The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2004 0505 CC REG ITEM 08AITEM 9-A. n MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo Prepared By: Joseph Fiss, Principal Planne DATE: April 15, 2004 (CC Meeting of 05/05/05) SUBJECT: Consider Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned Development Permit No. 1998 -05, a request to Modify a Block Wall to Allow a Tubular Steel View Fence Located at 14143, 14144, 14151, 14152, 14159 and 14160 Maya Circle (Tract 4977), on the Application of Kevin Kleinrath, et al. (Assessor's Parcel Nos. 512- 0 -280- 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) BACKGROUND Residential Planned Development (RPD) 1998 -05 was approved on May 19, 1999, as part of the Carlsberg Specific Plan. The Carlsberg Specific Plan includes 534 single family homes built in four separate tracts, each with its own RPD. RPD 1998 -05 was approved with Tract 4977 and built by Richmond American Homes as the "Trieste" neighborhood, with 109 homes. Appendix 1: "Guidelines for Serenata" was approved with the Carlsberg Specific Plan and incorporated by reference within the conditions of approval by the City Council. The applicants are proposing to amend RPD 1998 -05, by requesting that certain wall requirements be modified to allow view fences on the west side of the development. Any proposed change that exceeds the criteria of a Permit Adjustment, but is not extensive enough to be considered a substantial or fundamental change in the approved entitlement or use relative to the permit, would not have a substantial adverse impact on surrounding properties and would not change any findings contained in the environmental documentation prepared for the permit, may be deemed a permit modification by the Community Development Director. Action on the permit 000001 Honorable City Council May 5, 2004 Page 2 modification application shall be by the decision - making body that approved the original permit by the same type of public action process and public noticing as required for the original project application. Because this RPD was originally approved by the City Council, any significant modifications must also be approved by the City Council. DISCUSSION Project Setting Existina Site Conditions: The project area consists specifically of six (6) lots on the western boundary of Tract 4977. This portion of the Carlsberg Ranch is the area that is most visible to the residential neighborhood on the west side of Spring Road. For this reason, homes on this boundary were required to maintain single story profiles and, in the case of the homes in question, block walls were required instead of view fences, ostensibly for aesthetic and privacy reasons. Previous Applications: There have been no modifications to this Residential Planned Development Permit. General Plan and Zoninq Consistency: The General Plan designation of the property is Single Family - 3 Units Per Gross Acre (Carlsberg Specific Plan) and the Zoning designation is Residential Planned Development (RPD). The modification is consistent with these designations. Proposed Project Architecture: Architecturally, the only change requested is to the wall. The upper four feet (4') of the existing wall would be removed and replaced with a two inch by two inch (2 "x2 ") tubular steel fence, painted dark green to match the other view fences throughout the tract. At least two feet (2') of the existing slump stone wall would remain. Capped slump stone block pilasters, matching the existing block walls, will be installed at all intersecting lot lines. 000002 Honorable City Council May 5, 2004 Page 3 CAthar -lrc Since the base of the wall will remain in the same location, there will be no change to the existing setbacks. A condition of approval will be added to ensure that the pilasters do not project over the property line, into the common area. Landscaping: There will be no change to the existing landscaping in the common area. Rear yard landscaping of the homes in question will be partially visible from Spring Road. Given the elevation change and the distance from the road, the effects of this visibility will be negligible. nNnT.vCT C Issues Staff analysis of the proposed project has identified the following areas for City Council consideration: • Aesthetics: • Privacy: • Protect Timina: Aesthetics: As mentioned above, the original purpose for requiring a solid wall at this location appears to have been primarily for aesthetic purposes. The homes located closest to the slope in this area were required to be of a single story profile, in order to avoid the appearance of a large home "looming" over the edge of the slope. In order to further screen these homes from Spring Road and the homes west of Spring Road, a block wall was required. Unfortunately, instead of "softening" the view from below, the existence of the block wall has created a hard and unnatural looking boundary line. Tubular steel fencing would give a softer appearance against the common area landscaping. Privacy: Issues of privacy are handled through the review of the RPD Permits, as well as through Specific Plan Design Guidelines. Given the horizontal distance of these homes from the homes on the west side of Spring Road (approximately 500 feet between the 000003 Honorable City Council May 5, 2004 Page 4 closest rear yard walls) and the elevation difference, it seems improbable that privacy was a significant reason for requiring a solid wall at this location. The owner of Lot 40 raised a concern that the removal of the block wall would adversely affect the privacy of this lot. Lot 40 is directly south of and at a lower elevation than Lot 60, the southernmost of the lots where a tubular steel fence is requested. Staff visited the site and reviewed the issues of visibility between the two lots. Lot 40 already has a tubular steel view fence facing the common open space lot to the west. The view fence on Lot 60 is proposed to begin where the lot abuts the same common open space lot, and a block wall would remain on the property line between Lot 60 and Lot 40. Nonetheless, because of the angles that the yards of Lots 40 and 60 each face the common open space lot and the difference in elevation, the backyard of Lot 40 would be very open in view to the backyard of Lot 60 if a tubular steel fence were installed beginning at common open space lot. This would significantly compromise the privacy of Lot 40. However, Lot 60 does have a wide backyard wall that has three distinct faces. The northernmost face, which runs approximately 23.40 feet from the