Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1990 0709 PC SPCMINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION Moorpark, California July 9, 1990 A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, California was held on July 9, 1990 in the Council Chambers of City Hall of said City, located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Joint City Council/ Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Mayor Perez. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Eloise Brown, Paul Lawrason, Scott Montgomery, and Mayor Bernardo Perez Present: Commissioners Bill Lanahan, Glen Schmidt, Michael Scullin, and Roy Talley Absent: Councilmember Clint Harper and Commission Chairman John Wozniak Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Patrick Richards, Director of Community Development; Debbie Traffenstedt, Senior Planner and Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk 3. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP Pat Richards introduced Cheri Phelps and Ken Ryan from PBR and Terence Austin from Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Mr. Richards explained that the objectives of this workshop are to review the land use element draft goals and policies; to continue discussion of alternative land use plans, and to discuss the sphere of influence expansion area land use alternatives as prepared by PBR. Also discussed tonight would be the traffic analysis prepared by Austin Foust Associates, Inc. Exhibits were presented which consisted of maps that corresponded to each of the proposed land use alternatives. Mr. Richards recommended that City Council and Planning Commission consider an extension to the current schedule to accommodate the sphere of influence study. I. Ken Ryan, PBR, began the discussion of the goals and policies outline and the criteria that were used to draft them. He indicated that the criteria were as follows: 1) issues defined in earlier workshops, 2) constraints that have been set forth by the Council and the Commission, and 3) the existing General Plan and future needs. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California July 9, 1990 2 Commissioner Schmidt indicated that the text of the new goals and policies is too wordy and ambiguous in some instances. He also suggested that the format of the City of Simi Valley's General Plan goals and policies might be a good example to follow. Regarding the format, Councilmember Brown stated that the goal should be stated clearly first and policies required to achieve that goal should appear immediately after. Mayor Perez and Councilmember Brown both suggested that the category entitled "issues" in the current Land Use Element can be omitted from consideration. The issues will be addressed as the various land use elements are put in place. Mr. Richards summarized the discussion by stating that staff's recommendation is to begin evaluating the current goals and policies with the category entitled "issues" stricken and to bring the current guidelines up to date with additions to include the philosophical differences between the existing and the proposed goals and policies. By consensus, the Councilmembers and Commissioners decided to proceed with evaluation of the goals and policies as presented by PBR, and directed PBR to revise the draft goals and policies consistent with staff's recommendations. II. Ken Ryan continued the presentation by providing a recap of each of the three land use alternatives. He then stated that PBR needed direction from the City Council and the Planning Commission before they can progress any further. This direction was to be gained by answering six questions regarding land use. These questions were outlined in a memorandum from PBR and were discussed as follows: Question No. 1 Should Specific Plan Area designations be used for large undeveloped areas as a method for controlling growth, providing for the extension of services and circulation improvements in and around the city? By consensus, the Councilmembers and Commissioners decided in favor of the use of Specific Plan Area designations within the City. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California July 9, 1990 3 Question No. 2 Should hillside densities be based on a 20 percent or greater slope criteria, and /or should they be based on preservation of the city's "horizon line ?" Councilmember Brown proposed that it should be based on the preservation of the horizon line. In response to Councilmember Lawrason, Cheri Phelps clarified that a horizon line is not the same as a ridgeline. A ridgeline changes as to location of the viewer within the city, but a horizon line remains basically the same with the contour of the horizon. Mr. Kueny said that the same standards for question no. 1 should also apply to question no. 2. He continued by saying that it needs to be determined which participants in the General Plan Update are in the Specific Plan Areas proposed by PBR. Cheri Phelps said PBR can identify the areas that have participants and they are recommending either a specific plan or an overlay designation for the areas with multiple landowners. She explained that the specific plan is for areas with landowners who can agree on the development schedules and that the overlay designation is for areas with multiple landowners who may not be in concert on all development issues. The overlay designation allows the development to proceed without one owner delaying the entire process for the others. Commissioner Schmidt indicated his support if the question is restated to read "Should hillside densities be based on a 20 percent or greater slope criteria and development of those areas which have been identified above the horizon line ?" He stated that it is essential for clarity that they identify the affected participants in the General Plan now. Their property may be given the overlay type designation later on and will be considered on that basis, but it is important to have those land areas identified. By consensus, the Council and Commission members agreed with Commissioner Schmidt's proposed change and to give further consideration to the question when the affected participants in the General Plan Update are identified. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California July 9, 1990 4 Question No. 3 Is a restrictive open space category appropriate to limit future development in areas of significant natural resources (oak groves, arroyo areas, etc.)? Councilmember Brown said that changing certain industrial areas to a restrictive open space category will be an extremely difficult choice with existing structures already there. It will cause dissatisfaction with current landholders. Pat Richards emphasized at this point the importance of the open space designation and that it should not be considered lightly. Councilmember Scullin stated that the preservation of oak trees and other natural elements can be accomplished without tying it to the zoning restrictions. By Council consensus, it was decided that the Open Space 4 designation will not work within City boundaries. Restrictive language will be used when development is proposed for these areas. The Open Space designation could be used in the expanded study area. Ouestion No. 4 What is the appropriate intensity for downtown development (i.e., consistent with or greater than the current downtown area study)? There was Council consensus that the intensity for downtown development should be consistent with the current downtown area study. Ouestion No. 5 Should the current General Plan Amendment applicants receive their requested land use changes? By City Council consensus, the discussion of this question was deferred to be included in the discussion of the land use alternatives. A recess was taken at 9:30 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. r' Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California July 9, 1990 Ouestion No. 6 What is the Council's preferred circulation improvement scenario based on the traffic consultant's recommendations as shown? The existing circulation element would remain the same and two arterial roadways (east /west and north /south) would be added to give maximum flexibility and room for growth. III. Alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report were presented as follows: City Incorporated Area "The Project" - Existing general plan land use corrected to show approved developments such as Mountain Meadows, villa Campesina, Griffin Campus Hills, Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation, and Freeway Business Center, existing parks, the current Carlsberg Specific Plan project, and General Plan Update applicant requests as originally submitted. Does not reflect Westland Company's current proposal (multi - family along Los Angeles Avenue and high density single - family along Arroyo). Final plan will include specific plan designations for certain areas. Alternative 1 - No Project (existing General Plan). Alternative 2 - A less intense alternative to consist of existing (corrected) General Plan, the Carlsberg Specific Plan as currently proposed, a reduction of the commercial area south of Los Angeles Avenue between Moorpark Avenue and Maureen Lane by approximately 40 percent, and each General Plan Update applicant request at one land use designation lower than requested. Alternative 3 - To include all components of Alternative 2, the Westland Company's current development proposal, and the Estes Trust property as Rural Low. Sphere of Influence Expansion Area "The Project" - Alternative 1 with change to school sites to reflect 20 acre minimum size. Correct eastern boundary for proposed Specific Plan No. 4 and correct land use Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California July 9, 1990 summary to be consistent with new boundary (current boundary extends into Simi Valley's Sphere of Influence). Also, the precise boundary of Happy Camp Regional Park should be shown. Alternative 1 - No Project (City and County existing General Plans) . Alternative 2 - An alternative which would not result in ADT exceeding that produced by one dwelling unit per acre for entire study area (i.e., 131,000 ADT). Uses other than residential would be permitted as long as maximum ADT was not exceeded. Alternative 3 - Original Sphere Area Alternative 2 as proposed by PBR. IV. Public Speakers: A. Dennis Hardgrave, representing the Levy Company, 1830 Lockwood ,#110, Oxnard, requested the 139 -acre tract west of the Buttercreek I tract be shown as a separate Specific Plan area in the sphere area. He also outlined that 1) the hillside ordinance does not provide flexibility that the specific plan concept does, 2) specific plans area good tool in the case of multiple landowners with usable planning modules that can be adopted, 3) the Levy Company will continue to work on the 118 bypass proposal. B. Gary Austin, representing Messenger Investment Corporation, 17512 Von Karman, Irvine, indicated his firm's general desires at this point as being 1) to support the specific plan concept in the sphere -of- influence areas, 2) establish a 20% range of affordable housing in development, 3) to have a connector road from Alamos Canyon to Broadway, and 4) to have open space land designations at approximately 40 -50% versus 25 %. C. Eddie Ramseyer, Ramseyer & Associates, 1881 Knoll Drive, Ventura, asked when the next General Plan Update Workshop will be held. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California July 9, 1990 Pat Richards indicated at this point that the next workshop will be to accomplish the following: 1) consider the preferred project plan for the City limits and the Sphere -of- Influence area, 2) consider revised policies, and 3) presentation by PBR of a screen - checked Environmental Impact Report to the Council and Planning Commission for review. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Qe'-'e, `M Pte/ Mayor, Bernardo M. Perez ,/ n Wozniak, Co fission Chairman nmmFCm•