Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-21 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 90 228 RETAIL CENTER (2)CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: April 21, 1992 AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approva Item toe, nted y: Ric a Hen er o SUBJECT: Resolution 92-79 upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Plot Plan 90-112 (Master Case 90-228) to allow for a 39,500 square foot commercial retail center at the northeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. Applicant: Harvest Corporation DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND Pursuant to the Council action of March 24, 1992, staff has prepared a draft resolution of denial for the above referenced project. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 92-79. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 92-79 GAC:LMH:GEA:518 Continued To: 4-aq-Y- Agenda Item: FOLLOVSs E RESOLUTION N0: 92-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS'S DENIAL OF MASTER CASE N0. 90-228, PLOT PLAN 90-112 TO ALLOY FOR A 39,500 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL"RETAIL CENTER AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOST CANYON ROAD AND SAND CANYON ROAD (APN 2840-008-029,030) APPLICANT: HARVEST CORPORATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings: a. _ An ,application for a plot plan was filed on November 8, 1990, by an representative of the Harvest Corporation (the "applicant"). The property for which this entitlement has been filed is located at the northeast comer of Lost Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Number 2840-008-029, 30) (the "site"). The project site consists of two zones, C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) and A-1-10,000 (Light Agriculture, 10,000 square feet required area). b. Plot Plan 90-112 proposes to construct a two-story, 39,500 square foot retail commercial center (35' in height). The property consists of two lots. The proposed building mould be constructed on the southern lot zoned C-2, while approximately 80-100 feet of the contiguous area zoned A-1-10,000 would be used for parking. C. The site is relatively flat with a single family residence on the property. The entire lot zoned A-1-10,000 and a contiguous 15' portion of the C-2lot are within the floodway limits for the Santa Clara River. The remainder area of the site lies within a flood hazard area. No oak trees are present on-site. d. During the initial 30 day review period of the project, the applicant was informed that an initial environmental review would be conducted on the project. On December 13, 1990 the applicant was again notified concerning this requirement. e. On January 17, 1991, the applicant was sent a letter indicating that the initial project submittal did not contain sufficient information to process the request. The applicant was given 30 days to respond to this letter or the application would be removed from active case processing. f. On February 7, 1991, the applicant's architect responded to the January 17, .1991 letter. The applicant's architect requested an additional 30 days to submit the required information. g. On March 6, 1991, the applicant submitted the required initial environmental review application and fee. Resolution No. 92-79 Page 2 h. On June 6, 1991, the applicant was informed that the submitted plot plan request for a 39,500 square foot, two-story (35' in height), retail commercial center had been denied by the Director of Community Development. The reasons for denial included the project's inconsistency with the then draft General Plan land use designation of Residential Low (RL) and the project's incompatibility with the significant ecological overlay area established for.the Santa Clara River. Pursuant to the conditions established by the State Office of Planning and Research, in conjunction with the granting of a time extension for the City's General Plan, the City may not approve a project that is inconsistent with the draft General Plan after adoption by the Planning Commission. The Commission formally adopted the draft General Plan on May 21, 1991. In connection with deliberations on the General Plan, the Planning Commission considered the specific request for a commercial designation on the property. It was the determination of the Commission that there should be no commercial designations south of the Santa Clara River along Sand Canyon Road. The Council, acting upon this recommendation, approved the locating of the Residential Low designation on the project site and surrounding areas. i. On June 19, 1991, the applicant's architect formally requested an appeal of the Community Development Director's denial of the project. J. On June 25, 1991, the General Plan was adopted by the City Council. The land use designation corresponding to the project site was identified as RL (Residential Low, 1.1 to 3.3 residential dwelling units per acre). k. The applicant requested that the item be scheduled for the September 17, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. On August 26, 1991, the applicant requested to the Director that the item not be scheduled for the September meeting but for the second Commission meeting in October or the first meeting .in November. 1. The appeal of the Director's denial was heard by the Planning Commission on November 5, 1991, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. At this meeting the applicant requested .that the item be continued to the next regularly scheduled. Commission meeting on November 19, 1991. M. On November 14, 1991, the. applicant submitted a letter requesting that the Planning Commission continue the item to the December 17, 1991, Commission meeting. n. The appeal of the Director's denial was heard by the Planning Commission on November 19, 1991, at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. Issues raised at this meeting were related .to the compatibility of the project's use with surrounding residential• properties, the project's inconsistency with the General Plan, the project's inconsistency with the Santa Resolution No. 92_79 Page 3 Clara River Plan, and the project's inconsistency with good zoning practice. Five area residents spoke in opposition to the -project. In addition, a petition containing 97 signatures in opposition to the project was also presented to the Commission. At: this meeting the Commission denied the project and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for their adoption at the December 3, 1991 meeting. 