HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2001 1219 CC REG ITEM 09DMOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
ITEM q- b
CITE' OF -,4008 ,k,_,R ,
Cifir cwmau di
ACT 1O:1t. Ong Ia6A 101tc-
gearing -ka t - I cam• aOa
BY
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Acting Director of Community
Development
Prepared By: Joseph F. Fiss, Principal Plannerl�
DATE: December 11, 2001 (CC Meeting of 12/19/01)
SUBJECT: Consider the Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on
Appeal 2001 -05, Appealing Various Conditions
Established by the Director of Community Development
for Approval of Administrative Permit No. 2001 -10, to
Allow a Second Dwelling Unit at 6086 Gabbert Road.
(Applicant: Cindy Hollister)
BACKGROUND
The application for a second dwelling unit was submitted in
response to a Notice of Zoning Violation, originally dated
November 19, 1999, relating to the replacement of a non-
conforming, manufactured home on a residential lot at 6086
Gabbert Road without proper approval or permits. The application
for Administrative Permit to allow placement of a conforming,
second dwelling unit was submitted on May 18, 2001. On August
8, 2001, the Director of Community Development granted approval
of a manufactured home as a second dwelling unit, subject to
conditions, including addendum dated August 9, 2001
(Administrative Permit 2001 -10, Exhibit 1). Approval was
granted, following an Administrative Hearing, during which no
public comment was received. Subsequently, on August 17, 2001,
the applicant filed an appeal to Conditions No. 1.b., 2.b.,
2.c., 2.f. (as modified), 2.g., 3, 4, 6, and 7. The appeal was
specifically filed to eliminate or modify various conditions of
approval for the approved Administrative Permit. On October 15,
2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Appeal
2001 -05. On October 29, 2001 an appeal to the City Council was
filed to seek further redress from the conditions of approval as
S: \Community Development \Everyone \a - Appeal 2001 -07 Hollister \Appeal 2001.07
Hollister.doc
ti
applicanL Lv ijrvviuc a,
architect certifying the size of the primary unit. Condition 2g
Hondrable
12/11/01
Page 2
City Council
modified by the Planning Commission.
modification was made in the appeal.
DISCUSSION
No specific request for
At it's hearing on October 15, 2001 the Planning Commission
discussed various aspects of this case (Exhibit 2, Minutes of
10/15/0:1). Staff explained the history and pertinent code
issues and recommended that the Planning Commission deny the
appeal. The Planning Commission sought to understand the non-
conforming rights of the applicant, the chronology of the
proposal and the history of the site. The applicant,
applicant's attorney and the public were given the opportunity
to speak on the issue. The Planning Commission staff report
(Exhibit 3) and minutes convey the issues germane to this
proposal.
The Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the appeal,
and adopted PC Resolution 2001 -416 (Exhibit 4). The Commission
directed Staff to modify the conditions of approval of
Administrative Permit 2001 -10 and furnished language for the
modified conditions. The conditions as modified are shown in
attachment 5.
The Planning Commission modified a total of five conditions.
Condition lb was modified to allow the applicant sixty (60) days
from the date of approval to place the manufactured home on a
permanent foundation. The original condition required that this
occur within fifteen (15) days of approval. Condition 2b
related to who was allowed to reside in the second dwelling.
The condition originally restricted use of the second dwelling
to use by an employee or employees who work on the site. The
Planning Commission eliminated this requirement. Condition 2c
related to the maximum allowable size of the second dwelling and
to the size of the primary dwelling. Originally, the size of
the primary dwelling was to be verified by the Department of
Building and Safety. The Planning Commission allowed the
applicant to provide an independent statement from a surveyor or
architect certifying the size of the primary unit. Condition 2g
related to the improvement of required parking and access.
Originally, a very specific paving requirement was called for.
The Planning Commission allowed more flexible language that
would allow any all weather surface that meets the standards of
the Ventura County Fire Department to be used for parking and
access. Condition 3, which addresses the trash dumpsters, was
S: \Community Development \Everyone \a - Appeal 2001 -07 Hollister \Appeal 2001.07
Hollister.doc
A
r
MOORPARK , .1 c)
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 517 -6200
August 8, 2001
Cindy Hollister
6086 Gabbert Rd.
Moorpark, Ca 93021
Subject: Approval of Administrative Permit No. 2001 -10, granting
approval of a 14 foot by 66 foot mobile home for use as
a second dwelling unit at 6086 Gabbert Rd. (APNs 500 -0-
330 -245 and 500 -0- 330 -255), Cindy Hollister, applicant.
Dear Ms. Hollister,
Your request for an Administrative Permit to allow a 14 foot by 66
foot manufactured home for use as a second dwelling unit at 6086
Gabbert Rd. has been approved subject to the conditions noted in
this letter.
Approval of this request is a result of compliance with Section
17.20.050 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires approval of an
Administrative Permit before issuance of a Zoning Clearance or
Building Permit. Based upon the office hearing held by the
Community Development Department for your project on July 17, 2001,
at which time verbal comments were received, your request has been
acted upon.
The Director of Community Development has determined on August 8,
2001, based upon a review of your project and the results of the
referenced office hearing, that your request for the aforementioned
second dwelling unit is approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. In accordance with Section 17.28.020.B of the Zoning Ordinance
for Mobilehomes and Manufactured Housing:
a) The manufactured home must be constructed on or after June 15,
1976. In compliance with the requirements of the Municipal
Code, and the California Department of Housing and Community
Development Registration Card Decal No. LBC4127, a copy of
which is on file in the official file for Administrative
Permit No. 2001 -10. Additionally, proof of manufacture date
shall be clearly affixed to the unit and /or available for
inspection.
A A
a
M: \AFisher \M \Administrative Permits \ADP 2001- 10 \Adp 01 -10 approval letter.doc FIL E
PATRICK HUNTER CUNT HARPER ROSEANN MIKOS KEITH F. MILLHOUSE JOHN E. WOZNIAK
Mayor Mavor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
Administrative Perm_ 2001 -10 (Cindy Hollister)
August 8, 2001
Page 5 of 6
from view from the public right -of -way by relocating them to
behind the residences, or through the addition of landscape
screening or the addition of solid fencing in a neutral color to
blend in with the background prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the second unit.
4. The existing second dwelling unit /travel trailer that is
currently located on the property without a permit shall be
removed from the site within sixty (60) days of the issuance of
a Zone Clearance for this proposed second unit. The applicant
shall provide a cash deposit or a Certificate of Deposit (CD) in
the amount of $2,000.00 to guarantee this removal. In the event
that said removal does not take place within the time specified
above, this deposit will be utilized by the City at its sole and
unfettered discretion to pursue a legal solution concerning the
unauthorized dwelling unit. During this sixty (60) day period,
the existing trailer shall be relocated to behind the barn or to
another location on the property, as determined by the Director
of Community Development, such that this vehicle shall not be
visible from the street. This required posting of surety and
relocation of the trailer shall occur prior to issuance of a
Zone Clearance and Building Permit for this proposed second
dwelling unit.
5. All permit and fee requirements must be met, including the
requirement for a Zone Clearance and Building Permit and the
payment of all applicable development fees for a new
residence /second dwelling unit.
