND SAND LAYER PER SEPARATEFOUNDATION PLANS HEMLOCK COAST HOMES320 HEMLOCK AVENUE PLSA 3392-01 SECTIONS AND DETAILS FOR: 3 3 TYPICAL SECTION - HEMLOCK STREET NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL DETAIL - RIBBON GUTTER NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL DETAIL - SAWCUT AC PAVEMENT J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3392 NORUM HEMLOCK\CIVIL\DRAWING\DISCRETIONARY PLANS\3392-CV-TMAP-03-SECTIONS.DWG PLAN VIEW - PASSENGER CAR TURN TEMPLATE SCALE: 1" = 10' HORIZONTAL 10 20 30 GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 10' 010 SECTION A-A NOT TO SCALE SECTION B-B NOT TO SCALE SECTION C-C NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL DETAIL - PERVIOUS PAVERS NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL DETAIL - STEM WALL NOT TO SCALE P-25(C) Page 1 of 4 Revised 04/12 Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov WELO WORKSHEETS LANDSCAPE MANUAL APPENDIX E P-25(C) WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET This worksheet is filled out by the project applicant and it is a required element of the Landscape Documentation Package. HYDROZONE INFORMATION TABLE Please complete the hydrozone table(s) for each hydrozone. Use as many tables as necessary to provide the square footage of landscape area per hydrozone. * Hydrozone VLW - Very Low Water Use Plants LW - Low Water Use Plants MW - Moderate Water Use Plants HW - High Water Use Plants **Irrigation Method MS = Micro-spray S = Spray R = Rotor B= Bubbler D= Drip O = Other ***Plant Factor from WUCOLS III or list as water feature as appropriate Controller # Hydrozone* Zone or Valve Irrigation Method** Plant Type/Factor*** (PF) Hydrozone Area (Sq. Ft.) % of Total Landscaped Area Total 100% * Hydrozone VLW - Very Low Water Use Plants LW - Low Water Use Plants MW - Moderate Water Use Plants HW - High Water Use Plants **Irrigation Method MS = Micro- spray S = Spray R = Rotor B= Bubbler D= Drip O = Other MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE A landscape project subject to the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance shall include the MAWA for the plans, including the calculations used to determine the MAWA. A landscape project shall not exceed the MAWA. The MAWA for a landscape project shall be determined by the following equation: MAWA = (ETo)(0.62)[(0.7 x LA) + (0.3 x SLA)] The abbreviations used in the equation have the following meanings: MAWA Maximum Applied Water Allowance in gallons per year. ETo Evapotranspiration in inches per year. 0.62 Conversion factor to gallons per square foot. 0.7 ET adjustment factor (ETAF) for plant factors and irrigation efficiency. LA Landscaped area includes special landscaped area in square feet. 0.3 The additional ET adjustment factor for a special landscaped area (1.0 - 0.7 = 0.3) SLA Special landscaped area in square feet. Show Calculation: MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE = ______________________ GALLONS PER YEAR Hydrozone Table for Calculating ETWU Please complete the hydrozone table(s). Use as many tables as necessary. CITY OF CARLSBAD ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETWU) Hydrozone Number (1 – 5 with SLA Zone Below – use as many tables as necessary to complete all hydrozones) Process Step No. (Below) 1 2 3 4 5 SLA Evapotranspiration Rate (ETo)* 1 Conversion Factor 2 0.62 (Step 1 x Step 2) 3 Plant Factor (PF)** (From WUCOLS) (VLW – HW) (0.1 - 0.8) 4 Area of Hydrozone (sq. ft.) (HA) 5 (Step 4 x Step 5) 6 Irrigation Efficiency (IE)*** 7 (Step 6 ÷ Step 7) 8 (Total All Step 8 + Total SLA sq. ft. in Step 5) 9 (Step 3 x Step 9) Estimated Total Water Use in gallons per year (ETWU) - Total shall not exceed MAWA 10 ETo* West of I-5 = 40.0 East of I-5 and West of El Camino Real = 44.0 East of El Camino Real = 47.0 Applicant may provide a different ETo if supported by documentation subject to approval by the City Planning Division ***IE Micro-spray = .80 Spray = .55 Rotor = .70 Bubbler = .75 Drip = .80 Applicant may provide a different IE if supported by documentation subject to approval by the City Planning Division (Turf and Landscape Irrigation Best Management Practices, April 2005) ** Plant Factor & Water Use 0.1 = VLW - Very Low Water Use Plants 0.3 = LW - Low Water Use Plants 0.5 = MW - Moderate Water Use Plants 0.8 = HW - High Water Use Plants MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE A landscape project subject to the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance shall include the MAWA for the plans, including the calculations used to determine the MAWA. A landscape project shall not exceed the MAWA. The MAWA for a landscape project shall be determined by the following equation: MAWA = (ETo)(0.62)[(0.7 x LA) + (0.3 x SLA)] The abbreviations used in the equation have the following meanings: MAWA Maximum Applied Water Allowance