Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1993 0224 CC ADJMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Moorpark Community Center February 24, 1993 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Moorpark was held on February 24, 1993 in the Council Chambers of said City at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lawrason called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Bernardo Perez. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Hunter, Montgomery, Perez, Wozniak and Mayor Lawrason Steven Kueny, City Manager; Richard Hare, Deputy City Manager; Jim Aguilera, Director of Community Development; Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works; Paul Porter, Senior Planner; Lillian Hare, City Clerk; and Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS, AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 5. REORDERING OF AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined that the Zoning Ordinance will be considered as the last item. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: L. Consider Authorization to Advertise for Bids for Tierra Rejada Road Widening. Staff Recommendation: Approve the plans and specifications for the subject project and authorize staff to advertise for receipt of bids. Mr. Gilbert gave the staff report. MOTION: Councilmember Wozniak moved and Councilmember Perez seconded a motion to approve the staff recommendation to approve the plans and specifications for the subject project and authorize staff to advertise for receipt of bids. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, public comment was received. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 2 February 24, 1993 Eloise Brown, 13193 Annette Street, spoke regarding the Town Hall meeting held the previous Saturday. She commented regarding the government channel programming. She said the radio music in the background advertises businesses in Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks. Carolyn Schrimpf, 12788 Summer Street, requested that W.O.M.E.N. be allowed to hold the Miss Moorpark Contest in the community center. She indicated they would like to "tie it" in with the Tenth Anniversary Celebration and have the pageant televised. She indicated they would be willing to pay the cost of televising the pageant if the cost was not unreasonable. She requested that the Council waive the rental fees for the Thursday, Friday and Saturday event. She requested that this item be placed on the next City Council agenda for consideration. Gerald Goldstein, 11932 Los Angeles Avenue, spoke regarding Channel 10 programming. He also spoke regarding the maintenance of City vehicles. John Roberts, 15787 Graduate Circle, spoke regarding Collins Drive. He cited several examples of speeding and accidents that have occurred over the years. He indicated that a full time officer in that portion of the City is needed. Mayor Lawrason commented that there is police coverage in all areas of the City. 10. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: B. Set Joint Meetings with Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission. Mr. Kueny indicated that the Council determined to meet with the Commissions once each year. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to meet with the Parks and Recreation Commission on Monday, March 8, at 7:00 p.m. and on Monday, April 19, at 7:00 p.m. with the Planning Commission. 11. ACTIONJDISCUSSION ITEMS: D. Consider Draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Specific Plan No. 8 (Hidden Creek Ranch). Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to incorporate any City Council comments into the MOU and then authorize the City Manager to approve the MOU, 2) Direct staff to submit an application to LAFCO for a Sphere of Influence Amendment for the Specific Plan No. 8. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 3 Mr. Aguilera gave the staff report. February 24, 1993 Janet Murphy, 15308 Seitz Court, spoke in opposition to the extension of the City's sphere of influence. She said the Environmental Coalition believes the development of the Messenger project will impact the City a great deal. She also asked whether a letter from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy addressing regional habitat concerns had been responded to by the Council. Elizabeth Haynes, 15035 Reedley Street, stated that it is premature for the City to be increasing its sphere of influence at this time. She said a biological analysis constraints study should be conducted first. John Etter, 2536 N. Marilyn Street, Simi Valley, said he is disappointed that this project has progressed this far. He believes Moorpark is headed in the same direction as Simi Valley as far as population growth is concerned. Carolyn Poleri, 6863 Trojan Court, spoke regarding the Messenger project. She said she has no objections to the development of the Messenger property as it will bring more attention to the eastern part of town. She indicated that there is a great need for a fire station in that end of Moorpark. Robert Abrams, 3342 Darby, #318, Simi Valley, spoke on behalf of Francis Okyere, President of the Moorpark Chamber of Commerce. He read a letter of endorsement authored by the Chamber of Commerce relative to the Messenger project. Carolyn Schrimpf, 12788 Summer Street, spoke as a homeowner and member of Chamber of Commerce staff. She said she supports the annexation of the Messenger property and the extension of the City's sphere of influence. John Roberts, 15787 Graduate Circle, commented that the city will be impacted by whatever happens with the Messenger property and he urged the Council to continue in the direction in which they have been going. Lina Santelli, 15549 Doris Court, spoke stating that the City should work with Messenger and not allow this development to occur in the County. She said the eastern portion of Moorpark needs the revenue. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 4 February 24, 1993 Bill Poleri, 6863 Trojan Court, spoke in favor of the Messenger development. He said the City should allow neither "no growth" nor uncontrolled growth. Mr. Poleri said he supports the expansion of the sphere of influence and the annexation of the Messenger property by the City. Ted Martens, 15749 Swift Place, said he believes the Council has the integrity to control the development process and he is in favor of the annexation of the land. Councilmember Perez commented that the Specific Plan process does not guarantee the density of the project. He said there is no project yet. He said he is counting on the representatives of Hidden Creek Ranch to bring forth a plan that will benefit the community. He asked staff when the City would address the December 16th letter received from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. In response to Councilmember Perez, Mr. Aguilera said the letter was received and provided to the Council. He said it is premature to do a biological study when the City doesn't know if it will have control over that property or not. Mr. Perez clarified that we are not ignoring the letter, but at the appropriate time the City will address and analyze biological constraints. Councilmember Wozniak said he felt comfortable with an application regarding increasing the City's sphere of influence. He said that does not set a time for annexation. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to allow Gary Austin, representing Messenger Investment, to address them. In response to Councilmember Wozniak regarding how he (Mr. Austin) viewed the memorandum of understanding, Mr. Austin said the memorandum defines what each party is going to do and that helps the city make decisions on whether or not this property versus another property should be ranked higher or lower in terms of priorities. He said the Memorandum of Understanding provides for the process which can be somewhat complicated, and that defining of the process allows the public to have a certain comfort level and the City to have a certain comfort level. He said it is an indication on Messenger's part to move forward in a logical way with the City so that there can be closure on this to everyone's benefit. He said to answer Councilmember Wozniak's question about whether or not it is a contract and binding agreement, Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 5 February 24, 1993 he said, "I don't view it as such and we've had some discussions with staff on that." He said "your City Attorney has reviewed it at least three times and the City Manager has taken a 'hard' look at it." He said there is still some question about whether some technical language should go into the MOU or not. He said he believes the City is very well protected in terms of what is said in the MOU. He said the City was very careful not to tie itself down in terms of deadlines. The only deadline that is in the memorandum of understanding is a reference to an application to LAFCO for a sphere of influence expansion, which is as much in the City's interest as Messengers. In summary, he said he sees it as a memorandum that defines the process that we are all looking forward to initiating in the future. Mr. Austin commented that State law requires that any project must comply with CEQA and that their project will be scrutinized to the "nth" degree. He said what the letter from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is requesting is to see what is going on with the animals from a regional standpoint. Mr. Austin said that is a fascinating question, but one this project isn't under obligation to undertake. He said it is a study that is being proposed by a limited number of people. He said he doesn't feel the City needed to respond. Councilmember Montgomery said a study of wildlife migration in this area needs to be done but at a truly regional level as the expense will be so great that the federal government will have to be involved in funding the study. He said the letter from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy was not sent at the direction of their Board. Mayor Lawrason stated that the Council needs to respond to the letter. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to agendize a discussion of the letter received from the Conservancy at a later date. Councilmember Hunter stated his concern with the part of the MOU addressing "delays and suspensions ". In response to Council question, Mr. Aguilera said that the applicant is asking that the City not delay or declare a moratorium that would stop the processing of the specific plan while a hillside or growth control ordinance or other proposed ordinances are being prepared, adopted or proposed for placement on a future ballot. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 6 February 24, 1993 Mr. Austin responded that in no way was the Council being precluded from placing any conditions on the Specific Plan but Messenger didn't want to be "put on hold" while a committee considers the matters referenced by Mr. Aguilera. He said such deliberation should not suspend property development in progress. Councilmember Hunter said any mention of annexation in the MOU should be stricken. After further Council discussion regarding the MOU, the following consensus action was taken: CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined to direct staff to revise the MOU, provide Messenger Investment Company with a copy at the earliest possible time and place this matter back on the agenda for discussion at the March 3, 1993 Council meeting. AT THIS POINT in the meeting a recess was declared. The time was 10:05 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:20 p.m. 12. ORDINANCES: A. Consider Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 160, Authorizing a City Contribution to the City of Moorpark Assessment District No. 92 -1 (Mission Bell Plaza). Ms. Kane read the ordinance title. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to read the ordinance title only. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Wozniak seconded a motion to waive further reading and declare the ordinance introduced as read. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 7 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: February 24, 1993 C. Consider Revisions to the City's Zoning Ordinance - City of Moorpark. Staff Recommendation: Review the proposed changes and advise staff of any additional changes to the Zoning Ordinance (Continued Item. 9.C. from 2/10/93.) Mayor Lawrason indicated that the public hearing was still open. The City Clerk stated that there were no speaker cards for this item. The Council determined to go through the proposed Zoning Ordinance page by page, beginning with page number 81. Following are the comments /requests for changes made by the Council: Page 91 Parking, subsection j., change "plus 1 space per 28 square feet..." to read "plus 1 space per 50 square feet..." and, change 1118 linear inches shall be equivalent to one seat" to 1124 linear inches..." Page 92 Parking, subsection m., staff directed to look at an exception for handicapped conversion of the space for a third car (in a three car garage) to a bedroom; (4) of subsection m. to be deleted. Page 94 Parking, subsection ff. (6) , staff directed to make sure the community center was in compliance with this requirement of "1 space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. Page 97 General Requirements of Parking Spaces, Sec. 8108 -1.3.2 - change "in M- Zones" to read "in Commercial or Industrial Zones...." and add "and the decision making authority permits:" Sec. 8108 -1.3.3 - staff directed to include language that tandem parking may be allowed for churches. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 8 February 24, 1993 Page 98 Special Parking Space Requirements, subsection C, staff directed to rewrite with language to allow a credit of 2 to 1 for motorcycle parking spaces and to check Rule 210 compliance relative to this subsection. Page 107 Standards for Oven Space, Agricultural and Residential Zones, subsection q., the number of Section 8109- 1.2.1.p is incorrect. Setbacks - staff directed to find report authored by then Councilmembers Clint Harper and Scott Montgomery regarding setbacks. Staff directed that the permit application portion of the ordinance could be taken out of the ordinance and put into resolution form. Page 112 Standards for Commercial Zones, Section 8109 -3.2, Open Storage, staff directed to add the language "in no case should material height exceed the height of the screening" and staff to check this section for consistency with the Kavli project conditions. Page 115 Standards for Overlay and Special Purpose Zones, staff directed to ask the City Attorney if a P -C Zone is still needed in the Zoning Ordinance. Page 118 Sign Requirements, as this area is going through a separate process, discussion relative to this section deferred. Page 139 Variances, Staff directed to have the City Attorney review standards for variances. Subsection a., delete "For the purposes of this section, vicinity includes both incorporated and unincorporated areas if the property in question is within the sphere Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 9 February 24, 1993 of influence of an incorporated area." Page 141 Temporary Use Permit, staff directed to look at adding a revocation clause. Filing and Processing of Application Requests, staff directed that the permit application portion of the ordinance could be taken out of the ordinance and put into resolution form. Existing Violations, staff directed that this section should refer to the zoning and subdivision ordinances rather than Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. Page 142 Termination of Incomplete Application, change "An extension to this six -month period..." to read "An extension to this three -month period." Page 146 Notice and Hearing Procedures, change "at least seven days prior to...." to read "at least ten days prior to...." and add language that the sign shall be clearly visible from the street; also, that staff has discretion to allow offsite placement for visibility. Page 147 Hearing Procedures and Public Hearing Ouorum to be reviewed by the City Attorney to determine if these sections are needed in the ordinance or if a resolution format can be used. Mayor Lawrason closed the public hearing. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to direct staff to make the requested changes to the draft Zoning Ordinance and to bring the document back to the Council for a final review prior to sending it back to the Planning Commission. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to address in a separate ordinance, allowing 20% retail space in an industrial zone and permitted use of a church in an M -1 zone; this ordinance to be heard by the City Council without prior Planning Commission review. Minutes of the City Council Moorpark, California Page 10 February 24, 1993 CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Council determined to request staff to prepare a report on T.P. Zones. Mayor Lawrason requested an item on the next agenda regarding the request by W.O.M.A.N. to waive fees for facilities rental and to discuss cablecasting of the Miss Moorpark Pageant. 15. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Councilmember Montgomery moved and Councilmember Hunter seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 11:45 a.m. ATTEST: WN Paul W. Lawrason Jr., U Mayor illian E. Hare, City Cl