Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-11-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - CMSN MC 90 173 ZC 90 011 (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager AppA-77 Item to be presenPUBLIC HEARING Lynn M. Harris � DATE: November 10, 1992 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Master Case 90.173 (Zone Change 90-011, Tentative Tract Map 49756, and Oak Tree Permit 90-037) to allow for the subdividing of three existing lots Into six single family residential lots for the properties located at 26862, 26864, 26866 Sand Canyon Road. Applicant: Mr. Steve Parks, Mr. Roy Swank, and Mr. Monty Fu DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On September 15,1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P92-34 formally denying the above referenced project. The project site fronts on Sand Canyon Road and contains three existing single family residences. The site Is zoned A-1-2 (Light Agriculture - two acre minimum lot size). The applicants are requesting to change the zone from A-1-2 to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture - one acre minimum lot size) to allow for the subdividing of three existing lots, totaling 7.11 acres, Into six lots or five lots. The project site Is designated RVL (Residential Very Low, one dwelling unit per acre) by the City's General Plan. The project density is consistent with this designation. The three existing lots each consist of approximately 2.3 acres. The project site has approximately 30' of frontage on Sand Canyon Road. The existing parcels were subdivided as flag lots, each having a 10' wide flag strip extending to Sand .Canyon. An ingress and egress easement was recorded over the 30' access strip for the lots served. This access strip Is paved (a minimum of 20' In width) and has a maximum slope of 20%. A 20% slope is the maximum slope allowed by the City's code for a driveway and is considered sub -standard for a new subdivision. Approval of the project would necessitate the waiving of normally required "street frontage"for the proposed lots. The City's Code requires that each lot have a minimum of 50' of frontage on a street or right-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The project was heard by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1991 and September 1, 1992. At the first hearing, the Commission continued the item to a date uncertain, directing the applicant to submit a five and six lot project. The Planning Commission. considered both a five and six lot project at the September 1, 1992, meeting. Issues raised by the Planning Commission at this meeting were related to the following: 1) Project drainage - (Existing drainage patterns carry water to adjacent properties to the south. The Commission cited concern with the project worsening drainage conditions in the area.) / _ Agenda Item: —/ Master Case 90.173 Page 2 2) Frontage requirements - (The Commission cited the project's failure to meet minimum street frontage requirements, per the City's code. The use of a private driveway to access the development would not provide the minimum 50' of street frontage required by the City's code.) 3) Safety concerns - (Existing driveway grades on the project site exceed 15% and at one point Is 20%. The Commission indicated that the existing private driveway, Improved to 26' In width, accessing any additional parcels would be unsatisfactory. The existing condition creates a safety hazard that could possibly worsen with the addition of any more single family homes.) A total of three persons spoke In opposition to the project. Staff did receive a total of three letters citing opposition to the project. All three letters were from an adjacent property owner. Following the last hearing on the project; the Commission voted 3-1 to deny the project (both the five and six lot design) due to the above identified Issues. The applicants, within the appeal letter, are now requesting that only the five lot project be considered by the City Council. OPTIONS The City Council may: 1) Uphold the Planning Commission's declslon; denying the Master Case 90-173; 2) Approve Master Case 90.173, directing staff to prepare a conditions and a resolution of approval for the Council's consideration. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 1) Deny Master Case 90.173 (Zone Change 90.011, Tentative Tract Map 49756, and Oak Tree Permit 90-037), 2) Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the Council's consideration at the November 24, 1992 meeting. ATTACHMENTS Resolution P92-34 Planning Commission Staff Report Minutes GEA:II counci 11ar90.173.gea 2UaL: eAR_NG ?R0CZ:UF.: 1. Mayor OpensHearing a. States Purpose of Hearing 2. City Clerk Reports on.Hearing Notice 3. Staff Report (City Manager) or (City Attorney) or (RP Staff) 4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes) 5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes) 6. Five-minute Rebuttal (Proponent) a. Proponent 7. Mayor Closes Public Testimony e. Discussion by Council 9. Council Decision 10. Mayor Announces Decision CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONE CHANGE 90-011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49756, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 90-037. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ZONE FROM A-1-2 (LIGHT AGRICULTURE, TWO ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO A-1-1 (LIGHT AGRICULTURE, ONE ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO SUBDIVIDE A GROSS TOTAL OF 7.11 ACRES INTO SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE LOCATION IS 26828, 26864, 26866 SAND CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. THE APPLICANTS ARE MR. AND MRS. SWANK, MR. AND MRS. FU, AND MR. AND MRS. PARRS PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Zone Change 90-011, Tentative Tract Map 49756, and Oak Tree Permit 90-037. ' The applicant is proposing to change the existing zone from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture, two acre minimum lot size) to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture, one acre minimum lot size) to subdivide a gross total of 7.11 acres into six single family residential lots. Three existing single family residences are located on the project site. This project proposes to add an additional three single family residential lots. Grading is not proposed at this time. The project. site contains 11 oak trees, none of which are proposed to be removed. The location is 26828, 26864, 26866 Sand Canyon Road in the City of Santa Clarita. The applicants are Mr. and Mrs. Swank, Mr. and Mrs. Fu, and Mr. and Mrs. Parks. The hearing will be held. by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarita, the 10th day of November, 1992, 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 Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita. If you wish to challenge this order 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 Council, at, or prior to the public hearing. Date: October 14, 1992 Donna N. Grindey, CMC City Clerk Publish Date: October 20, 1992 r• RESOLUTION N0. P92-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE .PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DENYING MASTER CASE NUMBER 90-173; ZONE CHANGE -90-011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 49756, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 90-037, TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVIDING OF THREE. EXISTING LOTS INTO SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 26862, 26864, 26866 SAND CANYON ROAD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the. following findings of fact: a. An application for a 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. b. This project is a request for a zone change from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture Zone, two acre minimum lot size) to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture, one acre minimum lot size) to allow for the subdivision of 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 is 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. d. The subject parcel 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. e. 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 40Z. 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 20' to 30' in width. A portion of the access strip has a slope of 202 for approximately 150', which_ is the maximum allowable slope pursuant to the City's Zoning Code. RESO P92-34 Page 2 f. The project site lies 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. g. The existing residences are each serviced by a private septic system. The. applicant is proposing to service the additional residenceswithseptic systems. h. 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 six lots. This design requires the waiving of the normally required street frontage for the six lots. i. 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. J. This project was reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). k. A duly 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. 1. On June 3, 1992, the applicant submitted the revised six lot map. On August 23, 1992, the applicant submitted the revised five lot map. M. 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. 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 Planning Commission and on its -behalf, the Planning.Commission further.finds as follows: a. At the hearings of December 3, 1991 and September 1,. 1992, the Planning Commission 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 drainage problems and that the project would negatively impact the rural qualities of Sand Canyon. RESO P92-34 Page 3 b. The City's General. Plan designation for the project site is Residential Very Low (RVL). The project (six or five lotdesign)is inconsistent with previously referenced Goals and Policies of the City's General Plan due tothe possible worsening of existing drainage conditions and access constraints. The site zoning is A-1-2. C. Pursuant to the State of California Subdivision Map Act Section 66474, the project (six or five lot design) substantiates the following finding for denial of a tentative map: Tha he site i of h sicall suitable fo t e ro osed de 9 y of development (A private driveway, improved to 26'' in width, accessing six residential parcels is not satisfactory. Driveway grades exceeding 15Z exist on-site and would not be reduced in conjunction with the project. This condition creates safety Concerns that could possibly worsen with the addition of any more .single family residences on the project site. Additionally, the project does not comply .with City Code Sections 21.24.290 and 21.24.300 which require a minimum of 50' of frontage at the right-of-way line. Approving this project necessitates the waiving of the street frontage. requirements. Also, Lot 5 on the six -lot proposal lacks easily discernible front, rear, and side yards due to site constraints associated with the existing homes.) d. Pursuant to Code Section 22.16.150, the