in gallons per year. ETo Evapotranspiration in inches per year. 0.62 Conversion factor to gallons per square foot. 0.7 ET adjustment factor (ETAF) for plant factors and irrigation efficiency. LA Landscaped area includes special landscaped area in square feet. 0.3 The additional ET adjustment factor for a special landscaped area (1.0 - 0.7 = 0.3) SLA Special landscaped area in square feet. Show Calculation: MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE = ______________________ GALLONS PER YEAR From:Chris Garcia To:Melissa Flores Cc:Don Neu Subject:Fw: 320 Hemlock Date:Monday, March 29, 2021 8:16:12 AM Attachments:Outlook-r4vhmvlj.png Melissa, Please distribute the email below to the Planning Commission. Thank you, Chris Garcia Associate Planner Community Development Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov P: 760-602-4622 F: 760-602-8558 chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov FOR ONGOING PROJECTS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROJECT PLANNER TO SCHEDULE A RESUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT. FOR NEW PROJECT SUBMITTALS AND LANDSCAPE SUBMITTALS/RESUBMITTALS/AS- BUILTS, PLEASE CALL OR EMAIL YOUR REQUEST FOR A SUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT: Phone: 760-602-4610 Email: planning@carlsbadca.gov From: Mark Nolte <mnolte13@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 5:37 PM To: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Kurt Hoy <kurthoy@gmail.com>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: 320 Hemlock  Mr. Garcia,I live on Redwood Ave. and am concerned about the direction the city is going in as it relates to development.  I am watching four large homes being constructed by Rincon (who seems to be takingover the village area) on the corner of Redwood and Garfield.  I support the efforts of the Coalitionfor Coastal Tamarack regarding 320 Hemlock.Some of our points: {city of Carlsbad • Four units are too many for such a small lot/don't fit in with the neighborhood• Setbacks should match neighboring properties; proposed setbacks don't fit in with theneighborhood• Building of four units of this size/price actually reduces housing options for local people, raises rents, etc. Does not Need to adopt the floor-area-ratio method for building size (as opposed to lotcoverage and building height only).• Four units of this size and price does nothing to help the "California housing crisis." Projects likethis actually displace residents and reduce the availability of moderately priced housing. Not to mention, we can assume that a percentage of the new units won't be lived in at all; they will besecond (or third) homes for someone or used as Airbnbs.Thank-you for your consideration.Mark Nolte CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know thecontent is safe. From:Kurt Hoy To:Chris Garcia; Planning Cc:Cori Schumacher Subject:April 7 hearing comments Date:Monday, March 29, 2021 1:25:25 PM "Please read this email into the record." To whom it may concern, the hearing for the proposed development plan at 320 Hemlock(April 7) is scheduled during the middle of spring break for local schools. This, in addition to a noninclusive, virtual-only meeting option, makes it exceedingly difficult for local residentsto attend and express their concerns related to the topic/subject property. Please consider the community that is directly affected by this project and reschedule this hearing for a later date. A notice of only ten days for a hearing to be held during a schoolvacation (school calendars planned since last fall) is insufficient. Thank you, Kurt Hoy Coalition for Coastal Tamarack CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 386 Hemlock Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 lizardart@yahoo.com April 4, 2021 City of Carlsbad,Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Case Name:PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003- Hemlock Coast Homes Community Development Department, I am very fortunate to live in a city which encourages intelligent and courteous discussion on the topic of property development through the Planning Department. This responsive process offers all proponents an opportunity to show cause. I am also grateful to live in a neighborhood with older and newer single family and multiple unit homes. This contributes to a vital neighborhood. Families want to live here and older residents feel safe with constant foot traffic and neighbor greetings. The inherent changes as some residents age out of their homes have recently made it a target for developers. Careful attention to both the residents and developers should maintain the vibrant character of this place. I am puzzled by the wizardry of modern mathematics and a labyrinthine decision making system that has deemed a lot at 320 Hemlock Avenue, initially deemed qualified for 3 unit development based on the size of the land mass, suddenly to be adequate to support 4 units by “rounding up”. I urge those of you who are responsible for reviewing this plan from Hemlock Coast Homes to take the opportunity presented here and downsize this plan to the original 3 units with a generous setback from our road. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely yours, Janet C Newton From:Terry Gagnon To:Planning Cc:Terry Gagnon; Kurt Hoy; Darrell Subject:Case name: PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003- HEMLOCK COAST HOMES Date:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 7:15:44 AM Please read my comments into the Record at the Planning Commission Meeting on April 7th. Planning Commission, I’m writing to you and the City of Carlsbad as a very concerned citizen. My family and I are extremely disappointed in the planned development at 320 Hemlock of four large houses on a small lot. We feel these four units planned for this lot is way over what should be allowed for this lot size. We feel if the Planning Commission and the City of Carlsbad allows this development to go forward as planned, you will be creating an unsafe condition on Hemlock and be destroying the very reasons why the Hemlock residence bought homes and live here. If we wanted Manhattan Beach or Redondo Beach, we would have bought there. None of the many residence I have spoken with are in favor of this project. The people I have spoken with, feel our very community, tranquility and lifestyle is being sold out from under us for the greed of Developers, the City and the State of CA. It really feels like the citizens are helpless and have no say in this situation. It seems like the City is racing and rushing this project through (basically rubber stamping) by having a public hearing during Spring Break when so many will not be around and or not have access to a computer. I suggest postponing so more people can voice concerns and opinions. The City owes it to us that pay our taxes and make it a great place to live and shop. My wife and I recently went through the Coastal Commission and the City’s permit process to add just 400 sq. ft. to the back of our house on Hemlock. Compared to our little add on, it feels like this is being fast tracked by the City? The hoops and regulations we had to conform to was over the top and now this across the street from us, leaves me scratching my head how you will allow such a project and such a small lot. Besides having four skyscrapers across the street from us, the City really needs to consider the unsafe conditions that will be created. If approved, the set back from the street combined with the street parking will create a serious blind ingress and egress to and from the lot. This is usually a busy street during the summer with many people parking their cars partially blocking driveways. I’m fearful of the traffic condition you will be creating for the residence. I feel, our grandchildren will no longer be able to even play in our front yard when visiting. With all the crazy large projects in the Village, why would the City allow developers to ruin our neighborhoods? I firmly believe the Planning Commission, Mayor, City Manager should all be asked in front of the everyone this question, “how would you like it if these and larger projects were built across the street or next door to where you live?” I would love to hear their answers to the question. I doubt anyone will ask them and I doubt anyone will answer the question! Please be careful what you approve, you might be raising a lot of revenue in fees and taxes (that Carlsbad doesn’t really need), but you will be destroying our neighborhoods one project at a time. Thank you, Terry Gagnon Cell: (818)-929-2331 http://www.pacificlift.com/   CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 5510 OVERLAND AVENUE, SUITE 410 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1237 (858) 694-2212 www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dpw/ JEFF MONEDA DIRECTOR VIA E-MAIL April 1, 2021 Chris Garcia City of Carlsbad Planning Division Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov PUBLIC INPUT FOR COMMENTS FOR HEMLOCK COAST HOMES PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 (DEV2020-0023) Dear Mr. Garcia: The County of San Diego Department of Public Works, Airports Division (County Airports) would like to provide comments to the City of Carlsbad’s Planning Division for public input as part of the City of Carlsbad’s Planning Commission’s public hearing on April 7, 2021, for the proposed Hemlock Coast Homes development at 320 Hemlock Avenue, Carlsbad (Site). County Airports appreciates the opportunity to comment. Since 1959 McClellan-Palomar Airport has been owned and operated by County Airports and is located within the municipal limits of the City of Carlsbad. The airport