HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 4001B
I
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
a e
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4001
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PUD 71(B) 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.: PUD 7 1 (B)
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
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 Planned
Development as shown on Exhibits “A”-“O” dated November 6, 1996, on file in the Pla
Department, BrooMleld Meadows (PUD 71(B)) as provided by Chapter 21.45 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 f
relating to the Planned Unit Development.
...
I .. .
? 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 Pla
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 Comm
RECOMMENDS DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE Planned
Development 71(B), based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a s8
or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhoot
community, in that the proposed type of use (medium density residenti:
consistent with the General Plan designation of the site (RM) and wit1
surrounding residential uses.
2. The project will be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons re:
or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, i
the proposed amended project does not meet all required City standards and
not comply with all applicable regulations. The project does not providj
minimum distance between structures as required by the PUD regulations (Ch
21.45) and clarified by Administrative Policy No. 16, and does not comply wit
City’s Small Lot Single Family Guidelines pursuant to City Council Policy No. I
3. The proposed Planned Development does not meet all of the minimum develol
standards set forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.4:
and has not been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the C
Guidelines Manual. The proposed project does not provide the minimum dis
between structures required by Chapter 21.45 and clarified by Administ]
Policy No. 16, and does not comply with the City’s Small Lot Single F:
Guidelines pursuant to City Council Policy No. 44.
4. The proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the n;
topography of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources o
site, in that the building pads are stepped in the more sloped portions of the site
there are no significant natural resources on the site.
5. The proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the s
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonio
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the project’s density and archite
are consistent with that of the surrounding neighborhood.
6. The project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated wi
project and does not dominate the project, in that the proposed circulation systen
provide adequate access to all units, adequate room for vehicular movement,
PC RES0 NO. 4001 -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
v e
garages for each unit for resident parking, and adequate guest parking in a m:
which is dispersed throughout the project for maximum convenience. The p:
utilizes curvilinear street design and short private drives so that the street sJ
does not dominate the project.
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,l
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Heineman, Monroy, Nielsen and Savary
NOES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Noble and Welshons
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
A/& +
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
”
MICHAEL J. WLZ~~LLER
Planning Director
1
PC RES0 NO. 4001 -3 -