The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 1990 0611 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark. California Minutes of June 11, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June 11, 1990 in the City Council Chambers located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman John Wozniak. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wozniak. 3. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners William Lanahan, Glen Schmidt, Michael Scullin, Roy Talley, and Chairman John Wozniak. ABSENT: None. OTHER CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development; Paul Porter, Senior Planner; Deborah S. Traffenstedt; Winnie Wilson, Associate Planner; John Knipe, City Engineer; Pat Dobbins, Assistant City Engineer; Mark Wessel, Traffic Engineer; Eric Sakowicz, Impact Science; Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR None. Planning Commission Minutes Minutes of June 11, 1990 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Page Company RPD- 819 -1: 236 apartment units (168 family and 68 senior units). LDM- 8'9 -1: Parcel map creating up to 4 lots for the purpose of creating separate parcels for the residential and commercial projects. CPD's 89 -1 & 89 -2: 168,490 sq.ft. retail commercial uses, 28,000 sq.ft. retail commercial uses, 28,000 sq.ft. restaurant uses, 2,300 sq.ft. gas station /car wash, 50,000 sw.ft. office uses, and a 6,000 sq.ft. office uses, and a 6,000 sq.ft. day care center. Located and generally bounded by Poindexter Avenue to the north, Los Angeles Avenue to the south, a single family residential development to the west, and Chaparral Middle School and retail commercial complex to the east. Presented by Eric Sakowicz, Impact Sciences Inc. Reference: Draft Staff Report dated June 11, 1990 - Greenleaf Apartments RPD -89 -21 LAM -89 -2. Testimony received in support by the following: 1. Elaine Freeman, Urban Strategies, 2509 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Thousand Oaks, CA 2. Ken Macleod, Applicant, P.O. Box 3677, Ventura, CA Mr. Macleod gave a brief background of the developers involved within the project and their commitment to providing quality development. He spoke on the various issues presented to the Commission at their June 4, 1990 meeting. The Macleod's original proposal included a 2.5 acre facility which Mr. Macleod had stated that it too was a concern in relation to traffic circulation. The issued regarding R.V. parking could be eliminated from the proposal as it was considered an amenity. The senior units are considered to be available to senior citizens 55+ and that their were no consideration made to providing an elevator as this is proposed to be an active senior housing project, not relation to care facilities Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 Minutes of June 11, 1990 to be provided. A van transportation service would be provided to the on -site residents for medical, light recreation services. Mr. Macleod's request also included that the senior housing facility be exempt from the allotment process. 3. Richard Devericks, Applicant, Ventura Pacific Capital Company, 340 Rosewood Avenue, Suite D, Camarillo, CA 93011. Mr. Devericks spoke in support of the project and .replied to Commissioner's Schmidt's question as to why this particular location was selected, as follows: a. Central - 15 minute driving range. b. Larger community center and tenant mix. C. Would become part of an existing business district and allows for problem solving response time a local based developers. d. Facilitates the active consumers of an average income of $45,000. e. List of benefits would include the availability of services. f. Eliminate out of town travel. g. Reduced pollution. h. Retail tax within the first year $500,000. i. 300 - full time, 500 part time jobs created for the city. j. $230,000 property tax benefit. k. A feasibility study was provided to the Planning Commissioner's for Children's Wonderland. 4. Steve Watson, Teranonics, Granada Hills, CA. Mr. Watson a teacher at CSUN in Retail Marketing, Real Estate, Licensed Broker and Manager of a Brokers Firm. Within Mr. Watson's information to the Commission he provided population figures needed to attract the major, chain store tenants. Gave his reasons for Moorpark Town Center increase in vacancy which included; visibility, regional chain stores not provided, cost of development/ fees which are passed on to the tenant. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 Minutes of June 11, 1990 5. Stephen Bosetti, Nadel Architect Partnership, 1990 South Bundy Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90025. Requested that the Commission consider that the use of the monument signs also include information of other tenant /retail services provided. Mr. Bosetti requested that the compact parking, 20 ft. light fixtures height be reconsidered within their conditions required. 6. Paul Jordan, Landscape Architect. Informed the Commission of the proposals submitted have only been at the preliminary stage and that the final approval could .include the city's requirements. 7. Doug Smith, Shell Oil Company. Mr. Smith provided the Commission with background information, stating at 808 capacity would provide 4.2 million per year, seven full time employees and one part time, location was determined by access, and at this point in the agenda an overhead view was provided of other Shell facilities points of access (Carmel Mountain Ranch, Cathedral City, etc.). This proposal will not include diesel fuel. Ask that Condition No. 71 be reconsidered due to the fact that fuel deliveries are most accommodating after 10:00 p.m. 8. Robert Warren, Ramseyer Associates, 1881 Knoll Drive, Ventura, CA Mr. Warren expressed issues for reconsideration as follows, grading and gravel access roads, 30' aisles, deceleration lane for Mission Bell, conditions that stated "to the satisfaction of the City Engineer....." - should be stated as ".....satisfaction of Caltrans .... " as it relates to right -of -way approval. 9. Sylvia E. Whitaker, 461 Cornett Avenue, Moorpark, CA. Concerned citizen spoke in opposition to the development and special concerns to the intersection of Poindexter Avenue and Moorpark Avenue which now provides for only two lanes. 10. Barbara Schultz, Resident, 116 Sierra Avenue, Moorpark, CA Stated that the project is located within the redevelopment area. Asked that the Commission give consideration to the surrounding property owners as they are now property owners adjacent to the existing commercial and industrial facilities and was concerned of further impacts this proposal would provide. Proposed building no. 3 provides for a sound wall of 8' in height and sits 2' higher that the adjacent residence which would increase the wall height to 101. Ms. Schultz Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 Minutes of June 11, 1990 stated that she has surveyed some retail shops and did not understand how Moorpark could support any more commercial with the current vacant rate. 11. Doug Frazier, Resident, 237 Sierra Avenue, Moorpark, CA Concerned about the structures and loading docks within 30' of adjacent residential property. Requested that some consideration be given to air quality control measures, 11 tons of pollution will be provided by this proposal. 12. Ethel Sulkis, Resident, 270 Sierra Avenue, Moorpark, CA Stated her concerns regarding traffic circulation proposed would provide continuous traffic surrounding her :residence. The Commission at length discussed the following concerns: A. what type of users /merchants were the developers trying to attract. B. what could the developer do to avoid vacancy. C. what assures smaller shops that they would have any success? D. The proposed height of light fixtures, in comparison to the Moorpark Town Center (20 ft.) and the condition requirement not to exceed 14 ft. E. That Mr. Doug Frazier concerns be address relating to the .Air Pollution Control District. F. Internal traffic flow. G. Reconsider street to the west of the project which is backed against the residential area. H. Consider widening 2 - 3 lanes at Park Lane. It was the general consensus of the Commission to direct staff to meet with the applicant to discuss related conditions; that developer meet with adjacent property owners; reconsider a park facility; internal traffic flow; Park Lane entrance (consider 2 - 3 lanes - widening), and continue this matter to the Commission's meeting of July 2, 1990. p. 5 rev.6/22/90 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 Minutes of June 11, 1990 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS None. 9. INFORMATION ITEMS None. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. 11. STAFF COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. RESPE TFULLY SUBMITTED Chairman presiding: ZoZ -O BY: Celia LaFleur, Secretary Chairman residing: