HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 4000c
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 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4000
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT
SUBDIVIDE 4.39 ACRES INTO 30 LOTS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF XANA
WAY BETWEEN CORINTIA STREET AND ALGA ROAD IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6
CASE NAME: BROOKFIELD MEADOWS
CASE NO.: CT 96-04
WHEREAS, Okon Development Co., “Developer”, has filed a ve
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Edgecrest Investn
Ltd., “Owner”, described as
PREJUDICE CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 96-04 TO
Lot 224 and a portion of Lot 223, Carlsbad Tract No. 84-23, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 11241, recorded in the office of
the County Recorder of said County
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative
Map as shown on Exhibits “A”-“O” dated November 6, 1996, on file in the Pla
Department Brookfield Meadows (CT 96-04), as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the C~I
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of November
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testi
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all fi
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
...
...
II 0 0
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the PI2
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Pla
Commission DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Tentative Tract Map C
04, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivisil
consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan and any applj
specific plans, and will not cause serious public health problems, but is not cons.
with and does not satisfy all requirements of Titles 20 and 21 of the Car
Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act in that it does not pr
adequate distance between structures as required by Chapter 21.45 of the Mun
Code and Administrative Policy No. 16, and does not comply with the City’s I
Lot Single Family Guidelines pursuant to City Council Policy No. 44.
2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses
surrounding properties are designated for medium density residential developme
the General Plan, in that the project is a residential project which has a density ol
du/ac.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type and density of the development
the site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development :
density proposed, in that the proposed design does not comply with the requiren
of the PUD regulations for minimum distance between structures thr
Administrative Policy No. 16, and does not comply with the City’s Small Lot S
Family Guidelines pursuant to City Council Policy No. 44.
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired b,
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivisio
that the project has been designed and structured such that there are no con:
with any established easements.
5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
6. That the design of the subdivision does not provide, to the extent feasible, for f,
passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that
structures do not incorporate adequate separation between structures as requ
by the PUD regulations (Chapter 21.45) and Administrative Policy No. 16.
PC RES0 NO. 4000 -2-
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
1
0
7. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing pro
by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environn
resources.
8. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause subst
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
habitat, in that there are no fish or wildlife or their habitat on the site, and the
Part-I1 prepared for the project concluded that there would be no signil
impacts from the project.
9. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of ex
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the drai
requirements of the proposed project have been considered and approp
drainage facilities have been designed, and the project would be required to co:
with all applicable City Engineering Standards, the City’s Master Drainage :
and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
...
...
...
...
.. .
...
...
...
. ..
...
.. .
...
...
...
I
PC RES0 NO. 4000 -3-
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
e 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the pla~
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of November 1996, t
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen and Savary
NOES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Noble and Welshons
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
LtL& L%vy2w
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpetson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
%
MICHAEL J. H~LZM~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4000 -4-