Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - October 20, 2005 - CCAGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JOINTLY WITH THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEMORIAL PARK CONFERENCE ROOM 320 NORTH ORANGE PLACE. A. PRELIMINARY BUSINESS • Call to Order • Roll Call THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 6:00 P.M. B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -Please note that public comments are welcomed by recognition of the Mayor. C. AGENDA ITEMS 1. REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLANS FOR ROSEDALE PARKS AND LANDSCAPING. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council and Recreation Commission to provide comments on the Rosedale Concept Parks and Landscaping Plans, and provide general direction to Staff. D. ADIOURNMENT 1. Adjourn to Monday, October 24, 2005, immediately following the Utility Board Meeting to conduct a workshop regarding the Kincaid Pit RFP. This meeting will be adjourned to Friday, November 4, 2005, and Saturday, November 5, 2005, in order to conduct a Council Goal Setting Workshop Zn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ifyou need special assistance to participate in a city meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 626-812-5229. Notification three (3) working days prior to the meeting or time when special services are needed will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide access to the meeting " WORKSHOP FORMAT JOINT CIN COUNCIL - PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Rosedale Parks and Landscaping Design Conceptual Plans OCTOBER 20, 2005, 6:00 P.M. MEMORIAL PARK 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge to the Flag 3. Public Participation 4. Opening Remarks - Fran Delach 5. Presentation by Azusa Land Partners and HRP LanDesign 6. Staff Comments and Council/Commission Discussion 7. Council and Commission to Provide Direction to Staff S. Adjournment AGENDA ITEM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: BRUCE COLEMAN, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: ROY BRUCKNER, PROJECT MANAGER j� C VIA: F.M. DELACH, CITY MANAGERiif�id � J DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2005 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLANS FOR ROSEDALE PARKS AND LANDSCAPING RECOMMENDATION The City Council and Recreation Commission should provide comments on the Rosedale Concept Parks and Landscaping Plans, and provide general direction to Staff. BACKGROUND A system of parks, open space, trails, and landscaping, provided for in the Rosedale Specific Plan and Project, is essential to the livability of the Rosedale community. In order to provide more detail to the concepts laid out in the Specific Plan, the Developer (ALP, Azusa Land Partners) is required to submit preliminary concept plans for approval, as stated in the Conditions of Approval. ALP and its team provided an initial set of concept plans for staff review several months ago. Upon comments by Staff, the plans were revised and resubmitted. This second round review of the Conceptual Landscape and Parks Design is the focus of the joint study session. In addition, because the Promenade land uses are so closely tied to the Promenade design concept, relevant land use -related issues need to be discussed at the workshop as well. The major issues to be discussed with the City Council and Recreation and Family Services Commission are as follows: 1. THE PROMENADE A. Promenade Street The Fire Department has required the two Promenade Street travel lanes to be 20 ft. wide curb -to -curb (no on -street parking), instead of the approved 18 ft. (with on -street parking). While the additional 4 ft. of width could be absorbed into the Promenade median reducing it from 30 ft. wide to 26 ft. wide, the on -street parking opportunity would be lost. This would pose a problem for the builder of the Promenade housing product, because on -street parking can be credited towards meeting the guest parking needs. Issue: In order to restore parking on the Promenade, as well as meeting the requirements of the Fire Department, the concept of the Center median would be eliminated in favor of a wide, sidewalk -adjacent parkway that would fulfill the same function as the center median. This could be constructed along the north or south side of the street, or split evenly north and south. These options are presented in the attachments. Which option does the Council prefer? B. Promenade Park (The Great Park) Genera/ Comments: 1. There are no "community gathering" or public exhibit facilities. The earlier drawings had a small stage area. 2. Earlier designs showed "too many" activities jammed into this 5.5 acre park; now there may not be enough diverse, active facilities. 3. During the Specific Plan design phase, it was contemplated that the Great Park would become a focal point anchoring the Promenade to become a public gathering space. This facility thus became as much an aesthetic feature as a recreational one. To this end, the Specific Plan provides for homes to be facing the park on three sides, and envisions "community gathering" facilities, in addition to the needed baseball and soccer fields. While the Specific Plan did not address or anticipate lighted ball fields or the need for ball field fencing, there is a need to balance this with desired aesthetics (including homes facing the park). 