Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1988 1003 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of 10/03/88 The regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission held on October 3, 1988 in the City Council Chambers of the Community Center located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m., Chairman Douglas Holland presiding. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairman Holland. 3. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Douglas Holland, Vice Chairman Scott Montgomery, Commissioner's William Butcher, John Wozinak and Paul Lawrason; ABSENT: None. OTHER CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development; Michael A. Rubin, Senior Planner; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of September 19, 1988. Motion(a): Moved by Commissioner Lawrason, seconded by Commissioner Wozniak to approve the minutes of September 19, 1988 as submitted. Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Amendment to the Moorpark Municipal Code Resolution No. PC -88 -176 A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL A REVISION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE:. 880410 /CHRONI -1 -- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of 10/03/88 Motion_(: Moved by Commissioner Lawrason, seconded by Commissioner Butcher to amend Resolution No. PC -88 -176 with Section 2 to read as follows: Section 2. The Planning Commission further recommends that a separate Cultural Art Committee be established concurrently with the initiation of the revision of the zoning ordinance. Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 7. PUBLIC M6ARINGS (Old Business A. Appeal No. AP -88 -12 Velazquez An appeal the of Director of Community Development decision to deny a second time extension on Planned Development Permit no. PD -1048. Located at 643 Moorpark Avenue at High Street. The Director gave a detailed report and background of PD -1048 (reference: staff report dated September 28, 1988). Testimony received by the following: 1. Colin Velazquez, 1078 Mellow Lane, Simi Valley, CA Requested that the Commission consider what was at issue and in Mr. Colin's opinion should the project be denied it could not withstand another permit processing due to the changes within the zoning code, and the best that would be provided for this downtown area would be to remodel the existing building. Mr. Velazquez recalls a quarterly report regarding the status of PD -1048 within a telephone conversation with staff. Investments to date have totaled $25,000, and financing has been slow for development in the downtown area. This second time extension requested would be for a period of 2 years. The Commission in deliberation considered Mr. Velazquez's statement of slow progress and directed staff' to return this item to the Commission's meeting of November 7, 1988 with a complete background information of PD -1048 and the progress if any that has been accomplished by Mr. Velazquez. Motion(c): Moved by Chairman Holland, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to return PD -1048 to the Commission's meeting of November 7, 1988 with complete case profile, list of items still not completed prior to the Commission's January 4, 1988 request for extension. Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 880410 /CHRONI -2- PlanniA Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of 10/03/88 B. Draft Hillside Performance Standard Ordinance For the purpose of creating regulations for development within the city's hillside areas. On August 17,1988 the City Council received a draft created by their Ad Hoc Committee and took action to refer the matter to the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 14, 1988. It was the direction of the Council that the Planning Commission was to review the draft created by the Ad Hoc Committee, and give the Council it's recommendations) by their last meeting in October (October 19, 1988). The Director mentioned two documents received from Ron Tankersley and Tom Schleve. The Director gave a report regarding the draft Hillside ordinance and what the ordinance is trying to accomplish. (reference: staff report dated September 28, 1988.) In the Commission's discussions the following concerns were raised: A more realistic valley floor map (that considers areas developed). To have the city establish an elevation bench mark and later go through a slope analysis indicating that everything of a certain slope below be a bench mark figure and would be considered as "valley floor" area; Grading could be reduced to 500 c y; How is the ridgeline defined and how was the guidelines for the visible viewpoints from the valley floor and routes chosen; Testimony received by the following: 1. Pat Basso, 3940 Southhampton Road, Moorpark. Would like to encourage the Planning Commission to make the recommendation this evening and return the item to the Council for review. In light of the fact that three new Council members will soon be on board and this item could be further delayed. 2. Don Basso, 3940 Southhampton, Moorpark. Lengthy and confusing. Several points of recommendation regarding the Valley Floor Area designation should possibly be modified verbally, and include already developed areas. The calculations for Line No. 330 regarding 15 - 20 Percent, 1.6 units per 2.5 acres (.64 units per acre) were confusing. 880410 /CHRONI -3- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of 10/03/88 3. Bill Fraser, 3929 Willow Creek Lane, Moorpark. Referenced line 48, "However, prior to the Director of Community Development approving the minor modification, ". Inquired if a plan have would need to be approved by the fire department, in cases of driveways that are less than minimum? Structures on the hillsides. What is the procedure? Line No. 635 Section (b) referring to Horsekeeping, should be changed to Livestock. 