The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAG RPTS 1988 1219 PC REGJOHN PATRICK LANE ' Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tom JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M.PEREZ Counclimember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk MOORPARK A 6 E N D A CITY COUNCIL 3 PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1988 7:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Mayor B. Chairman 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE F 3. ROLL CALL A. City Council B. Planning Commission 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS 5. INFORMATION ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police A. Status of Work on General Plan Update and Carlsberg Specific Plan 91 A report regarding when a Commercial Planned Development Permit is required. C. Signage in the Downtown Area Regulatory signage pertaining to commercial signs in the downtown area and-the use of sandwich / "A" frame signs. /— ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- aose who wish to address the City Council or Planning Commission on any item, are required to fill out a Speaker's Card, and present it to the Secretary prior to the item being heard or they may not be heard. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529.6864 12 /19 /CHRONI City Council & Planning Commission Meeting of December 19, 1988 Page 2 5. D. Residential Lot Coverage Lot coverage vs. lot size. E. Assembly Bill No. AB 1600 AB 1600 requires all agencies to comply with establishing requirements for increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval on development projects. F. Boutique Sales, etc. in Residential Zone Areas Potential impact, traffic circulation, permit issuance and enforcement. 6. COMMENTS A. City Council B. Planning Commission 7. STAFF COMMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copies of the reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the Secretary and are available for public review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the Secretary at (805) 529 -6864 or the Department of Community Development, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. 12 /19 /CHRONI AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AGENDA CITY OF MOORPARK ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) I, Celia LaFleur, appointed Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that I posted a copy of the Moorpark _ �P�lanning Commission Agenda for the meeting of //J�ll�Gf/ /J, IMP , at the following location: MOORPARK COMMUNITY CENTER 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California, 93021 Said agenda shall remain in place until after the meeting for the availability of public review for at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Section 54954 et.seq. of the California Government Code. Executed on this 1`f' 7/6 day of `4( ,M/4ev Moorpark, California. By: Celia LaFleur, Secretary to the Planning Commission MOORPARK ITEM 5-- JOHN PATRICK LANE STEVEN KUENY Ma or 401.11 PK °9<, City Manager ELOISE BROWN y P' °v CHERYL J. KANE o° `�2 Mayor Pro Tern APIPW o City Attorney JOHN GALLOWAY 04%0 PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Councilmember �� ,� Director of CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. �V o' Community Development Councilmember oq R. DENNIS DELZEIT BERNARDO M. PEREZ "TEa �� City Engineer Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE MAUREEN W. WALL Chief of Police City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council & Planning Commission FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: December 14, 1988 (CC & PC meeting of 12/19/88) SUBJECT: LOT SIZE VS. DWELLING UNIT SIZE Background General background regarding this matter may be found within the attached December 1, 1988 memorandum. This subject was reintroduced to the City Council at their December 7, 1988 meeting. At that time, the Council requested that this item be placed on a future joint meeting agenda with the Planning Commission. Also, the Council requested staff to collect additional information and have it available to the Council and Commission prior to any joint meeting. Requested information as follows: 1. Pool/Spa and Patio Policies 2. Survey of other cities regulations as noted in staff report dated 12/1/88. 3. Information froti the B. I.A. law suit related to the cost of housing construction. Discussion The staff has attached the approved Patio Policy and the revised draft Pool/Spa Policy. Also, included within this memorandum is the material related to the past B. I.A. law suit pertaining to the cost of housing construction. Although staff has requested the text information from the cities surveyed in the past, no additional information has been received as of the preparation of this memorandum. Staff will endeavor to have such material available at the time of the joint meeting. 799 Moorpark Min"VA/CH R(1N T PJ R•f)ST•CM tppipark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 D Recommended Action pag 2 ember 14, 1988 t�°n That the appropriate. City res Council and Planning te, tial Att 1 of covera Commission e regul coverage dire w the s Attachments: staff ubJect of g I December 1, 1988 staff as deemed 0.Patio Cover Poaw jibyck9 background City Co Pool/Spa Policy °rmation uncil MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA Planning o r�is°'son Meeting /� R 198. -�� , AC i IOs: ._._.