Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0221 CC REG ITEM 11C.. MOORPARK ITEM I ,. t . PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney May()r SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Council member CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Council member BERNARDO M. PEREZ Council member LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk TO: FROM: PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. M E M O R A N D U M Honorable City Council Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer Development~ DATE: February 12, 1990 SUBJECT: PROPOSED REZONING OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES FROM R-1 AND R-E TO RPD (ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-90-1) Background On November 15, 1989, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance, No. 117, imposing a moratorium on the development of vacant property in the One Family Residential (R-1) and Rural Exclusive (R-E) Zones. That ordinance had an expiration date of December 30, 1989. The council subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 118 on December 20, 1989, which extended the expiration date of the moratorium until April 29, 1990. By the adoption of Ordinance No. 117, the City Council directed the Planning Department to conduct a study relative to providing a comprehensive system for the compatible and orderly residential development of vacant property that is presently zoned R-1 and R-E. Changing the zoning from R-1 and R-E to Residential Planned Development (RPD) was identified as an option. On February 5, 1990, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the rezoning of various properties from R-1 and R-E to RPD. The Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment 1, and Exhibit A of this report identifies the properties staff had recommended for rezoning to RPD. At their February 5 meeting, the Commission opened and closed the public hearing and then, after discussing the proposed rezoning, continued thei matter to their March 19 meeting. The reason for the continuance was to allow adequate time for staff to obtain additional clarification from the city Council regarding the actual purpose and intent behind the proposed rezoning and whether there were any particular properties that the Council wanted rezoned to RPO. The Planning Commission also directed staff to request that thei City Council extend the moratorium imposed by Ordinances 117 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 Honorable City Council February 12, 1990 Page 2 and 118 an additional 90 days to allow adequate time for the Commission to hold a second public hearing regarding the proposed re.~oning. ThE~ public comments at the February 5 Planning Commission hearing basically centered around the concern of property owners in the Everett Street/Bonnie View and Casey Road areas that there should be some difference in treatment between small properties and large developments. Concerns were also expressed regarding planned development permit fees and conditions of approval that may be imposed on small property owners if their land was rezoned to RPO. A copy of the minutes of the February 5, 1990, Planning Commission is included as Attachment 2. Discussion After review of the comments received from the Planning Commission and the public, staff is proposing an alternative to the rezoning of various R-1 and R-E zoned properties to RPO. Contrary to the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff does not recommend an extension of the current moratorium. As written, Ordinance No. 117 prohibits the acceptance of an application for any land use entitlement such as a general plan amendment, zone change, subdivision, or building permit for most vacant R-1 and R-E zoned properties in the City. (Ordinances 117 and 118 are included as Exhibit Din the attached Planning Commission staff report.) Because the public concern appears to be that the smaller property owners would be financially impacted, staff is recommending that thei Council initiate an amendment to the City Zoning Code to require that a Planned Development Permit be required for residential development consisting of five or more separate lots or dwelling uni ts, regardless of the actual residential zone designation. This is the system that the city of Simi Valley follows. A copy of their Planned Development Permit procedure is included as Attachment 3. Simi Valley selected the five lot criterion because a tentative tract map is generally required for a residential subdivision of five or more lots. Residential subdivisions of less than five lots require a parcel map. Ame.nding the Zoning Code to include a Planned Development Permit requirement similar to Simi Valley's would eliminate the need to rezone any property. This ordinance change would also ensure that a Planned Development Permit is obtained for all larger residential developments, regardless of whether the property is zoned R-1 or R-E 5 Acre. Another option would be to amend the Zoning Code to include a Planned Development Permit requirement for all residential development consisting of the creation of five or more Honorable City Council February 12, 1990 Page 3 separate lots less than one acre in size or the construction of five or more dwelling units on existing lots less than one acre in size. Recommendation Staff's recommendation is as follows: 1. That the City Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance canceling the current moratorium in effect for vacant R-1 and R-E zoned properties for adoption at the Council's next regular meeting on March 7, 1990; and 2. That the Council initiate an amendment to the City Zoning Code to require that a Planned Development Permit be obtained for all residential development consisting of five (5) or more separate lots or dwelling units. Thei Planning Commission's recommendation is as follows: 1. That the City Council adopt an ordinance extending the current moratorium imposed by Ordinances 117 and 118 an additional 90 days, from April 29, 1990 to July 29, 1990. 2. That the city Council provide additional clarification to the Planning Commission regarding the actual purpose and intent behind the proposed rezoning. 3. That the City Council identify to the Planning Commission any particular properties that the Council would like to see rezoned to RPD. PJR/DST Attachments: A.ttachment 1 -Planning Commission Staff Report dated 1-30-90 A.ttachment 2 -February 5, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes A.ttachment 3 -City of Simi Valley Planned Development Permit Code Section MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of • PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmember LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk A. HEARING DATE: MOORPARK CITYOFMXEPARK ~ CXHnSSIW STAFF REl0<1." -aANCJARY" 30, 1990 ~ I -~ INFOOMATIW B. HEARING TIME: Febntary 5, 1990 7:00 p.m. c. HEARING LOCATION: D. CASE 00.: STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer City Council Chambers Zoning Change No. Z-90-1 E. G. STAFF CONrACT: F. .APPLICANI': Deborah Traffenstedt City of M::x>rpark Senior Planner PROPC6ED PROJECT AND IOCATICN: Rezone the properties identified on Exhibits A and B fran One Family Residential (R-1) and Rural Exclusive (R-E) to Residential Planned DeveloplEilt ( RPO) . H. REQUFSTED J\CI'ION AND STAFF m::a::ff1ENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testinony. 2. Make the appropriate findings. 3. Adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit C) recamending approval of Z-90-1. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 r. ALTERNATE PLANNIKi c::a,n.nssrrn ACI'IOOS: Recamend revisions to the list of properties proposed to be rezoned £ran R-1 and R-E to RPO. ~CB II -PlnJH!r srm IWlGUH> On :tbvanber 15, 1989, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance, No. 117, imposing a noratorium on the developtent of vacant property in the R-1 and R-E Zones. That ordinance had an expiration date of December 30, 1989. 'll1e Council subsequent! y adopted Ordinance No. 118 on Decanber 20, 1989, which extended the expiration date of the noratorium until April 29, 1990. These onii.nances are attached as Exhibit D. Ordinance No. 117 was adopted on an urgercy basis, because it was the Council's concern that the current R-1 and R-E zoning regulations do not provide a process for :review of the design and .i.rrprovarent of proposed residential projects. Without such a process, the residential character of existing urbanized neighborhoods canmt be protected. By the adoption of Ordinance No. 117, the City Courx::il directed the Planning Departnent to conduct a study relative to providing a canprehensive systan for the canpatible and orderly residential develq:mmt of vacant property that is presently zoned R-1 or R-E. One of the expressed purposes of the RPO Zone is to produce an erwirorment of stable, desirable character which will be in hamony with the existing or potential developrent of the surrounding neighborhood. ~CB III -c»ERAL PLAN CIH;ISTEICY Because no change is proposed to the density of developrent allCMSd. on a property, and since the zone change WJUld be £ran one residential designation to another, it is staff's opinion that no conflict with the General Plan w:>uld result. 'll1e R-1 zoned property located ~ of Spring Road and south of the Topa Management ccmnercial center currently has a C-2 General Plan designation. Rezoning this property to RPO will contirrue this inconsistency. However, the RPO Zone is pz:eferable as an interim zone designation until the City or the property owners take action to conect this inconsistency through either a rezoning to a camei:cial zone designation or a General Plan anendnent to a ~um Density designation. Staff has detenni.ned that the proposed rezoning is categorically exanpt based on Section 15305 of the California Envirormental ()Jality Act. A carpleted exanption fonn is attached (Exhibit E). - 2 - ~CB V -PIOJH:T ANALYSIS In order to provide a canpi:ehensive systan for the canpatible and orderly residential developtent of vacant or underutilized property that is presently zoned R-1 or R-E, staff is profX)Sing that certain R-1 and R-E zoned properties be rezoned to RPO. The properties staff is recamending for rezoning are shown on Exhibit A. While the urgency ordinances (Nos. 117 and 118) prohibit the approval of any land use entitlemant (general plan anendnent, zone change, sub:iivision, or building pennit) for all vacant property zoned R-1 or R-E, staff is not recamendin.g that all such properties be rezoned to RPO. For exanple, there are several individual lots scattered throughout the City that could be further sub:iivided to create an additional lot. If rezoned to RPO, the result \anlld be sp:::>t zoning. For the IIDSt part, staff is recamendin.g for rezoning only those properties which could be further subdivided into two or ncre parcels. There is one area of the City, however, which staff considers unique and our recamendation for rezoning is based on different criteria. This is the area north of Everett Street and Bonnie View. The lot sizes in this area vary greatly. While staff initially considered recamending the rezoning of only the larger, vacant lots, this \\UU.l.d have resulted in scattered sp:::>t zoning. We are, therefore, recamending that all of the R-1 zoned properties along the north side of Everett Street and Bonnie View be rezoned to RPD. It is our opinion that the steep slopes and visibility of these properties further support the rezoning of this entire area to RPO. Many property owners are concemed regarding what effect the rezoning to RPD will have on than. For those properties which are already developed there will be no effect. If an owner of a house on a RPO zoned lot wants to add a nx::m, the procedure \\10Uld be the same as it \\UU.l.d be for any residentially zoned property in the City. They \\UU.l.d need to obtain a zoning clearance and a building pennit. H:J,.,ever, for the owner of a property which is not currently developed, the RPO Zone \\UU.l.d currently require than to obtain a Planned Developtent Pennit before a zoning clearan:::e and building pennit could be issued. It is staff's opinion that a Planned Developtent Pennit should only be :required. if a subdivision map is also :required. or if a property owner intends to develop two or DDre adjacent properties within a one year period. We are recamendin.g that the Planning Ccmnission forward a recarmarmtion to the City Council that the properties identified. on Exhibit A be rezoned to RPO and that-the Council initiate an amandrrent to the RPO Ordinance to clarify that a RPO pennit will not be :required. for a house prqx>sed on an existing individual lot unless the owner has constnlcted or obtained a building pennit for a house on an adjacent property within a one year period. -_ 3 - SECTICB VI -S.rAFF REXDHMll\TICB That the Planning Ccmni.ssion approve the attached draft resolution recamerrling that the City Council approve the proposed :rezoning of the properties identified on Exhibits A and B f:ran R-1 and R-E to RPD based on the following findings: 1. 'llle proposed :rezoning to RPD will provide a canprehensive systan for CCIIp:ltible and orderly :residential develOIJ[eilt. 2. '!be proposed :rezoning to RPD will protect the :residential character of existing urbanized neighborhocx:ts. 3. 'llle proposed :rezoning to RPD will not :result in significant environmental impacts. 3. '!be proposed :rezoning to RPD is consistent with the City of M::>orpark General Plan. Prepared by: Approved by: ~1)~S~~ Deborah s. Traff Senior Planner Date -4 - EXHIBIT A: EXHP3IT B: EXHIBIT C: EXHIBIT D: EXHIBIT E: LIST OF EXHIBITS Map Showing Properties Proposed to be Rezoned fran R-1 and R-E to RPD .Assessor's Pa:rcel Numbers of Properties Proposed to be Rezoned to RPD Draft Planning Carmission Resolution Ordinance Nos. 117 and 118 Envirormental Exarption Fann - 5 - ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-90-1 Assessor Parcel Numbers of Properties Proposed to be Rezoned to RPO Assessor Parcel Nos.; 500-35-33, 504-02-10, 504-02-11 504-02-24, 504-02-25, 504-02-26, 504-02-27, 504-02-28, 504-02-29, 504-03-26, 504-03-27, 504-03-28, 504-03-29, 505-12-05, 505-12-06 505-12-07 505-12-12, 505-12-13, 505-12-14, 505-12-15, 505-12-16, 506-01-01, 506-01-03, 506-01-04, 506-01-15, 506-01-16, 506-01-58, 506-01-61, 506-02-31, 506-02-32, 506-02-33, 506-02-34, 506-02-35, 506-02-37, 506-02-57, 506-03-13, 506-03-14, 506-03-15, 506-03-16, 506-03-18, 507-201-14, 507-201-15, 507-211·-24, 507-302-18, 511-02-04, 511-02-05, 511-03-36, 511-08-42, 511-11-01, 511-11-02, 511-11-03, 511-11-06, 511-11-07, 511-11-08, 511-11-09, 512-05-09, 512-05-10, 512-061-02, 512-061-03, 512-061-04~ 512-061-05, 512-061-06, 512-061-09, 512-061-10, 512-061-12, 512-061-13, 512-061·-14, 512-061-15, 512-061-17, 512-061-21, 512-061-23, 512-061-24, 512-061·-25 ' 512-061-26, 512-061-27, 512-071-03, 512-071-04, 512-071-05, 512-072·-02, 512-072-03, 512-072-04, 512-072-28, 512-072-29, 512-072-36, 512-072·-41, 512-072-42, 512-072-43, 512-072-44, 512-072-45, 512-072-46, 512-072 ·-49, 512-072-50. 512-131-07, 512-16-12, 512-1~-25, 512-16-70 512-16-71. EXHIBIT B RFSJWl'ICN ID. PC- A RF.SOLU.rICN OF '!HE PIANNIN1 cn1MISSICN OF '!HE CITY OF MX>RPARK, CALIFORNIA, mx:::cJ-1MEND!K; APPROVAL OF ZCNE QWQ! ID. Z-90-1, '!HE REZCN.tt«; OF CERl'AIN PROPERI'IES FRCM '!HE ONE FAMILY RESIDENl'IAL (R-1) AND RURAL EXCUJSIVE (R-E) ZONES 'IO '!HE RESIDEffl'IAL PIANNED OEVEIDPMENT (RPO) ZOOE 'WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on February 5, 1990, the Plarming Ccmnission considel:ed a a zone change application initiated by the City Council of the City of Mx>rpark for . the properties identified on Exhibits A and B, which are attached hereto and incorp:>rated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Ccmnission after review and consideration of the infonnation contained in the staff report dated January 30, 1990, including the :t«>tice of Exatption Fonn, has found that the subject zone change will mt have a significant effect on the environment; and 'WHEREAS, at its neeti.ng of February 5, 1990, the Planning Ccmnission opened the public hearing, took testim:>ny fran all those wishing to testify, closed the public hearing, and :reached its decision; l'0-1, 'IHEREFORE, '!HE PI...ANN1N'.; cn1MISSICN OF '!HE CITY OF MX>RPARK, CALIFORNIA, OOES RESOLVE AS FOLI06: SECl'ION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Q.iality J\ct (CEXJA), the Planning Ccmnission concurs that the project is categorically exarpt based on Section 15305 of the State CEXJA Guidelines, and recamends that a :tbtice of Exanption be filed. SECl'ICN 2. '!hat the Planning Ccmnission hereby adopts the findings contained in the staff report dated January 30, 1990, and said report is .in::orporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. SECl'ION 3. '!hat the Planning Ccmnission hereby recamends that the City Council approve the proposed rezoning of the properties identified on Exhibits A and B fran R-1 and R-E to RPD, and that the City Council initiate an amandnent to the RPO Orcli.narx:e to clarify that a RPO pennit will mt be required for a house proposed on an existing individual lot unless the owner has constructed or obtained a building pennit for a house on an adjacent property within a one year period. EXHIBIT C The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: IDES: AB.SEN!': PASSED, APPROVED .AND AOOP1'ED 'llIIS S'IH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1990. ATI'FSI': Celia Ia. Fleur Secretary Cha.innan, John W:>zniak ) ORDINANCE NO. 117 --- AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED ON AN URGENCY BASIS, IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT PROPERTY IN THE R-1 AND R-E ZONES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares that the R-1 and R-E zones provide for residential development of an urbanized nature. The current R-1 and R-E zoning regulations do not provide a process for review of the design and improvement of proposed residential projects. Without such a process, the residential character of existing urbanized neighborhoods cannot be protected; nor can the compatible and orderly development of urban residential projects be promoted. Furthermore, the processing of applications for such projects in the R-1 and R-E zone would perpetuate the zoning and land use problems that a process of development review seeks to remedy. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby directs the planning department to conduct a study relative to providing a comprehensive system for the compatible and orderly residential development of vacant property that is presently zoned R-1 or R-E. In connection with said study, the City Council contemplates the consideration of a general plan or zoning proposal within a reasonable time, which proposal may provide for changing the zoning on vacant property from R-1 or R-E to RPD (Residential Planned Development). SECTION 3. For the period of time that this ordinance is in full force and effect no application for any land use entitlement related to vacant property that is zoned R-1 or R-E shall be accepted for filing with, or issued or approved by, the City, which property is shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. For purposes of this ordinance, land use entitlement means a general plan amendment, a zone charge, a subdivision or a building permit. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 36937 and 65858, the City Council hereby finds and declares this Ordinance to be an urgency ordinance requiring the immediate enactment thereof, because there is a current and immediate danger and threat to the public health, safety or -1- EXHIBIT D welfare of the City and its citizens and the same is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety of the City and its citizens. In addition, the City Council finds and declares that accepting for filing, issuing or approving any land use entitlement for any vacant R-1 or R-E zoned property would result in a threat to the public health, safety or welfare. The facts constituting such urgency and threat are as set forth in Section 1 of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its adoption, and shall expire and be of no further force and effect as of December 30, 1989, unless sooner extended after notice pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and a public hearing. SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance and each and all provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared invalid. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by not less than a four-fifths vote of the City Council; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published in the Moorpark News-Mirror, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of the Government Code, for the City of Moorpark, and which is hereby designated for that purpose. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ATTEST: CJK/ORN81541 (11/13/89) ,. Moorpark, ) MOORPARK ELOISE BROWN Mayor BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Pro Tam CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. Council member PAUL LAWRASON Council member SCOTT MONTGOMERY Council member RICHARDT. HARE City Treasurer STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) SS. CITY OF MOORPARK ) STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police I, Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Ordinance No. _1_1_7 __ _ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the 15th day of _N~~_v_e_m_be_r ____ , 1989, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Perez, Harper, Montgomery and Mayor Lawrason NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this of November , 1989. 16th day d7~ .,,.-,/ d/7 ,µc,z"= -~-:..-:..~---J,'"· 11 i an L~ 4 Clerk 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 ORDINANCE NO. 118 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT PROPERTY IN THE R-1 AND R-E ZONES WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 117, adopted November 15, 1989, the City Council of the City of Moorpark imposed a moratorium on the development of vacant property in the R-1 and R-E Zones for forty-five (45) days after the adoption thereof; and WHEREAS, for the period of time that Ordinance No. 117 is in full force and effect no application for any land use entitlement related to vacant property that is zoned R-1, R-E, or R-E-1 Acre shall be accepted for filing with, or issued or approved by, the City for all properties shown on Exhibit 1 of Ordinance 117, and by this reference made .a part hereof. For purposes of this ordinance, land use entitlement means a general plan· amendment, a zone change, a subdivision, or a building permit; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 117 directed the Planning Department to conduct a study relative to providing a comprehensive system for the compatible and orderly residential development of vacant property that is presently zoned R-1 or R-E; and WHEREAS, the City has been working diligently to complete said study; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 117 shall be extended from its expiration date of December 30, 1989, for an additional one hundred twenty (120) days, and shall expire on April 29, 1990, unless sooner extended after notice pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and a public hearing. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 36937 and 65858, the City Council hereby finds and declares this Ordinance to be an urgency ordinance requiring the immediate enactment thereof, because there is a current and immediate danger and threat to the public health, safety, or welfare of the City and its citizens. In addition, the City Council finds and declares that accepting for filing, issuing or approving any land ·use entitlement for any vacant R-1, R-E, or R-E 1 Acre zoned property would result in a threat to the public health, safety or welfare. The facts constituting such urgency and threat are as set forth in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 117. ( \ SECTION 3. If any section, ·subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance and each and all provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared invalid. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by not less than a four-fifths vote of the City Council; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published in the Moorpark News-Mirror, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of the Government Code, for the City of Moorpark, and which is hereby designated for that purpose. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of December, 1989. ATTEST: \ 1.IOORPARK ) PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro T em ELOISE BROWN Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmember LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) CITY OF MOORPARK ) ss. STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARDT. HARE City Treasurer I, Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Ordinance No. _1_1_8 ___ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the _2_O_th_ day of _D_e_c_e_m_b_e_r ____ , 1989, and that the same was adopted by the fo 11 owing vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers, Brown, Harper, Perez, Montgomery, Mayor Lawrason None None None WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 21st of December , 1989. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 day (805) 529-6864 NOl'ICE OF EXEMEYI'IOO TO: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street FROM: City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Sacramento, CA 95814 Moorpark, CA 93021 X County Clerk --County of Ventura 800 South~V ,-. c_t_o_r-i _a _A_v_e_n_u_e __ Ventura, CA 93009 Project Title Zone Change No. Z-90-1 Project Location -Specific Various locations in the City of Moorpark as identified by the attached map and list of the Assessor Parcel Numbers of the affected properties. Project Location -City' City of Moorpark Project Location -County County of Ventura Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project The City of Moorpark has initiated the rezoning of the properties identified on attached Exhibits A and B from R-l(One Family Residential) and R-E (Rural Exclusive) Zones to the RPO (Residential Planned Development) Zone. The RPO Zone will allow for more control over future development and ensure that the residential character of existing neighborhoods is protected. Name of Public Agency Approving Project City of Moorpark Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project City of Moorpark ExE:!Dpt Status: ( Check One) Ministerial (Sec. 21O8O(b)(l); 15268); --Declared Finergency (Sec. 21O8O(b)(3); 15269(a)); --Emergency Project (Sec. 21O8O(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)). --X-Categorical Exemption (Sec.15300-15j29) Reasons why project is exanpt: The proposed project is considered categ9rically exempt based upon Section 15305 of CEQA. This exemption is for minor alterations in land use limitations which do not result in any changes in land use or density. Contact Person Area Code/Telephone/Extension Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development If filed by applicant: {805) 529-6864 1. Attach certified doctnnent of exE:!Dption finding. 2. Has a notice of exE:!Dption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No ceived fr F g: ~ Director of Communit Title EXHIBIT E ATTACHMENT a Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of February 5, 1990 The regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was held on February 5, 1990 in the City Council Chambers of the Community Center located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7: 10 p.m., Chairman Wozniak presiding. 2. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Wozniak. 3 .. Roll Call Present: Chairman John Wozniak; Vice Chairman William Lanahan; Commissioners Glen Schmidt; and Roy Talley. Absent: Commissioner Michael Scullin (excused absence). Other City Officials and Representatives: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development; Deborah Traffenstedt, Senior Planner; Paul Porter, Senior Planner; John Knipe, Assistant City Engineer; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4 .. Approval of Minutes January 15, 1986 January 22, 1986 September 10, 1986 December 18, 1989 The minutes of January 15, 1986, January 22, 1986, September 10, 1986 and December 18, 1989 were approved as submitted by the following motion: Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Lanahan, seconded by Commissioner to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 15, 1986, January 22, 1986, September 10, 1986 and December 18, 1989 as submitted. Motion passed on a 4:0:1 vote, Commissioner Scullin absent. 5 .. Public Comments None. 6 .. Consent Calendar 7 .. Public Hearings A. Industrial Planned Development Permit No. IPD-89-2 Annotti and Petrilli Construction of a one-story, 24 foot high industrial building containing 32,650 sq.ft. (5,500 sq.ft. office, and 27,150 sq.ft. manufacturing). The proposed industrial development is located on a 77,223 sq.ft. parcel of land located at the terminus of Kazuko Court. Presented by Paul Porter, Senior Planner. Reference: Staff Report dated February 5, 1990. At the conclusion of the presentation the Commission expressed the following concerns: Height and setback of surrounding buildings. Wall which would divide the industrial zone area from the residential zone area and the height and length of such wall. The existing underground tank adjacent to the industrial property and adjacent residential area with relation to health and safety factors. Testimony received by the following: 1. Marc Annotti -5000 Parkway Calabasas, Calabasas, CA. The applicant stated his intention to provide a linear 30 foot wall at 6 feet in height and heavily landscaped after previously meeting with the surrounding property owners and discussing their views and concerns. 2. Mr. Annotti referenced Condition No. 39 in relation to the $25,600 which would be require for the replacement value of trees to be removed. His request to the Commission was to provide the $25,600 for replacement trees, or trees of a more maturity. Phyllallenn Mason, 1364 Park Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90804. Mrs. Mason proceeded to narrate a video which filmed the site and addressed the concerns of surrounding property owners. 3 .. Bill Mason, 1364 Park Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90804. Concurred with the areas of concern stated by Mrs. Mason. 4. Don Grinder, 363 Shasta Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. Mr. Grinder was concerned with the fencing in relation to grading and the overall height. He preferred a 6 ft. in height and earthtone in color. 5. John Mason, 413 Shasta, Moorpark, CA 93021. Mr. Mason provided an overhead view of scaled difference proposed by providing a building at 16 ft. in height vs. the 24 ft. building height. Commissioners stated the following concerns: That the applicant consider reducing the building height. That the $25,600 for the value of the trees being removed be put back into the project for additional landscaping. That the applicant consider the entire length of the 30 foot buffer as landscaped area and run the length of the adjacent property owners rear yard. That the applicant provide soil testing for the area surrounding the tank. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT: 8:50 P.M. BREAK: 8:55 RECONVENE: 9:05 P.M. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Lanahan, seconded by Commissioner Talley that Industrial Planned Development Permit No. IPD-89-2 be returned to the Commission's meeting of March 19 with the following modifications, revisions and considerations. That the applicant consider a revised plan showing a reduced height. Condition No. 13 -correct to read M-1 zone (delete M- 2 ) . Condition No. 39 -That the $25,600 for the value of the trees being removed be put back into the project for additional landscape over and above that normally required. Condition No. 50 -regarding hazardous waste. employ dispose or produce hazardous materials. " B. Condition No. 76 -delete " ... as to eliminate .... " That the 30 ft. landscape buffer provide the deletion of the four parking spaces provided require landscaping from end to end adjacent to the residential property owners. Condition No. 57 -change within 30 days to remove graffiti to "shall be removed within 5 days of notice by the City." Condition No. 72 be revised and require stronger language in order to meet the adjacent property owners concerns in relation to soil testing. That a 6 ft. wall in height be provided along and adjacent to the residential properties. This wall shall be earthtone in color. Motion passed on a 4:0 vote. Zone change No. Z-90-1 City of Moorpark Rezoning of R-1 (One Family Residential) and R-E (Rural Exclusive) zoned properties, to RPD (Residential Planned Development). Various locations citywide as identified by the Assessor Parcel numbers. In some case only a portion of a lot is proposed to be rezoned to RPD. A map of the areas proposed for rezoning is on file with the Community Development Department. Presented by Debbie Traffanstedt, Senior Planner. Staff Report dated February 2, 1990. Testimony received by the following: Reference: 1. Lowell N. Richards, 287 Casey Road, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Richards stated his concerns with the impersonal approach of notification provided to the property owners. Also commented on the language which was provided in Ordinance No. 117, and 118 in relation to the urgency of the ordinance as it referenced a danger to health, safety, etc. 2. Pam Castro, 479 Charles Street, Moorpark, CA. In opposition to rezoning. Directed her concerns to the Commission by stating that the rezoning would only hurt any of the long time residents in providing any improvements, and fees should be charged accordingly, owner/ occupant vs. developer. Ms. Castro stated that she was unaware of the urgency of rezoning, and as a MUSD Board Member she was unaware of any consideration being taken on the school site. 3. 4. V.G. McQueen, 387 Bonnieview, Moorpark, CA. opposition to rezoning. Carolyn Cummings, 872 Valley Road, Moorpark, CA. opposition to rezoning. In In PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT: 10:15 P.M. Commissioners stated the following concerns: That the rezoning would require more time for review. Expiration date of Ordinance No. 118 -April 29, 1990. Residents should be provided with more information as to the urgency of the rezoning. Consideration should be given to larger and small property. Clarify the purpose, and approach for addressing issues and the opportunity for the public to respond. Concerned with the rezoning of the school property. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Lanahan, seconded by Commissioner Talley to continue this item to a date uncertain in order that the City Council provide more specific direction to the Commission and extend the moratorium 90 days in order to provide further review. Motion passed on a 4:0 vote. 8 ,, PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS None. 9. INFORMATION ITEMS Report back regarding the Texaco Gasoline Station at 34 7 Moorpark Avenue. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS Schedule for the Los Angeles Avenue widening project at Tierra Rejada and Spring Roads. Planning Commissioners Institute -deadline February 28, 1990. 11. STAFF COMMENTS The Commission's next meeting will be held on Tuesday February 20 due to the holiday on February 19, 1990. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON ____ BY: Celia LaFleur, Secretary Chairman presiding: John Wozniak June, 1985 Draft ATTACH.ENT 3 (4) Zoning Clearances and all other permits and certificates shall become null and void if: (i) the application request which was submitted was not in full, true and correct form. (ii) the clearance issued does not comply with the terms and provisions of the permit originally granting the use within Chapters 1 or 2. (b) Planned Development Permit (1) Purpose -The Planned Development Permit procedure is intended to provide a method whereby land may be designed and developed as a unit by taking advantage of modern site planning techniques; and to produce an environment of stable, desirable character which will be in harmony with the existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhood; and to ensure development which meets standards of environmental quality, public health and safety, and efficient use of the City's resources. (2) General Provisions (i) A Planned Development Permit shall be required for: (aa) residential development consisting of five (5) or more separate lots or dwelling units; (ab) those uses noted in the matrix as requiring such in the residential zones -Section 9-1.506; and (ac) all commercial and industrial development within the City (all uses listed in Section 9-1.507) unless a special use permit is required. (ii) For projects requiring a Planned Development Permit, no building or grading permit of any kind shall be issued for any such development until the development has been approved as herein provided. (3) Application (i) Application for a Planned Development Permit shall be made on the prescribed form provided by the Department of Community Development. The application shall be accompanied by the prescribed number of copies of a project plan and such other detailed elevations, plans and other information as may be required to adequately evaluate the proposed development. All applications shall be signed by the owner of the property or person with the appropriate power of attorney. (ii) The project plan shall include the following information: -137- ·June, 1985 Draft (aa) A map showing division of the land for the sale of individual property, if any. (ab) Existing contours at two (2) foot intervals if the existing ground slope is less than ten percent (10%) and at not less than five (5) foot intervals for existing ground slopes greater than or equa 1 to ten percent (10%) contour intervals shall not be spread more than one hundred fifty (150) feet apart and existing contours shall be represented by dashed lines or by screened lines; location of all existing living trees having a trunk diameter of six (6) inches or more measured at four ( 4) feet above grade and other major natural features. (ac) Proposed automobile and bicycle access and pedestrian way locations and dimensions. Proposed off-street parking, including the location, number of stalls, dimensions and circulation system. (ad) Proposed loading, including the location, dimensions, number of berths. (ae) Lot dimensions and all recorded easements. (af) Areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, parkways, playgrounds, school sites, public or quasi-public buildings and other such uses. (ag) Areas proposed for commercial or industrial uses, multi-and single-family dwellings, or any other uses proposed to be established within the project. (ah) Proposed location and elevations of buildings on land, including dimensions, the size of structure, height, setback, materials and yard areas. (ai) All proposed signs and their locations, size and height. (aj) Proposed landscaping, walls, fencing, screening, trash collection areas and usable open space areas. (ak) Location and size of existing and all proposed utility lines and drainages. -138- ) • June, 1985 Ora ft (4) (al) A schedule for the development to be constructed in phasing; tabulation of total number of acres in the proposed project and percent thereof designated for various uses; and the number of dwe 11 i ng units proposed by type of dwe 11 i ng for each unit of development. (am) Such additional information as may be required by the Director of Community Development or Planning Commission. The Director may waive or modify items required in this section, if such items are found to pertain to conditions unaffected by the proposed development. Findin 1s -In order to grant a Planned Development Permit, the factua evidence and testimony presented in the public hearing must be sufficient to support the following findings: (i) Finding that the planned development is consistent with the Simi Valley General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. (ii) Finding that the planned development does assure compatibility of property uses within the zone and general area. (iii) Finding that the proper standards and conditions have, been imposed which protect the public hea 1th, safety and welfare. (c) Cluster Development Permit (1) Purpose -The Cluster Development Permit is intended to provide a method for the development of residential acreage resulting in more efficient use of land and a better living environment than is otherwise possible through strict application of development standards; that encourages preservation of natural terrain and open space and utilization of greater and more unified open space, especially on hillsides, than is otherwise possible through strict application of the setback and lot width standards; that encourages a variety of dwelling types, sizes and site designs such as zero lot line developments; and ensures development which meets standards of environmental quality, public health and safety, and the policies and goals of the General Plan. -139- PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pm Tern ELOISE BROWN Council member CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Council member BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmi~mber LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk MOORPARK MEMORANDUM STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer TO: FROM: The Honorable City council Patrick J. Richards, Director of community Development~ DATE: February 21, 1990 SUBJECT: ITEM 11.C. EXHIBIT, FEBRUARY 21, 1990, MEETING Attached is Exhibit A to Attachment 1 of the Item 11. C. staff report. This exhibit was inadvertently left out of the Council's staff report when it was assembled. We apologize for this omission. Exhibit A represents staff's original recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding rezoning certain R-1 and R-E zoned properties to RPD. We are no longer recommending the rezoning of the properties shown on Exhibit A, as discussed in our report to the Council dated February 12, 1990. PJR/DST cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 r CLUB TENNIS CL{W U r5 COMMUNITY • CENTERpEA_• (me orrvnR q., r V He f , n CHURCH sI7E i ZONE CHANGE NO. Z -90 -1 r k 1 ' yid U All I, E -- +- r z i E kl R -1 to RPD 6.22 du /acre r R -1...7 to RPD 6.22 du /acre R -1 -8 to RPD 5.44 du /acre X, R -1 -13 to RPD 3.35 du /acre R -E to RPD 4.36 du /acre Properties Proposed to be Rezoned from R -1 and R -E to RPD 6 '; u 2-1 r r EXHIBIT A