Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-01-29 - AGENDA REPORTS - UNIFIED DEVLOPMENT CODE (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Klajic and Members of the City Council FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager/Community Development��12) DATE: January 29, 1992 SUBJECT: Unified Development Code BACKGROUND The staff and the consultant held and attended four community meetings within the City in October, 1991. The purpose of these meetings was to present the Unified Development Code (UDC) and Zoning Map to the public and answer questions. Public hearings at the Planning Commission began on November 5, 1991, and are currently in process. Attached to this report is the staff report presented to the Planning Commission which contains an overview of the UDC. Since November, 1991 the Planning Commission has held numerous meetings on the UDC in order to tailor the document to the specific .concerns of the Planning Commission, citizens, and the needs of the City. In order to provide for an orderly review of the UDC and Zoning Map, the Commission has decided to address and reach consensus on the text of the UDC prior to addressing the site specific questions of the Zoning Map. Presently, larger scale (100') zoning maps area being updated to reflect recent subdivisions and annexations. The Planning Commission has reviewed the. General` Procedures Section and is.halfway through review of the Zoning Section. The document covers many areas of development within the City, establishes new standards for development, codifies current City practices and takes the "best" standards from the County code. There have been concerns expressed by both the development community and the public over various issues of the UDC. Concerns to date have primarily focused on the allowable uses in the various zones, in particular, uses in the industrial zones (BP, IC, and I). Non -conforming requirements have raised concerns, particularly over proposed restrictions against rebuilding of nonconforming single family residential units which have been damaged over 50X. Animal keeping requirements, proposed changes in setback requirements, changes in minimum lot dimensions and area, and changes in allowable density have all been issues raised for particular Commission attention. Agenda Item: Presently, the Commission is addressing the nonconforming issues by allowing rebuilding of nonconforming single family residences. regardless of the percent of destruction and has directed the consultant to clarify the nonconforming section of the code. Concerns of those in the industrial zones, and in particular the IC, are being addressed. A major source of conflict over the proposed uses chart concerned prohibition of general manufacturing uses in the IC zone. The Commission has added manufacturing uses to the permitted IC zone uses and is presently considering expansion of commercial uses. The. use list is continuing to undergo review and expansion by the Commission as continued comments and suggestions are received by the public. Animal keeping has also been raised as a concern, especially over equestrian uses and standards. The Commission directed staff to initiate preparation of special standards to address particular concerns with the UDC expressed by Sand Canyon and Placerita Canyon homeowners. The consultant and staff have prepared a brief draft of Sand and Placerita Canyon special development standards which include provisions for permits for animal keeping on smaller lots to accommodate existing uses. These preliminary standards are intended as a start with comprehensivestandards to be developed specifically for the Sand and Placerita Canyons following Council adoption'of the UDC. The Special Standards Program would involve extensive community and homeowner association meetings to be sure that the area's needs are fully addressed. In addition, the Commission has directed staff to conduct several meetings with 'both of these community groups within the next few months to resolve the draft special standards presently proposed and respond to area concerns. The UDC varies from the County Code in many property development standards. Comments from the development community