1992-030 Major Use Permit Rancho De Mayo Rd and Bumann RoadRESOLUTI'ON NO. 92-30
~ RESOLUTZON OF THE CZTY COUMCZL
OF THE CI'TY OF ENC'rN'rT]~
DENY'rNG ~ TENT~TZVE REPL~CEI~I~ SUBDTV'rBI'ON I~P ]tND
Y,3tJOR USE PEI~'rT (89-109-TM/~UP/RPL-4/EZ~.) · FOR PROPERTY
THE WEST N3tLF OF THE NORTHWEST QU/~TER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QU/~TER OF SECTION 9· TOWNSHZP 13 BOUTS·
I~NGE 3 IrBST· S/,~T BERN]tRD1'NO BJtBE ~ MERID'r~T·
TN THE CITY OF ENCTNZT/%8· COUNTY OF BJtN DTEGO·
APN 264-102-01 (LOCATED EAST OF 1M~CHO DE I~YO
RO~D, SOUTH OF B~ RO]tD)
WHEREAS, Merle Minks, submitted for a Replacement Tentative
Subdivision Map and Major Use Permit pursuant to the City of
Encinitas Subdivision Ordinance (Title 24), and Residential Zoning
Sections 30.16.010 and 30.16.020 of the Municipal Code for the
purpose of subdividing the 20.2 gross acre site into 8 single
family residential lots with lot sizes from 1.5 acres to 4 acres
and i road lot; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Olivenhain
Community Advisory Board on March 20, 1990, the map was
subsequently revised with the hearing continued and conducted on
March 5, April 2, May 7, and November 5, 1991, as required by law,
and all persons desiring to be heard were heard;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning
Commission on December 12, 1991 and continued to February 13, 1992,
as required by law, and all persons desiring to be heard were
heard; and
WHEREAS, the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board on November
5, 1991, had recommended approval of the project, and the Planning
Commission had approved the project on February 13, 1992. On
February28, 1992, the Planning Commission approval was appealed to
the City Council. On April 8, 1992, the City Council, without
protest from the applicant, continued the appeal listed on the
agenda as a noticed administrative hearing to April 22, 1992 as a
noticed public hearing. On April 22, 1992, a noticed public
hearing was held before the City Council, as required by law, and
all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
a. Tentative Subdivision Map RPL-4 dated May 25, 1989,
revised October, 1991 and received by the City of
Encinitas on October 24, 1991, showing the proposed lot
layout, designated open space and proposed grading;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
bw:3 minkreso43092
Ce
de
Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing;
CAB staff reports 89-109TM/MUP/RPL-4/EIA dated March 14,
1990, February 20, March 28, April 26, and October 30,
1991, and Planning Commission staff reports dated
November 21, 1991 and February 6, 1992, and City Council
staff reports dated April 2, 1992, April 15, 1992 and
April 29, 1992 which are on file in the Department of
Community Development; and
e. Additional written documentation.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Encinitas, that the proposed Replacement Tentative Subdivision
Map dated May 25, 1989, revised October, 1991 and received by the
City of Encinitas on October 24, 1991, for property being the west
half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section
9, Township 13 south, Range 3 west, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, APN 264-
102-01, Olivenhain, (Located east of Rancho De Mayo Road, South of
Bumann Road), is hereby denied based upon the findings contained in
Attachment A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 1992, by the following
vote, to wit:
Ayes:
Hano, 0msted, Slater, Wiegand
Nays:
Davis
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Maura Wiegand,.~.~yor
ATTEST:
E. Jan.~/P.ool
City C~rk
bw:3 minkreso43092
ATTACH14ENT A TO REBOLUTI'ON 92-30
BECTZON 30.16.010B2B~
FINDZNGB WHICH L'EED TO BE ~%DE FOR A PR(:ATECT OF FIVE OR MORE LOTS
TO EXCEED MID-I~GE DENSITY~
1. The project shows high sensitivity to the neighboring
properties and area to ensure compatibility with land uses and
community character, and;
2. The project design significantly exceeds the minimum
standards for development (lot size, setbacks, lot width and
depth, landscape standards and design standards) and;
3. The project either:
* Provides needed public improvements that are
significantly beyond the requirements for the project, or;
* Provides private or public recreational facilities that
significantly exceed the project's requirements.
* Or provides other significant benefits.
DISCUSSION OF FACTS REGARDING APPLICATION 89-109T~ RPL4, MUP, EIA
RELATIVE TO THE /aBOVE FINDINGS~
The project as proposed has lot sizes ranging from 1.5 to
4 acres in net acreage. The area on lot 6 not devoted to
biological open space as required for the mitigated
negative declaration for the project is approximately
1.03 acre, the area on lot 7 is 1.30 acre and the area on
lot 8 is 1.42 acre. The remainder of lots 6, 7, 8 and
approximately 1.1 acre of lot 5 is devoted to biological
open space; the biological open space includes 5 acres of
open space required pursuant to Chapter 30.16.020 of the
Municipal Code since the applicant is proposing a lot
averaging or planned residential development subdivision
which requires 25% of the project be commonly held open
space. Grading of the lots will result in fill slopes of
from 4 to 17 feet in height in order to accommodate the
proposed buildable areas with gravity flow to the sewer
line. The existing grade of the project is such that
some of the properties to the east and north can view the
site due to the topography of the site which rises from
those properties.
The lots proposed for the project vary in size from 1.5
acres to 4 acres in net acreage. The minimum lot size
for the Rural Residential zone is 2 acres. A planned
development may propose lot sizes which reduce the
minimum lot Size by 25%. The 25% reduction in lot size
would permit a minimum lot size of 1.5 acre. The project
is proposing 4 lots with a minimum lot size of
approximately 1.5 acres (Lot 1:1.5 ac; Lot 2:1.5 ac;
Lot 3:1.6 ac; Lot 4:1.7 ac). The buildable area on
proposed lots 6 (1.03 ac), 7 (1.30 ac) and 8 (1.42 ac).
are under the 1.5 acre minimum lot size. The buildable
area on lot 5 is approximately 2 acres.
bw:3 minkreso43092
The project is proposing to e ·ed the mid-range density
for the project of 6.03 units by 1.97 units since the
project is proposing to develop 8 residential lots. The
applicant is proposing to install 2. off site fire
hydrants to serve the neighboring community; the hydrants
are proposed to be installed in the vicinity of the
eastern boundary of the site with access to the hydrants
via Bumann'Road. The applicant is also proposing an
extension of water and sewer lines to a point where the
'properties to the east could connect to the lines, an
easement for the sewer and water lines is also proposed.
DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT ANDHOWTHE PROJECT REL~TES TO THE ABOVE
FINDINGS:
The project as proposed is showing the pad on lot 3 at an
elevation of 345 feet. A house in this location would be
a prominent feature as viewed from neighboring
properties. The pads are limited to between 10000 and
15000 square feet which would result in an area of
perceived high density in the area; the proposed lots are
under 2 acres with the exception of the lots with
required biological open space shown as part of the lots.
In order to accommodate building homes on the lots as
proposed, the development will require some grading
resulting in cuts of 12 feet and fill slopes to 17 feet.
The project is within the development standards as set
forth in the Municipal Code for the RR zone. The
project, does not, however, significantly exceed the
standards since the majority of the proposed lots are not
significantly in excess of 1.5 acres which is the minimum
lot size for the zoning district when a planned
residential development is proposed.
The public improvements being proposed which would exceed
those improvements normally required of a development of
8 lots is the installation of two fire hydrants in the
vicinity of the eastern boundary of the development.
Due to the nature of the neighboring properties, the
hydrants could be a public benefit for those located in
the area. It has been stated that the condition of
Bumann Road, a private easement road, may preclude
utilizing the hydrants by a modern fire apparatus due to
the width of the road and the ruts in and adjacent to the
road. The installation of 2 hydrants is not found to be
a benefit of a significant nature to justify an increase
in density of 1.97 units.
CONCLUSION REGARDING THE FINDINGS TO EXCEED MID-RANGE DENSITY
RELATED TO THE P~)JECT=
The project as proposed does not show a high degree of
sensitivity to the neighboring properties and is not
consistent with the established conunity character of
the area.
bw:3 minkreso43092
The~ro~ectj I~ design as proposed does not significantly
exceed the minimum standards for development relative to
lot size and grading.
The project as proposed does not offer significant public
improvementS which are significantly beyond the
requirements for the project.
bw:3 minkreso43092