provides general aviation, corporate and commercial aviation services, and is an air transportation hub utilized by businesses and residents. The County, as the owner of the Airport, accepts federal grant funding from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and is obligated to maintain the facility as a “public use airport.” In accordance with federal grant assurances, the County has no authority over the quantity, type, or flight track of an aircraft arriving or departing from the airport, which are under the jurisdiction of the FAA. In consideration of the FAA’s authority over aircraft in flight, it is important to note that the County’s purview reflects the limits of their authority as ground-facility managers. As a long-standing transportation asset and economic driver within the community, we are interested in development projects that would introduce new residential and/or noise-sensitive land uses in proximity to aviation activities to ensure that those introduced into the Airport Influence Area (AIA) are compatible and well-informed neighbors. BACKGROUND Project Location: The proposed project is located approximately 3.6 miles (19,100 ft.) northwest of McClellan-Palomar Airport’s runway. Mr. Chris Garcia April 1, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Project Description: As described in the Notice of Public Hearing on City of Carlsbad’s (City) Planning Update website, the project proposes the demolition of an existing single-family home and the construction of a new four-unit, residential air-space condominium project at the Site. COUNTY AIRPORTS COMMENTS The Site is situated within McClellan-Palomar Airport’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height notification area. Based on the type of facility proposed at the Site, the FAA, in accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 77.9, requests that the City and project applicant file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (see attached Form 7460-1). The 7460-1 form must be submitted to the FAA at least 45 days prior to any construction or alteration of the parcel; we recommend earlier submission to avoid unnecessary redesign costs. Please continue to include County Airports in notifications regarding this project. For more information about these comments or McClellan-Palomar Airport, please contact Jason Forga at (619) 956-4825 or by email at Jason.Forga@sdcounty.ca.gov. Sincerely, CAMERON HUMPHRES, Director of Airports Department of Public Works cc: Olivier Brackett – McClellan-Palomar Airport Manager, Department of Public Works Marc Baskel – Program Coordinator, Department of Public Works Sandi Hazlewood – Environmental Planning Manager, Department of Public Works From:Chris Garcia To:Melissa Flores Subject:Fw: 320 Hemlock Development Project - Carlsbad, CA Date:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 1:46:50 PM From: kirk.allison@compacprops.com <kirk.allison@compacprops.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 1:38 PM To: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: FW: 320 Hemlock Development Project - Carlsbad, CA   Hi Chris (Project Planner), We’ve never met (and I am not involved in the subject project), but I wanted to send a message in favor of the proposed 4-Unit residential project planned for 320 Hemlock Avenue in Carlsbad. It’s exciting to see another well designed development planned, to meet the incredible demand for quality housing in the Carlsbad market. I lived for years on Pine in Carlsbad, and there always seemed to be substantially more demand for housing than many neighborhoods could accommodate, and that imbalance is now more pronounced than ever. City Staff has done a nice job of intelligently overseeing many new projects in Carlsbad, both residential and mixed use (residential over commercial). The subject 4-unit residential project on Hemlock is a beautifully designed project that will enhance the surrounding neighborhood, while giving new residents an opportunity to live in a wonderful coastal community. We look forward to seeing the project get approved at Planning Commission. Thanks for your efforts…Regards, -Kirk Kirk D. Allison Commercial Pacific Properties Phone: 760-521-7501 License No. 01049184 Email: kirk.allison@compacprops.com San Diego, California CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Chris Garcia To:Melissa Flores Subject:Fw: 320 Hemlock development project Date:Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:50:00 AM From: vic.gausepohl@compacprops.com <vic.gausepohl@compacprops.com> Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 9:48 AM To: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: 320 Hemlock development project   Hello Chris, I just wanted to send you an email in support for the proposed Hemlock Coast Homes project at 320 Hemlock. I think it is a beautiful project