The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-08-14 - RESOLUTIONS - TTM 31236 ZC 89-006 CUP 89-015 (2)RESOLUTION NO. 90-162 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31236, ZONE CHANGE 89-006, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-015 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City does hereby find and determine as follows: a. An application for a zone change, vesting tentative tract map and conditional use permit was filed with the Santa Clarita Department of Community Development by G. H. Palmer and Associates. The purpose of the zone change application was to facilitate an amendment of the zoning from A-2-1 and M-1 1/2 to RPD -11U. The purpose of the tentative tract filing is to subdivide the property into 10 residential lots for condominium purposes for construction of 1452 residential condominium units. The purpose of the conditional use permit is to allow a planned residential development. b. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee reviewed this application with the applicant on September 14, 1989. C. This application was heard by the Planning Commission at a consolidated public hearing on October 17, 1989 and continued to a future date uncertain. The project was re -advertised for February 6, 1990 and then continued to March 1, 1990. The Planning Commission subsequently adopted Resolution P90-10, approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 31236, Conditional Use Permit 89-015 and recommending approval of Zone Change 89-006 to the City Council. d. The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission and a duly noticed consolidated public hearing was held by the City Council on March 13, 1990. The subject project was discussed at meetings of the City Council including public hearings on March 27, April 17, April 24, May 2, May 15, June 12 and June 26, 1990. Also a study session reviewing the subject matter of the application was held on April 23, 1990. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on their behalf the City Council finds and determines as follows: a. The subject property of Tentative Tract 31236 is 135 gross acres of unimproved land located southeast of the easterly terminus of Ermine Street and north of the Santa Clara River in the vicinity north of Santa Clara Street. b. The request is for a change of zone from A-2-1 (Heavy Agricultural) and M-1 1/2 (Restricted Heavy Manufacturing) to RPD -11U (Residential Planned Development, 11 units to the acre maximum density) for the creation of 1452 residential condominium units. C. Several conceptual changes and variations to the applicant's proposal were discussed at the public hearings by the Council. d. The project is located near residential units and would have an impact on the lifestyle of the nearby residents. e. That modified conditions do not warrant a revision in the zoning plan as it pertains to the property under consideration. f. That the particular property under consideration is not a proper location for the proposed zone classification. Multiple -family zoning needs to be buffered from existing single-family neighborhoods. g. That placement of the proposed zone at such location will not be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare and in conformity with good zoning practice. The intensity of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing uses in the area. h. The City is proceeding in a timely manner with the preparation of a General Plan. There is a reasonable probability that this project will not be consistent with the future General Plan. On July 25, 1990, the General Plan Advisory Committee requested staff to consider placing the property in the Low Density Residential category. i. The recommended change of zone from A-2-1 and M-1 1/2 to RPD -11U would result in a significant adverse environmental effect, since the existing riparian area would be endangered or lost. J. The project was required to prepare an environmental impact report. k. The environmental impact report submitted to the City Council for review is deficient in some respects, as noted in the Attorney General's letter; alternatives have not been analyzed, impacts and possible mitigations have not been fully explored. 1. The proposed tract map and conditional use permit are not consistent with the present zoning. SECTION 3. In acting on the re -zoning and other applications the City Council has considered certain principles and standards and further finds and determines as follows: a. That modified conditions do not warrant a revision in the zoning plan as it pertains to the subject property. The applicant has not demonstrated a need for multi -family zoning in the area. b. That a need for the proposed zone classification does not exist within the area of the subject property. Presently no need has been demonstrated for multi -family housing in this area. C. That the subject property is not a proper location for the Residential Planned Development zone classification. The existing single-family neighborhood adjacent to this property is more compatible single-family zoning. d. That the placement of the proposed zone at the subject property will not be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare and in conformity with good zoning practice. The existing residential neighborhood adjacent is all of a single-family housing type. e. There is a probability that the design of the proposed subdivision will not be consistent with the future General Plan. The apartment buildings will not be consistent with the Plan if a Low Density Residential category is placed on the property. f. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed. This hillside property would require major changes in the natural environment to construct this multi -family development. g. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. This hillside property lies near many existing single-family homes. Major changes in the landform would be required to provide the pads for the multi -family structures. h. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The riparian area has not been fully addressed regarding short and long term impacts. i. The conditional use permit as proposed could adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area. The nearby single-family neighborhood is not compatible with multi -family development. j. The conditional use permit could be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site. Existing homes and yards in the area would provide a less desirable environment for view, ^" noise and activity level. k. The conditional use permit could jeopardize, endanger or ^ otherwise constitute a menace to the public, health, safety or general welfare. The resultant activity level of this proposed project could be greater than in the existing neighborhood at present. 1. That the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a General Plan. There is a reasonable probability that this re -zoning, tract map and conditional use permit will be inconsistent with the General Plan proposal which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if this re -zoning is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing the City Council does hereby deny the application for a zone change, tentative tract map and conditional use permit and determines that the official zoning map of the City of Santa Clarita shall not be changed on the subject property as proposed in the application. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. ^ PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th day of August ATTE r Le-4�1i9'z/ TY CLERK I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 14th day of A„gr>at 1990 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heidt, Klajic, McKeon, Darcy NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ^ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boyer ,16XTY CLERK