The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-11-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - RESO 94 132 DENYING MC 94 006 (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Item to be pyesentdd by: Rich Hend6rso`iil CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: November 22, 1994 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 94-132 denying Master Case 94-006. A resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case 94-006 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772, Hillside Review 94-002, and Oak Tree Permit 94-001) to create eight single family residential lots on a 31.8 acre property. The property is located southeasterly of the intersection of La Rochelle Drive and Santa Clarita Road, northwesterly of Cataro Drive and adjacent to the proposed Pamplico Park. Project Applicant: Saugus Development Company DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND Pursuant to the Council's direction at the November 8, 1994, meeting, staff has prepared Resolution No. 94-132 denying the above referenced appeal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: Adopt Resolution No.. 94-132, denying Master Case 94-006. Resolution No. 94-132 GAC:RH:GEA. //++ (` council\ar294006.gea �� -`� 7 Adopted:,. Agenda Item: RESOLUTION NO. 94-132 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING MASTER CASE 94-006, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51772, HILLSIDE REVIEW 94-002, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 94-001 TO SUBDIVIDE A 31.8 ACRE PROPERTY INTO EIGHT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF LA ROCHELLE DRIVE AND SANTA CLARITA ROAD, NORTHWESTERLY OF CATARO DRIVE AND ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PAMPLICO PARK 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. The project site was first included as part of a 1987 subdivision request exceeding 500 units. Prior to approval of that project, the subject site was removed from the subdivision request. b. On April 7, 1992, the Planning Commission considered 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 subdivide the subject site into 45 single family residential lots and two open space lots. Four oak trees located near or on the site were proposed for removal. The Planning Commission denied Master Case 91-107, citing concerns with the project's density, inconsistency with the General Plan, incompatibility with surrounding properties, visual impacts, and impacts to oak trees. The applicant subsequently appealed the denial to the City Council, who upheld the Commission's decision. C. An application for Master Case 94-006 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772, Hillside Review 94-002, and Oak Tree Permit 94-001) was filed by the Saugus Development Company (the "applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita on January 10, 1994. The application proposed: A vesting tentative tract map to subdivide a 31.8 acre property into 13 single family residential lots; a hillside permit to allow for the development of slopes in excess of 10%; and an oak tree permit to allow for grading within 200' of an oak tree. Seven of the 13 proposed lots were flag lots. In conjunction with the project, the applicant was proposing to haul approximately 25,000 cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract 47626 (located off of Ron Ridge Drive) to the project site. The site is located southeasterly of the intersection of La Rochelle Drive and Santa Clarita Road, northwesterly Cataro Drive and adjacent to the proposed Pamplico Park. The assessor's parcel number for the project site is 2807-023-037. d. The site is vacant and contains hillsides. The average cross slope of the subject site is 45%. The site contains both a primary ridgeline and secondary ridgeline. The primary ridgeline runs north/south and is presently developed with single family homes. The secondary ridgeline is undisturbed. Resolution Number 94-132 Page 2 e. A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. f. The project site is zoned RS (Residential Suburban). The RS zone typically corresponds to the single family tract home at a maximum density of five units per acre.. Under the City's Hillside Ordinance Density Chart the maximum number of units that could be considered for the project site is 21. g. Excluding Pamplico Park, the surrounding properties are all zoned Residential Suburban (RS). h. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 17, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting the Commission continued the item to the June 21, 1994, meeting directing the applicant to redesign the project in an effort to resolve concerns associated with the development. These concerns were related to project design, earth movement, development on significant ridgelines, project density, slope gradients and heights, and the use of a private driveway. The Commission also directed the applicant, staff, and surrounding propertyowners to meet regarding the project in an attempt to resolve concerns cited by surrounding property owners. i. Theproject was revised to include the subdivision of the 31.8 acre site into eight single family residential lots. The redesign reduced development along an identified secondary ridgeline and changed the slope gradient of a 120' high fill slope from 1.5:1 to 2.5:1 The revised project also included a reduction in the amount of dirt proposed to be hauled to the site from 25,000 to 13,000 cubic yards. Total grading proposed with the revision consists of 35,000 cubic yards of fill and 22,000 cubic yards of cut. The project proposed access from two public streets, Taryn Drive and Cataro Drive. Taryn Drive would be extended from its present terminus approximately 950' and Cataro Drive would be extended' approximately 100'. j. Staff, the applicant's engineer, and surrounding property owners met on June 13, 1994, to discuss the revised project. A majority of the residents present at this meeting were in opposition to the revised project. k. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 21, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. At this meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Commission's consideration at the July 19, 1994, meeting. Reasons for denial included the project's inconsistency with the Hillside Ordinance and General Plan policies concerning hillside development. The Commission adopted Resolution P94-10 at the meeting of July 19, 1994. 1. On August 3, 1994, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's denial Resolution Number 94-132 Page 3 of Master Case 94-006. in. The City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita scheduled the appeal for the City Council meeting of September 27, 1994, Per the applicant's written request, the item was moved from this meeting to the Council's meeting of November 8, 1994. n. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 8, 1994, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia: Boulevard, Santa Clarita. Prior to this meeting, the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the Council continue the appeal to a Council meeting in late March or early February. 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. At the hearing of November 8, 1994, the City Council considered the agenda report prepared for this project, received public testimony, and reviewed all correspondence received on this proposal. The Community Development Department received six letters and a petition containing approximately 200 signatures in opposition to the project. The City's General Plan designation for the project site (RS) has a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The project density of .25 units per acre is consistent with the RS designation. The average slope of the subject parcel has been calculated to be 45%. C. Based upon review of the submitted plan and testimony from surrounding property owners at the hearing, the subject property is not suitable for the type of development proposed because the project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan policies limiting development on ridgelines, promoting development consistent with the existing topography and requiring new development to be compatible with existing residential neighborhoods. d. The subject property contains two significant ridgelines per the City's Significant Ridgelines Map. The primary ridgeline runs nortb/south. Lots 1-4 are proposed to be constructed on this ridgeline. The secondary ridgeline runs east/west. Lots 5-8 are proposed to be constructed on this ridgeline. e. The Hillside Ordinance applies to development proposals on properties with an average cross slope in excess of 10% and the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to implement the hillside policies of the General Plan. Due to the average slope on this property, review for consistency under the Hillside Ordinance is required. The Density and Building Floor Area Ratio Change with Percentage of Slope chart of the Hillside Ordinance (Section 17.80.0401, Figure 3) states that the maximum allowable density for properties in the RS zone with an Resolution Number 94-132 Page 4 average cross slope of 45% is .63 units per acre, provided that the project complies with the development standards of the Hillside Ordinance. Section 17.80.040, D. states "... No engineered slopes, housing construction, streets, utilities, or other man-made features shall be permitted within primary ridgeline areas." Furthermore, this section states that " ... Secondary ridgelines shall also be considered for hillside development proposals." The project proposes development on both a primary and secondary ridgeline. f. The Hillside Ordinance and Guidelines encourage grading to be balanced on site (Section 17.80.040.j.5). The applicant is proposing to import approximately 13,000 cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract 47626 to the project site. This is inconsistent with balanced grading procedures called for under the City's HillsideOrdinance and Guidelines. g: Land Use Element policy 52 states that itis 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 hillside development include, but are not limited to: Community Design Element policies 5.1 and 7.4, Open Space and Conservation Element policies 1. 1, 1. 10, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4. 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 hillside policies since it not consistent with the Hillside Ordinance. The project is not consistent with the Hillside Ordinance because the project proposes development on both a primary and secondary ridgeline. Likewise, the proposed grading is not in accordance with the Hillside Ordinance balanced grading requirements. b. The site is not physically suitable for the density of development proposed due to constraints associated with two identified significant ridgelines located on the subject site. C. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed and the design of the subdivision may jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare because the project is not consistent with the City's Hillside Ordinance and General Plan policies concerning hillside development. d. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65907 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any action or proceeding to attach, review, set aside, void or annul this decision, or concerning any of the proceedings, acts, or determinations taken, done or made prior to such decision or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached to this decision shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is Resolution Number 94-132 Page 5 commenced within 90 days of the date of this resolution and the City Council is served within 120 days of the date of this resolution. The City Clerk shall send a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant, and if any, the appellant at the address of said person set forth in the record of the proceedings and such mailing shall constitute the notice required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby denies (Master Case 94-006) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51772 to create eight single family residential lots on 31.8 acres, denies Hillside Review 94-002 to allow for development on a property with an average cross slope in excess of 10%, and denies Oak Tree Permit 94-001 to allow for grading within 200' of an oak tree. The City Council also denies the request to haul approximately 13,000 cubic yards of dirt from approved Tract 47626 to the project site. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of , 19_: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do 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 day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK GEA:muncf 1\res94132.gea