Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0621 CC REG ITEM 11D�_. -tip �; <t� 7/� • 7/ (� ITEM •P TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Jim R. Aguilera, Director of Community DevelopmenVi �' Paul Porter, Senior Planner DATE: May 10, 1995 (CC meeting of June 7, 1995) SUBJECT: APPEAL 95 -2 (BRAEMAR URBAN VENTURES)- APPEAL OF DIRECTOR OF COMIKUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S of DECISION REQUIRING NEED FOR A GENERAL PLAN M AMENDMENT FOR ALLOWING 120 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF NEW — ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT CASEY ROAD HIGH SCHOOL SITE Background Braemar Urban Ventures submitted Preapplication No. 95 -2 for preliminary review of conceptual plans for the Casey Road school site. These conceptual residential plans include the use of High Street as an access for the development. Alternative Nos. 1 and 2 are traditional residential developments, the first having access from both Casey Road to the north and High Street to the south, and the second having both primary and secondary access taking place from High Street. Alternative No. 3 provides access to lots from individual courtyards with primary access to the project at Casey Road with secondary access at High Street. In reviewing the preapplication by the applicant for the development of the Casey Road School site for development of 100 residential units and the use of a portion of the site in conjunction with a new elementary school facility including play fields, the Director of Community Development made the decision that an Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan will be required. The applicant appealed the Director's decision requiring a General Plan Amendment on May 5, 1995. In addition, depending on the extent of the use of High Street, an amendment to the Circulation Element may also be required. This would be the case if High Street extends to Specific Plan No. 1 as shown by Alternative No. 2. To avoid further delay, if a General Plan Amendment is allowed to be processed it should include the Circulation Element. The Director's decision is based on the fact that the General Plan for this property is very specific about the number of units (80) to be allowed on 24.8 acres (3.22 du /ac). Due to the ro os d CAUFORMA 0 Meeang 199 p p e new elementary school, the net, property available for the development has been reduced to 16 acres. Therefore, a proportional reduction of density would allow 50 units if property is developed at "maximum" c en.s;it ;y and 77 units if tjMPAPK CAL FOr;:. /iW�n oj , Meeting PP05 :10:9512:26PMA :\7JW95.CC d. � 1995 !'ICTION. 00148 property is developed at the density limit (4.83 du /ac). Clearly 110 units as proposed surpasses either of these two options. Therefore, if the applicant wishes to develop the property at 110 units (6.87 du /ac) a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element is required to increase the density from 3.22 du /ac to 6.87 du /ac. The applicant states that in reviewing the language in the General Plan, that up to 120 residential units are allowed on all or a portion of the site and that at the time that the General Plan was approved for the site, there was an understanding of the City's intention to use at least half of the site for play fields and other community use in conjunction with 120 residential housing units. Staff Analysis The applicant's argument is flawed in several ways: 1. The original intent was not to allow 120 units on a portion of the site. The original intent was to allow 80 units on 24.8 acres as stated in the General Plan text. 2. There have been discussions about utilizing part of the property for a park site; however, those were negotiations beyond the Purview of the General Plan. 3. The applicant's third point ignores the fact that the actual development area for Specific Plan No. 9 has been reduced to 16 acres. The reference to the school site taking a portion of the adjacent property enlarging the site's net usable area is erroneous. Property cannot be taken from one Specific Plan area and moved to another Specific Plan area without amending the General Plan. All of the proposed alternatives predetermine the location of uses on the site. They have set aside property for the proposed elementary school and an existing auditorium and preclude the consideration of residential development on this portion of the site. Since this area will remain under ownership of the Moorpark Unified School District and could be developed in the future, a portion of the approved density for Specific Plan No. 9 needs to be reserved for this area unless a General Plan Amendment is considered. You have two potential ownerships with one ownership appearing to get a11. ) the density. Circulation Element In addition, the Specific Plan No. 9 proposals don't provide a realistic alternative for access to Casey Road. The current PP05:10:9512:16p=&:\7jW95.CC 00149 proposal places it through the Boys and Girls Club site. The Moorpark Unified School District has apparently reserved the right to do this through its agreement with the club, but from a practical standpoint the road would split the gym from the club parking and eliminate the outdoor basketball area. Because of the difference in elevation between Casey Road and the proposed residential area it would appear tc, require retaining walls for the road construction. Fiscal Impact It is expected that there will be a minor additional monetary impact to the applicant. Staff estimates that additional processing fee deposit will amount to $1,967 and consultant fees for the additional work related to review and amendment of the General Plan Policies are estimated to be another $2,000. Additional costs to the City will be borne by the applicant as part of the processing fees. The cost of the EIR should not cost any more than it would cost to prepare the EIR for the Specific Plan. Actual costs will be based on the scope of work, the same as with other development projects. Staff Recommendation 1. Deny the appeal. 2. Authorize processing of a General Plan Amendment for the Land Use and Circulation Elements for consideration of 80 to 110 dwelling units on 16 acres and extension of High Street to connect to the Casey Road extension in Specific Plan No. 1 upon filing of a General Plan Amendment within one year. 3. Authorize a combined EIR with a City selected consultant for both the General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan to allow the General Plan Amendment to be considered at the same time as the Specific Plar, so as to not cause a time delay. Attachments: 1. Letter from The Braemar Group dated April 14, 1995. 2. Pages 32 and 33 in Land Use Element of General Plan relative to Specific Plan No. 9. PP05:10:9512.16p":' \7JW95.CC 3 00150 The Braemar Group 30495 Can wood Street, Suite 200 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 8181889 -6302 FAX 8181 991 -6728 April 14, 1995 Mr. Steve Kueny City Manager CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark., CA 93021 • �� 1� XV3AVRIM Dear Steve: U�Z � � 1 1 ti CITY OF MOORP4 -?€t OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER It has been brought to my attention that the apparent reason for the continued delay in processing the above referenced co- application for the construction of a new elementary school and the related residential development of the property is an interpretation that this proposed joint use requires a General Plan Amendment We have thoroughly reviewed and researched the current General Plan language as well as the intent of the current zoning and have concluded the ''ollowin,t; • The original intent of this language as written , ,dearly to allow up to 120 units on all or a portion of the site. • When the zoning was originally approved for tiie site there was a clear understanding of the City's intention to use at least half of the site t( i :)lay fields and other community use along with the approved 120 units • The application, as currently submitted, describes a use of approximately 110 units and use of a portion of the site for a new elementary school facility which would include play fields which are once again available for community use. Please note that a portion of this new elementary school, as proposed, will be located on adjacent property, hence enlarging the site's net usable area therefor making its net del sitv coorespondingly lower Both Braemar and the District would appreciate stab s ulimediate reconsideration of the City's most recent preliminary, and seemingly hasty opiniOri F(gardln'L. the need for a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Steve Kueny April 14, 1995 Page Two In the event staff continues to be of the opinion that a General Plan Amendment is required, both co- appficants would respectfully request that this item be placed on the City Council agenda for final determination and review. Please notify our office as soon as possible with yo it position on this matter. Very truly yours, The Braemar Group tt% R9MWW1M Avi Brosh Vice President, Urban Communities /lp cc: Dr. Thomas Duffy - Moorpark Unified School Moorpark Board of Education Dr, Joel Kirschenstein - Sage Institute fAavi\sk1ct2 1 as Public Institutional within this specific plan area. The appropriate amount of land to be designated as Open Space, Park, School, or any other appropriate land use designation, will be determined at the time of specific plan preparation or approval. Overlay Designation - Open Spice (300 acres) Rural LO> , ( 1 15 acres) Specific Plan 3 (Deleted) Specific Plan 9 Specific Plan 9 consists of approximately 24.8 acres under one ownership, located in the western section of the City, High Street, west of Walnut Canyon Road, and south of Casey Road• This specific plan area consists of the City,s former high school site and contains the playing fields and classroom buildings. The area formerly a part of the high school site, that was purchased by the Moorpark Boys and Girls Club, is not part of this specific plan area. Opportunities and Constraints Specific plan area development issues will be addressed during specific plan preparation and subsequent review, and include: Topography - An evaluation of steep slopes, unstable soils and other geotechnical constraints within the hillside areas of development will be conducted during the development /review of this plan. Consistent with City policy, grading is restricted on slopes greater than 20 percent and development prohibited in areas where Potential hazards cannot be fully mitigated. Hydrology - An evaluation of existing runoff, potential flood hazards and other�hydrologiocal constraints , surface will be conducted during the development /review of this specific plan. Views hed - The i mportance and visibility of hillside horizon lines and any prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from surrounding areas will be evaluated during he review of the specific Plan. g preparation and be considered where appropriate P C -1ust� ring of dwelling units should natural resources /hazrd ar eas _c� cOn`'c�r_ve important visual and 00152 Biological Resources - The significance of biological resources which may occur onsite (i.e., oak trees, threatened, rare, endangered plants and animals, etc.) shall be determined during specific plan preparation and review. The preservation of any resources determined to be significant shall be encouraged through habitat preservation, enhancement, or replacement. Archaeology - The specific plan area will be evaluated to determine whether archaeological resources occur within the overall plan area and their potential significance„ Public Services/ Infrastructure - Water, sewer, gas and electric service to the specific plan area will be provided through service extensions from existing transmission lines in the surrounding area. An evaluation will be conducted during the development of this specific plan regarding required land use set - asides and financing for schools and community services such as fire stations and libraries. Parks - An evaluation will be conducted during the development of this specific plan to identify required park land dedicgtion consistent with the City Municipal. Code and General Plan requirements. Circulation - The specific plan area circulation network will require consideration for its relationship to topographical constraints, viewshed issues, and its relationship to the SR -23 freeway. The specific plan shall ensure that roadway right -of -ways are protected for the planned roadway upgrades, improvements and additions as identified in the City's circulation plan. Proposed Land Uses The number of dwelling units shall not exceed 80, unless the specific plan area property owner agrees to provide public improvements, public services and /or financial contributions that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community, in which event, the number of dwelling units shall not exceed 120. The appropriate amount of land to be designated as Open Space, Park, or any other appropriate land use designation, will be determined at the time :)f specific plan preparation or approval. Overlay Designation - School. 4.8 acres) 0053 The 00 Braemar Group 30495CanuroodStreet, suite yk Agoura Hills, CA 91301 818/889.6302 FAX 8181991 -6728 May 31, 1995 Mr. Jaime Aguilera Director of Community Development CITY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 VIA FAX: 805/529 -8270 -tv •� �� r Dear Mr. Aguilera: G F002/002 By this letter, I am respectfully requesting that the above referenced project be continued from the June 7th, 1995 City Council meeting to June 21 si 1995 City Council meeting. Thank you for you immediate attention to this rmuest. Very truly yours, The Braemar Group XX AAA Brosh Vice President Urban Communities (on behalf of co- applicants) /lp cc: Dr. Thomas Duffy - Superintendent Moorpark School Board of Education Dr. Joel Kirschenstein - Sage Institute 00154 MAY 31 195 13:3a 818 991 6728 PAGE.002 �2 AEvi . ZZ7L��� �3RAEt1�AR HOMES 30495 Canwood Street Suite 200 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Phone: 818 -889 -6302 Facsimile: 818- 991 -6728 i �180529$�70 P001 /002 DATE MAY 31, 1995 SEND TO NAME: J: - AGUILERA FAG$1MIL.E: 805/529 -8270 FROM NAME: AVI BRASH NO. OF PAGES_ Uncl,_cover): 2 RE: MESSAGE CITY OF MOORPARK OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council / FROM: Steven Kueny, City Manager, L- DATE: June 7, 1995 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment (GPA) for Specific Plan No. 9 (MUSD /Braemar) The City's position concerning th(� need for a GPA for the Land Use Element dates to at least Jul,, 1993 when the City and MUSD were negotiating abot'it use of a pf,rtior, of the property for a park site. Enclosed are three letters that a(iaress this point (July 8 and 23, 1993, from the City and Jul,; : 1, '993, from MUSD) . SK:db Enclosures cc: Jim Aguilera, Director of Cormunity Development - \dor_s \wpwin \citymgr \gpa.sp9 00155 July 8, 1993 MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6884 Dr. Thomas Duffy Moorpark Unified School District 30 Flory Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Re: Casey Road Site Dear Tom: The City Council has considered the counter proposal contained in your June 25, 1993 ]etter to me. The Council's response is as follows: 1. Purchase price of $1.2 million for the lower fields with $900,000 paid at close of escrow and the balance paid in four (4) installments of $75,000 each at the annual anniversary date of the close of escrow proceeding through 1997. In addition, as discussed by the negotiating committees, the transfer of property is to also include the District owned property on the City /2. owned side of the flood control channel. At City's expense, >_ p , within ont. hundred twenty (120) days of the close of escrow, the `ity will amend the General Plan Land Use Element to ref .ect the reduced acreage of Specific Plan No. 9 with no 11te1 changes to the text or maps. 3. The District can continue to use the metal building now used for maintenance purposes for two years. At that time, the metal building could be vacated by the District and,' -at the City's option, removed or turned over to the City. Within ti rty ('30) days after the close of escrow, the Distr.i,_t will remove the storage containers and other items outside storage from the lower fields. This point Contai-ned in my May 11, 1993 letter to you. 4 • The District shall have access ' --o the mezzanine level as long as the District owns an:. uses the mezzanine level for public educational an(J cr Di:::,t::.rict maintenance Purposes. As stated in my M3} 11, 1993 . letter, there needs to be some limitation., aclud_i_nq but not limited 0(1156 PAUL W. LAWRASON JR SCOTT MONT(�OMFFO I'ATHFa; ^�L Mayor Mayor P „ 1,NARD0 M PERE/ JOHN f W07NIAK u r . lc.11n,r•m '- tx,ncilmemti!•r Dr. Thomas Duffy July 8, 1993 Page 2 to the same time period that the planned park is open to the public. These can be drafted as part of the final agreement. 5. The District's proposal on the landscape easement is acceptable. 6. I don't know if this is still an issue since it isn't included in your June 25 counter proposal, but the City has previously agreed in concept to allow the District's approved short -term rental uses to continue to use the lower fields. We will need to see a list of the currently approved uses. As with all agreements, we will need to reduce the final Points of the agreement to specific written provisions. If the Board and City Council reach agreement on this matter, I suggest that we meet as soon as possible to conclude drafting of the final documents so that this lengthy process can be finalized and the community's desire for a downtown park and the District's financial. objectives can be realized. The City Council appreciates the Board's consideration of this proposal and awaits the Di< >trict's reply. Sincerely, Steven Kueny City Manager SK:db cc-: Honorable City Council MUSD Board of Education c: \wp51 \citymgr \MUSDCasy.rd 10� MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC - 30 Flory Avenue, Moorpark, Califor•iia Qir July 12, 1993 Mr. Steven Kueny, City Manager City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Lear Mr. Kueny: (805) 378 -6300 JUL 1393 Thank you for your written response to the District's counter proposal dated June 25, 1993. The Board has considered the City Council's The and has asked that the presented to the City, following proposal be The Board will accept items one and two contained in your letter of July 81 19939, noted below, if the City Council will accept the Board's counter proposal described below relating to items three and four of your letter. ITEMS CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTED 1• The City's proposed price, payment schedule and purchase additional property on the east of the flood control channel; and V12. The City's ro ose p p d amendment of the General Plan Land Use Element to reduce the acreage of the District's parcel. COUNTER PROPOSAL 3• The District will continue to have access to and use the metal building now used for maintenance that the purposes until such time property on the mezzanine level is sold or the City - may, at it's expense, relocate or replace the building upon existing District property; and 4• The District shall have access to the mezzanine level as lon as the District owns and uses the mezzanine level for g education, District maintenance purposes and or Public of District facilities. The proposed limitations uoflaccess will need to be explored verbally; a reasonable limit which does not impede the District in it's use or in assisting the public to use the property must be the intent. public uses would,. as example, be limited to the access for activity of coaches and others rather than spectators access. BOARD OF LDUCAI7ON: SAM K NAINUA Presi 3en( 1'1M t'n� "� i� PrcSid� nl. GREG BARMT cic•rk: CLINT D. HARITR, Ph.D.. Mcmb, n I U�1 13 \1 I )WIN �1r, h, � s 1 1 a I ` I d 1 ;ari l Sul,��rintcn cnI An Lqual Oppartunit }� fmpluyrr Mr. Steven Kueny July 12, 1993 Page 2 Items five and six are acceptable. I appreciate item six in that we have not spoken of it recently. our attention to District facilities at the site are The users of concerned about their ability to continue to Huse thenfi fields, this clarifies the issue. Past, and I look forward to your written response. We can schedule a time to meet Please call my office so proposal. o discuss the details of this Sincerely, JA nab X_ k --/ Thomas G. Duffy, Ed. D. District Superi t n endent TGD:ah cc: MUSD Board of Education City Councilmembers July 23, 1993 MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 Dr. Thomas Duffy Superintendent of Schools Moorpark Unified School District 30 Flory Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Dear Dr. Duffy; The City Council has proposal focusing onsidered the the lower g °n the District's use needs. field. The City has tried to FAX and MAIL District's July 201 1993 Of the metal building on respond to the District's To address the Districts adjacent property need to use the indeterminate for District maintenancemetal building and pu this with period, the City Council responds tha p�tecanfocce inclusion of three an (3) items as follows; pt 1 • Deferral of Payment to the District of buildin $133,000 000 amount is determined b• until such time as the District vacates the by the District and the agreed $100,000 value Ofatheobuildin This Per e ft. greed upon value of the g set square The City estimates that land of $2.59 the f rigof land is necessary, to support °Distreict 1 e of District use of 200 000 ($2 59 x 12, 800 S _ $330. 63 acres X 43, 560 s $2 . . 5916 s q• ft. q• ft / q• ft. ,15.00) 2• The District will have access to and use of and approximately 12,800 s the metal building maintenance purposes until suchft�..me that mezzanine level is sold or the District property for District mezzanine level for District maintenance property on the first occurs• no longer uses the and purposes, whichever 3. When the District relinquishes above, at the Cit ut'E and compensation y s option and access under No, 2 building he District will without additional g and its foot -in either remove the leave the building in gs and concrete and /or as metal Place. phalt pad, or PAUL W LAWRASON JR Mayor SCOTT MON7G(,)Mi H, May��, t PATRICK F'U NiEr F H��ArtD( M pf- 7 JOHN F W07NiAk �i m,imem7e Dr. Thomas Duffy July 23, 1993 Page 2 With this proposal, the the a Purchase price remains at pproximate 10.63 acres of the lower fields $1.2 million for buildings and the District owned property on the City owned side of elusive of the the flood control channel, with payment as follows: A. $767,000 upon close of escrow; B. Four (4) installments Of anniversary date of $75.000 each at the th" annual and through 1997• close of escrow proceeding C. $133, 000 when the District ert � vacates the metal building and adjacent pro building upon its r moval, required to remove the metal Pursuant to our conversation of Jul 20th the city side of the flood control. July 20th, het istrict property on property extending to the toe of the include all of the to the stadium and Boys and Girls Club lar of the parkin Pathway leading To reiterate agreement on the other �o:int,; g lot. follows: / , they are restated as 1• At City , s ex pow close of escrow , within one - hundred twenty the City will amend the General Plan Land Use Element to reflect the reduced acreage of Specific P lan No, 9 with no other changes to the text: or maps. 2• City and District agree to a landscape easement area; at the time the property for the slope granted, the easement will be `'`' sold and development nc,dified„ permit 3• The City Y a r ..ees in concept to allow the District's short -term rental uses to continue to use the lower fields. (Please note that in my June 25, < the City requested a 1.93 and May 11, 1993 letters have not received a listing of. the approved uses. response . ) To date we 4• Within thirty (30 District will remove days storage after the close of outside storage from c=ontainers and the my July the lower f i f l ds . This was c 12, 1993 letter. ontained in Y 8 1993 letter with �;c � F,,' a ei enc -E" to it in Your July 5 • We are in conceptual agreement greement with access by the District and access by the mezzanine level per public t° District It still Point No. facilities on the needs to °f Your ,TUly 12, 1993 letter. address the c it., s 3ecur-'_ty related concern Dr. Thomas Duffy July 231 1993 Page .3 about access only during hours that the planned park is open to the public. The City Council understands and has been very responsive to the District's need to use the metal building by deferring the availability of this area for public park purposes. The City Council awaits the Board's response so that language for the agreement and related documents can be prepared. Sincerely, Steven Kueny City Manager SK:db cc: Honorable City Council Board of Education C:\wp51\citymgr\musdcsy7.22