The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-03-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - MC 90 173 (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager ApprovaAy:� Item to be presented Lynn M. Harris J� rrh 4 c� CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: March 9, 1993 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case 90.173 (Tentative Tract Map 49756 and Oak Tree Permit 90.037) to allow for the subdividing of three existing lots Into five single family residential lots for the properties located at 26862, 26864 and 26866 Sand Canyon Road. Applicant: Mr. Steve Parks, Mr. Roy Swank and Mr. Monty Fu `DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND Pursuant to the Council's direction at the meeting of February 23, 1993, staff has prepared Resolution No. 93-29, denying Master Case 90.173 (Tentative Tract Map 49756 and Oak Tree Permit 90-037). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 93-29, denying Master Case 90.173. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 93-29 counc11\ar90173.gea Adopted: 3 --� Agenda Item: FOLLOWS: RESOLUTION NO. 93-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DENYING MASTER CASE NUMBER 90.173, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 49756, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 90-037, TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVIDING OF THREE EXISTING LOTS INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 26862, 26864, 26866 SAND CANYON ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application fora Zone Change (ZC 90-011), Tentative Tract Map (TTM 49756), and an Oak Tree Permit (OTP 90-037) for six single-family lots was filed with the City of Santa Clarita by Roy and Marcia Swank, James and Nancy Denneny, and Monty and Wendy Fu (the "applicants") on August 9, 1990. Staff was informed by letter on April 30, 1991, that Mr. and Mrs. Denneny were no longer applicants, being replaced by Mr. and Mrs. Steve Parks. The properties for which this application has been filed are located at 26862, 26864, and 26866 Sand Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel Numbers 2841-019-051, 052, 053), legal descriptions of which are on file In the Department of Community Development. Zone Change 90-011 was no longer necessary due to the City's adoption of the Unified Development Code on December 24,1992, which designated the project site Residential Very Low (one dwelling unit per gross acre). b. The project originally was a request to subdivide three existing lots, totaling 7.11 acres, Into six lots containing the following acreage: lot 1 -1.60, lot 2 - 1.03, lot 3 - 1.09, lot 4 - 1.00, lot 5. 1.00, and lot 6 - 1.07. The oak tree permit request was to allow for the encroachment within the protected zone of numerous oak trees due to the possible enlargement of an existing driveway accessing the project. C. The project site is designated Residential Very Low (RVL, 0.50- 1.00 dwelling units per acre, no midpoint density). The proposed density for the project is approximately .86 units per acre. d. The project site contains three existing single family residences. The project site Is moderately sloped, but does contain hillside areas with slopes In excess of 40%. Existing drainage patterns carry water to adjacent properties to the south. The property was previously subdivided into three single family lots by Parcel Map 8252. The project site has 30' of frontage on Sand Canyon Road. The existing parcels each meet minimum street frontage requirements for flag lots (10'). An Ingress and egress easement was recorded over the 30' access strips for the existing lots. The paved portion of the project's existing access varies from 15' to 20' In width. A portion of the access strip has a slope of 20% for approximately 150', which Is the maximum allowable slope pursuant to the City's Zoning Code, and is considered substandard for a new subdivision. e. The project site Iles adjacent to Tract 47785, which contains lots averaging one acre In size. To the south and east lie single family residential lots ranging in size from one to three acres. To the west is Sand Canyon Road. RESO NO. 93-29 Page 2 I. The existing residences are each serviced by a private septic system. The applicants are proposing to service the additional residences with septic systems. g. The applicants are requesting the removal of the existing flag strip access, replacing It with a private driveway design. This design will require the creation of easements over the access, to service the lots. This design requires the waiving of the normally required street frontage for the lots. h. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan contains several goals and policies related to the sensitivity and compatibility of new residential development to existing residential neighborhoods and restricting development where natural hazards are present. These policies include, but are not limited to, Land Use Policies 6.2, and 7.3. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). j: A duty noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 3,1991 at 7:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to continue the item to a date uncertain, directing the applicants to resolve Issues associated with the project (drainage and non-compliance with the City's Zoning Code) and return 'to the Commission with both a five and six lot design for the Commission's review and consideration. At this meeting the applicant and applicant's engineer verbally agreed to suspend processing timelines for the project. This was followed up by a letter dated December 4, 1991, from the applicant's engineer agreeing to the suspension of processing timelines. k. On June 3,.1992, the applicant submitted the revised six lot map. On August 23, 1992, the applicant submitted the revised five lot map. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 1, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting the Planning Commission conceptually denied Master Case 90.173 (both a five and six lot project), directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Commission's consideration at the September 15, 1992 meeting. m.. On September 15, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-34, denying Master Case 90-173. n. On September 30,1992, the applicants appealed the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case 90-173. Within the appeal letter, the applicants revised the project requesting that only a five lot project be considered by the City Council. o. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 10, 1992 at 6:30 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting the Council continued the item to a date uncertain, directing the applicants to resolve drainage and safety Issues associated with the project and that the re -designed project be returned to the Planning Commission for their review and comment prior to being heard again by the City Council. RESO NO. 93-29 Page 3 p. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 5, 1993 at 7:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. Prior to this hearing, the applicants submitted information attempting to resolve the issues Identified by the City Council. This information Included a stone water containment plan and a driveway design plan. The Commission concluded that neither plan sucessfully resolved the issues identified by the City Council. q. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on February 23,1993 at 7:00 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. Prior to this hearing, the applicants submitted a conceptual off-site drainage plan. This plan was in response to the Planning Commission's comments related to the two plans reviewed by the Commission. SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearing held for the project, and upon studies and Investigations made by the City Council and on Its behalf, the City Council further finds as follows: a. At the hearings of November 10, 1992 and February 23, 1993, the City Council considered the staff reports prepared for this project and received testimony on this proposal. Testimony from surrounding property owners included concerns that the project would worsen existing area drainage problems and that the project would negatively impact the rural qualities of Sand Canyon. b. The proposed storm water containment system and conceptual off-site drainage plan do not resolve the area's existing drainage problem. A possible drainage solution was viewed by staff, the Planning Commission; and City Council as a potential benefit to the neighborhood which might have been used to offset the substandard aspect of this project in regards to access. C. Pursuant to the State of California Subdivision Map Act Section 66474, the project substantiates the following finding for denial of a tentative map: That the site is not physically sultable for the proposed density of development. The existing private driveway accessing the project site Is a safety concern due to the driveway's width and grade. The width of the driveway varies between 15 and 20 feet and has a maximum grade of 20%. The submitted driveway design plan proposes three schemes with each scheme showing a driveway width of 26'. Two schemes propose to reduce the driveway grade which would require the construction of retaining walls along both sides of the driveway. These walls create additional safety and aesthetic impacts due to the height of the walls. Additionally, the project does not comply with the City's Unified Development Code, specifically with street frontage requirements for each lot. Approving this project necessitates the waiving of the street frontage requirements. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines as follows: a. The project is not consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. RESO NO. 93-29 Page 4 b. The project substantiates a finding associated with denying a tract map and does not comply with the City's Unified Development Code specifically with Code Sections 16.13.040 and 16.19.040 which states requirements for minimum street frontage for each lot and the usage of private streets within a division of land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: The City Council hereby denies Master Case 90-173 (Tentative Tract Map 49756, and Oak Tree Permit 90-037) to subdivide three existing lots, totaling 7.11 acres, Into five single family residential lots. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTEDthls day of 1993. Jan Heidt, Mayor ATTEST: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) 1, 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 . 1993 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk GEA:II counciRr"93.29.gea