The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIN 2001 0709 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 9, 2001 1 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission held on July 9, 2001, City Council Chambers, Moorpark Civic Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021. 1) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Parvin called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. 2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairperson Parvin led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. 3) ROLL CALL: Janice Parvin, Chairperson William F. Otto, Vice Chairperson Mark DiCecco Paul Haller Kipp Landis All Commissioners were present at the meeting. Staff attending the meeting included Wayne Loftus, Director of Community Development, John Libiez, Planning Manager /Advanced, Walter Brown, City Engineer, and Celia LaFle:ur, Administrative Secretary. 4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None 5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: CONSENSUS: By consensus of the Commission, Item 7.B. was heard first on the agenda followed by Item 7.A. 6) CONSENT CALENDAR: A) Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 2001 B) Planning Commission Minutes of June 11, 2001 MOTION: Commissioner Haller moved and Commissioner Otto seconded a motion to approve the minutes of June 11, 2001 and June 25, 2001 as presented. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. 7) PUBLIC HEARINGS: C. B) Commercial Planned Del No. CPD 2000.02 for a Jack -in- the -Box Restaurant with drive - through 010709 • pom 11/1/012:56 FM Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 9, 2001 Page 2 Planning Commission action is a recommendation to the City Council who will take final action. Staff Recommendation: 1) Accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2) Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared for the requested entitlement prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2001- recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Commercial Planned Development Permit No. CPD 2000.02. (Continued from June 11, 2001, public hearing open). Mr. Loftus gave the staff report. Reference: Staff report dated July 9, 2001. Randy Christensen, representing Jack in the Box, 100 N. Barralca Avenue. Suite 200, West Covina, CA 91791. Mr. Christensen said the two most critical issues to Jack -in- the -Box were access and project phasing/ construction. Commissioner Parvin questioned the applicant if the project would move forward if only one point of access was allowed on Los Angeles Avenue. Mr. Christensen replied, no. Mr. Christensen said the original plan was to provide access from Leta Yancy Road through the southerly portion of the Mobil gas station /car wash. Mr. Christensen further explained that a single access on Los Angeles Avenue would reduce restaurant sales volumes and was not preferred. Commissioner Landis questioned the applicant if buildout of the two buildings, the office /retail and the restaurant could be guaranteed. Mr. Christensen said he could not comment on the office building since it is sponsored by a separate applicant, but it was possible to develop at the same time. He continued that the developer may be depending on the Jack -in- the -Box purchase to fund the retail /office building, but was not sure. Richard Herman, the applicant's architect, 6009 Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, CA. Mr. Herman said he M: \CLaAeur\M \PC- minutes\2001 minutes \010709 - pcm.doc C A) Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 9, 2001 Page 3 had worked to address the staff and Commission concerns related to design features. Commissioner DiCecco expressed concerns regarding the architecture of the office building including signage, second story window sill heights on the west side of the building and softening of the west side of the building. Commissioners expressed concern that the access issue and timing for the construction of the office building be worked out prior to sending a recommendation forward to City Council. MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Landis seconded a motion to continue this item to the August 27, 2001, Planning Commission meeting, and directed staff and the applicant to work together to provide a second access for the project site. Motion passed with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote. Plan Amendment 98.01, Zone 98.01, Residential Planned Development 98.02, and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5130 (Applicant: SunCal Companies) . A request for General Plan Amendment from Specific Plan to Low Density Residential, a Zone Change from Residential Exclusive 1DU /5 Acres to RPD 1.5 DU /Acre, a Planned Residential Development Permit, and a Tentative Tract Map to create 107 residential lots. The proposed project requests to construct 107 one and two story single family detached residential units on 25 acres of an approximately 70 -acre site with recreational amenities. The project is located on the east side of Walnut Canyon Road (SR -23), north of Wicks Road and south of the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 administration and maintenance facility. Staff Recommendation: Accept public testimony and continue the public hearing open to July 23, 2001. (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of June 25, 2001, public hearing open.) Wayne Loftus gave the staff presentation. Reference: Staff Report dated July 9, 2001. Bill Rattazzi, 21601 Devenshire Street, Chatsworth, CA 91311. Mr. Rattazzi provided the Commission with M: 1CLaFleur \M\PC- minutes12001minutesW10709 - pan.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California ( Minutes of July 9, 2001 N background information about the projects entitlement process. Mr. Rattazzi described the proposal, which involved a development of 27.3 acres of a 70 acre site with 107 single family dwellings and amenities including: ❑ Pool ❑ Internal trail system ❑ 20 foot sideyards between houses ❑ Open Space Mr. Rattazzi further explained that the economics of the project entitlement was an issue of equity, and was concerned that the draft conditions of approval such as off -site improvements could make this project economically difficult to develop. Walter Brown, City Engineer, explained the reimbursement agreement policy concerning public improvements. The Commission's concerns centered on: o Affordable housing opportunities and location. ❑ Pedestrian access Kenneth Moss, the applicant's architect, 226 High Street, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Moss spoke in support of this proposal. Mr. Moss said this development was very important to the community, he hoped that staff, the Commission or Council would not overburden the development proposal with special conditions. He said Moorpark needed to continue to grow. Commissioner Haller suggested that staff return with recommendations on how to handle affordable housing, offer a list of options and potential sites and how to achieve an affordable housing component. The Commission requested that staff clarify a number of conditions proposed. Mr. Loftus said that the conditions proposed were in draft form and the applicant and staff were working out issues related to the Commissions concerns and final conditions would be �. provided for the Commission's review at their July 23, 2001 meeting. M:\ CLafleur \M\PC- minutes\2001minutes \010709 - pan.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of July 9, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Otto stated it was difficult to make a recommendation while no affordable housing component was available to evaluate and consider. The Commission discussed their concerns with this proposed development and related impact fees and other improvements. Walter Brown, City Engineer, explained how impact fees were estimated including being based on information provided by the developer within a traffic study. Impact fees are based upon impacts to the community as identified by studies required to be provided by the project applicant. MOTION: Commissioner Parvin moved and Commissioner Landis seconded a motion to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 2001. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. 8) DISCUSSION ITEMS: None 9) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: None 10) ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Haller seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:27 p.m. Motion passed with a 5:0 unanimous voice vote. R J ce Parvin, Chairperson ATTEST: Celia LaFleur, Secretary to the 'Planning Commission MXLa9eurkM1PCG minutesUDDI minutes1010709 - pcm.doc