Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 0707 CC REG ITEM 11BTO: irEnn 1. e AGENDA REPORT The Honorable City Council Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Development�'� Paul Porter, Senior Planner July 2, 1993 (CC meeting of July 7, 1993) CONSIDER TUSCANY HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION REQUEST CONCERNING PLANNING CON14ISSION ACTION ON APPEAL 93 -3 On vember 9, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolutions 87 -429 and 7 -430 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 4341 and 4342, and esidential Planned Development Permits 1071 and 1072, allowing cons ruction of single family homes for Tract 4341 - PD 1071 (Bel ont) and 4342 - PD 1072 (Tuscany). At the time of approval of P 1072, the development included four models. In August, 1989, the ity approved Minor Modification No. 1 which included changes to h use colors, materials, elevations and floor plans of increased square footages. These modifications were based on comments by the Cit Council during the public hearing stating that the tracts shod have a distinct design and character for the West Village On y 15, 1992, the Director of Community Development approved a Mino Modification for an addition of four new model home styles to Trac 4342 and three new model home styles to Tract 4341. The addi ional models provided reduced square footage and larger rear yard 5. The sizes of the new homes were consistent with the hist ric range of sizes of similar home types in Mountain Meadows. The uscany II (now called Verona) models ranged from 2,348 - 3,100 squaL,e feet. This minor modification did not address the status of the xisting models. The Council received a letter from the Tuscany Homeowners' Asso iation dated November 20, 1992. It appeared the Homeowners' Asso iation was unhappy with the prospect of having Urban West Comm nities convert the original model homes to saleable homes. The OA believed that they were promised that the models would rema n until all homes in the Tuscany tract were sold. Staff was of t e opinion that the concerns voiced in the HOA letter dated Nove er 30, 1992 was a private party dispute which should be hand ed accordingly. In researching City Codes, State Laws and the conditions of approval, no authority granting the City the ability to restrict model homes from being converted to saleable houses was foun 1. The Homeowner Association's request was discussed at the City Council meeting of March 17, 1993. 7 ^ ">ARK, CALIFORNIA c Council Meeting PP07.02 93 19:56aaA:\CC.M&M 1 L' - -Z- I99..Z f.' .,JN: ' �C� By c Thei for )nsensus, the City Council took no action regarding this issue. afore, this action allowed the Department of Community lopment to issue Zoning Clearances to Urban West Communities the homes. SubE equent to that action, the Department of Community Development issted Zone Clearances on March 19, 1993 for Lots 56 - 76 for Tract 434 - 3 for Verona models and Zoning Clearances issued on March 26, 1993 for Tract 4342 for Lots 23 -32, 46 -49, 102, 147, 148, 151, and-154-181. On ril 12, 1993, Lori Rutter filed an Appeal of the Director of Co nity Development's decision to issue these Zone Clearances. Bas on our City Attorney's advice, the City made the decision to not accept the Appeal on the basis that the appellant did not sub it the required amount (see copy of check) of the deposit which is equired pursuant to section 8111 -3.9 of the Zoning Ordinance whi states: Sec. 8111 -3.9 - Fees - Each application request for any purpose subject to the regulations of Division 8, Chapters 1 and 2 of the Ordinance Code, except appeals, shall be accompanied by payment of all outstanding fees and charges billed by and owed to the City of Moorpark under Division 8, Chapters 1 and 2 by the applicant or by persons, partnerships, corporations or other entities owned or controlled by the applicant or owning or controlling the applicant. Furthermore, each application request for any purpose, including appeals and requests for presubmittal review, shall be accompanied by the fee specified by Resolution of the City Council, City of Moorpark, State of California entitles RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PROCESSING FEE DEPOSITS, before it is accepted for filing and processing. On ril 19, 1993, Lori Rutter filed Appeal No. 93 -3 appealing the Dir for of Community Development's decision to not receive the app is regarding the issuance of the aforementioned Zone Cle ances. On May 17, 1993, the Planning Commission upheld the Dir for of Community Development's decision to not accept the two app is of the Director's decision to issue of Zoning Clearances on Marc 19 and 26, 1993 for lots 56 -76, 23 -32, 46 -49, 102, 147, 148, 151, and 154 -181. The issuance of Zoning Clearances are Ministerial actions. In other words, if the issuance of the Zoning Clearance is in accordance with previously approved City Council actions and City Ordi iance requirements, the Director of Community Development does not iave the discretion to deny the issuance of a Zoning Clearance. PP07:0J:93 19:56.MA:\CC.XSX 2 Con idering the previous Council actions on this matter, any dis retion to designate lots for either the Verona or Tuscany homes was at the discretion of Urban West Communities. Exc pt for the language in Section 8111 -8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant for the Zoning Clearance should have been the only one able to appeal the issuance of the Zoning Clearance. As Etated above, this is because issuance of the Zoning Clearance was consistent with previous Council action and applicable codes. Bas d on a literal reading of the existing section of the Or nance, ministerial actions such as the issuance of a Zone Cle rance may be appealed by any aggrieved party. As the Council is aware, staff is currently processing a change to Section 8111 -8 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which will preclude the issuance of Zoning Clearances or other ministerial approvals fron being appealable other than by the applicant of the Ministerial approval. This item will be heard by the Council at the' July 21, 1993 meeting. On Pay 27, 1993, the City received a letter addressed to each of the Councilmembers from Lori Rutter dated May 24, 1993. Mrs. Rutter requested the Council to overturn the Planning Commission decision and waive the additional appeal fee. The Planning Co ssion's decision is not appealable as the 15 day appeal period exp' ed on June 1, 1993 and Mrs. Rutter's letter was not acc panied by the required appeal fee. No formal action by the Cou it is required. As previously stated, the Director of Co nity Development's issuance of the subject zone clearances com ies with the applicable Ordinance requirements and prior Cou it action. Any appeal of this action would merely have the Cou it review its prior decision. Dirept staff as deemed appropriate. Attachment: Letter from Lori Rutter to City Council dated May 24, 1993 PP07:01I93 19:56amAt\CC.M W 3 Mayt To Re. I f he a: issi the 24, 1993 Moorpark City Council Caul Lawrason, Mayor Bernardo Perez Scott Montgomery John Wozniak Patrick Hunter cc: Jim Aguilera, Director of Community Development Lori Rutter, President Tuscany Homeowners' Association 11611 Pinedale Road Moorpark, CA 93021 Planning Commission Hearing dated May 17, 1993 on Appeal 93 -3 el compelled to address you directly on the result of my .ng before the Planning Commission last Monday evening. I take with the conduct of this hearing and the confusion created by Staff Report. As I read the Staff Report dated 4/27, the subject of concern to the Commission was my appeal of Mr. Aguilera's decision TO NOT RECEIVE my original appeal of the zoning clearances. After spending nearly 10 minutes reviewing the history of our complaints agai st Urban West and the Minor Mod issued 5/15/92, Mr. Aguilera then informed the Commission that evening to essentially disregard the lengthy background on the nature of our dispute with Urban West. I think I, as well as the Commission, may have been uncertain as to how best to direct our comments to the cause for Mr. Aguilera's refusal of my appeal. However, there were two instances of refusal, one of which was the actual rejection that I appe iled subsequently. But the Report failed to mention the PRI Y cause for my appeal's rejection, i.e. the Director told me in p rson on Friday 4/9 when I picked up the appeal forms and again on M nday 4/12 that zoning clearances WERE NOT APPEALABLE. Yet on 5/17 Mr. Aguilera clearly stated that "the letter of the law says zoni g clearances are appealable ". I was never formally notified of t is change of decision. -- RECEIVED — MAY 2 7 1993 City of Moorpark I p be fl fcrr Agu: whic "re( pre: val: me cire cle� sufi mine the info lea-, per., rsisted with the original appeal by coming to City Hall on 4/12 re noon, well within the deadline, with the appropriate appeal s and a prepared check for $485.00- -but if I had followed Mr. lera's advisement, I might have been denied the hearing to h I was entitled per city ordinance after all. He did not eive" my appeal that day, but merely agreed to hold it until, umably, Mr. Kueny or Ms. Kane would make a determination on the dity of appealing zoning clearances. Mr. Mailin, who assisted it the desk on 4/12, then informed me that because of the umstances (the City's inability to determine IF zoning rances are appealable), the $485.00 check would be accepted as icient for the time being. It was their actions on 4/12, not which caused the failure to meet the required deadline. If check was determined to be unacceptable, why then wasn't I rmed immediately or the same day rather than waiting 24 hours, ing a message on my phone machine rather than speaking to me in on? However, the Commission complained that 1) I shouldn't have waited until the last day of the deadline to appeal and 2) I shouldn't have relied on Staff's verbal assessments of the facts. Someone please explain to me how citizens of this community are to receive accurate facts as to which zoning clearances have been requ sted /approved, whether or not such permits are appealable, and when the City attorney will make that determination, WITHOUT rei ing on the responses given by the Director of Community Deve opment, the City Manager, and Staff? And what possible exce tion can the Commission take to my filing an appeal on the last day of the deadline? Cannot citizens vote in an election at noon if the polls are open until 8PM ?? I sp ke personally with Mr. Aguilera the week ending 3/26 and asked whic lots had been requested or approved for zoning clearances. His signature is on each one of those clearances. I was never told abou Lots 56 -76, which were of greatest concern to the Tuscany resi ents because they are directly adjacent to the last phase of exis ing homes. In fact, in my conversation with Mr. Aguilera he told me that Urban West was given approval for only a total of 44 or 45 homes, mostly along Northdale Drive and end of Pinedale, whic corresponded to the information we had also been given by Mr. From an personally on 3/1. Mr. Aguilera then directed me to confirm the specific lots with Mr. Mailin. Again, he confirmed only Lots 147, 148, 151, 154 -181 and 23 -32, and 46 -49 for a total of 45 hous s in our conversation 3/29. I specifically waited until after 3/26 to confirm this due to the school fees deadline that Urban West was likely to meet. Clearly, there is a big difference betty en 45 houses and the 64 houses given approval that I discovered on my own after the appeal period was nearly lapsed. Had known that other clearances had been approved on 3/19, I obvi usly would not have waited until 4/9 to pick up forms and file the appeal. Mr. Aguilera claimed at the 5/17 hearing that I received copies of all the permits on 4/2 and should have filed an app sta Sta Las ana abi tha 4/1 zon dir Mai on the in unt wai exp cle red res a p was $51 ver Sol con bul We wai cau pos a h we whi Ass !al for Lots 56 -76 by 4/5, yet he offered no proof of that :ement and cannot, nor did not, verify that information with his 'f who copied the permits for me on that visit to City Hall. ly, I take great exception to the last statement of the Staff's ysis in their Commission Report. We, too, expect the City of e by the letter of the law. We are not asking for anything you wouldn't also do for Urban West. When I was sent away on not knowing whether the City would accept an appeal on a ng clearance - -NO ONE, not even Mr. Aguilera, would speak to me ctly, tell me what to expect next or when. He did not give Mr. in any explanation to convey to me. Mr. Mailin left a message /13 that the City would now accept my, appeal if I brought in $13.00 due. I called Mr. Mailin asap on 4/14 to say I would be hat day with the money. (I was at Disneyland 4/13 from 8:30AM 1 9:30PM.) When I arrived at 1:45PM Mr. Aguilera asked me to while a secretary could finish "a letter in progress ". I cted the letter to confirm Mr. Mailin's message that zoning rances were deemed appealable. But his letter which I read at stated then for the first time that they were officially cting my appeal as of 4/13. Imagine how Urban West might and if they had been so treated! Is the City truly acting in fessional, reasonable and fair way to all of its citizens? I FORCED to appeal that ludicrous decision. The City took .00 for the privilege. It would appear that someone is working hard to prevent us from appealing these permits based upon merit, and from our right to be heard by the Council. In the time, Urban West has responded to our hopes that they might inue to market the Tuscanys, as they are the Deauvilles, by ozing the old sales office and parking lot. e asking you to overturn the Planning Commission decision and the additional appeal fee if you believe that Staff judgment d these errors in process or that I did everything humanly ble to follow the letter of the law. We would like to request ring before the Council when convenient to you, as we believe re entitled to have. We hope to have your comments in writing will be shared with the Tuscany homeowners at our next iation meeting on June 8th. Than you for your fair consideration of our request. We look forty rd to your comments. Sinc ely, G "X ^( Lori utter, President Tusc ny Homeowners Association