and as a property owner in the Village of Carlsbad I think it is a nice addition. We do need more housing and the increased density should bring more housing availability to the market. I have four kids and a couple of them want to live in the Village and availability is very limited, these types of projects should help our kids who grew up in the area, stay in the area. Thank you! Vic Gausepohl Commercial Pacific Properties Phone: 619-227-2892 License No. 01070105 Email: vic.gausepohl@compacprops.com San Diego, California CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Chris Garcia To:Melissa Flores Cc:Corina Flores Subject:Fw: 320 Hemlock Development Date:Monday, April 5, 2021 6:57:12 AM From: Patrick Lee Me <patrickleeandassociates@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 8:29 AM To: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: 320 Hemlock Development Hello Chris, I am a Carlsbad resident, own property nearby the proposed 320 Hemlock development and fullysupport the project.I had an opportunity to see the conceptual drawings of the proposed four units and it looks great. Tome, It has a cape cod design, yet a beach vibe feel with the soft colors, palm trees and hard/landscape. Sincerely, Shawn SmithPatrickleeandassociates@gmail.comCAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know thecontent is safe. From:Chris Garcia To:Melissa Flores Cc:Don Neu; Ronald Kemp Subject:Fw: Case name: PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003- HEMLOCK COAST HOMES Date:Wednesday, March 31, 2021 4:30:31 PM From: Terry Gagnon <Terry@pacificlift.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 4:19 PM To: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Terry Gagnon <Terry@pacificlift.com>; Marian Gagnon <marian@pacificlift.com> Subject: Case name: PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003- HEMLOCK COAST HOMES   Chris, I’m writing to you and the City of Carlsbad as a very concerned citizen. My family and I are extremely disappointed in the planned development at 320 Hemlock of four large houses on a small lot. We feel these four units planned for this lot is way over what should be allowed for this lot size. We feel if the City of Carlsbad allows this development to go forward as planned, the City will be creating an unsafe condition on Hemlock and be destroying the very reasons why the Hemlock residence bought and live here. If we wanted Manhattan Beach or Redondo Beach, we would have bought there. None of the many residence I have spoken with are in favor of this project. The people I have spoken with feel our very community, tranquility and lifestyle is being sold out from under us for the greed of Developers, the City and the State of CA. It really feels like the citizens are helpless in this situation. It seems like the City is racing and rushing this project through (basically rubber stamping) by having a public hearing during Spring Break when so many will not be around and or not have access to a computer. I suggest postponing so more people can voice concerns and opinions. The City owes it to us that pay our taxes and make it a great place to live and shop. My wife and I recently went through the Coastal Commission and the City’s permit process to add just 400 sq. ft. to the back of our house on Hemlock. Compared to our little add on, it feels like this is being fast tracked by the City? The hoops and regulations we had to conform to was over the top and now this across the street from us, leaves me scratching my head. Besides having four skyscrapers across the street from us, the City really needs to consider the unsafe conditions that will be created. If approved, the set back from the street combined with the street parking will create a serious blind ingress and egress to and from the lot. This is usually a busy street during the summer with many people parking their cars partially blocking driveways. I’m fearful of the traffic condition you will be creating for the residence. I feel, our grandchildren will no longer be able to even play in our front yard when visiting. With all the crazy large projects in the Village, why would the City allow developers to ruin our neighborhoods? I firmly believe the Planning commission, Major, City Manager should all be asked in front of the everyone this question, “how would you like it if these and larger projects were built across the street or next door to where you live?” I would love to hear their answers to the question. I doubt any of them would answer the question! Please be careful what you approve, you might be raising a lot of revenue in fees and taxes (that Carlsbad doesn’t really need), but you will be destroying our neighborhoods one project at a time. Death to our community one cut at a time. I hope to hear from you. Thank you, Terry Gagnon Cell: (818)-929-2331 http://www.pacificlift.com/ CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Chris Garcia To:Melissa Flores; Corina Flores Subject:Fw: Hemlock Coast Homes Date:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 2:37:01 PM From: Greg Gardner <ggardner.re@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 2:31 PM To: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Hemlock Coast Homes   Chris, As a long time resident of Carlsbad, approx 35 years, it's nice to see the redevelopment goingon in and around the Village. I've seen the development plans for the Hemlock property and wanted to give my support for another aesthetically appealing design. Keep up the good work. Sincerely, Greg Gardner REALTOR® 300 Carlsbad Village Drive #217, Carlsbad, CA., 92008 CA DRE. 01379440 | CA BRE. 01905908 c: 760-908-6621 CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Chris Garcia To:Melissa Flores; Corina Flores Subject:Fw: Hemlock Coast Homes: "Read into the record" Date:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 4:49:51 PM From: Kurt Hoy <kurthoy@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 4:37 PM To: Planning <Planning@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov>; Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Hemlock Coast Homes: "Read into the record" “Please read into the record.” RE: Case Name PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 — Hemlock Coast Homes To Whom It May Concern, I’m writing to express my concern—and to echo the concerns of residents throughout our neighborhood—about the proposed four-unit development at 320 Hemlock Ave., in Carlsbad. A project of this scale and number of units, on a lot size of only 8,243 square feet, simply doesn’t fit with the neighborhood. Other nearby multi-unit lots are larger and/or have fewer units. They also offer more parking (especially relative to square footage), wider driveways when garages face each other and are largely two stories. Many original homes in this area have enough off-street parking for four+ cars for a house of only 1,000-1,2000 square feet, and driveways also have side setbacks. Adjacent multi-unit and single-family homes also have greater front setbacks (on all stories) than the proposed project. Front setback is an important factor that affects the character of the street and the quality of life for neighboring residents. From what I understand, the dwelling-unit-per-acre math works out to 3.61 units on a lot of this size and zoning—just a couple hundred square feet (a small deck) over the 3.5 number that the City considers for rounding up, essentially gifting the developer the additional square footage they lack. I’m not an expert in this—and, let’s be honest, no part of the process is made easy for laymen residents to understand—but when the margin is this slim, why don’t we “round down for residents?” It would be different if the math worked out to 3.8 units, for example. But, in any case, in order to be given the additional unit, a project should have to conform to the neighborhood. If it can’t, then it doesn’t make sense, and we shouldn’t have to live with the results of a development that should never have happened. Many recent projects come to mind. It seems developers are always one step ahead of the City, exploiting loopholes and taking ridiculous profits while we all live with the towering boxes they leave behind. (Want to know what it’s like to know that someone can look into your backyard, where your kids are playing, from five lots away? Just ask.) These projects detract from Carlsbad charm and degrade the quality of life for residents. Note: I’m told that other cities/counties also round up, but let’s be clear that this development in no way will help with a “housing crisis.” Instead, it will contribute to higher home prices/comps and ultimately increase rents, displacing current residents. Has anybody considered this math? The proposed plan suggests four units with a total square footage of 8,388 square feet on a lot of 8,243 square feet. And that’s without the garages! What are we doing? Nobody wants another Redwood/Garfield project, ever. What’s the lot coverage on that one, anyway? Moreover, for this project and future projects in this part of Carlsbad, I propose the floor area ratio approach to determining building size. Simply using lot coverage and building height allows for too much interpretation by developers and too much density. Based on experience and recent development projects in the area, it also seems the number of car trips to/from the proposed units are underestimated. The proposed plan doesn’t take into account any children of driving age. While I don’t agree with the proposed plan, I would like to recognize the owner/architect, Kirk Moeller, for his professionalism and open communication. I truly value his willingness to work together toward a plan that is more