The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-01-26; Planning Commission; ; CT 82-17|PUD-46 - MANDANA CORPORATION--• APJlllllliCATION SUBMITTAL DATE: JUL. 16 , 19 8 2 STAFF REPORT DATE: January 26, 1983 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: CT 82-17/PUD-46 -MANDANA CORPORATION -Request for a 148-lot subdivision located approximately one mile east of El Camino Real at the eastern terminus of Sunny Creek Road in the R-E zone. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take no action on the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and ADOPT Resolution No. 2071 recommending DENIAL to the City Council of CT 82-17/PUD-46, based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a 148-unit tentative tract map and planned unit development on a 194-acre property located as described above. This property is also known as the "Tootsie K Ranch" property. Of the 148 lots, 143 would be for custom single family homes, two would be for a nine-hole "executive" golf course, two for open space and one for a recreation center (please refer to Exhibit "A"). Four and one-half acres of the property comprising four custom single family lots are detached from the bulk of the property and are located 400 feet to the west. The applicant is processing under the Planned Development Ordinance to allow for the creation of lots that are less in area than required by the R-E (residential estate) zone. The property is remotely located and no public streets serve it at the present time. The extension of "A" Street westward to future College Avenue and the extension of "B" Street northward to future Cannon Avenue are proposed to provide access to the property. The property is presently being used for agriculture and is characterized by hilly terrain. Several gullies run north to south through the property. Approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards of grading will be required to create the building pads and golf course. The custom lots along the periphery of the property would be left in their natural state and individual pads would be created at the time these lots develop. • III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1. Does the design and do the amenities of the project justify the reduction of the R-E zoning standards? Discussion The intent and purpose of the R-E zone is to provide for large residential lots in harmony with the natural terrain and wildlife. Such development is meant to create a rural environ- ment maintaining large natural open spaces between structures and retaining agriculture when feasible. In keeping with this purpose, the zone requires a minimum one-acre lot size which increases up to a four-acre minimum lot size depending on the slope of the property (please see page 364-3 of attached Exhibit "B"). In addition, this zone has established standards for setbacks, street improvements and grading which are intended to preserve the rural character of property having this zone. Also, specific findings are required to be made prior to the approval of any subdivision in this zone which ensure the preservation of the natural terrain and rural character of the property. The R-E zone was established in 1978 specifically for the subject property. It is the only property in the city zoned R-E at the present time. The site's gently rolling topography, agricultural uses, and rural character were the primary reasons for the establishment of this zone on this site. The applicant proposes a 148-unit subdivision which includes a 48-acre "executive" golf course and an 8.1-acre tennis facility. The average lot area of the custom single family lots is .75 acre; the minimum lot size is .35 acre. The applicant believes the golf course amenity is an adequate trade-off for the reduced lot sizes of the subdivision. When this project was first submitted to the Land Use Planning Office, staff indicated that reduced lot sizes may be feasible in this zone if adequate open space provisions were made and if the rural character of the property was maintained. Staff provided the applicant with minimum criteria relating to lot size with which staff could support the project. Staff could support the golf course concept and reduced lot sizes for lots which front directly onto the golf course. This is because the open space provided by the golf course would be a trade-off for the private open space that would normally be provided by the R-E zone. Also, staff indicated that they could support a 30,000 square- foot minimum lot size for lots across a street from the golf course which have unimpeded views of the golf course. This would only be supported if all other lots in the subdivision were a -2- • • minimum one acre (43,560 square feet) in size, met all standards of the R-E zone, and a rural character was maintained throughout the development. The proposed subdivision does not meet this criteria. Of the 143 custom lots, 72 are neither adjacent to or have visual access to the golf course. Of these, 28 do not meet the minimum one-acre lot size required by the R-E zone. This is 40% of the total and their average lot size is .77 acre. Staff believes the subdivision seriously circumvents the intent and purpose of the R-E zone. At build out, it is staff's opinion that a rural environment characterized by large lots and open spaces that are integrated with the existing topography will not be achieved. The issue becomes one of policy. Does the Planning Commission feel the original intent of the R-E zone is still pertinent? If so, staff would recommend denial of this project. If not, staff suggests that the R-E zone be either amended or abolished to accommodate a development which the Commission believes to be more applicable to this property. From a land use point of view, staff believes there is a need to preserve areas for rural estate development in the city. This property is one of the few remaining in Carlsbad where this type of development can still be achieved. The original intent of applying the zone in 1978 is still pertinent today and staff would recommend that the Planning Commission deny this project and direct the applicant to develop the property more in keeping with the purpose of the R-E zone. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on August 2, 1982. ATTACHMENTS 1. P.C. Resolution No. 2071 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Exhibit "B" (R-E Zoning Ordinance) 5. Environmental Documents 6. Disclosure Statement 7. Exhibit "A", dated November 3, 1982 BH:kb 1/19/83 -3- 21.09.010--21.09.020 Chapter 21 .·09 R-E RURll.L RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ZONE • Sections: 21.09.010 21.09.020 21.09.030 21.09.040 21.09.050 21.09.060 21.09.070 21.09.075 21.09.080 21.09.090 21.09.100 21. 09 .110 21.09.120 21.09.130 21.09.140 21.09 .150. 21.09.160 21.09.170 21.09.180 -21.09.190 Intent and purpose. Permitted uses. Permitted accessory uses and structures. Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit. District requirements. Storage requirements. Building height. Fire-retardant roof required. Front yard. Side yard. Placement of buildings. Minimum lot area. Lot width. Lot coverage. Parking. Subdivision of land Modifications of public improvements. Covenants, conditions and re§trictions. Findings required for rezoning or resub- division to a more intensive use. Development standards. 21. 09. 010 In tent and !:Y-1rpose. The intent of the R-E zone is to provide a residential area in harmony with the natural terrain and wildlife. Where feasible or desirable, there are to be large open areas between structures, large yards and areas left in a natural setting. The zones shall be limited to single-family development, with incidental and compatible agricultural uses. Public facilities shall be sufficient to·provide for convenience and safety, but need not meet full city standards. (Ord. 9498 §4(part), 1978). 21.09.020 Permitted uses. In an R-E rural residential estate zone, only the_ following uses are permitted, subject to the provisibns of this chapter, and to the development standards provided in Cha~ters 21.41 and 21.44: (1) One one-family dwelling unit per lot; (2) Grazing of ruminant animals, provided that there is a minimum of ten acres of land used exclusively for su6h grazing a~1d the number of horses and cattle does not exceed four per acre, or small animals, s~ch as goats and sheep, does :not Gxceed twelve per acre. For combining of animals, one large animal is equivalent to three small animals; 364-3 (Carlsb2.d 12/81)