project (six or five lot design) fails to substantiate, to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, the following required finding: T at the placement ofhe r os d o e at suecat on wi be in the interest of ublic health safety and --neral welfare, and in conformance with good zoning practice, •(The change of zone from A-1-2 to A-1-1, in conjunction with the project, fails to substantiate this requirement. Concerns cited previously related to access, drainage, and the waiving of frontage requirements are not in conformance with good zoning practice and are not in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare.) SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission hereby determines as follows: a• The project (five or six lot design)\ City's General Plan. is not consistent with the b• The project (five or six lot: design) substantiates a finding associated with denying a tract map. C. The project (five or. six lot design) fails to substantiate the findings required by Code Section 22.16.150 related to recommending approval of a zone.change. RESO P92-34 Page 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by .the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: The Planning Commission hereby denies Master Case 90-173 (Zone Change 90-011, Tentative Tract Map 49756, and Oak Tree Permit 90-037) to allow for a zone change from A-1-2 to A-1-1 to subdivide three existing lots, totaling 7.11 acres, into six single family residential lots. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of September 1992. Jack Woodrow, Chairman Planning Commission ATTEST: - Lynn M. Harris i Director of Community Development STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) as CITY OF SANTA CLARITA) I, Donna M. Grindey, 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 15th day of September 1992 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Woodrow, Modugno, Cherrington, Doughman NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Brathwaite ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None nna M. Grindey C ty Clerk GEA: 618 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday September 1, 1992 7:00 p.m. ITEM 3: MASTER CASE NUMBER 90-173 - located at 26866 Sand Canyon Road Principal Planner Rich Henderson introduced the item, and Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick gave the staff report and a brief slide presentation. Chairman Woodrow opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Speaking for the applicant was the project engineer, Mr. Keith Uselding of Hale and Associates, 26017 Huntington Lane, Unit B,Valencia. Mr. Uselding discussed the project's design, oak tree preservation, the addition of fire hydrants to the neighboring properties, and the.attempt at retaining the rural atmosphere of the area. Mr. Don Hale,. also of Hale and Associates discussed the drainage issue and their proposed drainage plan. Mr. Roy Swank, 26866 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, discussed the project history, the costs of the project, the lot configuration, and requested approval of the 6 lot design. If the 6 lot design was not acceptable, he would request that the 5 lot design be approved. Speaking in opposition were the following: Diane Wilson, 26826 Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country, commented on her concerns regarding drainage onto her property, retaining the rural atmosphere of Sand Canyon, and the safety of horses. Mr. James Webb, 26826 Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country, also had concerns regarding drainage. Mr. Webb showed several slides showing erosion and water run off onto his property. Marilyn Keehn, 26800 Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country, expressed concerns regarding drainage, and would like to see the 2 acre zoning remain. Mr. Don Hale was then given the opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Hale stated that the project is within the density shown in the General Plan, and that the engineers have been working with Public Works on innovative drainage solutions. There were then questions of the applicant. At 7:46 p.m., Chairman Woodrow closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued among the Commission Commissioner Modugno motioned to deny the project. Commissioner Cherrington seconded. The motion carried with a vote of 3-1, with Commissioner Brathwaite dissenting. MINUTES OF THE SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION December 3, 1991 ITEM 7: ZONE CHANGE 90-011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49756, AND OAK TREE PERMIT ` 90-037 - located at 26866.Sand Canyon Road Director Harris.introduced Item 7 and Assistant Planner Glenn Adamick made the staff presentation. At 9:37 p.m., Chairman Cherrington opened the public hearing. Speaking in favor of the project were: Keith Uselding, 26017 Huntington Lane, Unit B. Valencia, representing the applicant. His comments included a disagreement on the proposed number of lots for this site. Some other comments included a willingness to pay Quimby fees, even though they are not necessary; drainage; paving of the driveway; the oak trees; improvements to Sand Canyon Road; the zoning is consistent with the General Plan; and grading. Speaking in opposition to the project were the following persons: Diane Wilson, 26826 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, whose concerns included drainage, oak trees, fire danger, and keeping the rural atmosphere of the area. Mr. Uselding was then given the opportunity to address the concerns of the previous speaker. His rebuttal addressed the oak trees, stating they would not -be impacting the oak trees; the final drainage approval plans; zoning in the area; and Fire Department conditions have been met. There were questions'and discussion among the Commission and staff. At 9:55 p.m., the public hearing was closed. Discussion continued among the Commission regarding the special standards district for the Sand Canyon area. Commissioner Brathwaite motioned to give direction to the applicant to return with a re -design of the project with 5 and 6 lots, and continue the item to a date uncertain, at which time the applicant would return with both a 6 and a 5 lot plan, understanding that project timelines will be suspended while the applicant prepares this. On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Uselding stated that written correspondence will be submitted acknowledging that timelines will be suspended. Commissioner Doughman-seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 3-2 with Commissioners Modugno and Voodrow dissenting. DATE: TO: FROM: PROJECT PLANNER: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT Zone Change 90-011 Tentative Tract Map 49756 Oak Tree Permit 90-037 September 1, 1992 9b Chairman Woodrow and Members of the Planning Commission Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community DevelopmentVV Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II Mr. Roy Swank, Mr: Monty Fu, Mr. Steve Parks ! 26866 Sand Canyon Road, Sand Canyon area, (Assessor Parcel Numbers 2841-019-051, 52, 53) REQUEST: A zone change from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture Zone, 2 acre minimum lot size) to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture Zone, 1 acre minimum lot size) to allow for the subdivision of 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. Additionally, an oak tree permit is requested because the existing private roadway may be altered. This driveway encroaches into the protected zone of numerous oak trees. BACKGROUND: On December 3, 1991, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to continue this item to a date uncertain, directing the applicants to resolve issues associated with the project and to return with both a five and six lot. design. Issues raised by the Commission included the project's non-compliance with the City's Zoning Code (due to the creating of a lot that does not contain the required area) and project drainage, the last being identified by a surrounding neighbor as a concern. Additionally, the Commission directed staff to provide information related to the project's consistency with the proposed Sand Canyon Special Standards. The three existing lots each consist of approximately 2.3 acres. The subdivision requires a change in the existing zoning of "Light Agriculture, 2 -acre minimum lot size" (A-1-2) to "Light Agriculture, 1 acre minimum lot size" (A-1-1). The density of the proposed development is approximately .86 dwelling units per acre, which is within the density range for the Residential Very Low land use designation of the City's AGENDA f'TEii�i 3 General Plan. The project site has approximately 30' of frontage on Sand Canyon Road. The existing parcels were originally subdivided as flag lots, each having a 10' flag extending to Sand Canyon Road. An ingress and egress easement was recorded over the 30' access strip for the lots served. The access strip decreases in width to 20' at a point after, the first residence's driveway. The access strip is improved (a minimum of 20' in width) throughout the project and has a maximum slope of 20%. The applicants are not proposing to remove any of the eleven (11) oak trees on the project site nor is any encroachment planned with the individual driveways or future residences. Possible encroachment may occur if enlargement of the primary private driveway is necessary. This encroachment is not anticipated to be significant. - The existing residences are each presently serviced by a private septic system. The ._ applicant is requesting the removal of the flag strip access, replacing it with a private driveway. This will require the creation of theproper easements (ingressandegress, utility) over the access, to service the six proposed lots. These easements would be shown on the final map. An approval of this configuration would waive the normally required "street frontage" for the proposed lots. ANALYSIS: The applicants have submitted revised maps with project densities of both six and five lots. The five lot design excludes existing lot 3 (the rear lot), subdividing existing lots 1 and 2 into two additional lots. The five lot design (proposed lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and existing lot 3) eliminates proposed lot 5, a lot which staff cites a concern with and will detail in its review of the six lot design. Additionally, the applicant has relocated the pad area on lot 4 from its previous location (located directly adjacent to the northern property line) southerly, adjacent to the private driveway servicing the project. This relocation eliminates the need of an ingress and egress easement across property lines to access the pad for lot 4 and eliminates a previous staff concern related to the lots meeting minimum area requirements for the A-1-1. zone. Staff favors this design, believing the site is physically suitable for a density of five lots. The six 1pt design implements the pad relocation on