HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 1017 CC REG ITEM 11D" r� MOORPARK �TEMI �.L,
BERNARDO M. PEREZ
Mayor
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Mayor Pro Tern
ELOISE BROWN
Councilmember
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr.
Councilmember
LILLIAN KELLERMAN
City Clerk
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
BACKGROUND
MEMORANDUM
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
/,OORPARK, CALIFORNIA Chief of Police
City Couna Meeting RICHARD T. HARE
of l 9 / 2 990 City Treasurer
ACTION: �
The Honorable City Council
Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
October 10, 1990 (CC meetinq of 10/17/90)
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT - Resolution No. 86 -318
COMPONENT NO. 2 - CLUSTERING
In June of 1986 The City approved Resolution No. 86 -318. This
resolution amended The General Plan Land Use Element in a way that
allowed clustering of residential dwelling units in the Rural
Zones. The use of clustering is to be allowed only if it can be
shown that "The common area is designed to protect an
environmentally sensitive habitat, create a substantial
recreational facility or agriculture use or other such use... 11.
The amendment resolution goes on to explain that in The Rural Low
Zoned area the minimum lot size is one (1) acre (This zoning
typically requires a five (5) acre minimum lot size). The same
holds true for The Rural High to have a one -half (1/2) acre where
the minimum lot size is one (1) acre.
The issue of clustering was discussed by the Council on several
occasions during the review of the Bollinger Development
Corporation's proposal (See attached staff report).
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
i
Discussion
In a cluster development, dwelling units are grouped on certain
portions of a site, and other areas in common or single ownership
remain open and free from development. In a cluster residential
subdivision, the lots and units are clustered on those portions of
the site best suited for development, with common or public open
space provided as a remainder of the site.
Clustering is an environmentally sound concept, because it allows
development in the most appropriate areas and prevents development
in inappropriate areas such as flood -prone corridors and areas of
unstable soil or steep terrain. Cluster subdivisions take advantage
of natural methods for handling stormwater and preserve open space
and other important natural features.
Clustering is also economically sound, because it reduces
infrastructure costs (the length of street and utility lines can be
drastically reduced). The flexible location of buildings permits
designs that save more energy than do conventional designs.
Although the cluster concept is promising, cluster subdivisions are
still not a common form of development in most communities. In
some areas, developers are not interested in using the cluster
design and providing common open space unless a significant density
bonus is provided. In other areas, developers have used the
affordable - housing argument to convince the city to simply rezone
their properties to allow the development of smaller lots in
conventional subdivisions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff as deemed appropriate
Attachments: Conventional VS. Cluster Example (Exhibit A)
April 10, 1990 Council Staff Report (Exhibit B)
Resolution No. 86 -318 (Exhibit C)
June 16, 1986 Council Minutes (Exhibit D)
PR10OCT90.a
Conventional
I
Gross density is two units per acre. Each lot has 20,000
square feet and there are no development constraints
With conventional platting, a flood hazard zone precludes
buildable sites on three or four lots
Required buffer or building setback from hiohwav makes
areas of several lots unbuildable
Figure 8 -16 Cluster development compared to
conventional subdivision. In each case the nlustratron
shows a six -acre parcel divided into twelve lots `he
development is residential and mane .jp of s ngl( - family
delached houses
I alld )ohctirision Re"Ideltioll 24'�
Cluster
This illu 'ration snows the same gross density, but with
10 000- square foot loll More than 120,000 square feet
are ava l,iole a ; public or community open space
Chisteri a! the same number of lots outside the
flood c a re•mr, na:_ir�il areas to be preserved
Custer s :c, 3 cv sion to be made 'or noise and
sioht hn s
EXHIf31T
— 1%i;;
PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr.
