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