HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2004 0602 CC REG ITEM 08AN
ITEM I?- A .
1
4,..,,,
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo '
Prepared By: Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner
7
DATE: May 13, 2004 (CC Meeting of 06/02/04)
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
On May 5, 2004, the City Council opened the public hearing for
this project and took testimony from the project proponents and
neighbors who had concerns regarding the project. The City
Council requested additional information from staff on these
concerns and continued the agenda item with the public hearing
closed to the June 2, 2004 City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION
Several concerns were raised by both the applicants and
neighbors. The applicants were opposed to two Conditions of
Approval recommended by staff in the draft resolution: Condition
1 which required that the entire segment of fencing be modified
at the same time; and Condition 2 which limited the allowable
length of the proposed view fence. The neighbor's concerns
centered on issues of noise, privacy, and aesthetics, including
lighting. These concerns were raised by the neighbor to the
south within the same tract and by neighbors to the west, across
Spring Road. Staff has broken down the issues of concern into
three sections and provided analysis below.
000001
Honorable City Council
June 2, 2004
Page 2
Staff research has found that the Design Guidelines for the
Serenata project show an earthen berm of about three feet (3')
in height with a two foot (2') high decorative block base and a
four foot (4') tubular steel fence, for a total height of nine
feet (9') from the finish grade. Presumably, the earthen berm
was to screen the wall of the home from the line of sight as
viewed from the curb on the east side of Spring Road (Attachment
2). The approved fence plan shows such fencing in this area.
It appears as though, through a grading error, the berm was not
constructed. It also appears that, in order to thoroughly screen
the homes from Spring Road, a solid decorative block wall was
constructed, though no plan revision was submitted. This grading
error also contributed to the location of fencing on Lot 40,
which subsequently required a lot line adjustment to address
this error. The relocated fencing on Lot 40 was installed per
the approved plans.
Issues
1) Concerns of the Applicants
a) Length of Proposed Fence /Wall
This issue is related to the privacy concerns of the owner of
Lot 40 and is addressed more fully below. Staff does not
recommend a change to Condition 2 of the draft resolution,
which creates a compromise solution that would allow some view
fencing for Lot 60, while at the same time, protecting the
privacy of the adjacent Lot 40 neighbor.
b) Project Timing
The applicants have expressed a concern regarding staff's
recommendation that the entire segment of walls and fencing be
demolished and replaced at the same time. Staff does not
recommend any change to this Condition of Approval. The City
Council expressed concurrence with this recommendation. As
mentioned in the previous agenda report, it would appear
incongruous to have a series of view fences disrupted by a
section of solid block wall.
2) Concerns Related to Lot 40 (Lot to the South)
a) Privacy
The owner of Lot 40 raised a concern that the removal of the
block wall on Lot 60 would adversely affect the privacy of
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \1998 -05 Richmond Amer \Modification 1 \Agenda Rpts \cc
agenda report 040602.doc 000002
Honorable City Council
June 2, 2004
Page 3
this lot. Lot 40 is directly south of, and 14.2 feet lower,
than Lot 60, which is the southernmost of the lots where a
tubular steel view fence is requested. 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 the common
open space lot. This would significantly compromise the
privacy of Lot 40. However, Lot 60 does have a wide backyard
wall with 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. A condition has been added to restrict the view fence
on Lot 60 to this northerly section. At the public hearing of
May 5, 2004, the owner of Lot 40 indicated support of this
compromise and support of the draft resolution and conditions
as proposed by staff.
3) Concerns of Neighbors Across Spring Road (To the West)
a) Aesthetics
As addressed in the original agenda report, 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.