6. Outstanding processing fees for Administrative Permit 2001 -10
shall be paid prior to issuance of a Zone Clearance and Building
Permit. The current cost of processing this request is
approximately $3,300.00 including the $264.00 application
deposit initially paid. There are certain limitations concerning
the amount of cost overrun that can automatically be required
without City Council action, which is 750 of the $264.00
deposit, or $198.00. The adjusted outstanding processing fee due
and payable prior to issuance of a Zone Clearance is $1,320.00
(adjusted to 18 hours multiplied by $88.00 per hour, the total
of which is $1,584.00, minus the $264.00 paid, which equals
$1, 320.00) .
7. The property shall be maintained, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 8.48.020 of the Moorpark Municipal Code.
M: Wisher\M\Administrative Permits \ADP 2001- 10 \Adp 01 -10 approval letter.doc y
Administrative Pern— 2001 -10 (Cindy Hollister)
August 8, 2001
Page 6 of 6
Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance and Building Permit, the
old tires and bathtub located westerly of the proposed second
dwelling /manufactured home shall be removed or relocated to
within the existing barn corral area on the property.
As stated in Section 17.44.090 of the-Zoning Ordinance, within 10
calendar days after the permit has been approved, conditionally
approved or denied, any aggrieved person may file an appeal of the
approval, conditional approval or denial with the Planning Division
of the Community Development Department who shall set a hearing
date before the Planning Commission to review the matter at the
earliest convenient date.
Should you have any questions or comments concerning the above
conditions or the process that you have just completed please do
not hesitate to call Abigail Fisher at (805) 517 -6226.
Sincerely,
W yne L ftus
Director of Community Development
C: Michael Harris (property owner)
Mitchel B. Kahn (applicant's representative)
Neal Scribner (applicant's architect)
Building and Safety
ADP 2001 -10 File
File C -99 -349
Zone Clearance File
Chroni File
Attachment: Revised Site Plan and Elevations received July 19, 2001
M: \AFisher \M \Administrative Permits \ADP 2001- 10 \Adp 01 -10 approval letter.doc
0
rC6 O_
Ir
m
0 -�Y rl I
NEAL SCRIBNER AAA.
ARCHITECTURE
10855 PRESILLA RD., CAMARILLO, CA 93012 805/531-9239
a " s er es" ence
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 15, 2001
Page 6
Chair Parvin agreed with comments being made by other
Commissioners. She discussed her change in perspective
since the start of the review process. She
acknowledged the different character of neighborhoods
and commented to re- visiting the Ordinance in the
future.
MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Commissioner
Haller seconded the motion to approve staff
recommendation to adopt Resolution No. PC 2001 -415,
recommending City Council approval of an Amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance.
Motion passed with a 4:1 roll call vote, Commissioners
DiCecco, Haller and Otto and Chair Parvin voting Aye,
Commissioner Landis voting No.
B) Appeal 2001 -05 (Applicant: Hollister) An appeal of the
Conditions of Approval for Administrative Permit No.
2001 -10, located at 6086 Gabbert Road. The applicant
is requesting to eliminate or modify Conditions lb,
2b, 2c, 2f, 2g, 3, 7, 4, and 6. Staff Recommendations:
1) Accept public testimony and close the public
hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2001- denying
Appeal No. 2001.02.
Mr. Loftus provided the staff presentation and stated
that this item was originally scheduled for the
September 24, 2001, Planning Commission meeting and
continued to October 15, 2001, because Applicant did
not receive adequate notice. He referenced the staff
report from the September 24, 2001, meeting in which
staff addressed each one of the appealed conditions,
providing a summary of the condition, the applicant's
appeal issues and staff's response and recommendation.
Mr. Loftus concluded that staff's recommendation is
for denial.
Mr. Loftus expressed his concern regarding applicant's
representative having not followed protocol, by
distributing material directly to the Planning
Commission rather than through the Community
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT_Z
\ \MOR— PRI —SERV \home_folders \CLafleur \M \PC - minutes \2001minutes \011015 pm- rev.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 15, 2001
Page 7
Commissioner Haller questioned the previous zoning
clearances and non - conforming uses.
Mr. Loftus provided a summary of the chronology and
history of code violations on the property, including
very recent violations.
Commissioner Haller questioned if permission was
granted by owner to remove the prior unit.
Mr. Loftus responded
permission by the owne
the owner, at the
Administrative Permit
discussed the issues
second units.
that he had no knowledge of
!r to remove the unit but that
City's request, signed the
application. Mr. Loftus
of lessee vs. owner - occupied
Commissioner DiCecco requested clarification of the
issues regarding the original unit prior to applicant
moving on to the property, the "existing unit" that
replaced the "prior unit," and the proposed unit.
Mr. Loftus responded with a summary of the issues
regarding the non - permitted status of the unit and
State Law requirements for manufactured homes.
Discussion ensued regarding whether permits had been
obtained for the existing unit and whether any contact
with the City was made prior to placing the unit, with
Mr. Loftus responding no, and summarizing the types of
permits that would have been required.
Commissioner Landis also commented to the history of
the units and the issue of a tenant replacing the
prior unit. He questioned the non - conforming status of
the primary unit, asking if the appellant was at issue
with the requirement to bring the non - conforming unit
up to code.
Wayne Loftus responded affirmatively and summarized
the code regulations regarding removal of a non-
\ \MOR_PRI_ SERV \home_folders \CLafleur \M \PC - minutes \2001minutes \011015 pcm- rev.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 15, 2001
ME
conforming unit and the requirement to bring the
replacement unit to code.
Discussion ensued between Commissioner Landis and Mr.
Loftus regarding code provisions for second units,
"owner occupancy" and issues of non - conforming uses.
They further discussed the proposed covenant required
of the appellant because she is not the owner of the
property. Mr. Loftus commented that some of the
appellant's concerns had been addressed in the staff
report.
Commissioner Landis questioned the time limitation of
thirty (30) days to place a conforming unit on the
site and the condition to remove the existing unit was
sixty ( 6 0 ) days.
Mr. Loftus responded that initially time was critical
for the applicant to obtain a conforming unit and that
staff felt that the time permitted for removal of the
non- conforming, non - permitted unit was sufficient and
provided flexibility for selling the unit.
Commissioner Landis questioned the size of the primary
unit. Discussion ensued regarding the variations in
information submitted regarding the square footage of
the primary unit and the requirement for a
certification statement, regarding the size of the
primary unit and the relationship to the size of the
secondary unit.
Commissioner Otto questioned the issue of non-
conforming use, the sequence of events regarding the
Conditional Use Permit, and the status of the non-
conforming unit. Mr. Loftus summarized the sequence
of events and clarified the Conditional Use Permit.
Discussion ensued between Commissioner Otto and Mr.
Loftus regarding modifications that would or would not
be permitted to retain a non - conforming use status.
Commissioner Otto further questioned whether this
property was considered one (1) parcel, with Mr.
Loftus responding affirmatively.
\ \MOR— PRI_SERV \home folders \CLa£ leur \M \PC - minutes \2001minutes \011015 pcm- rev.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 15, 2001
Page 9
Commissioner DiCecco questioned what would happen if
the non - conforming unit was removed. Mr. Loftus
responded that the case would be closed.
Chair Parvin questioned the number of parcels,
referencing the information on the prior Zone
Clearance. Mr. Loftus responded that the appellant's
representative has assured staff that there was only
one (1) parcel.
Chair Parvin requested clarification of Mr. Kahn's
statement regarding, direction from the Mayor, that
staff's actions might have been in conflict with that
direction.
Mr. Loftus responded that Council's referral back to
staff was procedurally.
Chair Parvin requested clarification of funding
opportunities for mobile units and affordable housing.
Mr. Loftus responded, citing requirements and
limitations regarding funding opportunities.
Chair Parvin opened up the public hearing.
Cindy Hollister, 6086 Gabbert Road, Moorpark, CA 93021
Ms. Hollister provided information regarding caring
for her horses, and her attempt to provide better
housing for a worker who lived on the property.
Mitchel Kahn, Attorney for the Appellant, 300
Esplanade Drive, Suite 1170, Oxnard, CA 93030
Mr. Kahn responded to Mr. Loftus' comments regarding
distribution of materials directly to the Commission.
He discussed the submitted materials, including the
chronology prepared by Ms. Hollister. Mr. Kahn
commented to Ms. Hollister's confusion with the
process and the information received from the City,
\ \MOR_PRI_SERV \home folders \CLafleur \M \PC - minutes \2001minutes \011015 pcm- rev.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 15, 2001
Pacre 10
referring to a letter in the packet, and apparent lack
of communication between the City and Ms. Hollister.
Mr. Kahn further discussed the decision to find a
conforming unit and apply for an Administrative
Permit. Mr. Kahn suggested that the requirements for
paving and a new garage were never discussed by staff
during the processing of the application, and that
both he and Ms. Hollister were unaware of those
requirements until they received the Final Conditions.
Mr. Kahn discussed the existing conditions on the site
and the option of using the barn for the required
garage. He referenced sections of the Zoning
Ordinance relating to paved parking, open storage and
the size of the existing unit related to requirements
for parking. Mr. Kahn further referenced the Condition
relating to requirements for shielding open storage
from view and additional citing of certain Code
sections. He expressed his opinion that the
Conditions, as imposed by staff, were not consistent
with the Code.
Mr. Kahn discussed parking requirements related to the
size of the unit, and the desire to leave the existing
unit on the site. He further discussed issues relating
to ownership vs. leasing the property. He referenced
a series of actions and confusion and inconsistencies
that could likely be resolved, citing the language
requirements in the proposed covenant.
Mr. Kahn proceeded to review those items of concern.
❑ Fifteen (15) days to swap units: According to
Mr. Kahn, Ms. Hollister desires the farm worker
to remain on the site at all times, requiring
that the existing unit not be removed until the
new unit is placed. He suggested that Ms.
Hollister may have problems finding a
replacement unit should the unit reserved by
Ms. Hollister be sold. Mr. Kahn requested
additional time to inaugurate the use, stating
that fifteen (15) days was not realistic.
\ \MOR_PRI_SERV \home folders \CLafleur \M \PC - minutes \2001minutes \011015 pcm- rev.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 15, 2001
11
❑ Mr. Kahn stated that he had serious problems
with limiting the second unit to 30% of the
size of the primary unit.
❑ Covered parking: Mr. Kahn stated that the
entire, existing house does not necessarily
meet current building codes, asking why covered
parking was an issue.
❑ Location of unit: Mr. Kahn stated that during
the Administrative Hearing, Ms. Hollister was
asked to suggest locations for the proposed
unit but that staff did not specifically
respond to the letter that was submitted and
instead referenced in the staff report, the
willingness to work with the applicant.
❑ Fees: Mr. Kahn stated his opinion that perhaps
the fees are not appropriate, if the Commission
determines that the previous Zoning Clearance
is still in force, but stating that fees should
be paid if it was determined that the
Administrative Permit process was appropriate.
Commissioner Landis requested the clarification of the
applicant's dispute of the city's right and
reasonableness to bring the existing home up to
conformance, because in his opinion, the Zone
Clearance was not abandoned. Mr. Kahn responded
affirmatively.
Discussion between Commissioner Landis, Mr. Kahn, and
staff ensued, regarding the following issues.
❑ The size of the property and whether there was one
(1) parcel or two (2) .
❑ The appellant's position that screening of open
storage was not required, and how the Conditions 3
and 7 were being applied.
\\ MOR_ PRI_ SERV \home_folders \CLafleur \M \PC- minutes \2001minutes \011015 pcm- rev.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 15, 2001
Paae 12
❑ The issue of time limits to place the replacement
unit, with staff's suggesting that sixty (60) days
might be appropriate, and Mr. Kahn suggesting ninety
(90) days.
❑ The size of
the second unit as it
relates to
the
size of the
primary unit and the
issue of
the
conflicting
primary unit sizes submitted by
the
applicant, and staff's difficulty in
determining
the
actual size
of the unit resulting in the condition
to require a
certified measurement.
❑ The question of funding opportunities for
retrofitting of mobile units.
❑ The size of available units meeting the criteria and
questions regarding the relationship of the size of
the second unit to the size of the primary unit and
issues of variances, should the applicant not be
able to find a unit that meets code requirements for
size. Mr. Loftus provided information on the
findings required by law, for a variance, and the
difficulty in meeting those findings, should a
variance be applied for.
❑ Timing for removal of the second unit and staff's
Condition to provide a surety to guarantee removal.
Staff suggested sixty (60) days for removal, Mr.
Kahn suggested six (6) months with elimination of
the requirement for the surety. Discussion
continued regarding cash surety, certificates of
deposits and bonds, with Mr. Loftus stating that an
incentive to fill the obligation was needed, citing
the existing code violations and time span.
Commissioner DiCecco questioned Mr. Kahn regarding the
timeframe.
Mr. Kahn responded, citing the chronology and
summarizing the events.
\\ MOR_ PRI_ SERV \home_folders \CLafleur \M \PC- minutes \2001minutes \011015 pcm- rev.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 15, 2001
Paqe 13
Commissioner DiCecco questioned whether Mr. Kahn's
objections were primarily economic, with Mr. Kahn
responding affirmatively.
James Hartley, 5950 Gabbert Road, Moorpark, CA 93021
Mr. Hartley stated that he was a property owner of a
parcel adjacent to Ms. Hollister, and spoke in support
of Ms. Hollister's operation and the issues of
providing housing for the farm worker and his family.
He further discussed the status and types of driveway
on various properties in the area.
Commissioner DiCecco questioned Mr. Hartley regarding
his historical perspective regarding units on the
site.
Mr. Hartley responded with a summary of the history of
the second unit.
Chair Parvin questioned Mr. Hartley as to whether he
had a gravel driveway and how many people in the area
had gravel driveways.
Norm Schultz, 163 Darlene Lane, Moorpark, CA
Mr. Schultz commented to his support for Ms.
Hollister's operation and his working relationship on
the property. He stated his support for Mr. Hartley's
comments.
Chair Parvin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Haller expressed his sympathy and desire to
see the issues resolved.
Commissioner Haller commented to the inappropriateness of
the content of Mr. Kahn's correspondence and delivering
material directly to the Commission members. He suggested
to Mr. Kahn that correspondence should be kept to the
facts, working toward an acceptable solution.
Commission Haller identified the following key issues:
\ \MOR PRI_ SERV \home_folders \CLafleur \M \PC- minutes \2001minutes \011015 pm- rev.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 15, 2001
Paqe 14
❑ That with the original unit being removed, the original
Conditional Use Permit was null and void, and that a non -
conforming use can not be replaced with a non - conforming
use.
❑ A building permit for the second dwelling unit was never
pulled, a clear violation of the Zoning Code.
❑ Size of the second unit is specific at 300 of the primary
dwelling unit. Verification of square footage must be
obtained.
Commissioner Haller stated that he was in favor of denying
the appeal, but recommended that it be worked out to meet
city requirements and appellant's desire to keep the second
unit on the property.
Commissioner DiCecco comments included:
❑ Appreciation for the appellant's work with the horses and
her concern with providing decent housing for all
economies but questioned the appellant's actions in the
process and timeframe.
❑ Concern with the inconsistency of the square footage of
the unit and the size of the second unit that would be
allowed.
❑ Comfortable with using the barn for a garage.
❑ All - weather surface that would be the minimum allowed by
the Ventura County Fire Department might be more
expensive than paving.
Screening the dumpster with hedges might be cost effective.
❑ Timeframe to remove the unit reasonable.
❑ Many codes in black and white that seem to be overlooked
by the appellant.
ry , f- 4L.
\\ MOR_ PRI_ SERV \home_folders \CLafleur \M \PC- minutes \2001minutes \011015 pcm- rev.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 15, 2001
Paqe 15
Commission Otto expressed agreement with Commissioner
DiCecco on most of these issues, commenting specifically to
the requirement of size of the second unit not exceeding
30% of primary unit. He expressed concern that this issue
was the limiting factor.
Lengthy discussion between the Commission and staff ensued
regarding the various issues and possibility for variance
to the Zoning Code, concluding in the following Commission
recommendations:
❑ Condition No. lb: The time for placement of the
replacement
(60) days.
manufactured home to be extended to sixty
❑ Condition No. 2b: The owner of the property must submit a
covenant declaring that the occupant of the existing
single- family, primary residence has the right to place a
manufactured home /second dwelling on the site.
❑ Condition No. 2c: The size of the second unit on the
property shall not exceed thirty percent) (30 %) of the
size of the primary unit. Also, the applicant must allow
a city employee to measure the primary unit or submit a
statement from a surveyor or architect ,certifying the
size of the primary unit.
❑ Condition No. 2f: The applicant will be permitted to use
the barn on the property for the garage, provided it has
parking for two (2) cars.
❑ Condition No. 2g: The applicant is required to pave the
driveway with an all- weather surface, which meets the
Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD) standards.
❑ Condition Nos. 3 and 7: Applicant is required to plant
shrubbery around the trash enclosure or landscape this
area, so as to hide the dumpster.
❑ Condition No. 4: Removal of the existing )' unit shall be
done within sixty (60) days, and that a surety of $2,000
is required of the Applicant.
OCA
\ \MOR_PRI_ SERV \home_folders \CLafleur \M \PC - minutes \2001minutes \011015 pcm- rev.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of October 15, 2001
Paae 16
❑ Condition No. 6: Outstanding processing fees shall be
paid, as lowered by the City to $1,320.
MOTION: Commissioner Haller made a motion to approve staff
recommendation, to adopt Resolution No. PC 2001 -416 denying
Appeal No. 2001 -05, and directed staff to modify the
Conditions for Administrative Permit No. 2001 -10, as
recommended by the Commission. Chair Parvin seconded the
motion.
Motion passed with a unanimous roll call 5:0 voice vote.
9) DISCUSSION ITEMS
A) Cancellation of the regular Planning Commission
meeting of November 12, 2001, due to Veterans Day, a
national holiday, and setting a special meeting for
Tuesday - November 13, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
By consensus, the Commission approved staff's
recommendation.
10) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Loftus provided information on the Affordable Housing
Workshop to be conducted at a Special Joint Meeting with
the City Council on October 22, 2001.
11) ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Landis moved to adjourn the meeting to a
Special Joint City Council /Planning Commission Meeting on
Monday, October 22, 2001, at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Haller
seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30
p.m.
Motion passed with a 5:0 voice vote.
Janice Parvin, Chair
\ \MOR_PRI_SERV\ home_ folders \CLafleur \M \PC - minutes \2001minutes \011015 pcm- rev.doc
City of Moorpark
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Staff Report
DATE OF MEETING: September 24, 2001
Appeal No.
2001 -05
Appeal of decision by the Director of Community
Development of various conditions required for
approval of Administrative Permit No. 2001 -10.
Assessor
Parcel
Numbers
APN Nos.: 500 -0- 330 -245 and 500 -0- 330 -245
CEQA
Not applicable.
[Applicant:
[Cindy Hollister
REQUEST: Appeal various conditions established by the Director
of Community Development for approval of Administrative Permit
No. 2001 -10, to allow a second dwelling unit.
t ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This appeal, together with the
Administrative Permit request, are categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as
a Class 3 exemption under Section 15303 (Single- family Residence
or Second Dwelling Unit) of the Guidelines for Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
LOCATION: 6086 Gabbert Road, located on the east side of Gabbert
Road between Darlene Lane and Aspen Hills Drive.
PROJECT
`.`. SITE
AE
i 777- -
QE
- \` M -2
NORTH
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Deny the appeal.
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \0922001 ADP 2001 -10
Hollister pc -stf rpt (mtg. 92401).d2..doc ATTACHMENT_3
Planning Commission
2001 -10 - Hollister
September 24, 2001
Page 2
Staff Report - Administrative Permit No.
BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ACTIONS: On August 8, 2001, the Director of
Community Development granted approval of a manufactured home as
a second dwelling unit, subject to conditions. Approval was
granted, following an Administrative Public Hearing, during
which there was no public comment. Subsequently, on August 17,
2001, the applicant filed an appeal to conditions no. l.b.,
2.b., 2.c., 2.f. (as modified), 2.g., 3, 4, 6, and 7. The
application for a second dwelling unit was submitted in response
to a Notice of Zoning Violation, originally dated November 19,
1999, relating to the placement of a non - conforming,
manufactured home on a residential lot without approval or
permits. An application for Administrative Permit to allow
placement of a conforming, second dwelling unit was submitted on
May 18, 2001.
ORDINANCE AND POLICIES: Section
Ordinance provides that within ten
permit is approved, conditionally
aggrieved person may file an appe
Planning Commission to be reviewed
date.
17.44.090 of the Zoning
(10) calendar days after a
approved, or denied, any
gal of the decision to the
at the earliest convenient
General Plan and Zoning Designation and Land Use
Direction
General Plan
Zoning
Land Use
Site:
RL
RE -5 acre
Single- family Residence
North
RL
RE -5 acre
Single - family Residence
South
RH
RE -1 acre
Agricultural /Vacant
East
RH
RE -1 acre
Single - family Residence
West
RL
RE -5 acre
Estate /Single- family Residence
RL =Rural Low =1 dwelling unit /5 -acre maximum;
RH =Rural High =1 dwelling unit /acre maximum;
RE -5 ac =Rural Exclusive =5 -acre minimum lot;
RE -1 ac =Rural Exclusive =l -acre minimum lot.