and the public have included concerns over increased setbacks, minimum lot sizes, minimum lot dimensions and changes in allowable density which would make many existing residential and commercial developments within the City nonconforming. The Commission has.just begun to review the property development standards chart and will be discussing these issues in future hearings. The differences between the draft UDC and the existing County code will be further discussed by the consultant at the Council Study -Session and areas of substantial difference will be highlighted for Council information- and input. Also attached is a zoning evaluation chart, which compares, proposed zoning- and the difference with existing provisions. The Planning Commission, property owners, developers, special interest groups, staff and the consultant. have all been working well together trying to understand everyone's concern with the proposed regulations and making adjustments as appropriate and. in accordance with the implementation of the General Plan. Special interest and community groups ,have formed. Following Commission direction, staff is preparing a program and a series of meetings with the special interest groups and community groups toworktoward consensus on this program. The purpose of these group meetings is to allow for discussion of specific areas of concern in a less formal, open dialogue fashion and arrive at consensus, or isolate issues. The process is expected to go well and it is anticipated that the draft document presented to the City Council in the near future will be an excellent guide for existing and future development within the City of Santa Clarita. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 5, 1991 Zoning Equivalency. Chart RECOMMENDATION: Receive update. LHS:jcg:449 ZONING EQ.O(vALENCY Candy the C11r has 4"4 Whl (A cool" dlstrkiL llww art bored " IM Lm Aagda Ca" Tnoing Otdo�e ohlh was ado td by aRream by the CLy of Scats Cb," Of do IbLil)lgbi (18) dicbicbr b.am (12) art not oLak,& GRNEPAL PLAN LAND USE PROPOSED ZONING E 0STING COLPARA3= ZONE, D&FER NM FROM MmINC AGR]Cla ApiCaltaro RE AND REEDIMNar A Avkdhn A-2 Shda hot Lryx W sin wd Maeda RaNedW F.adte 9C1 Raidmtlal Fsmbe-1 Mgr R,A Stoller bM Loger lol.akn • add seWods RC2" Roshkodal Rstale.2 A.2, R -A Staler but 4rgv by sore and setbacks Raldentlal %ry , Iw RVL R"Menl'ial Vrq I" M2, R,A SLmlar bot 4egtr kA sisr asd odbods ReddmtW Lw RL Rrsideatirl lsra A-4 R,% R•l Similar bat brger Ml aim - od ne9ec}a ZONMG EQUIYAL.ENCy PAGE S CCVtERRAL PLAN LAND DSL• TROPOSED ZONING EXLTFINO COAXPARADLE y.ONE D07E7IFIJC7S FROM .:carni Sadrbru IIS Resideaticl SobarLaa R-1 Slo Rar bel larger 1,1,lam Mad adhacla C RestdatlN Moderate RM Reddredd Modaah Rd, R-JQD ShalVekalsoaDer 101 tfm sad brow Setbacks Iteridraflal LLediasa w4b RMH RMM.Oal Meioa IDgk RJOU Shaiiar bat beer dradq, ` larger K Abe and mgr sept Q Rraldeand R11 Reaideoud WshRJOD, R-+pD - saaarr -Lal bav dead4, . _ Large' W $be, ead lamer settscks . CO71flIFRC1sI. - - Caamaeal Tame Ceaur C1C Commercial lbese Crow LTD Sismrbal sued ea PAR, i srlbade rstaMWe4 ad 1 sae no Cd'mfta: Crsmealh CC Cmeedal - C'MWWaAY CD Sm -hr Ort bA rs 1 rahhOsked, based o. YAR, sstbarks rrraraF) the some ZONT9(; F.QNYALE.YCY PACE 3 CFNP G PIAN LAND OSS PROPOSED 20NMC 8705RDYG ®OSI4N' CUMPARAMA 80,41 DOlERSNCPS PROM Co.mndd Ndabborbead CN CeaaveedW Nd&kb b ,d Gl S6edar bd m sba eshb6sbed, basil ea PAR, aedadu teaenRP the wme CmeaaeW Owx CO Came.,dW Oc3m GD SL/hr bd ka dae cab bDsbed, bawl on WAR, .d uses mare aesbku vlo "OARmD`y VSR ralwr'%rdyRee," CR, C -[i Shanar trd bl Abse esbabDabed, bund Qu FAR, xmacia teaeral the gamy ead mere ro4ktlre ase lkl ZOMNG EQVTVALL%CY PAGE) CMML&L PLAN LAND OSE EZISIIIIG MM M At. E®sess Psei PROPOSED ZONRIG BP Daaiaeoa Farb IC ta/mtriai C mmo i I I talmtru E WING COMPARABLE ZONE DlFFEIIIIiCIES FROM ALI, SR -D SimBar but fol size *Mtsbiished,bAtad on FAR, more eesbimhe use Est, Maximum belch[, setbacks s egahed CM Simlhr but M siva tatablisheA,based ou FAR, ass Ilst soma rerhie<he, Maximum keickt, setbacks tataAGabed M-1 In Similar but M size estabi4hed,based on FAR. we Ikt sorsa sestskOm, maaimam bc%kt, whacks eshbMbod SONO EQNYAIXNCY ;Es VEM PIAN IANO OSS STING (" i_n, "MOM Ceo rvld a. Am Ism 19.1,1 I �� 111 t1♦ 1 Y♦ 1' J; MW b(obBe Ham Part (en) eleened DadopwaA RM cm bwo (sn Speah Flea (HOCA) bDae fl CQ-$wvRCIm Are tlte) e1136.aa ea os 0" spry (DF) D—Jop-mt P-7— (DP) Sbw3 r Sane ae bd" Similar n bdore STAFF REPORT TO: Chairman Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager/Community Development( j;. �•`' DATE:- October 24,-1991 and November'. 