The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0406 CC REG ITEM 11EITEM II. E. ?'ARK, CALIF;.'" AGENDA REPORT City of Moorpark TO: The Honorable City Council i FROM: Jaime R. Aguilera, Director of Community Development'' DATE: Nlarch 17, 1994 (CC meeting of U-1- U6 -94) St 8.11?C "1': CONSIDI;It ('Kh;A,I'ION O1 D[Itl;( "1'OK OI' CONINIUNI'1'1' DF.VF,I.OPMENT APPROVI•:1) DFIVI:I.OP'\1F,N`1' PERMIT AND ADOPT I'HI; ;�'I "1':�('lil:U ltI;SoI.[ ,I,ION DIKl;C' "!'1N'G T1 PLANNING CON'INIISSION l,( RT H PHIS [SSt'F AND 1IAkI: IZI;C'O�I1IF:ND;1'1'IONS "I'O 'fHl CIT1 COUNCI1, Background: Several 111011th. a''0, the City ('uuneil instruete(I I' t() llrelrau-e a Ixllicy that \ \01.11(1 serve as a means to allow I Iunle(m ncr ,.VosoCIItiull, t I I( )AS I anal nei�,hhors to he notified of, certain COntill-llCtlOIl Ilr()jcct, in their nCT'1Ih1):' r r: [TI . I)I'o*eets in (IrleSti(ln \vcrc: 1. Second dwellin(, (lnit�; _'. Second Hoor Imilo (Icck�,; ?. Accc sOr1' �Irllelllle�, seater INtll I21) .(;,lal( feet 'ill(] roolil additions. I'hc City- Ilrcvi()u;l\ 11,1(1 all intilrllutl polio\ (�,cc attachment) \\hick rcyuired that I loillcow-ners AS.., lciatiOw, anal •urrutln(11*110 (Ak Ilcr; of, a project he notified of a pro cct a lld have the zthilit\ t( lllake c(Ml(11ent t,(t1 hcf(Ire a Final (Ict(:rminati(>n \> as made. The ('01.11101 111,1\ rec,tll 111ree recent hi lh!, Ms. Lori Rutter hall c( llplained that Cleal;tllce(S) I'm- new homes could not he issuc(f With(ltlt f'ir,t ;lotif'\ ins, a(Ijacen: l H)perk (I\\ ncrs and that in ally case she or atnv other a, ric\c(I :mrty cmild ;yl)e: ;I I li'.ek ((r, decision to approve a x(lning clearalice. The Council rcceivcd ,(Nice tr(lm lhl (it\ Auorne% indicating that ministerial ( %(mint; Clcar,lncc�,) anions Could n()I h( C(ul(litimicd ()r,1Ilhcaled. I lowever, Zone Clearance, \\'ere detcrntinc(I to he ;t (li,( eti( n;(r\ action under the then applicable lt(n`ILMI'C. The %( >nin(, c)r(IinanCe \\;t', •tl ,( (l.lcnt:\ anlen(Ic(I to cXclu(ic the al)lleals process f()r Oc,u,tnee dcci•I(W\ I: ler 1:111 the atppllcant. C: \94;FM \CC940406.003 5:30 prr. he I lonorahle City Council .larch 17. 1991 11ge -2- 2. Mr. and Mrs. O'Donnel's Zone Ulc,u,tncc \\as originally approved. The Cite then denied it vyhcn the IRM changed Wir AnK Ac "Lone Clearancc(s) was subsequently approved \\lien it \yus di,co\crcd that the denial letter from the IIOA carne from the propert and raw '!lL c „rc! iICCtLlraI rc\ iC%V cclnlmittce. In subsequent discussions "Ah the ('its .\ttorncy. she has made it wry clear that the Cily cannot deny a /one (�Icar,ance(, h� :,� d or, 11( )A or homeowners' complaints. 3. When the Council rcyisCd the Zoning Ordinance regarding second d\VCllin, units, it deleted the Conditional We Permit reyu- cement and askul stall to develop a method to notify and allO \\ "'ollllllent, by adjacc ! pr 1pc• ty owner,. Issue: Staff hascd the new formal policy on the prcccp.� (,I die previous informal policy and asked our City Attorney to rc\ic\\ it fur legal sutlicici c\. \9,. Kane responded by informing staff that punuttnt Io the Zollln” ( )rdirtance the /.tm ( luau tncc(;) projects in yucsli)n were ministerial in nature and W—cforc. (,()Ill(! I'W h� ubjec[i\C!y ,crutinircd. Further, she informed staff that the City could not abdica'e a itb( ity and all(m citizens or an I IOA to make de -facto zoning deci, on,. Alternatives: Staff believes that there arc three basic al emo wcs to achieve the Council's goal to assure that neilhhors and I );\', ,tre notified of •tom \' ithin their nCi`'hhorhood as follo\ys: Adopt a policy \yhich rcgtjirc, that 11( ).\ - and adincent property owners he notified after a decision ha, been rendered I)\ This Would inform the public and \yottld assure that the Director dec ion \\Sts not influenced by comments from the public or I I( )A. 'I Ile 1 or othc 1}:trt\ consistent with applicable CC &R's could still Seek to deny the ,applicant t!le t!)ilit\ t � proceed \\ kit the project through Court aclion in order to enforce the pr:\.:I. ,o\eilant,. No appeals by parties other than the applican[ ,!re tllo\\ed undo! '! : 1! ICC I. 2. Adopt ,a policy \\ hich requires that I It > \ , ,111C ,adjacent property (m ners to he notified prior to a Mcctok deckle- iw II;om the partic, that thCH'_ input is limited only to the /.onIn Ordin,ulce \el pnl,•nl standards at i,sue. This tllo\\S the public to be ts,uree' that the prose\ t I' meet :he letter of the la\v but it \will also raise expectation, on their part. Thi, p ()l .•\ e )till cad the public to believe (as they do now) that they call ,appCal a prOJecl or denial to ,t hiUhCr authority. 11(mever, no appc,al, b, other than 1! ):1' XI' :re allo\yCd tindCr till, process. C: \94jFMCC940405.003 5:30 pm I hC 1 1101101 -aIWe Clty Council March 17, 1994 �. Modik the toning, ( 1 clinttnce alld 111 (d, ' C• I in I)[ CCtS SuhjCCt to ;f Director's approved Development Permit. Thi. \\o,ild I-.;tvc the effect of nl tkin�g, those projects discretionary and subject to suhjCCti\e c((ndition,. ;111d a Sixtern clay appeal pCriod after the Directors Icci, on I" C011,IdCred Fina1 . hhis could inClucle ;t nutific;ttion pr0re, cal ;lro:1erty 0\ \•nCrs, \within either 300 or 1000 foot raefius of the apphcallt,s 111*ol,� ty. Recommendation: It is Staffs opinion that ;tltcrnati\e \0. talc nl(),t yi;thle solution and therefore recommends that the ('ity Council in;truCt ,IXI , ( :>rcp;uc• I Ordinance 11r11et1Clflleflt to he presented to the Cmllilwo iml fir the r I,C."()Il I me Ildation to the City Council on the platter of Director of ('onlnlunit\• De\e14r1)111c11t ;Ip_lrOved Deyclopnlent Permit for 1) second d\\Cllin�, units: ') "cCOnd floor p;l!i(' deCi.s: ; lid 3) acccssOw structures greater than IZU sclu�u-C feet Hld 1-00111 additions, for 11otifiC;ttion and appeal. If the Council CICSires to pr((Ceccl. per ,gill v 11 11c1- l; ti(m. ;tdopti011 of the attached resolution vwould he in urdcr. Attachment(s): 1. Fxistim-, \otil'icatiOn folic 2. Resolution 3. \ovcmhcr 15, 100.) Letter Ironl ('it\ Att(w , \ C: \94JFM \CC940406.003 5:30 pm MOORPARK JOHN PATRICK LANE Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern JOHN GALLOWAY A17ACHMEW Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Cou.,,;ilmember BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk M E M O R A N 1) U M ITEM V. U TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: September 28, 1988 (CC meet.iriq of 10/5/88) SUBJECT: POOL. /SPA PATIO POLICY Background STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A I C.P Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Porte Currently only two sections 11i code address the subject of patio covers, Section 8,6fi and Section 8160 -9.3. Section 8160-9.1 refet s to det,:clhi n.- cessory structures and Section 8160 -9.3 sets patio cover s e,' � ricks in the rear yard at ten feet to the property line. No (ocip -,ectaon exists for swimming pool standards, in addition theta lave been no policy statements for pools. These sections are incomplete and cannot cover all of the situations which and at ise ft c�rr. 'he .ariety of zones and differing types of development. in •1,,(� Planning Commission adopted a series of policies to if-u t pat to cover development. These policies have a numbei it,ternal inconsistencies and are difficult to comprehenc'. >>r;'f is requesting that these requirements be adopted by ins 1.>()l i.cy. By adopting as a policy rather than ordinance or :e,o'. :1ann ri greater amount of flexibility is kept, should the Council (IF-(ide to make any changes. These pool /spa and patio requit mN ;1 r-ulminate in a handout for the staff and publ)c. CALIFORNIARecommendation City ;r1 Ming Adopt the attached pool /spa )nd pat:.to cover requirements by minute as policy of the City , f Mcoorpark. ACTiON: 4 Attachment: Draft Pool /Spaand ratio "over Requirements Memorandum date(; 4'11/81 & 4/25/85. B�y - 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 882709C /CHRONI PJR:c'M:cr' (805) 529 -6864 r CITY OF MOORPARK DEPAR`IT4EVT OF COP 14UNITY DEVELOPMENT PATIO COVER REQUI R.M-NTS R -1, R -E, R -A, R -0, 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: `Nelve (12) f.e, �t . 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) feat 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 r:r Less than six (6) feet on a formula of a one (1) foot: reduction in patio setback for each two (2) foot reduction in bui.lcijn(j setback. 6. Zero lot line, a three (3) foot side yard setback is allowed on the side of the Lot with the zero LDt. line. 7. A rear yard reduction to three 13) feet is allowed under the following circumstances a) the -romeowners association has approved the design b) all adja-ent property owners have been notified of the design c) the r --ar yard does not abutt a public street d) the sutrject parcel is no >,,rore than three feet higher in elevation than properties ad;acerrt to the rear lot e) there nay be no enclosure, includin() :. -rc:(< nirn4 or glazing on the sides of the patio covc-r f) the patio ov(•r des not occupy more than fourty (40) perce''rt- of the re(';u. "(,i r -a! yard area Second Story Decks (All 2;ones) 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. 'Phe respective owners signatures shall be secured stating that these owners have been notified of the proposed construction. Maximum height twelve (12) feet, rrc' Lncluding 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 (1 20) squar, f & -�t requires a Zoning Clcarance 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 distances ~o 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 rcu4uircments shall be met on the street side. 8. Neighbor notification is required for all accessory structures which exceed five (5) foot si df . yard and /or ten (10) foot rear yard requirements, whether <rt t her, or detached. Note: Where a homeowners association exists that has the authority to review and approve exterior modifications, the city will require written verification of homeowners associat-, on �ipproval. 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. ATTACHMENT 3 November 1 , , 1993 Jaime R. Aguilera Director of Community Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: Resolution Establishing Procedures for Notification to Neighbor: and HOAs of Zone Clearances Dear Jim: RECEIVED ►� C1 6199 v4 3 C'y of taoo Park vnpnity 1)evcfr)0M, .1t OePartmer l BURKE. WILLIAMS. rORENSEN 6 GAAR LIGFITON PLAZA 7.300 COLLEGE BOULF.VAR'I SUITE 220 OVERLAND PARK. KANSAS *362.0 19'31 .139 6200 WRI T.L4 7 RE =r F).AL 213 -236 -2721 (IU FILF 10 01359 -001 By facsimile transmittal sheet received on November 12, 1993, you have requested review of the above- described resolution and accompanying agenda report. Initi,illy, I note that, contrary to the title of the agenda report, neighbors are to be notified of all zone clearances. (Resolution, � 4.) My substantive comments relative to the resolution ar- n:,ted below. 1. Zoning regulations are required to be adopted by ordinance. (Gov't Code S 65850.) Ordinances have the force of law; resolutions are merely expressions of opinion. Central Mfg. District Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 850, 860.) Thus, this resolution does not �-.upersede or control the provisions of Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the granting of lone clearances -- t<I ..: r . L..'c? permit must be granted if the application sati 1 rte riterion of Section 8111- 2.2.1.a of the Zoning Ordinanc, Lrre:'pective of the position of any neighbor or HOA. However, f r- the reasons discussed herein below in 11<)ragraph 2, idhf r <:•> to the resolution could make the City vu l r(f r,ib l (-, to 1 it t(It : .r0, I> 1 (cant:; for zone clearance:; . 2. The so- called LAW ; 11 ( F discretionary projects (Gov't Corte fiURKE, W1LLIAbIS be SORE SEN �FNTORA COUNTY OFFICE clII WLST. -�,X "( I. i• o 11.1- 2.2.1, ,.;ICI PONDEROSA DRIVE LOS ANGELES, ':A 'F )F-NIA FOOT "' SUITE t hre Limitations in the \-AI+ILLO, CALIFORNIA 93010 ill1 r �� .• neighbors and in the (fIC>5) 9137 .346111 of any time limitation M Articlo I to tno D) rector to act on zone clearances, the applicant O PANGL COUNTY OFF 1(.F k),ie •_:_earance would be at 120(.) BR !iTOL STRFF.r ;ix month-, t i dc— r,i --)n on his III -E 6411 n Mtn ('ALIFOR.N -A 97621, 17.4; '345 5 59 November 1 , , 1993 Jaime R. Aguilera Director of Community Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Re: Resolution Establishing Procedures for Notification to Neighbor: and HOAs of Zone Clearances Dear Jim: RECEIVED ►� C1 6199 v4 3 C'y of taoo Park vnpnity 1)evcfr)0M, .1t OePartmer l BURKE. WILLIAMS. rORENSEN 6 GAAR LIGFITON PLAZA 7.300 COLLEGE BOULF.VAR'I SUITE 220 OVERLAND PARK. KANSAS *362.0 19'31 .139 6200 WRI T.L4 7 RE =r F).AL 213 -236 -2721 (IU FILF 10 01359 -001 By facsimile transmittal sheet received on November 12, 1993, you have requested review of the above- described resolution and accompanying agenda report. Initi,illy, I note that, contrary to the title of the agenda report, neighbors are to be notified of all zone clearances. (Resolution, � 4.) My substantive comments relative to the resolution ar- n:,ted below. 1. Zoning regulations are required to be adopted by ordinance. (Gov't Code S 65850.) Ordinances have the force of law; resolutions are merely expressions of opinion. Central Mfg. District Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1960) 176 Cal.App.2d 850, 860.) Thus, this resolution does not �-.upersede or control the provisions of Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the granting of lone clearances -- t<I ..: r . L..'c? permit must be granted if the application sati 1 rte riterion of Section 8111- 2.2.1.a of the Zoning Ordinanc, Lrre:'pective of the position of any neighbor or HOA. However, f r- the reasons discussed herein below in 11<)ragraph 2, idhf r <:•> to the resolution could make the City vu l r(f r,ib l (-, to 1 it t(It : .r0, I> 1 (cant:; for zone clearance:; . 2. The so- called Permit Streimlinirig Act is not limited to discretionary projects (Gov't Corte 3931;, a fact that is reflected in the City':; Zon ind Ord i rI 1nue i• o 11.1- 2.2.1, 8111-3.1 and 8111 -3 . 4) . In the absence of ir,y t hre Limitations in the resolution for review by the HOA and neighbors and in the absence of any time limitation M Articlo I to tno D) rector to act on zone clearances, the applicant for k),ie •_:_earance would be at risk of having to wait ;ix month-, t i dc— r,i --)n on his I AX 11 799 1 Jaime R. Aguilera November 15, 1993 Page 2 application. (Gov't Code § 65950.] Such a delay is not likely to be legally defensible under Government Code section 65953, particularly since review authority cannot be delegated as discussed herein below in Paragraph 3 Although not supported by the language of the resolution, delay in acting upon zone clearance applications would be avoided if the "notification" is completed prior to "zone clearance application" rather than "zone clearance approval ". However, because of the 'ack of time limits, such a procedure would be even less legally .defensible. HOAs and neighbors could effectively preclude applications from ever being filed by failing to "review" the project or failing to accept delivery of the certified or register(d m -ail. 3. Regardless of when the process review occurs, the "requirement" is legally indefensible. First, since they are private entities, the City has no <i�ithori ty to compel HOAs to perform the task of review. Sec:on<<, rnd :More importantly, the City cannot delegate such power to i r)an-)unicipal entity. (Knight v. City of Eur(�ka ( 1898 j 1, c j 1.92 , 195) . Given that m�ir.datory revl(: �)y the HOA is described as "advisory ", it could be deemed that th��y are acting in an official capacity. Pursuant to such an interpretation, the delegation would not be illegal. But. --hi,.; would also mean that any HOA that had its recommendations followed by the Director over an extended period of time would iave to be included in the City's conflict of interest code. If you have ,ny question: r i,:r : ing my comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. ter. t ul yours, �.. ,r 't 1 1 FY A'1'PORNEY, MOORPARK; and ; , 4rLLTAMS & SORENSEN C.7K : hst- cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager I AX -1419X I