Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1985 0103 CC JNT PC January 3 , 1985 Moorpark, California A joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, California was held on January 3, 1985 in the Council Chambers in the City Hall of said City, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Albert Prieto and by Douglas Holland, Chairman of the Planning Commission. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Thomas C. Ferguson, James D. Weak, Danny A. Woolard, Leta Yancy-Sutton and Mayor Prieto; ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: Commissioners William J. LaPerch, James A. Hartley, Tom Schleve and Chairman Douglas Holland; ABSENT: Commissioners Jeffrey Rosen (arrived at 7: 30 p.m. ) OTHER CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Niall Fritz, Director of Community Development; Diane Eaton, Associate Planner; and Doris D. Bankus, City Clerk. 3 . ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 3.A. Role of Planning Commission The Director of Community Development gave a presentation regarding the role of the Planning Commission in relationship to the City Council, and particular mention was made of Resolution No. 83-29, as amended, adopted October 19 , 1983, pertaining to permit approval processes,. and he distributed copies to Councilmembers and Com- missioners present. There was discussion as to whether or not the Planning Commission should assume a role in code enforcement and Tom Coyle, the City's Community Services Assistant, who was in attendance during this discussion, explained the procedures used in code enforcement. There was discussion on contracting for a Code Enforcement Officer. Commissioner Rosen arrived during this discussion, the time being 7: 30 p.m. It was moved by Commissioner LaPerch and seconded by Commissioner Hartley that Mr. Coyle be commended for the manner in which his job is being handled, and that zoning enforcement not be a function of the PLanning Commission unless so directed by the City Council. After discussion, Commissioner LaPerch withdrew his motion with the consent of the second, and it was the general cDnsensus that no action would be taken on the matter at this Commissioner Holland then brought the discussion back to Resolution No. 83-29, reporting that it had been the recommenda- tion of the Planning Commission that Items (i) , (j) (1) and (m) of the resolution be amended to provide that the decision of the • Planning Commission is final, but may be appealed to the City Council. After discussion, the Mayor instructed that a resolution be pre- pared and presented at the next Council meeting providing that the decisions under Items (i) and (m) be final with the Planning Commission, and may be appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Rosen requested that both resolutions be placed on the agenda for the Planning Commission for study, and that the Commission also be furnished a definition of _"" anf9 ""- r" modifications. Commissioner Hartley stated that he felt it would be beneficial to have a representative from the Sheriff' s Department in atten- dance at each Planning Commission meeting. He also stated that he felt each project should be reviewed by the Sheriff' s Depart- ment and input received for consideration. Councilmember Weak that Sheriff' s Department should review each project and suggested attendance at the meetings be at the request of staff and the Chairman of the Planning Commission. The Director of community Dev=1vpm ..t stated that each project is reviewed by various agencies, including the Sheriff' s Department. The City Manager stated that attendance at a meeting could be arranged upon request. During discussion regarding "review procedure, the Director of Community Development suggested a study session, with representatives of the various agencies explaining the process, to include the Sheriff' s Department. Councilmembers Weak stated he would like to see building standards developed as a part of the growth management ordinance; and in addition a sign ordinance and a mandatory property inspection ordinance for the City. RECESS The Mayor declared a recess, the time being 8: 30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. , all members of the City Council and the Planning Commission being present. 3.B. Growth Management Ordinance The Director of Community Development reported that the Planning Commission would be considering this item at i=s next meeting and would report to the City Council with recomurencations. -2- Councilmember Weak suggested that the Planning Commission review standards and procedure for reviewing the infra-structure of the City on a yearly basis. Commissioner Schieve suggested consideration of an allotment for redevelopment of blighted areas, to include a priority schedule. Commissioner Hartley suggested that Council place a high priority. on redevelopment activity and to keep the Commission informed promptly regarding such activity. Councilmember Woolard suggested the terminology of "development management" rather than "growth management" . 3.u. l,exlelai ridll tuLLCndlitCiiL S fur 1505 The Director of Community Development gave a brief review of pending General Plan Amendments, some of which had been given preliminary screening by the City Council at its meeting of May 2, 1984, as follows: 1. City sponsored amendments - a clean-up of amendments to the Land Use Element 2. Griffin Development Company - 254 acre site, located • immediately north and west of Moorpark College 3. Carlsberg Construction Company - 126 acre amendment request consists of portions of a larger 478 acre area that is bounded by Tierra Rejada Road to the south, Moorpark Road to the west, New Los Angeles Avenue to the north and the Moorpark Freeway to the east. 4. S. H. Blumer & Associates - the 348.57 acre amendment site islocated adjacent to and west of Walnut Canyon Road, approximately 3, 000 feet north of the Moorpark Community Center. 5. Dr. Raymond Caren - the site contains approximately 35,000 square feet of lot area and consists of 12, 000 square foot industrial building, located adjacent to • and north of Poindexter Road, approximately 275 feet west of Moorpark Avenue. 6. Fred Kavli - the 12. 3 site represents a portion of a larger 53. 68 acre parcel that is located adjacent to and east of the intersection of Condor Drive and Los Angeles Avenue. 7 . Villa Campesina Corporation - a project for low-income housing, located south of Los Angeles Avenue and adjacent to Liberty Bell Road. During discussion regarding the pending Genera= Plan Amendments , Commissioner Holland provided information that new legislation made it possible to process an amendment for low in=ome housing without -3- counting it as one of the four amendments permitted each calendar year. The matter was referred to the City Attorney for report. There was discussion regarding possible incorporation of some of the proposed amendments into one, it being reported that the Kavli amendment might be processed by itself in the interests of time saved. It was also contemplated that the Griffin amendment would be proposed as an amendment. The Director of Community Development was directed by general con- sent to present the General Plan Amendment schedule to the City Council for approval. 3.D. Downtown Improvement Committee The City Manager explained the concept and functions of the proposed committee, stating that the intent is to focus in on a way to eliminate the deficiencies in the public improvements and to develop an architectural them for the development of the downtown area. Commissioners Holland suggested that the committee consider using the Specific Plan approach in their studies and recommendations. General approval was given to the creation of the Downtown Improve- ment Committee. 3.E. Conversion of Residential to Commercial in Downtown Area and Policy of Public Improvement Deferral The Director of Community Development explained the need for the adoption of a policy regarding the subject matter, stating that part of that policy would be that the property owner would provide written consent to participate in an undergrounding utilities district. Councilmember Yancy-Sutton suggested that this matter be referred to the Downtown Improvement Committee for study and recommendation. The City Manager stated that he would meet with the committee and transmit this matter to them. 3.F. Mello Roos Districts The City Manager stated this item had been placed on the agenda to see if the Commissiones had any questions . He also advised that at its meeting -of December 19, 1984, the Council had taken action to no longer apply the Mello Roos condition on any projects, or retroactive on any projects which already have it, pending a public hearing to be held in February, at which time a decision will be made regarding a policy of imposing a Mello Roos condition. He also advised that staff is investigating the manner in which other cities are implementing the Mello Roos provisions . Councilmember Weak stated that if the public hearing is to be held the last meeting in February, he would like to have input from the Planning Commission and ample time for review of all material . -4- 3.G. Code Enforcement Inasmuch as this item had been covered under item 3.A. , there was no further discussion. 3.H. Other Items Highway #118 Improvement Committee - Chairman Holland stated he would like to see the Planning Commission address the issues out- lined in the communication presented at the City Council meeting of December 5, 1984. Buttercreek - Commissioner Rosen requested information regarding the conditions imposed for the build-out of the Buttercreek Development. Mountain Meadows - Commissioner Rosen requested information regarding conditions for Planned Community No. 3. Community Center Expansion - Commissioner Hartley requested that the outline of the plans for the Community Center be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Adults Only Occupancy - Requested that an opinion be obtained from the City Attorney regarding the conditioning of a project to occupancy by adults only. COMMENDATION AND ADJOURNMENT • Both Councilmembers Yancy-Sutton and Weak expressed appreciation to the members of the Planning Commission for their desire and willingness to work with the Council and for the City, The meeting then was adjourned by general consent, the time being 10: 00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, •��� City C her 44:11Tig APPROV5) ' zippy rj44 I i �' Mayor of the City of Moorpark ' ^^� ZA cO Chairman, Planning Commission -5-