HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0617 CC REG ITEM 09AITE__ 7 o e .
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 _ ,_, ^,{805) 529 -6864
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Honorable City Council
From: William Phelps, Interim Director of
Date: June 5, 1992 (CC meeting 6/17/92)
Subject: Appeal 92 -4 (Ruske)
Background
Counc Wool 'ro
of 1S9 Z
ACTION:
Community Development
On May 15, 1992 the Director of Community Development approved a
Minor Modification to PD 1071 No. 17 and PD 1072 No. 3 . This
permit was to add four new models to Tract 4341 (Belmont) and three
new models to Tract 4342 (Tuscany). These new models (Belmont II
and Tuscany II) are smaller than the units originally approved by
the City. Please refer to Exhibit 1 for the full text of the Minor
Modification. On May 20, 1992 the item was presented to the City
Council. After hearing the staff report, and concerns of others
the Council concurred with the decision of the Community
Development Director and ordered the application to be received and
filed with the deletion of Conditions No. 5 and 6.
On May 24, 1992 the appellant sent a letter (Exhibit 3) to the
Director of Community Development expressing their concerns.
Although this letter was not included in the Appeal application a
copy is included with this staff report (Exhibit 3).
On May 28, 1992 Appeal 92 -4 was filed by a group of Tuscany
homeowners, and the Tuscany Homeowner Association.
Earlier this week a homeowner informed the staff that recorded
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) prohibited a
reduction in house size to 20% of the smallest residence designed
for the project.
The proposal by Urban West Communities may violate this
restriction. Staff requested Urban West Communities to clarify the
request as compared with the minor modification and in the recorded
CC &R's.
On June 12, 1992 staff was given the following information from
Urban West Communities:
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNLAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR.
U.— Mavor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
The Honorable City Council
June 12, 1992
Page -2-
"As a point of information, it has been brought to our attention
that according to the current CC &R's for the Tuscany development
(TR- 4342 -1), any changes to the square footage below 20% of the
original homes requires a vote of the current Phase I homeowners.
However, it is our understanding that whether or not the Phase I
homeowners vote to include the new models, those new models can
still proceed under Article IX, Section 5 of the CC &R's. Under
this section, the developer may separate the future phases of the
development into a separate homeowners association. The new
association would be developed with any of the model homes. Since
there are two private recreation areas in the development, one for
each association, this would not cause a problem in availability of
recreational facilities; and in fact, the project was originally
anticipated to include two separate homeowners associations."
Essentially the staff takes Urban West's statements to mean that
they will abide by the CC &R's for the balance of this phase of the
development, but in subsequent phases the CC &R's will be written to
conform with the modification request. Another scenario is that in
the event the Homeowners Association withdraws the appeal they will
abide with the terms of the modification.
Additionally, the Council should be aware that this "appeal" would
not have been necessary had the residents been informed of the
Director's decision regarding the Modification Application. In
stead the homeowners could have appeared and spoken to the Council
about their concerns when the matter was initially heard (May 20,
1992). Because of this the staff (which ordinarily does not
recommend the waiver of any fees) suggests that in this case based
on the reasons previously stated, that the $485.00 appeal fee be
returned.
Discussion
In the Appeal application (Exhibit 2) the following statements are
presented by the applicants as the basis for the Appeal. The
Community Development Department response is included after the
applicants comments.
1) "Approval of the Minor Modification ignores the
requirements of Section 8111 -7.1.2 that any proposed changes
will not have substantial adverse impact on surrounding
properties."
-- Staff Response:
The Community Development Director has determined that this
The Honorable City Council
June 12, 1992
Page -3-
Modification complies with the provisions of Section 8111-
7.1.2 and that these changes are consistent with both the
requirements and intent of the approved Tract Map, Planned
Development Permit, and Specific Plan
2) "The summary of modifications contained in the staff report
is incomplete and contains misleading and erroneous data
regarding model comparisons and interior features of the
proposed new models."
