Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES CC 1992 842 1992 0325RESOLUTION N.'. 92--;--, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING APPEAL NO. 92 -2 ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91 -1 Whereas, at a duly noticed public hearing on January 21, 1992 the Planning Commission considered the application filed by Richard and Glen Forster requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to conduct "Paint Ball Games ", a business providing outdoor amusement to the general public every Saturday and Sunday from approximately 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., on property located at 14506 Los Angeles Place in Moorpark, Assessor's Parcel No. 513 -0 -050 -055; Whereas, the Planning Commission after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff report and testimony, determined that the proposed commercial "Paintball" operation is categorically exempt under Class 4, Section 15304 (e) (Minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the land) of the State CEQA Guidelines issued thereunder, and has reached its decision on this matter; Whereas, at its meeting of January 21, 1992, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, closed the public hearing, and directed staff to prepare a resolution for the Planning Commission's decision; Whereas, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 92 -256 on February 3, 1992 approving CUP 91 -1; Whereas, the City Council appealed the Planning Commission approval of CUP 91 -1 on February 8, 1992; Whereas, at its duly noticed public hearing of February 4, 1992, the City Council opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those wishing to testify, considered the staff report for Appeal No. 92 -2, and closed the public hearing; Whereas, the City Council has received information that upholding Appeal No. 92 -2, and has determined that denial of CUP 91 -12 is necessary because there is sufficient evidence that the proposed paintball operation would: 1) Not be compatible with the existing land uses in the general area of the proposed operation; 2) Impairs the utility of neighboring properties and uses; 3) Be detrimental to the safety and convenience of the neighbors; and 4) not be compatible with the character of the surrounding development; and Whereas, Section 8111 -6 of the Zoning Ordinance states that an application request may be denied with prejudice on the basis that good cause exists for limiting the filing of applications with respect to the property; and Whereas, there is good cause to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 91 -1 with prejudice on the basis that there is sufficient evidence that the proposed paintball operation would: 1) Not be compatible with the existing land uses in the general area of the proposed operation; 2) Impairs the utility of neighboring properties and uses; 3) Be detrimental to the safety and convenience of the neighbors; and 4) not be compatible with the character of the surrounding development now or within the foreseeable future; and Whereas, after deliberation regarding the appeal, the City Council reached a decision on this matter on February 4, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the following findings, upholds Appeal No. 92 -2 and denies Conditional Use Permit No. 91 -1 for the following reasons: a. The proposed paintball operation is not compatible with the character of the surrounding development for the following because: Exposure of several people in the area on a weekly basis would expose many people to the rural nature of the open space areas to the east and south and thus increase the potential for trespassing, increase liability exposure to surrounding property owners, and significantly increase traffic numbers and noise to the residents of Virginia Colony; b. The proposed use would impair the utility of neighboring property and uses because: 1) The properties to the south and east are used to raise livestock. Since there is the potential for trespassing onto adjacent properties, there exists the potential that participants of the paintball games may threaten the livestock in the area or venture onto adjacent properties thus destroying fences or other ranch equipment used in the ranch operations; 2) The residents in the Virginia Colony area would be exposed to a significant increase in traffic which in turn would create additional noise to the residents during weekend morning and afternoon hours, and would create additional dust from the traffic moving along the substandard access roads. 0 c. The additional traffic created from participants entering and exiting the proposed paintball site would be detrimental to the public safety of the surrounding residents in Virginia Colony as well as other traveling along the access roads because: 1) Portions of the access road is not wide enough to safely accommodate two way traffic; 2) increased traffic introduced to the area as a result of the proposed paintball operation would further increase the danger of a traffic accident because the roads in the area of the proposed site do not meet City standards. d. The proposed paintball operation would not be compatible with the character of the surrounding development because: 1) The residents of Virginia Colony have several children that play in the area during the time that participants would either be entering or exiting the area, thus producing additional noise and dust near the existing residents; and 2) The proposed project would also increase traffic on already existing substandard private access roads making it more difficult for residents to exit the area. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby upholds Appeal No. 92 -2 and hereby denies with prejudice Conditional Use Permit No. 91 -1 because: The proposed paintball operation would: 1) Not be compatible with the existing land uses in the general area of the proposed operation; 2) Impairs the utility of neighboring properties and uses; 3) Be detrimental to the safety and convenience of the neighbors; and 4) Not be compatible with the character of the surrounding development now, or within the foreseeable future. PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED THIS .?S" DAY OF MARCH, 1992 Atli Paul W. Lawrason, Jr. Mayor City Clerk I %o MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Averut. Nlcwrark, :alifornia 93021 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss. CITY OF MOORPARK ) (805) 529 -686- I, Lillian E. Kellerman, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 92 -842 — was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the 25th day of MARCH 1992, and that the same was adopted by the followinc vote: AYES -.COUNCILMEMBERS MONTGOMERY, PEREZ, TALLEY, WOZNIAK AND MAYOR LAWRASON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 31st day of 'LARCH 1992. �4250 Lillian E. Kellerman City Clerk PAUL W LAWRASON JR JOHN I. WOZNIAK SCOTT MON I GOr1 Hv BE Nf.! Ho o I. CIE .' HOY TAI L I Y JH Mavor Mavr.• Pro T--n, '011-1 1- 1-1t...