Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1991 0114 PC SPCMINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION Moorpark, California January 14, 1991 A Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of the Cit:y of Moorpark, California. Held on January 14, 1991 in the City 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 called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Lawrason and Chairman Talley. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Montgomery, Perez, Wozniak, and Mayor Lawrason. Present: Commissioners Schmidt, Torres, Wesner, and Chairman a Talley. Absent: None. Other City Officials and Staff Present: Steven Kueny, City Manager; Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development; John Knipe, City Engineer; Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. Ken Ryan, Cheri Phelps representing Phillips, Brandt and Redd.ick. Kendall Elmer, representing Austin -Foust Associates. 3. General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Update An introduction and project overview was provided by Ken Ryan which included changes to policies since the last workshop. At this point in the meeting Mr. Richards proceeded by stating that staff had not completed their comments on the revised documents, but had prepared a preliminary list of questions and comments on these documents for discussion purposes. j The Mayor asked if any Councilmembers or Commissioners had any 1 specific comments before proceeding with staff's list of �' questions and comments. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California Paste 2 January 14, 1991 Commissioner Schmidt commented on the following: a. That Policy 15.6 implement a sanitation program; and that a recycling program be encouraged. b. That Policy 12.5 is vague and does not reference solid waste. C. That Page 8 paragraphs 2 -4, should provide information that the reader needs to know, not a history. The concern is cumulative impacts regional and County general plans, and how this interacts with this city's planning process. d. To provide a policy relating to solid waste and a separate policy on protection of aquifers. BY CCINSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined to proceed q with the list of staff questions presented by the Director. The Director identified staff's report dated January 14, 1991. Mr. Richards indicated that he would proceed to read each of staff" s comments to the Draft General Plan Update. 4. Land Use Element (1) Primary concern to staff is in regard to the draft land use plan that will be distributed with the Draft EIR. Currently the land use plan for the existing City limits shows all of the land use designations as requested by the applicants. while this may be appropriate for analysis in the EIR as so - called worst case, all of the requested land use designations are not appropriate from a planning perspective. For example, the Estes High Density Residential land use request would result in spot zoning and would be incompatible with adjacent rural /agricultural land use. Staff also identified the need to look more carefully at some of the proposed Specific Plan land uses. Specific Plan 4 has an earthquake fault running through it, landslides, and fault rupture hazards have been identified. The County is studying this area to see if it could even accommodate i ten 40 -acre lots. The draft land use plan shows 843 dwelling units in this area. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 3 January 14, 1991 BY C INSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined to leave the Estes land use designation as requested for now. Change Specific Plan 4 to an OS -2 land use (ldu /40 acres). (2) Should Table 1 identify how approved projects in the City would change the land use inventory given in Table 1? Mr. Richards indicated that city staff would provide projects filed and approved data from Development Status Report to PBR. (3) Should PBR delete reference to SCAG's jobs /housing balance goals in the Land Use Element since neither the City nor the County have taken a position on this? Discussion on jobs /housing balance will be included in EIR. BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined to delete reference to SCAG numbers, page 4 paragraph three. To modify Policy 13.5 to read: Work towards a balanced job /housing mix. (4) Are PBR's definitions for "suburban rural community character ", "valley floor ", "town center ", and "downtown area" acceptable ?. See Overview section, pages 1 and 2, which includes some definitions. Would exhibits be more appropriate in some cases? BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined the following: i. to provide exhibits; that Page 48 no. 25 could provide more detail, specifics, implementation measures. ii. that Policy 16.2 - visual horizon lines -needs to be identified with a graphic illustration. iii. delete "...........strongly discourages...." and replace with "restricts or prohibits." iv. that the Hillside Ordinance Committee had identified concerns within hillside development and �- that the committee's prior work be used to define important ridgelines. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Counci.l /Planning Commission Moorpark, C :alifornia Page 4 January 14, 1991 Ken Ryan representing PBR referenced page 26 Specific Plan 1 - Viewshed and stated that important visual horizon lines are better defined at the time of Specific Plan preparation. BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council directed staff to work with the consultant to develop horizon line exhibit. (5) Are all of the "Issues" in section 3.0 - Community Issues (pages 6 and 7) addressed? BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined that Page 6 under Redevelopment, to delete, ".1a.,...deteriorated ....... ; and that regional plans be summarized and identify how they interact? (6) Should there be an exhibit which shows visual horizon _ :Lines and significant hillsides? BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined that it could provide for more detailed information, and directed Staff and consultant to work together. (7) :Residential Density Ranges - Text currently shows that the maximum allowable development density permitted within residential land use categories is the average or mid -range (refer to pages 20 and 21 of the draft Land Use and Circulation text). The higher density of a range is allowed when a project provides certain amenities. It may be more appropriate to show that the maximum density permitted is the low- range. The mid- and high- _ range would then be allowed based on provision of amenities such as affordable housing. Otherwise, there is no purpose behind having the low range. BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council modified page 20 to provide rounded numbers on low side: 1.0 - 1.9, 2.0 - 2.9, 3.0 - 3.9. (8) In the Sphere study area, should the land use map show all mineral resource overlay areas currently shown on the County General Plan? Our land use plan currently shows r' a mineral resource overlay for the Blue Star property only. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 5 January 14, 1991 BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council directed staff to identify mineral resources areas. Use county overlay designations as reference. (9) Currently Specific Plan Areas are numbered with the lower numbers in the proposed Sphere Area being studied and the higher numbers in the City limits. This appears backwards. Staff has requested that the Specific Plan Areas proposed in the City have the lower numbers. PBR wants to wait until the final documents and maps are being prepared to make this change. This is acceptable as long as we do not end up with a EIR that has different numbering from the final Land Use Element. BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council concurred with staff. (10) Should PBR change the requested JBR "church" land use to institutional? The Council may want to consider requiring a certain percentage of area for institutional !' uses in all of the proposed specific plan areas. BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council revised "public /institutional" be provided, and that institutional be defined not to include a jail use. 5. Circulation Element Comments BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council directed the consultant to revise and use ll "x17" exhibits instead of 8- 1 /2 "xil "; and delete the bikeway along Arroyo Simi on figure 2. (1) Should the Circulation Element exhibits show roadway, bike and trail linkages north, south, east and west of the City? BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council revise the bikeway map, and directed the committee to revise the equestrian trail map. That Alamos Canyon be shown connected to Highway 118 on Figure 1. (2) Should there be a proposed railroad grade separation �! within the existing City limits? Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark. California Pacre 6 14 1 1 BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council concurred to have a grade separation within the existing city limits and that it be west of Gabbert Road. (3) Should Figure 1 (page 13) show a collector between the Moorpark Freeway and New Los Angeles Avenue and Simi Valley Freeway and Collins Drive? BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council directed staff that it remain as is. (4) Should Liberty Bell Road be shown as connecting Los Angeles Avenue and Poindexter Avenue? BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Councils direction was that it be left in, pending a separate general plan amendment study which has not yet been completed. (5) Should the Los Angeles Avenue north bypass road be shown as extending beyond City limits to the West? BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined that highway 118 be extended beyond Grimes Canyon as a dashed line, and request a legal opinion to determine the appropriateness of extending highway 118. (6) Should the proposed "B" Street be deleted? BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined to delete A Street north of highway 118. (7) Should Figure 2 show a bikeway on Spring Road between High Street and Los Angeles Avenue and northward along Moorpark Avenue? BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined that a footnote be added to the map that would clarify Class 3, and that Class 2 to Highway 23 bypass be added. (8) Tract 4620 will provide a trail easement. Should Figure 3 in the Circulation Element show a trail linkage along "B" Street and across walnut Canyon Road below "B" Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the r City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark. California Page 7 January 14, 1991 street? Should other proposed equestrian trails on Figure 3 be revised? BY C aNSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined that this issue be deferred to Council committee (Councilmember Montgomery). (9) Should typical roadway graphic sections be included. BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council concurred that typical roadway graphic sections be included. (10) Should Unidos St. /Majestic Court be off -set at Moorpark Avenue? BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council determined that Majestic Court be adjusted to eliminate the offset. (11) Should the Introduction section say something about the Sphere study? BY CONSENSUS: By consensus the Council concurred that an introduction section be prepared for future events. And the term "balance" on page 2, under Goals and Policies, needs to be explained. Mr. Elmer to rewrite "adequately serves the proposed land use ". AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING A 15 MINUTES RECESS WAS CALLED. Comments received by the following: (1) John Newton, 4410 Summer Glen, Moorpark, CA Consultant for applicants under the General Plan Amendment request. Mr. Newton's request was that the following be considered: 1) the use of slope density formula in hillside areas; 2) mobilehome park for seniors, high density within the Estes Trust; 3) State The Surface Mining & Reclamation Act requires that mineral resources �! of statewide or regional significance, as defined by State Geologist, be designated on General Plan map; 4) Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 8 January 14 1991 that General Plan map include entire area of interest; 5) concerned with traffic circulation on Casey Road if provided as a through street. (2) Dennis Hardgrave, Levy Company representative. DPS 1830 Lockwood #10, Oxnard, CA Mr. Hardgrave gave an overview of the Levy Company revised proposal. Requested that staff revise map and waive 20% slope requirement for Specific Plan areas. Specific Plan 7 be changed from 450 to 950 dwelling units. (3) Gary Austin, 17512 Von Barman, Irvine. Representing Messenger Investment Company. Mr. Austin requested that the 208 slope criteria be eliminated. (4) Barbara Shultz, 116 Sierra Avenue, Moorpark, CA. Ms. Shultz was concerned with residential development adjacent to industrial or commercial development. That with proper land use designations there would not be a reoccurrence of the issues brought before her and neighbors in the recent request for approval of commercial uses adjacent to residential. Ms. Schultz was not clear with the intent of Policy 9.7. Mr. Ryan briefly explained that Policy 9.7 was to provide for future development to be compatible with existing residential, industrial and commercial uses. Also, please restrict any additional traffic on Poindexter Avenue. (5) Kurt Fasmer, 10811 Citrus Drive, Moorpark,Home Acres, CA. Mr. Fasmer, a fire fighter for Los Angeles County strongly recommended that the staff not approve any hillside development referencing his current experience in the Santa Barbara hillsides and found it a difficult and dangerous development. Also and stated that currently there are odor problems with the existing sanitation plant. His other concern was the increase of noise, pollution, and truck braking. Whether Highway 118 by pass should be connected at a 90 degree angle to the existing Highway 118. Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council /Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 9 January 14, 1991 (6) Eddie Ramseyer, JBR representative, 1881 Knoll Drive, Ventura, CA. Mr. Ramseyer suggested the following: 1) that a north access be provided to High Street; 2) a service road be provided parallel to the 118 Freeway and west of Princeton Avenue to connect to proposed State Route 23 by pass; 3) and that the second access tie -in truck traffic from north Broadway. (7) Charles Schwabauer, 12681 Broadway, Moorpark, CA. Regarding the equestrian trails, Mr. Schwabauer felt that this was not a compatible use in the agricultural zones and that staff consider a realignment. At this point in the meeting Ken Ryan provided the Council and Commission with a tentative schedule of workshop meetings in mid- March. That next workshop would be to discuss the completion of the Land Use and Circulation Element, and may IWO include a presentation on the Draft EZR. Cheri Phelps provided the Council and Commission members with a forn showing an outline of Proposed Draft /Requested Change. with this form Ms. Phelps would list all revisions required before completing the Land Use Element. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Pau _W. Lawrason J , Mayor Chairman, P anning Commission ATTEST: