HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1991 0925 CC ADJ ITEM 09HM OORPARK ITEM 9
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorp�� EgJaK 1 (805) 529 -6864
DORPARK, CAL I�ORNb
City Council Meeting
AC:TKN . Of 9 g
1991
ACTION:
MEMOi ANC11vr
By - ✓ex�L�_
To: Honorable City Council
From: Patrick J. Richards, Director (-,)f ommunity Development
Date: September 6, 1991 (CC meeting of 9- 18 -91) TV
Subject: Auto Body and Painting Within Commercial Zones
Back round
On July 17, 1991 the City Council approvr�d Resolution 91 -778 directing the Planning
Commission to review the subject of allowing auto body repair and painting in the CPD or other
Commercial Zones in the City. The Planning I' ommission reviewed this subject on August 5,
1991 and set August 19, 1991 as the date for )ubl c hearing to be held.
Discussion
On August 19, 1991 the Planning Commission held the public hearing and adopted standards for
auto body repair and painting in Commercial and Industrial Zones. These standards were
approved on September 3, 1991 by Resolutiol No. 91 248 include allowing auto body and
painting as a permitted use in the C -2, CP i, M -1 and M -2 Zones in existing facilities
specifically approved for such use. Future au o body repair and painting uses proposed for
facilities not designed for that specific use shill be evaluated by the Planning Commission to
determine if a Conditional Use Permit is regwrec, All auto body and painting uses must post and
maintain a $ 1,000 deposit with the City to wj:ir ;ntee condition compliance.
Staff maintains the position that allowing auto = )cdy repays and painting in the industrial zones
with a conditional use permit is an appropriate se but it >s not appropriate to allow this use in
commercial zones where interface difficulrif vvi'h aolacent residential areas and other
neighboring commercial uses exist.
Recomm .ndation
Approve the Planning Commission Resolution a
prepare a revised Ordinance.
cc: Auto Body Repair and Painting file
Craig Malin, Assistant Planner
modifies by staff comments, and direct staff to
Attachments: Resolution PC 91 -248 (unsigner
July 26, 1991 Staff Report
Planning Commission minutes (, 8 19 -�41
PAUL W LAWRASON JR BERNARDO M_ PEREZ S0)I ti^ ^dT(, lEr^ ROY E TALL EY JR JOHN E WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem (.r C,ouncdrn, -rnber Counalmernber
PV
x �
W
=U6 10=11 Wbo I k I
799 Moorpark Avenue M rorpark, Catitornia 93021 (805) 529 -6864
To: Planning Commission
From: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
Date: July 26, 1991 (PC meeting 8- 5 -91)
Subject: Auto Body Repair and Painting within Commercial Zones
Background
On July 17, 1991 the City Council approved Resolution 91 -778 directing the Planning
Commission to review the subject of allowing auto body repair and painting in the CPD or other
commercial zones within the City. This report contains staff research and the requirements of
other selected cities in the county regarding auto body repair and painting uses.
Discussion
Auto body and painting uses are currently allowed in the City of Moorpark in the M -2 zone only,
while auto repair is allowed in the C -2, CPD, M t and M -2 zones. The C -2 and C -P -D zones
allow garages for the storage and repair of autos. The M -2 and M -3 zones allow motor vehicle
repair garages, including body and painting shops In addition, the city in the past, under the old
Zoning Code, allowed auto body repair and paintingq in M 1 zones with a Conditional Use Permit
(for example Studebaker and All Body).
At the present time Moorpark has four establisE ments wr,ich perform auto body repair and
painting. These are listed below:
Pete's Auto Body /Painting
All Body
Studebaker Auto Body /Painting
Pacific Coast Auto Body
480 Moorpark Ave C -1 zone
619 Fitch Ave. M -1 zone
5090 ;:aoldman M -1 zone
5162 ,oldman M -1 zone
Pete's Autobody was established before incorporation when the property was zoned C -2.
