Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1991 1220 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on December 20, 1991 in the City Council Chambers. Located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting called to order at 7:13 p.m.. Michael H. Wesner Jr presiding. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Barton Miller. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Steve Brodsky, Christina May, Barton Miller, John Torres; and Chairman Michael Wesner Jr. Absent: None. Other City Officials and Employees present: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development; Kathleen M. Phipps, Associate Planner; Charles Abbott, City Engineer; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary; Ken Ryan, PBR. 4. PROCLAMATIONS. COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None. 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA No items added or reordered. r a: \91A- 12.20 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes for review or approval. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Wesner announced that the public hearings portion of the General Plan Update was closed. That public comments should remain general in nature. Gary Austin, Representing Messenger Investment Company, 17512 Von Karman, Irvine, CA 92714. Mr. Austin was concerned with the Planning Commission concurrence not to include Specific Plan 8. That the City's opportunity to acquire over 2,000 acres of Open Space which would be contiguous to the Happy Camp Regional Park area. He stated that the study area needed to be looked at in the long range perspective. That Specific Plan 8 allowed for an opportunity to provide a bypass to access the SR -118 open space, parks, etc. That the Planning Commission consider making basic circulation designations as recommended within the text documents. That Specific Plan 8 not be abandoned. Abe Guny, 7250 Walnut Canyon Road, Moorpark, CA 93021. Mr. Guny :referenced his 49 acre parcel on the west side of Walnut Canyon Road and requested that the Planning Commission consider recommending to the City Council that his property have the same zoning designation as his adjacent neighbors (Levy, JBR Development). Mr. Guny stated that he would be willing to donate 5 acres of his property so that the City could designate it as a greenbelt area. Dennis Hardgrave, Representing Levy Company, Development Planning Services, 651 Via Alondra, Camarillo, CA. Mr. Hardgrave presented the Commission with material related to "Typical Cross Section Valley Floor - 118 By- Pass." The :Director addressed the Chair saying that any new information submitted would require a majority of four - fifths vote to accept the new material referencing Planning Commission Resolution No. PC -91 -252 Policy and Procedures. a: \91A -12.20 r Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 Page -3- Motion: Moved by Chairman Wesner, second by Commissioner Torres to accept the additional material submitted from Mr. Hardgrave. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Hardgrave commented and clarified the issues on a by -pass roadway, preferred roadbed section, and ridgeline view of the Levy site from Los Angeles Avenue & Liberty Bell and the view to the north of a park site and high density area from Poindexter Avenue. John Newton, Representing JBR Development Co., 4410 Summer Glen Court, Moorpark, CA. 93021. Mr. Newton had no further comments to add to previous statements related to the JBR property. He said he was available to answer any questions. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR No items for consent. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. General Plan Amendment No. GPA -89 -1. Zone Change No. Z- 89-1, and Sphere of Influence Expansion Studv City .initiated Update to the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and associated rezoning within the existing City limits which proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having approximately 14,127 dwelling units, an estimated 204 acres of Commercial and an anticipated 561 acres of industrial development. Also, a Sphere of Influence Expansion Study which proposes a (year 2010) land use plan having a total of approximately 5597 dwelling units and 9 acres of Commercial. There are additional land use changes to include agricultural, open space, park, utilities, and public /institution land uses. The public review period for the Draft EIR was from October 11 to November 25, 1991. a: \91A -12.20 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 The proposed planning area for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update includes the existing City limits and approximately 11,793 acres of unincorporated land surrounding the City. CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 6, 1991 The Director of Community Development gave an overview of the General Plan Update process to date. The Director updated the Commission as to the accomplishments that have already been wade and identified the remainder items still needing to be addressed by the Commission. The Director also for the record identified a letter dated December 20, 1991 from Thomas Berg, Director of Resource Management Agency, County of Ventura. Mr. Berg's letter requested that comments regarding the EIR be addressed prior to the finalization of the EIR. Mr. Ryan, PBR stated where the process was relative to the EIR. That PBR had responded to the County comments, drafted EIR, ;public review had been completed, have responded to all comments submitted. That the document is certifiable and adequate in terms of meeting all of the CEQA requirements. Commissioner Miller said that the Commission's prior recommendation for approval of Alternative 4, continued study of Specific Plan Nos. 1, 2 and 3 indicated all traffic deposited onto the SR -118. That further consideration should be given to Specific Plan Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for east /west, north /south roadways which are not supported by Specific Plan Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Commissioner May said that she would be in favor of incorporated the Sphere of Influence, but the problem is to incorporate with the specific plans in place. She questioned whether there way a way to incorporate the sphere of influence without the specific plans. Mr. Ryan answered "yes." Other land planning designations for these areas outside the city boundaries could be placed. That site specific issues could be dealt with at the Specific Plan :Level and not at the General Plan level. The purpose of designations is for evaluation and for the general understanding of what type of improvements are needed. a: \91A -12.20 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 Pave -5- Commissioner Brodsky commented that previous approved Specific Plans which have come before the Commission seemed to have been linked to an approval. Commissioner Miller went on to say that he could not support allowing County Government to make decisions for Moorpark's future. That the City Council was more suitable in making decisions for Moorpark future. Chairman Wesner inquired what the City could do if the City does not adopt the Sphere of Influence to prevent the County from an undesirable development? The Director replied that County property is County jurisdiction and the City can only have an opinion, but no legal right to determination of land use designations. The Commission call Mr. Austin to the podium to give some background information regarding Specific Plan No. 8. Mr. Austin commented that 20 years ago the Messenger property was zoned in the County with a variety of zones from agricultural to high density. At the time the property owners were having financial difficulties and requested that the property be put into the agricultural preserve zone. And the reason for that was that the property owners would not have to pay the taxes that were related to the zoning that was there. At the time the County approved the agricultural designation they changed the zoning to reflect the land conservation act designation. That historically that property in the County's opinion was to be urbanized. That the County Guideline for Orderly Growth has designated areas where growth was to occur and the Moorpark area has always been an area where urbanization has expected to occur and that the Messenger property would be part of the Moorpark area. That if Moorpark has decided that there is no urbanization to occur, the County and LAFCO could very well allow for urbanization on it's own. Mr. Ryan commented that the Commission could certify and select one of the Alternatives, however this may need to be waived with the fact that all mitigation measures are relative to traffic for the Circulation plan that has been prepared which relates to the preferred project as is. That revisions a: \91A -12.20 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 at this time would require a major revisions to the current land use element. Motion: Commissioner Brodsky moved and Commissioner Torres second the motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Alternative No. 4: "Buildout of the Updated Land Use Plan as proposed for the city area and the existing county general plan for the proposed sphere expansion area;" and further consideration of Specific Plan Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brodsky: Yes Commissioner May: Yes Commissioner Miller: No Commissioner Torres: Yes Chairman Wesner: Yes The Director referenced a staff report prepared for the Commission which outlined matters of discussion to be covered at this General Plan Update meeting. The following was the general consensus of the Planning Commission. Circulation Discussions: The Commission concluded all recommendations regarding the Circulation Element, Figure 2. A. ]does B Street need to be included on the proposed Circulation Element. - The Commission's recommendation was NO. B. Should the future SR 118 intersect at Buttercreek Road and Los Angeles Avenue? - The Commission recommended that it be moved further west (between the Bugle Boy /Jemco property line) a: \91A- 12.20 �1- Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 C. Should Spring Road be shown as a 4 -lane arterial or only a 2 -lane local collector? - Commission recommended a 4 lane collector on Spring Road. D. ]Does the bikeway network meet anticipated bikeway needs? - Commission recommended a Class 1 Bikeway (bikeway path), or Class 2 Bikeway (bikeway path) where appropriate - on Science Drive, Peach Hill from Science to Spring Road. The Commission also concurred to remove Liberty Bell from the Circulation Element - between Los Angeles Avenue and Poindexter Avenue. The Director identified that within the Housing Element there were needs to provide for additional housing opportunities, which currently only 2 remaining high density areas. One is at the rear of the Mission Bell Plaza, and the other is the r Bibo property area. The following was the general consensus of the Planning Commission. Land 'Use Discussions 1. Evaluate changes in land use designations not proposed by applicants see Exhibit 1; The Commission concurred to change the land use identified as commercial to high density on those ;properties (currently identified as C -2 property) north of the Arroyo, south of Los Angeles Avenue, and west of :Moorpark Avenue and adjacent to the Westland Company .project. 2. :Evaluate the proposed densities and land uses for the Specific Plans within the City: - The Planning Commission recommended that the following Land use designations for a., b. and c. remain as follows: a. Specific Plan Area #1 has a gross density of 2.9 units per acre. a:\91A -12.20 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 b. Specific Plan Area #2 has a gross density of 1.6 units per acre. C. Specific Plan Area #3 has a gross density of .66 units per acre. 3. :Review Appendix A (pg. 48 -49) Is the evaluation criteria for Specific Plan areas acceptable? The Commission concurred that the Evaluation Criteria remain as currently presented for Specific Plan areas. 4. Is the determination of the Valley Floor (Exhibit 1) appropriate. The Commission called Mrs. Brown to the podium to explain the draft hillside ordinance. Mrs. Brown reminded the Commission of the Draft Hillside Ordinance in that it states " land that is viewed from the valle=y floor" which would not include the highest point of Tierra Rejada Road as a valley floor. the Commission concurred that the Valley Floor - Exhibit 1 of the Land Use Element remain as presented. 5. Is the Commission in agreement with the Horizon lines as specified within Exhibit 5? The Commission concurred that the Horizon Lines - Exhibit 5 of the Land Use Element remain as presented. 6. It was originally anticipated that the C -I (Commercial Industrial) zone would be used as a land use designation for the downtown area. Inasmuch as by mid -1992 a Commuter Rail facility will be coming into the downtown area, is the C -I land use category appropriate? Staff recommends a land use overlay zone for the area adjacent to the Commuter Rail facilities. An overlay zone, perhaps C -1 (R.R.), will allow the creation of a balanced mixture of retail service uses which will reinforce the downtown area as a place of commerce, culture, recreation, and transportation center. rhe Commission concurred and found it appropriate to delete the C -I land use designation. a:\91A -12.20 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 Page -9- Commissioner May referenced page 30 of the Land Use Element, 3rd paragraph "...and its relationship to the SR -23 freeway - should be corrected to read ".........and its relationship to the SR -118 freeway." 7. The Commission agreed with the land use requests made by the following General Plan participants: Participant Acreage Current GP Proposed GP 1. Moorpark Unified 26.1 S H, VH School District 2. Estes 34.53 AG1 H 3. Giuny 64.75 OS1 RL 4. Kavli 29.93 RH I -1 - The Commission concurred to modify the land use requests made by the following General Plan participants: 5. Schleve 70.59 RL RH,OS -2, VH, PARK, M (requestedOS -1) - rhe Commission concurred to approve the applicants request. Commissioner Miller in opposition stated that the circulation as it currently exist generates high volumes of traffic. Commissioner Miller could not concur with the applicants land use request. rhe Commission concurred to modify the following ,proposals (modifications reflected in bold print). 6. Levy Company 285.0 AG1 C -2, M, P, L, RR, H add VH The Director identified that the maximum dwelling units allow for Levy Company would be 831 dwelling units. 7. JBR Development Co. 445.0 OS1, RL ML, RH, C -1, P, OS rewave RH, add H and H a: \91A -12.20 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 8. .A & A Development Co. 3.86 VH (Anderson) 9. ;Scaroni 1.75 ML Page -10- C -2 C -2 (requested CO) add H Commissioner May referenced page IV -6 of DEIR, second paragraph, last sentence: "It should also be noted that the level of traffic proposed on Walnut Canyon Road between Casey Road and Broadway Road under both existing and proposed General Plan conditions would require a four -lane roadway (Walnut Canyon Road is a two -lane roadway in the existing General Plan). The Director stated that it was a determination that Walnut Canyon Road remain as a two -lane road. Mr. Ryan stated that he would check with consultant and believed that all the analysis was prepared under a two -lane road and that the language. Mr. Ryan referenced page V -2 where there was no reference to Walnut Canyon as a four -lane road. Chairman Wesner shared the Commission's concurrence that the Circulation Element should be amended to reflect Walnut Canyon as a two -lane road. The Commission called Mr. Newton to the podium to give background information regarding the Estes proposal. Mr. Newton commented that when the Levy Company dedicates a portion of their property west of Gabbert Road to the City as a park then the Estes property will be conditioned to develop the access road from Gabbert Road to the park. Phe Commission concurred to direct staff to revise the Residential Land Use Designations on page 20 to reflect the items of land use designation as previously addressed. the Commission concurred to modify the General Plan /Zoning Compatibility Matrix as follows: 1. Delete Rural Low (1 /du minimum 5 acres) - under AGRICULTURE -AE and OS. a:\91A -12.20 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 Place Rural Low (1 /du minimum 5 acres) - under RESIDENTIAL -RE 2. Delete Rural High (1 /du minimum 1 acre) - under AGRICULTURE -AE and OS. Place Rural High (1 /du minimum 1 acre) - under RESIDENTIAL -RE Chairman Wesner with the concurrence of the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution approving the General Plan Update with the specific recommendations address at public hearings of November 4, 18, 21, 25, December 6, 20, 1991. That this resolution return on the Planning Commission Agenda of January 6, 1992 on Consent Calendar. Chairman Wesner thanked his Commissioners, participants, staff and consultants for their input, dedication and time spent in the Ganeral Plan Update process. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. 11. STAFF COMMENTS The Director reminded the Commission of their recent request to reserve the Council Chambers for a possible meeting on Friday January 10, 1992 commencing at 6:00 p.m. 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairman Wesner stated that if there is litigation or potential litigation it should not color what has been done and will depend on staff to guide the Commission and stay within a narrow range and lean toward being conservative and let the Council address the matters of concern. Commissioner Brodsky question and commented on the December 20, 1991 letter received by the County requesting that their comments be addressed prior to the Final Environmental Impact Report being prepared. a:\91A- 12.:20 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 20, 1991 Commissioner Torres welcomed Commissioner Miller back to the Planning Commission. Also, that all have a happy and safe holiday season. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 14. None. There being no further business the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:57 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: Celia LaFleur, Secretary a: \91A -12.20