Mayor
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Mayor Pro Tern
ELOISE BROWN
Councilmember
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
BERNARDO M.PEREZ
Councilmember
LILLIAN KELLERMAN
City Clerk
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PPµ c4<
Ft 60N
\o�
M E M O R A_N D U 11
Y .rte _ rr.r
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYLJ.KANE
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Director of
Community Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
The Honorable City Council
Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
April 10, 1990 (CC meeting of 4/18/90)
A DETERMINATI S y BON• T C
DEVELOPMENT PROOP AL BLLIGERDEVELOPMENORP.
TO A
•v
Background
On June 16, 1986 the City approved Resolution No. 86 -318. This
resolution amended the City's he eamendment an U allowed the Element,
use of
Section C -1, 'Residential.
clustering in the rural designations when it
an could e vironmentally
"the common area is designed to p
sensitive habitat, create a substantial recreation facility or
The amendment goes on
agricultural use, or other such ur:a.......
to explain that in the Rural Low area, the minimum lot size is one
(1) acre.
The Bollinger Development Corporation proposes to develop a 518
acre site in the northwest REr51acref (Residential Estate hed5mapre
The subject site is zoned
lot size) . The General Plan designation 1Bo11i nger1SDevelopm Development /Corp.
(5 acres per dwelling unit). n golf course,
current development proposal includes golf 18 course g lub house,
commercial tennis club, commercial g
commercial equestrian faciity, 101 single family home sites and
a 10 acre future church sit.
On February 21, 1990 this development proposal was before The the
uestion
Council for consideration of ent- «tlement proce roi og in 159 homes)
was to consider this project (a, that time p posing
outside the current General Plan Update efforts. The matter had
also been reviewed by the City' Community Development Committee
in which they could not recomm<'ad the project with 159 homes to
proceed.
EA F?1�7,_,9"T
��1001� '�. C 3lifor� Ei 930 - --
1 9 Moorpc.rk Avenue - - --
The Honorable City Council
(Meeting of 4/18/90)
April 10, 1990
page -2-
Discussion
The Bollinger Development Corporation has modified the proposal to
now include only 101 lots which eliminates the need for a General
Plan Amendment.
Mr. Paul Bollinger has provided a letter dated March 28, 1990, in
which he is requesting the City Council to make a determination as
to whether or not his project has sufficient merit, to meet the
criteria established under Resolution 86 -318, so as to proceed.
The key phrase is "substantial recreation facility". Does the
inclusion of a 190 acre 18 hole golf course, 48 acre equestrian
facility and 16 acre tennis club provide a "substantial recreation
facility" to allow clustering? There is no differentiation between
public or private recreation area provided under Resolution No. 86-
318.
The applicant is proposing a minimum lot size of two acres which
will meet the second criteria for clustering under Resolution No.
86 -318.
The second part of the Bollinger's request is to have the City
Council grant the staff certain authority to hire outside planning
and engineering services to expedite processing. To date no formal
entitlement application has been filed by the Bollinger Development
Corporation.
Staff Concerns P." �
Although staff has identified that this request meets he
established by Resolution No. 86 -318, following concerns
associated with the proposed project remain:
1. The potential to change the overall ambiance and character of
the northwest portion of the City
2. The significant amount of grading involved (expected to be
approximately one million cubit yards).
3. The potential to be inconsistent with future hillside
development limitations; or General. Plan Goals and Policies.
4. The potential to be inconsistent with existing General Plan
Land Use Goals and Policies; -uch as the following:
a. Page 16, Policy 7 - Tc ensure that the location of
residential land uses provides a harmonious relationship
between adjoining uses, atiiral features and the total
environment.
The Honorable City�OjCouncil
(Meeting of
April 10, 1990
page -3-
b. page 21
Goal 2 - To discourage the location of
development in natural and human -made hazard areas.
d, Page 27, Policy 3 - Excessive and unsightly terracing,
grading and filling of hil_Lsides shall be strongly
discouraged.
Providing to the site; specifically
5. g needed infrastructure
water and sewer.
6. Potential growth inducing aspects of the proposal.
Staff Recommendation
1, roposal by Bollinger
That the City Council find that the p
Development Corporation meets the criteria for clustering as
identified by Resolution No.l 86 -318; and
2. That the City Council direct Devel pment Corporation regarding
applications from Bolling
the project request.
Council direct staff as deemed appropriate
3. That the City request
regarding any means to exped.ite the entitlement req
associated with this proposal.
Attachments:
90 letter from Bollinger Development Corp.
1. March 28, 19
2. Resolution No. 86 -319
3. June 16, 1986 City Council Minutes
4. Proposed Tract Map
5. vicinity Map
RESOLUTION NO. 86- 318
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK AVENUE, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP AND
THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN IN VARIOUS PARTICULARS, BY ADOPTING GPA -86 -1.
WHEREAS, at duly noticed
public hearings on April 23,
1986, the
Moorpark Planning Commission
adopted
its Resolutions No. PC -86 -94
and
PC- 86 -96, recommending to the
City Council
of the City of Moorpark
that
staff findings be adopted, and
that the
City Council adopt General Plan Amend-
ment No. GPA -86 -1, Amending
the Land
Use Map and the text of the
Land Use
Element of the General Plan as
follows:
Component No. 1 That the Land Use Map of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan be amended
to add the words "Requires approval of a Specific Plan" to the
Land Use Designation on that property bounded on the east
by the 23 Freeway, on the south by Tierra Rejada Road, on
the west by Moorpark Road, and on the north by the Arroyo
Simi and New Los Angeles Avenue ( generally known as
Carlsberg Development Company property)".
Component No. 2 That the text of the Land Use Element of
the General Plan be amended in various particulars to make
more explicit that the maximum density authorized by the
General Plan is riot an autoIMrtic right; to authorize "density
averaging" in the "Rural 'Zones ", subject to certain conditions,
and to include certain zoning districts, including, but not
limited to, "Commercial Office' quid "Highway Commercial "; and
WHEREAS, public notice having been given in time, form and manner
as required by law, the City Council of t lie City of' Moorpark has held a
public hearing, has received testimony regarding said project, has duly considered
the proposed General Plan Amendment, ajnd has reached its decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful review and consideration,
has determined that the proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on
the environment, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Negative Declaration, and has approved the Negative Declaration as having been
completed in compliance with State CEQA l,uidelin-�s issued thereunder;
NOW, TIIEREFORE, THE , IYI 'i COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLL,O1 %` ;:
SECTION 1. That the findjn� -s contained in the staff reports dated
April 23, 1986, are hereby adopted, and �;ajcj reports are incorporated herein by
reference as though fully : ;et forth.
SECTION 2. That the City :ouncil 'hereby approves Component No. 1
of the General Plan Amendment No. GPA -86 -1 , and does hereby amend the Land
Use Map of the Land Use Element of ,he ienoral Plan as follows:
EXHIBIT C
COMPONENT NO. 1:
,I That the words "This area requires approval of a Specific Plan" be
added to the Land Use Designation on that property bounded on the
east by the 23 Freeway, on the south by Tierra Rejada Road, on the
west by Moorpark road, and on the north by the Arroyo Simi and
New Los Angeles Avenue ( generally known as Carlsberg Development
Company property) .
SECTION 2. That the City Couincil hereby approves Component
No. 2 of the General Plan Amendment No. GPA -86 -1, and does hereby amend the
text of the Land Use element of the General Plan as follows:
COMPONENT NO. 2:
A. That Section C -1, Residential, of the text of the Land Use Element of
the General Plan be amended to read as follows:
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) . Clustering may be approved in the Rural designations
when it can be shown that the common area is designed to protect
an environmentally sensitive habitat, create a substantial recreation
facility or agricultural use, or other such use; however, in the
Rural Low, the minimum lot siz(., is one acre, and in Rural High the
minimum lot size is one -half a, • °e.
