HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2003 1001 CC REG ITEM 08AITEM $ . A .
C<T
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared By: Joseph F. Fiss, Principal Plan e
DATE: September 12, 2003 (CC Meeting of 10/01/03)
SUBJECT: Consider Minor Modification No. 3 to Industrial
Planned Development Permit No. 1993 -01, an Application
for Seasonal Outdoor Storage on an Ongoing Basis
within a Parking Area of an Existing Warehouse
Facility Located at 709 and 700 Science Drive, on the
Application of Aldik Artificial Flowers, Inc.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
The public hearing on this request for a Minor Modification was
opened at the September 3, 2003 City Council meeting. The
agenda item was continued to October 1, 2003 with the public
hearing open at the request of the applicant. The applicant has
requested a further continuance of the public hearing to
November 5, 2003, so that the Chief Executive Officer of Aldik
Artificial Flowers, Inc. could attend the hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Accept additional public testimony, and continue the agenda item
with the public hearing open to the November 5, 2003 City
Council meeting.
Attachments:
1. Extension Request.
2. Minor Modification 3 to Industrial Planned Development
Permit No. 93 -01 Agenda Report.
000001L
ALDIK
September 11, 2003
Mr. Joe Fiss
Planning - Enforcement
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
805 -517 -6200 ext 226
Dear Mr. Fiss,
Thank you for your continued cooperation regarding our issue with the storage
modification process. I understand from Mark Johnson that it is very important for me
to attend the City Council meeting on Wednesday, October 1, when our request for
outside storage /permit modification will be discussed. Some reasonable use of that
space is critical to our business; I need to impart that to the council, as well as discuss
any alternatives.
Unfortunately, I had to schedule a trip to China that will require me to be out of the
office from October 1 through October 13. This means that I will be unavailable to
attend the Wednesday, October 1 City Council meeting.
I respectfully request a time deferment to the Wednesday, November 5 City Council
meeting. Aldik Artificial Flowers is hereby waiving time limits in which to render a
decision under the Permit Streamlining Act (Section 65920 et. seq. of the California
Government Code).
Please let me know whether this course of action is acceptable to the City.
Sincerely,
Larry Gold,
Chief Executive Officer
LG /mtc
CC ATTACHMENT 1
Corporate Office 709 Science Drive, Moorpark, CA 93021
Tell 888.399.1314 Tel 805.991.3200 Fax 805.991.3232 Web www.aldik.com
CEIVEC
12 2003
0" iv, outpart,
V Developma,
A Decorative Concepts Company 000002
ITEM g �.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directors
Prepared By: Joseph F. Fiss, Principal Plann;a
DATE: August 29, 2003 (CC Meeting of 09/03/03)
SUBJECT: Consider Minor Modification No. 3 to Industrial
Planned Development Permit No. 1993 -01, an Application
for Seasonal Outdoor Storage on an Ongoing Basis
within a Parking Area of an Existing Warehouse
Facility Located at 709 and 700 Science Drive, on the
Application of Aldik Artificial Flowers, Inc.
. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
The applicant has requested a continuation of the public hearing
in order for their Chief Executive Office to attend the hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, and
continue the public hearing to the October 1, 2003 City
Council meeting.
CC ATTACHMENT 2
ITEM F-'8-
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Joseph F. Fiss, Principal Plann r
DATE: July 24, 2003 (CC Meeting of 09/03/03)
SUBJECT: Consider Minor Modification No. 3 to Industrial
Planned Development Permit No. 1993 -01, an Application
for Seasonal Outdoor Storage on an Ongoing Basis
within a Parking Area of an Existing Warehouse
Facility Located at 709 and 700 Science Drive, on the
Application of Aldik Artificial Flowers, Inc.
BACKGROUND
Aldik Artificial Flowers, Inc. (AAF) occupies (since February
14, 2001) two industrial buildings at 709 and 700 Science Drive
for warehouse and distribution purposes. The 253,780 and 152,500
square foot buildings were originally constructed for warehouse
and bulk mail processing in 1994, under Industrial Planned
Development (IPD) No. 1993 -01. AAF is requesting a third Minor
Modification to IPD No. 1993 -01 to allow seasonal outdoor
storage on an ongoing basis within the parking area. This
modification request is submitted to cure Code Enforcement
violation notices.
