Loading...
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