Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-02; Rancho Carrillo Villages A, B, C & D; Tentative Map (CT) (2)City of Carlsbad Planning Department February 11, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION Continental Ranch 12636 High Bluff, #300 San Diego, CA 92 130 SUBJECT: CT 97-02/PUD 97-02 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES A,B,C & D At the Planning Commission meeting of February 4, 1998, your application was considered. The Commission voted 7-0 to APPROVE (AS AMENDED) your request. Some decisions are final at Planning Commission, and others automatically go forward to City Council. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at (760) 438-1 161. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director M.IH:BH:mh . Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4241 and 4242 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (76O) 438-O894 MEMORANDUM February 26,1997 TO: SENIOR PLANNER - BRIAN HUNTER From: Associate Engineer -- Land Use Review VIA: Principal Civil Engineer- Land Use Review CT 97-02, PUD 97-02: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES"A,B,C,D" COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND INITIAL ISSUES STATEMENT Engineering Department staff have completed a review of the above-referenced project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are currently incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete items: 1. A legal description for the property, nor, a high lighted copy of a map indicating the parcels was submitted with the Preliminary Title Report (PR). Also , the tentative map does not indicate the complete property boundary. All bearings and distances of the subdivision boundary, in accordance with the legal description in the PR, must be shown; and, the legal description, once submitted, must be able to be followed and identified on the tentative map. 2. In accordance with Item No. 1 above, the same PR was submitted for Village "H". Which proposed project is this PR for? If it is for both of them, then the correct property boundary must be clearly delineated in the PR, and, on the tentative maps. 3. Please indicate all easements, with the recordation number and date, in accordance with the PR, and indicate the future disposition of these easements either in plan view adjacent to the easement information, or, as an easement disposition chart. The easement item numbers are: 5,11,15,18,19,20,21,25,27,28,30,33,34,35,36,37,38,40,41,42,43,45,48,53,54,58, 60,65,66,67,68,70 & 73. Staff realizes that some of these easements are redundant, however, they do affect different parcels; so, therefore, they all must be accounted for. 4. Please indicate under the grading notes, of the General Notes, the cubic yards/acre of proposed project specific grading. The acceptable range for the amount of grading is from 0 - 7,999 cubic yards/acre. CT 97-02, PUD 97-02: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE "A,B,C,D" PAGE: 2 COMPLETENESS REVIEW BRIAN HUNTER MEMO; FEBRUARY 26, 1997 5. Under the General Notes, please separate the grading quantities as follows: a) Cubic Yards of mass grading for this parcel; b) cubic yards of project specific grading, and; c) cubic yards of assessment district street grading, for this parcel. 6. Delineate the Villages on the plan view Site Map, on the cover sheet of the tentative map, and on the 1"=40" scale sheets. 7. Delineate the proposed number of lots/units, in accordance with each Village under the General Notes section of the tentative map cover sheet. 8. Please submit a hydrology study for this proposed project. If you are planning on submitting the Rancho Carrillo Hydrology Report, it must be updated to include the development of this site. 9. Please submit a soils/geo-teehnical study for this proposed project. If you are planning on submitting the Rancho Carrillo Soils/Geo-technical Report, it must be updated to include the development of this site. 10. Please label the street cross-sections with the appropriate street designations (A-A, D-B, etc.). 11. In accordance with City Standards, the minimum intersection spacing, from curb to curb, of "C-A" Street, from "C-B" Street to "A-A" Street must be 200'. This distance on the tentative map is being shown as 130'. This must be revised. 12. Since the project is considered incomplete, engineering department staff have not investigated any engineering issues of concern at this time. Engineering issues will be investigated upon re-submittal of the project, once the "completeness" items are addressed. 13. Attached is a red-lined check print of the project for the applicants use in making the requested revisions. This check print must be returned with the project revisions to facilitate continued staff review. If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4388. MICHAEL J. SHIRE Associate Engineer - Land Use Review Attachment MEMORANDUM DATE: February 2, 1998 TO: Ron Ball FROM: Michael J. Holzmiller SUBJECT: CT 97-02/PUD 97-02/SDP 97-15 - Rancho Carrillo, Villages A-D This memo addresses your concerns about development standards in the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. This issue first came up when you reviewed the Design Guidelines for Village H CT 97- 0 I/PUD 97-01. Upon further discussions with staff you raised the concern that the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan did not have any underlying zoning. You felt that the PC Zone was basically an overlay zone that referred to other underlying zones for development standards. You explained to staff that you felt that since there was no underlying zoning such as R-l or R-DM referred to by the Master Plan, there were no legal zoning requirements in the Master Plan, therefore the existing Rancho Carrillo Master Plan was invalid. At our meeting on Friday, January 30, 1998, we determined that the City and applicant had these options to resolve this issue: 1. Continue CT 97-02/PUD 97-02/SDP 97-15 until a Master Plan Amendment could be processed to add underlying zoning to the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan. 2. Add a condition of approval to CT 97-02/PUD 97-02/SDP 97-15 requiring the processing of a Master Plan Amendment prior to issuance of a final map or any other discretionary approvals. 3. The applicant and staff could review the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Code to determine if the Master Plan and Ordinances used to implement the Master Plan provided zoning standards that established legal parameters for development within the Master Plan. Based on Continental Homes' decision to pursue the third option, we have reviewed the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan and Title 21 to determine if all necessary development standards are in place to have a functional equivalency of underlying zoning. The following is a summary of our findings. Residential Zoning Districts - We reviewed the R-l, R-2 and RDM zones within Title 21 to identify all the development standards that are applicable to a residential project that could be built within the Carrillo Ranch Master Plan. The following standards are included in these zones. The attached exhibit shows how these standards are being addressed either through the Master Plan or the ordinances being used to implement the Master Plan: Permitted Uses Building Height Front Yard Setbacks Side Yard Setbacks Rear Yard Setbacks Placement of Buildings Accessory Structures Minimum Lot Area Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot Width Panhandle Lots Lot Coverage Development Standards: 1) Two-car Garage 2) Visitor Parking 3) Permanent Foundation 4) Materials 5) Roof Pitch 6) Minimum Width of Unit We have reviewed the Carrillo Master Plan to determine if these development standards or their equivalency are included within the Master Plan itself or are incorporated into it by reference from the Planned Development Ordinances or other applicable ordinances. As you are aware by Section 21.45.020(a), Planned Development Permit, when a Planned Development Permit is approved, it shall become a part of the zoning regulations applicable to the subject property. Since the Master Plan requires the use of the Planned Development Ordinance Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code in the development of this tentative tract map, the standards contained within the Planned Development Ordinance are applicable. Based on our research, we have found that the functional equivalent of all development standards contained within the residential zoning districts of the City are contained in the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan or incorporated as part of the Planned Development Ordinance with these exceptions: 1) accessory structures and 2) permanent foundation. To address accessory structures and permanent foundations, we would recommend to the Planning Commission that it adopt two new conditions of approval as part of the Planned Development permit. These conditions would address the placement of accessory structures on the lots and require that all buildings be located on permanent foundations. Again, the Planning Commission and City Council have the authority, under section 21.45.072(b), to impose such conditions as it deems necessary with respect to yards and other development standards. Based on our research, we believe the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan is a valid planning document and does not need to be amended to allow for the processing and approval of all pending projects. The addition of the conditions mentioned in the previous paragraph would address the only two issues that are not being addressed by the Rancho Carrillo Master Plan or the Municipal Ordinances being used to implement the Master Plan. Permitted uses Building Height Front yard setbacks Side yard setbacks Rear yard setbacks Placement of Buildings Accessory structures Minimum lot area Lot area per dwelling unit Lot width Panhandle lots Lot coverage Two car garage Visitor parking Permanent foundation Materials Roof pitch Minimum dwelling unit width RANCHO CARRILLO MASTER PLAN X X PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE (Chapter 21 .38 of CMC) X PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (Chapter 21 .45 of CMC) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REGULATIONS (Chapter 21. 06 of CMC) X I?-. City of Carlsbad Engineering Department Augusts, 1997 Mike Howes Hofman Planning Associates 2386 Faraday Avenue Suite 120 Carlsbad CA 92008 CT 97-02, PUD 97-02: RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES"A,B,C,D" FIRST ISSUES REVIEW Engineering Department staff have completed a first issues review of the above-referenced project. As previously indicated, engineering issues of concern were not investigated as part of the project's initial staff review due the project being deemed incomplete. However, at this time, the project has been reviewed for engineering issues of concern. Engineering issues which must be resolved prior to staff making a determination on the project are as follows: ENGINEERING ISSUES) Traffic and Circulation: 1. Please indicate on sheet 2 through 8 of 8, of the TM, sight distance sight lines (as measured from 15' back from the prolongation of the cross street curb line), in accordance with the following: • Intersection "A-C/C-A" = 150' • Intersection "C-B/C-C" = 200' • Intersection "A-B/PAR" = 660' • Intersection "A-A/C-C/D-A" = 330' • Intersection "A-A/A-C" = 330' • Intersection "A-A/D-B" = 330' towards Melrose/385' towards "A-C" Street • Intersection "A-A7Melrose = 660' Also, plot these sight distance sight lines on sheet 1 of 4 of the preliminary landscape plans. Proposed landscaping within these sight areas must not exceed 30" in height, or have a tree canopy of less than 8'. Any proposed walls, fences or monument signs which also encroach into these sight areas, must not exceed 30" in height. 2. Has an analysis been conducted regarding whether an additional lane would be required on Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road (PAR), for the northbound (Melrose) to eastbound (PAR) traffic movement. Supply documentation that this issue has been investigated. If additional right of way/lanes are required, please indicate this on all maps/plans and street cross-sections. 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894 CT 97-02, PUD 97-02: RANC^ CARR1LLO VILLAGES "A-D" FIRST ISSUES STATEMENT M. HOWES LETTER; AUGUST 6,1997 3. Please add a Meirose Drive typical street cross-section to sheet 2 of 8 of the TM, and differentiate between project specific and assessment district construction obligations. If necessary, add any additional right of way/lanes in accordance with Traffic and Circulation Issue No. 2 above. 4. On sheet 2 of 8 of the TM, under the PAR typical street cross-section, add the word "proposed" to the "Fully improved median island..." statement; and, delete the "Pavement as required by the City Engineer" statement, and substitute a "Proposed improvements" statement in its place. 5. In accordance with Traffic and Circulation Issue No. 4 above, please delete all of the "Pavement as required by the City Engineer" statements, and substitute a "Proposed improvements" statement in their places. Sewer and Water: 1. Please add a detail to sheet 2 of 8 of the tentative map (TM) showing the typical location of the unit(s) sewer clean-out(s) and water valve(s). Do not show these facilities within the driveway area. Land Title and Mapping: 1. Thank you for supplying the Rancho Carrillo Easement Exhibit. Half of staff's request was implemented. What is missing, are the future dispositions of these easements. Rather than indicate the future dispositions for the entire exhibit, however, just indicate the future disposition of the easements associated with Village "A-D" (include the future dispositions for Village's "H" also), in accordance with the following Preliminary Title Report (PR) Schedule "B" items: 5, 11, 15, 18, 38, 70 & 73. Additionally, PR item's 36 & 41 were not indicated on the exhibit. Please show these two easements, and if applicable, indicate the future dispositions. Finally, there were errors on some of the easement information. Please revise in accordance with the following: • PR item 25 - Document No. is 86-058612, not, 058611. • PR item 38 - Document Information is: Date 11/21/51, Bk. 4297, Pg. 314; not, Date 10/2/40, Bk. 1068, Pg. 496. • PR item 53/54 - Document No. is 86-058612, not, 058611. 2. Sheet 5 of 8 of the TM was not included in the July 25, 1997 submittal package. 3. Please revise the following maps/exhibits, since the "C-B/C-C" street/intersection configuration has been revised: • Landscape and Maintenance Responsibility plan, sheet 2 of 4; • Water Conservation plan, sheet 3 of 4; • Preliminary Landscape plan, sheet 1 of 4. RANCTO<CT 97-02, PUD 97-02: RANCRO CARRILLO VILLAGES "A-D' FIRST ISSUES STATEMENT M. HOWES LETTER; AUGUST 6, 1997 Soils and Geology: 1. As previously requested please provide a soils report update letter with any revised conclusions/recommendations for Village's "A-D." Drainage: 1. The Typical Lot Drainage detail on sheet 2 of 8 of the TM, indicates a drainage flow line of less than 5' from a proposed structure. This potential design requires City Engineer approval. Before City Engineer approval can be acquired, a letter will be required from a registered soils engineer stating that this design is acceptable. Additionally, if any side yard retaining walls are going to be proposed, then add these potential retaining walls to the GS-15 drainage detail, indicating that a 5', or 3' minimum flow line from a structure, if approved, will be maintained. Show this on the TM, Typical Lot Drainage detail. t 2. Indicate a fail-safe overflow for the sump condition at Lot No.'s 77-78, on sheet 6 of 8 of the TM. Miscellaneous: 1. Please number the "General & General Design" Notes. 2. Please revise "General Design" Notes 1 and 11, in accordance with the following: I. Add the word "Some" to the beginning of the sentence; I1. add "and in accordance with the Typical Lot Drainage detail contained herein." Red-lined check prints are attached for your use in making the requested revisions. These check prints must be returned with your re-submittal to facilitate continued staff review. If you have any questions, please contact me at telephone 760/438-1161, extension 4388. MICHAI Associate Engineer - Land Development Attachment c: Principal Civil Engineer- Land Development Senior Planner- B. Hunter Robert Wilkinson David Lother Rick Planning Group Continental Homes 5620 Friars Road 12636 High Bluff Drive Suite 300 San Diego CA 92110-2596 San Diego CA 92130 City of Carlsbad Planning Department March 19, 1997 David Lother Continental Ranch, INC. 12636 High Bluff Drive Suite 300 San Diego, CA. 92130 SUBJECT: CT 97-02/PUD 97-02 - RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGES A, B, C. AND D Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your tentative tract maps and planned developments, application no. CT 97-02/PUD 97-02, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, January 29, 1997, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. Please contact your staff planner, Brian Hunter, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4457, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, /Vi MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:BH:kr c: Gary Wayne Mike Shirey Bobbie Hoder File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 - (619) 438-1161 • FAX (G19) 438-O894 LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. CT 97-02/PUD 97-02 Planning: 1. The application is dependent upon a General Plan Amendment and Master Plan Amendment which are legislative acts with only limited accessibility to the discretionary review calendar. The application will be held incomplete until such time as a hearing date for the General Plan Amendment and Master Plan Amendment is scheduled. The Planning Department concurs with the Engineering comments. Engineering: 1. A legal description for the property, nor, a high lighted copy of a map indicating the parcels was submitted with the Preliminary Title Report (PR). Also, the tentative map does not indicate the complete property boundary. All bearings and distances of the subdivision boundary, in accordance with the legal description in the PR, must be shown; and, the legal description, once submitted, must be able to be followed and identified on the tentative map. 2. In accordance with Item No. 1 above, the same PR was submitted for Village H. Which proposed project is this PR for? If it is both of them, then the correct property boundary must be clearly delineated in the PR, and, on the tentative maps. 3. Please indicate all easements, with the recordation number and date, in accordance with the PR, and indicate the future disposition of these easements either in plan view adjacent to the easement information, or, as an easement disposition chart. The easement item numbers are: 5, 11, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28, 30. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, 53, 54, 58, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, and 73. Staff realizes that some of these easements are redundant, however, they do affect different parcels; so, therefore they all must be accounted for. 4. Please indicate under the grading notes, of the General Notes, the cubic yards/acre of proposed project specific grading. The acceptable range for the amount of grading is from 0 - 7,999 cubic yards/acre. 5. Under the General Notes, please separate the grading quantities as follows: a) Cubic yards of mass grading for this parcel; b) Cubic yards of project specific grading, and; c) Cubic yards of assessment district street grading, for this parcel. 6. Delineate the Villages on the plan view Site Map, on the cover sheet of the tentative map, and on the 1 " = 40' scale sheets. 7. Delineate the proposed number of lots/units, in accordance with each Village under the General Notes section of the tentative map cover sheet. 8. Please submit a hydrology study for this proposed project. If you are planning on submitting the Rancho Carrillo Hydrology Report,, it must be updated to include the development of this site. 9. Please submit a soils/geo-technical study for this proposed project. If you are planning on submitting the Rancho Carrillo Soils/Geo-technical Report, it must be updated to include the development of this site. 10. Please label the street cross-sections with the appropriate street designations (A-A, D-B, etc.). 11. In accordance with City Standards, the minimum intersection spacing, from curb to curb, of "C-A" Street, from "C-B" Street to "A-A" Street must be 200'. This distance on the tentative map is being shown as 130'. This must be revised. 12. Since the project is considered incomplete, engineering department staff have not investigated any engineering issues of concern at this time. Engineering issues will be investigated upon re-submittal of the project, once the "completeness" items are addressed. 13. Attached is a red-lined check print of the project for the applicants use in making the requested revisions. This check print must be returned with the project revisions to facilitate continued staff review.