- �� ,jl 8y lia---d� , LOT/COCA/CHRONz PdP. •DST'CM:cr1 MOORPARK 3 JOHN PATRICK LANE STEVEN KUENY Mayor PPK CA4, City Manager ELOISE BROWN o°OP / .Z CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tern F �o City Attorney JOHN GALLOWAY /4416 PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Councilmember 40,:o g Director of � m Community Development CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.Councilmember o� R. DENNIS DELZEIT BERNARDO M. PEREZ Q .10y^ City Engineer Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE W. WALL Chief of Police MAUREEN City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: December 1, 1988 (CC meeting of 12/7/88) SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL LOT COVERAGE Background The matter of lot coverage vs. lot size was first considered by the City Council on October 20, 1988. At that time the Council directed this matter to staff and requested a report to be placed on their November 2, 1988 agenda. On November 2, 1988 staff presented the Council with a brief report regarding the city's current codes and an interest to contact other cities. The Council took no action regarding staff's report on November 2nd but directed staff to research the subject further and return to the Council on December 7, 1988. Discussion From the perspective of the community as a whole, bulk requirements are far less important than land use and intensity controls, but from the perspective of immediate neighbors, bulk requirements are very important indeed. For example, if the city approves a project where there will be twenty dwelling units per acre, that is all the information necessary to plan sewer, water systems and predict tax revenue. On the other hand, the impact of those twenty units on adjacent lots will very greatly depending on whether the houses are three story set 5 feet back from property line covering 70% to 80% of the lot area or are one story set back 20 feet from the property line covering only 40% to 50% of the lot area. Bulk requirements are design requirements. Traditional bulk requirements specify the shape of the lot and a three dimensional area into which any building must fit, and were created in part to give predictability to development, enabling the first person to build a house on a new block to know where nearby homes would 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 LUT/CUV/LHF(ONI YJH:MAR:DT:JS:CM:crl December 1, 1988 Page 2 eventually be located. Such zoning specified a front yard setback, a rear yard setback and building height limits. Since then, a new element has been designed which addresses the percent of lot coverage. This requirement specifies that the combined ground floor area of all buildings on any lot shall not exceed a certain percentage of the total lot area. The use of a percentage limit addresses the issue of the size of a house in relation to the property it is located on. However, even it too has drawbacks. Consider the following examples: 1. On a lot of 110 x 40 feet or 4400 sq.ft. such as exists in Quailridge (TR4141) a house of 1980 sq.ft. could be constructed if limited to 45% of the total area. 2. On a lot 150 x 70 feet or 10,500 sq.ft. the size of a typical Buttercreek lot (TR4142) a house of 4725 sq.ft. could be constructed if limited to 45% of the total lot area. As can be seen, the larger the lot with a constant percent level the house maximums become unrealistic. Another method to restrict building bulk is to use a floor area ratio (FAR). An FAR of 1 allows one sq.ft. of building for each sq. ft. of land area, while an FAR of 4 allows four sq.ft. of building for each sq.ft. of land area. An FAR requirement coupled with a maximum percent of lot coverage, such as 45% would mean that a building in a zone with an FAR of 1 may be a two story building on less then half of the lot area. Even with the FAR method it is likely that a height limit would need to be imposed. The city currently requires approval of a Residential Planned Development permit (RPD) where five or more dwellings are being proposed for construction. Through this RPD process the city has considerable discretion in limiting the size or scale of the dwelling on the lot. The issue of variation of house sizes within tracts was considered by the city during the review of the Urban West Communities West Village proposals. At that time there was some concern noted regarding the "canyon" effect created by the use of a majority of two-story homes, and the somewhat uniform structure design. The city did not impose any restrictions regarding this subject. By using the RPD process the city can establish a standard on a case-by-case basis. However, this may cause a lack of consistency between project approvals. It reflects the city's interest to either have flexibility in it's decision making, or to create a uniform standard. The city will need to select one or the other. TrT/rnu/f mi4n TT P.TP.MAP.TIT..Tc.CM.rr1 December 1, 1988 Page 3 V:511111 City Survey Staff conducted a telephone