Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 1999 383 1108PG -G9 ,383 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF MOORPARK To: Steven Kueny, ;bl A From: Wayne Loftus, lirector Date: -a e-g8, 2991 of Community Development Subject: Planning Commission Actions Concerning Residential Planned Development Permit No. RPD 98.01 and Tract 5133 (Far West Homes) On August 30, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider Residential Planned Development Permit No. 98.01 and Tract 5133, a request for an 80 -unit Residential Planned Development, including a condominium map and division of the site into three (3) parcels. The project site is just under 10 -acres in size and is narrow and extremely long in shape making a functional development somewhat difficult but achievable. Majestic Court is proposed to be extended easterly through the site and a new public right -of -way has been recommended by staff, along the westerly property line connecting Los Angeles Avenue to Majestic Court. The Planning Commission after nearly 4 -1/2 hours -of testimony and discussion was unable to conclude the proceedings with a recommendation. A recommendation to approve with conditions failed on a 3:2 voice vote. No motion to deny was made and the Planning Commission by a vote of 5:0 forwarded the proposal to the City Council with concerns and further approved Commissioner Mark DiCecco attendance at the Council meeting to explain Commission concerns. The hearing did not result in any changes to the draft resolution prepared by staff, nor were any of the staff recommendations approved or rejected by motion or conditions. The Planning Commission did register agreement with most of the issues and concerns discussed in the Staff Report and added several of their own comments to the list. At this time, as a result of closure of the Planning Commission public hearing there is no resolution with a recommendation and conditions required for development; there are expressions of concern and comments of recommended modifications. The report prepared by staff for the Planning Commission hearing included many issues recommended for resolution. The following list is extensive, but need not be considered as complete: BwA* avc em'ms of a waaaw- 62&01 -10:50 Any r� Steven Kueny, City Manager June 28, 2001 Page 2 1. Width of proposed "A" Street (connects Los Angeles Avenue to Majestic Court). Staff recommended 36 feet curb to curb dimension because this street will function as a collector for the area. Applicant request: 32 -feet curb to curb. Planning Commission did not select a width, but felt more landscaping was needed on the west property line. 2. Adequacy of recreation and Open Space facility. Staff recommended that the area (6,100 - sq.ft. including parking for four cars) be increased in size. Staff's Exhibit "A" which was provided to the Planning Commission at the public hearing indicated an Open Space /Recreation area of approximately 12,000 - sq.ft., which responds more adequately to the needs of young families are likely to move into this project. Applicant proposed 6,100 and believes it is adequate. Planning Commission said to expand the area but gave no details. 3. Lots 37 -43 of the proposed project allow vehicle access onto "A" Street, a future public street that will function as a collector. Staff recommended that this design be amended to allow a modification to have side yards on this portion of the street the same as the balance of the project north of Majestic Court. This revision removes the dangerous condition created by cars backing onto a collector street and is consistent with City policy, concerning subdivision design. The setbacks to the garage entrance are currently proposed at 5 -ft. or 10 -ft. from the right -of -way line of "A" Street. Applicant developed an alternative to respond to backing onto "A" Street north of Majestic Court, which reduces rear yard dimensions and creates a 20 ft. front setback to the garages (Lots 37 -43). The rear yard setbacks are reduced to 12 -feet and the street cross section is limited to 32 -feet, which is 4 -feet less than the 36 -ft. curb to curb cross - section recommended by staff. This Alternative "B" as labeled by the applicant was not evaluated by staff because one copy was provided too late in the process for staff to review. Additionally, it should be noted that this exhibit and two other exhibits ktaaflwANaa -FAR WEST HOSES - RPDJ&01 b513Xa**dpcactiao d8J44a*Awbk Steven Kueny, City Manager June 28, 2001 Page 3 were delivered by the applicant directly to Planning Commissioners without the approval or the knowledge of staff. This direct delivery of information with no knowledge by staff or opportunity to evaluate the alternative, was briefly referred to by the Planning Commissioners at the public hearing and has resulted in considerable confusion among Commission members and staff. In the final analysis this action by the applicant makes staff appear to be uninformed and biased concerning the design and appropriateness of this proposed project. Planning Commission took no position on access to the street, but was concerned about reduced setbacks throughout the project. 4. Guest Parking is provided consistent with the code requirement of 14 space per dwelling, however, the length of the space required clarification. It is proposed at 20.5 feet, the Code requires 24.5 -ft. Parking is proposed at the curb of a 36 -ft. curb to curb private street with no sidewalks. Driveway aprons are 20.5 feet apart on the cul -de -sac (hammerhead) streets. The dwelling front yard setbacks range from 5' to 10.5', and as a result there appears to be no extra parking or outdoor area to temporarily park a car other than the guest space. Based upon the current design there will be absolutely no opportunity for extra parking, requiring residents to use their garage at all times. Additionally, because of the 5 -ft. and 10 -ft. garage setbacks the simple act of washing a car or temporarily parking in the driveway between errands will not be possible and enforcement of these limitations is likely to be difficult. Applicant feels that the project is adequately parked at one -half guest space per unit. Planning Commission had concerns but took no action. 5. The cul -de -sac streets do not have sidewalks. The Planning Commission noted a concern and indicated that they should be provided on at least one side of the cul -de -sac streets, but did not recommend a condition. Applicant indicted to the Planning Commission that children could walk in the cul -de -sac streets that it should not be a problem. The applicant. may or may not rethink this statement. However, based upon the RICLIWAfaa- FAR WEST HOW£S- RP09B016513N3adW d pc adao d&W4a*.1.wdc Steven Kueny, City Manager June 28, 2001 Page 4 dimensional features of the cul -de -sac streets with 5 -feet and 10.5 -feet setbacks from the travelway, it does not appear that there is room for a sidewalk even on one side of the street. If the front setbacks are increased for a sidewalk the rear yard areas will become even smaller. In conjunction with the lack of sidewalks, it should be pointed out that the proposed private streets are designed with a roll -curb rather than the conventional vertical curb with gutter. A roll curb allows at random, indiscriminant access to the private property from the street encouraging parking to take place on front yards in landscaped areas. Based upon the lack of additional parking previously noted in this memo it is likely that parking in front yards will occur. The staff recommendation is that vertical curbs and gutter be provided on all streets with sidewalks included. 6. During the course of the hearing it was discovered and stated to the Planning Commission that the area required for dedication along Los Angeles Avenue for street widening was not completely shown. An existing dedication of 8 -feet is noted however 19 -ft. (11 -ft. of additional dedication) to achieve 70 -feet of right -of -way for the south half of Los Angeles Avenue is required. The result of subtracting the additional 11 -ft. of street dedication from the property dimensions as shown reduces the landscaped setback along Los Angeles Avenue from 20 -ft. as shown to 3 -ft. This reduced dimension does not account for the placement of a 6 -ft. sidewalk, which has been the minimum standard along Los Angeles Avenue and additionally there would be no landscaping. The design standard required of Pacific Communities where the right -of -way requirement was fulfilled and the sidewalk was placed on private property in an easement with 10 -ft. of landscaping separating the south edge of sidewalk from the project's sound attenuation wall should be the minimum acceptable design. The impacts that this street dedication requirement and landscape treatment will have on this project is not fully known. However, the design deficiency above requiring additional right -of -way, sidewalk and landscaping adds up to approximately 27 -feet. Applicant believes the drawing is accurate but annotated incorrectly. Planning Commission did not address the issue. M:1CLaAauMfta- FAR WEST HOMES - RPD9"l 0513ABadW of po arms of 83Viadc -1.wdc Steven Kueny, City Manager June 28, 2001 Page 5 7. Architectural issues were addressed with agreement that they need attention. Direction was given that all window elements should look the same as others in the project and additional detail is needed. No condition was established. B. The hammerhead turnarounds are not accurately drawn to meet current Fire Department criteria. However, the Fire Department has stated that the applicant submitted a revised drawing that shows the correct design. The correct design does not appear on the project application drawing. The Planning Commission did not evaluate this revision to determine what impact if any occurs to the project. 9. All of the above issues are resolvable; however, none were resolved at the Planning Commission hearing. The unfortunate circumstance relating to this project is not whether it maintains or lacks design merit, but instead it is the large number of unknown results that occur if the modifications proposed by staff and concerns raised by the Planning Commission are implemented. The Planning Commission offered concerns but did not frame a motion or quantify issues or concerns such as the amount of Open Space or the size of a swimming pool required to serve 80 families. As a further note to illustrate concern on the size of the pool. The applicant proposes a pool with an estimated 700 - sq.ft. of water surface area. The typical backyard pool is 450 - sq.ft. Pacific Communities provided a pool with 3,000 - sq.ft. of water surface area. 10. As noted by the discussion at the City Council meeting on September 1, 1999, the proximity of the curb -cut to Regal Park Condominiums which was proposed to be gated presents a problem for traffic flow and potential conflicts along Los Angeles Avenue and onto the subject property, whether the access thereto is a private street or a public street. The curb openings will be less than 10 -fet apart and vehicle movement conflicts can be expected. In conjunction with the Regal Park Condominiums request, staff offered an alternative to mitigate the traffic congestion issue by suggesting that as a long term solution that access to Regal park Condominiums be relocated from Los Angeles Avenue to the future public street -recommended for inclusion in this project. This modification which should include closing and re- constructing the cur -cut, sidewalk and driveway on Los Angeles Avenue, and landscaping of MACLeflw M,aa FAR WEST HOMES - RPD98-01 h6133GeckW of pc acbm of 84k tack -Imbk Steven Kueny, City Manager June 28, 2001 Page 6 setback areas together with creating a new point of access on the north /south "A" Street should be at the expense of the proposed project creating the impact to Los Angeles Avenue. As you will recall I will be on vacation during the week of September 6, through September 17, 1999, and will not be in attendance at the City Council meeting of September 15, 1999, when this item is scheduled to be heard. The issues, recommendations, conclusions and dialogue with the Planning Commission at the August 30, 1999, hearing were carried out by me. Given the loose ends concerning this project that I have identified above, it would be helpful to the City Council if the appropriate staff representative were available at the project hearing to explain the issues. Issues that could significantly impact this project include: ■ Correct dedication on Los Angeles Avenue ■ Incorporation of correct hammerhead designs • Incorporation of a 36 -ft. curb to curb public street ■ Provision of sidewalks on the cul -de -sac streets ■ Provision of adequate guest parking ■ Size of Open Space /Recreation facility These issues are selected because of the potential impacts to the project's physical layout, and the emphasis given to them by the Planning Commission and staff for resolution. It is regrettable that the issues could not have been addressed in a more positive way with a clear recommendation advanced to the City Council. Staff recommended conditional approval because it was envisioned that the issues and recommended conditions would be forwarded to the City Council or removed from the Planning Commission resolution, therefore reflecting a decision about the design of the project. However, as referred to the City Council, there remains much to be determined. MACLafleWMw FAR WEST HOMES - RPD9501161336adaip of pc acbom of B30.hack -7.wdc