Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1986 0317 CC REG ITEM 07AJAMES D. WEAK Mayor THOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor Pro Tern ALBERT PRIETO Councilmember DANNY A. WOOLARD Councilmember LETA YANCY - SUTTON Councilmember DORIS D. BANKUS City Clerk THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer TO: FROM : 13 E : SUBJECT MOORPARK MEMORANDUM The Honorable City Council Richard Morton, Interim Director Development February 18, 1986 Net vs Gross Density ITEM �c�. STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney RICHARD MORTON Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police of Commun%IA- At it's December 16, 1985 meeting the Council adopted an interim policy (Exhibit "1 ") of using "net" rather than "gross" acreage in determining maximum density. The Council also directed the Planning Commission to conduct hearings on the matter and make a recommendation to the Council. Staff did a study of the matter and prepared a report to the Commission recommending the use of "Net" density. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION At the Commission meeting, Mr. Phil Vein, representing the Building Industry Association, spoke at length in favor of using "gross" density. A major part in his argument was that the General Plan does indicate gross rather than net. Some of his points were valid which further indicates that on can interpret the General Plan either way.* The Commission by unanimous vote recommended the use of "gross" rather than "net ". STAFF COMMENT This writer takes exception to Mr. Vein's statement that a property owner or developer is "entitled" to the "maximum average(gross) density ", and therefore changing to net will mean a 20% redustion in units and a corresponding 20% increase in the price of housing. In another item on this agenda (the moratorium issue) there is a full discussion of why the maximum should not be granted in all cases. Staff's recommend- ation on the case of net was based on the concept of equal allowance on "buildable" property and it is granted that in most cases this will 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 The Honorable City Council p. 2 - February 18, 1986 SUBJECT: Net vs Gross Density mean a lesser maximum allowance. Should the concept of limiting density below the maximum when there are constraints to development be established, the use of either "gross" or "net" is not of such significance. RECOMMENDATION 1. Revoke the interim policy on the use of "net." acreage in deter- mining density. 2. In the action on the item involving "moratorium" establish the use of either net or gross in the General Plan so as to clarify the issue. *He presented a letter from the Manager of county Planning Division (Mr. Thomas Berg) to the Building Industry Association stating that both the County staff and the Board of Supervisors understood and intended the density ranges in the Moorpark Community Plan to be "gross" acres (Exhibit "2 "). Seeing some of the development approved by the County, this factor is perhaps a reason for using "net ". /crl ALBERT PRIETO Mayor JAMES D. WEAK Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmember DANNY A. WOOLARD Councilmember LETA YANCY- SUTTON Councilmember DORIS D. BANKUS City Clerk JOHN C. GEDNEY City Treasurer TO = -- 1 Z • Q _. DATE MOORPARK STEVEN KUENY City Manager pp O ° CHERYL J. KANE o° ? t • City Attorney NIALL FRITZ O Director of z Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police MEM(D ID Tim The Honorable City Council Richard Morton, Interim Director of Conutunity Development December 12, 1985 SUBJECT = USE OF "NET" versus "GROSS" AREA IN DETERMINING DENSITY At the December 9, 1985 joint meeting with the Planning Commission a staff report (attached) was presented to the group regarding the use of net area versus gross area in computing densities. At the subject meeting the Council directed that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for its construction. Since such action requires a resolution of the Council directing that the Commission initiate hearings on the issue, said resolution is attached for adoption by the Council. Since the zoning code is presently silent since the General Plan uses "net" area, a attached for consideration by the Council the necessary regulation for use by staff period until the regulation is formally i code. RM:mjr on the matter and proposed policy is in order to provide during the interim ncluded in the zoning 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 A POLICY OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING "NET ACREAGE" IN DETERMINING DENSITY It is hereby established that in determining the density on any particular property, said density shall be based on the "net acreage" of the property. For the purpose of this policy, "net acreage" shall mean that any area dedicated for public streets, or area used for a private street in lieu of what would normally be a public street, or any other purpose wherein said area is not available for use for buildings, parking, or recreation, shall not be included in computing the allowable density as indicated by the zoning on the land. Areas dedicated for public parks or schools shall be included when calculating the net area for allowable density. This policy shall remain in effect until such time as it may be modified or revoked by the adoption of an ordinance amending the zoning code. REVISED: December 16, 1985 w RESOLUTION NO. PC -86 -79 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY THAT GROSS ACRE- AGE BE USED IN DETERMINING DENSITY WITHING THE CITY AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 85 -261 initiating proceedings to consider an amendment to the zoning Ordinance to provide for net acreage in determining density of residential projects; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 1986, the Planning Commission duly held a public hearing to consider such amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the findings contained in the staff report dated January 8, 1986, which report is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City not be amended regarding net acreage computation in determining density on any property within the City. SECTION 3. That at its meeting of January 8, 1986, the Planning Commission took action to request staff to prepare a Resolution to be presented for Consent Calendar action at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Holland, Keenan, Claffey, LaPerch; NOES: Commissioner Hartley; ABSENT: None. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22 day of January, Chairman ATTEST: &,4C.X Acting Secretary JAMES D. WEAK Mayor THOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor Pro Tern ALBERT PRIETO Councilmember DANNY A. WOOLARD Councilmember LETA YANCY - SUTTON Councilmember DORIS D. BANKUS City Clerk THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer T(:3 : FROM: DATE : MOORPARK .Ife....SA MEMO RAN D UM The Planning Commission Richard Morton, Director of Community January 8, 1986 STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney RICHARD MORTON Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police Developmen SUBJECT : Use of "Net" versas "Gross" Area In Determining Density BACKGROUND: Attached is the report to the City Council regarding the use of "net" versus "gross" area in determining density. The report includes a copy of 1) the staff report on the same subject for the December 9, 1985 joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission, 2) a Resolution of the City Council initiating proceedings to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance on the subject, and 3) the City Council adopted a interim policy while the amendment to zoning ordinance is in process. The City Council adopted the Resolution initiating the proceedings and the interim policy on December 16, 1985. DISCUSSION: The basic issue to be resolved is whether "Net" or "Gross" area should be used in determining density and if "net" is to be used, what should be included or not included in determining "net ". As stated in the previous reports, staff is of the opinion that net should be used. Using "gross" area one property might be 10 acres unencumbered by dedications for easements where a density of 15 units per acre could result in fairly uncluttered plan with a reasonable amount of open space while another property of 10 acres could have an acre of street or other easement dedication. Using the same gross acreage and the same density, the latter property would result in a much tighter plan since the acre lost would have to come out of the open space. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6874 The Planning Commission p. 2 - January 8, 1986 SUBJECT: Use of "Net "versas "Gross" Area In Determining Density Since some easements, e.g., utility or sewer, can be used for open parking or useable open space (but not buildings) we do not feel that such easements should be included in determining net acreage, nor do we feel that the imposition of a requirement for public parks or schools should be counted against the property owner /developer. We do feel, however, that areas that are unuseable for buildings as well as landscaping or recreational facilities should not be included in determining the density for a project. The interim policy adopted by the Council reflects the above conclusions. The subdivision ordinance (Section 8205 -8) defines net area as: "Net area" means total land area exclusive of areas within any existing or proposed public or private street, road, or ease- ment for ingress or egress and exclusive of the area within any existing or proposed easement wherein the owner of the lot or parcel is prohibited from usings the surface of the ground. Included in the "net area" is the area lying within public utility easements except as otherwise provided in section 8241, sanitary sewer easements,landscaping easements, public service and tree maintenance easements. There is no definition of "Gross Density ". The subdivision ordinance use of "net density" is to compute the permissable minimum lot size as permitted by the zoning ordinance. The proposed definition herein, on the other hand, is to compute overall density where the zoning ordinance prescribes the number of units per acre, e.g. 10 to 20 DU /Ac with a maximum average of 15 DU /Ac, or RPDS (meaning 5 DU /Ac). There are two differences to the definition proposed herein. One is exclusion of parks and schools in the calculation of lot size since this obviously does not apply to individual lots. The other is the exclusion of the easement for high voltage transmission lines (33 kilovolts or more) where the lots are less than 10,000 square feet. Since the latter exclusion is already on ordinance provision for smaller lots, it need not be included in the proposed definition. In it's action adopting an interim policy the City Council directed that the Commission return it's recommendation as soon as possible so that the "interim" policy could be replaced by an ordinance adopted through the standard procedure. Staff, therefore, has prepared a resol- ution recommending the adoption of an ordinance based on the same provis- ion as the interim policy. Should the commission conclude that the recommendation should be for "gross" area or that a different definition of "net" should be used, staff will be prepared to provide the necessary wording so that the item could be forwarded onto the Council. The City Council has tentatively scheduled their hearing on the matter for February 3, 1985. The Planning Commission p. 3 - January 8, 1986 SUBJECT: Use of "Net" versas "Gross" Area In Determining Density RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending to the City council the adoption of an ordinance prescribing the use of "net" area, as described therein, in determining density of residential projects. /crl NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, California, on Wednesday , the 8th day of January , 1936-, beginning at the hour of 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers in the City Hall of said City, located at 799 Moorpark. Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021 for the purpose of consideration of the proposed project hereinbelow described. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN, that, pursuant to California State law, an evaluation has been conducted to determine if the proposed project could significantly affect the environment, and that. based upon an unitial review, it has been found that a significant affect would not occur; therefore, a Negative 'Declaration has been completed in compliance with State CEQA- Guidelines issued thereunder. Proposal. the Zoning Ordinance of the City to establish use of "net acreage" in determining the density allowance on residential projects. NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE If you challenge the proposed action 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 Planning Department at or prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions or comments regarding the project, contact the Community Development Department at the City Hall, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021; Phone: (805) 529 -6864. DATED: January 19 , 19 85 By: Title: Planning Secretary NOTICE PREPARATION OF DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CONCERN PARTIES: The City of Moorpark is currently processing a change to the zoning ordinance. California State Law requires that an evaluation be con- ducted to determine if this project could significantly affect the environment. Based upon an initial review, it has been found that a significant affect would not occur; therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application: AMENDMENT A -86 -1 Applicants Name: City of Moorpark Description: A consideration to determine what areas should or should not be included in determining the allowable density on a residential project. The public review period for the draft Negative Declaration is from December 19, 1985 to January 1, 1985 If you have_. any questions or comments regarding the project or adequacy of the draft Negative Declaration, please call or write, Richard Morton, Director of Community Development, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021, (805) 529 -6864. Copies of this draft Negative Declaration may be reviewed or purchased at the above address. Prepared by: Celia LaFleur Date: December 19, 1985 Planning Secretary CITY OF MOORPARK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 799 MOORPARK Avenue MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 X NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1. Application: Amendment A -86 -1 2. Applicant: City of Moorpark 3. Proposal; To establish the area to be used in determin- density. 4. Responsible Agencies: II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: An initial study was conducted by the Department of Community Development to evaluate the potential effects of this project upon the environment. Based upon the findings it has been determined that this project could not, have a significant effect upon the environment. III. PUBLIC REVIEW: 1. Document Posting Period: December 19, 1985 through January 1, 1986. Prepared by: rl DATED: December 19, 1985 Approved by: - Ri hard Mortion, Director of Community Development CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Applicant 2. Project Description 3. Date of Checklist submittal 4. Project Location II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? — C. Change in topography or ground surface — relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of — any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, _ either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, — or changes in situation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic _ hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? YES MAYBE NO 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration _ of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d. Is there a potential for cumulative adverse impacts on air quality in the project area? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction _ of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood _ waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in. _ any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any _ alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of _ ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either _ through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Degradation of ground water quality? i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water _ otherwise available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water related — hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? YES MAYBE NO 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species or number of _ any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or _ endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Restrict the range of or otherwise affect any _ rare or endangered animal species? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an _ area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife _ habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: A a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural _ resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable _ resource? YES MAYBE NO 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous _ substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, _ distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation _ systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or _ movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, _ bicyclists or pedestrians? R 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental servies in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? — b. Police protection? — C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Other governmental services? 