HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1999 0217 CC REG ITEM 10NTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Discussion
CITY OF MOORPARK
AGENDA REPORT
The Honorable City Council
—,Ia .3Ci
ITEM 1 0 • N •
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council ?Meeting
of
ACTION: �" '� +eca ` t rE F tom'
BY:
V l!1Y C- %7 1 V l'7 .
Nelson Miller, Director of Community DevelopmenoO�
February 9, 1999 (For CC Meeting of February 17, 1999)
Consider Permit Processing Policies Related to New
Uses Proposed in Existing Buildings
A report on permit processes was requested, especially related
to new uses in existing buildings.
Pursuant to City Codes most uses are subject to the approval of
a Planned Development Permit prior to the initiation of the use,
but are allowed as a matter of right. They are subject to site
plan review and may be conditioned to assure compliance with the
requirements and purposes of the Zoning Code. City policy for
structures where there is already an existing approved Planned
Development Permit, has been to review the same use or similar
uses through a Zoning Clearance. Uses which have special
requirements or different requirements, such as additional
parking or a change in the exterior appearance of the building,
have typically been reviewed through a modification to the
permit. The notes to Table 17.20.060 in the Zoning Code,
"Permitted Uses in Commercial and Industrial Zones ",
specifically reference certain uses, such schools, churches,
restaurants, and temporary outside eating facilities as
requiring a modification to the Planned Development Permit.
Older buildings, particularly in the Downtown area do not have
an approved Development Permit and may not comply with current
Code requirements. Generally the same use, such as retail sales,
has been reviewed through a Zoning Clearance. However, other
uses which were permitted by a Development Permit, particularly
which may have different parking requirements, involve a change
in the exterior appearance of the building, or other
000216
Permit Processes
February 17, 1999
Page 2
requirements, have been required to process a Development
Permit, since there was not an original permit to modify. A
separate fee was established for this category a couple of years
ago, which was similar to a Conditional Use Permit and
considerably less than a major modification fee. Conversion of
a structure from one use to another, particularly such as
conversion of residential structures to commercial uses
frequently involves considerable staff time, similar to a new
development.
It has been suggested several times, particularly during
consideration of the Downtown Specific Plan, that a different
permit process be provided for new uses in existing commercial
buildings, where a Development Permit does not currently exist.
The existing processes provided in the Code, other than the
Development Permit and modifications, include Administrative
Permits and Zoning Clearances. Zoning Clearances are
ministerial permits which certify that uses are in compliance
with the Codes. If it is intended to condition projects, then a
an Administrative Permit or other type of permit would be more
appropriate. Administrative Permits are discretionary permits
subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.
Uses subject to these permits are also essentially permitted,
but subject to site plan review by staff. They require a mailed
notice to property owner within three hundred feet at least ten
days prior to a determination. If Administrative Permits are
intended to be utilized for review of commercial uses, the fee
deposit schedule probably should also be reviewed for such
permits.
If it is intended for uses to be discretionary, then a
Conditional Use Permit is a more appropriate mechanism.
Currently, Conditional Use Permits require a public hearing and
full notices with determinations made by either the Planning
Commission or City Council.
Other cities also provide other types of permits, such as Minor
Development Permits, or even Minor Conditional Use Permits which
are approved at a staff level. Minor Development Permits could
involve similar requirements to existing Development Permits, or
reduced submittal requirements, but be subject to review at a
staff level, rather than by Planning Commission or City Council.
Minor Conditional Use Permits would still typically require a
notice to surrounding property owners, while Minor Development
Permits would not necessarily require notice.
\ \MOR_PRI_SERV\ HOME_ FOLDERS\ NMiller \M \CCrpts \PermitProc.doc
000217
Permit Processes
February 17, 1999
Page 3
Changing the type of permit processes or implementing new types
of Permits would require an amendment to the Zoning Code.
Council may direct initiation of a Code Amendment for
consideration and recommendations to City Council by the
Planning Commission. Based upon previous discussions with the
City Attorney new procedures in the Code may also be required to
designate a Zoning Administrator for action on certain type of
permits with appeals directly to City Council rather than
Planning Commission. Processing of a Code Amendment would
require some reallocation of resources from other projects which
might then be somewhat deferred.
Staff Recommendation:
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
\ \MOR PRI SERV \HOME FOLDERS\ NMiller \M \CCrpts \PermitProc.doc
000218