Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 1218 CC REG ITEM 10EREM XWWRAXDUM TO: The Honorable City Council y ou cil FROM: Paul Porter, Senior Planner Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developmen( DATE: December 3, 1996 (CC meeting of December 18, 1996) SUBJECT:. CONSIDER MINOR MODIFICATION NO. NO. 4 TO IPD 89 -2 ON THE APPLICATION OF GENERAL OPTIC, INC. A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR IPD 89 -1 AND MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 1 On April 18, 1990, the City Council approved IPD 89 -2 for a 32,650 square foot one story industrial building located in the area of Kazuko Court and Poindexter Avenue in the City of Moorpark. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 511 -0- 070 -720. On April 15, 1992, the City Council approved an extension of the Use Inauguration for two (2) years with the ability of the Director of Community Development to give the applicant an additional one (1) year extension. Additional conditions of Approval were added to Minor Modification No. 1 in addition to those that were approved for IPD 89 -2. The applicant was granted an additional one year extension for "use inauguration" which ended on April 15, 1995. On March 7, 1995, the Department of Community Development received a letter from the applicant requesting a one year extension. A letter was sent to the applicant on April 13, 1995 indicating that any further extensions to the permit will require approval of a Minor Modification, but since the applicant's request for an additional time extension preceded the expiration date of the permit, the IPD 89 -2 did not expire until a decision on the Minor Modification was made. On June 21, 1995, the City Council approved Resolution No. 95 -1130 for a one year time extension to April 15, 1996. On May 1, 1996, the City Council approved Resolution No. 96 -1199 approving .a A: \1.8DEC96.CC 000552 Minor Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 89 -2 Applicant: General Optics, Inc. Page No. 2 one (1) year time extension in order to "use inaugurate" the project to April 15, 1997. Plans for the project have been submitted for plan check and it is anticipated it will soon be under construction. Minor Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 89 -2 is a request for modifications to the Conditions of Approval for the purpose of assisting the project to be more economical. The applicant also requests clarification of conditions which are discussed below. The applicant's request does not modify the building setback distance at the easterly property line adjacent to the existing residences, modify the building height, amend any hazardous materials storage permit requirement, or modify the project in any area previously determined to be sensitive in relation to the neighboring property owners. Proposed Modifications The applicant is requesting that the plot plan be amended where indicated to provide a landscape planter along the south edge of the building, add three (3) doors along the east side of the building with three (3) concrete patios (approximately 13 feet wide by 16 feet deep) in the landscape setback area with tables for employee breaks and lunch. Staff Analysis Staff concurs with the applicant's request for the landscape planter along the south edge of the building and the lunch areas. The setback from the rear of the building to the easterly property line is approximately thirty (30) feet. The proposed patio areas will not significantly reduce the available amount of landscaping located at the rear of the building behind the patios will be approximately ten feet after deducting the proposed four (4) foot walkway abutting the rear of the building. A: \18DEC96.CC ("5BMW ffb Minor Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 89 -2 Applicants General Optics, Inc. Page No. 3 The applicant shall contribute $10 for each 100 square feet of building area to the City of Moorpark's Art in Public Places Fund. The applicant states that an enhanced monument sign appropriate to the general area as determined by the Director of Community Development would be constructed in lieu of this requirement. The City's policy has been to collect the Art and Public Places fee for all commercial and industrial projects. In some cases, the applicant has submitted a request to have the money returned.to pay for on -site artwork. Upon review of the artwork by the City Council, the City Council has made a determination as to whether the applicant's money should be returned to pay for the proposed art. Based on this past practice, staff recommends that applicant submit the Art in Public Places fee prior to the Issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, and then request the developer. to submit a request for reimbursement to the City Council upon the Council's review of the artwork. Uo• •� KWOWS •8• o* +• • QFW@T63QffYU •• •* ►• • Prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance, a Surety Performance Bond, Letter of Credit or Certificate of Deposit in the amount of $10,000 shall be filed and accepted by the Director of Community Development. The Director of Community Development, may, through a public hearing to be heard before the City Council recommend that any or all of the funds in the Performance Bond be forfeited for noncompliance with the Conditions of Approval or for some other just cause. This bond shall be in effect for ten years from the date of the last occupancy allowed by this permit. The applicant or A : \18DEC96.CC ("s5& - Minor Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 89 -2 Applicant: General Optics, Inc. Page No. .4 future owners agree to pay for all costs for enforcing. condition compliance in the future. This condition shall . automatically be superseded by a related resolution or ordinance regarding condition compliance for approvals adopted by the City Council. The applicant is requesting that this requirement be deleted and replaced with the current standard condition of approval imposed on recently approved industrial projects. Currently, the City is using the following condition language in lieu of the above. Therefore, it is recommended that the condition be modified to the following language: 4. Condi i on o 6 _ Minor hLod; f; ca t ion No— ---J--to IPD_ 89 -2 requiring 24 hour__di rect i onal __counts The applicant is requesting deletion of this requirement based upon the fact that a warrant study has been completed by another applicant. Condition No. 62 to IPD 89 -2 states as follows: The applicant shall conduct 24 hour directional traffic counts on all legs of the intersections of Los Angeles Avenue with A: \18DEC96.CC 000555 Minor Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 89 -2 Applicant: General Optics, Inc. Page No. 5 Goldman Avenue and Maureen Lane. These counts shall then be used to conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis. This information shall then be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval to enable the City to keep abreast of the changing traffic patterns in this industrial area and to anticipate the approximate time a signal will be warranted:. For this reason, the warrant study shall also identify occupied facilities within the tributary area as of the traffic count date. Staff has discussed this matter with the City Engineer who. indicated that a warrant study has been completed for the area. The. City Engineer indicates that the signal at Goldman will be required with the build -out of the proposed Overland Project (RPD 96 -1 and Tentative Tract Map No. 5053) and that since subject project will provide additional traffic at the intersection, the applicant should be required to pay the projects pro -rata share of construction of the signal at Goldman Avenue and Los Angeles' Avenue. Therefore, it is recommended that the condition be modified as follows: The applicant shall deposit with the City of Moorpark a contribution for the Los Angeles Avenue Improvement Area of Contribution for the Los Angeles Avenue Area of Contribution. The actual deposit shall be the then current Los Angeles Improvement Area of Contribution applicable rate at the time the building permit is issued. A: \18DEC96.CC UQU556 Minor Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 89 -2 Applicant: General Optics, Inc. Page No. 6 The applicant is requesting that the amount of the Los Angeles. Avenue Area of Contribution fees be applied at the rate in effect at the time of approval of the project (April, 1990) rather than at the current rate. This is a condition that is placed on all development projects. The standard condition requires that applicants pay the rate in effect at the time of development rather than the rate in effect at the time of approval of the project. However, if the applicant can demonstrate that the fee was previously paid at the time of the subdivision that created the parcel, the applicant will not be required to pay an additional fee. Therefore, it is recommended that this condition be modified as follows: The applicant shall deposit with the City of Moorpark a contribution for the Los Angeles Avenue Improvement Area of Contribution. The actual deposit shall be the then current Los Angeles Improvement Area of Contribution applicable rate at the time the building permit is issued. If the applicant. - can .demonstrate that this deposit has been previously paid, no further deposit will be required. 6. Deletion of Condition No 67 of_ IPD 89 -2 .requiring traffic mitigation covenant which at-as1 Condition No. 67 states: The applicant shall execute a covenant running with the land on the behalf of itself and its successors, heirs, and assigns agreeing to participate in the formation of an assessment district or other financing technique including, but not limited to, the payment of traffic mitigation fees, which the City may implement or adopt, to fund public street and traffic improvements directly or indirectly affected by the development. The applicant is requesting deletion of the this requirement due to the uncertainty of terms of time and the cost associated with the "open ended ", lien in perpetuity upon the subject property which A: \18DEC96.CC VWS Minor Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 89 -2 Applicant: General Optics, Inc. Page No. 7 could exceed the intended impact associated with the project. In all commercial, industrial, residential developments and subdivisions within the City, the applicant has been required to either execute the covenant or submit a fee to the City. Staff recommends that the applicant either submit the required covenant or pay a mitigation fee at . the rate of $.50 per square foot of building area in lieu of the covenant. This is consistent with the action for a couple of other applicants who have made similar requests. Therefore, it is recommended that the condition be modified as follows: Prior to the i ss uanwe of a zzoning Clearance for construction, the applicant shall execute a covenant running with the land on the behalf of itself and its successors, heirs, and assigns agreeing to participate in the formation of an assessment district or other financing technique including, but not limited to, the payment of traffic mitigation fees, which the City may implement or adopt, to fund public street and traffic improvements directly or indirectly affected by the development. In lieu of the covenant, the applicant may pay the City $.50 per square foot of building area as a traffic mitigation fees'. 7. Deletion of Condition No 70 to IPD 89 -2 which states: No trees with a trunk diameter in excess of four inches shall be trimmed or removed without prior approval of the City Council. The applicant states that the required Tree Removal Permit and other requirements of Condition no. 103 which requires the applicant to apply the value of the removed trees to be applied to upgrading the size of the tree plantings associated with the site, eliminate the need for City Council action. A Tree Study was provided to the City at the time of the original A: \18DEC96.CC OW55a Minor Modification No. 4 to Industrial Planned Development Permit No. 89 -2 Applicant: General Optics, Inc. Page No. 8 application. It was stated at that time, the value of the trees to be removed was $25,600 With development permits, it is required. that additional landscaping be incorporated into the landscaping. plan to mitigate the value of the trees being removed. Condition No. 103 of the Industrial Planned Development Permit requires. additional landscaping as a result of the removed trees. This requirement was imposed by the City Council as part of the approval process in 1990. As such, additional approval for the removal of the trees by the City Council is not required. Therefore, it is recommended that condition No. 70 of IPD 89 -2 be eliminated. The Director of Community Development has reviewed the applicant's' request and is of the opinion that the matter should be referred to the City Council for decision since any changes to the Conditions. of Approval must be approved by the City Council. Recommendation Adopt the attached Resolution and with any Council directed changes. Attachments: 1 2 3 A: \18DEC96.CC Draft Resolution Zoning Map Plot Plan CITY OF MOORPARK OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council "4 (�s FROM: Economic Development Incentives Ad Hoc Committee DATE: December 16, 1996 SUBJECT: Recommendation on Potential Incentive from IPD 89 -2 (General Optics) The Ad Hoc Committee (Councilmembers Evans and Teasley) was appointed on December 4, 1996, to review potential incentives for two pending projects. The first of these projects is the relocation of General Optics from their present site on Flinn to a new 30,000 square foot facility on Kazuko Court. Consideration of a minor modification to IPD 89 -2 addressing several issues is scheduled for the December 18, 1996 City Council meeting. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends the following: 1. Plot Plan Amendment - concur with staff recommendation. 2. Art in Public Places - generally concur with staff recommendation but allow applicant greater latitude on how the approximate $3,000.00 would be expended. Modify condition to allow Director of Community Development to approve how the developer meets this requirement. 3. Code Enforcement Surety - concur with staff recommendation. 4. Traffic Counts /Traffic Signal - The committee recommends deletion of condition No. 62 in its entirety. The applicant will contribute to construction of a signal at either Goldman or Maureen Lane and Los Angeles Avenue through its Los Angeles Avenue AOC contribution. Since a signal warrant study has been completed by the City, any additional requirements would in essence be a new condition. 5. Los Angles Avenue AOC payment - concur with staff recommendation that the fee be paid at the then current applicable rate. The AOC fee was last increased in March, 1990 just one month prior to the original approval date of IPD 89 -2. 6. City Wide Traffic Mitigation - Concur with staff to allow the applicant the option of having the standard covenant or paying a per square foot fee. As an existing business in the City, it should be a lower fee amount than has been the practice for newly located businesses because they will be relocating existing employees (and hopefully 40 or more new employees over time) and thus not creating new Citywide traffic. If they left the City (or for that matter any vacant existing building), a new tenant or owner is not required to pay the Citywide traffic fee when the space is occupied. A reduced fee is an incentive and recognizes the continuing benefits of having a company remain in the City. For these reasons, the Committee suggests consideration of a fee amount of 40 cents per square foot to be paid prior to occupancy to satisfy this condition. 7. Tree Removal - The committee recommends that Condition No. 70 be eliminated since the landscaping plan already incorporates the required enhancement. c: \citymgr \hccmem12.16