survey with a number of surrounding cities both in and outside the county. The results of this survey are shown below: City Residential Lot Coverage Regulations Port Hueneme R-1 zone, RPD zone 1st floor 35% coverage, 1st & 2nd floor cumulative cannot exceed 50%. Oxnard No standards. Santa Paula No standards. Ventura R-1, RPD 35% coverage, includes patios and accessory structures. Ojai R-1 zone 35% coverage on lots up to 20,000 sq.ft. , no standards for larger lots Fillmore 400 on all single family homes and includes garages and patios. Camarillo No standards for R-1, R-E, RPD zone 50a coverage for cluster projects, 40o for single family homes. Simi Valley None. Thousand Oaks None. Arcadia 45% coverage maximum on all single family homes. Palos Verdes Estates 30o maximum footprint total structure can not exceed 300 of lot size plus 1750 sq.ft. Rancho Palos Verdes 25% maximum lot coverage increase on higher density zones Summary The regulation of lot coverage vs. lot size can be accomplished in three ways: 1. Bulk regulations; 2. Floor area regulations; 3. Residential Planned Development permit processing. Tl1T/rmi/l'tlDMTT DTD.MAD.wr..TC.rM.rr1 December 1, 1988 Page 4 416 Recommended Action That the City Council direct staff to draft an ordinance amending the city's zoning code to limit the amount of residential lot coverage to no more than 45 percent or devise a sliding percent scale. T.c1T/COV/CHRnNT PJR:MAR!DT:J5:CM:crl 9250.3.10 the appearance and maintenance of properties. cation, and in the imposition of conditions of B. The Council has determined that the keep- approval: ing or maintaining of properties at variance with 1. The size of the lot; the level of maintenance of surrounding proper- 2. The location of the motor vehicles; ties will result in substantial diminution in the 3. The visibility and proximity of the motor enjoyment, use, and aesthetic and property val- vehicles to the street and adjacent property; ues of such surrounding properties. 4. The use and purpose of such vehicles; C. The Council has determined that it is desk- 5. The operability and appearance of the vehi- ous to enhance and promote the maintenance of des.The term "motor vehicles" as used in these property and the enhancement of the livability, Sections shall not include the following vehicles: community appearance, and the social and eco- trucks one ton or larger, registered commercial nomic conditions of the community. vehicles,motorcycles,motorbikes,buses,motor- D. The Council has further determined that homes, trailers, boats and housecars. (Added by the uses and abuses of property as described in Ord. 1824 adopted 12-3-85) this Section reasonably relate to the proper exer- cise of police power to protect the health, safety 9250.3.12. LOT COVERAGE. and general welfare of the public. The combined ground floor area of all build- E. The Council has determined that the ings on any one lot shall not exceed forty-five provisions described in this Section will enhance percent (45%) of the total lot area. (Added by the appearance and value of such properties Ord. 1881 adopted 4-5-88) rather than be a burden on the owners thereof. F. The strong role of aesthetic concerns as (Division 0,Title 3 added by Ordinance No. 1597 justification for exercise of the police power has adopted 8-16-77) been reemphasized by the United States Supreme Court in recent cases. G. The maintenance of the numerous motor DIVISION 0. vehicles on residential property can constitute or R-M RESIDENTIAL MOUNTAINOUS contribute to conditions inconsistent with the SINGLE FAMILY ZONE aforementioned purpose and findings. Enforce- ment shall be consistent with the purpose and TITLE 4. findings set out in this Section. (Added by Ord. DESIGN REGULATIONS 1824 adopted i2-3-85) 9250.4. GENERAL. 9250.3.11. MOTOR VEHICLE The regulations set forth in this Title shall LIMITATIONS— REQUIREMENTS. No more than four(4)motor vehicles shall be parked in the open,that is,in a manner whereby the vehicles are visible from the adjacent public rights-of-way,on any single-family residential lot {'.0 Box 60 for more than five(5)consecutive days, unless a Arcadia.CA 9►tx)6 0060 Modification has been obtained to allow such Planning I)epartrruent use. The following factors shall be considered in determining whether to grant or deny a Modifi- E 0 I.Arcadia 7-88) 384-2 C,lv of M.Qnrrt';. " r7717 „q /23/88 16.06 23•213 623 8297 BVr&S LA ..-- MOORPARK U 003 DBPRG ). y 1 through 20, and 21 and 22 . ) 2 The actual cost to The Pacifica Corporation of constructing 3 these houses is extremely confidential. We do not tell other 4 residential builders our costs of construction, and even more 5 importantly we do not tell Cities our costs of construction. Dur- ing the negotiations leading up to approval of a subdivision, a 7 City will attempt to impose conditions which require dedication of 8 land, payment of money, or construction of public improvements at 0 the cost of the developer. Revealing to any city the actual or 10 projected costs of the entire development of the property and 11 inferentially your profit potential would put any developer at an 12 extreme disadvantage in these negotiations. This disadvantage 13 would continue as to future dealings with any city having this 14 information, and in particular, the City of Moorpark. My company's 15 future dealings, if any, with Moorpark would be extremely 16 prejudiced if this information were required to be revealed. 17 The actual cost of development of houses is not the basis 18 used in setting the price of a new house to a buyer. Unlike some 19 businesses where the price to a customer is figured by adding a 20 certain amount for profit to the cost of manufacturing the product; 21 in the sale of new residential homes the sales price is dictated by 22 the local real estate market. The most important factors control- 23 ling the sales price for new residential housing are location, the 24 houses themselves, interest rates, sales prices of other new homes 25 in the area, how many new homes are available, and how quickly 26 these new homes have been selling. The actual cost of constructing Z7 these homes is not used and has no relevance in determining the 28 price at which they are sold 29 (b) Sales Prices. Second, the Subpena demands produc- 30 tion of all documents relating to both estimated and actual sales 31 prices of homes. (Subpena, Exh. A, Items 13 , through 16. ) 32 The disclosure of the actual sales prices placed upon the homes 33 themselves is not confidential. However, the production of all the 34 documents reflecting those sales prices would include escrow 35 /// 36 3 , 14, • 1 '• ,;1 E l 1 /23/83 16.07 $213 623 3297 MS LA ---- MOORPARK z 004 LOU\ giwe wsON - 6LF- 1 to organize. The production of pro forma documents showing 2 estimates of costs of construction and acquisition, and sales 3 prices, would show our profit potential for these projects. The 4 revelation of the profit potential we are projecting in these 5 projects could adversely affect our dealings with the cities in 6 which we are trying to develop the project. The reason for this is 7 that during the course of obtaining approval for a project a city 8 will require dedications of land, payment of fees and construction 9 of public improvements as a condition of developing. These condi- 10 tions are the subject of negotiation between the City and the 11 developer. The revelation of our profit potential would put us at 12 a severe disadvantage. This could also prejudice us in future 13 dealings, if any, with the City of Moorpark. 14 (b) Costs of Construction. The Subpena demands. 15 production of all documents related to the complete cost of 16 Cevelopment and constructing our projects in the County of Ventura. 17 Since only one project is being constructed at this time and it is 18 in the early phases of construction, information relating to the 19 cost of acquisition of the land, the cost of engineering and the 20 preliminary costs of construction for Tract 4148 would not provide 21 a complete picture relating to the cost of building the homes much 22 less the ultimate cost of the housing. We object to producing this 23 information. However, we also object to producing this information 24 for a more fundamental reason, sincetihe cost of development of a --t"i 25 house is not the basis used in setting the price of a new home to a 26 buyer. It is the real estate market in the location of the houses 27 which is used to set the prices. The most important factors 28 controlling the sales price for new homes are location of the 29 houses themselves, interest rates, sales prices of other homes in 30 the area, how many new homes are available, and how quickly these 31 homes have been selling. The actual cost of construction is not 32 used in determining the price at which the houses are sold 33 (c) Sales Prices. Third; the Subpena demands produc- 34 tion of all documents relating to estimated and actual sales prices 35 `// 36 /// 3 . { . ./23i88 16:0 8 $213 623 8297 MS LA --.- MOORPARK 005 H ` C H o STT - 134RcuAy 140LLAiy. 1 the Building industry Association of Southern California v. city of 2 Moorpark lawsuit. 3 3 . Barclay Hollander Corporation has never developed a 4 project in the City of Moorpark. Barclay Hollander Corporation has 5 one project in Ventura County which is located in Camarillo off of 6 Camarillo Springs Drive. 7 4. Barclay Hollander Corporation objects to producing the 8 documents relating to its project in Camarillo. Specifically, we 9 object to the production of the following documents: 10 (a) Cost of Construction. The Subpena demands produc- 11 tion of all documents related to the complete cost of developing 12 and constructing the tracts we have built as part of our Camarillo 13 Springs project since 1980. This would include 119 modular homes, 14 Tract 3651-3 and 4, 68 single family detached houses, Tract 3651-5, 15 72 single family detached houses, Tract 3651-6, 121 Townhomes cur- 16 rently under construction, Tract 3651-10, and 218 Townhomes and 17 Flats currently being graded, Tract 3651-8. The actual cost of 18 construction is extremely confidential to Barclay Hollander 19 Corporation. We do not tell other builders our costs of construc- 20 tion, and even more importantly, we do not tell cities our costs of 21 construction. In the process of developing real property cities 22 require dedications of land, payment of fees or construction of 23 public improvements as a condition of developing. These conditions 24 are the subject of extensive negotiations between the City and a 25 developer. The revelation of this information would put us at a 26 severe disadvantage in that knowing our costs of construction the 27 profits earned on past projects could be figured. It should be 28 observed that the law firm representing the city of Moorpark is 29 also the law firm representing the City of Camarillo. Revealing 30 this information would be extremely prejudicial to our company's 31 dealings with the City of Camarillo. 32 The actual cost of development of houses is not the basis 33 used in setting the price of new homes to a buyer. On the 34 contrary, it is the real estate market in the location of the 35 houses which is used to set the p prices. The most important factors 36 controlling the sales price for new houses are location, the houses 2. ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL 10/5/88 CITY OF MOORPARK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PATIO COVER REQUIREMENTS R-1 , R-E, R-A, R-O, R-2 Zones 1 . Side Yard Setback: Five (5) feet must be maintained. 2. Rear Yard Setback: Ten (10) feet must be maintained. 3. Front Yard Setback: Twenty (20) feet must be maintained. 4. Maximum Height: Twelve (12) feet. R-P-D Zone 1 . Side Yard Setback: Five (5) feet must be maintained. 2. Rear Yard Setback: Ten (10) feet must be maintained. 3. Front Yard Setback: Twenty (20) feet must be maintained. 4. Maximum Height: Twelve (12) feet. 5. When a dwelling unit has been constructed with less than a twenty (20) foot setback a reduction in the required patio setback is allowed from ten (10) feet to no less than six (6) feet on a formula of a one (1 ) foot reduction in patio setback for each two (2) foot reduction in building setback. 6. Zero lot line, a three (3) foot side yard setback is allowed on the side of the lot with the zero lot line. 7. A rear yard reduction to three (3) feet is allowed under the following circumstances a) the homeowners association has approved the design b) all adjacent property owners have been notified of the design c) the rear yard does not abutt a public street d) the subject parcel is no more than three feet higher in elevation than properties adjacent to the rear lot e) there may be no enclosure, including screening or glazing on the sides of the patio cover f) the patio cover does not occupy more than fourty (40) percent of the required rear yard area /2° Second Story Decks (All Zones) Two story homes proposing a second floor deck or balcony are subject to the same requirements as their applicable zone. In addition, the following requirements apply. A form provined by the Community Development Department shall be circulated to all adjacent property owners. The respective owners signatures shall be secured stating that these owners have been notified of the proposed construction. Maximum height twelve (12) feet, not including railing height. Accessory Structures (All Zones) 1 . An accessory structure, attached of detached greater than sixty four (64) square feet requires a Zoning Clearance. 2. An accessory structure, attached or detached greater than one hundred and twenty (120) square feet requires a Zoning Clearance and a Building Permit. 3. May occupy no more than forty (40) percent of the required rear yard. 4. Maximum height of fifteen (15) feet, twelve (12) feet for patio covers. 5. Six (6) foot minimum distance to all other structures. 6. On a reverse corner lot an accessory structure may come no closer than six (6) feet to an abutting lot on the rear of the lot. 7. On the rear one third of a lot an accessory structure may come to three (3) feet of the interior and rear property lines, On a corner lot normal setback requirements shall be met on the street side. 8. Neighbor notification is required for all accessory structures which exceed five (5) foot side yard and/or ten (10) foot rear yard requirements, whether attached or detached. /3 Note: Where a homeowners association exists that has the authority to review and approve exterior modifications, the city will require written verification of homeowners association approval. If a homeowners association has not yet been formed the applicant must obtain approval from the developer. After homeowners association approval has been granted, then a Zoning Clearance and a Building Permit can be issued. MOORPARK JOHN PATRICK LANE STEVEN KUENY City Manager Mayor ELOISE BROWN F°��i CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tern o City Attorney JOHN GALLOWAY �� PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Councilmember z Director of CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. `�� Community Development Councilmember o; R. DENNIS DELZEIT BERNARDO M. PEREZ `T `®ES �"` City Engineer Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE W. WALL Chief of Police MAUREEN City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: December 13, 1988 SUBJECT: POOL/SPA POLICY Background On October 7, 1988 the City Council adopted a Patio Cover Policy. At this same time staff had intended to have a Pool/Spa Policy adopted. However, the Pool/Spa Policy document had been inadvertently omitted from the Council's packet. On October 19, 1988 staff reintroduced the Pool/Spa Policy for Council's consideration. At that time the Council directed the matter back to staff so as to meet with an Ad Hoc Committee of one Councilmember to resolve some limited concerns. Discussion Staff has met with the Ad Hoc Committee and made various changes to the policy text. The attached draft policy reflects distance and setback concerns noted by the Council at their October 19th meeting. The attached draft shows changes in bold type. Recommendation Adopt the attached pool/spa requirements by minute action as policy of the City of Moorpark. Attachment: Revised Draft Pool/Spa Policy requirements. 79Ff�c� Ara PJB•�►AR••DT•JS•CM•c ri- Oorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 CITY OF MOORPARK DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POOL & SPA REQUIREMENTS 1 . Setback Requirements - For Inground Pool or Spa a. Five (5) feet minimum to side and rear property lines, as measured from water line to property line. b. Three (3) feet minimum distance to nearest structure including residence, detached accessory structure, or edge of post of a patio cover. 2. Equipment -Only Location Requirements a. Pump and filter must be located at least three (3) feet from a property line. b. The vents of the heater must be located at least four (4) feet form a property line or opening to the dwelling. (inc. openable window, door or air inlet) 3. Equipment Enclosure Requirements a. All equipment shall be enclosed by a four (4) foot high masonry wall for noise insulation purposes except on the side where access is provided or the equipment abutts a structure. Applicant may install a solid wood gate on the side where access is provided. b. No enclosure is required for spas with self contained equipment. c. Enclosure shall be constructed of a masonry material (brick, slumpstone, concrete, split-face) at least six (6) inches in width. d. All masonry components shall be connected with mortar (concrete) . POOLSPAA/CDDFORMS POOL & SPA REQUIREMENTS Page 2 /67 e. The screen wall shall be founded on minimum 12"x12" concrete footings (test 2000 lbs/sq.in at 28 days) . f. The screen wall shall be centered on footings. g. Each corner of the enclosure shall be reinforced with #4 rebar. h. Cells containing reinforcement shall be filled solidly with grout (1 part cement, 3 parts sand, 2 parts gravel) . j. Top course shall be reinforced with a #4 rebar reinforcement horizontally and continuously around corners. k. The equipment controls must face the side which provides access. I. The enclosure wall shall not be closer than twelve (12) inches from the equipment. m. The enclosure wall shall not be further than twenty-four (24) inches from the equipment. n. The width of the access area cannot exceed the width of the equipment (controls) and must always face inward towards center of yard. o. If the equipment is located in a side yard three (3) feet of access shall be provided between the enclosure wall and the property line. p. All equipment must be at least four (4) feet from a window or door. q. If equipment is sixty (60) feet or greater to another residential structure there is no requirement for an enclosure (although it is recommended) . r. All open topped blocks shall be covered with cement/concrete to a minimum height of 1/2" and tapered smooth to sides or a cap shall be provided. 4. Accessory Structures - A detached gazebo, cabana or other accessory structure. Typically associated with a_pool or spa has the following requirements: a. A detached accessory structure greater than sixty-four (64) square feet requires a Zoning Clearance. POOLSPAA/CDDFORMS POOL & SPA REQUIREMENTS Page 3 if7 b. A detached accessory structure greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet requires requires a Zoning Clearance and Building Permit. c. May occupy no more than forty (40) percent of the required rear yard area. d. Maximum height of fifteen (15) feet. e. A six (6) foot minimum distance to all other structures. f. A three (3) foot minimum distance to the water line of all exterior pools or spas. Spas within/under a gazebo or other sturcture does not require distance setbacks from waterline. g. On a reverse corner lot may come no closer than six (6) feet to an abutting lot on the rear of the lot. h. On the rear one-third (1/3) of the lot an accessory structure may come to three (3) feet of the interior and rear property lines. A corner lot shall meet the standard setback requirements on the street side. 5. Related Requirements a. Homeowners association approval (if applicable) for accessory structures is required prior to approval of a Zoning Clearance. b. An Encroachment Permit is required prior to Zoning Clearance approval for all pool and spa construction, except for one piece pool and spas (fiberglass) . c. A Zoning Clearance and Building Permit are required for all pools and spas prior to the start of construction. d. All applicable requirements of the Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical Codes shall apply. e. All pools and spas shall be completely surrounded by a minimum six (6) foot fence enclosure or wall with self closing and self latching gates. POOLSPAA/CDDFORMS