At the public hearing a concern was also expressed regarding
lighting from the homes and rear yard lighting. Without
discounting the concerns of the neighbors, staff feels that
the affects of lighting from inside the homes are largely a
self - regulating issue. The homes are set back sufficiently and
are low enough in profile that, although there might be a
"glow" from interior lighting, such lighting would not create
any more of an adverse affect than existing street lighting,
vehicle lights or the house lighting of other homes throughout
the area. Further, typical residential users turn off all or
most of their lights during "sleeping" hours.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \1998 -05 Richmond Amer \Modification 1 \Agenda Rpts \cc
agenda report 040602.doc
000003
Honorable City Council
June 2, 2004
Page 4
Rear yard lighting is a greater concern. The City's Lighting
Ordinance (Chapter 17.30 of the Moorpark Municipal Code)
limits the type and amount of lighting in the City. The
ordinance specifically prohibits unshielded pack lighting and
areawide flood lighting, high intensity discharge mercury
vapor security lights in other than rural residential or open
space /agricultural zones,' and any lighting that causes glare
or spillover. Any outdoor lighting system, other than a low -
voltage lighting system, may not be erected, installed,
modified or reconstructed without proper plans and permit
approvals. Any lighting installed in contravention of the
City's regulations would be subject to Code Compliance
intervention.
b) Privacy
Given the horizontal distance of these homes from the homes on
the west side of Spring Road (approximately 500 feet between
the 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. It is approximately
575 to 600 feet between homes on either side of Spring Road,
equivalent to almost the length of two football fields. This
is also approximately the same distance between properties on
either side of Spring Road that are north of this area. In
addition, there is fairly dense landscaping on both sides of
the street, although the trees on the east side of Spring Road
have yet to mature.
c) Noise
An issue regarding potential noise problems was brought up at
the public hearing. Typically, noise is addressed when
conflicting land uses are proposed adjacent to more sensitive
existing land uses. In this case, these are existing single -
family residences that are over 500 feet from the closest
neighborhood and there is no conflicting land use pattern.
The City of Moorpark addresses noise impacts through the Noise
Ordinance, contained in Chapter 9.28 of the Moorpark Municipal
Code. In general, it is unlawful to create a noise level that
disturbs the reasonable peace, quiet, or comfort of any person
who is more than fifty feet (50') away from the noise source.
This ordinance is enforced mutually by the Police Department
and the Code Compliance Division. It is not anticipated that,
if the Council were to approve the applicant's request, that
there would be appreciable increase in noise due to the
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \1998 -05 Richmond Amer \Modification 1 \Agenda Rpts \cc
agenda report 040602.doc
000004
Honorable City Council
June 2, 2004
Page 5
excessive distance and existing Spring Road traffic being a
dominant noise source.
Staff has carefully evaluated the aforementioned issues of
aesthetics, privacy, lighting and noise. Although some may
perceive adverse effects due to the change in fencing, staff has
evaluated how the changes might be expected to affect adjacent
and nearby properties and residents. View fencing is relatively
common throughout the city, and in staff's experience, has not
posed code compliance issues related to light and glare or
noise. In light of this, the original recommendation and draft
resolution remain unchanged.
Given that the public hearing was closed, additional testimony
is not allowed. However, direct questions for clarification
purposes can be addressed to interested parties and those
parties can answer such questions. This would not be considered
testimony, but simply additional information. The City Council
can not re -open the public hearing without re- noticing it.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 2004- approving Residential Planned
Development Permit No. 1998 -05; Modification No. 1.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Agenda Report of May 5, 2004 (without draft resolution
attached).
2. Attachment C, Guidelines for Serenata.
3. Draft Resolution No. 2004- and Special Conditions of
Approval.
S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \1998 -05 Richmond Amer \Modification 1 \Agenda Rpts \cc
agenda report 040602.doc
000005
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared By: Joseph Piss, 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
Adjustment, but is not extensive enou
substantial or fundamental change in the
use relative to the permit, would not ha,
impact on surrounding properties and
findings contained in the environmental
for the permit, may be deemed a perm
Community Development Director. Aci
criteria of a Permit
-h to be considered a
approved entitlement or
e a substantial adverse
would not change any
documentation prepared
t modification by the
ion on the permit
CC ATTACHMENT 1
000006
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
Existing 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 Zoning 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 (41) 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.
00000'7
Honorable City Council
May 5, 2004
Page 3
gcthaf-�-c-
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.
ANALYSIS
Issues
Staff analysis of the proposed project has identified the
following areas for City Council consideration:
• Aesthetics:
• Privacy:
• Project Timing:
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
000008
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.
Proiect Timina:
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
000009
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.
000010
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
000011
City of Moorpark location Map
-�� Planning Division
1000 Foot Radius
Location: Carlsberg SP ( ) '
(J)
•
_ `'S � 11`5 __ ,151 '5,11,.
:5
A
City of Moorpark
Planning Division
Propostd view Ft
I If
, 1) %
Maya CIT cle___
gx Istlig Vl w
Fe I ce To Rem all L
Site Plan
LEGEND
M Subject Properties
Location: Maya Circle 1 1 000013
11 %
(J)
•
_ `'S � 11`5 __ ,151 '5,11,.
:5
A
City of Moorpark
Planning Division
Propostd view Ft
I If
, 1) %
Maya CIT cle___
gx Istlig Vl w
Fe I ce To Rem all L
Site Plan
LEGEND
M Subject Properties
Location: Maya Circle 1 1 000013
City of Moorpark
- ` Planning Division
Location: Maya Circle
Cif cl
"Un ro �
Staff
Recommendation
LEGEND
® Subject Properties
000014
-rLABLAJ-A% STEEL F-E,,JCE VJ IrH SLL&v---\P
3hSG ^,,JD 5LttMp r5Lof-Y,- PiL4STL=jZ AT E:ACFj
LOT L nl t 'PA % t-JTE T-) t> A k y- CTIZ E: et-j -ro OA A 7C- 1-1 L=-)e (ST- i /,J
I
-rLA5ULVO%P, STEEL -41EW +7C-rJ(-i5 ?At1,1tFL- No-r
-FO Li' =^3 HCI&SAT'
�i (I II II II II it ':I L il Ill. Ll
C WALL AT PEAK
O
O
O
Lor5
ATTACHMENT C HEIGHT AND SETBACK RESTRICTIONS
777
TRACT 4977 (PLAN AREA D) RPD 98 -5
These designated lots need to maintain a single story "profile" to
Spring Road from the rear of the home. The Rear Setback Table
indicates minimum setbacks to the rear wall plane based on the
height of the plate which supports the roof framing. Only roof shall
be visible above the plate height at the rear setback toward Spring
Road. Sloping or cathedral roofs which cover portions of the
second floor shall be allowed if no wall plane or window is visible
to Spring Road. See the table below for specific dimensions. Any
dimensions not shown can be interpolated from given
dimensions.
REAR SETBACK TABLE
LOT #
A (9' -1" Plate)
B (12' -1" Plate)
C (14' -1" Plate)
D (18' -1" Plate)
60
20'
32'
41'
60'
61
20'
31'
40'
58'
62
1 20'
31'
40'
58'
63
20'
30'
38'
55'
64
20'
30'
38'
55'
65
20'
1 20'
20'
20'
-1" PLATE
1d-1_ PLATE
12' -1- PLATE
l 9 -1' PLATE
/ r2' SLOUGH WALL W/ WROUGHT IRON FENCE
LOT 63
CC ATTACHMENT 2
EYE LEVEL
EL. 682.2
000016
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 duly noticed public hearings on May 5, 2004 and
June 2, 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 meetings of May 5, 2004 and June 2, 2004,
the City Council considered the agenda report and any
supplements thereto and written public comments, on May 5, 2004,
opened the public hearing, took and considered public testimony
and continued the item, public hearing closed to June 2, 2004;
and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2004, the City Council, has reached a
decision on this matter; and
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
CC ATTACHMENT 3
00003'7
ri
Resolution No. 2004-
Page 2
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.
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 for Residential Planned
Development Permit 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 2nd day of June, 2004.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
0000is