Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0903 CC REG ITEM 09EAGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community gia•3(4) ITEM 9. CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City CmWil Meeting Of q 1 ) 199- 7 ACTION: DATE: August 21, 1997 (For the City Council Meeting of September 3, 1997) SUBJECT: Appeal 97 -2 (Bill Tanner / Madelaine Shenkel): Appeal of determination by the Director of Community Development that a Planned Development Permit is required for a proposed Contractors Service and Storage Yard on a vacant, undeveloped property located on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue, west of Nogales Avenue (APN 513 -0- 024 -105). On August 19,1997, an appeal was filed by John Newton on behalf of Bill Tanner and Madelaine Shenkel of the determination by Director of Community Development that a Planned Development Permit, rather than a Temporary Special Use Permit, was required for use of an M -2 zoned property for a Contractor Service and Storage Yard. A copy of the appeal application is attached. Also attached is the letter of determination which they were appealing. Section 17.20.060 of the Municipal Code specifies that a Contractor service and storage yard is subject to a Planning Commission approved Planned Development Permit in a M -2 zone. The proposed location is a vacant, undeveloped site without improvements, or an approved Planned Development Permit. The proposed site is immediately adjacent to existing residential uses, is within the one hundred year floodplain, is covered with considerable vegetation, has no improvements or improved access, and is also affected by the proposed widening of Los Angeles Avenue. Up to 38 feet of additional right -of -way will be required for the proposed widening project. Without improvements related to the proposed widening, there would be significant visibility concerns for access to this property. Appropriate studies, mitigation measures, and environmental review would be required along with a Planned Development Permit to address Code requirements, standard conditions, and improvements required for any development of this property. Section 17.44.030 C does allow for Temporary Special Use Permits. Temporary Special Use Permits may be granted for a period not to exceed ninety days without additional approvals. The Code cites examples of temporary special use permits as special events such as Christmas tree sales, promotional parking sales, church carnivals, country days, and sidewalk sales. These uses are C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\WPDOCS\CCRPTS\APL972.REP 000259 rfel FROM: DATE: AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK The Honorable City Council Nelson Miller, Director of Community 7ia•3(4) ITEM 9-Ee Crff OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Cmqcil Meeting Of. '- -3 199.7,. ACTION: August 21, 1997 (For the City Council Meeting of September 3, 1997) SUBJECT: Appeal 97 -2 (Bill Tanner / Madelaine Shenkel): Appeal of determination by the Director of Community Development that a Planned Development Permit is required for a proposed Contractors Service and Storage Yard on a vacant, undeveloped property located on the south side of Los Angeles Avenue, west of Nogales Avenue (APN 513 -0- 024 -105). On August 19,1997, an appeal was filed by John Newton on behalf of Bill Tanner and Madelaine Shenkel of the determination by Director of Community Development that a Planned Development Permit, rather than a Temporary Special Use Permit, was required for use of an M -2 zoned property for a Contractor Service and Storage Yard. A copy of the appeal application is attached. Also attached is the letter of determination which they were appealing. Section 17.20.060 of the Municipal Code specifies that a Contractor service and storage yard is subject to a Planning Commission approved Planned Development Permit in a M -2 zone. The proposed location is a vacant, undeveloped site without improvements, or an approved Planned Development Permit. The proposed site is immediately adjacent to existing residential uses, is within the one hundred year floodplain, is covered with considerable vegetation, has no improvements or improved access, and is also affected by the proposed widening of Los Angeles Avenue. Up to 38 feet of additional right -of -way will be required for the proposed widening project. Without improvements related to the proposed widening, there would be significant visibility concerns for access to this property. Appropriate studies, mitigation measures, and environmental review would be required along with a Planned Development Permit to address Code requirements, standard conditions, and improvements required for any development of this property. Section 17.44.030 C does allow for Temporary Special Use Permits. Temporary Special Use Permits may be granted for a period not to exceed ninety days without additional approvals. The Code cites examples of temporary special use permits as special events such as Christmas tree sales, promotional parking sales, church carnivals, country days, and sidewalk sales. These uses are C:\OFFICE\WPVnMWPDOCS\CCRPTS\APL972.REP 0002S:9 Appeal 97 -2 September 3, 1997 Page 2 adjunct to a primary permitted use, or clearly of limited duration and temporary impacts. The uses proposed by the applicant are a primary use of the property for which the Code specifies that a Planned Development Permit is required prior to the initiation of uses and structures. Allowing the proposed uses on a temporary basis, prior to the required review and approvals would be contradictory the those code requirements. With respect to the applicant's request for a refund of the appeal fee, the request is for relief from the requirement for a Planned Development Permit. The required deposit for an Industrial Planned Development Permit is $10,750. The deposit for an appeal then would be twenty -five percent ($2,680.50) or $344, which ever is greater. However, the appeal was not expected to generate significant staff time and therefore the $344 was requested. It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal of the determination of the Director of Community Development for a Planned Development Permit and also deny the requested refund. Attachments: Appeal Form Letter of Determination dated August 18, 1997 C:\OFFICEkWPWTMWPDOCS\CCRPTS\APL972.REP OW300 CITY OF MOORPARK 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 805/529 -6864 (Effective June 6, 1992) To: City Council Date: Planning Commission I hereby appeal the decision of the which was given on The decision was as follows: The rounds of appeal ppeal are: (attach additional sheets as needed) I request that the appropriate decision making body 'take the following action: Name of Appellant: 1 Address of Appellant: Telephone Number of Appellant: Is the appellant a party in the application? A=-S If not, state basis for filling appeal as an 'aggrieved person." 4-7 Date / Signature of Appella -1)0 PLs 000301, John W. Newton & Associates, Inc. !�D2ofessionat consultant" 165 High St., Suite 103 Post Office Box 471 Moorpark, California 93021 August 19, 1997 Honorable City Council 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Telephone (805) 378 -0073 Fax No. (805) 378 -0080 Re: Appeal of Director of Community Development Denial of a Zoning Clearance for Temporary Truck Parking on 2.08 Acres "M -2" Industrial Zone property, S /Los Angeles Avenue E /SR 23 -118 Connector, A.P. No. 513 - 024 -105, Bill Tanner and Madelaine Shenkel Mayor and Members of the City Council: In a continuing effort to locate a properly zoned ( "M -2" Industrial) property for temporary parking of trucks, in order to comply with City Council direction to remove the truck parking use from their property at 13991 Los Angeles Avenue, and to avoid returning to their previous long term contractors storage yard lease site at A -C Construction, Inc.; Bill Tanner and Madelaine Shenkel identified a property previously unavailable to them. In fact, this property was cited as an appropriate location by Ted Simons and other citizens during previous public discussion before your Council, although the property owner, until recently, was not receptive to a temporary lease. In exchange for cleanup of the site, and recognizing that the property may take a long period of time to sell at the asking price, the owner, Donald Hartman, recently agreed to a temporary lease to Tanner and Shenkel for the time required to conclude the processing of permits on their own property, essentially across the street. This property was not included in the previous list of considered sites reported to Councilman Wozniak on May 21, 1997 (attached), because the owner would not entertain the temporary use possibility at the time. The property is properly zoned; is adjacent or contiguous to the City -owned property just west of the SR 23 -118 Connector (see attached map) which City officials offered to Tanner and Shenkel as a temporary use site, east of Patton ( #5 on 5/21/97 list); and, cannot be developed for permanent use, economically, due to lack of 100 year flood protection and the pending Los Angeles Avenue relinquishment /improvement project which will require significant ROW dedication /acquisition. APPEAL BASIS: 1. Staff is not following City Council direction to assist and accomodate Tanner and Shenkel with a Temporary Use Permit on REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE MINERAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Commercial • Industrial • Land RESOURCE Engineering . Land Division • Permits Residential Relocation DEVELOPMENT Planning • Zo (�00�� Honorable City Council August 19, 1997 Page 2 a properly zoned property, to allow reinitiation of the GPA /Rezoning process previously authorized for their property at 13991 Los Angeles Avenue (see attached). The Director's stated denial (to Madelaine Shenkel) was appealed to the City Manager, who consulted with the Director and then concluded that the matter should be brought before the City Council rather than staff making a decision. We argued against this procedure on the basis that this was a clear authorization /direction from the Council previously, and further reinforced by Councilman Wozniak and the City Manager's efforts to assist in locating a properly zoned site for such temporary use. The City Manager did authorize an extension of time for compli- ance with the pending Notice of Violation on Tanner and Shenkel's property until this Appeal can be heard, tentatively on September 3, 1997. 2. Section 17.44.030 A.l.c. of the City Zoning Code allows for the issuance of a Temporary Special Use Permit (90 days), by Zone Clearance "...where a delay incident to the normal processing of an application would be detrimental to the applicant or the public. The director of community development may grant additional ninety (90) day extensions to the temporary use permit." This is precisely the vehicle City officials offered to Tanner and Shenkel in previous meetings, and was the basis for the property search for an appropriately zoned site. Both the applicant and the public would be detrimentally served by not allowing the expediency of a Temporary Use Permit on this site. The closest vocal opponent of the premature use of the applicant's own property, Ted Simons, has repeatedly recommended this property; a return of this operation to the A -C Construction site, although legally permitted, may not be in anyone's best interests; and,the Temporary Special Use Permit can be reasonably conditioned to clean up the site, fence the use area for security, control dust and limit hours of operation. 3. The Director's August 18, 1997 long letter of denial explanation (attached) is clearly intended to frustrate the process, and not provide professional assistance to the applicant or the Council in reaching a reasonable solution. City officials, including the Director, were encouraging in the recent past in terms of finding a suitable temporary use site. The most promising at the time was the City -owned Egg City offload station. That, however, �t Honorable City Council August -19, 1997 Page 3 was subsequently discarded as an option, not due to any temporary use permit concern, but primarily because of the unresolved issues of cleanup by the lessee, and potential litigation in that regard. Again, both City -owned sites ( #5 & 8 on 5/21/97 attachment) were seriously considered by the applicant, in conjunction with City officials, for temporary use with temporary improvements pertaining to the use. Why now do we find the Director so intent on justifying a temporary use denial rather than assisting the Council, the public and the applicant in reaching a reasonable approach resolution? We do not believe that it was the City Council's intent to have to deal with every small detail of this problem. The Council said: O.K. to the GPA /Rezoning process on the applicant's property, subject to cessation of all zoning violations. The Council reaffirmed the need to resolve zoning violations prior to reinitiation of the GPA /ZC process upon a request for reconsideration. A solution_ has been found that can be accomodated by the Zoning Code Temporary Use Permit process. Staff, however, will not support the general direction everyone was following, and wants the Council to "direct" or "bless" the approach. The additional, unfair aspect of this situation is that the applicant now has to pay another(appeal)fee to bring the matter before the Council. Every step is punative to the applicant. Why couldn't staff bring the matter forward for Council concurrence, as a consent item, if staff wants to be safe before authorizing the temporary use approach? Interestingly, the applicant's appeal fee could have been: a) $43.00 (50% of the entitlement fee of $86.00 for a Temporary Use Permit). b) $21.50 (50% of the Zone Clearance fee of $43.00). c) 25% of current deposit (of which there is none) or $344.00, which ever is greater. Note the Director required fee of the applicant for this appeal: $344.00. Finally, the Director states in his August 18, 1997 letter that "... no other information or attachments were provided... Therefore, there is inadequate information to even accept an application." Attached is a letter from the applicant to the Director, with attachments, 000304 Honorable City Council August 19, 1997 Page 4 dated July 25, 1997 and another to the undersigned dated July 31, 1997. Please excuse the emotion that bubbles to the surface, due to the applicant's total frustration, and note that maps and property information were submitted. I personally testified to the need for parking 12 trucks, 5 trailers; storage for (2) 40' containers, 2 pieces of inactive equipment, 1 skiploader; and, 1 temporary office trailer (construction trailer type) with telephone, electricity and water at the July 2, 1997 Council meeting. This situation has become a travesty, and is not the direction intepded by the City Council. REQUESTED ACTION: 1. Uphold the appeal and authorize the Director to issue a Temporary Use Permit Zoning Clearance, with reasonably appropriate (to temporary truck parking) conditions. 2. Refund the applicant's appeal fee on the basis that staff could have secured City Council input administratively, - or via a consent item memorandum. 3. Extend the time period for compliance on the applicant's property for 30 days in order to allow time to move the truck parking to the temporary use site. Thank you for the circumstances of the applicant's suggestions. Attachments your serious consideration of these requests, under and in the interest of equity, fairness and recognition bonafide efforts to comply with City directions and in erelyy /, John W. Newton Applicant's Representative cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development Bill Tanner Madelaine Shenkel 0��3�5 MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 August 18, 1997 Mr. John Newton 165 E. High Street Moorpark, CA 93021 Subject: Temporary Use Request for Tanner & Shenkel Dear John: Friday, you brought in a Zoning Clearance form indicating a proposed use for 14250 Los Angeles Avenue of "park our Comm. trucks" and requested that I deny the request so you could appeal it to City Council. However, no other information or attachments were provided. There was no site plan, description of the property, the number of vehicles, proposed improvements, length of time, or any other information, or any fees. Therefore, there is inadequate information to even accept an application. However, as I further attempted to explain to you and previously to Ms. Shenkel, this request is not appropriate to be considered as a Temporary Use Permit. The proposed use requires Planning Commission Approval of a Planned Development Permit. It would not be appropriate for the Director of Community Development to approve a use, for a year or more, which is subject to Planning Commission approval. Furthermore, the proposed site is vacant, undeveloped land in the floodplain, with potential habitat, no existing improvements, and is immediately adjacent to existing residential, with no buffer or separation. The Municipal Code would require a variety of improvements including access improvements, paving, screening, buffering, etc. for any use of this property. Temporary Use Permits may be granted for a period not to exceed ninety days without additional approvals. The Code cites examples of temporary uses as special events such as Christmas tree sales, promotional parking sales, church carnivals, country days, and sidewalk sales. These uses are adjunct to a primary permitted use, or clearly of limited duration and temporary impacts. Your proposal does not fit with such uses. Environmental studies and review would be required and the fixed fee for Temporary Use Permits of $86 clearly was not intended to apply to brand new uses on undeveloped property of significant term. It would likely take nine to twelve months, or more, to process requests for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, entitlements, and improvement plans and implement the required improvements for the site on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue which Mr. Tanner and Ms. Shenkel have previously proposed. Upon reflection, I hope you will understand why this is not an appropriate request. The proposed use requires a Planning Commission approved Development Permit, which would require studies, CA0FFICE%WPWIMWPD0 SV ETTERSZHNKTAN.LTR PATRICK HUNTER BERNARDO M. PEREZ CHRISTOPHER EVANS DEBBIE RODGERS TEASLEY JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember 0()()3as Tanner & Shenkel August 18, 1997 Page 2 plans, substantial improvements, and mitigation measures. Establishing a temporary use at this location would only create new problems. Furthermore, the proposed use could be for one year or more, which is beyond the scope of time for a Temporary Use permit. Unfortunately, this situation was precipitated by your client's decision to move onto a site without permits, after specifically being advised several times that they would be in violation of a variety of City codes. Their move was in turn precipitated by complaints from neighboring properties at their previous location. This latest proposal raises a number of new issues which may have greater direct impacts, in different ways, than those relating to the location to which they moved, in violation of City codes. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this further, you may contact me at 529 -6864, extension 242. Sincerely, Nelson E. Miller, AICP Director of Community Development Attachment: Zoning Clearance Application Form cc: Honorable City Council Steve Kueny, City Manager Madelaine Shenkel, P.O. Box 1129, Moorpark, CA C1OF FICEN W P W IMWPDOCSLLETTERS%SHNKTAN. LTR ()M;307 MIN. ZONING CLEARANCE NO. 4250 LOS .ANG CITY OF MOO RPARK ZONING CLEARANCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,ark our Comm. Trucks CASE REFERENCE NO_ TOL PAGE I OF —C;91— PROVIDE ATTACHED SITE PLAN. SHOW LOCATIVN VF EJUSTINU ANIU rnvrvaav BUILDINGS AND ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION ANO P O BOX 1129, Mo o r o a r k CA 93021 ACTUAL DISTANCES TO PROPERTY LINES AND BETWEEN BUILDINGS - ALL ZONING CLEARANCE APPLICANTS MUST VERIFY (IN PERSON) WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IF ANY ADDITIONAL PERMITS ARE NECESSARY. MOST ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY A ZONING CLEARANCE WILL ALSO REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT. PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK, THE APPLICANT MUST ALSO OBTAIN FROM THE BUILDING DIVISION, AT 18 EAST HIGH STREET, ANY ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR ANY BUILDING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, OR OTHER WORK, OR FOR ANY OCCUPANCY. IF YOU ARE UNSURE, CONTACT THE BUILDING DEPT. AT (805) 529 -6864 EXT. 421. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION APPROVAL, IF REQUIRED, IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS ZONING CLEARANCE, INCLUDING THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY ME IS CORRECT AND THAT I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THE CITY'S ZONING CODE AND THIS PERMIT. I FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT I MUST RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK AUTHORIZED IN THIS PERMIT. OFFICE USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE SECT LOr ANFA t i0- OM NNCN OPEN: CARPORT: GARAGE: IPMMMRN UAL OWLIMUff ❑ EXEMPT ❑ NDICNO ❑ EIR SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR REOUIREMENTS a SEE PAGE 2 NOTICE: THIS CLEARANCE BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN, OR IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FORA PERIOD OF, 180 DAYS AFTER ZONING CLEARANCE APPROVAL BY COMMU VELOPMENT. STATEMENT: I HEREBY ACKNOWLE E TWA 1 HAVE READ THIS ZONING CLEARANCE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATIO IVEN IS ORRE T AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THE CITY ZONING CODE. IGNATU ^^ lUNINO CLEARANCE APPROVAL DAT "I Y THIS 16 YOM ZONMIEf CLEARANC= 000308