4. Ron Tankersley, 2800 28th Street, Santa Monica, CA. Representing the Carlsberg property. The ordinance in this draft form should implement those conditions of the General Plan. As an attempt was made to draft the ordinance and use of the Simi Valley ordinance because of its availability. The result however, because of the arbitrary nature of the valley floor, is that the ordinance as drafted, does miss the mark in some cases. If you look at the logic of the General Plan you can understand why. When the General Plan was started the authors were not bound by existing development to any great extent, and were able to set goals in terms of residential, industrial, business, heavier population, and areas to preserve. It's very clear that this was accomplished with fairly concise land use designations. Considering the areas of interest and influence and how we should meet the county's housing needs, and the city's fair share, we should be looking at the SCAG requirements and how Moorpark's population goals are set for certain years with the number of houses needed to accomplish that. It was determined that there was going to be an early core and essentially the area of interest was divided into a growth and no- growth segment (Exhibit B) of the General Plan. Given the growth and no- growth segments any given topography in terms of environment, viewshed, all these things were considered if you look at the methodology as it is spelled out in the General Plan. The next step was to identify that which is called the Urban Core and the Rural Area within the growth area (Exhibit C) the old way of the urban area and the rural designations cover that which was considered to be the growth area. In general the added and open space areas were designated as non- growth areas. From this underlying logic it was determined how to meet the residential requirements. Within the urban core of that growth area (which is non - rural) it was determined that most of the residential, the industrial, and commercial would be sited, and this is where the land use elements which overlies that, which identifies specific land use design. Within the General Plan the land use element, in order to accommodate the irregular topography in the core area, is a concept called density averaging, and allows you to obtain the same number of average units, but you cluster them 880410 /CHRONI -4- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark ,California Minutes of 10/03/88 where you have hillside topography to deal with. It's fairly clear and in the rural and open space areas that the authors of the General Plan did not want density averaging and they provided for that by having a minimum lot size. We have rural low, rural high and open space and in each case the size of the lot indicates how many units. Exhibit B, is interesting in that what the city considers to be the hillside area, essentially if you were to take that gridded area and put it in the land use map, you would see that it exactly coincides with your rural densities and your open space areas within the city limits. It does not include those segments of the General Plan that were designated in the urban area. The conclusion is that we should go back to an area specific land use designation as the basis for determining where the hillsides are that we are going to apply this ordinance to. The result of that is to preserve the core for urban development and the original intent of that is simply that if you have a basic need for the houses you need to provide and put them in an area where you can concentrate them and where you can density average and cluster so that you don't impact the areas that you want to preserve, mainly the hillside areas, which this plan designates as rural, and open space. There are specifics which can accomplish this within the ordinance. Methods to which the General Plan used to arrive at the land use and as it relates to the hillside area. Another inconsistency is in the definition of the view corridor. The Simi proposal to identify a corridor is hard to find and even name in the OSCAR element of the General Plan. It tells what the terminus is, and what the beginning places are. These corridors are the major corridors for viewing the northern part of the city which are rural and open space areas. The dwelling unit calculations are distorted when you start applying this concept: to properties that were intentionally in the urban core of development it is quite evident it does away with density averaging, which is the basic underlying concept for development within the core. Certain development which occurred in hillside areas which we had to exclude because it was on the valley floor, rather than outside the valley floor. The reason this was done was because it was intended to be there. It is not inconsistent with the General Plan, it is inconsistent with the valley floor aspect. 880410 /CHRONI -s- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of 10/03/88 Carlsberg has gone to great lengths to conform to the General Plan in it's present form. We avoided 20% slopes where at all possible, except where there were streets, or transitional areas or where public improvements were needed. In terms of the density calculations for the residential element on the south side there are 311 acres that we have identified as the south phase or of the specific plan. On Exhibit D, again our plan is filed with a total of 498 residential units, and that can be traced right through the General Plan and Table 5 & 6 within the General Plan as to what the intend was with respect to the acreage that was designated low density housing, the number of units was arrived at by using the table within the General Plan. But if you apply this ordinance to the Carlsberg property, what you find is all of the sudden there is 311 acres to calculate density, because of slope gradient in certain parts under 20 %, we start loosing units, and we also loose units because we are not allowed density averaging over 20%, so with the 311 acres suddenly all we have is 213 units, so if there is a 60% percent reduction of density on our property, which we don't believe was ever intended if your going to abide by the core concept of the General Plan. Further on commercial and business uses if reduced, the 10% or less concept would result in our specific plan business use on the north side with a 95 acre usage including public uses to about 4 acres, suddenly that 95 acres becomes 67 developable acres, so there is about 40 °; reduction in what would be permitted there. In conclusion there needs to be a basic study of what was the intent of this ordinance and further what was intended by the authors of the General Plan. It can be adapted to the concept that has been discussed. The major change would be to 1) define the hillside area, relative to land use, which would be basically rural and open space areas and similarly the density concept averaging which would have to be modified fairly significantly, to make sure that it conforms to the intent of the minimum lot configuration; and 2) definition of the new corridor and major ridgeline. 