SU0012885 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Item No. 3 {� PC. 12-17-92 t SU-92-15 Page 1 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: ' G 1. Deny Major Subdivision Application No. SU-92-15 because Finding No. 2 and Finding No. 6 cannot be made. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan and Special Purpose Plan, and any other applicable plan adopted by the County. • This Finding can be made because the proposed subdivision is consistent with the 4 2010 General Plan and the Policies of the Rural Residential designation on the General Plan Map. There are no Specific or Special Purpose Pians. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan or Special Purpose Plan. • This Finding cannot be made because the design of the proposed subdivision does not meet the minimum lot width requirements, and the design of the proposed f subdivision does not provide traffic circulation that Is consistent with the Infrastructure Standards and Requirements of the Development Title. The minimum lot width requirement at the setback is 150 feet. Several of the lots do not meet the minimum width, and they do not meet the provision that allows the minimum lot width to be 70 percent of the required lot width, provided the average lot width for all lots in the subdivision Is equal to or greater than the minimum lot width. The Development Title slates that a cul-de-sac street shall not exceed 660 feet from the centerline of the Intersecting street to the center of the turnaround except where existing physical conditions make such limitations of length impractical. In no case shall more than 24 dwelling units be served by a cul-de-sac street. The design of the subdivision proposes cul-de-sac streets that exceed the 660 feet maximum length, and there is the potential for more than 24 dwelling units to be served. Unless the design of the cul-de-sac streets complies with the requirements of the Development Title, any lot within the subdivision must be reached by alternative routes. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. • This Finding can be made because the proposed lots have sufficient areas to build residences and septic systems. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. • This Finding can be made because each lot in the subdivision will meet the area requirement of the R-R zone. Services will be provided to each lot In accordance with the County's Infrastructure Standards. i