Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-28 - RESOLUTIONS - MC 90-228 DENIAL HARVEST CORP (2)RESOLUTION NO. 92-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ^ CITY OF SANTA CLARITA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING CONNISSIONS'S DENIAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 90-228, PLOT PLAN 90-112 TO ALLOW 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 FOLLOWS: 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 corner 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 r--" square foot retail commercial center (35' in height). The property consists of two lots. The proposed building would 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-2 lot 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. Resolution No. 92-79 Page 2 g. On March 6, 1991, the applicant submitted the required .�. initial environmental review application and fee. 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. Resolution No. 92-79 Page 3 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 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. o. 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 the meeting of March 24, 1992, the Council denied the continuance request and upheld the Planning Commission's denial (voting 4-1 to deny) of the project directing staff to return at the Council meeting of April 21, 1992 with a resolution of denial. q. Resolution No. 92-79, formally denying the project, was brought before the City Council as a consent calendar item at the meeting of April 21, 1992. The Council removed this item from the consent calendar continuing it to the regular Council meeting of April 28, 1992 to allow Councilman Pederson sufficient time to be briefed by staff regarding the project and to listen to audio tapes related to the project's hearing. r. Resolution No. 92-79, formally denying the project, was brought before the City Council for their consideration at the meeting of April 28, 1992. 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 commercial project is not consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Residential Low. Resolution No. 92-79 Page 4 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 floodway 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: 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 inconsistent with 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. Resolution No. 92-79 Page 5 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 28th day of April 1992. Jill lajic, Mayo ATTEST: onna M. Grindey, City gZjfk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS 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 28th day of April 1992 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boyer, Darcy, Heidt, Pederson, Rlajic NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None D nna M. Grindey, City erk GEA: 517