The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-03-15; City Council; 7301-1; Denying Tentative Map & Planned Unit DevelopmentCITVOF CARLSBAD - AGEND^ILL AR* 7301-1 MTr, 3/15/83 PAOPPT UA TITLE: DENYING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CT 82-17/PUD-46 - MANDANA OPPT HD CITY ATTY\/£6 CITYMGR. ^*- RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the City Council wishes to deny Tentative Subdivision Map CT 82-17 and Planned Unit Development PUD-46, then your action is to adopt Resolution No. "7 A5~<f" • ITEM EXPLANATION The City Council, at its meeting of March 1, 1983, directed the City Attorney to prepare documents denying CT 82-17/PUD-46. This denial is based upon the facts set out in the Planning Department Staff Report dated January 26, 1983, the evidence presented at the March 1, 1983 public hearing and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2071. The City Council should satisfy itself that the findings accurately reflect your intentions in the matter, that they state facts found by you to be true, and that they adequately explain your reasons for the denial. EXHIBIT Resolution No. "7 I'v5" 8§&.Q-D- Uz3 OU D< § oc o'u. a ^Q O 3 ^. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 RESOLUTION NO. 7158 j_ S o 2 S 8 D 163Z~2 IE i I?< 5 5- is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (CT 82-17) AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD-46) FOR A 148 UNIT PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AT THE EASTERN TERMINUS OF SUNNY CREEK ROAD. APPLICANT: MANDANA CORPORATION CASE NO; CT 82-1 7/PUD--46 WHEREAS, on February 9, 1983, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2071 recommending to the City Council that Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 82-17) and Planned Unit Development (PUD-46) be denied; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad did on March 1, 1983 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and to receive all recommendations and hear all persons interested in or opposed to said Tentative Subdivision Map and Planned Unit Development, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: A. That the above recitations are true and correct. B. That Tentative Subdivision Map (CT 82-17) and Planned Unit Development (PUD-46) are hereby denied, without prejudice to reapplication, because of the facts set out in the Planning Department Staff Report dated January 26, 1983, the evidence presented at the March 1, 1983 public hearing and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2071 on file in the City Clerk's office and incorporated by reference herein and based upon the following findings: 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12o I § 13 8" fe s 1 14 §£|§ 15 K >• *" 1C Z g 8 O J.O S£^§ T«> F K J-' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 u Findings; 1. That the proposed project does not meet the purpose and intent of the R-E zone for the following reasons: a. The proposed residential development is not in harmony with the natural terrain and wildlife given the amount of grading and alteration of the site to accommodate a golf course development with lots that are less in size than the minimum required by the R-E zone. b. Where feasible, the development has not left large open areas between future structures as could be accomplished if the development met the minimum lot size standard of the R-E zone. c. Where feasible, the development has not retained incidental and compatible agricultural uses. 2. The proposed project does not meet the requirements of Section 21.09.110 (minimum lot area) and the design of the project does not justify the reduction of these standards for the reasons stated in the staff report. 3. The project does not meet the subdivision standards of the R-E zone as stated in Section 21.09.150. Specifically, a. As designed, the project does not preserve the rural and natural character of the area as required by the R-E zone. b. As designed, the orientation of the improvements of the site does not relate to the natural topography and the property lines are not designed in keeping with the terrain due to the grading and alteration of the site necessitated by the proposed golf course and the graded lots adjacent to the golf course. c. Where practicable, grading has not been minimized since 1,000,000 cubic yards is proposed which is equivalent to 5,160 cubic yards per acre. This amount is typical of a standard single family subdivision and is excessive for a rural-estate, large lot subdivision as provided for by the R-E zone. 4. The project does not meet the requirements of Section 21.09.170 (covenants, conditions and restrictions) of the R-E zone because the applicant has not submitted the proposed private CC&R's which, at a minimum, must include the following provisions: a. Lots in the R-E zone shall not be further subdivided; b. Minimum floor area of dwelling units shall meet the R-E zoning requirements; c. Provisions for the maintenance of private property, streets, trails, and recreation and open areas shall be included; d. The City shall be a party to the CC&R's. - o CO s=5 i VINCENT F. BIONDO, JVTTORNEY - CITY OF C1200 ELM AVENUEVRLSBAD. CALIFORNIA^ M. >- ° O F 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 5. For all of the above reasons the City Council finds that use of the Planned Unit Development process is not appropriate in the R~E zone and that the property should be developed in accordance with the standards of the R-E zone. This Planned Unit Development is not consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 21.45, particularly Section 21.45.010(4) regarding grading, and the findings of Section 21.45.072(6) regarding preservation of natural topography cannot be made. Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires a subdivision to meet all of the zoning requirements applicable to the site. This project, with lots as small as .3 acres clearly violates the 1 to 4 acre minimum lots sizes for the R-E zone. Therefore the subdivision must be denied. C. This action of denial is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Revew" shall apply: "NOTICE TO APPLICANT" "The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings" shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008." -3- •v o CO -i da. S0 O z Vi ^ 5 ^3 V W H O>£ o . * CMO< zccoU. 5 Q CQto_lCC6 " 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 c c PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of March , 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, and Prescott NOFS: Council Member Chick ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin c — *yl , I /£) A MARY H. C^SLER, Mayor ATTEST: j~—\ / SI /? a 1 / ^S & ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk (SEAL) : - .