Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2015 0811 PC REG MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Moorpark, California August 11, 2015 A Special Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark was held on August 11, 2015, in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Di Cecco called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Aquino led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Aquino, Groff, Hamous, Vice Chair Landis, and Chair Di Cecco. Staff Present: David Bobardt, Community Development Director; Joseph Fiss, Planning Manager; and Joyce Figueroa, Administrative Assistant II. 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS, AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: None. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 6. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: None. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND REPORTS ON MEETINGS/CONFERENCES ATTENDED BY THE COMMISSION: (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.) None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. PC-2015-604) None. Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 2 August 11, 2015 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Consider a Resolution Denying Appeal No. 2015-01 for a Sign Permit for Two Proposed Signs on Top Building Parapet Walls at 709 Science Drive, on the Application of John Newton for Community Marketplace. Staff Recommendation: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-604, DENYING Appeal No. 2015-01. (Staff: David Bobardt) Mr. Bobardt gave the staff report. Chair Di Cecco stated for the record that he met with the applicant and staff. Commissioner Groff announced, due to his company (or Groff and Levy Insurance Brokers West) renting a space at the Community Marketplace and to avoid a potential conflict of interest, he would recuse himself and left the dais at 7:07 p.m. Vice Chair Landis stated for the record that he met with the applicant. A discussion among the Commissioners and staff focused on: 1) Definition of a mansard; 2) Whether the application was reviewed or rejected; 3) Stamp Page 3, Section 17.40.110 regarding sign location for a wall sign for a building more than 10,000 square feet; 4) How a wall sign would be incorporated into the roof; 5) Stamp Page 37, letter from the City Attorney regarding the variance of the terms of a Zoning Ordinance; 6) Whether there was any follow-up meetings with the applicant following the letter of August 5, 2015 from the City Attorney; and 7) Whether there was discussion of wall signs putting them on the building as opposed to putting them attached to the parapet and going up. Chair Di Cecco asked that the applicant be allowed to speak longer than three minutes. Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 3 August 11, 2015 John Newton, John W. Newton and Associates, Inc., Applicant Representative, distributed handouts to the Planning Commission and staff and stated he was appealing the fact that the application was rejected, and not the negative decision. Mr. Newton discussed the following which focused on: 1) Zoning Matrix of the Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.20.060 Item 23. which states that 20% of industrial planned development complex may be utilized for retail commercial and that 80,000 square feet of the project is retail commercial, and that retail commercial needs to be visible and needs signs; 2) July 8, 2015, email from Mr. Newton to Mr. Fiss regarding 'the code prohibits the City from considering a permit where a violation exists'; 3) The application was filed to correct the problem; 4) Referenced Code 17.44.060 C. Existing Violations; 5) A-frame sign violations referenced 17.40.090 B. Temporary banners and signs; 6) Letter dated June 4, 2015 from City of Moorpark regarding Denial of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for an Auto Faire; 7) A Temporary Use Permit was never issued by the Planning Commission; 8) Letter dated July 29, 2015 from City of Moorpark regarding Prohibited Roof Sign; 9) Subjected to Code Enforcement scrutiny; 10) City of Moorpark Memorandum dated August 5, 2015 from Kevin Ennis, City Attorney, regarding Sign Permit Appeal, and Mr. Newton's concerns regarding the City Attorney's interpretation of code sections; 11) City of Moorpark is singularly targeting Community Marketplace; 12) 11x18 copy of stamp page 11 of the agenda report (Conceptual sketch of Exhibit Sign A-1.1) was incomplete; Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 4 August 11, 2015 13) Stated that it is imperative that Community Marketplace have signage visible to the 23/118 freeway on Los Angeles Avenue; 14) This authorized commercial use needs visible signage and is zoned for retail commercial; 15) This authorized commercial use currently comprised of 70 new businesses needs visible signage and needs to be visible; and 16) New businesses new to Moorpark need visible signage the same as any other retail commercial businesses in the City. A discussion among the Commissioners and Mr. Newton focused on: 1) When the property was leased, this project was brought before the City Council. Because it was zoned industrial, the square footage allows an industrial zone a certain percentage of the square footage to be used as retail 20%. Signage was not brought up before the City Council. The Development Agreement indicated that the signage would conform to 17.40.020 of the Moorpark Municipal Code requirements; 2) Interpretation and definition of roof line; 3) Analysis regarding how high of a sign would be needed above the roof to be visible to northbound traffic; 4) Whether the application was for a billboard sign on top of the parapet or for signage, including working with staff to determine what signage would work; and 5) The amount of signage allowed is based on the linear frontage. There is frontage on three sides of the building. Consideration of using interior of the parapet wall at the far end of the building for signage that would still meet the requirements, such as painting the building, painting the parapet with signage, super graphics, and increasing the parapet with a minor MOD to the IPD, and using a mansard type of arrangement that is incorporated into the roof. Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 5 August 11, 2015 Mr. Bobardt clarified the following: 1) Rejection or Denial Term. A sign permit is a ministerial permit where we would not collect the money for something if we couldn't issue a permit. A rejection is a denial in that an application does not meet the standards and we can't issue the permit or collect money for it. 2) Thirty-day Time Limit. Staff erred and did not have the staffing to get the item in time, due to the Planning Manager and Director pre- planned vacations. 3) Directional Signs. The reference to the code is only for City- sponsored or non-profit events where we allow off-site directional signs. The code reference doesn't apply to commercial uses. 4) Issue about this Application Being Provided to Abate a Sign Violation. Removal of the roof banner did not require a permit. The issue is regarding whether we can issue a permit that abates a violation. 5) Banner Sign on Los Angeles Avenue in Front of the Monument Sign. The City did not issue a permit for the banner. This has not been enforced. 6) Selective Enforcement Regarding A-frame Signs. Staff does go out and hit all the businesses when we observe them. Mr. Bobardt suggested that in the Resolution provided for the Commissioners consideration, section 17.40.070 A. 3. of the Municipal Code which reads `except as specifically provided in this chapter no sign may extend above the eave line or parapet or lowest point on a sloping roof of the building on which its located' be added to the references of code standards. A discussion followed between the Commissioners regarding what was applied for and what was rejected, and their preference for the applicant to meet with staff and work out something that the applicant can comply with. MOTION: Vice Chair Landis moved and Commissioner Aquino seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation, including the adoption of Resolution No. 2015-604, as amended. The motion carried by voice vote 4-0, Commissioner Groff absent. Minutes of the Planning Commission Moorpark, California Page 6 August 11, 2015 10. CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTION: Commissioner Hamous moved and Commissioner Chair Di Cecco seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by voice vote 4-0, Commissioner Groff absent. A. Consider Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 26. Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes. 11. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Vice Chair Landis moved and Commissioner Aquino seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by voice vote 4-0, Commissioner Groff absent. The time was 8:25 p.m. /41 L A.• M17—Di •ec'oa C r r David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director