lot 4 and adds proposed lot 5. Staff still maintains a concern with the configuration . of proposed lot 5. The lot lacks easily discernible front, rear, and side yards. Additionally, the lot is similar in design to a flag lot, but does exceed the minimum lot width requirement of 501. The six lot design also requires the use of a shared driveway to access lots 5 and 6. This shared driveway would be utilized on a small portion of the lot and would not reduce the net square footage of lot 5 below the minimum 40,000. -2- Staff has also compared the project with the proposed Special Standards for Sand Canyon. The project appears to be in conformance with a majority of the standards, excluding the requirement to extend public sewer to subdivisions containing more than four lots. A public sewer line is. located approximately 5,000 feet to the north, at the intersection of Live Oak Springs Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. The applicant has received clearance from the Health Department to service each lot with a private on-site sewage disposal system. Staff believes the proposed access (private driveway - 26' in width) is satisfactory to accommodate the development, is consistent with the proposed Special Standards, and could be supported by goals and policies of the City's General Plan related to maintaining the rural qualities of Sand Canyon. An adjacent property owner cited a concern related to existing drainage problems and the possible negative impacts that may occur with the additional development of three residences. This property is located directly to the south and is approximately five feet lower than the lowest part of the project site. Staff has received a preliminary drainage concept in conjunction with the project, and the concept has been approved by the Engineering Division. The Engineering Division indicated that the addition of three single family residences would produce no significant increases in runoff from the, site, nor change existing natural flow. patterns of the immediate area. Additionally, landscaping added in conjunction with residences may reduce future runoff. As proposed, staff still has concerns with the project density of six lots. These concerns, which are associated with lot 5, include its configuration, similarity to a flag lot; and the use of a shared access driveway. Due to these concerns, staff believes the project fails: to substantiate all of the findings associated with approving a tract map, specifically the finding related to the site not being, physically suitable for the proposed density of six lots. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Re -open the Public Hearing; and 2) Conceptually approve the five lot design; and 3) Continue the item to the October 6, 1992 Commission meeting, directing staff to return to this meeting with a resolution and conditions approving Tentative Tract Map 49756 (five lots) and Oak Tree Permit 90-037 and recommending approval of Zone Change 90-011 to the City Council. GEA:596 -3- W, DATE: TO: FROM: PROJECT PLANNER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT Zone Change 90-011 Tentative Tract Map 49756 Oak Tree Permit 90-037 December 3, 1991 Chairman Cherrington and. Members of the Planning Commission Lynn M. Harris,.Director of Community Development Z Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II Mr. Roy Swank, Mr. Monty Fu, Mr. Steve Parks 26866 Sand Canyon Road, Sand Canyon area, (Assessor,, Parcel Numbers 2841-019-051, 52, 53) , REQUEST: A zone change from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture Zone, 2 acre minimum lot size) to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture Zone, 1 acre minimum lot size) to allow for the subdivision of three existing lots, totaling 7.11 acres, into six lots containing the following acreage: lot 1 - 1.60, lot 2 - 1.03, lot 3 - 1.06, lot 4 - 1.04, lot 5 - 1.04, and lot 6 - 1.15. In addition, an oak tree permit is requested because the existing private roadway may be altered. This driveway encroaches into the protected zone of numerous oak trees. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject three parcels into six parcels. Existing on-site are three lots and three single family residences. The existing lots each consist of approximately 2.3 acres. The subdivision requires a change in the existing zoning of "Light Agriculture, 2 acre minimum lot size" -(A-1-2) to *Light Agriculture, 1 acre minimum lot size" (A-1-1). The project site has approximately 30' of frontage on Sand Canyon Road. The existing parcels were originally subdivided as flag lots, each having a 10' flag extending to Sand Canyon Road. An ingress and egress easement was recorded over the 30' access strip for the lots served. The access strip decreases in width to 20' at a point after the first residence's driveway: The access -.strip is improved (20' in width) throughout the project and has a maximum slope of 20Z. AGENDA ITEM The applicant is not proposing to remove any of the eleven (11) oak trees on the project site nor is any encroachment planned with the individual driveways or future residences. Enlargement of the primary private driveway would result in additional encroachment though it would not be significant. The existing residences are each presently serviced by a private septic system. The applicant is requesting the removal of the flag strip access, replacing it with a private driveway. This will require the creation of the proper easements (ingress and .egress, utility) over the access, to service the six proposed lots. These easements would be shown on the final map. An approval of this configuration would waive the normally required "street frontage" for the proposed lots. SURROUNDING LAND USE/ZONING/GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: As proposed, this zone :change and subdivision 'request for residential development would result in a density of 0.86 dwelling units per acre. This is consistent with the city's General Plan designationof. Residential Very Low Density (RVL) (0.5 to 1.0 dwelling units per acre). All proposed lots exceed one acre in size. The existing zoning, the City's General Plan designations and the existing land uses of the e project site and adjacent properties are as follows: As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts of the project. It was determined that this - proposal would have no adverse environmental impacts which could not be avoided through project design and mitigation measures. Subsequently, a draft mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project. INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW: The project has been distributed to the affected' City departments and agencies, and the Community Development Department has. received requirements and comments from the following: -2- a City Is General Plan Zone Land Use Project Site RVL (Residential A-1-2 Residential Very Low) North RVL (Residential A-1-1 Vacant, Tract Very Low) 47785 East RVL (Residential A-1-1 Residential Very Low) South RVL (Residential A-1-1 Residential. Very Low) West RE (Residential A-1-2 Residential Estate) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts of the project. It was determined that this - proposal would have no adverse environmental impacts which could not be avoided through project design and mitigation measures. Subsequently, a draft mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project. INTERDEPARTMENT/INTERAGENCY REVIEW: The project has been distributed to the affected' City departments and agencies, and the Community Development Department has. received requirements and comments from the following: -2- a The Engineering/Traffic Division recommends that the applicant: 1) Install a left turn lane for south -bound traffic on Sand Canyon to the project, 2) Participate on a "fair share" basis for improvements from the project site to Soledad. Canyon Road with the associated bridge, widening over the Santa Clara River and Highway 14, 3) Provide the appropriate sight distance for the project driveway intersection with Sand Canyon road. The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that the applicant provide a 15' wide multi -use trail easement to be located adjacent to Sand Canyon Road. The Engineering Division recommends that the applicant offer a portion of right-of-way (52' from centerline), on the project's frontage,as outlined by County Survey Book 3030-1 and the City's General Plan. ANALYSIS: The proposed residential subdivision would not alter any present land uses in the area, as the surrounding uses are residential. The. private driveway design would include a driveway width ranging from`a minimum of 26' to 301, with 26' being improved (paved) to allow, for two-way traffic. A turn around, to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, would be implemented at the terminus of the driveway. The Engineering Division is indicating that this design is satisfactory to accommodate the subdivision proposal, with the inclusion of a condition requiring the applicant to provide documentation illustrating the use -of an easement for utilities, ingress and egress. In addition, an agreement for maintenance of this common driveway and easements should be required. The surrounding properties all have satisfactory access available to them_ and the requirement that this proposal provide a dedicated street would not be necessary. In addition, the requirement of a full right-of-way (60' in width) and improvements would necessitate extensive grading, oak tree removals, and the purchase of off-site property. Staff believes this private design is satisfactory based on the above and the following: 1) The project design allows for one point of access off of Sand Canyon Road. The Traffic Division is encouraging proposals to be limited to one point of access off a major highway. Goal 1, Policy 1.10, of the Circulation Element, as summarized, states: Limit the number of intersections and driveways on all major roadways to promote a safe, efficient and steady flow of traffic. The subdivision proposal utilizes one access point off of Sand Canyon Road to service the project. 2) The utilization of the private drive in place of a fully improved and dedicated street could be found consistent with the rural character of Sand Canyon. Goal 3, Policy. 3.12, of the Land Use Element could further support this: 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. -3- The density of the proposed development is approximately .86 dwelling units per acre. The City's adopted General Plan indicates that all lots should have a full acre gross, and 40,000 square feet net, in this category. As shown on the submitted map, the net square footage of each lot exceeds 40,000 (gross square footage minus the access driveway and utility easement), though the net square footage of proposed lot 3 is not accurate due to the inclusion of the square footage contained within the driveway accessing proposed lot 4. This driveway extends through proposed lot 3 and would require the establishment of an easement. The easement .square .footage would be subtracted from the existing net square footage of proposed lot 3 and could possibly reduce the net below 40,000 square feet. The project lies adjacent to recently approved Tract 47785 which utilized an average lot size of one acre. To the south of the proposal, are one acre lots utilizing a private driveway and flag lot design. Generally, the proposed lot sizes would be consistent with the surrounding lots, though the configuration of the lots would be inconsistent. The project would not be required to pay any QUIMBY fees, due to the size of the proposed lots exceeding one acre. The applicant has indicated a willingness to contribute a fair dollar amount comparable to QUIMBY fees for the proposal, if a six lot subdivision were to be approved. If QUIMBY fees applied to this project, the fee would be approximately $3,500. This contribution by the applicant would be to the Parks Department for the improvement or installation of park facilities in the Canyon Country area. There are a total of 11 oak trees on the project site. The proposed enlargement of the existing 20' wide -access to 26' in paved width would cause additional encroachment into the protected zone of the affected oak trees adjacent to Sand Canyon Road, though no removals would be necessary. The applicant has submitted an oak tree permit for encroachment. Staff believes that the proposed conditioning of the applicant to submit a driveway design (to the satisfaction of the Director) illustrating this enlargement and its effects on the trees could be satisfactory. Permeable materials and the specific placing of the re -designed driveway, within the existing 30' strip (where it is adjacent to Sand Canyon Road), could be implemented to reduce the existing impacts and possible future impacts upon the affected oak trees. Staff does have concerns relating to the configuration of proposed lot 5. Lot 5 as proposed lacks easily discernible front, rear, and side yards. The applicant has indicated that lot 5 is configured- in this manner due to constraints imposed by topography -and the existing single family residences located on-site. Staff also has previously cited a concern with the access drive proposed through lot 3 to lot 4. The locating of the pad area of proposed lot 4 closer to or adjacent to the 26' wide private driveway would eliminate the necessity of this driveway. The applicant has indicated that the location of the pad area on lot 4 is due to the existing flat terrain at that portion of the proposed parcel. Pursuant to Santa-Clarita Municipal Code Section 22.16.150, in making its recommendation relative to a proposed zone change, the Commission shall consider five principles and standards. Staff believes the project, as proposed, fails to substantiate one of the five findings as follows: Finding Number 4 requires that the proposed zone at such location will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice. Staff believes the change of zone, in conjunction with the six -lot proposal, does not satisfy this finding. The concerns illustrated above with proposed parcels 4 and 5 are in conflict with this. finding and specifically with good zoning practice. In. addition, staff believes the site is not physically suited for the development of six lots. . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Open the Public Hearing; and 2) Direct the applicant to re -design the project density to five lots and conceptually approve this design; and 2) Continue the item to a date uncertain, with the understanding that the project timelines will be suspended while. the applicant prepares a re -designed project for evaluation by staff. Upon submittal of. a satisfactory re -designed project, staff will return to the Planning Commission with a resolution and conditions approving Tentative Tract Map 49756 and Oak Tree Permit 90-037 and recommending approval of Zone Change 90-011 to the City Council. GEA:289 • CITY OF SANTA CLARITA N E G A T I V E D E C L A R [X] Proposed [ ] F PERMIT/PROJECT: 90-037 APPLICANT: Swank, Parks, Fu LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: 26828, Numbers 2841-019-051, 052, 053). w MASTER CASE NO: 90-228 26864, 26866 Sand Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The applicant is proposing to change the existing zone from A-1-2 (Light Agriculture, two acre minimum lot size) to A-1-1 (Light Agriculture, one acre minimum lot size), to subdivide a gross total of 7.11 acres into six single family residential lots. Three existing single family residences are located on the project site. This project would add an additional three single family residences. Grading is not proposed at. this time. The project site contains 11 oak trees, none of which are proposed to be removed. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for' this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [ ] City Council [X] Planning Commission [ ) Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [ ] are not required. [X] are attached. [ ] are:not attached. -----------------====6=---------==-e==`=---------====eon LYNN M. HARRIS DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared by:C Glenn Adamick. Assistant Planner II (Sig9ldture)/ (Name/Title) . Reviewed Approved by e) (Npme/Title) Signature) (Name/Title) Public Review Period From [i-12-41 To IZ 3"4I Public Notice Given On 11-33-' 11 By: [X] Legal advertisement. [X] Posting of properties. [X] Written notice. CERTIFICATION DATE: