The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-09-30 - AGENDA REPORTS - UDC ZONING MAP (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klajlc and Members of the FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager DATE: September 30, 1992 SUBJECT: Unified Development Code and Zoning Map The draft Unified Development Code (UDC), as prepared by Michael Brandman and Associates (MBA), first went to the Planning Commission on October 25,1991. A series of public hearings was held over a period of several months and,. as a result of a great deal of controversy over the document and a general belief that City staff was more In touch with the needs of Santa Clarita than a consultant from outside the City, staff took over the Unified Development Code from MBA in March, 1992. The Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a series of community meetings to increase community Involvement, reduce misunderstanding, and build consensus. A total of nine community meetings were held over the next month, covering specific subjects (i.e. industrial/commercial Issues, permitted uses, animal keeping standards, subdivision standards; and special standards districts) as well as general community Issues. The meetings were conducted in an informal, question and answer format. Residents were asked to comment on what they would like to see in the new zoning code and what they would like to change in the existing code adopted from Los Angeles County. The community meetings were well received by the community and generated a great deal of response. Based on the community meetings, staff made significant revisions to the UDC and presented a "red -line" copy to the Commission on May 19, 1992. Staff's Intent was to Implement the General Plan, Integrate citizen concerns, and "clean-up" the Santa Clarita Municipal Code by putting It in a new format, eliminating Inconsistencies, and deleting sections that did not apply to the City. The Subdivision Title and Grading Division of Title 17 remain almost entirely as they were In the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, with the exception of hillside development provisions and the replacement of County terms with City terms (i.e. "Road Commissioner" became "City Engineer"). The following Is a summary of the Issues generating the most concern among residents and how these Issues were resolved. (This is not a complete list but rather a general summary of the Issues generating the most concern and how they were addressed by the Planning Commission.) 1. Nonconforming structures and uses. The consensus was that structures and uses legal under the existing code should be allowed to remain In perpetuity, and that they should be permitted reasonable expansion and to rebuild If the structures were destroyed. It was also asked that the word "nonconforming" be changed to "pre-existing legal", as "nonconforming" Is a negative term which can make It difficult to obtain loans on such property. The Planning Commission agreed (with the exception of unscreened outdoor storage and signage for which elimination schedules are Included In the UDC), and standards were drafted to implement this (page 1-40+). Pre-existing legal structures are, 1) permitted to expand up to the FAR permitted for that zone If It Is determined by the Director that the expansion will not Increase the degree of nonconformity or adversely affect adjacent uses or natural resources; and 2) permitted to be restored following damage If the restoration takes place within two years and complies with parking, setback and landscaping standards In effect at the time of reestablishment. r, 2. In addition, procedures for "zoning compliance review" were established which permits the owners of pre-existing legal structures and uses to obtain a "certificate of zoning compliance" If they are able to show that the structure or use In question Is In compliance with the original penult and/or codes In effect at the time the structure was constructed or the use was Initiated. This procedure will help the owners of such structures/uses to obtain loans and will encourage them to bring their structures/uses Into compliance with the original permit., . Industrial zones. Under the Santa Clarlta Municipal Code, there are no setbacks for buildings In commercial and Industrial buildings (although there is a five to ten foot setback required for parking areas adjacent to the right-of-way). The first draft of the UDC required up to 40 foot setbacks. The Commission determined that the building setback should be consistent with the required parking setback (page 2-27). 3. Animal keeping. The original draft of the UDC prepared by the consultant proposed to Increase the minimum lot sizes for animal keeping and decrease the number of animals permitted to be kept per acre. This created a great deal of concern among residents. As a result of the community meetings, it was determined that animal keeping has not created a problem in the past and therefore should not be further regulated (page 2-74). Minimum lot sizes for horse keeping (and other similar animals) was reduced from 15,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet in Placerita and Sand Canyons due to the areas' rural and equestrian character (page 2.66+). Also, concern was expressed that more than three dogs, regardless of the size of the property, Is currently considered a "kennel" and that the number should be Increased. The Planning Commission determined that four dogs should be allowed on lots of one acre or more (page 2-75). 4. Zoning of the Honby area. The proposed rezoning of the Honby area (specifically, that area bordered on the north by the Santa Clara River, on the east by Honby Street, on the south by the alley north of Soledad Canyon Road, and on the west by Furnlvall Street) created a great deal of concern to homeowners In the area who did not want Industrial development adjacent to their homes. Although the Planning Commission ultimately determined that the area should be zoned Industrial Commercial (IC), provisions were made to buffer the existing residential uses from future industrial development, Including the following: a. New commercial and industrial development which is typically permitted in the IC Zone will be subject to a minor use permit In the Honby area (page 2-12). b. Where new commercial and Industrial uses are located adjacent to or across an alley from a residential use, they shall provide a minimum six foot high masonry wall along all common lot lines with 15 gallon trees planted every 20 feet (page 2-28). Additional changes were made based on Council direction, including the addition of regulations relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Specific examples of standards required to implement the General Plan Include Floor Area Ratios (FARs) (page 2-27); density bonus provisions (page 2-103); development standards for the Mineral/OII Conservation Area (MOCA) Overlay Zone (page 2.53), Open Space (OS) Zone (page 2.59), Private Education (PE) Zone (page 2-62), and Significant Ecological Areas (SEAS) (page 2.31); and commercial and industrial setbacks from single family residential zones (page 2-2-28). To date, 23 public hearings and 17 community meetings have been held on the UDC and Zoning Map. Based on response to this extensive public participation effort, staff feels that a general consensus has been reached and that the draft UDC, as approved by the Planning Commission, is supported by the residents of the City. To the best of staff's knowledge, only the following Issues remain outstanding: Park Fees or Dedication Requirements. Newhall Land and Farming Co. remains concerned with the appraisal method for the valuation of land for park dedications (page 2-97+). They prefer the current system of set values for each park district. (There are currently two districts In the City; the western district where property Is valued at approximately $200,000 an acre and the eastern district where property Is valued at approximately $100,000.) With the appraisal method, a developer could be obligated to pay a higher Quimby fee based on the acreage requirement being multiplied by a value greater than the present standard fee. 2. Floor Area Ratios (FARs) in the Valley Center Overlay. The General Plan states that an off lcelfinanclai corridor "is seen running along Valencia Boulevard and Soledad Canyon Road" and FARs ranging from 2:1 to 4:1 may be appropriate" (page L-59). However, the area is proposed to be zoned Commercial Town Center (CTC), which allows for FARs ranging between 0.25-.5:1 (page L-47). For this reason; the UDC Indicates the midpoint density to be .375:1. Newhall Land and Farming Co. maintains that this Is inconsistent with the General Plan and that the possible higher densities should be reflected in the midpoint FAR. The Council needs to make the following determinations: a. Whether this represents an Inconsistency in the General Plan and, If so, direct staff to prepare a General Plan amendment; and b. If an FAR of up to 4:1 will be appropriate In this area In the near future and, If so, direct staff to change the midpoint FAR indicated In the UDC to 2:1. 