4. Parking requirements will occupy valuable park space. Angled parking is currently proposed to maximize parking opportunity without sacrificing park space. However, the latest Promenade median design alternatives may provide other options. joint use parking on School property is a great possible solution, but needs to be further explored with AUSD. 5. AUSD school site planning and design trails the progress of the Rosedale project design process, and there is a great need for City and AUSD staff to discuss and resolve joint use facilities and related agreements. While one meeting has been held thus far, AUSD staff has stated they are committed to working together with the City, and desires to resume discussions imminently. Issues: What is the right balance of providing active and passive facilities in the Promenade Park? Park design should reflect the following: a. A small stage and public gathering place at the southeast corner of the Park. b. More diverse active facilities, such as tennis courts or volleyball courts, etc. c. Lighting design that shields the adjoining residential areas, and provide restricted hours of use. d. Fencing alternatives that respect the views from the adjoining neighborhoods, such as temporary fencing that are removed after each game or event. e. First-rate ball field facilities including brick dust, turf infield, snack bar, restrooms, storage area, etc. f. Work with the School District to provide joint use parking lot on School property. VJ a If. THE ARROYO Genera/ Comments: 1. The pedestrian crossing at the Arroyo and Sierra Madre Ave. should be grade -separated, as required by the Specific Plan, but needs to be safe and easily surveyed by the public and police patrols. The proposed 120 ft. long tunnel poses significant safety concerns. 2. The Arroyo Trail needs a better connection with the Garcia Trail, and should not become a sidewalk at certain points. 3. The Arroyo itself should be a more pronounced geographic feature, at a much lower elevation than the street. Issue: Sierra Madre Ave. will carry a number of large utility lines, which will result in a roadway cross section of at least 15 ft. in thickness at the tunnel crossing. ALP has proposed a corrugated steel half -pipe tunnel under Sierra Madre Ave. A tunnel -type underpass would require the bottom of the Arroyo to be about 25 ft. below the surface elevation of Sierra Madre Ave. A concrete bridge structure would perhaps require less. Potential options include the following: a. Eliminate the corrugated steel half -pipe tunnel in favor of a more pedestrian friendly - design, such as an open bridge structure as depicted in the attachment. The length of the underpass could be shortened to 62 ft. (the width of the Sierra Madre Ave. right-of-way) by using retaining walls instead of 2:1 engineered slopes. But from a safety standpoint, a corrugated steel half -pipe tunnel of this length would still be a major concern. b. ALP has proposed an option to bring the trail out of the Arroyo, and cross the intersection at street grade, at a traffic signal -controlled intersection. 111. OVERALL PARK/LANDSCAPE COMMENTS 1. Restrooms Because there are various sizes of parks with varying levels of activity, Staff direction was given to ALP in the initial plan review to provide restrooms in parks of at least .5 acres in size. Accordingly, restroom facilities are being proposed for Sierra Madre Park, Gateway Park, and Promenade Park. 2. When restroom facilities are provided, storage facilities should also be included for park maintenance equipment. 3. Smaller parks need more diverse active facilities for a greater range of age groups, not just tot lots and picnic areas. Basketball hoops, backboards for handball or tennis practice, sand volleyball, etc. are some suggestions. 4. The landscaped open space at the west roundabout should be better integrated with Pioneer Park. A heritage tree (a mature transplanted tree) is proposed for the center of the East roundabout. Should this include a City entrance monument or sign? IV. PROMENADE LAND USE The Promenade District is comprised of various "place -making" components, anchored by a walkable center median island that serves as the centerpiece of the District. These components include residential attached ownership housing at 21 and 25 units/acre, a mixed-use area (incorporating up to 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial, residential, a transit plaza, light rail station, light rail parking), various recreational open spaces, and the Great Park. Because of the interrelationship of these components, the contemplated land uses are important to discuss and require direction from Council. Mixed Use Commercial vs. All Residential The Specific Plan has placed substantial emphasis on planning for the Light Rail train station as the cornerstone of the Promenade District to create a "sense of place", by incorporating a transit plaza, provisions for light rail parking, and a mixture of residential and commercial. At the time of Specific Plan adoption, it was anticipated that the mixed-use area of the Promenade would begin construction at approximately the same time as commencement of construction of the Gold Line light rail extension (in 2008 or thereabouts). A default provision exists in the Specific Plan, that provides for all -residential development in the event that the light rail system does not become a reality. For this reason, the Specific Plan allows an all -residential development of the Transit District. Issue: ALP desires to sell the property to another developer now, rather than wait until 2008. Staff has been informed by ALP that commercial development in this location cannot be supported today due to its marginal location and lack of economic support base. Perhaps the absence of the light rail station today is a contributing factor. ALP proposes to build an all -residential project as a result. 1. Does the Council support this proposal, or 2. Should the City become an active partner to seek a commercial/mixed use developer, or 3. Should the City wait to approve a project in this location until the Gold Line starts construction hopefully in 2008/9 so that a retail developer would be easier to attract? 9