Staff Response:
When a proposed modification or information is presented to
the Community Development Department and is included in an
approved Minor Modification, it has the force of law and
must be adhered to. Any data presented under false pretenses,
or through error or misunderstanding in a Permit, when
discovered, requires correction or additional modification to
the permit. The provision of interior features (which are not
regulated in the approved permit) is at the discretion of the
applicant (UWC) and it is their decision based upon market
forces.
r.
3) "The Council's waiving of conditions 5 and 6 of the staff
report (Exhibit 1) has the greatest adverse effect on the
existing homes /owners in Tuscany and Belmont."
Staff Response:
The elimination, modification or addition of conditions is
within the jurisdiction of the Council as set forth in
Section 8111 -7.2 and Resolution 88 -523.
4) "As a concerned citizen and member of our H.O.A., we were
denied, however unintentionally, the opportunity to make
our concerns known formally as part of the staff report to be
acted upon by the Director of Community Development."
Staff Response:
Consistent with Section 8111 -4.1.3 of the Zoning Code and the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Minor
Modifications do not require either neighbor notification or
the posting of a public hearing notice.
The Community Development Department believes that Minor
Modification PD 1071 No. 17 and PD 1072 No. 3 complies with all
provisions of City ordinances, approved permits, and requirements
of Planned Community 3.
The Honorable City Council
June 12, 1992
Page -4-
Recommendation
1. Affirm the decision of the Community Development Director to
approve PD 1071 No. 17 and PD 1072 No. 3 Minor Modifications,
as modified by the City Council.
2. Refund the $485.00 appeal fee to the appellant.
Exhibits 1) Appeal 92 -4 Application
2) May 24, 1992 letter from applicant to Community
Development Department
3) PD 1071 No. 17, PD 1072 No. 3 Minor Modification
cc: Planning Commission
Appeal 92 -4 File
Minor Mod Logbook at counter
,. PD 1071 File, Minor Mod No. 17 folder
PD 1072 File, Minor Mod No. 3 folder
C:\WP5I\CLAIG\AP92 -4.SR
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021
805/529 -6864
APPEAL FORM MUST BE FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DECISION
To: _City Council Date:
_ Planning Commission ff (?
I hereby appeal the decision of the I 1 t
which was given on M,6,ti, , 1
The decision was as follows: -- �����,� ��( F��s', -� LoL,11A
.Y Q
The grounds of appeal are: (attach additional sheets as needed)
.— — — `_I j 1 v r C,' r .51 j 1 PV 1 1 e _� ( V1CYr,e (TNVnt' 1'S )
Address of Appellant:
Telephone Number of Appellant: (Ov 2-13 S, %
Is the appellant a party in the application? $ If not, etate basis for filling
appeal as an "aggrieved person.
Signature of Appellant:
CRL- 01- 29- 92(9 :39aa) C:\FP51\F'CRKS\APPEAL
LDate: Not, A& 1 Z
CAL on r ly,41 rr S4 A �`10,rt i
e Z
_ Y�ci. r-af. � ►� rno cL� �ar1s � �.� � n-}��1 �' -r�8
cam, -v,e�. �,�...- a rr�,ti,�e,►- _ e o- i�,'t� 14_. b3 -
_ w� d,�,r, i.P� , �� wee � w� ► n�� , `j--�,,� -• o��,�}u,n
�a� ��• �s c�Se dui IMr. Q;d drdS' VNll'Slwke-,
S l� 1ne. noi- v,e,.4-(-4 � e�
r� cis s -fzrI-o-s se"'Y .Q wee" , � v\v - vvVO-e ►�� a `1� �-
vw�e �n� wok v� de�e► v� a�, ev. chi -Fo
• `fi- �It t e
,n� v S . ,n,,a�oY -, � 4 iCw-
�,�•2a..�,�n -5 refc�.�.�re� c��e� �-�
-\,q� `�9 Z�(—'� c
EXHIBIT 2
Ptccl V"D
NY 28
May 24, 1992�jqwpam
Office of Community Development
City of Moorpark -
799 Moorpark Avenue ,/�JU•�yx.� �`u
Moorpark, California 93021
Dear Sirs, 997-
As homeowners in West Ranch, we wish to express our
opposition to URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES plans to modify
the Master Plan for West Ranch by downsizing the
existing models /floorplans for Tuscany and Belmont,
thereby diluting the character of our neighborhoods.
