Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-02-09; Planning Commission; Resolution 2071.I- 1 e e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2071 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF A 148-LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AT THE EASTERN TERMINUS OF SUNNY CREEK ROAD IN THE R-E ZONE AND REFERRED TO AS THE "TOOTSIE K RANCH" PROPERTY. APPLICANT: MANDANA CORPORATION CASE NO: CT 82-1 7/PUD-46 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain properi 8iiwit: a 10 il il A portion of Lot "B" of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Coun San Diego, per Map No. 823, filed November 16, 189 I1 /I has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to t 12 13 Planning Commission: and 15 provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 14 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, to consider sa 17 January, 1983, and on the 9th day of February, 1983, hold a 16 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a r WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 26th 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all per desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factor relating to the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Develc and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planr Commission as follows: (A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 27 (B) That based on evidence presented at the public hearins CT 82-17/PUD-46, based on the following findings: 28 Commission recommends denial without prejudice of * 0 0 1 Findings: II 2 4 3 1- 6 5 7 8 9 10 11 2. That the proposed project does not meet the purpose an of the R-E zone for the following reasons: a. The proposed residential development is not in har the natural terrain and wildlife given the amount grading and alteration of the site to accommodate course development with lots that are less in size minimum required by the R-E zone, b. Where feasible, the development has not left large areas between future structures as could be accomr the development met the minimum lot size standard R-E zone. and compatible agricultural uses. c. Where feasible, the development has not retained j The proposed project does not meet the requirements oJ 21.09.110 (minimum lot area) and the design of the prc not justify the reduction of these standards for the 1 stated in the staff report. 12 3. The project does not meet the subdivision standards 0: 13 R-E zone as stated in Section 21.09.150. Specificall! a. As designed, the project does not preserve the ru: 14 natural character of the area as required by the 1 b. As designed, the orientation of the improvements 1 15 site does not relate to the natural topography anc property lines are not designed in keeping with tl 16 due to the grading and alteration of the site necl by the proposed golf course and the graded lots at 17 the golf course. c. Where practicable, grading has not been minimized 18 1,000,000 cubic yards is proposed which is equiva 5,160 cubic yards per acre. This amount is typic standard single family subdivision and is excessi rural-estate, large lot subdivision as provided f 19 I 20 (covenants, conditions and restrictions) of the R-E z 4. The project does not meet the requirements of Section 21 R-E zone. C.C.&R's which at a minimum must include the followin 22 because the applicant has not submitted the proposed 23 provisions: 24 I 25 26 27 a. Lots in the R-E zone shall not be further subdivi b. Minimum floor area of dwelling units shall meet t zoning requirements; c. Provisions for the maintenance of private propert streets, trails, and recreation and open areas sh included ; d. The City shall be a party to the C.C.& R's. 28 5. The Planning Commission finds the concept of a golf c PC RES0 NO. 2071 .2 1 0 0 1 2 subdivision is appropriate for this site and that the sion could support such a project at this site if the is amended to provide for same for the following reasa 3 a) The project would allow an estate-type community s the Rancheros project already approved by the City 4 b) The project represents a more viable estate settin 5 6 7 8 some plans that might be presented under the R-E z PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, he 9th day of February, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: 9 11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners Rombc Farrow, Jose and Friestedt. NOES: Commissioner Marcus. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Rawlins. &eL"- QJm CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chair CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI 17 ~IATTEST: a 18 19 land Use Planning Manager 20 21 22 23 11 24 25 26 27 11 28 PC RES0 NO. 2071 .3