The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1991 0417 CC REG ITEM 11G Id,ICX)(:ZO) . _ ITEM 1 1 e 6. MOORPARK MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA STEVEN KUENY PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. Giy -I Meeting ,.a" °4l Mayor J o°a/y/y``moi City Manager BERNARDO M. PEREZ of 7 199 • F "I�'v CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tem ACTION 1•' : , �07, /th-r..�� City Attorney SCOTT MONTGOMERY ti_�� ri!�j're PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Councilmember '1 / ,/ i, 7'�'. m Director of JOHN E. WOZNIAK "" �/% �• '''t° � ,^ Community Development Councilmember By ` ' ��- `° JOHN F. KNIPE LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Engineer City Clerk JOHN V. GILLESPIE MEMORANDUM Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer TO: The Honorable City Council 64)22 FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: April 5, 1991 (CC meeting of April 17, 1991) SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NO. 5 (D) FOR RPD 89-3 (PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH) Background On July 25, 1990, the City Council passed Resolution No. 90-699 approving Residential Planned Development Permit No. 89-3 subject to Conditions of Approval on the application of the Presbyterian Church to construct a 23, 161 sq. ft. church facility on a 4 . 7 acre (net) site located at the southeast corner of Spring/Peach Hill Roads . At the City Council meeting of April 3, 1991, Councilman Talley requested that condition No. 5 (d) for RPD 89-3 be placed on the Council 's agenda for discussion. Discussion The applicant indicated that condition No. 5 (d) provides five years without the necessity of having the applicant refile an additional application for expansion of the church. The applicant has indicated that realistically, the church will not be in a position financially to expand the church facility for approximately 10 years after completion of the first phase. The applicant is requesting a language change to condition No. 5 (d) in order to gain a time extension between the first and second phase of the building project. The existing and proposed language change is as follows . The existing language is shown as normal type while the proposed language is shaded: 1 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (8W529-6864 5 (d) Once at least 40% of all the buildings in phase 1 have received compliance review approval from all City departments and agencies and five years from the time of occupancy, foundations for phase 2 must be in place. ........ .............. ......:.......::::�...�:v:�.: ,•^^„s{•,�„l,:i:':M�f�(;M.,�Y,.:,:i�M:,„:iilhiT�:::i::�:111 {{i:� ::it: �I,�,Y,.;:��:i Ri�1A of ino4.u4e s uh0VaAVMe Paing*>i3 ac ua: :;<;<des.: ... n:<.<of p :se:.>::<2<:«:>::s:hal:l<>:: ►e:<:> leem d:><:> >:>m nor modification >a i i iA :::vomo <:> :>:t: m:: c:to::;;::<o:f C Moorpark C t ' ' ouncil,,. This RPD shall not be subject to expiration. There are essentially two options regarding this condition of approval. The first is that the City Council could "interpret” the intent of this condition to the applicant and the second is that a modification to the permit would be required. In the first case, there would be no need for the applicant to proceed with a minor modification to this permit to change the language of the approved condition. The minutes from the City Council meeting could be included in the file and a note could be attached to the Condition Compliance file for this project indicating that the Council made an interpretation of the condition. Regarding the second case, the City Council may not change the content of this condition without going through the modification process . (For example: change the 5 year time frame to 10 years or change the percentage from 40% to 50%) . To do a modification of the language in the condition would require the approval of a modification to the permit. This type of condition change would most likely be minor and as such would require the filing and subsequent approval of a minor modification. The applicant has sent two letters dated April 4, 1991 relating to this issue. The first letter presents a suggested condition language change and the second provides the churches reasons for the request. Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate Attachments: 1. Letters from applicant to Council and staff dated April 4, 1991 2 itI 'V Moorpark Presbyterian Church -�-- P. 0. Box 1007, Moorpark, CA 93021 0- V 4 "U s ►►� April 4, 1991 Dear Members of the City Council and the Moorpark Planning Staff , Here is a proposal for revising the wording of condition 5 d of the conditions placed on the building project of Moorpark Presbyterian Church. The purpose is to specify the procedure for gaining a time extension ( if needed) between the first and second phases of our building project. The proposed addition is in italics : 5 d. Once at last 40% of all the buildings in Phase I have received compliance review approval from all City departments and agencies and five years from the time of occupancy, foundations for Phase II must be in place. Any request for a time extension on this provision (which does not include substantive changes in the actual design of Phase II) shall be deemed a minor modification and may be approved by the Director of Community Development subject to appeal to the Moorpark City Council. This RPD shall not be subject to expiration. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Pau na _ Da d A. Wi ki� X/ hairman, Building Committee Pastor — RECEIVED -- f: r.P 5 1991 City of Moorpark Dave Wilkinson, Pastor • Office: (805) 529-8422 • Home: (805) 529-7157 Sheri Blackmon, Associate Pastor • 492-3156 , , — RECEIVED -- . 'R 51991 qty o i oorpark ,tiAN iA Moorpark Presbyterian Church � -�' P. 0. Box 1007, Moorpark, CA 93021 to 4 b s April 4, 1991 (U s 1.' Dear Mr . Richards and Members of the City Council , The condition in question is 5 d which provides for five years between our Phases 1 and Phase II without the need of going through the entire approval process again from scratch. Of course we would like to see such an early schedule. It would mean that the congregation had showed such a healthy increase that we had paid of existing indebtedness and were in a position to assume new obligations. However, we realistically project that the second phase may not begin for seven or even ten years after the completion of the first phase. We recognize that our convenience is not a valid reason to grant an extension that is not otherwise warranted. The reasons for possibly asking for an extension of this condition are as follows: 1 . The first phase, as designed, has enough features of architectural interest, including the bell tower (which at one point was scheduled for the second phase) that our buildings will be an attractive and functional addition to our community even before the final build-out. 2. We anticipate that the rate of growth of the congregation will increase with the completion of the building. Unfortunately, this has been delayed due to quite reasonable decisions of the City Council such as the redesign of Spring Rd. (and the unexpected length of time taken for the redesign) . This has thrown our growth and consequent financial projections into doubt. While the five year clock still will not start until we occupy the first phase, the various delays have caused us not to be in our own building during a time of more rapid city growth. This impacts our projections. 3. There is a seeming precedent for a greater time frame than five years that was established by the Planning Commission with the new Coptic Orthodox Church in Moorpark. While the Coptic Church is a CUP and we are an RPD, there may be some carryover. We are not asking for an extension at this time. Our purpose is to clarify the basis and procedure for requesting a time extension should that become desirable. The length of a possible extension could be determined at the time of the actual request. I have attached a copy of the existing condition for your information and comparison. You s Truly, /GrJ 4411,L,...— Dave r Wilkinson, Pastor • Office: (805) 529-84ftvi Moine 1($'b 9-7157 Sheri Blackmon,Associate Pastor • 492-3156