Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 2001 1015 PC SPCP- .anning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of Special Meeting of October 15, 2001 1 1) CALL TO ORDER Chair Parvin called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. 2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Community Development Director, Wayne Loftus, led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3) ROLL CALL Janice Parvin, Chair Will_Lam F. Otto, Vice Chair Mark DiCecco, Commissioner Paul Haller, Commissioner Kipp Landis, Commissioner Comm-ssioner's Landis, Haller, DiCecco, Vice Chair Otto, and chair Parvin, were present at the meeting. Staff attending the meeting included Wayne Loftus, Community Development Director; John Libiez, Planning Manager; Walter Brown, City Engineer; Laura Stringer, Senior Management Analyst; and Gail Rice, Secretary II. 4) PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None, 5) REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None. 6) CONSENT CALENDAR None 7) PUBLIC COMMENTS None. \\ MOR_ PRI_ SERV \hmee_foldera \CLafleur \M \PC- minutes \2001minutes \011015 p=- rev.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 15, 2001 2 8) PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Consider an Amendment to the City of Storage; Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2001 -01 (Applicant: City of Moorpark) . Staff Recommendation: 1) Accept public testimony and close the Public Hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC- 2001 -_ recommending to the City Council approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance defining standards and criteria for recreational vehicle parking and storage. Wayne Loftus introduced John Libiez who provided the staff presentation (reference staff report, dated October 11, 2001). Mr. Libiez informed the Commission that revisions to the draft Ordinance had incorporated Commission comments from previous meetings, and that a clear copy rr and a redline edition had been provided in the packet, including extractions from the Code. Mr. Libiez summarized the purpose of the Ordinance and revisions that had been incorporated into the draft ordinance, and added that the Ordinance, as drafted, would not take effect until sixty (60) days after its adoption, an additional thirty (30) days more than normal. Commissioner Haller questioned Page 5 of the Ordinance, asking if it would apply to recreational vehicle (RV) parking in the back of commercial or industrial lots. Mr. Libiez responded that it would allow for vehicle storage as a primary use or secondary use through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Mr. Loftus provided additional clarification and discussed future options. Commissioner Haller, referencing page 6, questioned the limit of thirty (30) days total for a calendar year and questioned what happened to fourteen (14) days which had originally been allowed. \ \NOR_PRI_BRRV\ Tome_ folders \C flour \N \PC - minutes \1001minutes \011015 pm- rev.doc P=anning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 15, 2001 3 Mr. Libiez responded that with the addition of limited parking and storage within the front yard setback, the fourteen (14) day owner permit would no longer be necessary. Commissioner Haller expressed concern with the front yard setback height restriction, relating to a homeowner who wanted to park his RV beyond the 72 -hour Vehicle Code limits. Mr. Loftus discussed staff re- evaluation of the City's ability to enforce and monitor owner parking and storage over the 72 hours permitted by the Vehicle Code. Chair Parvin questioned whether the proposed Ordinance would resolve most of the complaints received by the City regarding recreational vehicles. i^ Mr. Loftus responded that most would be resolved. He t further stated public input had been less than anticipated by staff, and that the current draft Ordinance was a more balanced solution to parking of RV's. Chair Parvin commented, that in addition to the sixty (60) days to comply, could the requirements be mentioned on our website, along with an announcement on Channel 10. Mr. Loftus responded that staff would look into both of those excellent recommendations. Chair Parvin opened the meeting to public comment (the Public Hearing having been continued open). James Hartley, 5950 Gabbert Road, Moorpark, CA Mr. Hartley discussed the difficulty with receiving notice and concerns with understanding the impact of the proposed Ordinance on his property. \ \MOR_ prn -re .doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 15, 2001 Page 4 Discussion between Mr. Hartley and staff ensued concerning specifics of his vehicles and impacts of the Ordinance. Mr. Hartley further expressed his concern with the potential for fees to be assessed. Chair Parvin closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner DiCecco questioned vehicle would be subject to city Mr. Libiez responded that undo parking /storage of recreational the lot (except in the R -2 Zone) Zoning Clearance. whether Mr. Hartley's review. ar the current draft, vehicles anywhere on would be subject to a Commissioner DiCecco commented that although some residents would like the proposed Ordinance, some would not, and that the proposal strikes a balance. He commented to the lack of existing off -site storage, r suggesting a re -visit to the Ordinance, once 4 additional off -site facilities are available in the City. He further stated that he was comfortable with the proposal. Commissioner Haller commented that he was satisfied with the wording and recommended forwarding it to the City Council. Commissioner Landis requested clarification of when a Permit /Zoning Clearance is required. Mr. Libiez provided clarification of the Permit /Zoning Clearance requirements, process and fees necessary under the proposed Ordinance. Additional discussion ensued between Commissioner Landis and staff regarding the permit process and fee requirements, with Mr. Loftus concluding that staff recommended some form of permit and fee to ensure enforcement. Commissioner Landis summarized the two (2) options available: \ \MOR_PRI_9RRV\ home_Emldere \Mafleur \M \PO- minute. \1001mimtes \011015 pm-rev.d Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 15, 2001 Page 5 1) Zone Clearance (a $44 dollar fee) to store a vehicle permitted by a certain zone. 2) Long term parking - parking on the street. Mr. Loftus discussed the that it would be up to thi the fee for the long -te recreational vehicles. requirements for visitor Ordinance. two (2) options and added City Council to establish rm parking for visiting, He further discussed the parking per the draft Commissioner Landis expressed agreement that not all people are going to be happy and stated his concerns as: 1) Definition that treats all RVs the same. 2) Driveways as an area of property rights. 3) Defining a citywide standard where there are different communities, some with Homeowner's Associations and CC &R's. 4) Safety issue with size of some RV's parked in the front. Commissioner Landis concluded that the Ordinance should provide for shielding of RV's, where possible, not impinge on property rights, require removal of debris and covering of vehicles, where appropriate. He continued with comments that the Ordinance should be delayed to allow development of off -site storage opportunities in the City. Commissioner Otto echoed previous comments concerning balance, providing a summary of the progression of the Ordinance, from its initially very non - permissive nature, having taken the RV owner into consideration and the difficulty of having different requirements for different neighborhoods, stating that a "one size fits all" type of Ordinance is necessary. He commented that it was impossible to make everyone happy, but that it probably could not be improved much further and that he supported sending the Ordinance to City Council with the Commission's recommendation. \ \MOR PRI SRRV\ home_£ oldere\ CLe£leur \M \PC- miwtee \]OO1m =tee \011015 p m-rev.doc /— 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. \ \MOR_PRI_9RRV \homt_ folder. \C fleet \M \PC -mf tee \2001mimtee \011015 P=- rev.ftc r-_ Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California t Minutes of October 15, 2001 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_MI SRRv \nmms_£ol0ers \CLa £lour \M \pC- mimtea \2001mlmutes \011015 pm-rev. O /- P-- anning Commission, City of Moorpark, California f Minutes of October 15, 2001 Page 8 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 (60) 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 8& RV\ harc _tolde[e \CLaEleur \M \PC- mim,[eeU 001mSnutea \011015 pcm- rev.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 15, 2001 0 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, \ \M R_PRI_S=V \R folC re \Mafleur \M \PC- minutes \3001Mi=tea \011015 p=- XN.ftC Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 15, 2001 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_BRRV \home_£ oldere\ CLe fleur \M \PC -M tutee \2001M tutee \011015 pm- rev.doc P:_anning 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. \ \Mon MI S=V\ home_ eoleers\ �tieur \M \ec- mimtea \2ooimimteo \0110x5 pm- re..aoc i-' Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 15, 2001 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_3RRV \ho _foldeuc \M.fl =z \M \PC- mi=tes \1001mi=tes \011015 pc - reV.doO P= -anning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 15, 2001 Page 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: \ \MR_PRI_R®N \hO fOlC r . \Maflmr \M \PC- MiWCOB \3001mimte6 \011015 pm -rt .d c Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 15, 2001 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 30% 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. \ \MOA_P0.I_SARV \hare folders \CLaf lour \M \PC- minu[ea \]OOlwirtutee \011015 prn -tev. doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 15, 2001 Page 15 Commission Otto expressed agreement with Commissioner DiCec:co on most of these issues, commenting specifically to the requirement of size of the second unit not exceeding 3096 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 recorsmendat ions : ❑ Condition No. lb: The time for placement of the replacement manufactured home to be extended to sixty (60) days. ❑ 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. • Ccndition No. 4: Removal of the existing unit shall be dcne within sixty (60) days, and that a surety of $2,000 is required of the Applicant. \ \MOR PRI SRRV \I ! foldeze \C fleui \M \PC -min tee \2001mi tce \011015 p=- rV.dOC Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California E Minutes of October 15, 2001 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 Cond:_tions 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_ SON \h !— folder. \C fle r \M \PC- minute. \2001m =te. \011015 pm- rev.doc N t Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of October 15, 2001 ATTEST: Laura Stringer Senior Management Analyst \ \MOR_PRx SRRV \hams_ folder. \M&flmr \N \P - minutes \2001mi=tes \011015 pm-rev.doc 17