Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC91-107 ZC SINGLE FAMILY (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval r Item to be present(edd,� CONSENT CALENDAR Lynn M. Harris -//l 9QUlttk� ,T- DATE: July 14, 1992 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case 91-107 (Zone Change 91-004, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, Conditional Use Permit 91-016 and Oak Tree Permit 91-037) to allow for,the development of a 31.8 acre parcel with 45 single family residential lots and two open space lots located southeasterly of the intersection of Santa Clarita Drive and La Rochelle Drive in the Saugus area. Applicant: KMR Construction, Inc. DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND This project was denied.without prejudice by the Planning Commission on April 22, 1992, and the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this item on June 23, 1992. CITY COUNCIL ACTION After consideration of a staff presentation, public correspondence and testimony from the floor, the Council closed the public hearing and voted to deny this project with prejudice. The Council directed staff to return with a resolution for denial. 1. Adopt Resolution _92-145 to deny Zone Change 91-004, to deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, to deny Conditional Use Permit 91-016, and to deny Oak Tree Permit 91-037. (Master Case No. 91-107). ' Resolution 92-145 LHS:553 Adopted: 7 -14--(769- Ag oda Item: RESOLUTION NO. 92-145 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE 91-004, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 50488, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-016, AND OAR TREE PERMIT 91-037 FOR THE 31.8 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF SANTA CLARITA DRIVE AND LA ROCHELLE DRIVE IN THE SAUGUS AREA. (MASTER CASE NO. 91-107) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 50488) and Environmental Review was filed with the City of Santa Clarita by RMR Construction, Inc. (the "applicant•) on July 18, 1991. The property for which this application has been filed is located southeasterly of the intersection of Santa Clarita Drive and La Rochelle Drive in the Saugus area. (Assessor Parcel -Numbers 2807-023-037 and 2807-023-038, a legal description of which is on file in the Department of Community Development.) b. Following review of the application for VTTM 50488, the applicant subsequently filed an application for a zone' change (ZC 91-004), and for a conditional use permit •(CUP 91-016) on November 5, 1991. On December 16, 1991, the applicant filed an application for an oak tree permit (OTP 91-037). C. ZC 91-004 is a request to change the zoning on the subject property to RPD -1-5U (Residential Planned Development Zone, density of 5 units per- acre). The site presently has three zoning designations - approximately 25 acres are R -A-7,500 (Residential -Agricultural Zone, 7,500 square foot minimum lot size), 6 acres are A-2-2 (Heavy Agricultural Zone, 2 acre minimum lot size), and 0.5 acres are R-1-11,000 (Single Family Residential Zone, 11,000 square foot minimum lot size). d.VTTM 50488 is a request for a subdivision of an irregularly-shaped 31.8 acre parcel into forty-five (45) single family residential lots and two open space lots. CUP 91-016 has been requested to allow clustering of the residential units to preserve open space as provided for in the RPD -1-5U Zone. e. An OTP 91-037 has been requested to allow the removal of four oak trees.. Three of these trees are on the subject property. The other oak is to the east of the site in an area proposed for off-site grading. The area where off-site grading is to occur is owned by the applicant. None of these oak trees are heritage size. An Oak Tree Report dated December 23, 1991 was prepared by McMullen Landscaping to evaluate this proposal. ISA (International Society of Arborists) values for the trees were provided totaling $36,304. f. The subject parcel is designated as RS (Residential Suburban, 3.4-6.6 dwelling units per acre, midpoint of 5 du/ac) by the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. The proposed density for the project.is 1.4 du/ac. g. The subject site is a vacant hillside property. Two significant ridgelines exist on the site as identified in the City's General Plan and development is proposed on them. The average cross slope of the site is 44.5%. The applicant has proposed grading of 295,000 cubic yards of earth to.be balanced on site. h. All surrounding uses are single family residential and have the same - RS General Plan designation as the subject parcel. The proposal is an infill project. Surrounding single family lots in the R -A-7,500 Zone average 8,400 square feet in size. The smallest lot proposed is 5,600 square feet and ten of the proposed lots are below 7,500 square feet. Eight of the proposed lots would not be buildable, without a variance, under existing Municipal Code yard requirements. i. Access is proposed to the site from Catero Drive, Pamplico Drive and Santa Clarita Road. To gain access from Santa Clarita Road, an existing residence at 27362 Santa Clarita Road would be removed. Catero presently ends in a stub -out and would be extended to join Pamplico in a four-way intersection with Taryn Drive. j. The project applications were found to be incomplete on August 15, 1991, because a Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit were needed to process this proposal. A second incomplete letter, dated November 26, 1991, was sent requiring an oak tree permit application because oak tree removals would be required. The presence of oak trees was not disclosed on previous submittals. The application was deemed complete on December 31, 1991, and circulated for City Department and agency review. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee (DRC) met on January 30, 1992, to review this project. k. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study was prepared for this project dated January 29, 1992. Based upon this Initial Study, staff determined that this project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and required an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) be prepared. Rather than prepare an EIR, the applicant requested that this project be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. Reso. 92-145 2 - 1. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1992, at 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At the April 7, 1992 meeting, the Planning Commission tentatively denied Zone Change 91-004, VTTM 50488, CUP 91-016, and OTP 91-037 (Master Case No. 91-107) and directed staff to return to the April 22, 1992, Planning Commission hearing with a resolution for denial. M. At the Planning Commission meeting on April 22, 1992, the Planning Commission voted to adopt Resolution P92-17 denying without prejudice Zone Change 91-004, VTTM 50048, CUP 91-016, and OTP 91-037 (Master Case No. 91-107). n. A letter to appeal the Planning .Commission's denial of the project was submitted to the City Clerk by Scott Crawford of RMR Construction on May 6, 1992. On May 7, 1992, Richard Henderson spoke with David Breier, legal counsel for RMR Construction, regarding scheduling of the City Council hearing. Mr. Henderson stated staff preferred to hold .the Council hearing on June 23, 1992, although earlier Council hearing dates were available. Mr. Breier waived holding the. hearing within 30 days of filing of the appeal and agreed to the scheduling of the Council hearing for June 23, 1992. o. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council for Zone Change 91-004, VTTM 50488, CUP 91-016 and OTP 91-037 (Master Case No. 91-107) on June 23, 1992 at the City Council Chambers, 29320 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. The City Council received a staff presentation; received public testimony and closed the hearing. The City Council then voted to deny this project and they directed staff to return to a subsequent Council hearing with a resolution for denial. SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds as follows: a. At the hearing of April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered the staff report prepared for this project, letters and a petition from citizens and received testimony on this proposal (Master Case No. 91-107). b. At the hearing of June 23, 1992, the City Council considered the staff report for this project,' letters and a petition from citizens and received testimony on this .proposal (Master Case No. 91-107). C. The City's General Plan designation for the project site is Residential Suburban (RS), 3.4 - 6.6 dwelling units per acre, midpoint of 5 DU/acre. The project density of 1.4 unit per acre is below the range of densities.for the RS designation. Reso. 92-145 3 - d. Based upon a review of. the submitted plan, the staff report, letters and a petition from citizens, testimony at the public hearing on June 23, 1992 and review of the minutes of the April 7, 1992 Planning Commission hearing, the subject property is not suitable for the type of development proposed 'because the project is not consistent with the City's General Plan policies limiting development on ridgelines, promoting development consistent the existing topography, requiring new development to be compatible with existing residential neighborhoods and preserving oak trees. Eight of the proposed lots would not be buildable, without a variance, under the existing Municipal Code yard requirements. e. The subject property contains two significant ridgelines as defined by the City's General Plan (p. CD -13,14). The ridgeliries on this parcel are visible to a large number of people and from a large number of residences throughout the North Valencia/Seco Canyon area. .The ridgelines on this parcel are visible from the major corridors of Seco Canyon Road and Copperhill Drive. This project is subject to review under the hillside policies of the General Plan. f. The General Plan states that *hillside development should be designed to preserve or follow the natural contour of the land and reduce the amount of land alteration." (p. L-54). Land Uses Element policy 5.1 of the Land Use Element requires only 'responsible and sensitive development of hillside area* is allowable. Land Use Element policy 5.2 states that it is the City's duty to "ensure that new development, grading, and landscaping are sensitive to the natural topography and major landforms in the planning area." Other General Plan policies relating to ridgeline preservationand hillside development include, but are not limited to, Land Use Element policy 2.2, Community Design Element policies 5.1 and 7.4, Open Space and Conservation Element policies 1.1, 1.3, 1.10, 2.1, 2.2; and 2.4, and Housing Element policies 7.1, 7.4, and 7.5. General Plan policies calling for new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood include, but are not limited to, Land Use Element policy 6.2 which states that the City must "continue to provide for the development of new housing while ensuring that the character, scale, and density of new residential development is sensitive, compatible and complementary to existing residential neighborhoods." The General Plan also contains numerous policies encouraging preservation of oak trees which include, but are not limited to, Land Use policies 2.2 and 5.6, Housing Element policies 7.2 and 7.5, Community Design Element policy 5.1, and Open Space and Conservation Element policies 1.1 and 3.2. g. A preliminary -geology report was submitted for this project which indicates that there are no known landslides ion the site. A previous geologic report on the site indicated that -there were Reso. 92-145 4 - landslides on the site. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which has yet to be prepared, would provide clarification of geologic issues. : h. Because of potential impacts to soils, changes in topography and ground surface relief- features, destruction, covering and modification of unique geographic features (ridgelines), water and wind erosion of soils, exposure to people and property to geologic hazards such as landslides, modifications of existing drainage, earth movement in excess of 10,000 cubic yards, development and grading on slopes greater than 25Z natural grade, increases in air emissions and deterioration of ambient air quality, change in the diversity of species or number.of any species of plants, reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants (oak trees), introduction of new species of plants into an area, change in the diversity and numbers of any species of animals, increases in.existing noise levels, substantial alteration of the planned land use of the area which does not adhere to established development criteria, generation of additional vehicular movement, impacts upon existing transportation systems, impacts to public services and solid waste and disposal systems, creation of a potential health hazards, obstruction of a scenic vista and view open to the public, creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view, detrimental visual impacts to the surrounding area, an EIR is required for this project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). An EIR has not been prepared for this project. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City's General Plan because it is not in accordance with ridgeline development policies, neighborhood compatibility policies, and oak tree preservation policies. The project is also not consistent with policies requiring development to complement existing topography. b. The, requested use may adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding, area; may be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site; and, may jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare because of potential soil and geology hazards, visual impacts to .the. surrounding community, potential traffic, circulation, and transportation impacts, neighborhood compatibility, potential destruction of significant ridgelines, and removal of oak trees. Reso. 92-145 _ 5 _ . c. .The proposed lots are not consistent with the size of surrounding lots. Eight of the proposed lots would not be buildable, without a variance, under existing Municipal Code yard requirements. d. 'An EIR is required for project approval and one was never prepared. SECTION 4: The City Council hereby denies Zone Change 91-004, to change the zoning of the site to RPD -1-5U, denies Vesting Tentative Tract Map 50488, a major land division to create 47 lots, denies Conditional Use. Permit 91-016 to allow for clustering of lots, and denies Oak Tree .Permit 91-037 to allow removal of four oak trees. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992. Jill Rlajic, Mayor ATTEST: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) 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: COUNCILNEMBERS: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk LHS:550 Reso. 92-145