Ultimately, no one knows the effects of these
redesigns on our future resale values, but we do know
that UWC is motivated by necessity to improve their
profit goals. However, as home buyers attracted to a
master - planned community, we expected the designs and
featured qualities of West Ranch to maintain a certain
prestige never before offered in Moorpark. The
proposed new models, in our opinions, will radically
alter that master plan commitment.
Do the facts justify authorizing UWC's request for a
minor modification to the Master Plan for West Ranch?
FACT - Adding 7 new models to the existing 13 (Tuscany
and Belmont only) is an increase of nearly 50 %.
FACT - In a model to model comparison, the floorplans
will be downsized a minimum 20% to a maximum 30 %.
FACT - The proposed Tuscany II models are nearly equal
in size to the existing Belmont models.
FACT - The proposed multi - family development along
Mountain Trail will compete directly in size with the
proposed Belmont II models.
FACT - Many publicized features of the original
Tuscany models will be eliminated in the Tuscany II
models -- downstairs laundry rooms and laundry room
cabinets, designer kitchen windows, interior french
doors, master bedroom fireplaces, over -entry
clerestory windows, entry hall closets, skylights, and
fewer kitchen cabinets and bathrooms.
FACT - The overall room sizes of the proposed new
models are appreciably smaller while the rear yards
are larger.
FACT - The rear yard dimensions of the proposed new
models will be substantially larger, thereby
potentially encouraging the construction of private
pools /spas which will bring additional noise and
disruption to the privacy of neighbors.
FACT - The Tuscany II models have shallow entry porch
designs which repeats the problem design of the
current Plan One (villa Serena), causing unnecessary
damage to the oak double entry doors.
FACT - UWC will not divulge any information regarding
specific planned changes to standard interior
features, e.g. floorcoverings, appliances,
countertops, lighting, etc.
FACT - UWC will spend millions to construct and
landscape the proposed new models while the promise of
a full - service shopping center, bringing long- awaited
amenities to the Mountain Meadows area and rent
(operating cash) to UWC, stands empty and at least one
year past its original opening date.
FACT - UWC is selling out in every phase of Tuscany it
has begun with little or no inventory to sell
currently.
We respect and understand the desire of our city and
developer to move forward toward build -out of West
Ranch at the quickest possible pace. We believe there
are other productive ways to achieve this and we will
work together with UWC in any way we can to reach
their goals. The Master Plan for West Ranch was
represented as a means to preserve the integrity of
our future neighborhood. Therefore, we ask the City
of Moorpark to delay the approval of the modification
request until the named homeowners can meet with UWC
to discuss a mutually satisfactory compromise to their
proposal. we also ask that this letter and petition
be filed as part of the staff report on this matter.
Please direct your response to the attention of:
Craig Kuske, President
Mountain Meadows /Tuscany HOA
c/o Pinedale Road
Moorpark, CA 93021
Sincerely,
'" Concerned Homeowners of West Ranch
C
Mr. Steven Kueny, City Manager
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Dear Mr. Kueny,
C
Skbjec� : Pb 1011 (�ratt X04
h I o?xrrp,ct `+3
We, the undersigned homeowners, hereby appeal the city
council approved motion, dated May 20, 1992 regarding
the modification of the Master Plan at WEST RANCH�',i�,rr, g
We believe many more homeowners from Tuscany,
Deauville, and Belmont will express opposition to this
modification of the Master Plan, than are represented
by our signatures below. But because no public
announcement was made of the city's deliberation on
this matter, we have had less than a day's time to
prepare this appeal.
We ask that the city again review its decision on this
matter once we, the existing homeowners, have an
opportunity to express our opinion before you.
Sincerely,
LhV1 e.LL T ,1
A'
L7t,�,e,a
1 1 � � 3 p 12.41 • m�sc�.