3. Zoning Map Issues. Several changes have not yet been made to the zoning map as they will require a General Plan amendment. This amendment Is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission on October 6,1992 and anticipated to be heard by the Council on October 27,1992. Of the requests for map changes, only one request still remains an Issue. The Planning Commission felt that, although the property east and south of the current terminus of Lyons Avenue possibly should ultimately be industrial, no higher zoning than Residential Low should apply since Placerita Canyon cufrently has unsolved traffic problems. The Council may wish to direct staff to change the draft zoning map to Business Park, as staff recommended to the Commission, prior to the October 27 City Council meeting. 4. Minimum lot size In the Agriculture (A) Zone. The General Plan states that lot sizes In the A Zone "are Intended to be In large acreages with minimum sizes of 80 acres". The Commission felt that this was excessive and that a minimum lot size of five or ten acres would be more appropriate; In this way the A Zone could be applied to more properties and still retain Its very low density characteristic. The Council may determine that a smaller lot size would be appropriate and direct staff to prepare a General Plan amendment. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Receive staff report; 2. Begin consideration and consensus on the draft Unified Development Code and Zoning Map; and 3. Direct staff to advertise the UDC and Zoning Map for the regularly scheduled October 27,1992, Council meeting. coundhudc9-17.kmk ,ey-oaZ6 RECEIVED SEP 15 1992 9, 199 COMMUzITY DEVELOPMENT C;TY OF SANTA CI,ARITA 'ooze>/ /� l�zoLYic .9 �ILGNGG(. � S RECEIVED SEP N (1992 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COPIES TO CITY COUNCIL, CITY MAN GER, CITY CLERK Y� z Date BONNIE SIR KEGIAN CHARDENE SIR KEGIAN FAMILY TRUST tii;;i 2 l7:2 658 Alta Vista Way Laguna Beach, California 92651 C'I'( of SANT {^ aei A (714)497-0860 (714)240-7852 FAX August 24, 1992 Ms. Lynn Harris, Director of Community Development City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 RE: SirKegian Property at 20957 Placenta Canyon Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. A request to re -zone the front acreas from RL/MOCA to I/C per GPAC committee person Richard Howe's request at the last GPAC meeting 1990 and per Planning Commissioner L. Braithwaite's request concerning Laurene West's nroperty at Planning commission meeting 8/18/92 Dear Ms Harris: Planning for the city has been a long and arduous process. I sincerely appreciate the efforts of you and your staff. Thank you for taking the MOCA overlay off the back 25 acres of our property and leaving it RL. As I stated to Mr. Henderson's office, the front 19 acres are under oil lease and merit RL/MOCA. I bclieve you have been present at the many GPAC, Planning Commission and City Council meetings when SirKegian has requested an IC designation for the front 10 acres. Recently, at the August 18, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, other Placenta Canyon residents requested similar designations for similar reasons. Ms. Lauren Weste, Ms Katherine Becker and Mr. Michael McIntee were these speakers. The need for a butler between developed industrial/commercial property and residential and the noise from existing IC property were used as reasons, much I had used in my pleas. In fact, Mr. McIntee said it would be illegal to build on RL lots under new General Plan standards due to noise levels coming from present commercial and industrial uses on surrounding properties. Commissioner Brathwaite's request for zone changes might have been made for SirKegian, so closely are the properties in question alike. Commissioner Modugno told Ms Weste that infrastructure will have to preface a re -zoning from RL to IC. He suggested that when the Lyons Extension is in then she might see about an IC zone. Commissioner Woodrow wanted to tie rezoning for development to roads with conditional use permits. Commissioner Brathwaite seemed to believe this matter would continue to City Council. I am enclosing a copy of our letter to Mayor Boyer dated June 20, 1991. It sums up SirKegiares requests from the first GPAC meeting I attended in 1989. In conclusion, SirKegian asks to be included in the petition to City Council by Becker, McIntee and Weste for an IC designation. Mt* rely w Bonnie Sir Kegian Chardene, Trustee Enclosure: I ?1 ' /� 3 1z -.-'217-237 4 AUR, 2 5 i;;2 ITY ..iP ANTA."Wi :I 17 June 20, 1991 Bir: Carl Boyer, Mayor Santa Clarita City Council 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 RE:SirKegian Famiiv Property at 20957 Placerita Cyn. Road Dear Mr. Boyer: At several of the General Plan Hearings, I requested land use designations that werebothharmonious with adjacentproperties and financially acceptable to make our land worth developing. At what I believe to be the last'GPAC Meeting, Mr. Richard Howe made the motion that the Committee modify the land use map to reflect the requested changes by me; unfortunately, Mr. Howe made the request as members were attempting to leave. The reason for my letter is to advise you that a portion of the requested land use designations are not reflected on the Land Use Plan as it presently exists. I requested a designation of industrial or industrial/ commercial for our property from Placerita Canyon Road back to the -`� natural stream that runs through'our property and RL residential behind the stream.' The possibility of designating the property 6666 behind the stream for a light industrial use was also mentioned. What was presented and voted on was to change all the property to RL. This does not.provide fora buffer or. transitional land use between the existing steam generation plant (AES) to the east and the low density residential to the west and northwest. I believe Mr. Howe, under pressure to end the meeting, did not complete his requested change to the map and at this time I request that the Santa Clarita City Council modify the Land Use Plan to reflect the Industrial designation back to the existing stream alignment (approximately 500 feet) with RL all the way to the north boundary. 'The above requested designation for industrial and/or neighborhood commercial has been reviewed by Steve Schafhausen and Laurene Weste, members of the Placerita Canyon Property Owners Association and, no objections have been voiced. Indeed, as recently as Tuesday, June 18, Laurene.Weste presented a movie ranch project to the City Council with the hope the General Plan would allow the Commercial designation on the county plan to stand. This movie ranch is in the heart of the canyon and would generate much more traffic than would SirKegian`s proposed land use. The SirKegian property is located to the east of the main body. of Placerita, near the proposed junction of. Rio Vista and Placerita. I believe an office -Warehouse Complex designed to. compliment the existing and proposed residential properties will C -J- - __ - make an appropriate transitional development at this location and maintain the integrity of the area. I am enclosing three different concept plans that will help you to better visualize the possibilities. GPAC had copies of these plans as well. Also, I have a 12 -minute slide show that 1 have offered to the planning staff and would like to offer to the city council. These slide show already -existing commercial, business and industrial uses in Placerita. I do hope the planning staff is working on their special study of Placerita as they were directed by City Council in November 1990.. Would you please ask for an update on the progress of this study? I would also request you keep the SP designation given SirKegian at the GPAC meeting. And a last comment and request having to do with the MOCA overlay. I believe it is restrictive without being realistic. No one can make an oil company abandon its wells until it wishes.. In Kern County, Orange County, Los Angeles County and Santa Barbara County oil fields peacefully coexist with development. The city of Beverly Hills has more than one well pumping at this very moment. Before the city.council passes the land -use designation map I would like to request a discussion of the MOCA overlay. It restricts growth on undeveloped land. Indeed, the Planning Commission's May 23, 1991, directive sounds as though there is a subtle movement to stop all commercial, business, and industrial growth except at the city's core and.to entail the property rights of many owner's of undeveloped land (of which I am one). As always, throughout this General Plan process, I express the desire to work closely and constructively with you and the City Council on this matter. Most sincerely, Bonnie SirKegian 658 Alta Vista Way Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Enclosures: 3 for each city council member cc: Lynn Harris page 2 of 2 SUMMARY OF ZONING MAP REQUESTS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED REQUESTED STAFF COMMENTS AND NUMBER REQUESTED BY LOCATION DESIGNATION ZONE ZONE RECOMMENDATION 1 Dr. Kost 22509 4th Street Cc CC M-1 2 Brian Baker Seco and CopperhiLL CN CN (PD) None 3 Charles Goldman SoLedad CN CN (PD) CN 4 Marg Development Sierra and Golden Valley RM RL RM 5 Gunjit Sikand Sierra and Golden Valley RM RL RM 6 Flynn Neilson Seco and Copperhi Ll CN CN (PD) R-1 7 Michael Becker 22422 12th Street RL RL I Be .Michael McEntee Placerita RL RL Planning Commission Action_ 1 - 6 Concurred with Staff Recomendation 7 L 8a Area to Remain with RL Zoning I Veterinary uses addressed in text of LDC. Zone change not consistent, nor necessary to meet Dr. Kost's needs. To exclude the parcel would be inconsistent. PC has already held hearings and concurs with C zoning. Staff recommends the (PD) overlay remain due to the proximity of the mobile home park. Previous auto center denial points to need for PD. Staff feels this is a mapping error and recommends changing the map. Staff feels this is a mapping error and recommends changing the .map. Staff feels this would be inconsistent with the General Plan. See Item 2. Staff is currently reviewing a General Plan amendment for the area, due to the Lyons extension. Staff feels that the BP zoning is more appropriate for the site. Same as above with the exclusion of the railroad, which should be OS. Railroad is.an allowed use in OS. NUMBER REQUESTED BY LOCATION GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED REQUESTED STAFF COMMENTS AND DESIGNATION ZONE ZONE RECOMMENDATION 8b Michael McEntee Melody Ranch RL 9 Alan Fishman Gates Property OS 10 Jerold Neuman SoLedad and Anne Freda RS 11 Don Hale Valley Street South of RM/CC zoning for the site which could allow Lyons Avenue patio homes. 12 Canyon Breeze Northeast corner of Sand RVL/CC RVL CC/PD Staff recommends that the zoning map and SoLedad Canyon reflect this change. City grading for 13 Allan Cameron SoLedad and PenLon Street BP 14 Valencia Corp. North Hills RM 15 RE Consultants Rainbow Glen/Via RM/RL - vacated electrical easement to be OS. Princessa RM/RL Staff recommends correction of an RL Movie Studio Being addressed within the special standards district. OS RE Staff feels that a map correction is warranted for this site, since property was pLaced in OS category at applicant's request. RS Applicant desires to build attached homes. Applicant could apply for a PD zoning for the site which could allow patio homes. RM cc Staff recommends that the zoning map reflect the request. RVL CC/PD Staff recommends that the zoning map reflect this change. City grading for road widening is creating new topography., EP (PD)/RS SP (PD) Staff recommends that the zoning map . reflect this change. The sliver of RS against the railroad is unreasonable. OS/RM RM Staff recommends that the zoning map reflect this change. No need for old - vacated electrical easement to be OS. RM/RL RM/RL Staff recommends correction of an apparent mapping error, but not totally in agreement with letter. Planning Commission Action: 8b - 15 Concurred with Staff Recommendation - - i_ .. -2- GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED REQUESTED STAFF COMMENTS AND NUMBER REQUESTED BY LOCATION DESIGNATION ZONE ZONE RECOMMENDATION 18 Sikand Property 19306 StiLLmore RM RM 16 17 So. Calif. Gas Company Sikand Property 22245 Placerita Canyon Circle J and San Fernando RL RM RL RM IC RH 18 Sikand Property 19306 StiLLmore RM RM RH 19 Jones Organization 23651 Pine IC IC(PD) IC 20 Mr. and Mrs. Jack Duitsman 22120 PLacerita Canyon RL RL (MOCA) RL 21 Dorothy Riley 21224 PLacerita RL RL (MOCA) RL 22 Virginia Raynor Soledad Trailer Lodge RM/CC RM CC 23 Michael McEntee PLacerita Canyon RL RL (MOCA) RL Planning Commission Action: 16 & 19 - 23 Concurred with -Staff Recommendation 17 1 18 ChangeSiteto RH and Direct Staff to Prepare a General Plan Amendment -3- See 7 and Be. Existing building is to RH density, new UDC would allow reconstruction if damaged. Backs up to industrial. General Plan shows RM. Same as above, but backs up to commercial. The site .is currently illegal for use and standards. IC will permit the use, and PD requirement would allow a review of required upgrade of standards. Staff recommends that HOCA overlay be removed from the map with the exception of those areas currently under oil extraction at this time. Staff recommends that MOCA overlay be removed from the map with the exception of those areas currently under oil extraction at this time. Staff recommends that the zoning map reflect this adjustment of boundary. Staff recommends that MOCA overlay be removed from the map with the exception of those areas currently under oil extraction atthis time. NUMBER REQUESTED BY 24 Ed Bolden 25 Judith Porcasi 26 Marion Clever 27a James Alyn 27b James Alyn 28 CaLex 29 William Elmore 30 Ed Ketaity 31 ESCO 32 Weston Development GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED REQUESTED STAFF COMMENTS AND LOCATION DESIGNATION ZONE ZONE RECOMMENDATION Railroad Avenue and CC Market Street Soledad Trailer Lodge RM/CC SoLedad Trailer Lodge RM/CC Golden Triangle BP Golden Triangle BP 23651 Pine Street IC 22958 Sierra 17175 Sierra IC Anne Freda and Sotedad RS Tract 46626 RE/RL OS RM RM BP BP IC(PD) IC/OS/RE-2 IC RS RM RE-2/RL RS Planning Commission Action: 24 Change Site to CC - 25 - 31 Concurred with Staff Recommendation - 32 Change Site ton and Direct Staff to Prepare a General Plan Amendment This property is a railroad right-of-way. This is the old station, presently used as commercial. ALL such property is OS under the General Plan. See number 22. See number 22. Staff feels that the uses the applicant is