HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0607 CC REG ITEM 11Mi f C>
TE A1, •
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 ) DOWAIN, CALIFCRN' ',
Et+I Meeflng
SUBJECT: APPEAL 95 -2 (BRAEMAR URBAN VENTURES)- APPEAL C
OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S 71 �9 9—,�
DECISION REQUIRING NEED FOR A GENERAL PLAN _hON: K
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 alsc::a 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 (:{.22 du /ac). Due to the
proposed new elementary school, the net property available for
the development has been reduced t:.(::) 16 acres. Therefore, a
proportional reduction of density would allow 50 units if the
property is developed at "maximum" density and 77 units if the
PP05 :10:95 12:16pna:\7JW95. CC
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 Pla,r.
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 al, of 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
PP05:10:9512:16pM:\7JW95_CC 2
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 to 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 Plan 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.
PPO5:1O:9512:16p=A:\7JU995.CC 3
The
04 Braemar
Group
30495 Canwood Street, Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
8181889 -6302
FAX 81 81 99 1 -6 728
April 14, 1995
Mr. Steve Kueny
City Manager
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark., CA 93021
1' w gel conv V Lemetw4l.-I .e: 1 C 11
Dear Steve:
mm, I
CITY OF MOORPuRK
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 following
• The original intent of this language as written it clearly to allow up to 120 units on all or a
portion of the site
• When the zoning was originally approved for the site there was a clear understanding of the
City's intention to use at least half of the site ro play 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 (density coorespondingly lower
Both Braemar and the District would appreciate staffs immediate reconsideration of the City's
most recent preliminary, and seemingly hasty opinicin regarding; the need for a General Plan
Amendment.
G'
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 Sr: -ice ]. ( 300 acres)
Rural ' -our ( 145 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, north of
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 drainage courses, surface
runoff, potential flood hazards and other hydrological constraints
will be conducted during the (R velopment /review of this specific
plan.
Viewshed - The importance and visibility of hillside horizon lines
and any prominent ridgelines within this specific plan area from
surrounding areas will be evaluated during the preparation and
review of the specific plan. Clustering of dwelling units should
be considered where appropriate to conserve important visual and
natural resources /hazard area:,.,
12
3
cD ';
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
C( 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 CLty'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 tiurua'_ of specific plan preparation or
approval. J
Overlay Designation - School ,24.8 acres)
�3
(1C: .Cp..
The
00 Braemar-
Group
30495 Canwood Street, Sufu 200
Agoura Hill; CA 9130 t
818/889 -6302
FAX 818/991 -6723
- May 31, 1995
Mr. Jaime Aguilera
Director of Community Development
CITY OF MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
VIA -FAX: 805/529 -8270
►Y 1; /u 1 1 ; ' : ; , 1►II�II- 1 ; 1 1 1 Y; N ' ; 1 1
Dear Mr. A.guilera:
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 st, 1995 City Council meeting.
Thank you for you immediate attention to this request.
Very truly yours,
The Braemar Group
XXX Avi Brosh
Vice President
Urban Communities
(on behalf of co- applicema)
/lp
cc: Dr. Thomas Duffy - Superintendent
Moorpark School Board of Education
Dr. Joel Kirschenstein - Sage Institute
MAY 31 '95 13:30 818 991 6728 PAGE.002
CITY OF MOORPARK
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
The Honorable
City
Counc17 ,
FROM:
Steven Kueny,
City
Manager]/
DATE: June 7, 1995
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment (t1PA) for Specific Plan No. 9
(MUSD /Braemar)
The City's position concerning t:e need for a GPA for the Land
Use Element dates to at least July 1993 when the City and MUSD
were negotiating about use of a (Di -�:ion :)f the property for a
park site.
Enclosed are three letters that ddress '.his point (July 8 and
23, 1993, from the City and jul, '� 199 3, from MUSD) .
SK:db
Enclosures
cc: Jim Aguilera, Director ( f ( rr n.jni ty Development
c: \docs \wpwin \citymgr \gpa.sp9
OpK Gq�'
�ti ^
c
July 8, 1993
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
Dr. Thomas Duffy
Moorpark Unified School Distri:: .-t
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 letter 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
/ owned side of the flood control channel.
V 2. At City's expense, within1zne- hundred twenty (120 ) days
Y
of the close of escrow, the _'ity will amend the General
Plan Land Use Element to r.efiect the reduced acreage of
Specific Plan No. 9 with n ether 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 would be vacated by the
District and, -at the City's option, removed or turned
over to the City. Within thirty (30) days after the
close of escrow, the Distr i,;t will remove the storage
containers and other items cf outside storage from the
lower fields. This point w rs contained in my May 11,
1993 letter to you.
4. The District shall have access to the mezzanine level as
long as the District owns and uses the mezzanine level
for public educational and /or_ District maintenance
purposes. As stated in myr May 11, 1993 letter, there
needs to be some limitatior;s i.nclu(ding but not limited
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. SCOTT MONTGOMERY I>ATRIC;r {l ,' + EV RNARDO M. PEREZ JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro TRm ;;o..in Council member
Cou nc i Imembe r
July 23, 1993
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529.6864
FAX and MAIL
Dr. Thomas Duffy
Superintendent of Schools
Moorpark Unified School District
30 Flory Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Dr. Duffy:
The City Council has considered the District's July 20, 1993
proposal focusing on the District's use of the metal building on
the lower field. The City has tried to respond to the District's
needs.
To address the District's need to use the metal building and
adjacent property for District maintenance purposes for an
indeterminate period, the City Council responds that it can accept
this with inclusion of three (3) items as follows:
1. Deferral of payment to the District of $133,000 until such
time as the District vacates the building and property. This
amount is determined by the $100,000 value of the building set
by the District and the agreed upon value of the land of $2.59
per sq. ft. The City estimates that approximately 12,800
square feet of land is necessary to support District use of
the building --
— S1 200 Ooo _
10.63 acres X 43,560 sq. ft. $2.5916/sq, ft,
($2.59 x 12,800 sq. ft. = $33,152.00)
2. The District will have access to and use of the metal building
and approximately 12,800 sq. ft. of property for District
maintenance purposes until such time that the property on the
mezzanine level is sold or the District no longer uses the
mezzanine level for District maintenance purposes, whichever
first occurs; and
3. When the District relinquishes use and access under No. 2
above, at the City's option and without additional
compensation, the District will either remove the metal
building and its footings and conc,ir•ete and /or asphalt pad, or
leave the building in place.
PAUL W LAWRASON JR. SCOTT MONTGOMERY
PATRICK RUr�' 1F RERNARDO M PEREZ JOHN E WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor F•o Tem
C',ourwilm— f - :�i,ncilmem )ei
Councilmember
Mr. Steve Kueny
April 14, 1995
Page Two
In the event staff continues to be of the opinion that a General Plan Am
e placed on the City Co is required, both
co- applicants would respectfully request that this item bt
final determination and review. en
City Council agenda for
Please notify our office as soon as possible with your position on this
matter.
Very truly yours,
The Braemar Gr up
15t1h Avi Brosh
Vice President, Urban Communities
/lp
cc: Dr. Thomas Duffy - Moorpark Unified School l )istrici
Moorpark Board of Education
Dr. Joel Kirschenstein - Sage Institute
f:laviUleQ
2,1V �RAEMAF
TO 918055298270 P001/002
DATE. MAY 31, 1995
SEND To
NAME' J= -AG-UIUERA
FACSIMILE 805/529-8270
HOMES
30495 Canwood Street FROM
Suite 200
NAME:_ Agoura Hills, CA 91301 AVI BROSH
NO. OF PAOE$-
-CO'Verl.- 2
RE:
Phone:
818-889-6302 MESSAGE
Facsimile:
818-991-6728
Dr. Thomas Duffy
July 8, 1993
Page 2
to the same time period that the planned
the public. These can be drafted as park is open to
agreement. part of the final
5. The District's proposal on the
acceptable. landscape P easement is
6• I don't know if this is still an issue since it �
included in your June 25 counter isn t
has previously agreed in concept or allow the Districtt
lower fields. y
approved short -term rental uses to continue to use the
We will need to see a
currently approved uses. list of the
As with all agreements
Points of the agreement we will specific ewritteri educe the final
g
If the Board and City Council reach agreement rovisions.
I suggest that we meet as soon as t on this matter,
drafting of the final documents so that this lengthy
can be finalized and the Possible that to conclude
Park and the District's financial, objecaie'ves can 9 ay process
downtown
The City be realized.
this y Council appreciates the Board's consideration of
Proposal and awaits the Distri.ct,;3 reply.
Sincerely
Steven Kueny
City Manager
SK:db
cc: Honorable City Council
MUSD Board of Education
C: \Wp51 \Citymgr \MUSDCasy.rd
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.
District Your attention to
concerned about their ability to are y• The users of
this clarifies the issue, continue to use the nfieldspast,
and
I look forward to your written response.
we can schedule a time t p Please call my office so
proposal. o meet to discuss the details of this
Sincerely, n
Thomas G. Duff a
District Superintendent
TGD :ah
cc: MUSD Board of Education
City Councilmembers
Dr. Thomas Duffy
July 23, 1993
Page 2
With this proposal, the purchase price remains at $1.2 million for
the approximate 10.63 acres of the lower fields, inclusive of the
buildings and the District owned property on the City owned side of
the flood control channel, with payment as follows:
A. $767,000 upon close of escrow;
B. Four (4) installments of $75,000 each at the annual
anniversary date of thEa close of escrow proceeding
through 1997; and
C. $133,000 when the District vacates the metal building and
adjacent property and, if required to remove the metal
building upon its removal
Pursuant to our conversation of July 20th, the District. property on
the City side of the flood control channel is to include all of the
property extending to the toe of the slope of the pathway leading
to the stadium and Boys and Girls Club parking lot.
To reiterate agreement on the other points, they are restated as
follows:
V 1. At City's expense, within one - hundred twenty (120) days of the
close of escrow, the City will amend the General Plan Land Use
Element to reflect the reduced acreage of Specific Plan No. 9
with no other changes to the text or maps.
2. City and District agree to a landscape easement for the slope
area; at the time the property is sold and development permit
granted, the easement will be mocifi.ed.
3. The City agrees in concept to allow the District's approved
short -term rental uses to continue to use the lower fields.
(Please note that in my June 25, 1993 and May 11, 1993 letters
the City requested a listing of the approved uses. To date we
have not received a response.)
4. Within thirty (30) days after, the close of escrow, the
District will remove the storage containers and other items of
outside storage from the lower fields. (This was contained in
MY July 8, 1993 letter with no -cference to it in your July
12, 1993 letter.)
5. We are in conceptual agreement with access by the District and
limited access by the public to District facilities on the
mezzanine level per point No. 4 of your July 12, 1993 letter.
It still needs to address the Cir .r" s security related concern