5, 1991• SUBJECT: Unified Development Code -and Zoning•Map INTRODUCTION: The Draft Unified Development Code (UDC) and Zoning 'Map"'for'.-the'. City (previously transmitted)"represent two of the most'important implementation programs of the General Plan. The proposed Zoning Map has been'prepared:to be consistent with the General Plan Land' Use Map- together`'Sith the"UDC' which combines the zoning, subdivision and grading ordinances of the City into one unified' Code. ' This'' Code contains comprehensive'=nein provisions — for these subjects' and also contains several previously'adopted 'ordinances'of'the City. The'UDC is- comprised`of four`ctiapters,`Chapter l -' General Provisions; Chapter'" 2--Zoning;Chapier 3 - Subdivisions; and Chapter 4 Grading BACKGROUND 3 Currently- the City -is using the Los An County. (LACO)`Zoning; sulidivision ,and' Grading :Ordinances, :'4hicli were''adopted `by reference, .when''the"rCity of'': Santa Clarita incorporated. There have been- some revisions'°to°'.specifi'C sections of the LACO Code and there have been new additions to the 'Code. In most'cases;.where the'City has'adopted_new oidinarices amending 'the. Angeles County Code'asi'adopied by :the City='of Santa' Clirita"aftervincorporation,''the " text6ha's not been amended'abut"'me`rely'copied. reformatted `ants' -included in�its'```4' entirety. References to the newly proposed' zones'-have'been"sul'it'ituted `for` the old zones and section references updated to reflect the, UDC. Those main sections'vhich 'the City adapted, amending"the County''Codecover'the following areii: e Signs -and 'Bi'llboards;` i"''Parking • Oil' P`raduction SpecialStandards, Hazardous`Aaste Facilities;' _ ri • Oak Tree Preservation; y • Electrical and Cogeneration Facilities; and i` Pulilic Notice Requirements: The'Code-also contains excerpts of the Los" Angeles'County Zoning,' Subdivision-,-, ,, and Grading sections* theiren 'tiretyi Specifically; those sections are the Development. Program, DevelopmentAgreemenE "(with' slight modification)"a surveys; -and brush and vegetation: AGENDA 110 EM Overview of the Unified Development Code This staff report will review each of the Chapters highlighting those sections or requirements which may be of particular interest to the Planning Commission and those areas which were raised at the community meetings. A copy of the summary minutes from the community meetings is attached. The purpose of the UDC is to pull together all of .the, requirements for development or use of land and buildings into a clear and concise handbook for use by the citizens, property owners,; elected.and appointed city officials,, - and developers. In general terms. the UDC chapters can be equated as follows: • Chapter 1 - General Provisions equates' to discretionary approvals for projects and uses; • Chapter 2 - Zoning equates to regulations for development and use of land and build_ings;, • Chapter ,3 - Subdivisions equates to regulations .for the division of land; Chapter 4 - Grading equates to regulationsfor.the grading of land._. Chapter 1 -` General Provisions... ..This.., chapter is divided,. into 13 major sections. It includes, everything. from the administration, of the -„UDC;..-to definitions_of terms., in.terms of vhat'is.new to Santa Clarita, this chapter_ provides for a uniform..permit and -,application procedure -for _all permits and applications. It seta forth the requirements for: s complete application, environmental review, denials, hearings and notification, actions by approving- authorities, and a procedure for modification or revocation of a permit. By drawing these requirements together into,,, one section -Vit provides .a..more. uniform _approach, to 'all ,permits and applications. and. greater„ opportuaitq, _for,, . consistency of, action .. ._. .... _. u..