�oo -,=T �� Msm1i�v
I 1 619 Pine-JA- P,cJ-
cc: Honorable City Council Members
RECEIVED
MAY 2 6 1992
City Of MOOrpark
EXHIBIT 3
TEM 8
MOORPA
Rk
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021-.,,,, < (80�5�;529-6864
of 199
BY
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development r�y
DATE: May 15, 1992 (CC Hearing 5/20/92)
SUBJECT: PD 1071 (Tract 4341, Belmont) Minor Modification No.
17,PD 1072 (Tract No. 4342, Tuscany) Minor Modification
No. 3 - Addition of New Models - Minor Modification No.
2 (Urban West Communities)
BACKGROUND:
On November 9, 1987, the City council adopted Resolution 87 -429
and 87 -430, approving Vesting Tentative Tract 4341 and 4342, and
Residential Planned Development Permit 1071 and 1072, allowing
construction of 333 single family homes in Tract 4342 (Belmont) and
Tract 4342 (Tuscany). The West Village planning area consists of
three tracts: 4340, 4341 and 4342, with related PD's No. 1070, 1071
and 1072. The West Village consisted of a total of 499 dwelling
units in these three tracts. Recently Tract 4792 (PD 91 -2) was
approved for 196 townhomes within West Village. The three single
family residential tracts in West Village (known also as West
Ranch) were originally approved with limited architectural
variation from the tracts in North and South village. Thus, there
has been little to distinguish the three villages from each other.
On November 13, 1990 Minor Modification No. 2 to PD 1072 was
approved, allowing minor alterations to the exterior elevations and
floorplans. On June 21, 1991 Minor Modification No. 2 was approved
allowing similar changes to PD 1071.
DISCUSSION•
At the time of approval of PD 1071 and 1072 both Belmont and
Tuscany developments included four model homes. In August 1989,
the City approved Minor Modification No. 1 to these tracts to
include changes to house colors, materials, elevations and floor
plans of increased square footage. These modifications were based
on comments by the City Council during the public hearing requiring
a distinct design and character should be established for the West
Village (Ranch) area.
p4Ul I." l 2 JOHN: E moWGC'Y1 HY
c
Urban West Communities is requesting a Modification to add new
models to the existing models in the Tuscany and Belmont areas.
These modifications are being requested by Urban West Communities
to reflect current market trends and to meet buyer demands.
SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS:
The modifications requested are: 1) Adding four additional model
homes (Tuscany II) to the existing four model homes (Tuscany) in
Tract 4342, and 2) Adding three additional model homes (Belmont II)
to the existing four model homes in Tract 4341 (Belmont).
Therefore, a total of seven new model homes will be added to the
eight existing model homes. Please note that this Modification
request does not represent the construction of any new model units,
but to expand the variety of plans available to homebuyers.
The design and elevations of the new plans will be compatible with
the existing plans. The colors and materials used to construct the
new plans remain the same. The lot sizes remain unchanged. The
design aspects of the plans are summarized in the table below:
TABLE 1
The floor plans and square footage will be changed to provide for
reduced square footage and larger rear yards. The sizes of the new
homes are compatible with the historic range of sizes of similar
home types in Mountain Meadows. The square footage comparison
tables are on the next page.
2
EXT PLN
ADD'L PLN
EXT PLN ADD'LPLN
TUSCANY
TUSCANY 2
BELMONT BELMONT 2
LOT SIZE
55' x 105' min.
same
40' x 1051min
same
HEIGHT
28' - 32'
same
25' - 28'
same
SETBACKS
per code
same
per code
same
ARCHITECTURE
see models
same
see models
same
COLOR PALLET
see models
same
see models
same
ROOF MATERIAL
concrete tile
same
concrete tile
same
EXT. MATERIAL
stucco
same
stucco
same
The floor plans and square footage will be changed to provide for
reduced square footage and larger rear yards. The sizes of the new
homes are compatible with the historic range of sizes of similar
home types in Mountain Meadows. The square footage comparison
tables are on the next page.
2
In summary, in terms of size: 1) the new Tuscany II homes are
between the existing Willows (North Village) and Countryside (South
Village) homes, and 2) the new Belmont II homes are between the
existing Creekside (North Village) and Quailridge (South Village)
homes.
RANGE
AVERAGE
RANGE
TABLE 2
SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON
TUSCANY TYPE HOMES IN MOUNTAIN MEADOWS
WILLOWS
2,196 -2,818
2,535
TUSCANY II
2,348 -3,100
2,717
COUNTRYSIDE
2,574 -3,214
2,904
TUSCANY
3,642 -4,118
3,844
TABLE 3
SQUARE FOOT COMPARISON
BELMONT TYPE HOMES IN MOUNTAIN MEADOWS
CREEKSIDE BELMONT II QUAILRIDGE BELMONT
1,861 -2,047 1,930 -2,170 2,114 -2,558 2,391 -2,801
AVERAGE 1,940 2,038 2,272 2,632
Again, all other aspects of the two projects will remain the same.
The width of the homes will remain consistent. Items such as roof
tiles, stucco texture, color pallets, concrete balustrades and
ornamental handrails, oak entry doors and verandas (on some plans)
all remain the same. The program of completing block walls and
front yard landscaping will continue. The homes will still be a
part of both an individual Homeowner Association as well as the
master association. All entry monuments, streetscape and community
identification features will remain the same. While the street
presence will continue to be maintained, the new plans will be
more shallow in depth, which will afford purchasers a larger back
yard.
The applicant will be required to comply with all conditions of the
permits as well as City regulations, including signage
requirements.
At the present time staff has not retained a record of each model
type for every lot within each tract, inasmuch as there were no
restrictions as to the number of each model to be constructed.
Typically, the market place will generate a spread of model types
within a tract. With this Minor Modification request there are
3
proposed two different product types having multiple varied
-- elevations and floorplans within each tract (see the original
Tuscany and Belmont vs. Tuscany II and Belmont II in the above
tables 2 and 3). In order that there be a distribution or spread
throughout the balance of the tracts; staff has conditioned this
Minor Modification with a minimum percentage spread within model
types. A requirement to provide a minimum of 5% and 10% of any one
model type with a maximum of 25% of any one model type within each
tract would bring about a mixture of types. Currently there are
113 lots remaining in Tract 4341 (Belmont), and 159 lots remaining
within Tract 4342 (Tuscany). At a minimum of 10% for each model
type within Tract 4341 at least 11 lots of each model type would be
established within the tract or 77 of the 113 lots. The remaining
lots could contain any of the 7 model types so long as not more
than 25% of any one model type was constructed within the tract.
Tract 4342 would need a different percent minimum and maximum
inasmuch as there are 159 lots remaining. Staff is conditioning
that at least 5% of any one model type be provided (there are 8
model types between the original Tuscany (4) and the proposed
Tuscany II (4). This would require that 64 of the 159 would
contain at least 8 lots of each model type. The remaining 95 lots
would be developed with any model type so long as not more than 25%
of any one type was constructed (39 maximum units). The specific
location of each model type would be regulated by a review of a
Zoning Clearance from the Department of Community Development.
The Director of Community Development has reviewed the proposed
modifications and intends to approve it with the following
conditions:
1) This Modification does not include any changes to the approved
elevations.
2) Prior to final approval of the Minor Modification the revised
Fence and Wall plan for West Village shall be approved by the
Community Development Department.
3) All colors and materials previously approved for PD 1071 and PD
1072 shall be used.
4) A Zone Clearance shall be required for each lot within PD 1071
and PD 1b72 which shall state the model types for a specific lot.
5) That for those remaining lots within Tract 4341 (PD 1071), as of
the date of this Minor Modification approval, the applicant shall
provide at least 100 of each model type not to exceed more than 25%
of any one model type within the tract.
6) That for those remaining lots within Tract 4342 (PD 1072), as of
the date of this Minor Modification approval, the applicant shall
provide at least 5% of each model type not to exceed more than 25%
of any one model type within the tract.
4 _
,— This proposal has been reviewed by the Director of Community
Development, who intends to approve it with the included conditions
on May 15, 1992, with the appeal period ending May 25, 1992.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 88 -523, the Director has the authority
to approve Minor Modifications. This matter is being presented to
the Council as a courtesy. Should the Council, or any other party,
desire to appeal the Director's decision, a public hearing should
be scheduled. The next available hearing date is June 17, 1992.
If the Council takes no action, the Director's decision stands.
F-31 WUN • Nl_ WON
Receive and File the Report
Attachments: 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Sample RPD 1072 Minor Modification Floor Plan and
Elevation (Tuscany II)
Sample Tuscany Approved Floor Plan and
Elevation
Sample RPD 1071 Minor Modification Floor
Plan and Elevation (Belmont II)
Sample Belmont Approved Floor Plan and
Elevation
Previously approved elevations
cc: Planning Commission
Minor Mod Logbook at counter
PD 1071 File, Minor Mod No. 17 folder
PD 1072 File, Minor Mod No. 3 folder
5
C�3'/Nmcl�v
GQW -.ONIW aW-dd(A )
r
i..- Q��
JtAO
(IOW 710NIW ayom�
%w
w
tv
"tun L
3cvo"
"MV OKL%W
o
1YN11Ql
4PJ+�`M
"0004 7NIAn
N31U1l71
L00N .o.
uvrsv,"s
mccm IIUYV!
cMolm .
avw -zoriw ayWadt� �
Q � �'. j
1✓
A
A
,-
r
(- 4PPRDVED MINOR MOD
Fo 1 o 1 mmor
L�
PUN 3 ,
�20 10-71 e� LMT
APPR -W NNW, MOID
�llll�'�'!!�j��. �11 • , � ! '��tI! � ► mills
11
I An -00
Elm No
'`I
w
--I
NPONED MIWOV MoD
`F�J /i a lsepf+oqC,D
It!�peQl�tl i���d��diitlta� ®t1 "�
FLAQ
1'D 10 2 'fUSCAMY
Z� X11
Ni,boSn1
I (� 0 ��
17A37 4=
aow xHiw cy ajdy
loo� �c ) I ( jj
10,0�wo-�N
Sm c11010I
40-
L.
Ise.
III�III�
BEDROOM 2
I T/GAMF orn okAL sDRO0111
river L11T1
f \ED
Second F1'a
PCWPA,
•
I
Firs, Floor
4z
June 16, 1992
Mr. Bill Phelps
Interim Director of Community Development
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93421
Dear Mr. Phelps:
I hereby withdraw the appeal, dated May 28, 1992, of the Director of
Community Development and the Moorpark City Council decision to allow
Urban West Communities to build seven (7) new models in Tracts 4341 and
4342.
Sin rely,
Craig Kuske
President, Mountain Meadows Tuscany Homeowners Association
-- RECEIVED -
. �y , z �, r J U N i 1992
so( wo,
Mr. Steven Kueny, City Manager Skb je Ia71 (�ratf LO }I)
City of Moorpark P� %��
799 Moorpark Avenue r aCt 43 y �
Moorpark, California 93021 '
Dear Mr. Kueny,
we, the undersigned homeowners, hereby appeal the city
council approved motion, dated May 20, 1992 regarding
the modification of the Master Plan at WEST RANCH I',{ty" Q E ,
We believe many more homeowners from Tuscany,
Deauville, and Belmont will express opposition to this
modification of the Master Plan, than are represented
by our signatures below. But because no public
announcement was made of the city's deliberation on
this matter, we have had less than a day's time to
prepare this appeal.
we ask that the city again review its decision on this
matter once we, the existing homeowners, have an
opportunity to express our opinion before you.
Sincerely,
?6z, .
--:T� I atyyw-
Qc- -X�
- �TO„�,
* ...e nvl-%A Mee(Z� �
s4a,-c r-ejOe-4 Jk-te-A S,/.4-0)9 2—
cc: Honorable City Council Members
a RO i K
RECEIVED
MAY 2 6 1992
City of Moorpark