5: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \0922001 ADP 2001 -10
Hollister pc -stf rpt (mtg. 92401).d2..doc
Planning Commission Staff Report - Administrative Permit No.
2001 -10 - Hollister
September 24, 2001
Page 3
DISCUSSION: Applicant has submitted an appeal to several
conditions of approval established by the Director of Community
Development, under Administrative Permit No. 2001 -10,
authorizing a second dwelling unit on approximately 39.46 acres
in the RE -5ac (Rural Exclusive 5 -acre Minimum Lot) Zone. The
approved second dwelling unit is a manufactured home which is
allowed under the Zoning Code provided it incorporates certain
design features and is manufactured on or after June 15, 1976.
The conditions of approval included in letters, dated August 8
and August 9, 2001, (Attachments 1 and 2) document that the
proposed unit is consistent with the code requirements or as
conditioned will be consistent with all code provisions.
The Letter of Appeal, submitted on August 17, 2001, (Attachment
3) identified nine (9) conditions that applicant requests be
eliminated or modified. The following conditions have been
appealed; applicant's statement has been summarized by staff
with the staff's response and recommendation following each of
applicant's comments:
Condition No. 1.b. - Summary
Placement of manufactured home to occur within fifteen (15) days
of approval of the permit.
Applicant Comment:
There is no basis for compliance within this time period.
Delete.
Staff Response:
The Zoning Ordinance does not specify a time limit for placement
of a second dwelling unit; however, one (1) year is frequently
used as a maximum timeframe for implementation of a
discretionary permit. In this circumstance, there is a non -
conforming manufactured unit on the property without permits and
a Zoning Violation has been pending since November 19, 1999,
(Reference C -99 -349). Numerous deadlines for compliance have
been established and the applicant was unwilling to cooperate
until just before referral to the City Attorney for prosecution
was to take place. April 27, 2001, was established as the date
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \0922001 ADP 2001 -10
Hollister pc -stf rpt (mtg. 92401).d2..doc
Planning Commission Staff Report - Administrative Permit No.
2001 -10 - Hollister
September 24, 2001
Page 4
for removal of the illegal unit, however upon submittal of
initial information needed to review an Administrative Permit,
additional time for compliance was granted. Additionally, on
numerous occasions, both the applicant and applicant's attorney
advised staff that "time was of the essence" because of the
opportunity to purchase a conforming, manufactured unit. The
submittal of this appeal further extends the time for compliance
with a Zoning Violation, which is now approximately three (3)
years old.
Recommendation:
Deny the appeal and establish a period of thirty (30) days to
locate the approved, conforming unit on site.
Condition No. 2.b. - Summary
The owner of the property shall submit a covenant declaring that
the occupant of the existing single- family, primary residence
has the right to place a manufactured home /second dwelling on
the site for use by an employee.
Applicant Comment:
Nothing in the Zoning Ordinance limits a second unit to
occupancy by an employee; it may be rented to anyone.
Staff Response:
Section 17.28.020(G)l.b. of the Zoning Ordinance clearly states
that, "the lot on which a second dwelling is to be constructed
shall contain an existing single- family dwelling which is owner -
occupied at the time of application for a Zoning Clearance and
Building Permit for a second dwelling unit." Cindy Hollister,
applicant, is not the property owner but is herself a renter.
The appealed condition does not preclude renting the second unit
but it does establish for the record that specific knowledge and
permission of the owner, relating to the use of the property is
known. Zoning violations which may occur on the property are the
responsibility of the owner, therefore, verification of
knowledge about its use is appropriate.
Recommendation: Deny the appeal.
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \0922001 ADP 2001 -10
Hollister pc -stf rpt (mtg. 92401).d2..doc
Planning Commission Staff Report - Administrative Permit No.
2001 -10 - Hollister
September 24, 2001
Page 5
Condition No. 2.c. - Summary
The maximum size of the second dwelling shall not exceed thirty
(30 %) percent of the floor space of the existing single - family
primary residence, or 1,100 feet, whichever is less. Floor plans
of both units to be submitted and a site inspection are
required.
Applicant's Comment_:
The primary residence was constructed in the 1920's or 1930's as
a farmhouse and is smaller than many new residences.
Manufactured homes built after 1976 are frequently approximately
792 square feet in size but in this case may be more than thirty
(30%) percent of the existing square footage of the primary
dwelling unit. Adherence to the criteria in this condition
precludes placement of a manufactured unit on a 40 -acre site.
The Municipal code does not require information concerning floor
plans or inspection of the unit to take place. This condition
would be expensive to satisfy and is an invasion of privacy.
Staff Response:
Section 17.238.G. (1d) et seq. identifies the size of a second
dwelling unit, based upon the size of the primary dwelling unit
or property where placed. The criteria is based upon thirty
(30 %) percent of the floor area of the existing unit or lot size
whichever criteria yields the smaller square footage for the
second unit. For this request, it limits the size of the second
unit to thirty (30 %) percent of the square -footage of the
primary unit. It is for this reason that knowledge of the square
footage of the existing unit is needed. Through the course of
evaluating the Administrative Permit, at least three (3)
different square footage calculations were provided to staff
which would result in a second unit, allowed to have from 372
square feet to 840 square feet, as noted in the attached memo,
dated August 8, 2001 (Attachment 4 ) . Because staff has not been
given what can be considered as reliable information, the
condition that is being appealed was included. Both the
applicant and applicant's attorney, were fully aware of the
criteria before submitting the application. Second dwelling
units in single - family zones were mandated by State law in the
early 1980's and were originally called "Granny Flats." They
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \0922001 ADP 2001 -10
Hollister pc -stf rpt (mtg. 92401).d2..doc
Planning Commission Staff Report - Administrative Permit No.
2001 -10 - Hollister
September 24, 2001
Page 6
were intended to provide affordable units with minimum
disruption to established neighborhoods. The State law allowed
each jurisdiction to create standards that achieved the goal
without disrupting the fabric of residential areas. The Zoning
Ordinance makes no provision as to the date of construction of
the primary unit nor the size criteria that may have prevailed
at the time of construction. The intent of the code is to insure
that a second unit is not created to compete in size with the
primary unit.
Recommendation:
Deny the appeal. Allow applicant to submit a floor plan of the
existing primary residence, including overall square footage and
room sizes certified as true and accurate by a State Licensed
Architect in lieu of an on -site inspection. The maximum size of
a second unit will be calculated from this information.
Condition No. 2.f. (as modified) - Summary
This condition requires construction of a two -car garage to
provide parking for the existing dwelling unit.
Applicant's Comment:
Applicant believed that parking required for the existing
primary residence could be provided in the existing basin and
that a new garage would not be required.
Staff Response:
There was originally some thought that parking in the existing
barn would be acceptable, eliminating the need for a new garage
structure. However, it was subsequently discovered that the barn
structure was located more than 250 feet from the existing
residence, making it doubtful that it would be utilized. The
Zoning Ordinance requires a two -car garage for single- family
dwellings. The lack of covered parking for this use established
it as non - conforming; a condition which should be corrected when
more intensity of development takes place.
Staff Recommendation:
Deny the appeal.