5. Alan Camp, attorney for Carlsberg, One boardwalk, Suite 102, Thousand Oaks, CA Raised two additional areas for the Commission to consider, 1) reconciliation of this proposed measure (standards) in the General Plan, it seems that there is an issue raised of what the impacts are to the General Plan. We have concluded that there is significant departure from the General. Plan, in fact that the departure is so significant that the hillside measure becomes a defacto amendment to the General Plan. It changes the housing element significantly, in terms of where! units are going to be located and how many units one will have in the city. 880410 /CHRONI -6- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of 10/03/88 It also will make changes to your circulation system in regards it is residential development that is going to allow for your circulation system, given the limits on funding from other sources. Similarly you'll find that it will make changes to school issues, given that it is residential forecast and it is the fees that are paid for residential development now with the change in the law, commercial as well, but a large percent are residential. There is a vary critical balance of numerous social and economic issues that are changed rather considerably by this measure. Stepping back from a generalized standpoint it is intended by this draft to protect hillsides. No one can specifically identify what the impacts are to the community. The reduction in density on the Carlsberg property is as significant as Mr. Tankersley has pointed out. I am surmising at least that there will be similar impacts throughout the community. When there is a defacto moratorium, if there is a defacto moratorium by the adoption of this measure, it seems that one needs to comply with CEQA to amend the General Plan directly, there would be an argument to be made that one should comply with CEQA forecast and the issues if you are going to amend your General Plan indirectly, thus the word defacto. The second issue, you will recall that this City Council and previous council members advocated the specific plan for the Carlsberg property and that it is a significantly large piece of land that it needs to have the level of attention that is tailor made, in terms of its approach and consideration for proceeding or not. The key of a specific plan allows this with the formulation of policies, rules and regulations that govern the way which that property is going to be built out, off site improvements and on -site improvements level of density, where it should go, preservation of significant environmental habitat. The city has created a law that applies to Carlsberg as well as the rest of the city that will tie your hands as it relates to that specific plan. The intent of the authors of this measure as in relation to Section 8148 -8, which intents that there should not be any commercial in certain slope areas, but their should be flexibility. Except out specific plans. Exemption of the Carlsberg property, specific plan property from these standards is not necessarily implying anything goes, there is still the maintenance of the ability of visual impact. 880410 /CHRONI -7 -- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of 10/03/88 We are speaking of 500 acres that in a large regard is going to be a funding source for infrastructure, supply source for housing. The hillside standards fall short of that in a non - provision specific presentation at this junction, in the event that this Commission rushes this item through, consider the numerous language inconsistencies, ambiguities, reference sections that are not in the ordinance. 6. Dennis Hardgrave, Development Planning Services, 1830 Lockwood, #110, Oxnard, CA Representing the Levy Company property owners of 285 acres west of the old high school site. Requesting that the ordinance be allowed further study. The elements of the ordinance relative to both affordable and senior housing as well as the overall development density limitations, particularly adjacent to the downtown, urban core and railroad tracks which can best be addressed as part of the General Plan update or after the General Plan update. The Levy property may ultimately require construction of major roadways in the future as shown on the General Plan. These roadways and the grading ordinance both still need to be considered concurrently or after the General Plan update is completed. Ridgeline viewshed standards should be addressed as it relates to secondary primary ridgeline with more detail, particularly as it relates to the Poindexter viewshed, which approximately 50% is in an industrial area. 7. Mark Taillon, 4223 Granadilla Drive, Moorpark. Requesting that the Commission consider the individuals who are not represented by the large corporations, who have been able to obtain acreage and the impact that the hillside ordinance may have upon them. 8. Roger R. Littell, 14958 Marquette Street, Moorpark. Concerns are the intent of the ordinance and the city's tax base is dependent upon homes and the percentage of homes that are in the community today, and which would have not been here had this ordinance been in effect. His personal opinion was to build on the hillsides and clear the flat land for farming to provide food. Concerned about the Supreme court decision if property is downgraded can the city afford to purchase it? It was the general consensus of the Commission not to close the public hearing at this time and perhaps open it up for additional testimony at the Commission's regular scheduled meeting. The major concern is the inconsistency of the document, and the inconsistency with the General Plan. The needed review of the city attorney regarding the conflict between the ordinance and the General Plan and specific elements. 880410 /CHRONI -8- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of 10/03/88 Motion d): Moved by Chairman Holland, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to direct staff to provide and initial study /environmental assessment, city attorney analysis and a review of the consistency of proposed ordinance with the adopted elements of our General Plan, and that the Planning Commission continue this item to their meeting of November 7, 1988. Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS New Business None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS None. 10. INFORMATION ITEMS A. LeClub Apartments - Sign violations Report back of City Council direction. Received and filed. B. Uncommitted development - Signage Report back on site located at New Los Angeles Avenue at Spring Road. Received and filed. C. Traffic Circulation Improvements Report back regarding signalization, widening at the intersection of Spring Road and Tierra Rejada Road. Completion date of the Tierra Rejada Bridge. Received and filed. 11. COMMISSION COMIMNTS Secretary to provide the Planning Commission minutes of September 6, 1988 as an information item to Chairman Holland and Commissioner Butcher. Commissioner Wozniak inquired of street light plans for residential development and what determines a view lot. 880410 /CHRONI -9- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of 10/03/88 Commissioner Lawrason complimented the city for the installation of the stop sign at the corner of Tierra Rejada and Peach Hill Roads. 12. STAFF COl MEM None. 13. AUJOURIVEKHT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary 880410 /CHRONI -10-