DISCUSSION
AAF is requesting permission to allow seasonal outdoor storage
on an ongoing basis in the parking area of an existing
warehouse /distribution facility. Currently, pallets, trailers,
boxes and other items are stored throughout the parking lot in
violation of the municipal code. This application was filed as
a result of several written notices of violations issued by Code
Enforcement, and subsequent meetings with Code Enforcement
staff. Although Code Enforcement is maintaining this as an
active case, legal action has been deferred to allow the
11111•
Honorable City Council
September 3, 2003
Page 2
processing of this application, consistent with Zoning Code
Section 17.44.040 (b) (Attachment 4).
This property is zoned M -1. The purpose of the M -1 (Industrial
Park) zone is to provide suitable areas for the exclusive
development of light industrial, service, technical research and
related business office uses in an industrial park context, in
conjunction with stringent standards of building design, noise,
landscaping and performance. The original building was developed
subject to the aforementioned IPD and as such, any changes are
subject to the Modification process.
"Storage" in general is allowed within the M -1 zone upon
approval of a Planned Development Permit. The Zoning Code does
not distinguish between indoor and outdoor storage in this case.
Some incidental outdoor storage is expected at this type of
facility due to the in- and -out nature of distribution uses.
However, outdoor storage at this site has exceeded what could
reasonably be considered "incidental" and was not originally
anticipated in the approval of IPD No. 1993 -01. Section
17.36.050 of the zoning code states that "Accessory outside
storage shall be confined to the area to the rear of the
principal building or the rear two- thirds of the property,
whichever is the more restrictive, and screened from view from
any property line by appropriate walls, fencing, earth mounds or
landscaping."
AAF is proposing to continue to maintain open storage throughout
the site, without adequate screening. This storage is visible
from Science Drive, New Los Angeles Avenue and State Route 23.
Said storage currently occupies required parking spaces. In
order for the City Council to determine that the requested
modification is consistent with the requirements of the City's
General Plan, Municipal Code, and the Industrial Planned
Development Permit, certain findings would need to be made.
Industrial Planned Development Findings: Staff has determined
that this application does not meet the requirements of the City
of Moorpark, Municipal Code Section 17.44.030 in that:
1. The proposed project is not consistent with the intent and
provisions of the City's General Plan and any applicable
Specific Plan and Title 17 of the Moorpark Municipal Code,
in that Goal 10 of the General Plan Land Use designation
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \I P D \1993 \IPD 93 -1 \Minor Mod 3 - Aldik \cc agendareport
030903.doc 000005
Honorable City Council
September 3, 2003
Page 3
encourages development in a compatible manner with
surrounding land uses. Outdoor storage is not consistent
with the surrounding Industrial Park uses. The proposal is
inconsistent with Policy 10.2 regarding minimizing adverse
impact on adjacent uses and enhancement of visual
characteristics of the area.
2. The proposed project is not compatible with the character
of surrounding development, in that surrounding uses do not
legally maintain outdoor storage. Outdoor storage is not
consistent with the Industrial Park nature of the Science
Drive corridor.
3. The proposed project may be obnoxious or harmful, and may
impair the utility of neighboring property or uses, in that
the proposed outdoor storage causes a visual degradation to
the area and allows for harboring of vectors.
4. The proposed project would be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, in that
this project is inconsistent with the types of uses
contemplated by the Industrial Park designation of the
zoning code.
5. The proposed project is compatible with the scale, but not
the visual character and design of the surrounding
properties, is not designed so as to enhance the physical
and visual quality of the community, and the structures
have design features which provide visual relief and
separation between land uses of conflicting character, in
that outdoor storage is not a design improvement nor a
visual enhancement to the area.
This proposal has been carefully reviewed and based upon the
evidence presented by AAF, the analysis within the agenda report
and the lack of necessary findings to support the request, staff
recommends that the request be denied. The proposal presents no
factors to justify that unscreened outdoor storage is any
benefit to the area or the community at large. The proposal
causes major detrimental effects to the visual aesthetic of this
corridor and is not consistent with a "business park"
environment. Aside from a very dense landscaped buffer along
the 23 Freeway and New Los Angeles Avenue (118) frontage, there
is little that can be done to mitigate the inherent
characteristics of outdoor storage on this site.
S: \Community Development \= PMTS \I P D \1993 \IPD 93 -1 \Minor Mod 3 - Aldik \cc agendareport
030903.doc j''� j"�/"� l
000006
Honorable City Council
September 3, 2003
Page 4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures
adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director
determines the level of review necessary for a project to comply
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some
projects may be exempt from review based upon a specific
category listed in CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a
general rule that environmental review is not necessary where it
can be determined that there would be no possibility of
significant effect upon the environment. A project which does
not qualify for an exemption requires the preparation of an
Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental
impacts.
The Director has reviewed this project and found it to be
Categorically Exempt in accordance with Section 15301 (Class 1,
Existing Facilities) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA
Guidelines). No further environmental documentation is required.
STAFF RECOI- MNDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, and close
the public hearing;
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2003- denying Minor Modification
No. 3 to Industrial Planned Development No. 1993 -01.
Attachments:
1. Site Plan (May- September Storage Proposal).
2. Site Plan (October -April Storage Proposal).
3. Draft Resolution No. 2003-
4. Zoning Code Section 17.44.040 (b).
S: \Community Development \= PMTS \I P D \1993 \IPD 93 -1 \Minor Mod 3 - Aldik \cc agendareport
030903.doc 000001
Lois
. ... ... ... ... .
J81
hA
COP" Of TENANT pmtm)� uam"im .—SCOPE OF ItINANt
—5) MIROMMENT WORK
='VEII&M WORK W
.11. X 1 .1
V
MEN]
Ulf
Vl�
g-
. It
cr:
a
LL
rA
L4
k!j
SCOPC
Of 11,61no
Vi7WAI WARNO-M <
':K NORTH
01"k I
710,
rCNO EXTERIOR WORK -
ISSUED FOR BLDG. DEPT, REFERENCE ONLY
f
O ;� f
0
"6\
JLfl
0GT
U
A
9�
-------------
........ .
T
IMPFo Of MINT VVINMW. WAk".49 SCOPE OF YENANI
V _kotf�Mj WOW-, XF
MN�OVEMEHT wonx
<
0
•CL jC'
cc
07 0
r
o
g� �-I
I Ui
cc:
J..
-g,
g
.Nv
'-frI IIJJ 111 TJ Ili 11 I.J. U"�
II %j �/ Cry j yfy," � I ; ?.'. r�; ,�j:. /. �
Ezi
vz' •z•
mc I'M
I 91"UDING TWO
) ell
U" sp
1w; X.,
V'A
.15 4
.1
h
Y
NO EXTERIOR WORK,
I T E P L A N
ISSUED FOR BLDG. DEPT. REFERENCE ONLY
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DENYING MINOR MODIFICATION NO.
3 TO INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1993-
01, REQUESTING SEASONAL OUTDOOR STORAGE ON AN
ONGOING BASIS WITHIN A PARKING AREA AT AN EXISTING
WAREHOUSE FACILITY LOCATED AT 709 AND 700 SCIENCE
DRIVE, ON THE APPLICATION OF ALDIK ARTIFICIAL
FLOWERS, INC. (ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 512 -0- 240 -195
and -205)
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on September 3
2003, the City Council considered Minor Modification No. 3 to
Industrial Planned Development Permit (IPD) No. 1993 -01, on the
application of Aldik Artificial Flowers, Inc., to allow seasonal
outdoor storage on an ongoing basis in the parking area of an
existing warehouse /distribution facility, located at 709 and 700
Science Drive, (Assessor Parcel Nos. 512 -0- 240 -195 and -205); and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of September 3, 2003, the City
Council opened the public hearing, took public testimony and
closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after review and consideration of
the information contained in the staff report and public
testimony, has reached a decision on this matter; and
WHEREAS, The Community Development Director has reviewed
this project and found it to be Categorically Exempt in
accordance with Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities) of
the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), and no
further environmental documentation is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The
aforementioned Minor
inconsistent with the
City Council does
Modification to
City's General Plan.
hereby find that the
IPD No. 1993 -01 is
SECTION 2. INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS: Based
upon the information set forth above, it has been determined that
this application does not meet the requirements of the City of
Moorpark, Municipal Code Section 17.44.030 in that:
A. The proposed project is not consistent with the intent and
provisions of the City's General Plan and any applicable
Specific Plan and Title 17 of the Moorpark Municipal Code,
in that Goal 10 of the General Plan Land Use designation
iilt 1
Resolution No. 2003 -
Page 2
encourages development in a compatible manner with
surrounding land uses. Outdoor storage is not consistent
with the surrounding Industrial Park uses. The proposal is
inconsistent with Policy 10.2 regarding minimizing adverse
impact on adjacent uses and enhancement of visual
characteristics of the area.
B. The proposed project is not compatible with the character of
surrounding development, in that surrounding uses do not
legally maintain outdoor storage. Outdoor storage is not
consistent with the Industrial Park nature of the Science
Drive corridor.
C. The proposed project may be obnoxious or harmful, and may
impair the utility of neighboring property or uses, in that
the proposed outdoor storage causes a visual degradation to
the area and allows for harboring of vectors.
D. The proposed project would be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, in that
this project is inconsistent with the types of uses
contemplated by the Industrial Park designation of the
zoning code.
E. The proposed project is compatible with the scale, but not
the visual character and design of the surrounding
properties, is not designed so as to enhance the physical
and visual quality of the community, and the structures have
design features which provide visual relief and separation
between land uses of conflicting character, in that outdoor
storage is not design improvement nor a visual enhancement
to the area.
SECTION 3. CITY COUNCIL DECISION: The City Council hereby
denies Minor Modification No. 3 to IPD No. 1993 -01.
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 day of , 2003.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
00001'L
17.44.030
d. That the granting of such variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare,
nor to the use, enjoyment or valuation of neighboring
properties; and
e. That the granting of a variance in conjunction with
a hazardous waste facility will be consistent with the
portions of the county's hazardous waste management plan
(ClIV6 P) which identifies specific sites or siting criteria
for hazardous waste facilities.
3. Burden of Proof, The applicant shall have the burden
of proving to the satisfaction of the appropriate decision -
making authority that the above standards are met.
4. Duration. Any variance remains valid for so long
as the use or structure which requires the variance(s)
continues:
1 _ A request t or a 'nitrior exception from standards
of zoning regulations may be approved by the director of
community development as an administrative exception,
upon making the following findings:
a, That the granting of the exception will not create
impacts to abutting properties; and
b. That tine strict application of the zoning regulations
as they apply to the subject property I Will result in prHI Ctical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the
general purpose of such regulations; and
c. That the granting of the exception is consistent with
the general plan andlor any applicable specific plan.
2. The director of community development shall
provide a notice of the request, the date when the action
is to be taken and a request for written comments. for or
against the request. The notice shall be mailed to all sur-
rounding property owners, within three hundred (300) feet
of the property, whose names appear on the latest - equalized
assessment roll of Ventura County. A copy of the notice
shall be provided to the city council, planning commission
and the city manager. An administrative exception may
be granted only in the following situations:
a. To allow a decrease not to exceed twenty percent
(20%) in any required minimum setback, provided that
such exception may be �grantml only once fmm the minimum
stansiard adopted by this code or any planned development
permit approved consistent with this code;
b. To allow a decrease not to exceed ten percent (10%)
in required parking aisle width or similar dimensional
requirements;
c. To allow walls, fences or hedges to exceed the
height limit regulations by a maximum of one (1) foot in
setback areas, except in a required sight triangle;
d. To allow an increase not to exceed ten percent (1011)
for maximum building coverage, or sign area or sign height;
tMourpark 7 -01)
e. To all VAF a five - percent (5%) decrease in the required
lot area for second units. (Ord. 271 § I (part), 2001)
17.44.040 Filing and processing of application
requests.
A. Submission of Applications An application for a
permit or variance may be filed by the owner of the proper-
ty or his/her authorized agent, a lessee who holds a lease
whose terms permit the use applied for, or by any duly
constituted government authority or agent thereof. Such
Application requests shall be filed with the department of
community development. No application request shall be
accepted for filing ;and processing: unless it conforms to
the requirements of this title, contains in a full, true and
correct form the required materials and information pre -
scribed by forms supplied by the: department of commu-
nity development and is accompanied by the appropriate
processing fees.
B. Existing ' Violations. No application request for an
entitlement shall be accepted if a violation of the zoning
ordinance, subdivision ordinance or municipal code exists
on the lot; provided that the violation was a result of the
actions or inactions of the applicant or his predecessor(s)
in interest, until the violation is abated, unless ilie accep-
tance of the application is necessary to the abatement of
the existing violation.
C. Content of Applications. The content of applications
shall be determined by the city. Site plans and elevations
(in color, with building materials identified), sample floor
plans and samples of exterior finishing materials may be
required as part of the permit procedure. If the project is
proposed to be developed in phases, the sequence of such
phases shall also be shown.
D. Completeness of Application. The applicant shall
be notified in writing as to whether the application is
complete or incomplete. no later than thirty calendar days
after the city has accepted an application under this title,
except in the case of zone changes and general plan amend-
ments, which are legislative acts and thus are not subject
to the thirty (30) day limit. If the application is determined
to be incomplete, the applicant shall be notified in writing
of the reasons for such determination and of the information
needed to make the application complete.
I. Review of Supplemental Information. If an applica-
tion is deemed incomplete and the applicant subsequently
submits the required information, a new thirty (30) day
review period begins on the day that the supplemental
information is submitted.
2. Termination of Incomplete Application. Upon written
notification to the applicant, processing of an incomplete
application may be terminated if no reasonable effort has
been made by the applicant to complete the application
000012