closely aligned with the interests of the new and long- time residents of Hemlock Ave. and the greater Garfield corridor. I’m confident that we can work together to find a middle ground that will accomplish the goals of developers and residents alike. We need a plan that puts the community first and encourages community-minded development. Let’s get things right this time, Carlsbad! Thank you, Kurt Hoy CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Chris Garcia To:Melissa Flores Cc:Don Neu Subject:Fw: Hemlock project Date:Wednesday, March 31, 2021 1:26:01 PM From: Angela Glorioso <aglorioso1@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 1:20 PM To: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Hemlock project  Hello Chris I am very concerned about what is planned for development on Hemlock Ave.  I live at 364Hemlock. Traffic and parking is already a big problem in our neighborhood .  These huge monster projects are destroying our quaint coastal community.   The setbacks seem to be tooclose to the street, they have no yards.  They don't  go with the current architecture. They look out of place. Can't believe 4 huge homes will be on that lot.  It will impact our our traffic,parking and the look and feel of our neighborhood.   I hope that this will be taken seriously and addressed. Thank you Angela Glorioso  364 Hemlock Ave 760 801 7644 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphoneGet Outlook for Android CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Bob Monahon To:Planning; Chris Garcia Cc:Jane Monahon Subject:Hemlock Cost Homes, Planning Commission Hearing on Wed April 7, 2021 Date:Wednesday, March 31, 2021 7:00:02 PM Regarding Case Name: PUD 2020-0001/SDP2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 -Hemlock Coast Homes Meeting date: Wednesday April 7, 2021, 3PM Hello Planning Commission. Please read these comments into the record for this hearing. Also, please notify us of the Planning Commission's decision. We disagree with the proposed front setback for this development. The front of the building is too close to the street. It is inconsistent with all of its neighbors on both sides of the street. Itwould change the neighborhood. Any replacement development on our street should have the same setback as the original building, and the same setback as its existing neighbors. In addition, the density of living units is too high. 4 units is above the limit for this sizeparcel. Neighboring condominiums on our street have much lower density. One of the neighboring condominiums has 4 units on much more land. Another neighboringcondominium has 3 units on a parcel larger than the current proposed development site. The higher living density in this site plane will negatively impact our neighborhood with additionaltraffic congestion and reduced street parking. It will also significantly increase the amount of trash and recycling on our street. We request the Planning Commission to reject the proposed development as it is currentlydesigned. A development on that site should have the same front setback as the rest of its neighbors, and it should have only three living units. Thank you, Bob and Jane Monahon, 368 Hemlock Avenue. -- Bob Monahon368 Hemlock Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (914) 525-4517-- CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Howard Krausz To:Planning Subject:NCA Comment letter regarding Hemlock Coast Homes Date:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 11:05:33 PM Attachments:NCA Comments re Hemlock Homes.pdf Please read the attached letter into the administrative record for this agenda item at tomorrow'splanning commission meeting. Thank you, Howard Krausz North County Advocates CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. North County Advocates is a non-profit 501© 3 public benefit corporation. TIN 27-3158348. www.northcountyadvocates.com 4/6/2021 To: Carlsbad Planning Commission Re: PUD 2020-0001/SDP 2020-0004/CDP 2020-0042/MS 2020-0003 – HEMLOCK COAST HOMES Please read the following comments on behalf of North County Advocates into the administrative record: This project and other development projects that increase density must comply with the General Plan. The staff report General Findings on page 6 under items 23 and 24 claims full compliance with all GP standards. Among those requirements are the parks and open space standards. On page 8, a table F appears in section III G that claims zero change in open space and N/A regarding compliance. But by replacing one existing home with four units taking maximum advantage of the same .19 acre lot, there must be a small loss of open space given the larger total footprint of the two new two unit buildings. I found no analysis of this, nor mention of the dimensions of the existing home which would allow the necessary comparison. The GP requires that 15% of the unconstrained developable land in each LFMZ must be left as open space. Compliance with this standard must be verified prior to project approval. If LFMZ 1 is not in compliance, additional open space must be identified and preserved within the LFMZ. Also, increasing density from one unit to four units means roughly 9 more residents will be living at the site. Since three acres of park space is required by the GP for every 1000 residents in the quadrant, these additional residents generate a need for 0.028 additional park acres as indicated in table F. Without going into details, the table asserts compliance with the parks standards. Thank you in advance for double checking any change in overall project footprint compared to existing to insure compliance with the GP open space standard also. Howard Krausz, MD President, North County Advocates From:john newton To:Planning Cc:Kurt Hoy Subject:Proposed development 320 Hemlock Ave. Read Into The Record Date:Wednesday, March 31, 2021 4:59:52 PM To whom it may concern We have had our residence on Hemlock Ave since 2001, having first been introduced to Carlsbad in 1967 courtesyof USMC. Carlsbad's community charm has been in its ability to maintain balance between multifamily dwellings(condos) and a mix of stand alone housing. The over-all architectural style of the community can best be describedas eclectic. Sadly, that balance is fading away. We are certainly fans of condos because without them we could notafford to live here, but the drive to replace every beach cottage with 3000 square foot units built to the very edge ofa "condoed" lots seems to be heading in a direction soon to be regretted. There are currently a number of young families with children living on Hemlock. The increased density and theresultant increase in traffic puts their safety at risk. A few more SUVs parked on either side of the street and twoway traffic able to pass will become a fond memory. The only salvation may be in the 12 additional trash containersalong the curb on pick-up days; cars will have to be parked elsewhere. Growth is a good thing and change is an indicator of a vital community, but at some point a long range plan forgrowth, if one exists, needs to be addressed. What will be the character of the community be 10 or 15 years fromnow. Will it still be one of 'The 25 happiest cities in the United States' or will it be Atlantic City.Please reconsider allowing four units on this property. Thank youJohn Newton - 386 Hemlock AveCAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Caroline Bol To:Planning Subject:Read Into Record-320 Hemlock Date:Wednesday, March 31, 2021 1:16:11 PM Dear Planning officials , This is to express my concern about the project at 320 Hemlock in terms of negatively impacting our neighborhood. The project is too big (cramming 4 units into a space where 3 is the max) and doesn't have enough setback. Adding four units without adequate on site parking means more cars, traffic, trash, etc and there is no guarantee that these units wouldn't become vacation rentals or AirBNB's leading to even more noise, pollution, and turning our quiet family street into a busy beach corridor with partying teens and visitors who have little regard for Hemlock because they don't live there. The aesthetics of the building also don't fit in with our friendly casual neighborhood where if there is an issue with parking, barking dogs, noise, etc, neighbors can talk amongst themselves for a peaceful resolution. We have a quaint community and bringing four units with the increase in the number of people and cars who would turn our street into a dangerous situation for pedestrians, pets and children at play. It's just too big for the neighborhood and should not be approved. Thank you for your consideration in protecting our community. Caroline Bol 370 Hemlock Avenue CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:gary@wardsorientalrugs.com To:Planning Subject:Trying to participate in meeting Date:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 4:10:16 PM Hello I’m a neighbor of the 320 hemlock property slated for demolition. I’m trying to log into the meeting without any luck I wanted to voice my displeasure with what’s going on on Hemlock. I understand the property is zoned for four units but it will change the entire complexion of that neighborhood. The city should be protecting the character of Carlsbad rather than selling it off to developers to build and then leave not caring about their impact to the quality of life look at some other beach towns on the East Coast and you will see that while they allow demolition of older homes they don’t allow multiunit properties to replace them therefore keeping the neighborhoods intact. Carlsbad could take a lesson from a lot of those towns. Gary Ward 305 hemlock Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.