HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 3418, - I! 0 e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3418
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING
DIRECTOR'S DECISION DENYING A HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF
RESIDENTIAL PUD LOTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF HOOVER AND ADAMS STREET.
CASE NAME: MELLGREN
THREE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON THREE PROPOSED
CASE NO: HDP 91-6
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
Lot 1 in Block "D" of Bellavista, in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California; According to Map thereof No.
2152, Filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, March, 7, 1929.
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Titlc
~ 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
1 I
15 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 15th day of July, 1992, holc
16 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
17 (1 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testirnon;
18
19
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered a1
2o 11 factors relating to the appeal of the Hillside Development Permit.
21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissiol
22
23
as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
24
25
26
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commissioj
UPHOLDS the Planning Director's decision denying HDP 91-6, based on th
following findings:
27 (( ""
28 /I ..*.
....
0 0
Findinm:
1
1. The project does not meet the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance Chapter 2 21.95 and the Planning Commission cannot make the following required J3llside
3 Development Permit findings under Section 21.95.030;
4
5
6
7
A. Subsection (3), (5) and (6): The development proposal and all applicablc
development approvals are not consistent with the purpose and intent of thc
Hillside Development Ordinance, the design and lot configuration does no1
minimize the grading and disturbance of the natural topography, and doe
not substantially conform to the intent of the concepts illustrated in thf
Hillside Development Guidelines manual:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i. The 30 foot wide driveway providing access to the lots does no.
follow the contour but rather cuts across perpendicular to thf
contours, and the size and alignment of the graded building pa&
necessary to accommodate the large homes and their surroundin1
yard areas generates the need to grade the entire lot, create a non
contoured 360 foot long and 20-28 foot high linear manufactured cu
to include a 190 foot long retaining wall facing along the southen
property line. The numerous 2 to 6 foot high retaining walls wouk
create negative visual impacts on future residents of the project an(
surrounding neighbors.
slope, and approximately 490 ft. of retaining wall within the projec
ii. The 2:l manufactured cut and fill slopes are not contour graded tc
provide a variety of both slope percentage and slope direction in i
three-dimensional undulating pattern.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
iii. A non-contoured, straight and flat cut slope has been created tha
exceeds two hundred feet in length.
i iv. The project provides some foundation terracing, however the terrace are aligned such that grading impacts are not significantly reducec
105 foot long flat pad results in a 16 foot high and 100 foot lon
manufactured slope that is not land contour graded.
The house on Parcel 3 is not aligned parallel to the contours and th
v. The homes have a variation in roof line, however the variation an
building elevations do not relate to the slope and topography of th
site. The building roof lines are not stepped down the slope, bl
rather, there are bulky vertical two-story building elevations an
architectural towers massed adjacent to the top of fill slopes.
26 ....
27
28
....
PC RES0 3418 2
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 *
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni~
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of July, 1992, by tl
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schrarm
Noble & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Savary & Welshons.
ABSTAIN: None.
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 3418 3