Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />Colton City Council Resolution No. R-29-21 <br />May 4, 2021 <br />Page 3 <br />See finding A. <br />C. The site is not physically suitable for the type of Development. <br />TTM fails to comply with R-1 Zoning standards under CMC sections 18.12. Specifically, <br />and pursuant to CMC Section 18.12.010, the Zone "is characterized generally by single-family <br />detached homes on individual lots that form a cohesive neighborhood, residential subdivisions in <br />this category are similar to those found in many of Colton's established residential tracts." CMC <br />Section 18.12.010 does allow, within this zoning designation, `blustering of dwelling units," <br />provided they are allowed through a discretionary permit process. Further, any new development <br />must be compatible and similar in character to the surrounding residential neighborhoods within <br />this designation. <br />Clustered homes can be approved if consistent with the City's Hillside Ordinance, CMC <br />Chapter 18.41. CMC section 18.41.010(D) encourages "structures on hillside parcels to be <br />designed with scale, massing, architectural design and detailing appropriate to maintain hillsides in <br />a natural, open character ensuring that buildings and structures blend with the natural environment <br />through their shape, materials, and colors." The R-1 Zone and the City's Hillside ordinance both <br />contemplate design compatible with surrounding uses that is appropriate to preserve hillsides in its <br />natural open character. The TTM fails to meet these design standards for its clustered units, which <br />are incompatible with existing development in the area, and is thus not physically suitable as <br />additional residential development. <br />Additionally, the proposed volume of residential lots, and the relatively small lots sizes <br />relative to the character of the surrounding neighborhoods, makes the project physically <br />inconsistent under the Zoning Code. Further, the scope of the project and the proposed clustering <br />of dwelling units as shown on the TTM still remain too large to adequately maintain the City's <br />hillsides in their natural and open character. <br />SECTION 3. Based on the entire record and all written and oral evidence presented, <br />including the staff report, the City Council upholds the appeal and denies, in part, Conditional Use <br />Permit (DAP-001-378) based on the failure to meet the following findings: <br />a. The proposed Use is inconsistent with General Plan, the objectives of the <br />Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. <br />The proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvement are <br />inconsistent with the General Plan, and the R-1 zoning designation for the proposed project. <br />Specifically, the proposed project fails to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, a <br />goal of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is inconsistent and incompatible <br />-3- <br />