Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2003 1202 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 2, 2003 Paae 1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on December 2, 2003, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Landis called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair DiCecco led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Lauletta, Peskay and Pozza, Vice Chair DiCecco and Chair Landis were present. Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community Development Director; Walter Brown, Assistant City Engineer; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner; and Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Amended Regular Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2003. B. Regular Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2003. MOTION: Commissioner Peskay moved and Commissioner Lauletta seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Amended Regular Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2003 and the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2003, be approved. (Unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \03 1202 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 2, 2003 Paae 2 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. 2002 -452) A. Consider Proposed Development Agreement with SunCal Companies (Moorpark 150 LLC) pertaining to General Plan Amendment 1998 -01, Zone Change 1998 -01, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5130 and Residential Planned Development No. 1998 -02. Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2003- recommending to the City Council approval of a Development Agreement with Moorpark 150, LLC. Barry Hogan provided the staff presentation. The Commission questioned staff about affordable housing units including:, homeowner's equity, implementation of the program, and covenants. They questioned mention of the driveway length, usage of the Consumer Price Index increase, unit square footage, air quality fee calculation and charges. Chair Landis opened the public hearing. Ed Pickett, applicant, was available to answer questions. The Planning Commission questioned applicant on the location of one -story homes and location changes for the one and two -story units. Chair Landis closed the public hearing. MOTION: Vice Chair DiCecco moved and Commissioner Peskay seconded a motion to approve staff recommendations and adopt Resolution No. PC- 2003 -452. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) B. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, for 1.650 Housina Units on 3.586.3 Acres Located Generallv S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Fina1\03_1202_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 2, 2003 Paae 3 North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN: 500 -0 -120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, - 145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -2251 - 235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, - 145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0- 110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150- 185) (Continued from November 18, 2003 Meeting) Staff Recommendation: Continue to accept public comments and continue the agenda item with the public hearing open to the December 16, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Dave Bobardt provided the staff presentation. The Planning Commission meeting was recessed at 7:30 p.m. due to computer technical difficulties. The Planning Commission meeting reconvened at 7:33 p.m. Frank DePasquale, Moorpark Unified School District Superintendent, discussed future population growth charts, which did not include North Park Village; the Vision 2010 Committee (Strategic Planning Team); balancing school attendance with ethnicity; slow learners and household incomes; accommodations to increase ethnic interest; development buildout schedule; history and projections; district goals; CBEDS; bonds; completed and ongoing projects; pending site acquisitions; generation factors and comprehensive versus academic schools. The Commission questioned Dr. DePasquale on what factors were used in MUSD's projections; what time periods were used; what bond projects represent, classroom capacities; ethnic enrollment percentages; design capacity, creation of a Master School Plan consistent with the City's General Plan expected buildout and inclusion of funding and strategic locations; population demands; school grade levels; North Park Village requirements; and one high school for the city population. Kim Kilkenny, applicant, commented on MUSD mitigation fees and provided the Commission, staff and the public S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \03 1202 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 2, 2003 Pacae 4 with a copy of his Power Point presentation which dealt with his responses to inquiries raised from the last Commission meeting, which included using more narrow street sections; neighborhood density and lot sizes; density and relocation of thirty -three lots; retail versus neighborhood center area; pedestrian connections; lanes and median on the Moorpark College road; architectural style and elimination of the "Italianate" style home; guaranteeing the Preserve will be placed in public ownership and assurance of Preserve access and maintenance; lake maintenance and public access and inclusion in HOA CC &Rs; fiscal and economic impact on the City and the creation of a Community Facility District; quasi - public uses and broadening opportunities; Collins Road traffic improvements; interchange timing schedule in relation to construction; interchange security and applicant paying deposits; the processing schedule for the project and Memorandum of Understanding. The Commission questioned Mr. Kilkenny on parks and active recreation. Francis Chan, Pastor at Cornerstone Church in Simi Valley and Moorpark, spoke in support of the project and stated that he found a need for more church space and parishioners and North Park Village could offer that. David Bagwell, resident, spoke in support of the project and stated that the applicant did more than was needed by providing an interchange, paying a lot of money back to the community, including state and federal taxes. He commented that he liked the school options, stated it was a beautiful project and that it would not disrupt the small town feeling. James Carpenter, resident, spoke in support of the project and stated that North Park Village had presented a beneficial project, which offers numerous public benefits and facilities in addition to the specific development. He commented that Moorpark had catered to the people and North Park Village has bent over backwards by listening to the public and S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Fina1\03_1202_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 2, 2003 Paae 5 incorporating their responses. He felt fortunate to have this project in Moorpark. Tim Rosevear, resident, left the meeting earlier, but had submitted his comments on a written statement card. Harold Bilich, resident, not in support of the project. He commented that he liked the rural atmosphere, and that there were still questions about traffic at Collins and Campus Park Drive. He commented on tax revenue at only a 3 -7o difference; the observatory site, the Fire Department, school and the sales tax loss because residents will go to Simi Valley and not Moorpark Marketplace. He commented that the developer addresses issues after the public questions him and does not offer beforehand, which is a detriment. He stated that the City should forget million dollar housing because it will not benefit the residents, but the City should increase low income housing which is a benefit. Lyle Pennington, resident, spoke in support of the project and stated he was attracted to the planning in Moorpark and the quality of the project when finished. He stated he had seen two presentations from the College on how they would mitigate traffic with growth. He commented that the public should not be on North Park's back, because with or without this project traffic is still a challenge. Suzanne Wilson, resident, not in support of the project. She stated that she read an article that Caltrans has delayed the widening of the 118 freeway and now 250 -300 high school students will be traveling Collins Drive. She commented that the developer promises working with Caltrans on the interchange, but she expressed her doubt and said that the developer should get the money from Caltrans. Chris proj ect all of Childers, resident, spoke in support of the and commented that North Park Village has met the public's concerns. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \03_1202_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 2, 2003 Paae 6 Tim Saivar, resident, not in support of the project. He commented on his concerns regarding the Hidden Creek project and the current status of the neighborhoods in the City. He stated he believes the people will go to Simi Valley with their tax dollars. He commented that Hidden Creek proposed 2 golf courses while North Park proposes a lake but there are no outlets for the lake and expressed concerns with erosion of the land and where the water will go. He commented on existing commercial centers. He commented further that if this project is not developed, we will have a lot of bike paths, bike trails and picnic grounds as opposed to a gated community for the affluent. John Shishino -Cruz, resident, not in support of the project. He expressed appreciation to the developer for working with people's concerns. He stated that he still wants to see answers to his questions on safety and would like the comment period left open longer. He commented that traffic has not been brought up and it will get worse and the sports park is good for little leagues but will bring more kids and more houses. Diane Galvin, resident, spoke in support of the project, and stated she watched the Messenger Project, the SOAR initiative, processed over a long time. She stated that she would like to move up to a larger home and would like to see the project go to the voters within sixty days. Janet Murphy, resident, stated that the air, water and land should be held in trust. She commented on the mitigation measures and that the Commission should examine them because mitigation is to lessen the impacts of the project. She stated she would like time to respond to the responses to comments received to the draft EIR and requested the Commission extend the timeframe for that. Denise Piehn, resident, spoke in support of the project, and stated that she followed the Hidden Creek project as well and the current project was an improvement. She commented on the lakes, small S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Fina1\03_1202_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 2, 2003 Paae 7 recreational activities, places to dine, new aquatic programs (water polo and swimming) and stated that she wanted to see this project brought to the voters soon. Lisa Leal, resident, spoke in support of the project and stated that she had reviewed and was not in favor of the Messenger Project. She stated that the current project had ambiance, a school and a fire station. She commented on the applicant's work with the people and the amenities of the proposal. She stated that she wants to live and shop in North Park and wants it brought to the people for a vote. Dorothy Ventemiglio, resident, not in support of the project. She stated that the land is impaired was originally owned by Big Mountain oil companies and now Unocal, which all had oil production and had contaminated the soils. She discussed her understanding of previous production activities and potential contamination issues. She commented that the twenty -five million dollar offramp was not covered in the EIR and commented regarding oil seepage in that area. She commented on the fast pace of the project and concerns relating to potential contamination and proximity to the Simi Valley landfill site. James Roller, resident, not in support of the project. He stated that Moorpark is a beautiful community and has the best high school in the nation. He commented on the presentation. He stated the Commission had done a great job, and commented on growth. He stated the need for presentation of a comprehensive and accurate EIR report, citing the recent fires. Five (5) written statement cards were submitted, three (3 ) in favor and two ( 2 ) in opposition. Their statements will be included in the record. The Commission questioned the process for pursuing the City's fees, using funds to take care of traffic problems, 300 foot buffer versus the proposed 200 foot between homes and brush, the status of the response letters staff has received to the EIR, comments on S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Fina1\03 1202 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of December 2, 2003 Paae 8 land plan and dedication to landscape, and the desired election date for this project. MOTION: Commissioner Pozza moved and Commissioner Lauletta seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: None. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: • December 16, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting: - General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Zone Change No. 2001 -02, and Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 (North Park) Barry Hogan discussed future agenda items. 11. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Commissioner Lauletta moved and Commissioner Peskay seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2003 Final \03 1202 pcm.doc