S: \Community Development \Everyone\ Planning Commission Agenda Reports \0922001 ADP 2001 -10
Hollister pc -stf rpt (mtg. 92401).d2..doc
Planning Commission Staff Report - Administrative Permit No.
2001 -10 - Hollister
September 24, 2001
Page 7
Condition No. 2.g. - Summary
This condition requires the construction of a paved parking area
for the proposed second dwelling unit, along with a paved
driveway providing access to the parking for the primary and
secondary unit.
Applicant's Comment:
The existing residence was built without paved parking and the
Ventura County Fire Department requires only an all - weather
surface, not a paved surface. At least one (1) other residence
in the area has a dirt driveway.
Staff Response:
Section 17.32.030 of the Zoning Ordinance states, "that all
required parking and access thereto be paved with asphalt,
concrete, or other material of similar rigidity and durability
and adequate drainage shall be provided." Additionally, Section
17.32.060.E. specifically states, "that access to parking spaces
must be paved with a minimum of 2 -1/2 inches of asphalt or
concrete."
The applicant is correc
in the area has an
dwelling next door to
residential structures
access, although some
Fire Department does i
weather."
Recommendation:
Deny the appeal.
!t in stating that one (1) other dwelling
unpaved driveway, which' occurs at the
the subject property. However, all other
in the area have paved parking and
,re in need of repair. The Ventura County
Lot consider an unpaved surface as "all
Condition Nos. 3 and 7 - Summary
Both of these conditions address the "at random" existence of
various containers, equipment or miscellaneous items that create
a questionable appearance in the neighborhood.
Applicant's Comment:
Open storage of 1,000 square feet is allowed, as is the presence
of implements required for animal husbandry and farming which
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \0922001 ADP 2001 -10
Hollister pc -stf rpt (mtg. 92401).d2..doc
Planning Commission Staff Report - Administrative Permit No.
2001 -10 - Hollister
September 24, 2001
Page 8
are needed or used on a daily basis. The authority to remove or
screen these items has not been given to the Planning Director
by the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff Response:
The Zoning Ordinance in Section 17.28.020.F.(2) allows a maximum
of 1,000 square feet of open storage when screened from view
from a public right -of -way within 300 feet of the storage.
Additionally, Section 17.28.020.F.(5.b.) exempts items used by
the residents on the property for property maintenance or other
needs accessory to the principal use. The conditions included in
the Administrative Permit were intended to address the generally
unkept nature of the property when it was viewed at the initial
stage of code violation and at each subsequent inspection and
additional notice of violation. The placement of the trash
dumpster has been the subject of neighbor complaints, and its
relocation to a less - visible area or provision for screening
would seem reasonable. The use of old bath tubs and tires for
water and feed for horses is common and need not be addressed
for cleanup or relocation. Section 17.28.030 of the Zoning
Ordinance establishes standards relating to animals, which
authorizes enforcement proceedings, if litter, garbage or the
accumulation of manure takes place.
Staff Recommendation:
Deny appeal and incorporate
subject conditions. Evaluate
trash dumpster.
clarification of intent of the
the need to relocate or screen the
Condition No. 4 - Summary
Remove the existing, non - permitted, second unit from the
property within sixty (60) days of approval, of the proposed
conforming, second unit. Relocate the non - permitted unit to a
screened area, when the approved unit is placed, and post a
$2,000 surety to guarantee performance removal of the non -
permitted unit.
Applicant's Comment:
This condition is coercive, selective enforcement and violates
the residents, right to maintain licensed vehicles that could be
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \0922001 ADP 2001 -10
Hollister pc -stf rpt (mtg. 92401).d2..doc
Planning Commission Staff Report - Administrative Permit No.
2001 -10 - Hollister
September 24, 2001
Page 9
used as a travel trailer. Moving it behind the barn is
infeasible; more than sixty (60) days is required for sale or
disposal.
Staff Response:
The sixty (60) day period is reasonable and was communicated to
the applicant at the time of the Administrative Hearing, as was
the suggestion to place the unit behind or near the barn, to
reduce its visibility from the public right -of -way. As
previously noted, this violation has been in place for almost
three (3) years and the applicant has continuously resisted City
attempts to achieve compliance. The unit has been placed and is
being used illegally, without permits or permission. Applicant
and applicant's attorney have told staff on several occasions
that the existing unit is not a travel trailer and requires
special equipment (large truck) to move the unit. The terms of
achieving compliance with the Zoning Ordinance are set by the
agency not by the violator. The City has been patient and
reasonable, however the violator has not responded, therefore
the $2,000 surety is justified.
Staff Recommendation:
Deny the appeal. Staff will work with applicant to identify a
feasible location for storage of the illegal unit for a maximum
of sixty (60) days from conclusion of appeal proceedings.
Condition No. 6 - Sununary
Pay all outstanding processing fees with the adjusted fee
requested at $1,320.
Applicant Comments:
The fee of $1,320 is excessive and beyond the authority of the
Planning Director under the Municipal Code.
Staff Response:
A review of this condition on page 5 of the conditions of
approval of Administrative Permit No. 2001 -10 clearly states
that there are limitations on processing fees that can be
collected concerning cost overruns without City Council action.
The outstanding processing fee requested has been adjusted from
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \0922001 ADP 2001 -10
Hollister pc -stf rpt (mtg. 92401).d2..doc
Planning Commission Staff Report - Administrative Permit No.
2001 -10 — Hollister
September 24, 2001
Page 10
the actual documented cost to evaluate the applicant's proposal.
Additionally, there has been an updated accounting of staff time
reported for this project, which at 39.75 hours, would equate to
a cost of $3,498, not $3,300, as noted by Condition No. 6. The
Director of Community Development reviewed the processing
charges that were posted to this project and concluded that the
time spent on analysis was longer than appropriate and adjusted
the charges accordingly. Additionally, it should be pointed out
that this application was incomplete and inaccurate from the
time of its original submittal, which requires additional staff
time for communication and analysis, therefore increasing the
cost.
Staff Recommendation:
Deny the appeal. If applicant is unwilling to pay the adjusted
processing fee of $1,320, based upon the conditions of approval,
a request for City Council review of the charges may be
submitted to staff for Council action.
SUMMARY
The conditions of approval of Administrative Permit No. 2001 -10
reflect a complete analysis of the request, consistent with code
provisions. The code provisions, as noted in this report, are
clear and represent a vision of aesthetic improvement when
increased development is requested. Submission of complete and
accurate information and cooperation through the process by the
applicant usually results in reduced costs and timely
conclusions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing,
the public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2001-
Attachments:
accept public testimony and close
denying Appeal No. 2001 -02.
1. Letter of Approval - Administrative Permit, dated 8/08/01.
2. Addendum to conditions - Administrative Approval, dated
8/09/01.
3. Applicant's letter of appeal
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \0922001 ADP 2001 -10
Hollister pc -stf rpt (mtg. 92401).d2..doc
Planning Commission Staff Report - Administrative Permit No.
2001 -10 - Hollister
September 24, 2001
Page 11
4. Community Development Department memorandum re: Size of
Second Unit, dated 8/08/01.
5. Administrative Permit, No. 2001 -10 - staff report, dated
7/17/01.