northerly property line, could be opened to a view without adversely affecting Lot 40 (See Attachment 2.b.). A condition has been added to restrict the view fence on Lot 60 to this northerly section. Project Timing: For aesthetic purposes, it is important that the entire segment of walls and fencing be demolished and replaced at the same time. It would appear incongruous to have a series of view fences disrupted by a section of solid block wall. In addition, walls and fencing such as this weather over time and acquire a "patina" from exposure to the elements. Color matching of materials can be best achieved if the construction is performed at one time. A condition of approval has been added to ensure that the entire segment of wall be demolished and replaced at the same time. Findings The requested modifications are not extensive enough to be considered a substantial or fundamental change in the approved entitlement or use relative to the Residential Planned Development Permit or Tentative Tract Map, would not have a substantial adverse impact on surrounding properties and would 000004 Honorable City Council May 5, 2004 Page 5 report previously prepared for the permit. Therefore, the findings of RPD No. 1998 -05 as made in Resolution No. 99 -1608 and 99 -1609, are hereby reaffirmed. All previous Conditions of Approval would remain in full force and effect except as modified by this approval. PROCESSING TIME LIMITS Time limits have been established for the processing of development projects under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5), the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2), and the California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Division 13, and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). Under the applicable provisions of these regulations, the following timelines have been established for action on this project: Date Application Deemed Complete: March 24, 2004 City Council Action Deadline: May 24, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary for a project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of significant effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts. The Director has reviewed this project and found it to be Categorically Exempt in accordance with Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). No further environmental documentation is required. 000005 Honorable City Council May 5, 2004 Page 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2004- approving Residential Planned Development Permit No. 1998 -05; Modification No. 1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. a. Site Plan b. Staff Recommendation Exhibit 3. Wall Elevation 4. Draft Resolution with Conditions of Approval 000006 w IL i; ray ..,,..,...� City of Moorpark Location Map Planning Division j` r on: Carlsberg SP (1000 Foot Radius) cc 00000; a- ProposedVItW Fe e- C`_4P, FLocatioCn of Moorpark LEG E N D nning Division Site Plan ® Subject Properties aya Circle 000008 ATTACHMENT 2A City of Moorpark Staff LEGEND Planning Division I M Subject Properties Maya Recommendation 000009 Location: Maya Circle ATTACHMENT 2B n n H n H AN c 0 0 a 0 TUB(_kLAf7, -STEEL 5LV,� —,P OCK 6XIoX1b I -)RSt. ^ ,JD `JLUMP �3LDCK %ILf}STE \T' E�cF► T�.1T (Z�EGTtNCr �fT L�nl t�A�NTE� �Fr2� t�R.r =Enl T� w\r�T�N� L>! -7v f xc L- r> y� �� i� ►�t��T / ! W l� LL /tiT It E: A. (Z G+- LOTS r RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1998 -05; TO PERMIT MODIFICATION OF A BLOCK WALL TO ALLOW A TUBULAR STEEL VIEW FENCE LOCATED AT 14143, 14144, 14151, 14152, 14159 AND 14160 MAYA CIRCLE (TRACT NO. 4977), ON THE APPLICATION OF KEVIN KLEINRATH, ET AL. (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 512 -0- 280 -10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on May 5, 2004, the City Council considered Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned Development Permit No. 1998 -05 to permit modification of a block wall to allow a tubular steel view fence located at 14143, 14144, 14151, 14152, 14159 and 14160 Maya circle (Tract No. 4977), on the application of Kevin Kleinrath, et al.; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of May 5, 2004, the City Council conducted a public hearing, received public testimony, and closed the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after review and consideration of the information contained in the staff report and public testimony, has reached a decision on this matter. WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the Community Development Director's determination that the project is Categorically Exempt in accordance with Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), and no further environmental documentation is required. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: The requested modifications are not extensive enough to be considered a substantial or fundamental change in the approved entitlement or use relative to the Residential Planned Development Permit or Tentative Tract Map, would not have a substantial adverse impact on surrounding properties and would not change any findings contained in the environmental impact report previously prepared for the permit. Therefore, the findings of RPD No. 1998 -05 as made in Resolution No. 99 -1608 and 99 -1609, are hereby reaffirmed. All previous Conditions of Approval would remain in full force and effect except as modified by this approval. CC ATTACHMENT 4 000011. Resolution No. 2004- Page 2 SECTION 2. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: The City Council hereby approves Modification No. 1 to Residential Planned Development Permit No. 1998 -05 subject to the following special conditions of approval: 1. The entire segment of wall shall be demolished and replaced at the same time, under one Zoning Clearance. 2. The view fence on Lot 60 shall be restricted to the northerly 23.40 foot segment of the wall. 3. Common Area landscaping shall not be changed. 4. Colors and Materials of the block and tubular steel shall match the existing block and tubular steel throughout the tract. 5. Pilasters shall not extend into any common area. 6. All previous Conditions of Approval RPD No. 1998 -05 shall remain in full force and effect except as modified by this approval. 7. By acceptance of this approval, the applicants understand that unobstructed views are not guaranteed and may change depending upon the growth of landscaping and future development. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of May, 2004. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk 000012