Housing mixes are encouraged ,n order to provide a variety of living
accommodations for persons of ,ill Socio- economic levels, and may
include some multiple dwelling units, such as townhouses or condo -
minimums. Cluster development. is consistent with the intent of the
residential areas, and will promote land conservation as well as
visual relief, through the use -rf' internal open - space, from traditional
single family subdivisions.
Density
Table 2 shows the maximum allowable density
for each of the residential
designations. Densities shown are based on
gross acreage. Portions
of a project may exceed the m<axinnzm as long
as the overall average
does not exceed the maximum. An exception
is the downtown area,
where the maximum is 20 units per acre. In
no case shall the density
exceed 20 units per net acre, except in the downtown area where the
20 units per gross acre prevails. Achieving
the maximum density is
dependent upon the terrain, t;:ie amount of easements that are
unbuildable, and the plan for 4_,velopment.
For purpose of this
section, the downtown area is defined as the
area bounded on the
east by Moorpark Road, on th, smith by Los
Angeles Avenue, on the
west by Moorpark Avenue, ar'<'' on the iiorth
by the north side of
Everett Street (extended) . )t net
acreage, the following
areas .Wo ti,uhtracted from t h, 111,,1;1; WJ`01l;e:
a. Dedications for streets
b. Dedications for parks or schools for which the developer
receives a credit or offset from a required park or school
improvement fee or is in some way compensated for such
park or school site.
c. One -half of the area in public service or utility easements
(areas which are' unbuildable' for units but may be used
for parking, recreation activities or open space) .
TABU. 2
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Residential Desit-nation
RL
Rural Low
RH
Rural High
L
Low Density
ML
Medium Low Density
M
Medium Density
H
High Density
VH
Very High Density
Maximum Allowable Densi
1
i
1.6
�.6
1.0
,.0
*1 ,.0
DU /5 -AC
DU /AC
DU /AC
DU /AC
DU /AC
DU /AC
DU/ AC
* May be increased t( 20.0 1)1,1/)%C in the downtown area.
B. That the Residential Land Use Designations as shown on Table 8 of
Section C -8 of the text of the L,,oid Use Element of the General Plan
be amended to read as follow: :
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Maximum Densit
RL
Rural Low
1
DU /5 -AC
R11
Rural High
I
DU /AC
L
Low Density
1.6
DU /AC
ML
Medium Low Density
'.6
DU /AC
M
Medium Density
1.0
DU /AC
H
High Density
i .0
DU /AC
VH
Very High
*J i.0
DU /AC
* May be increased 1(r 20.0 DU/AC in the downtown area.
C. That Table 9 - 'Zoning C ompatilwity Matrix, under Section C of the
text of the Land Use Element of t ,Ye G lenl�ral Plan be modified and
amended as follows:
L Delete "Ventura Cmiml,, Ordinance Code ".
2. In the "'Lone Districts'' uno (.�r "Commercial ", add the
following:
"CO" (Commerical Off ice) ;
"��11" (Co[lrmercial H1sT }1Wti� "1
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is instructed to transmit to the
planning agency of the County of Ventura a copy of the amendments to the
Moorpark Land Use Element, pursuant to Government Code Section 65360.
SECTION 4. That this resolution shall take effect immediately.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and
adoption of this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1986.
ATTEST:
Mayor of the City of o park ,
California.
—1-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF VENTURA ) SS.
CITY OF MOORPARK )
I, Eva Marie Crooks Deputy City Clerk of the City
of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
No. 86 -31s was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of June
1986, and that the same was adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Woolard, Prieto, Ferguson and
Mayor Weak
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmember Yancy- Sutton
WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this day of
— 1986-
Deputy City Clerk
City Council Meeting
June 16, 1986
Land Use Entitlements Extension -_- Resolution No. 86 -316
The City Manager briefed the City Cm. :Iici'i on the Land Use Entitlements
Extension .
Motion by Councilmember Yancy- Sutton ,ind seconded by Councilmember
Woolard that Resolution No. 86 -316, er-,t1o(1:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COQ NCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENI ),NG SECTION 2 OF
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -211 OF SAID CITY, EXTENDING
CERTAIN LAND USE ENTITLEIII". "'S �VITIIIN SAID CITY
be adopted, which motion carried by t'i , following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Yancy,°- Sutton, Woolard, Prieto,
Ferguson and Mayor `,peak;
NOES: None;
ABSENT: None.
8.F. Resolution No. 86 -317, Approving, DP .No. PD -1051 on application
(Lincoln Properties)
The City Manager presented the staff elxrt.
Motion by Councilmember Woolard and ,econded by Councilmember Yancy -
Sutton that Resolution No. 86 -317, en' i'lc,d:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY C( )JNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, .�\11l11ZOVIN(l PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. PD -oa51 , ON APPLICATION
OF LINCOLN PROPERTY COMP:','
be adopted as amended in Plannin Csridition No. 37, to be reviewed by the
Director of Community Planning and t'FI- Moorpark Postmaster, with roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Yancy - Sutton, Ferguson,
Prieto and Mayor ltio ;
NOES: None;
ABSENT: None.
8.G. Resolution No. 86 -318, Amendinc, the Land Use Map and the Text of
of the Land Use Element of the (;-neral Plan in Various Particulars,
by Adoptinfr GPA -86 -1
The Director of Community Planning �riefod the City Council.
Councilmember Yancy- Sutton indicate(l sho would have to abstain from
voting on certain portions of Resolut l I %G. 86 -318 because of possible
conflict of interests.
EXHIBIT�
City Council ,fleeting
June 16, 1986
Motion o by approve Councilmember
Component No. Yancy-Sutton
of Reoolution seconded
No. 86-318, Councilmember
Prieto to _ ,
unanimously.
Councilmember Y cLowutoobe changed like
t Component
three acres 2 -A -1
clustering in Rural
minimum lot size. Councilmembers Woolard, Ferguson and Mayor Weak
indicated they would not support the change
Rlotiori by Councilmember Prieto and seconded by Councilmember
Ferguson to approve Component No. 2C. carried unanimously with
Councilmember Yancy- Sutton abstaining.
It was moved by Councilmember Woolard and seconded by Councilmember
Prieto that Resolution No. 86 -318, entity 1:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, AMENDING THE LAND USE 11AP AND TEXT OF THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENI':RAI PL.A N IN VARIOUS
PARTICULARS, BY ADOPTING GP -86-',
be adopted, which motion carried by ff f0 llcnving roll .call vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers
Amending Section 8112 -23 of the
Alayor Weak;
NOES:
None;
ABSENT:
None;
ABSTAIN:
Councilmember
Woolar,: , Prieto. Ferguson and
Yancy - ;utto�n .
Ordinance No.
76,
Amending Section 8112 -23 of the
Zoning Ordinance
g H.
of the County
of
Ventura., Adopted by the City of
Moorpark
on September
21
1983, Pertaininc_to. Maximum Density
The City Attorney presented Ordinance N,, 76 , c'iltitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY O}� MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING SECTION 8112 -2.3 OF TIIL ZONING ORDINANCE OF
THE COUNTY OF VENTURA, BY THE CITY OF
MOORPARK ON SEPTEMBER 21, "83 PERTAINING TO
MAXIMUM DENSITY .
It was moved by Councilmember Woolar(�, seconded by Councilmember
Yancy - Sutton and carried unanimously ied that further reading of
said Ordinance No. 76 be waived.
It was then moved by Councilmember ''ancy-Sutton, seconded by
Councilmember Prieto that said Ordinance No. 76 , entitled as above set forth,
be introduced, wlticih motion carried )'v ?hE� following roll call vote: