Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - TM 45022 (2)AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 27, 1995 City Manager Approv Item Mende esented Richon SUBJECT AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO EXTEND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 45022. APPELLANT: G.H. PALMER AND ASSOCIATES DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45022 was approved in 1990. The project is one of the four "Golden Valley Road" projects discussed more thoroughly in the previous agenda report related to this item. The applicant is appealing the Director of Community Development's and the Planning Commission's denial of the applicant's various requests to stay the running of time and/or extend the time of the applicant's Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 45022). These requests were made pursuant to various subsections of Government Code 66452.6, which can be summarized as follows: 1. A VTTM can be extended by a "development moratorium", but such moratorium shall not exceed five years. Section 66452.6 provides that a "development moratorium" includes any period of time during which a condition imposed by a City could not be satisfied because of some action or inaction by such City. 2. A City can extend a VTTM for a period of time equal to that in which a lawsuit involving the approval or conditional approval of a VTTM is or was pending. Such an extension cannot exceed five years. 3: A City can extend a VTTM for a period of up to three years, exclusive of those. time periods referenced in section 1 and 2 above. Adopted: � sl r AA Ag Item: The applicant is asserting that the City's actions or inactions with respect to the Golden Valley Road condition in the applicant's VTTM amounts to a "development moratorium" and that the City should agree to extend the applicant's map for a period equal to the moratorium. Alternatively, the applicant is requesting extensions based upon the currently pending litigation between the applicant and the City and/or the City's ability to grant extensions for up to three years. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION This application was heard by the Planning Commission on May 2, 1995. Public testimony was received from the applicants and their representatives. Based upon the staff report and attachments, and testimony regarding the project, the Commission found that there has not been any action or inaction by the City which would constitute a "development moratorium" and that no further extensions of VTTM 45022 are warranted under Section 66452.6. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: Adopt Resolution No. 95-78, upholding the Director of Community Development's and the Planning Commission's decision to deny a request to extend Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 45022 and not grant any extension to VTTM 45022. ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Resolution P95-09 Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report GAC:GEA:Iep council\arplm.te CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A TIME EXTENSION FOR VTTM 45022 PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66452.6. THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT FRONTS ON FUTURE GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD, BETWEEN SIERRA HIGHWAY AND GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CA. THE APPELLANT IS VISTA TERRACE PROPERTIES, LTD. THE APPLICANT IS VISTA TERRACE PROPERTIES, LTD. PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: Regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a time extension for VTTM 45022 pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6. The location of the project fronts on future Golden Valley Road, between Sierra Highway and Green Mountain Drive in the City of Santa Clarita, CA. The Appellant is Vista Terrace Properties, Ltd. The applicant is Vista Terrace Properties, Ltd. The public hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 27th day of June, 1995, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita, California. If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to the public hearing. Dated: June 5, 1995 Donna M. Grindey, CMC City Clerk Publish Dated: June 7, 1995 mrres.phvista.gmd RESOLUTION NO. 95-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING AN APPEAL TO THE DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO EXTEND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 45022 WHEREAS, Vista Terrace Properties, Ltd. ("Vista") requested that its Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 45022 ("VTTM") be extended pursuant to various subsections of Government Code Section 66452.6; WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development denied such request on February 27, 1995 pursuant to the authority grated to her by the Santa Clarita Development Code; WHEREAS, Vista appealed such denial of the Community Development Director to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Vista appealed the Planning Commission's denial of its appeal to extend its VTTM to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. In furtherance of the best interests of the City of Santa Clarita, Vista's appeal to extend its VTTM pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6 is denied. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 19 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 95-78 June 27, 1995 - Page 2 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 council\res95-78.gea RESOLUTION NO_ P95-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING AN APPEAL TO THE DENIAL OF AREQUEST TO EXTEND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 45022 WHEREAS, Vista Terrace Properties, Ltd., requested that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 45022 be extended pursuant to various subsections of Government Code Section 66452.6; WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development denied such request on February 27, 1995 pursuant to the authority granted to her by the Santa Clanta Development Code; WHEREAS, Vista Terrace Properties, Ltd. Appealed such denial of the Community Development Director. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AS FOLLOWS; SECTION 1. In furtherance of the best interests of the City, the Director of Community Development's denial is upheld and Vista Terrace Properties, Ltd -'s appeal is denied. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day May 1995 - ���PMODUGNO, CHAIRMAN' � NNING COMMISSION ATTEST; LYNN M. HARRIS, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION of 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 Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of May , 1995 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Townsley, Brathwaite, Cherrington and Doughman NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Modugno L CITY CLERK p1 ngcom l re sP95Q 9. gea ITEM 3 TIME E%TENSION • VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 45022 No staff report was given. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:19 p.m. Robert R. Sims, 127 Cottonwood Circle, Rolling Hills Estates. Mr. Sims spoke on behalf of one of the applicants, Vista Terrace. He said an extension of time is requested because of the moratorium which took effect and because of the lawsuit. He is opposed to the actions of the City which have not allowed the applicants their time extensions. He would like to have an extension of time based upon the moratorium and the lawsuit. Natalie Ziontz, 9401 Wilshire Blvd., 9th Floor, Beverly Hills. Ms. Ziontz spoke on behalf of Vista Terrace. She said in the denial of the extension, no reason was given. She felt the staff analysis she received did not fully go into the reasons why staff was recommending denial. She requested clarification on this subject. Commissioner Cherrington stated the final paragraph before the recommendation in the staff report addresses the issue raised by Ms. Ziontz. Ms. Ziontz said the paragraph did not adequately give a full explanation as to why staff made the recommendation that it did. Mr. Sims said the paragraph addressed the moratorium but not the lawsuit. He felt there had not been an answer as to why staff is denying a continuance because of the lawsuit. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Brathwaite to adopt Resolution P95-09, upholding the Director's decision to deny the time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45022. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Doughman and carried by a vote of 4-0. -- CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT TIME EXTENSION - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 45022 DATE: May 2, 1995 TO: Chairman Modugno and Members of the Planning Commission , FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager, Comm i'init7lk o1 me(nl CASE PLANNER: Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II APPLICANTS: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 45022, G.H. Palmer and Associates LOCATION: Fronting on future Golden Valley Road, between Sierra Highway and Green Mountain Drive REQUEST: The applicant is appealing the Director's denial of a time extension for VTTM 45022, pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.6. BACKGROUND VTTM 45022 was approved by the Planning Commission in March of 1990. The project is one of the four "Golden Valley Road" projects discussed more thoroughly in the previous staff report. All four of these developers were originally conditioned to construct Golden Valley Road from Sierra Highway to SR 14. This condition was modified by the Planning Commission on March 3,:1992, at the request of the applicants and staff. Following this modification, the City Council approved a Funding and Acquisition Agreement with the four developers and subsequently established the assessment district. ANALYSIS The applicant is appealing the Director's denial of the applicant's various requests to stay the running of time and/or extend the time of the applicant's Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 45022). These requests were made pursuant to various subsections of Government Code 66452.6, which can be summarized as follows: A VTTM can be extended by a "development moratorium" but such a moratorium shall not exceed five ,years. Section 66452.6 provides that a "development moratorium" includes any period of time during which a condition imposed by a City could not be satisfied because of some action or inaction by such City. A City can extend a VTTM for a period of time equal to that in which a lawsuit involving the approval or conditional approval of a VTTM is or was pending. Such an extension cannot exceed five years. Agenda Item: -,:L 3. A City can extend a VTTM for a period of up to three years, exclusive of those time periods referenced in section 1 and 2 above. The applicant is asserting that the City's actions or inactions with respect to the Golden Valley Road condition in the applicant's VTTM amounts to a "development moratorium" and that the City should agree to extend the applicant's map for a period equal to the moratorium. Alternatively, the applicant is requesting extensions based upon the currently pending litigation between the applicant and the City and/or the City's ability to grant extensions for up to three years. The City has spent a considerable amount of time working with the applicant as well as the other Golden Valley developers in an attempt to allow the projects to move forward and the maps to record. Staff believes that the City has been reasonable in assisting the applicant and there has not been any action or inaction by the City which would constitute a "development moratorium" and that no further extensions of the VTTM are warranted under Section 66452.6. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Director's denial of the applicant's request be upheld. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Adopt Resolution P95-09, upholding the Director's denial of the time extension for VTTM 45022. LMH:GEA: pl g..\gv45022.ge.