«,,''' Three..nev procedures are established by this chapter,. Msnor_Use, Permits, Adjustments,. .I and Developmentk Review AZ Each,'sof these -procedures are pan41 , outgrowth of, a pr'actice es ,procs .or procedure `which°. exist now by local , ordinance, state law or case law r n3 ,e c s_�• !'�” '•m:'i' -7f-pr The,.Minor Use -Permit ocedure ,isq,under� the authority,yof th14 -e Community,. Development Director. The Director,` after notice, can approve, with,.,`. conditions, an application for a Minor Use Permit. These applications include uses or items which require more review than a permitted, use hut, not. -to the full extent of a, conditional use permit. They are items or uses which:, --with the appropriate conditions, can be found, to__be.compatible _vith...the,Iare a in which they are located and in compliance with the diciates^of._tlie.zone.-ind the General Plan. Adjustments are a mini variance procedure: It allows the Director to, approve, where findings can be made,' small or minor 'variances to such items as setbacks_,;. coverage,., height..of, structures, usable _ open ,~space .,and the like..,- Adjustments are. limited. to ;a maxim um. reduction in, requirement of_ up to ; twenty (20) percent., , ,Anything beyandt a.' twenty_ ,, (20)',percent ,reduction ,would come under the variance procedure -and would be considerea by'the.Pla_ ni g,, y commission. _.:' Development Review is an expansion of the site plan review under current local ordinance. It requires review by City staff of any application for development prior to the issuance of a building permit for single-family developments, mobile homes on permanent foundations, single-family (custom) homes, multiple- family developments, mobile -home parks, commercial or industrial establishments, and. any additions, remodeling, redevelopment or alterations thereof. The purpose of this review.. procedure is to ensure that the development is in compliance with the General Plan, the zone in which it is located and other requirements of the City as exist or may exist at that time. Development review allows the consideration of design and architectural' aspects of a proposal and allows the City to levy requirements for public improvements as they relate. to the project and the City as a whole and to set forth requirements for surety -to ensure performance. Non -conforming uses and structures is also contained within this, chapter. Concern was expressed at one of the community` meetings relative: to the replacement of ,a non -conforming single-family _home..when damage was beyond fifty. (50) . percent of the value of :the . structure. .,Another issue which was e raised is relative to additions to non -conforming. single-family .homes. -'Do the additions have to conform to the current (new) setbacks for structures when the existing structure already, establishes a setback vhich :is less than the new setback? The proposed ordinance, Pages': 45 and.�46 requires any new addition to conform .and does.not allow.for the replacement of non -conforming single -.family .homes damaged beyond fifty -(50).-percent- of the value of the structure. Chapter 2 - Zoning. ,This<chapter -comprises the, largest chapter ;of the -UDC: It is probably the,, chapters vhich,cwill, be utilized the most, other >than Chapter 1. Zoning sets forth the srequirements:for .the: -development of .land=and the ,:use of buildings. --It is organizedinto .five -:basic: sections: Agriculture, Residential,�Commercial ,r. and: Industrial:Zones;:�Special.'Zones =Special Uses and -c Standards;_ Off = Street ,_: Parking;_-,. and Comprehensive+SignViCegulat'ions.`. Each 'of these basic sections .is.further. divided, into more!:detailed parts. Agriculture. Residential. =Commercial:- and•aIndust'riai bZoines;�crepresents...'tlie?'.;;;_ primary :regulations ,forL.the seventeen . (17)tcbasic:zonesevithin,-the, City.'11-lt` is organized', into a, :group of::,rspecialr:: areas-. <-The first group r is the V'general - purpose ands specific purpose fsection;.zthe second. -group is'zthe' permitted°•`ands conditional uses; the third group, -is the generate requirements for development;' the, fourth group is the special development requirements; and .the final group is the-. performance standards...Byo grouping .the -_development requirements -into.: related .areas- -:it limits the_:: amount, of :--repetition' �arid •,;provides a' =more comprehensive view of:all;zonesc- It also allowsrfor"easier=administration'' of the :Code :by City staff and greater -understanding by-the=:public.= The areas of concern which were expressed during the community meetings related to the- 'mathematics' of: the,.density: and-1oesizes' indicated -`on' Pages -1 13 and 14., The -:indicated densities are'equal to the mid=poiat'of the "range'lof-' ' densities%shown on the -General Plan.!! The lot sizes 'indicated,:are. smaller.'than'-' the mathematical calculation of units per acre. In other words,'rif''the- density is 1.0 dwellings per acre, simple math would produce a minimum lot size of 43,560 .square,,feet; however,.'the -UDC has`a=minimuwlot size of. 40,000: square feet.: Since -density is the'. controlling, .-factor and the minimum, lot 'size - is less than. simple math -would produce; -the 'average--lot`sizeI will.be larger ' 51! than 40,000 square feet. Concern was also expressed relative to the front and rear yard setback increases from 20 feet to 25 feet in the front and from 15 feet to 25 feet in the rear in the RS zone. The reason for the increase in front yard setback is to provide, enough space on the driveway apron of a lot to permit the auto to be parked totally on the driveway apron and allow the garage door to be opened. In hillside areas it also allows for the percent of slope of the driveway to be more reasonable due to the greater distance from the street to the: garage. •With respect to the rear yard setback, the. current requirement of ;15 feet .is exceedingly small and would, under 'current building code requirements only.permit a swimmingpool which is 5 feet wide, since a minimum 5 foot decking is.required around the pool. It should be noted that the building official does have the authority to reduce the decking to '3 feet and to eliminate the decking ononeside. ' This still makes for a narrow pool and one which would consume most of the rear yard. In addition, if a patio cover - were to .be.constructed in the rear yard, with a 15 -foot rear yard; setback it would. be only a 10 foot deep patio cover. The 15 foot setback for rear yard would also provide:only_•3O feet of separation between two 'backing single-family homes where. the 25 foot:setback would add an additional. 2O feet, ` for a 50 Joot separation._•....•-.: The .-.150-foot..lot width in the RM zone was. also questioned in -light of a minimum 4,000 square foot lot. The reason -for this apparent discrepancy -is because the ordinance-intendscthe RM zone to be:largely attached units. with - consideration of small lot--.. single-family development'. through the, Planning Development (PD) Overlay Zone. It should be noted .that thegZoning chapter;.has many additional_ features. which the, current; Code- does not require: Under -;Special Requirements; beginning o. Page:,-l5-,and continuing; -through Page .23, -•there are requirements9which provide=r= for. undergrounding-.of% utilities, :roof .-appurtenances, lighting,,- reciprocal access, Eoutdoor storage rand/.or ;sales areas,: ^increased: standards for' multiple - family developments;:-­_SEA,a:requirements, ohistorical`:,-.points.-.:of:'interest, - floodplain requirements, iand..hillside,or. ridgeline requirements: ,.;'-r • =-- - Special Zones .is,t;comp4sed of,athosejizonea-which,". are _-of _very.' specific._purpose..-- -." It contains ;individual.!, zonessor,)_zones: which can:be,: overlaid,upom:ajbase zone The ,,new,,,zones >in,...,this area _are for: s.mobile-:;home •,parks, mineral/oil, conservation; . and open space.brcThe sotherr._'zones , are ;• copies; :.with some modif.ication,..of--the:existing,;County zones -as adopted;by;the City: =c' Special Uses and, Standards ;containsLa variety, of%:requirements from the keeping of animals to,:the..dedication..of:,. parkland .ifor....multiple = family: developments: Previously cadopted:.standards.cfor,•hazardous waste, facilities, electrical -.,and cogeneration facilities;rcand -oak :tree preservation have been- recopied. :and formatted for the UDC. Off -Street:• Barking-. and, comprehensive. Sign Regulations' are,tthe•County Code. as amended;,by, ;the.-ICityj of .,Santa Clarita. ,There. are: no changes 'in;these sections - other than, to replace .the.,; reference to. County.,zone : designations for .the ,.new -.i City designations. Chapter 3 - Subdivisions..,This:chapter, comprises the requirements,�along with t t the -State Map Act;. for the division. of -.land within .the City. It sets forth the -;final map; and parcel map„ requirements .which, must, be:followed after .the -4- - approval of a tentative tract map, tentative parcel map or vesting maps thereof. It sets forth the requirements for the adjustments of lot lines. It defines and regulates the improvement of public works facilities, on-site and off-site. The requirements for dedications and reservations of real property is set forth as well as the agreements and security required. Survey standards are established and the requirements for "Quimby Act' parkland dedication are detailed. Concern was expressed at the community meetings relative to the twenty (20) percent maximum adjustment limitation in the lot line adjustment section on Page 6, Item E. It was felt that this restriction was overkill and should be deleted. We ,have reviewed this suggestion and concur. It is felt that there is more .than sufficient -;.authority to limit any abuse of the Lot Line',- Adjustment ine',-Adjustment section as a,substitution for a subdivision map. Chapter 4 - Grading. They Grading chapter augments the Uniform Building Code and provides more specifics as to the requirements for the grading of land in the City of Santa Clarita. It sets forth the requirements for the design performance, grading and inspection, surface mining and reclamation, brush.and vegetation, and legal provisions. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the impacts of the project. The proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) replaces the existing City zoning, grading and subdivision regulations. The existing regulations to be replaced by the UDC were adopted in 1987 when the City incorporated. The existing regulations currently allow development throughout the City and provide numerous ways to exempt, exclude, and remove restrictive and environmentally sensitive provisions of the existing ordinance from some development projects. The proposed UDC is more environmentally, sensitive than current development regulations. The proposed UDC and.Zoning Map are primary implementation tools of the City's General Plan, adopted on. June 25, 1991. The City General Plan emphasizes the protection and improvement of the natural environment and the allowable densities and intensities of.the Plan are generally less than would be allowed under the existing regulations. The proposed UDC is consistent with the recently adopted General Plan and is more restrictive of development in sensitive environments than the current regulations. The proposed UDC, including the Zoning Map, is consistent with the City General Plan which is also more environmentally sensitive than current regulations. Based on the foregoing and as indicated. in the Initial Study, it was determined that this proposal would have no adverse environmental. impacts which could not be avoided through subsequent project level design, review and mitigation measures. A proposed Negative Declarationhas been prepared for this project. -5- RECOMMENDATION: October 24, 1991: It is recommended that the Planning commission conduct the study Session and consider the presentations by the consultant and staff. November 5, 1991: It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take testimony for and against and continue the public hearing to November 7, 1991. Note: In the likely event that additional continued public hearing dates are necessary for full Planning Commission consideration beyond the regular hearing date of November 5, 1991, the continued hearing date of November 7, and November 19, 1991, November 20, 1991 has also been reserved for Planning Commission consideration. If these are - convenient dates, please mark your calendars. Attachments: 1. Summary Minutes of Community Meetings 1-4 2. Notice of Public Hearing 3. Initial Study Part 1 10