Currently it is a legal non - conforming use, and should it cease operation for a period of 180
days, then it would lose this status. Any future use would need to meet the standards of the
current zoning. Pacific Coast Auto Body (approved 1 1 -86), Studebaker (approved 11 -86)
and All Body (approved 5 -88) were approved by t °Ie :qty Wit i a Conditional Use Permit.
PAUL W IAWRASON JR BEFiNAROO M PEREZ 10" E IAt_LE'Y Jli JOHN E WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro lem �uncilrnembrr Counalmern[,
Staff has contacted other cities in the county tc determine what their requirements are for auto
body repair and painting , and in which zone , these uses are allowed. This information is
presented in the chart below. A column is inci ,ded which lists the requirements for auto body
and painting in conjunction with a new car deal( shiF..
".iUC
Zones Allowed
Permit Reduired Dealer
- Permit
Camarillo
M-11, M -2
permitted
C.U.P.
Fillmore
C -3
C L, i".
C.U.P..
Ojai
Mfg. only
C LJ P.
C.U.P.
Port Hueneme
not allowea in the City
Santa Paula
Mfg. only
C U P.
C.U.P.
Simi Valley
CPD, Cl, GI
S U °.
C.P.D(new) S.U.P.(used)
Thousand Oaks
M-2
S Ll
S.U.P.
Ventura
M -1, M -2
porrrritted
permitted
As can be seen from this chart, most of the othrr cities in the county do not allow bodywork or
painting in commercial zones, and most require; a Conditional Use Permit (or a Special Use
Permit) before such a use can be allowed. All ;;ities allow bodywork and painting as part of a
new automobile dealership although the permit ��quirements differ.
That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that auto body repair and painting
be permitted in the M -1 and M -2 zones only with an approved Industrial Planned Development
Permit. Also, that the Commission recommend that auto body repair and painting be a permitted
use within a new car dealership having an approved Commercial Planned Development Permit so
long as such use is an accessory use to the dealer hits.
Attachments: Resolution No. 91 -778
RESOLUTION NO. PC; -91 -248
A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF
THE MOORPARK ZONING CODE rO ALLOW AUTO BODY REPAIR AND
AUTO PAINTING IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
ZONES SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, At a duly noticed public hearing on August 19, 1991
the Moorpark Planning Commission considered a proposed amendment to
the Moorpark Municipal Code to revise Article 5 and Article 7 of Chapter 1
of Division 8 to allow auto body t-er)air and painting in certain Commercial
and Industrial zones; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after review and
consideration of the information co,itained in the staff report dated July
26, 1991 concurs that the proposed amendment to the City Municipal Code
will not have a significant effect or the environment and is exempt from
CEQA under Class 5 of the State CFC.A Gcidc-1ines; and
WHEREAS, at it's meeting of August 19, 1991, the Planning
Commission opened the public hearing, took testimony from all those
wishing to testify, closed the public iearirio and reached its decision;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING CIGIMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FO[ l_! ?VV�c
Section 1. Pursuant: t ,, the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), he Planning Commission concurs that
the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption based on Section 15308 of
the State CEQA Guidelines, and 1( «-() rimends that a Notice of Exemption be
filed.
Section 2. The Planning ;ommis,;ion hereby finds that adoption
of a proposed ordinance revising A�in 5 ind Article 7 of Chapter 1 to
Division 8 of the Moorpark Municipj� (;()de ci allow auto body repair and
painting as a permitted use with i h,� C CPD, M -1 and M -2 Zones,
subject to approval of a Condit +o ial Use Permit, would serve to further
protect the public health, safety afid welfare.
Section 3. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the
proposed ordinance change would not res.ilt in an inconsistency with the
City's General Plan.
Section 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that
1) The City Council adopt an Ordinance to revise Article 5 and Article 7 of
Chapter 1 of Division 8 of the Moorpark Municipal Code to allow auto body
repair and painting in existing yacilities designed for such
without any additional entitlement permit. 2') That future auto body urepair
and painting uses proposed for t,iciiities not designed for that specific
use in General Commercial (C -2), Commercial Planned Development (C-P_
D), Industrial Park (M -1) and L invited Industrial (M -2) Zones shall be
evaluated on a case by case basis by the Planning Commission to
determine if a Conditional Use P01 °flit is required. 3) All new auto body
repair and painting uses must post Ind maintain a $1,000 deposit with the
City to guarantee condition comDi r), cE,
C, The action with the foregoing direct on was approve
call vote: d by the following roll
AYES:
NOES-
PASSED, APPROVED and :ADOPTED, THIS __ -DAY OF
CHAIRMAN PRESIDING:
- -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - --
Michael I. Wesner - - - - --
ATTEST:
Celia La Fleur, Secretary
Planning Commission, City of Mooraprk, California
Minutes of August 19, 1991
Page -3-
B. RESOLUTION NO. PC -9 1 - -2 " 7
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE APPLICATION OF LDM -90 -2 AND RPD -91 -1
OF BIBO, INCORPORATED. ASSFSSOR',S PARCEL NO. 506- 0- 02 -48.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner May second by Commissioner
Brodsky to approve Resolution No. 247 recommending
to the City Council denial with prejudice to the
approval of LDM -90 -2 and RPD -91 -1 as proposed by
BIBO, INC.
Motion passed witl, a unanimous voice vote.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Applicant: City of Moorpark
Proposal: Amendment to the Zoning Code - Article 5
of Chapter 1, Section 8105 -5. Proposed
change to allow auto body repair and
paintincr in commercial zones.
Location: Citywide
Presented by the Director of Community Development.
Reference: Staff Report dat( >d- -August 14, 1991.
Commissioner May inquired cis how auto retail was original
permitted for the commercial use area. The Director responded
that auto retail was permitted under the restrictions of a
Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Brodsky inquired about, parking requirements and
noise pollution.
The Director replied that environmental concerns are addressed
during the processing of an application for a Conditional Use
Permit. On a case by case basis the CUP may be restricted by
certain conditions, and by mitigation measures through the
design of a future development.
a: \91 -8.19
Planning Commission, City of Mooraprk, California
Minutes of August 19, 1991
Page -4-
Testimony received by the eollow_ing:
Colin Velasquez, 476 W. Los Angeles Avenue, B -11, Moorpark,
CA- Mr. Velasquez addressed the Commission by saying that
Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks currently provides the same uses
in commercial areas by way of a Special Use Permit. Mr.
Velasquez went on to say that the facility at issue along with
the original permit was heavily conditioned. No service bays
were permitted to do any type of outside work at the facility.
That the paint booth is self contained and had met
environmental :regulations
Commissioner May questioned how may bays were at the facility.
Mr. Velasques responded 5 o�'i the east, 6 on the west and 5 at
the rear.
Commissioner Torres noted that the original permit was
conditioned to provide sound proofing because of the adjacent
church facility. Mr. Velasquez stated that a block wall was
constructed which exceeded. For the required condition.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:47 P.M.
Commissioner Torres stateci that the Commercial Planned
Development had previously a)een condition and that there was
no need to require a CUP.
Commissioner May concurred, and said that it should have been
conditioned that no painting be provided in the bays. That
there was no need for addit4onal processing.
Commissioner Brodsky recommended that staff requirement of the
bonding condition remain,
Motion: Commissioner Torres moved and Commissioner Miller
second a motion t,D recommend to the City Council
that the existing use remain in the existing zone.
That the zoning be amended to allow this _use in the
Commercial Planned Development (CPD) zone, General
Commercial (C -2) .. That no CUP be required and all
new commercial development be reviewed on a case by
case use. To provide a condition requiring $1,000
cash deposit and condition for maintaining the cash
deposit of $1000
Motion passed wit.,.t a unanimous voice vote.
a: \91 -8.19