0. Resolution P91-62, formally denying Plot Plan 90-112, was adopted by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1991. p. The appeal of the Commission's denial was heard by the -City Council on March 24, 1992. Prior to this meeting, the applicant submitted a revised plot plan indicating a total building area of 39,380 square feet with 203 parking spaces. A pavilion area, trail easements, and conceptual levee. improvements were also illustrated on the revised plan.- The applicant also submitted a letter requesting that the Council continue the item to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. At this meeting, the Council denied the continuance request and heard the item. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing, and upon the study and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds as follows: a. The City's General Plan designation for the project site is Residential Low (RL). The project is not consistent with the intent of the designation regarding land use. b. The project is inconsistent with the Santa Clara River Plan. The Plan indicates as an objective, under flood control, that the City prohibit human made structures -within the floodvay and adjacent riparian and wetland areas, unless it can be demonstrated to significantly benefit the public's health, safety, and welfare. The project proposes encroachment within the Santa Clara River to accommodate a parking area. C. The Council finds that approving the project, as proposed, does not satisfy the following principles and standards for consideration of a plot plan: That the use, development of land and/or application of development standards, when considered on the basis of the suitability of the site for the particular use or development intended, is so. arranged as to avoid traffic congestion, insure the protection of public health, safety and general welfare, prevent adverse effects on neighboring property and is conformity with good zoning practice. (The inconsistency of the project with the City's General Plan is in conflict with this required finding.) ~� d. The following policies of the General Plan support the denial of the project: Resolution No. 92-79 Page 4 1) Goal 4, Policy 4.12 of the Land Use Element states: Maintain and enhance the desirable rural qualities found in the certain existing neighborhoods which. are rural in character, such as Placerita, Sand, and Hasley Canyons. (The addition of. a retail commercial center is inconsistentwith this policy.) 2) Goal 5, Policy 5.3 of the Land Use Element states: New development must be sensitive. to the significant ecological areas (SEA'S) through utilization of creative site planning techniques to avoid and minimize disturbance of these and other sensitive areas. (The project's proposed encroachment and altering of the Santa Clara River is inconsistent with this policy.) 3) Goal 5, Policy 5.5 of the Land Use Element states: Follow the recommendations. of the Santa Clara River study. (The project's proposed encroachment within the Santa Clara River is in direct conflict with the River study.) e. Testimony received at the hearing by surrounding property owners cited the project's negative impacts upon •their properties and the project's inconsistency with the City's General Plan. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan. b. The project does not satisfy the required findings for granting approval of a plot plan. SECTION- 4. The City Council hereby denies Plot Plan 90-112 (as revised - 39,380 square foot, two-story, 35' in height, retail commercial center). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992. Sill Klajic, Mayor . ATTEST: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) Resolution No. 92-79 Page 5 I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Resolution -was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular -meeting thereof, held on the day of 1992 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: GEA:517 Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk Hal and Adrienne Good 27800 Sand Canyon Road Santa Clarita, California 91351 April 17, 1992 Mayor Jill Klajic City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mayor Klajic: I was born in the Santa Clarita Valley and my wife and I have lived in Sand Canyon for a long time. Some of the change we have seen has been disturbing to us, while other changes we welcome. We were very pleased tolearnthat a high quality shopping center, located at the corner of Lost and Sand Canyon Roads and developed by The Harvest Corporation, would be built that would really "dress up" Sand Canyon. We intended to show our approval for this project at your hearing, but are distressed to find that we may not have a chance to do that unless you vote to give it another hearing date. We really would like to see this project built and have talked with many of our Sand Canyon area neighbors who feel the same way. May we please have a chance to participate, and please vote to give Harvest the hearing date we are requesting. Best wishes, al and Adrienne Good Margi Colette 15921 Live Oak,Springs Canyon 9Z9ad Canyon Country, California 91351 April 9, 1992 Mayor Jill HIajic City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mayor HIajic, Upon careful thought, I decided that the Harvest Corporation proposed high-end shopping center called the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade would be a definite asset to Sand Canyon as long as it was built along the lines of the other shopping centers I have seen in communities like ours. I was present at the November 18, 1991 meeting of the Sand Canyon Homeowner's Association, where a clear majority of the people in attendance raised their hands to show that they approved of the project. Now I learn that you may vote to deny the project during your April 21st council meeting without ever giving any of the large number of Sand Canyon area residents who support this project the opportunity to come and be a part of this important decision for all of us. I am requesting that you reschedule the hearing on the Harvest Corporation shopping center so that we may come and participate and show our support for this unique, high-quality project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joseph F. Russo 15620 Condor Ridge Drive Santa Clarita, CA 91351 April 14, 1992 Mayor Jill Klajic City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mayor Klajic; My wife and I are strong supporters of the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project. We know many of our neighbors who are also supporters. The Harvest Corporation has done us the courtesy of keeping us posted about when they expected to have a hearing so that we could attend and express our support. Unfortunately, their hearing took place despite their standard request for a delay. We are most disappointed and would like you to reschedule their hearing so that we and our neighbors who strongly support his project may attend and participate. Please don't cut us out of the process..... give the public a full and fair chance to be a part of this decision. Sincerely, ;�5- Joseph F. Russo GAYE HAMMEL-McDONALD 15838 Beaver Run Road Santa Clarita, California 91351 April 12,1992 Mayor Jill Klajic City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mayor Klajic: My family and I have lived in Sand Canyon for many years. Like most people, we don't necessarily like to see change take place. Any change, however, that upgrades the appearance of Sand Canyon and makes it more convenient to live here we are glad to see. The Harvest Corporation shopping center at the corner of Lost and Sand Canyon Road definitely appears to be the kind of project that will upgrade Sand Canyon. We had intended to participate in your hearing on this project to show our approval but have learned that that now may not be possible. If you vote to deny this project at your April 21st meeting, we, and a lot of other people in Sand Canyon will never have had a chance to be part of this important issue in our community. Please vote to give the Harvest Corporation another hearing date so that all of us in Sand Canyon who approve of this project will have the opportunity to be part of this important decision. Thank you for your attention to this very important request. �Very truly yours, Elias Reynoso 16320 Lost Canyon Road Canyon Country, CA 91351 April 16, 1992 Mayor Jill Majic City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mayor Klajic: We are among the many Lost Canyon Road residents who strongly believe that the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade upscale shopping center will really benefit our community. A few of our neighbors gathered petition signatures to attempt to show that most people in the area were opposed to the project. We signed this petition by mistake because it wasn't made clear to us at the time that the peition we signed was meant to stop the Gateway Promenade project. Many of our neighbors were fooled in this same way. We strongly support this project and are writing to ask that you reschedule this project so that a full and complete hearing that we can attend is held. We don't want this project denied and feel it would be unfair for the city to take action without our having a chance to come and. tell you about our strong enthusiasm for this high quality shopping center. Please vote to give this project a fair hearing. Most sincerely, IR:�� ell�)e G. W. McCallum 16401 Lost Canyon Road Canyon Country, CA 91351 April 16, 1992 Mayor Jill Klajic City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mayor Klajic, For many decades my family has lived two houses up Lost Canyon Road from the site of the proposed Harvest Corporation upscale shopping center. We were very happy to learn that a project of this high quality would finally be built in our area, which really needs upgrading of the kind this project will provide. Having lived here for so many years I know a lot of my neighbors in Lost Canyon and most were happy to see this project go in. I was unhappy to hear that you may take action at your April 21 st meeting to deny this project. We never had a chance to come and tell you about our strong support for this shopping center and would like you to vote not to deny the project, but to give it another hearing, and let us know so that all of us in the Lost Canyon area who support the project can be a part of the hearing. Best personal regards, G.W. McCallum CC � Grace Posthumus 15906 West Pashley Canyon Country, CA 91351 Aprill7, 1992 Mayor Jill xlajic City of Santa Clarita 23920 Nafencia Blvd Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mayor 7gajic, Please don't deny the Sand Canyon Gateway Promenade project. We befizve it wiff de agreat addition to our neighborhood and the majority of our neighbors feel the same way. A lot of us in my neighborhood wanted to attend the hearing on this project and tell you of our enthusiasm for it. We are told it maybe too late unless you vote to give this project another hearing. Please do this so that we and aff the other people in our area who want this project to go in may attend the hearing to show our strong support for this fine project. Please reschedule this project for a hearing during your Aprd 2lst meeting. ghank,you. Best regards,