Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2004 0316 PC REGPlanning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paae 1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on March 16, 2004, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic Center; 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Pozza called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Landis led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Commissioners DiCecco, Landis and Peskay, Vice Chair Lauletta and Chair Pozza were present. Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community Development Director; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; Walter Brown, Assistant City Engineer; and Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary. Also attending the meeting was Dana Privitt from BonTerra Consulting. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. S. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Regular Meeting Minutes of March 2, 2004. MOTION: Vice Chair Lauletta moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of March 2, 2004, be approved. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. 2004 -454) S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1 \04_0316_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paae 2 A. Consider General Plan Amendment No.. 2003 -02, Zone Change No. 2003 -02, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5425, and Residential Planned Development (RPD) No. 2003- 02, a Request to Subdivide Approximately 15 Acres for Condominium Purposes to Develop 102 Duplex-Style and Detached Condominium Dwellings and a Recreation Facility, Located at the Terminus of Fremont Street, South of Los Angeles Avenue (Hwy 118) and East of Majestic Court, on the Application of Shea Homes, Inc.; (506 -0- 020 -23, 506 -0- 020 -31, 506 -0- 020 -32, 506- 0- 020 -33, 506 -0- 020 -34) (Continued from March 2, 2004 Meeting) Staff Recommendation: Accept public testimony and continue the item with the public hearing open to April 6, 2004. Barry Hogan presented the agenda report and stated that the applicant had requested a two week continuance to allow additional review of the Conditions of Approval with staff. Ro Hawkinson, resident, representing the Fremont Street Homeowner's group, questioned the status and location of the recreation facility. He commented on the fence height around the property and requested that it be a minimum of eight feet high. Mr. Hogan responded to Mr. Hawkinson, stating the recreation area was no longer proposed to be adjacent to the property on Fremont Street and was placed at the elbow where Majestic Street turns north. He stated normal fence height was six feet, which could vary to eight feet in some areas. Mr. Hogan stated that the issue would be further discussed at the April 6 meeting. One statement card was submitted which was neutral on the project. The statement will be included in the record. Mr. Hogan stated the trees on Fremont Street would not survive the amount of fill required for this project and would be removed. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Final \04_0316_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 MOTION: Commissioner Lauletta seconded a recommendation. Landis moved and Vice motion to approve (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) Paae 3 Chair staff B. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02, for 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally 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, -225, - 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 March 2, 2004 Meeting) Staff Recommendation: 1) Continue to accept public testimony and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2004- recommending to the City Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 with revisions, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02. David Bobardt gave the staff presentation. He stated that staff was in receipt of correspondence from Lowell Preston of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency which indicated satisfaction with the water quality analysis for this project. He also commented that a large quantity of new material had been distributed, and the public had requested additional time to review it. He suggested that the Commission might wish to consider keeping the public hearing open to the April 6 meeting. He also commented on corrections that were needed to the agenda report, which were: Bottom of stamp page 23, "Current Urban Restriction Boundary" should say "City Urban Restriction Boundary "; stamp page 24 - third bullet item can be deleted because there is no property identified as prime agricultural land; stamp pages 34 and 35, Exhibits B -1 and B -2 have a minor S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0316 _pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paae 4 error with respect to the exiting CURB boundary regarding a parcel adjacent to Highway 23. The Commission questioned staff regarding the 150 multi- family units reserved for low income or affordable housing, the Broadway extension and a west road terminus. At 7:30 p.m. Commissioner DiCecco left the dais, returning at 7:42 p.m. The Commission continued to question staff regarding east and west access to this project, applicant and staff's concurrence on mixed uses, the inclusion of a neighborhood center, and concerns with zoning. Kim Kilkenny, applicant, addressed the timing of the intersection improvements; the grading schedule and building permits; the interchange schedule and applicant's commitment to the City; Planning Area 31 and concurrence with staff's recommendations; clarification of school impact fees to be paid to MUSD, the Commission's recommendation for inclusion of a western extension to the project, and that an affordable housing agreement will help decide the mixed uses. James Roller, resident, not in support of the proposal, commented on excavation quantities, the Ventura County Health Department Pamphlet he distributed, and disturbance of contaminated soil. He also requested a Phase II toxicology study be performed. Rick Katz, resident, spoke in support of the proposal, commenting on the Planning Commission's diligence and the developer's continuous efforts for the past six months. He stated that this project should go forward for the people's vote. Suzanne Wilson, resident, not in support of the proposal, stated her concerns regarding oil and gas leases including building near and over well sites and the supervision of clean up within the site and on adjacent areas. She expressed concern for leaks, and questioned process for soil sampling. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Final \04_0316_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paae 5 David Bagwell, resident, spoke in support of the proposal and commented that the stages of planning for this project have gone well and that CALOSHA could apply restrictions on the development if there is soil disturbance. He stated there is a need for housing in California. Janet Murphy, resident, not in support of the proposal, commented on the mitigation monitoring program for the project, requesting that the Commission continue the hearing so that the public could fully review the new materials. She stated that the Mitigation Monitoring Program failed for a vernal pool in the Carlsberg project. She also stated the City should save open space and that the questions on the oil wells were important. Tim Saivar, resident, not in support of the proposal, requested the Commission not certify the EIR at this time due to the additional materials provided. He commented on concerns related to western access and traffic. He discussed Level of Service issues at Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive He commented that the shopping center and college improvements would increase traffic. He stated the interchange at the 118 freeway has not been done due to lack of funds and there was no guarantee by Caltrans for the improvements to the intersection. Dorothy Ventiamiglia, resident, not in support of the proposal, stated her concerns about hazardous waste and an e -mail she sent to the City regarding toxic exposure at Beverly Hills High School and an alleged cover -up. She stated there were new laws or guidelines coming up that would govern this project, and that new schools would have to be built on higher standards due to the close proximity of the children and that the homes should be built to a higher standard. Lisa Leal, resident, spoke in support of the proposal and commented on that the issues mentioned by the speakers tonight had been reviewed many times by staff and the Commission. She stated she was not in favor of the Hidden Creek project and that North Park had more to offer Moorpark, such as the fire station, helipad and offramp. She commented on complaints about the S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2009 Final \04_0316_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paae 6 dirt in the air, stating if that were a concern then no homes would be built. She stated this was an excellent project and it was time to move forward. Eight written statement cards were submitted and seven were in favor and one was opposed to the project. The statements will be included in the record. The Commission questioned staff and the applicant on a number of issues, including continuing the matter to the April 6, 2004 Planning Commission meeting to resolve a few outstanding issues such as the western access to the project, project amenities if the interchange is not completed, the Collins Road and Campus Park improvements schedule, east and west access below the lake due to gates, completing improvements prior to issuance of grading permits, and issues related to Caltrans permits. Mr. Hogan clarified that the intent was to start processing the interchange with Caltrans as early in the project as possible, and that Caltrans already had the interchange included in their master plan, and that the developer had committed to funding it through a Community Facilities District, unlike other Caltrans projects that are not moving forward because they are State funded. The Commission continued with their comments on the attachments to the packet: • Page 58 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program indicates a 12 -acre school site. It should be 18- acres, "Elementary" should be eliminated and shown as a "school site ". • A letter from APCD missing from the Response to Comments • Comparison of letters 6 and 7 • Page 59 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program information should be added for the Phase II Report, indicating that the City should review and approve the scope of work and sampling plan. Mr. Bobardt requested the Commission keep their attachments so they may be used at the April 6, 2004 meeting. S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0316 _pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 Paae 7 MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Peskay seconded a motion to continue the public hearing open to the Planning Commission Regular Meeting on April 6, 2004. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Consider City of Moorpark, Mission Statement Priorities, Goals, and Objectives, FY 2004/2005 Staff Recommendation: Consider City of Moorpark, Mission Statement, Priorities, Goals, and Objectives, FY 2004/2005 for discussion at the March 24, 2004 Special Joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hogan conducted a brief review with the Commission on the top ten items that were Community Development Department's responsibility and the status on each. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.) A. March 24, 2004, Special Joint City Council /Planning Commission Meeting • City Goals and Objectives C. April 6, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting: • General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone Change No. 2003 -02, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5425, and Residential Planned Development (RPD) No. 2003 -02 (Shea) • Residential Planned Development No. 2002 -03, -04, - 05, Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -01 (SP -2; Tract No. 5045) (Morrison /Fountainwood /Agoura and Pardee Construction Company) • Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03, a Request to Place a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on an Existing SCE Utility Pole, with Proposed Equipment Located Underground (Cingular) • Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Fina1\04_0316_pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of March 16, 2004 PaQe 8 Mr. Hogan discussed future agenda items. 10. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Vice Chair Lauletta seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Scott Pozza hair ATTEST: JrB K. H a , Community Development Director S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Final \04_0316_pcm.doc