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.