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ YES MAYBE NO b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources _ of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? — c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? — e. Storm water drainage? — f. Solid waste and disposal? _ g. Street lighting annexation and /or improvements? _ 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health _ hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? — 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? A 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact _ upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal: a. Affect possible unknown archaeological or historic- _ al sites? b. Result in destruction or alteration of a known _ archaeological or historical site within the vicinity of the project? C. Result in destruction or alteration of a known _ archaeological or historical site near the vicinity of the project? YES MAYBE NO 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. n. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ c. Does the project have impacts which are individu- ally limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where impact on ea.h resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. _ ZII. RECOMMENDATION A On the basis of this initial evaluation: ; _ In conformance with Section 15060 of the State EIR Guidelines, I find with certainity that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the environment. _ I find the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to class I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet could be applied to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD BE PREPARED. I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ADDENDUM to an existing certified Environmental Impact Report is required. _ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and this effect is adequately addressed in a certified Environmental Impact Report, and thus SUBSEQUENT USE of the existing EIR is required. A ALBERT PRIETO Mayor JAMES D. WEAK Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmember DANNY A. WOOLARD Councilmember LETA YANCY- SUTTON Councilmember DORIS D. BANKUS City Clerk JOHN C. GEDNEY City Treasurer TO FROM DATE BACKGROUND: MOORPARK ----------- MEMORANDUM �f. STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney NIALL FRITZ Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police The Honorable City Council & Planning Commission Richard Morton, Director of Community Development December 9, 1985 RANGES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES & GROSS vs NET DENSITY The question has arisen where the maximum of 15 Dwelling Units per Acre (DU /Ac) comes from when the land use designation is 10 to 20 DU /Ac with an average of 15 DU /Ac . Attached is page 39 & 40 of the Land Use Element. What the "maximum average allowable density" means is that in a large mixed development there could be some segments at up to 20 DU /Ac as long as the average was 15 DU /Ac. Since the actual allowable density is that indicated by the zoning, the Council can always zone any property at 10 DU /Ac and be consistent with the General Plan. Incidentally, the Council could, in a Specific Plan of several properties, zone one property at 20 DU /Ac and another at 10 DU /Ac - as long as the average was 15 DU /Ac. Another issue regarding density is whether it is computed on gross or net land area. The Current code does not specify. According to Randy Richardson of County Planning, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy in the 70's of using gross land area and Moorpark just con- tinued on with the policy. While a justification can be made for gross density as a reward when having to dedicate property for public use, the result can be a wide variation in the actual density on the land (Net Density). For example in PD -1010, with a zoning of 15 DU /Ac, the gross density (with the density bonus) was 18 DU /Ac or 370 units. The net density with 370 units, however, would be 23 DU /Ac. To stay within the 15 DU /Ac (plus density bonus) using net density would have meant allowing only about 285 units. The gross density with 285 units would have been about 14 DU /Ac. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 The Honorable City Council & Planning Commission December 9, 1985 page 2 Subject: RANGES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES & GROSS vs NET DENSITY Another property, without the easements required for PD -1010 (Arroyo, plus all of Majestic Court and half of Moorpark Avenue) could have a gross and net practically the same. In my opinion using net density is the fairest way to go even though, in some cases, it may be a significant reduction over what could have been with gross. The Land Use Element of the General Plan states in two places that density shall be based net acres. In order to be consistent with the General Plan, staff suggests that all densities, zoning as well as the General Plan, shall be based on net acreage. Actually this already applies in the case of "R -1 ", since the designated minimum size lot is determined after street dedication. An alternative approach would be to not penalize the property owner, in terms of density, for major streets that benefit the whole City. This might be streets shown on the Circulation Element that exceed 60 feet of right -of -way. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Council and Commission discuss this matter and provide staff direction. /crl Thus, the overall development pattern progresses from the more intense residential, commercial and industrial uses of the downtown, toward the residential neighborhoods, the transitional zones and finally into the larger expanses of agriculture and open space. 1. RESIDENTIAL Development Pattern Residential land uses are intended to develop primarily in areas surrounding the downtown core, and should contain a variety of housing types and densities as well as the necessary ancillary facilities to meet the needs of the residential population (i.e. schools and parks). Housing mixes are encouraged in order to provide a variety of living accomodations for persons of all socio- economic levels, and may include some multiple dwelling units, such as townhouses or condominiums. Cluster development is Consistent with the intent of the residential areas, and will promote land conservation as well as visual relief, through the use of internal open space, from traditional single family subdivisions. Density Averaging The proposed development pattern dictates that all residential subdivisions will develop at the average density of the designation shown on the Land Use Map. "Density averaging" is -an implementation mechanism which provides for development at the mean of the land use category in which a residential subdivision proposes to locate. Table 2 indicates the average allowable density for each residential category. Residential subdivisions may contain both single family units and multiple family units, provided the project contains a greater percentage of single rather than multiple family dwelling units, the greatest density does not exceed 20 units per nit acre, and the overall average density of the proposed project is consistent with that outlined in Table 2. TABLE 2 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Residential Designation L Low Density ML Medium Low Density M Medium Density H High Density VH Very High Density Densitv Ranoe 1. 1-2 DU /Acre 2.1 -3 DU /Acre 3.1-5 DU /Acre 5.1 -10 DU /Acre 10.1-20 DU /Acre *Represents average density for each residential category. 39 Maximum Averaoe Allowable Densitvs 1.6 DU /Acre 2.6 DU /Acre 4.0 DU /Acre 7.0 DU /Acre 15.0 DU /Acre Table 3, Implementation Procedures for Residential Development Projects, outlines the proceedures to be followed relative to residential subdivision development. TABLE 3 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS a. Each residential project shall meet the average density for the land use category in which the residential development proposes to locate. However, a Planned Residential Community may exceed the average density for the land use category in which it is located provided it can be demonstrated that the additional density is justified in terms of overall ,community ,benefit and the overall density does not exceed the maximum density permitted by the land use category. b. The average density for each residential category is shown on Table 2. C. A single residential project may include both single family and multiple family dwelling units provided that, unless the project is located in the "H" or "VH" designation, the project shall contain more single - family dwelling units than multiple - family dwelling units. d. The maximum density for any residential development shall be 20 units per net-acre. Rural areas are not subject to density averaging and must develop at the minimum lot size established (i.e. 1 acre per dwelling unit minimum). Each residential area shall contain the necessary public facilities to maintain the residential population. Public facilities include, but are not limited to, schools, parks, community centers and churches, and should be located internally wherever possible rather than on the periphery of the residential area and shall, where possible, serve as centers for the area. i The development ratio for the provision of parks shall be that which has been adopted by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors (5 acres /1,000 population) . The recommended development standards for educational facilities are as follows: A. Elementary (Grade K -6) 1. 450 -750 total enrollment 2. Two acres per 100 students, minimum 10 acres 3. Walking distance - 112 to 3/4 miles B. Junior High (Grades 7 -9) 1. 800 -1,200 total enrollment 2. Two acres per 100 students, minimum 16 acres 3. Walking distance - 1 to 111 miles C. Senior High (Grades 10-12) 1. 1,500 to 2,000 total enrollment 2. 2 to 21� acres per 100 students, minimum 30 acres 3. Walking distance - 11� to 2 miles 40 I� ! IESOURCE MAN- AGEMENT AGENCY Planning Division county ® ventura Thomas Berg Manager December 23, 1985 Louise Rice - Lawson, Executive Director Building Industry Association 601 Daily Drive, Suite 229 Camarillo, CA 93010 Subject: Moorpark Community Plan - Density Dear Louise, This is in response to your December 18, 1985 letter, in which you asked whether the Board of Supervisors (in adopting; the Moorpark Community Plan) and County staff (in administering the Moorpark Community Plan) recognized the densities of the Moorpark Community Plan as "gross" or "net." In answer to your question, both the Board of Supervisors and County staff understood and intended the density ranges of the Moorpark Community Plan to be "gross" acres. Furthermore, the Moorp� irk Community was rezoned consistent with the Community Plan and the predominant residential zone was R -P -D (Residential Planned Development) with densities as indicated by the average (mid- point) density for each residential category M = 3.1 to 5.0 DU /Ac.; mid-point = 4 DU /Ac.). The k -P -D zone calculates density based on "gross" acres. If you have any further questions, please gall Burke Smith, Supervisor., General Plans Section, at 654 -2497. Sincerely, Thomas Berg, Manager Planning Division TB:lca cc: Phil Vuin "00 . wCnui . V.-w-:,! f �