proposing would be allowed in the BP. Staff feels that- this is inconsistent with the General Plan. See number 19. See number 38. Staff recommends that the Zoning map be revised to delete OS on this privately owned land. Also, RE -2 was shown in error. See number 10. Staff feels that a General Plan amendment could be processed on the site to recognize an existing approval with a development agreement on the site, since Council made findings of General Plan conformance. NUMBER REQUESTED BY 33 Bob Geiman 34 Louis Arman 35a(i) Ed Bolden b(2) C(3) d(4) e(5) GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED REQUESTED STAFF COMMENTS AND LOCATION DESIGNATION ZONE ZONE RECOMMENDATION Master's College P 24249 Race Street RS Railroad and Market 12th Street & PLacerita 17175 Sierra East side of San Fernando BP Road Market and Pine Cc PE/RS PE Staff recommends that the zoning map be revised to reflect this comment, since the General Plan did not reflect RS on college property. RS RM Staff believes that this request is inconsistent with the General Plan. See number 24 See number 7 See number 30 SP(PD) ? Staff feels that the text of the UDC RS f(6) San Fernando Road and RM RM Via Princessa g(7) Pine and 6th Street RS RS' h(8) 12th and PLacerita i(9) - .12th and PLacerita Planning Commission Action: 33 — 35i(9) Concurred with.Staff Recommendation would allow legal, existing uses to continue and allow for reasonable expansion. New or illegal uses would need a CUP under SP PD. Cc Staff recommends that the zoning map reflect the request. AnawaLt Lumber parcel was-incorrectLy mapped. ? Staff feels that the proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan. RM - Existing building is to RM .density, next to commercial. General Plan shows RS. See numbers 7 and 8a. NUMBER REQUESTED BY LOCATION GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION PROPOSED ZONE REQUESTED ZONE STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION 35j(10) 12th and Placerita See number 7 k(11) College of the Canyons BP BP(PO) PE This area was .zoned BP at the request of the school. The 'PE` zone addresses private education facilities. 1(12) Placerita and Sierra RVL RVL (MOCA) RVL MOCA uses are addressed in the revised RL RL (MOCA) RL UDC text. m(13) Placerita and Highway 14 BP (MOCA) BP(PD) ? The zoning conforms to the General Plan (MOCA) designation. Staff.recommends no change. n(14) Honby IC IC A -1-1000D Proposed zoning correctly implements General PLan map. o(15) Dockweiler Road This road is currently not shown on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. p(16) FLoodways Various Staff recommends that the OS zoning need - not be. placed on fLoodways on private - property. q07) - San Fernando cc cc C-1, C-2, The CC is consistent with the General C-3 Plan. Legal uses will remain legal. r(18) Newhall. Avenue near RS RS RM This area was discussed during the Newhall Elementary General Plan hearing and the zoning map School - reflects those discussions. S(19) Various Various OS Staff believes that school district - properties should be zoned appropriately. - in conformance with the General Plan. Planning Commission Action: 35j(10) - 35s(19)Concurred with Staff Recommendation -6- NUMBER REQUESTED BY GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED REQUESTED STAFF COMMENTS AND LOCATION DESIGNATION ZONE ZONE RECOMMENDATION 36a(1) Newhall Land and Farming Behind Bouquet Center cc b(2) c(3) d(4) Rockwell Canyon and SP McBean Parkway Behind Sizzler on Sierra BP e(5) Magic Mountain Parkway BP/CTC and I-5 f(6) Magic Mountain Parkway CC/CTC and Valencia g(7) Along Tourney Road BP/OS Planning Commission Action: 36a(1) - 36g(7) Concurred with Staff Recommendation - -7- OS CC(PD) BP(PD) SP BP(PD) BP BP/OS/CTC BP/CTC CC/OS/CTC CC/CTC SP/OS BP Staff recommends that the zoning map be changed to correct this mapping error. The OS is the rehab center. See number 14. Staff believes that the 'PD' designation is appropriate due to the proximity to two schools and residential units. In addition, the site contains oak trees and hillsides. Staff believes that the 'PD' designation is Less critical now since the relocation of the railroad tracks included the construction of a 16 foot tall wall between the site and nearby residential. Staff recommends .that the zoning map reflect this request. OS is inappropriate on private Land. Staff recommends that the zoning map reflect this request. Same as above. Staff recommends that the zoning map reflect this request. Golf course was inaccurately mapped. NUMBER REQUESTED BY LOCATION GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION PROPOSED ZONE REQUESTED ZONE STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION 36h(8) Wiley Canyon Road and CN CN/(PD) CN Staff recommends that the 'PD" desig- Via Macarena nation remain on the property based upon the proximity of existing residences and the prior zoning of C -2 -DP. Otherwise, conditions of our approved CUP for child care will not be enforced. 37 RE Consultants Oak Springs Canyon Road Unclear RL BP Staff recommends that the zoning map and Highway 14 reflect this request with the inclusion of (PD) overlay on the site due to its proximity to the river. 36 William Elmore Golden Valley Area BP SP ? No action is required since contractor's - yards are allowed in the BP zone with a minor use permit and development standards. 39 Henry Heeber III Various Parcels in RL RM Staff recommends that the zoning remain Friendly Valley consistent as shown on the zoning map with the exception of Parcel C. The existing zone on all of the properties - is A-2-1 currently. Staff believes Parcel C could be changed to RM. Planning Commission Action: 36h(S) - 39 Concurred with Staff Recommendation FLF:Lk L:449 .. .. _ . NUMBER REQUESTED BY SUMMARY OF ZONING MAP REQUESTS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF INITIATED GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED REQUESTED STAFF COMMENTS AND LOCATION DESIGNATION ZONE ZONE RECOMMENDATION 1 Various Properties Honby IC IC Various 2 PoLynesian MHP San Fernando Road RM MHP RM Mulberry Park MHP Wabuska RM MHP RM Park Lane MHP SoLedad RM MHP RM Granada ViLla MHP SoLedad RM MHP RM Canyon Palms SoLedad CC MHP Cc SoLedad Trailer Lodge MHP SoLedad CC RM CC Sierra Park MHP SoLedad cc RM CC Royal Oaks MHP SoLedad RM MHP RM CaraviLLa MHP SoLedad RM - MHP RM Sand Canyon MHP Sand Canyon CC MHP CC(PD) Planning Commission Action: f See Text of Staff Report 2 Concurred with Staff Recommendation See staff report. Staff recommends that the zoning map reflect the changes Listed. September 29, 1992 City Council City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite300 Santa Clarita CA 91355 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA SEP 30 12 17 FII '92 CITY CLc:. iCE RE: 23519 San Fernando Road - formerly known as Gaviota Square Dear City Council Members: The Santa Clarita Church of Christ is seeking to purchase and develop a site in Santa Clarita which will allow us to serve the community more effectively. In addition to serving spiritual needs, it is our intention to open a pre-school/day care facility. We are writing you to request your help in expediting the process by making an adjustment to the present zoning. The property we are seeking to purchase is at 23519 San Fernando Road, and is currently zoned CPD with the proposed zone CC -PD, according to the UDC and zoning map. While we recognize the CC zoning allows for our intended uses, the PD overlay would require the lengthy and costly CUP process. It is our understanding that the city council has the authority to remove the PD overlay, on this particular property, which would allow us to proceed with the development within zoning guidelines subject to the usual codes and regulations. The advantages of our plans to the community include the following: 1. We would provide much needed pre-school/day care services in a location where they are currently lacking, which is also convenient for Park and Ride users. 2. Our plan for the development of the site would require very little disturbance of the present topography and trees, requiring no removal of oak trees (a plan for this site was previously approved which would have allowed the removal of nine of thirty-three oak trees, as well as numerous other trees on the site). 3. Our use would be less intense in terms of traffic and square footage of facilities than the previously approved plan. Though the CUP under which that plan was approved has expired, the approval of that plan indicates that similarly intensive uses could be approved in the future, allowing up to 21,000 square feet of retail space with parking. Our plan will require only 8,600 square feet for pre-school/day care and church facilities. The remainder of usable space would be used for parking and playground. City Council, continued September 29, 1992 page 2 of 2 4. The expedition of our plan would immediately replace what is now an eyesore with an attractive, unobtrusive community service facility. We sincerely appreciate your consideration in this matter, and we would welcome any questions you might have, at or before the meeting on October 27, 1992. Please feel -free to call me at home (259-9962) or call Bert Arnold, one of our church leaders at 259- 9493 or 259-2131. Sincerely, (/ Ute__ k C;&� Mark L. Bixler Minister Santa Clarita Church of Christ cc: Fred L. Follstad, City of Santa Clarita Tim Crissman, CRISSMAN COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC. Bert Arnold, Santa Clarita Church of Christ