Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0221 CC REG ITEM 11CPAUL 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 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Background MOORPARK M E M 0 R _A N D U M Honorable City Council ITEM !Le -C--e 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 Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development February 12, 1990 PROPOSED REZONING OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES FROM R -1 AND R -E TO RPD (ZONE CHANGE NO. Z -90 -1) 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 e,<tended the expiration date of the moratorium until April 29, 1990 By the adoption of Ordinance No. ,.17, the City Council directed the Planning Department to conduct a study relative to providing a comprehensive system for the c(:mpatible and orderly residential development of vacant property ttiat is presently zoned R -1 and R -E. Changing the zoning front F 1 and R -E to Residential Planned Development (RPD) was identifies; as an :option. On February 5, 1990, the Planninga' Commission held a public hearing to discuss the rezoning of varic_is properties from R -1 and R -E to RPD. The Planning Commissio! staff report is included as Attachment 1, and Exhibit .A Of this report identifies the properties staff had recommende,:_, for rezoning to RPD. At their February 5 meeting, the Commission opened and closed the public hearing and then, after discuss.i r the proposed rezoning, continued the matter to their March 1.) meeting. The reason for the continuance was to allow adeq_„ate time for staff to obtain additional clarification from th(: City Council regarding the actual purpose and intent behind the pr :)posed rezoning and whether there were any particular properties t''tat the Council wanted rezoned to RPD. The Planning Commission al,o directed staff to request that the City Council extend the moi °-cri.um imposed by Ordinances 117 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 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 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 pub._c hearing regarding the proposed rezoning. 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 RPD. 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 RPD. 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 genera., 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 D in the attached Planning Commission staff report.) Because the public concern appeal -s to be/tI—at the smaller property owners would be financially impacted, oaff is recommending that the Council initiate an amendment t the City Zoning Code to require that a Planned Developmen Permit be required for residential development consisting of five or more separate lots or dwelling units, regardless of the actual residential zone designation. This is the system that the City of Simi Valley follows. A copy of their Planne,i Development Permit procedure is included as Attachment 3. Sim..L Valley selected the five lot criterion because a tentative tr,ct map is generally required for a residential subdivision of five or more lots. Residential subdivisions of less than fiv_! l ;ts requi.re a parcel map. Amending 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 woul..i be to amend the Zoning Code to include a Planned Developmen* hermit requirement for all residential development consisti: -T cf tte 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 e,- isting 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 -r 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 ti-its. The Planning Commission's recommendation is as follows: 1. That the City Council adopt :An ordinance extending the current moratorium imposed by Ordin,inces 117 and 118 an additional 90 days, from April 29, 1990 t July 29, 1990. 2. That the City Council provide additional clarification to the Planning Commission regard =ir►g the actual purpose and intent behind the proposed rezorir�. 3. That the City Council ident.fy to the Planning Commission any particular properties that the Council would like to see rezoned to RPD. PJR /DST Attachments: Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Staff Report dated 1 -30 -90 Attachment 2 - February 5, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3 - City of Simi Willey Planned Development Permit Code Section MOORPARK ATTACHMENT f PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tem ELOISE BROWN Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmember _ LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk A. HEARING DATE: February 5, 1990 2 F oo� M •I• • •:'1• • •1' infol ii HIM L: C. HEARING IlJ=CN: City Council Chambers E. STAFF CCNTAC.T: Deborah Traffenstedt Senior Planner B . HEARING TD E: 7:00 p.m. D. CASE NO.: 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 Zoning Change No. Z -90 -1 F. APPLICANT: City of Moorpark Rezone the properties identified on Exhibits A and B from One Family Residential (R -1) and Rural - xclusive (R -E) to Residential Planned Development (RPD). H. RESTED ACTION AND STAFF RF ATICN: 1. Cpen the public hearing ,.ind accept public testimony. 2- Make the appropriate f i r Aiings . 3. Adopt the attached reso ation (Exhibit C) ring approval of Z -90 -1. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 �1• /• I ••' I 1 •' MV �iL Recommend revisions to the list:, of properties proposed to be rezoned from R -1 and R -E to RPD. On November 15, 1989, the City Council adapted an interim ordinance, No. 117, imposing a moratorium on the develogment of vacant property in the R -1 and 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. 7hese Ordinances nances are attached as Exhibit D, . Ordinance No. 117 was adopted on an urgency 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 improvement of proposed residential projects. Without such a process, the residential character of existing urbanized neighborhoods cannot, be protected. 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 or R -E. One of the expressed purposes of the RPD Zone is to produce an environment of stable, desirable character which will be in harmony with the existing or potential ck=velopment of the surrounding neighborhood. `1r JV • 81 Because no cage is proposed to the density of development allowed on a property, and since the zone change would be ficcm one residential designation to another, it is staff's opinion that no conflict with the General Plan would result. The R -1 zoned property located west of Spring Road and south of the Topa Management ccMTEXcial center currently has a C -2 General Plan designation. Rezoning this property to RPD will (=tinue this inconsistency. However, the RPD Zone is preferable as an interim zone designation until the City or the property owners take action to correct this inconsistency through either a rezoning to a comma vial zone designation or a General Plan amendment to a Medium Density designation. SHOP ON iv - EwIycNKam , CIEARANCE Staff has determined that the proposed rezoning is categorically exempt based on Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act. A completed exemption form is attach+ l (Exhibit E) . In older to provide a eonprehensive system for the ca Tlpatible and orderly residential development of vacant or underutilized property that is presently zoned R -1 or R -E, staff is proposing that certain R -1 and R -E zoned properties be rezoned to RPD The properties staff is reccnrending for rezoning are shown on Exhibit A. Mile the urgency ordinances (Nos. 117 and 118) prohibit the approval of any land use entitlement Oral plan amendment, zone change, subdivision, or building permit) for all vacant property zoned R -1 or R -E, staff is not reccunvxding that all such properties be rezoned to RPD. For example, there are several individual lots scattered throughout the City that could be further subdivided to create an additional lot. If rezoned to RPD, the result would be spot zoning. For the most part, staff is recommending for rezoning only those properties which cold be further subdivided into two or more parcels. There is one area of the City, hAever, which staff considers unique and our recommendation 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 recommending the rezoning of only the larger, vacant, lots, this would have resulted in scattered spot zoning. We are, therefore, recommending 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 RPD. ManY Ply owners are concerned regarding what effect the rezoning to RPD will have on them. For those properties which are already developed there will be no effect. If an owner of a house on a RPD zoned lot wants to add a rocm, the procedure would be the same as it would be for any residen ia11y zoned property in the City. They would need to obtain a zoning clearance and a building permit. HOWLvP.r, for the owner of a Property which is not currently developed, the RPD Zone would currently require than to obtain a Planned Development Permit before a zoning clearance and building permit could be issued. It is staff's opinion that a Planned Develogrent Permit should only be required if a subdivision map is also required or if a property owner intends to develop two or more adjacent Properties within a one year Period- We are reccIfflending that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the city Council that the properties identified on Exhibit A be rezoned to RPD and that the Council initiate an amendment to the RPD Qrdinance to clarify that v RPD permit will not be required for a house proposed on an existing individual lot unless the owner has constructed or obtained a building permit f -czar a house on an adjacent Property within a one year period. 4161 Y' ' • 'IDS• I;r ' That the Planning Commission approve the attached draft resolution recamVnding that the City Council approve the proposed rezoning of the Properties identified on Exhibits A and B from R -1 and R -E to RPD based on the following findings: 1. The Proposed rezoning to RPD will provide a comprehensive system for compatible and orderly residential development. 2. The proposed rezoning to RPD will protect the residential character of existing urbanized neighborhoods 3. The Proposed rezoning to RPD wL11 not result in significant environmental impacts. 3. The Proposed rezoning to RPD .i-i consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan. _�- Deborah S. Traffengtbdt Senior Planner -/- 9C) Date is - Caimudty Development W01 11: . • Showing Properties Proposed • be Rezoned frcm R-1 and to '•D EXHIBIT B: Assessor's Parcel. Numbers of Properties Proposed to be Rezoned to RPD EXHIBIT C: Draft Planning Cam ussion Resolution EXHIBIT D: Ordinance Nos, 11.7 rind 3.18 EXHIBIT E: Environmental ExEnV.Lon Form Assessor Pa 500- 35 -33, 504- 02 -27, 504- 03 -29, 505- 12 -14, 506- 01 -15, 506- 02 -33, 506- 03 -14, 507 - 211 -241 511- 11 -01, 511- 11 -09, 512- 061 -05, 512- 061 -14, 512.- 061 -25, 512- 072 -02, 512.- 072 -4110 512- 072 -49, 512- 16 -71. ZONE CHANGE NO. Z -90 -1 Assessor Parcel N(..mbers of Properties Proposed to be rezoned to RPD rcel Nos.: 504- 02 -10, 504- 02 -28, 505- 12 -05, 505- 12 -15, 506- 01 -16, 506- 02 -34) 506- 03 -15, 507 - 302 -18, 511- 11 -02, 512- 05 -09, 512- 061 -06, 512 - 061 -15, 512 - 061 -261 512 - 072 -03, 512- 072 -423 512 - 072 -50, 504 -02 -11 504- 02 -29, 505 -12 -06 505- 12 -16, 506- 01 -58, 506- 02 -35, 506- 03 -16, 511- 02 -04, 511- 11 -03, 512- 05 -10, 512 - 061 -01: 512 - 061-1/- 512 - 061 -2a 512- 072 -04 512- 072 -4" 512-131-U 504- 02 -24, 504- 03 -26, 505 -12 -07 506- 01 -01, -S >06- 01 -61, 506 - 02-37, `y06- 03 -18, `}11- iJ2 -05, _`}1.1- 11 -06, 12 -061 -02, 12-061 -1.0, `a 1.2-061-21, .`.i12 071 -03, _512 - 072 -28, '512- ()72 -44, 1.'- 16- 12, 504- 02 -25, 504- 03 -27, 505- 12 -12, 506- 01 -03, 506- 02 -31, 506- 02 -57, 507- 201 -14, 511- 03 -36, 511- 11 -07, 512 - 061 -03, 512 - 061 -12, 512- 061 -231 512- 071 -04, 512 - 072 -29, 512 - 072 -453 512- 16 -25, 504- 02 -26, 504- 03 -28, 505- 12 -13, 506- 01 -04, 506- 02 -32, 506- 03 -13, 507- 201 -15, 511- 08 -42, 511- 11 -08, 512 - 061 -049 512 - 061 -13, 512 - 061 -241 512 - 071 -05, 512- 072 -36, 512 - 072 -46, 512 -16 -70 EXHIBIT B RESCUMON OF I E PIANNING COMMISSION OF 1 OF NDORPARK, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF •. t OVUM: • Z-90-1, I •' 1 ' OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES F•••: THE ONE I• 11 E ' AND RURAL D M L •. I TO THE RESIDENTIAL PIAI 1 • 81 •' IEI ' ' • ZONE FII991EAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on February 5, 1990, the Planning Commission considered a a zone change application initiated by the City Council of the City of Moorpark for the properties identified on Exhibits A and B, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and IQHEREA,S, the Planning Cammission after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff report dated January 30, 1990, including the Notice of Exemption Fonn, has found that the subject zone change will not have a significant effect on the envirormient; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of February 5, 1990, the P opened the public hear' laming Commission hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, closed the public hearing, and reached its decision; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNI]NG C:C- IISSIQ1 OF THE CITY OF M ORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOW:: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CFQA) , the Planning Commission concurs that the project is categorically exenpt based on Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and reccnnlen s that a Notice of Exr- rption be filed. SECTION 2. That the Planning c :ommission hereby adopts the findings contained in the staff report dated. January 30, 1990, and said report is incorporated herein by reference a: though fully set forth. SECTION 3. That the Planning : umisslon hereby recommends that the City Council approve the proposed rezoning of the properties identified on Exhibits A and B from R -1 and R -E to RPD, and that the City Council initiate an amendment to the RPD Ordinance to clarify that a RPD permit will not be required for a house proposed on an existing individual lot unless the owner has constructed or obtained a building permit for a house on an adjacent Property within a car i, , year F>E.xiod. EXHIBIT C The action with the foregoing direction was approved by the following roll call vote: Cha i man , John Wozniak Celia la Fleur Secretary ORDINANCE `40. I1;' AN INTERIM ORDINANCE JF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA. ADOPTED ON AN URGENCY BASIS, IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF V,, CANT PPOPERTY IN THE R -1 AND R. -E ZONES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS 1701 LOWS SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares that the R -1 and R -E zones I?rc;,vide for residential development of an urbanized nature. The current R -1 and R -E zoning regulations do not pro�Jide 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 foi such projects in the R -1 and R -E zone would perpetuate the stoning and land use problems that a process of development: review .seeks to :remedy. SECTION 2. The City s.ouncil hereby directs the planning department to conduce 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 connecti.>n with said study, the City Council contemplates the cons.. :?eration of a general plan or zoning proposal within a reasonable time, which proposal may provide for changing the zonir; on vacant property from R -1 or R -E to RPD (Residential Pl,,,,rne,i Development) . SECTION 3. For the p-riod of time that this ordinance is in full force and effect no application for any land use entitlement related t vacant property that is zoned R -1 or R -E shall be acce::ated for filing with, or issued or approved by, the Citp, whicq property is shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and y '.his reference made a part hereof. For purposes of this rd i narice, land use entitlement means a general p' ..n imer1]ment, a zone charge, a subdivision or a building peer SECTION 4. Pursuant o Government Code Sections 36937 and 65858, the City Caur it hereby finds and declares this Ordinance to be an urgen( ,, ordin,::ince requiring the immediate enactment thereof, here is a current and immediate darger and threat ).ic health, safety or EXHIBIT D } welfare of the City and its c tizens and the same is necessary for the immediate o:eserva +:ion of the public peace, health or safety of thy- City ,nd its citizens. In addition, the City Council f'ir,ds and declares that accepting for filing, issuing or appr':v ng any land use entitlement for any vacant R -1 or R -E zont,d property would result in a threat to the public healtY, afety 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 or December 30, 1989, unless sooner extended after notice L3ursuant: to Government Code Section 65090 and a public herring.. SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of thi: Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court Df competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. he City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance and each and all pr visions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or 'n -e of said provisions may be declared invalid. SECTION 7. The City ;:lerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by of less than a four- fifths vote of the City Council; sha:;l enter the same in the book of original ordinances of saic City; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Counc:L at, which the same is passed and adopted; and shall, withi: fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, .ause the same to be published in the Moorpark News- Mirror, n weekly newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Se+• ::.icn 6008 of the Government Code, for the City of MoorFar am which is hereby designated for that purpose.. PASSED AND ADOPTEE s l5th day of Nov mber, 1989. Mayor :,f t City of Moorpark, California ATTEST: MOORPARK ELOISE BROWN ; _:_ _ =' STEVEN KUENY Mayor — 6 City Manager BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Pro CHERYL J. KANE Tem CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. �_' ���� Z� 4 City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P Councilmember o\\ ? Director of PAUL LAWRASON .` : • Community Development Councilmember 16 R. DENNIS DELZEIT SCOTT MONTGOMERY City Engineer Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE RICHARD T. HARE Chief of Police City Treasurer STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) S.S. CITY OF MOORPARK ) I, Lillian E. Kellerman, Cit, Clerk 0- the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certif, unc?er penalty of perjury that the foregoing Ordinance No. _�'_j_' was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a me inc held on the 15th day of November , 1989, an, that tho same was adopted by the following vote AYES: Councilmember =re.', Harper, Montgomery and Mayor Lawrason NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None WITNESS my hand and the off'cial seal of said City this 16th day of November 1 R. ,9 Ilian E. llerman Clerko•'� X-i�-- " 799 Moorpark Avenge Moc,: ark, C<,Iifurnia 93021 (805) 529 -686: ORDIN,1�JCE NO. 118 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF M CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING A MORATORIUM GN THE DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT PROPERTY IN THE x 1 AND R -E ZONES WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 1:7, 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 -1 Zones f4`)r 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 1,, this reference made.a part hereof. For purposes of this ordinance, l.an, use entitlement means a general plan amendment, a zone change, a subdi. Isicn. c, a building permit; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 111' &: ected the Planning Department to conduct a study relative to providing a c(inprehensi.ve system for the compatible and orderly residential development vacant: property that is presently zoned R -1 or R -E; and WHEREAS, the City has been w(,k.ing diligently to complete said study; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COT 4CI L OF ME CITY OF MOORPARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Ordinance No 1 7 shall be extended from its expiration date of December 30, 1989, for art idditional one hundred twenty (120) days, and shall expire on April 29, 1 " +90, unless sooner extended after notice pursuant to Government Code Se(Lk 65090 rand a public hearing. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Government:. Code Sections 36937 and 65858, the City Council hereby finds and d,,Inies this Ordinance to be an urgency ordinance requiring the immediat., enactment thereof, because there is a current and immediate danger and hx(,at to the public health, safety, or welfare of the City and its citiz �s In addition, the City Council finds and declares that accepting for ling, ir;suing or approving any land use entitlement for any vacant R -!, E, r,r t41 1 Acre zoned property would result in a threat to the pultl : 1je llth, safety or welfare. The facts constituting such urgency and ft are as set forth in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 117. t SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for an,, reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such deci�.ion 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 4 the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared invali SECTION 4. The City Cler, shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by not less than a :Eou - fifths vote of the City Council; shall enter the same in the book of or:,ginal ordinances of said City; shall make a minute of the passage and evioption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council itt. 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 circulatioi, as defined in Section 6008 of the Government Code, for the City of ''Ioor.park<, and which is hereby designated for that purpose. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th lay of December, 1989. C Mayor of th ity of Moorpar California ATTEST: J.iooHPAux PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr_ Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tem 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 ) S3 STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Anomey 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 I, Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify. uncer penalty of perjury that the foregoing Ordinance No. It wa; adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a mf k:' ing held on the 20th day of December 1989, am that thd, same was adopted by the following vote:. AYES: Councilmember, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Brown, Harper, Perez, Montgomery, Mayor I awrason WITNESS my hand and the off, ial seal of said City this 21st day of December IC9 . _ P Kellerman 799 Moorpark Avenue floor,ark:, Calif��rn�a 93021 (805) 529 -6864 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: Office of Planning and Resea -c-h 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 X County Clerk County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 -- Project Title Zone Change No. Z -90 -1 Project Location - Specific FROM: City of Moorpark Moorpark venue Moorpark, CA 9721 Various locations in the City of Moorpark as identified by the attached map and list of the Assessor Parcel Numbers .). the affected properties. Project Location - City- Project Location - County City of Moorpark County of Ventura Description of Nature, Purpose, and BEyneficiaries of Project The City of Moorpark has initiated tht rezoning of the properties identified on attached Exhibits A and B from R -1(0n( Family Residential) and R -E (Rural Exclusive) Zones to the RPD (Residential Planned Development) Zone. The RPD Zone will allow for more control over future developmt•it and unsure that the residential character of existing neighborhoods is protected. Name of Public Agency Approving Pro j e� r -' T City of Moorpark Name of Person or Agency Carrying (]ut project City of Moorpark Exempt Status: (Check One) Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1, 15268); Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4))• 15269(b)(c)). �- Categorical Exemption (Sec.1`-�00- 1532 ()) Reasons why project is exempt: The proposed project is considered ca egoricaily exempt based upon Section 15305 of CEQA. This exemption is for minor ]tEratl)ns in land use limitations which do not result in any changes in land e cr density. Contact Person — _._ . ____ _..___. Area Code/Telephone/ Extension Patrick J. Richards Director of Communitl_Development (805) 529 -6864 If filed by applicant: - -- _ I. Attach certified document of (aKemption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption bc-c filed key the public agency approving the nroipnf? V— ,,T- Director of Community Development Title EXHIBIT E ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission, Ci y of Moorpark, California Minutes of__F�bru�i=, 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 onler 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; Comnnissio hers 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; acid 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, L986, 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, 11186 and December 18, 1989 as submitted. Motion passed on 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. (1,,500 sq.ft. office, and 27,150 sq.ft. manufacturing). The proposed industrial development is located on a 77,223 sq.f *. 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 nd 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 fact(r.s. 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 heir views and concerns. 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 mare maturity. 2. 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, I.,ong Beach, CA 90804. Concurred with the areas of -- oncern 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 ir: color, 5. John Mason, 413 Shasta, Moorpark, CA 93021. Mr. Mason provided an overhead view of scaled difference proposed by providing a buildinnc at 1.6 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 va.iae of the trees being removed be put back into the project fir- additional landscaping. That the applicant consider the entire length of the 30 foot buffer as landscaped area aril run the length of the adjacent property owners rear yard.. That the applicant prov:i(e -> 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 followinc; modifications, revisions and considerations. That the applicant coi sider. 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 ever and above that normally required. Condition No. 50 - regarding hazardous waste. "..... employ dispose or prodc:ce hazardous materials. 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 testming. 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 rote. B. Zone change No. Z -90 - -1 :amity of Moorpark Rezoning of R -1 (One Fami..y 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 Frith the Community Development Department. Presented by Debbie Traffenstedt, Senior Planner. Reference: Staff Report dated February 2, 1990. Testimony received by the following: 1. Lowell N. Richards, 28 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 ,-elation to the urgency of the ordinance as it refere, red 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. deveioper. Ms. Castro stated that she was unaware of the urgency of rezoning, and as a MUSD Board Member she was unaware c:af any consideration being taken on the school Sit . 3. V.G. McQueen, 387 Bonnieview, Moorpark, CA. In opposition to rezoning 4. Carolyn Cummings, 872 'Valley Road, Moorpark, CA. In opposition to rezoning PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT: 10:11 P.M. Commissioners stated the followi-ng concerns: That the rezoning woul( require more time for review. Expiration date of Ord_..riance No. 118 - April 29, 1990. Residents should be provided with more information as to the urgency of the rezoning. Consideration should )e given to larger and small property . Clarify the purpose, and approach for addressing issues and the opportunity fox- the public to respond. Concerned with the rezc:.riing of the school property. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Manahan, 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 extersd the moratorium 90 days in order to provide further rev s -rw . Motion passed on a 4:0 ,ote. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PEMS None. 9. INFORMATION ITEMS Report back regarding the Pexaco Gasoline Station at 347 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 busi-ness the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON BY: Celia LaFleur, Secretary Chairman presiding: John Wozniak a June, 1985 Draft (4) Zoning Clearances and a become null and void if ATTACHMENT 3 oi.her permits and certificates shall (i) the application -equest which was submitted was not in ful 1 , true and c ,rrect. form. (ii1 the clearance i,,ued does, not comply with the terms and provisions of t permu °. originally granting the use within Chapter, cr 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 ,e in harmony with the existing or potential development o' the surrounding neighborhood; and to ensure development wh° h meets standards of environmental quality, public health Rnd safety, and efficient use of the City's resources. (2) General Provisions ( i ) A Planned Devel, mert. Permit shall be required for: (aa) residentia development consisting of five (5) or more separ to lots, or dwelling units; (ab) those use- noted in the matrix as requiring such in the re—dertial zones - Section 9- 1.506; and (ac) all commer(:ia' and industrial development within the City 'al' uses listed in Section 9- 1.507) unless a 'ecial u,;,e permit is required. (ii) For projects rel <jiring a Planned Development Permit, no building or gira+ing permit of any kind shall be issued for any such de.-lopment until the development has been approved as -ie- n f rov led. (3) Application (i) Application for a Plannf,d Development Permit shall be made on the pre crihed form provided by the Department of Community C,reIopment. The application shall be accompanied by �.he prescribed number of copies of a project plan ar such other detailed elevations, plans and other inforl ation as, may be required to adequately evaluate the p opo -,ed development. All applications shall be signer, �y the r wner of the property or person with the app -n -� a*( povi—r of attorney. (ii) The projec, ' Per skull include the following information: 7- 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 existirA ground slope is less than ten percent (10' and at not less than five (5) foot intervals f r existing ground slopes greater than or equal ~.o ten percent (10 %) -- contour intervals -,hal` not be spread more than one hundred fi*ty (1.50) feet apart and existing contours sh,ill be represented by dashed lines or by screened lines; location of all existing living tree-, having a trunk diameter of six (6) inches or more measured at four (4) feet above grade and other majc,r natural features. (ac) Proposed automobile and bicycle access and pedestriar, way locations and dimensions. Proposed ff- street parking, including the location, number of stalls, dimensions and circulatir,r system. (ad) Proposeo oading, including the location, dimensions. number r,f berths. (ae) Lot dimE>n', ins ind of l recorded easements. (af) Areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, parkways, playgrounds, school sites, public .)r uas - public buildings and other such uses. (ag) Areas proposed for commercial or industrial uses, multi - and ,inale- family dwellings, or any other uses prop+ e(! to be established within the project (ah) Proposed location and elevations of buildings on land, including dimensions, the size of structure ieight, setback, materials and yard areas. (ai) All propo�; , -, , *yns rnd their locations, size and height. (aj) Proposed Iindscapinrl, walls, fencing, screening, trash (o " ctior. =reas and usable open space areas. (ak) Location al size .)f existing and all proposed utility 1 ; -- s and c- ainages. June, 1985 Draft (al) A schedule ~or 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 dwelling units proposed by type of dwelling for each unit " 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. (4) Findings - In order to grant a Planned Development Permit, the actual — evidence and testimony presented in the public hearing must be sufficient to sucport the following findings: (i) Finding that t:he planned development is consistent with the Simi Valle General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. (ii) Finding that t'ye planned development does assure compatibility >r propert.y uses within the zone and general area. (iii) Finding that thr proper standards and conditions have. been imposed wh rah protect the public health, safety and welfare. (c) Cluster Development Permit (1) __Purpose - The Cluster Development Permit is intended to provide as method for the development of residential acreage resulting in more efficient use o° 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 .jch as zero lot line developments; and ensures development wh ch meets standards of environmental quality, public heal h A .afety, and the policies and goals of the General Plan. 9- PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tem ELOISE BROWN Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmember LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk Moo►zi>AHh o, 9 Q, M E M O R A N D U M 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: The Honorable City Council FROM: 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 Att.acnment 1 of the Item 11.C. staff report. This exhibit was inadvertently left out of the Council's staff report when it was ass(�mbled. 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 Jiscussed in our report to the Council dated February 12, )90, PJR /DST cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorparl. 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 pub'.ic hearing regarding the proposed rezoning. 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. oetween 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 RPD. A copy of the minutes of the Feb -uary 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 RPD. 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 D in the attached Planning Commission staff report.) Because the public concern appears to be/t-li—at the smaller property owners would be financially impacted, 6ttaff is recommending that the Council initiate an amendment t the City Zoning Code to require that a Planned Developmen Permit be required for residential development consisting o five or more separate lots or dwelling units, 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 ..:.)ts require a parcel map. Amending the Zoning Code to _Lnc..ude a :Planned Development Permit requirement similar to Simi Vala.ey'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 wou_,d be to amend the Zoning Code to include a Planned Developmen-: Permit requirement for all residential development consisting c'f the creation of five or more Honorable City Council February 12, 1990 Page 3 separate lots less than one five or more dwelling units size. Recommendation a.crr- in size or the construction of on e�isti.ng lots less than one acre in Staff's recommendation is as fol�ows: 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. The Planning Commission's recommendation is as follows: 1. That the City Council adopt in ordinance extending the current moratorium imposed by Ordinances 117 and 118 an additional 90 days, from April 29, 1990 t:; July 29, 1990. 2. That the City Council proviae additional clarification to the Planning Commission regarding the actual purpose and intent behind the proposed rezonir,. 3. That the City Council ident..fy to the Planning Commission any particular properties t',Lat the Council would like to see rezoned to RPD. PJR /DST Attachments: Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Staff Report dated 1 -30 -90 Attachment 2 - February 5, 1.990 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3 - City of Simi V -,lley Planned Development Permit Code Section r� MOORPARK ATTACHMENT i 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: February 5, 1990 • 11 •• �1"� • `1olw • tr KA- 1 1' •''r r• • C. HEARING IO=CN: City Council Chanibe_rs Deborah Traffenstedt Senior Planner B . HEARING TIME : 7:00 p.m. D. CASE NO.: STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DLLZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer Zoning Change No. Z -90 -1 F APPLICANT: City of Moorpark Rezone the properties identified on Exhibits A and B from One Family Residential (R -1) and Rural Exclusive (R -E) to Residential Planned Development (RPD) . H. RESTED ACTIN AND STAFF RF) ATICN: 1. Open the public hearing :nd accept public testimony. 2. Make the appropriate f i r tdings . 3- Adopt the attached reso ution ( Exhibit C) recamvzKUng approval of Z -90 -1. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 ']1• I• • I 1 ••' I 1 •' ��L Reccrmiend revisions to the list of prcperties proposed to be rezoned F rom R -1 and R -E to RPD. On Nvvenber 15, 1989, the City Council adapted an interim ordinance, No. 117, imposing a moratorium on the development of vacant property in the R -1 and R -E Zones. That ordinance had an expiration date of December 30, 1989. The Council subsequently adapted ordinance No. 118 on December 20, 1989, which extended the expiration date of the moratorium until April 29, 1990. These ordinances are attached as Exhibit D. Ordinance No. 117 was adapted on an urgency 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 inpiuvement of proposed residential projects. Without such a Process, the residential character of exi.stIng urbanized neighborhoods cannot be protected. 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 or R -E. One of the expressed purposes of the RPD Zone is to produce an environment of stable, desirable character which will be in harmony with the existing or potent al. development of the surrounding neighborhood. `ISM • 11 Because no change is proposed to the density of development allowed on a property, and since the zone change would be from one residential designation to another, it is staff's opinion that no conflict with the General Plan would result. The R -1 zoned property located west. of Spring Road and south of the Topa Management commmercial center currently has a C -2 General Plan designation. Rezoning this property to RPD will continue this inconsistency. However, the RPD Zone is preferable as an interim zone designation until the City or the property owners take action to correct this inconsistency through either a rezoning to a commercial Lone designation or a General Plan amendment to a Medium Density designation. SECTION IV - ENVUMMENTAL CLEARANCE Staff has determined that the prOgised rezoning is categorically exempt based on Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act. A conpleted exemption form is attachcv_i (Fxhib it. E). 2 - ' D66 • • -, 611 sM In offer to provide a comprehensive system for the compatible and orderly residential development of vacant or underutilized property that is Presently zoned R -1 or R -E, staff is proposing that certain R -1 and R -E zoned properties be rezoned to RPD. The properties staff is recommending for rezoning are shown on Exhibit r.. While the urgenc.-y ordinances (Nos. 117 and 118) prohibit the approval of any land use entitlamient (general plan amendment, zone change, subdivision, or building Permit) for all vacant property zoned R -1 or R -E, staff is not recommending that all such properties be rezoned to RPD. For example, there are several individual lots scattered throughout the City that could be further subdivided to create an additional lot. If rezoned to RPD, the result would be spot zoning. For the most part, staff is recommending for rezoning only those properties 'whi.ch could be further subdivided into two or Anne 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 recaimnending the rezoning of only the larger, vacant lots, this would have resulted in scattered spot zoning. We are, therefore, recommending 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 RPD. Many Property owners are concerned regarding what effect the rezoning to RPD will have on theca. For those properties which are already developed there will be no effect. If an owner of a house on a RPD zoned lot wants to add a room, the procedure would be the same as it would be for any resident ; al l Y zoned property in the City. n1ey would need to obtain a zoning clearance and a building l ding pemzmmi.t . Hah;ever, for the owner of a Property which is not currently developed, the RPD Zone would currently require them to obtain a Planned Development Permit before a zoning clearance and building permit couicj be issued. It is staff's opinion that a Plannxexi Develogment Permit should only be required if a subdivision map is aiso required or if a property owner intends to develop two or more adjacent properties within a one year Pe'iod • We are recamending that the Planning Cam ussion forward a recommendation to the City Council that the properties identified on Exhibit A be rezoned to RPD and that the Council initiate an awrchent to the RPD Ordinance to clarify that a RPD permit will not be required for a house proposed on an existing individual lot unless the owner has constricted or obtained a building permit. for a house on an adjacent Property within a one year period. `15 W • V• r That the Planning Commission approve the attached draft resoluti-n recaamending that the City Council approve the proposed rezoning of the properties identified on Exhibits A and B from R -1 and R -E to RPD based on the following findings: 1. The proposed rezoning to RPD will provide a comprehensive system for compatible and orderly residential development. 2. The proposed rezoning to RPD will protect the residential character of existing urbanized neighborhoo -is 3. The proposed rezoning to RPD will not result in significant environmental hVacts. 3. The proposed rezoning to RPD I.i consistent with the City of Moorpark General Plan. Prepared by: Approved by: Deborah S. Traffen. atrick J. Senior Planner Cammmity Development I�. -/- 9� Date EXHIBIT . • Showing Properties Proposed • be Rezoned from R-1 and to •'D EXHIBIT B: Assessor's Parcel. Numbers of Properties Proposed to be Rezoned to RPD EXHIBIT C: Draft Planning CcmTassion Resolution EXHIBIT D: Ordinance Nos. 11.7 and 11$ EXHIBIT E: Environmental motion Form Assessor Parcel 500- 35 -33, 504- 02 -27, 504- 03 -29, 505- 12 -14, 506- 01 -15, 506- 02 -33, 506- 03 -14, 507 - 211 -24, 511- 11 -01, 511- 11 -09, 512- 061 -05, 512- 061 -149 512 - 061 -25, 512- 072 -02, 512- 072 -41, 512- 072 -49, 512- 16 -71. ZONE CHANGE NO. Z -90 -1 Assessor Parcel Numbers of Properties Proposed to be Rezoned to RPD Nos 504- 02 -10, 504- 02 -28, 505- 12 -05, 505- 12 -15, 506- 01 -16, 506- 02 -34, 506- 03 -15, 507 - 302 -18, 511- 11-02, 512- 05 -09, 512- 061 -06, 512- 061 -1.5, 512- 061 -26, 512 - 072 -03, 512- 072 -42, 512- 072 -50, 504-02-1.1 504 -02 -29 505 -12 -06 505 -12 -16 506- 01-_`i8 506 -02 -3.5 506 -03 -16 511 -02 -04 511- 11 -0"3 512 -05 -10 512-061-01 512-061--1 512 -061 -2 512-072-0 512-072-4 512 -131 -') 504- 02 -24, 504- 03 -26, 505 -12 -07 506- 01 -01, 506- 01 -61, 506- 02 -37, 506-03 -18, 511- 02 -05, 511- 11 -06, 512 - 061 -02, 512- 061 -10, 512- 061 -21, 512--071 -03, 512-072 -28, 512- 072 -44, 512 16-12, 504- 02 -25, 504- 03 -27, 505- 12 -12, 506- 01 -03, 506- 02 -31, 506- 02 -57, 507 - 201 -14, 511- 03 -36, 511- 11 -07, .512- 061 -033, 512- 061 -12, 512 - 061 -23, 512- 071 -04, 512 - 072 -29, 512- 072 -45, 512- 16 -25, 504- 02 -26, 504- 03 -28, 505- 12 -13, 506- 01 -04, 506- 02 -32, 506- 03 -13, 507 - 201 -15, 511- 08 -42, 511- 11 -08, 512- 061 -049 512 - 061 -13, 512- 061 -24, 512- 071 -05, 512 - 072 -36, 512- 072 -46, 512 -16 -70 EXHIBIT B RESQLi. rI N NO. c'C- y• • • • •K CALIFUNIA, • aC•: 11N 11 1 APPF40VAL OF • 1 CHANGE • Z-90-1, t, 1 REZONING OF MART 1 PROPERTIES -.OM THE ONE FAMILY RESIDW= (R-1) AND RURAL EKCLUSIVE (R-E) ZONES • THE •E 11M1 I 1 1 1 E1 •' 1W •'/ • 1 WiEWAS, at a duly noticed Public nearing on February 5, 1990, the Planning Ceamission considered a a zone change application initiated by the City Council of the City of Moorpark for the prOPer ies identified on Exhibits A and B, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Ccmission after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff report dated January 30, 1990, including the Notice of Exettption Form, has found that the subject zone change will not have a significant effect on ti►e environment; and WHMEAS, at its meeting of February 5, 1990, the Planning Caamission Opened the Public hearing, took testimony fro<tl all those wishing to testify, closed the public hearing„ and reached its decision; NOW, FORE, THE PLANNING CIOUSSICN OF THE CITY OF M)ORPARK, CALIFQRNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FCII:L` SEMON 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CBQA), the Planning CcYnnission concurs that the Project is categorically exempt based on Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and recamiends that a Notice of Exf- npti,on be filed. SECTION 2. That the Planning ccmL sslOn hereby adapts the findings contained in the staff report dated January 30, 1990, and said report is incorporated herein by referee a= though fully set forth. SECTION 3. That the Planning Cc ission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the proposed r,-=ning of the properties identified on Exhibits A and B from R -1 and R -:E U-) RPD, and that the City Council nut' -ate an amendment to the RPD Orxjinance to clarify that a RPD permit will not be required for a house proposed on an existing individual lot unless the owner has constructed or obtained a building permit for a louse on an adjacent property, within a c sow year period. EXHIBIT C The action with the foregoing c1im-+tiOn was approved by the following roll call vote: • �� ....,• �� u • D• • 240 b • �: •� r..� .. Chaiman, John Wozniak Celia Ia Fleur Secretary ORDINANCE NO lit AN INTERIM ORDINANCE: OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA. ADOPTED ON AN URGENCY BASIS, IMP'OS[NG A MORATORIUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF' V:�CAIJT PROPERTY IN THE R -1 AND R -E ZONES THE CITY COUNCIL OF "'HE CIT'�' OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FO:,LOWS: SECTION 1. The City Counci. 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 orderl,„ development of urban residential projects be promoted. Furthermore, the processing of applications fo= such projects in the R -1 and R -E zone would perpetuate the zoning and land use problems that a process of development: �eviµw seeks to remedy. SECTION 2. The City ..ouncil. hereby directs the planning department to condluc° 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 connecti;)n with said study, the City Council contemplates the cons.i;]e rat, ic:�n of a general plan or zoning proposal within a reascnable, time, which proposal may provide for changing the zonir7cl on v <acant property from R -1 or R -E to RPD (Residential. Ply, rued D« =velopment) . SECTION 3. For the poriod cif time that this ordinance is in full force anc effect: no application for any land use entitlement related t> vacant property that is zoned R -1 or R -E shall be acce:.)ted for filing with, or issued or approved by, the C t ,', 4hic.th property is shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and y hi: reference made a part hereof. For purposes of this rdinance, land use entitlement means a general pl.n imen :Jment_, a zone charge, a subdivision cr a building pei"I t. SECTION 4. Pursuant o Government Code Sections 36937 and 65858, the City C --)u, is hereby finds and declares this Ordinance to be an urgenc ordinance requiring the immediate enactment thereof, r cctise there is a current and immediate danger and threat t t it ,L )l is health, safety or EXHIBIT welfare of the City and its citizens and the same is necessary for the immediate -:-eservation of the public peace, health or safety of tt- -City and its citizens. In addition, the City Council ti­ ids and declares that accepting for filing, issuing or appYc; =..ng any land use entitlement for any vacant R -1 or R -E z:or -_d property would result in a threat to the public health, 7afety or welfare. The facts constituting such urgency anc th -eat are as set forth in Section 1 of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. This Orc,.nance shall be effective immediately upon its adoption, and snall expire and be of no further force and effect as c Decemoer 30,-1989, unless sooner extended aster notir..:e aursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and a public he:ririg. SECTION 6. If any Section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of thi Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affec the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. he City Council hereby declares that it would have o,,ssed and adopted this Ordinance and each and all provissions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or r re of :,,aid provisions may be declared invalid. i SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by of less than a four- fifths vote of the City Council; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of saic City; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption ther�;(:)f in the records of the proceedings of the City Count;.;, at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall, with L; fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, :.,ause t..he same to be published in the Moorpark News - Mirror„ - weekly newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of the Government Code, for the City of Moorpar- and which is hereby designated for that purpose. i PASSED AND ADOPTED tr:s 15th day of Nov mber, 1989. ` ° *ay<)r of t City of Moorpark, California ATTEST: MOORPARK ELOISE BROWN Mayor = ,� - BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Pro Tern CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. Councilmember PAUL LAWRASON Councilmember -- % SCOTT MONTGOMERY Councilmember RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) SS. CITY OF MOORPARK ) STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P Director of Community Development R. DENNIS CELZEI T City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police I, Lillian E. Kellerman, Cit. Cier•K car the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certif, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Ordinance No. wa; adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a me�-in(� held on the 15th day of November 1989 an, that thr d same was a opted by the following vote. AYES: Councilmember -re.-, Harper, Montgomery and Mayor Lawrason NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None WITNESS my hand and the off, i a 1 seal of said City this 16th day of November 1C 'llian E. llerman Clerk. y • 799 Moorpark Avenue --- hlcxr; irk, Cakfc,rnia 93021 ---- - - - - -- (805) 529-686,1, ORDIN,' ^+CE NO. 118 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF 1'HE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING A MORATORIUM (',N THE DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT PROPERTY IN TI1E 1 AND R -E ZONES WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 1 7, 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 -f Zones for forty -five (45) days after the adoption thereof; and WHEREAS, for the period of force and effect no application vacant property that is zoned R -1, filing with, or issued or approveui Exhibit 1 of Ordinance 117, and b,. purposes of this ordinance, tan amendment, a zone change, a subdic.. time that Ordinance No. 117 is in full "or any land use entitlement related to R -E, or R -E -1 Acre shall be accepted for by, the City for all properties shown on this reference made.a part hereof. For use entitlement means a general plan sion, ou a building permit; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 117 di ected the Planning Department to conduct a study relative to providing a canprehensive system for the compatible and orderly residential development , vn(nnt: property that is presently zoned R -1 or R -E; and WHEREAS, the City has been we king diligently to complete said study; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY C0t,` t;II, OF 111E CITY OF MOORPARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. i. shall be extended from its expiration date of December 30, 1989, for tin r.dditional one hundred twenty (120) days, and shall expire on April 29, 19'40, unless sooner extended after notice pursuant to Government Code Sectic, 65090 and a public hearing. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Goverment Code Sections 36937 and 65858, the City Council hereby finds and de Iara�s this Ordinance to be an urgency ordinance requiring the immediate enactment thereof, because there is a current and immediate danger ancx lkient to the public: health, safety, or welfare of the City and its citi�r., In �ddition, the City Council finds and declares that accepting for- f inf„ it; suing or approving any land use entitlement for any vacant R -1„ F„ ,sr h -1: 1 Acre zoned property would result in a threat to the pub]! henl0i, �.afety or welfare. The facts constituting such urgency and ti ;v ire as set, forth in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 117. i SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for am reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such dec :i :3ior shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. "1'he City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance and each and all provisions thereof, irrespective >f :tw fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared inviil'. SECTION 4. The City C]lez shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by not less than a fou.t- 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 it which the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) da, -s after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published in the Moorpark News - Mirror, a weekly newspaper of general circulatio,, as defined in Section 6008 of the Government Code, for the City cif `toorpark, and which is hereby designated for that purpose. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2016 iay of`i) >cember, 1989. LCV Hayoi of t ity of Moorpar California ATTEST: AO0RNARK PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tem 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 ) S`-) . 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 I, Lillian E. Kellerman, Cit, Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certif,, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Ordinance No. _ i�` _ wa adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a rnf,f irg hr,l, on the 20th day of December following vote: , 1989, arc that tth game was adopted by the AYES: Councilmembers Brawn, Harper, Perez, Montgomery, Ma',/or' awrason NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None WITNESS my hand and the offi ial seal of said City this 21st da of December lq, d y 4K'�'�r Kellerman 799 Moorpark ,,venue h'CCrfj �rk. C alifowia 93021 (805) 529 -686 t� `o S`-) . 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 I, Lillian E. Kellerman, Cit, Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certif,, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Ordinance No. _ i�` _ wa adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a rnf,f irg hr,l, on the 20th day of December following vote: , 1989, arc that tth game was adopted by the AYES: Councilmembers Brawn, Harper, Perez, Montgomery, Ma',/or' awrason NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None WITNESS my hand and the offi ial seal of said City this 21st da of December lq, d y 4K'�'�r Kellerman 799 Moorpark ,,venue h'CCrfj �rk. C alifowia 93021 (805) 529 -686 NOTICE OF NDUN4 TION TO: Office of Planning and Rene r-Ch 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 X County Clerk County of Ventura 800 South Victoria vA—enuei- Ventura, O-0-9 - -- - - Project Title Zone Change No. Z -90 -1 Project Location - S pecific — _ FROM: City of Moorpark Moorpark Avenue oorpar , Various locations in the City of Moorpark as identified by the attached map and list of the Assessor Parcel Numbers r the affected properties. Project Location Project Location - County City of Moorpark County of Ventura Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project The City of Moorpark has initiated tht, rezoning of the properties identified on attached Exhibits A and B from R- 1(0nf• Family Residential) and R -E (Rural Exclusive) Zones to the RPD (Residential Planned Development) Zone. The RPD Zone will allow for more control over future developm -it .ind .nSU re that the residential character of existing neighborhoods is protected. Name of Public Agency Approving Projc� fi -- City of Moorpark Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out i5ro�iect ` City of Moorpark Exempt Status: (Check One) — Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1;, 152681; Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4) 15269(b)(c)). —X— Categorical Exemption (Sec.1`300- 15'29) Reasons why Project is exempt: -._.._ The proposed project is considered cd�egorically exempt based upon Section 15305 of CEQA. This exemption is for minor lterat"ims in land use limitations which do not result in any changes in l akid e c r dE lS i ty.. Contact Person Area Code Telephone Extension Patrick J. Richards Director of CommunitJy_Development (805) 529 -6864 If filed by applicant: -- 1. Attach certified document of c -,emption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption lx: filed ray the public agency approving the project? Yes No to ceived for Fig -knc • - ture _ --- _- [�Jrector of Community Development Title EXHIBIT E ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission, C„ty of Moorpark, California Minutes c?f__':; ebruarv- 5, 1990 The regular scheduled meeting (- f 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; a,�d 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, '.986, January 22, 1986, September 10, 1986 and December 18,1 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, 1)86 and December 18, 1989 as submitted. Motion passed on r„ 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 Lirrounding buildings. Wall which would divide the industrial zone area from the residential zone area nd the height and length of such wal.i. The existing underground tank adjacent to the industrial property and adjacent residential area with relation to health and safety farts •s . 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 icy height and heavily landscaped after previously meeting with the surrounding property owners and discussing 11-eir views and concerns. Mr. Annotti referenced Condition No. 39 in relation to the $25,600 which woult.i be require for the replacement value of trees to be removed. His request to the Commission was to pr_o�.de the $25,600 for replacement trees, or trees of a mere maturity. 2. Phyllallenn Mason, l3t,1 Park. Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90804. Mrs. Mason proceeded to narrate a video which filmed the site and addr >ssed tfie 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 overal height. He preferred a 6 ft. in height and earthtone it cclor 5. John Mason, 413 Shasta, Moorpark, CA 93021. Mr. Mason provided an overhead view of scaled difference proposed by providing a buildinl� 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 va.iue of the trees being removed be put back into the project fcr additional landscaping. That the applicant consider the entire length of the 30 foot buffer as landscaped area aii run the length of the adjacent property owners rear yard. That the applicant proviao 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 & revised plan showing a reduced height. Condition No. 13 - cor ect 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 �vea- and above that normally required. Condition No. 50 - regtrrding hazardous waste. employ dispose or prqdu -e hazardous materials. Condition No. 76 - del -te "— 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 xemoved within 5 days of notice by the City." Condition No. 72 be rev,.sed and require stronger language in order to meet the adjacent property owners concerns in relation to soil testing. That a 6 ft. wall ii, height be provided along and adjacent to the residential properties. This wall shall be earthtone in color Motion passed on a 4 :0 vote. B. Zone change No Z -90 - -1 City of Moorpark Rezoning of R -1 (One Fami.;.y Residential) and R -E (Rural Exclusive) zoned properties, to RPD (Residential Planned Development). Various locat.ons 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 41 th the Community Development Department. Presented by Debbie Traffenst&dt, Senior Planner. Reference: Staff Report dated February 2, '_990. Testimony received by the foll(wing: 1. Lowell N. Richards, :28 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. 1171 and 118 in elation to the urgency of the ordinance as it refere?,-ed 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 t�liat the rezoning would only hurt any of the long time residents in providing any improvements, and fees should be charged accordingly, owner /occupant vs. deve:oper. 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 s..it 3. V.G. McQueen, 387 Bc:)nnieview, Moorpark, CA. In opposition to rezoning 4. Carolyn Cummings, 872 Valley Road, Moorpark, CA. In opposition to rezoning PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT: 10:? P.M. Commissioners stated the followi-ng concerns: That the rezoning woulc, require more time for review. Expiration date of Ordnance No. 118 - April 29, 1990. Residents should be provided with more information as to the urgency of the rezc. -ling. Consideration should e given to larger and small property . Clarify the purpose, anJ approach for addressing issues and the opportunity fox the public to respond. Concerned with the rE)Zoriing 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 pi-ovide more specific direction to the Commission and extend the moratorium 90 days in order to provide further reel -sw. Motion passed on a 4:0 poto . 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 11'EMS None. 9. INFORMATION ITEMS Report back regarding the ". "exaco Gasoline Station at 347 Moorpark Avenue. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS Schedule for the Los Angeles Avenue widening project at Tierra Rejada and Spring Roads. Planning Commissioners Inst.it ite - dEyadline February 28, 1990. 11. STAFF COMMENTS The Commission's next meeting will be held on Tuesday February 20 due to the holiday on Feti_uary 19, 1990. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further bus.in, ss the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON BY: Celia LaFleur, Secretary Chairman presiding: ,.John Wozniak June, 1985 Draft ATTACHMENT 3 (4) Zoning Clearances and a I other permits and certificates shall become null and void (i) the application •equest ghich was submitted was not in full, true and rrec. frirm. (ii) the clearance ued doe,, not comply with the terms and provisions of ° e Ferm,- originally granting the use within Chapter, or 2. (b) Planned Development Permit: (1) Purpose - The Planned) D-velopmert 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 •e in harmony with the existing or potential development o° the surrounding neighborhood; and to ensure development which meets standards of environmental quality, public health ,nd safety, and efficient use of the City's resources. (2) General Provisions (i} A Planned Develc ment Permit shall be required for: (aa) residentic development consisting of five (5) or more separ to lots or dwelling units; (ab) those uses noted in the matrix as requiring such in the re, dential zones - Section 9- 1.506; and (ac) all commer :ial ano industrial development within the City all uses listed in Section 9- 1.507) unless a c ecial 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 dev loprnent until the development has been approved as her (3) Application (i} Application for made on the Gyre of Community DE accompanied by project plan inc and other inforr, evaluate the I„ shall he signer with the appr -G� The project information: Planned Development Permit shall be ribed form provided by the Department ,el opmenI. The application shall be °ie prescribed number of copies of a such other detailed elevations, plans tion as may be required to adequately oosr,c:i development. All applications Y the owner of the property or person It,o pr>W, -- of attorney. j, h ll include the following June, 1985 Draft (aa) A map show,ng division of the land for the sale of individt,al property, if any. (ab) Existing contours at two (2) foot intervals if the existin ground slope is less than ten percent (1('q) and at not less than five (5) foot intervals .,r existing ground slopes greater than or equal to ten percent (10%) -- contour interva'is ;hall not be spread more than one hundred fi'rty (15o) feet apart and existing contour!, ,rya 1 " be represented by dashed lines or by screenej lines;, location of all existing living trees having a trunk diameter of six (6) inches )r r,lore measured at four (4) feet above grade and ro-her majrr natural features. (ac) Proposed utomobile and bicycle access and pedestrian way locations and dimensions. Proposed Iff-street parking, including the location, number of stalls, dimensions and circulation systern. (ad) Proposed oading, including the location, dimension= number cf berths. (ae) Lot dimen,-rns and X11 recorded easements. (af) Areas prop(.�ed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, parkways, playgrounds, school sites, public or ias—public buildings and other such uses. (ad) Areas proposed for commercial or industrial uses, multi - and Ingle- family dwellings, or any other uses prop( ec t,) be established within the project. (ah) Proposed }(3 ation and elevations of buildings on land, -in( :ading dimensions, the size of structure, -ielcht, setback, materials and yard areas. (ai) All propo,l signs end their locations, size and height. (aj) Proposed I<iidscapiny, walls, fencing, screening, trash colt ,tion c­f,as and usable open space areas. (ak) Location ii . zo c existing and all proposed utility lin, iud drainages. June, 1985 Draft (al) A schedule for the development to be constructed in phasing, tabulation of total number of acres in the p�oposed project and percent thereof designated for various uses; and the number of dwelling i, its proposed by type of dwelling for each unit f development. (am) Such addit ona+ information as may be required by the Direct r of Community Development or Planning Commission The Director may waive or modify items required tin this section, if such items are found to pertain to conditions unaffected by the proposed development. (4) Findings - In order to grunt a Planned Development Permit, the Tactual evidence and testimony presented in the public hearing must be sufficient to sutiport the following findings: M Finding that the planned development is consistent with the Simi Valle General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. (ii) Finding that t -e planned development does assure compatibility property uses within the zone and general area. (iii) Finding that the proper standards and conditions have been imposed wh' h protoct the public health, safety and welfare. (c) Cluster Development Permit (1) Purpose - the Cluster Development Permit is intended to provide a met od for the development of residential acreage resulting in more efficient use ol- 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, espe,ially on hillsides, than is otherwise possible through strict application of the setback and lot width standards; that er ourages a variety of dwelling types, sizes and site designs sich as zero lot line developments; and ensures development whi h meets standards of environmental quality, public health , i safety, and the policies and goals of the General Plan. MOORPARK PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr _ STEVEN KUENY Mayor ��e �o City Manager SCOTT MONTGOMERY F' CHERYLJ.KANE Mayor Pro Tern .� City Attorney ELOISE BROWN �,i �`- � ` i PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Councilmember �- Director of CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. °�� Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT Councilmember City Engineer BERNARDO M. PEREZ JOHN V. GILLESPIE Councilmember Chief of Police LILLIAN KELLERMAN RICHARD T. HARE City Clerk City Treasurer M E M 0 F A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community :Ijf DATE: February 21, 1990 SUBJECT: ITEM 11.C. EXHIBIT, FEBRUARY 21, 1990, MEETING Attached is Exhibit A to Attacament i 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 l(-)ger recommending the rezoning of the properties shown on Exhibit:. A, as discussed in our report to the Council dated February 12, 91) PJR /DST cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 r CLUB TENNIS C L{W U r5 COMMUNITY • CENTER pE A_�• (me orrvnR� q., r V�He f , n CHURCH _ sI7E