Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. 9 <br /> PC : 11-21-85 <br /> SU-85-6 <br /> Page 1 <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> It is recommended that the Planning Commission: <br /> 1 . Approve the Negative Declaration, and <br /> 2 . Modify the Conditions of Approval for SU-85-6 by eliminating <br /> Conditions No . 1 ( i ) and 1 ( j ) and by revising Condition No . <br /> 1 (h) as specified in the attached "Revised Conditions of <br /> Approval . " <br /> BASES FOR RECOMMENDATION <br /> 1 . Condition No . 1 ( i ) is unreasonable because the intent of the <br /> condition to require radius returns can be accomplished within <br /> the existing right-of-way. <br /> 2 . Condition No. 1 ( j ) is unreasonable because adequate temporary <br /> circulation can be provided with the proposed street patterns <br /> and the temporary cul-de-sac . <br /> 3 . Condition No . 1 (h) is unreasonable in that it requires impro- <br /> vements to MacArthur Drive different than those required for <br /> other recently approved subdivisions in the immediate vicinity. <br /> PROJECT DESCRIPTION <br /> On September 19 , 1985 , the Planning Commission approved SU-85-6 <br /> to subdivide a 23 . 58-acre combined parcel into 14 rural residen- <br /> tial lots . The property contains a residence fronting on <br /> MacArthur Drive and several accessory buildings as well as almond <br /> and cherry orchards . Three of the existng accessory buildings <br /> are planned for removal . All proposed lots conform with the <br /> existing RR-65 zoning regulations, and all will have frontage on <br /> public roads. Four parcels will have frontage on future Cherry <br /> Court , which extends west of Fairoaks Road, with the other ten <br /> fronting future Etcheverry Drive . A "future" roadway is proposed <br /> to connect with existing Bates Court to the southeast . All pro- <br /> posed parcels will be served by individual wells and septic <br /> tanks . Drainage will be contained on each individual parcel . <br /> Tentative Map SU-84-6 for "Etcheverry Estates" was approved in <br /> 1985 on property to the south. Numerous "Conditions of Approval" <br /> were required. The applicant is requesting that two of the con- <br /> ditions be eliminated and that one be modified. <br />