6. Letter - Applicant's attorney, dated 7/18/01
7. Letter - Application status., dated 4/27/01.
8. Letter - Status of Violations, dated 1/26/01.
9. Second unit elevations, dated 5/18/01.
10. PC Resolution No. 2001-
S: \Community Development \Everyone \Planning Commission Agenda Reports \0922001 ADP 2001 -10
Hollister pc -stf rpt (mtg. 92401).d2..doc
RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2001 -416
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA DENYING
APPEAL 2001 -05 TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS
REQUIRED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE
PERMIT NO. 2001 -10 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A
SECOND SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 6086
GABBERT ROAD ON APPROXIMATELY 39.46 ACRES OF
LAND, ON THE APPLICATION OF CINDY HOLLISTER
WHEREAS, at a duly notice Public Hearing on September 24,
2001, and October 15, 2001, the Planning Commission considered
an appeal to certain conditions required by the Community
Development Director for approval of Administrative Permit No.
2001 -10 on the application of City Hollister for placement of a
second single- family residence on approximately 39.46 acres of
land, located at 6086 Gabbert Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 500 -0-
330 -245 & 255; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of. September 24,. 2001, the Planning
Commission opened the Public Hearing, received public testimony,
and continued this item, Public Hearing open to October 15,
2001, and after receiving public testimony, the Planning
Commission closed the Public Hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after review and
consideration of the information contained in the Planning
Commission staff report, and testimony received, has made a
decision in this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find that
the decision of the Director of Community Development to require
certain conditions for placement of a second single - family
residence by approval of Administrative Permit No. 2001 -10 is
consistent with the purpose and intent of provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, including specific development criteria
contained in this code related to site development, and that the
facts presented are not adequate to grant the applicant's
appeal.
#` =A a H M k ENTji
Resolution No. PC- 2001 -416
Page 2
SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission adopts the
following additional findings:
C.E.Q.A. Finding
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts
single- family residences and second dwelling units from its
provisions and appeals of decisions related to those
projects.
Administrative Permit Finding
The proposed second single- family residence is consistent
with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as conditioned,
that provide for the placement of a second dwelling unit in
residential areas zoned for single- family development.
SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission denies the appeal
of Conditions 1.b., 2.b., 2.c., 2.f. (modified) 2.g., 3, 4, 6
and 7 to Administrative Permit No. 2001 -10.
The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Commissioners DiCecco, Haller, Landis, Otto and
Chairperson Parvin
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of October, 2001.
Janice Parvin, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt
Acting Community Development Director
S: \Community Development \Everyone \PC FINAL RESO \pc 416 APPEAL 2001 -05 Hollister.doc ���
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MODIFIED PER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 10/15/01
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT NO. 2001 -10
1. In accordance with Section 17.28.020.B of the Zoning Ordinance
for Mobilehomes and Manufactured Housing:
a) The manufactured home must be constructed on or after June 15,
1976. In compliance with the requirements of the Municipal
Code, and the California Department of Housing and Community
Development Registration Card Decal No. LBC4127, a copy of
which is on file in the official file for Administrative
Permit No. 2001 -10. Additionally, proof of manufacture date
shall be clearly affixed to the unit and /or available for
inspection.
b) The manufactured home must— be placed on a permanent
foundation, as determined by,,..the Department of Building and
Safety in compliance with state -law within fifteen (1 ; —sixty
(60) days of the date of approval indicated in this letter.
The manufactured home shall be connected to all utilities.
Separate metering from the primary unit is not required. If
the proposed unit is to be connected to a septic system,
copies of the required permits shall be provided to the
Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a
Zone Clearance and Building, Permit.
c) The exterior siding-shall extend to the ground level, or
manufactured home skirting matching the color and material of
the manufactured home shall completely enclose the foundation
support system and the tongue. The manufactured home siding
shall be comprised of an exterior material subject to review
and approval by the Director of Community Development. The
paint colors shown on the color board submitted to the
Community Development Department on June 6, 2001, and included
as a part of this approval, shall be Benjamin Moore paint no.
1024 for the frame and shutters and Benjamin Moore paint no.
1025 for the walls. The exterior (the "wood -tone siding"
appearance) of the manufactured home shall be maintained free
of chips, excessive fading, or peeling as determined by the
Director of Community Development, for as long as the
manufactured home is located on this property.
C' IME&NIT
ATTACH
S: \Community Development \Laura Stringer \Adp<01 -10 modified conditions per `
PC.docS:s�CafflR1a.n-tp
Development \ - Lau - a- St appreva }_wetter -doe
Administrative Permit 2001 -10 (Cindy Hollister)
August 8, 2001
Page 2 of 6
d) The project shall conform to the revised site plan and
elevations received on July 19, 2001, except as revised by the
conditions of approval contained in this letter.
e) The manufactured home shall
less than two (2) inches ve
inches of horizontal run and
that match the roof color
residence and equal to or
product life.
have a roof with a pitch of not
rtical rise for each twelve (12)
shall consist of asphalt shingles
of the existing single family
better in quality, weight, and
f) The manufactured home shall include a covered porch not less
than eighteen (18) feet wide by seven and one half (7112) feet
deep, as identified on the building elevations of the
submitted application.
2. In accordance with Section 17.28.020.G of the Zoning Ordinance
for a Second Dwelling:
a)The manufactured home /second dwelling shall be placed on the
same lot as the existing single- family residence (identified
as APNs 500 -0- 330 -245 and 500 -0- 330 -255). If this property is
subsequently divided into two separate parcels, the
manufactured home /second dwelling shall be removed from the
site, or brought into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements in effect at the time for a primary single- family
residence, prior to recordation of the final map. The covenant
required in condition 2(b) shall contain language affirming
this requirement.
b) The existing single- family primary residence shall be occupied
either by the property owner or the designated property
manager /lessee at the time of,_-application for a building
permit for the second dwelling. The owner of the property
shall submit a covenant declaring that the occupant of the
existing single- family primary residence has the right to
place the manufactured home /second dwelling on the property
€ems - . A copy
of this covenant shall be submitted to the Director of
Community Development for review and approval. Prior to the
inspection for occupancy of the second dwelling, the required
covenant approved by the Director of Community Development
shall be recorded, and copies of the recorded covenant shall
be provided to the Planning Department.
S: \Community Development \Laura Strin er \Adp 01 -10 modified conditions per PC docS:\COm qty
�Deve -lo meat \- Laui- a..._S -r- e r \ADP-- 2- Ofl}_ }.a \mod
P 9e.. p -�1 -�9 - aPprova.l_._..leter . -doe t r
Administrative
August 8, 2001
Page 3 of 6
Permit 2001 -10 (Cindy Hollister)
c) The maximum size of the second dwelling shall not exceed
thirty percent (300) of the floor space of the existing
single- family primary residence, or 1,100 (one thousand one
hundred) square feet, whichever is less. Prior to the issuance
of a Zone Clearance and Building Permit for the proposed
second unit, floor plans (drawn to scale and dimensioned) for
both the existing primary single- family residence and the
proposed second dwelling unit /manufactured home shall be
provided to the Community Development Department.
Additionally, the applicant shall request an occupancy
inspection be conducted by the Department of Building and
Safety to verify the square footage of the existing primary
single- family residence, or provide a statement from a
.......................... - .........
- - - --
surveyor or architect certifying the size of the primary unit,
prior to the issuance of a Zone Clearance and Building Permit.
No Zone Clearance nor Building Permit shall be issued for the
installation of the second dwelling unit unless it is
demonstrated and verified that the second dwelling unit is in
conformance with this condition of approval. All costs related
to the inspection of structures required by this condition
shall be paid directly to the Department of Building and
Safety and are not considered as part of the entitlement
processing fee.
d) Not more than two dwelling units total shall be allowed on the
property. No part of the existing primary single- family
residence nor any part of the proposed second dwelling unit
can be converted for use as a separate dwelling unit.
e) This second dwelling may not be sold as a separate unit but
may be rented or leased consistent with Section
17.28.020(G)(1)(f) of the Municipal Code.
f) Two enclosed parking spaces in a two -car garage a minimum of
20 feet wide by 20 feet deep shall be provided for the
existing single- family primary residence prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy for the second unit. This
condition may be satisfied by the use of the existing barn so
long as space for parking of two (2) cars is provided.
g) One (1) covered or uncovered off - street parking space shall be
required for the second dwelling unit. The size of this
parking space shall be an unobstructed minimum of nine (9)
S: \Community Development \Laura Stringer \Adp 01 -10 modified conditions per PC.docg� n ay
Bevel opmen -t \- Lau -ra. ... S - Cringer letter-:dee
o
Administrative Permit 2001 -10 (Cindy Hollister)
August 8, 2001
Page 4 of 6
feet wide by twenty (20) feet deep. Access,to the parking area
for the second dwelling shall be at least ten (10) feet wide
and shall be paved
deterM4 led b r er with an all weather surface,
which meets the Ventur County Fire Department �(VCFD)
standards. As an alternative to the iig providing an all
weather surface e-- access to the second unit, consideration
will be given to the pav e
ear the access road to the primary dwelling unit to serve as
access to both structures. Required parking for the second
unit may remain as shown or may be relocated to be served by
a pa-,F -all weather surface driveway to the primary residence.
h) Any and all uses and structures on the property, except the
existing primary residential unit and barn, that have not been
permitted shall be removed, or permits shall be obtained prior
to final inspection for the second dwelling unit. The
structures identified on the site plan as structures to be
removed shall be removed prior to the issuance of a Zone
Clearance for this second unit.
3. The existing dumpsters used for horse maintenance and trash as
identified on the attached site plan shall be visually screened
from view from the public right -of -way _may - -re -leer a ng them to
behind the residenees, ems -- through the addition of landscape
screening
lend in with the baek-- r� prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the second unit.
4. The existing second dwelling unit /travel trailer that is
currently located on the property without a permit shall be
removed from the site within sixty (60) days of the issuance of
a Zone Clearance for this proposed second unit. The applicant
shall provide a cash deposit or a Certificate of Deposit (CD) in
the amount of $2,000.00 to guarantee this removal. In the event
that said removal does not take place within the time specified
above, this deposit will be utilized by the City at its sole and
unfettered discretion to pursue a legal solution concerning the
unauthorized dwelling unit. During this sixty (60) day period,
the existing trailer shall be relocated to behind the barn or to
another location on the property, as determined by the Director
of Community Development, such that this vehicle shall not be
visible from the street. This required posting of surety and
I S: \Community Development \Laura Stringer \Adp 01 -10 modified conditions per PC.docS 1,GE) Uzity
Development \Laura-- gtringe ADP-- �-0 41- �8 \Adp_._p. }_. }.p......aPp.ro{ra --Ie-t t er-:-fie
Administrative Permit 2001 -10 (Cindy Hollister)
August 8, 2001
Page 5 of 6
relocation of the trailer shall occur prior to issuance of a
Zone Clearance and Building Permit for this proposed second
dwelling unit.
5. All permit and fee requirements must be met, including the
requirement for a Zone Clearance and Building Permit and the
payment of all applicable development fees for a new
residence /second dwelling unit.
6. Outstanding processing fees for Administrative Permit 2001 -10
shall be paid prior to issuance of a Zone Clearance and Building
Permit. The current cost of processing this request is
approximately $3,300.00 including the $264.00 application
deposit initially paid. There are certain limitations concerning
the amount of cost overrun that can automatically be required
without City Council action, which is 750 of the $264.00
deposit, or $198.00. The adjusted outstanding processing fee due
and payable prior to issuance of a Zone Clearance is $1,320.00
(adjusted to 18 hours multiplied by $88.00 per hour, the total
of which is $1,584.00, minus the $264.00 paid, which equals
$1,320.00).
7. The property shall be maintained, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 8.48.020 of the Moorpark Municipal Code.
Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance and Building Permit, the
old tires and bathtub located westerly of the proposed second
dwelling /manufactured home shall be removed or relocated to
within the existing barn corral area on the property.
5"1
S: \Community Development \Laura Stringer \Adp 01 -10 modified conditions per PC.doc°:`�y = =Un
D - 20{31_1. -0iAdp - -0-1 4-0— appr -0�a -1--- letter doe
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA DENYING APPEAL 2001-
07 TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPEAL NO. 2001 -05 TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS
REQUIRED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE
PERMIT NO. 2001 -10 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A
SECOND SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 6086
GABBERT ROAD ON APPROXIMATELY 39.46 ACRES OF
LAND, ON THE APPLICATION OF CINDY HOLLISTER
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing on December 19,
2001, the City Council considered an appeal to the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny an appeal to certain conditions
required by the Community Development Director for approval of
Administrative Permit No. 2001 -10 on the application of Cindy
Hollister for placement of a second single- family residence on
approximately 39.46 acres of land, located at 6086 Gabbert Road,
Assessor's Parcel No. 500 -0- 330 -245 & 255; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of December 19, 2001, the City
Council opened the Public Hearing and after receiving public
testimony, the City Council closed the Public Hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after review and consideration
of the information contained in the City Council agenda report,
and testimony received, has made a decision in this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find that the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny Appeal No. 2001 -05
to the decision of the Director of Community Development to
require certain conditions for placement of a second single -
family residence by approval of Administrative Permit No. 2001-
10 is consistent with the purpose and intent of provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance, including specific development criteria
contained in this code related to site development, and that the
facts presented are not adequate to grant the applicant's
appeal.
SECTION 2. That the City Council adopts the following
additional findings:
�, , A 0= r.
5 n
Resolution No. PC- 2001 -416
Page 2
C.E.Q.A. Finding
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts
single- family residences and second dwelling units from its
provisions and appeals of decisions related to those
projects.
Administrative Permit Finding
The proposed second single- family residence is consistent
with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as conditioned,
that provide for the placement of a second dwelling unit in
residential areas zoned for single- family development.
SECTION 3. That the City Council denies the appeal to the
Planning Commission denial of an appeal to certain conditions
required by the Community Development Director for approval of
Administrative Permit No. 2001 -10.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be
filed in the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of December, 2001.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
\ \MOR PRI SERV \City Share \Community Development \Everyone \CC Resos & Ordinances \cc APPEAL 2001 -07
Hollister.doc ��
w
1 CS y'j O fir, y rS4)a��-r
SITE PLAN l 710 0'" NORTH
z
cW
G
i