Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1988 0907 CC REG ITEM 11QJOHN PATRICK LANE Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M.PEREZ Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk MOORPARK N E N 0 R A N D U N ITEM /Z _ .. TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: September 1, 1988 STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1064 - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION Background On January 20, 1988 the City Council approved Planned Development Permit No. 1064, a 31,803 sq.ft. retail /office complex at the southeast corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Spring Road. Presently, the applicant is seeking approval of a zoning clearance. This approval will enable the project to enter plan check. At this point the applicant is requesting that changes be made to certain conditions and that clarifications be made to others. The attached letter from the applicant dated August 24, 1988 is the list of eight items that the Council has been requested to consider. However, at this time, only the last four items on the list are the subject of this agenda item. (The first four items will require more time to evaluate than was allowed for this meeting date and will be brought back to the Council later.) The requested items to consider at this time are: 5. Change wording of City Council Condition 1g. so that the MOB �.. CrtiFOZNIA undergounding of utilities be noted on the plans prior to City N)i. - % %e ing zoning clearance with the actual work to be completed 198 prior to occupancy. Present wording requires the actual work to be done prior to zoning clearance. Staff agrees A TIO N: with this request for clarification This was always the staff's intention. In staff's opinion this clarification is only making an interpretation. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 880109 /CHRONI PJR:MAR:crl September 1, 1988 Page 2 6. The second item requests metal trim be permitted around windows and doors, rather than wood as required by a condition. It appears that the Council has previously consented to this, but that staff has never been directed to actually amend the language of the condition. Staff will agree to this amendment. 7. The third item requests that certain design modifications be made to the fountain, as described in the letter. Staff sees no difficulty with granting these changes. Council concurrence would be necessary. 8. The fourth request is that many items require review and approval prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. The applicant is requesting that this process be divided into two parts: plans would only be required to be submitted for review prior to zoning clearance, and that the approval be deferred to prior to issuance of a building permit. This would expedite the submission of working drawings for plan check. Among the Community Development conditions, the submittal for this type of review and approval affects the landscape plan, tree report and the exterior lighting plan. Among the City Engineer's items, this would involve the grading plan, soils report, street improvement plans, erosion control plan, and a host of other items. Staff has been requested to consent to these types of changes in procedure in the past. We have never seen the validity of granting this request and this particular instance does not appear any different than the others. No compelling reasons have been presented to staff that make this project any different from the others. Compliance with these requirements at the zoning clearance stage gives staff certain assurances that are necessary prior to entering plan check. Part of the discussion presented here leads to the inevitable conclusion that it would be prudent for the City to adopt standard conditions for development projects. If an adopted list existed, it could be given to an applicant over the counter when the very first inquiry is made. The conditions and procedures made clear at that time; the need to request these types of amendments would be minimal. Recommended Action Approve only items no. 5, 6, and 7 above, disapprove item no. 8 and defer action on items 1 - 4 to a date uncertain. Item no. 6 will require adoption of a clarification resolution. It is suggested that item 6 be approved, but the actual adoption of the resolution be deferred to the time when items 1 - 4 are addressed. Exhibits: 1. Topa Management letter dated August 24, 1988 880109 /CHRONI PJR:MAR:crl 0 MANAGEMENT 70CC00M August 24, 1988 Mr. Patrick Richards Community Development Director City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Re: PD No. 1064 Dear Pat: Topa requests that the following clarifications and /or minor modifications be made to the approved City Council conditions for our project. 1 City Engineer Condition 3c. "Prior to occupancy, an approximately 4 foot high by 8 foot wide reinforced concrete box will be constructed along the east property line. The location and design of the RCB will be reviewed and approved by the Ventura County Flood Control District abd the City Engineer. The reinforced concrete box will connect to the existing 3 feet high by 5 feet 8 inch wide RCB crossing under Los Angeles Avenue. The new RCB will provide a stub -out where it meets the existing RCB for a future 54 inch reinforced concrete pipe entering from the east. The developer will enter into an agreement with the City of Moorpark to be reimbursed for the construction of this reinforced concrete box from the Los Angeles Area of Contribution Fund subject to review and approval by the City. The total reimbursement shall not exceed $2251000." This condition does not specify the timing of reimbursement to Topa. We request clarification of this condition to state that 1) reimbursement to Topa be upon acceptance of the work by the City and 2) that reimbursable costs include engineering, plan check fees and permit fees. 2 City Engineer Condition 4a. "Any direct expenses incurred by the developer relating to pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk construction on the North leg of the Los Angeles Avenue - Moorpark Road inter- section shall be reimbursed by the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fund, subject to review and approval by the City. It is intended that the eventual developer of the northeast corner of this intersection will reimburse the 1800 AVENUE OF THE STARS SUITE 1400 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90067 -4216 [2131203-9199 MTOPQ Mr. Patrick Richards August 24, 1988 Page Two Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution Fund for these expenses." This condition was contained in the conditions presented to the Planning Commission on August 14, 1987. However, the condition was omitted in the conditions presented to the City Council. To date, neither the City Engineer's office nor the Planning Department have been able to identify who requested the omission or why it was omitted. Topa requests that this condition be added to the City Council conditions for our project with the added clarification that reimbursement for these improvements including the cost of acquisition of the right of way be upon acceptance of the work by the City. Currently there is approximately three feet of right of way needed along Spring Road for us to provide the street widening required by the City Engineer's office on the north- east corner of Los Angeles Ave. and Spring Rd. (Anderson - McDonald's site). The Los Angeles A.O.C. states that improvements to Moorpark Road from Los Angeles Ave. to High Street are to be constructed with developer's funds. The A.O.C. further goes on to say that: "Although a property owner is normally conditioned to dedicate necessary right - of -way (R /W) and construct public improvements at the time of development, the R/W and improvements are sometimes needed before the property owner is ready to develop. In these cases it may be necessary for the A.O.C. to buy the right of way from the property owner and construct the improvements. If this happens, the City will record constructive notice to serve the present and future property owners that the property owner will be required to reimburse the A.O.C. payment, for R/W acquisition and construction costs. These costs include legal descriptions, appraisals, and other associated costs, as well as the R/W purchase and con- struction costs." Topa is already dedicating to the City right of Way on both frontages of our property. It is our interpretation in reading the A.O.C. that any right of way and improvements needed on the northeast corner of Los Angeles Ave. and Spring Rd. would be the financial responsibility of the future developer of that property and not Topa. MTOPO Mr. Patrick Richards August 24, 1988 Page Three 3 City Engineer's Condition 3d. This condition requires modification of the existing traffic signal to provide for overlap signal phasing. Topa requests a minor modification to this condition in- dicating that the future developer of the northeast corner of Los Angeles Ave. and Spring Rd. reimburse Topa for the cost of the signal modification which relates to the North and East legs of the intersection. 4 City Engineer's Condition ld. "The developer shall deposit with the City of Moorpark a contribution for the Los Angeles Ave. Improvement Area of Contribution. The actual deposit shall be the then current Los Angeles Avenue Improvement Area of Contribution appli- cable at the time the Building Permit is issued." The current Los Angeles A.O.C. provides for "Moorpark Road widening, west side, between New L.A. Avenue and Arroyo Simi" (see L.A. Avenue AOd Miscellaneous Projects, Item 2). Topa requests a credit against its Los Angeles Avenue A.O.C. contribution for the widening of Spring Rd. (previously known as Moorpark Road) from New Los Angeles Ave. south. Since funding for these improvements are included in the A.O.C. we are paying a double assessment. 5 City Council Condition lg.(1/6/88) This condition states that prior to zone clearance the specified utility poles and street lighting be removed and power undergrounded. All street improvements are required to be to occupancy. The items in this condition be performed in conjunction with the other ment work. To underground utilities prior would impose over a six month delay in subs drawings for plan check. completed prior should logically street improve - to zone clearance hitting working We request that completion of these items be a prior to occupancy item and that only notations on the plans be required prior to zone clearance. 70PQ Mr. Patrick Richards August 24, 1988 Page Four 6 City Council Condition le.(1/6/88) "Window and door trim shall incorporate use of wood rather than metal." We request modification to this condition allowing us to use metal window and door trim. We propose to use a powder coated enamel paint over an aluminum store frame for the window mullions and doors. The teal green color would match the metal handrails and stairwell railings and would coordinate with the awning color. Additionally, wood is less durable than metal, requires more maintenance and is not as structurally sound. 7 City Council Condition lf.(1/6/88) "The fountain shall be enlarged to a 25 ft. width. Benches shall be provided in the fountain area. A 6 ft. high stucco finish wall with a red brick cap shall be provided behind the fountain." As a result of input from Councilmembers and yourself, it is our understanding that our current plan has been approved by you. This plan will require minor modification of the current City Council condition. The plan calls for a 20 ft. wide fountain base with a 7 ft. high fountain. Tile banding (to match with the building accent color) will be placed around the base of the fountain and across the four entry ways to the fountain area. The fountain wall will be 1 ft. 5" high and available for seating. The stucco wall will be 3 ft. 6" high and have a cap to match the fountain wall. 8 Our final request is that the language "review and approval" be amended to "review" for our zone clearance conditions. The response time to approve our submittals for zone clearance is delaying submittal of our working drawing for plan check. We would like to have our working plans re- viewed concurrently with our zone clearance items. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these items. Very truly yours, TOPA MANAGEMENT COMPANY Susan K. Weintraub Development Manager