The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1987 0204 CC REG ITEM 11MTHOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor DANNY A. WOOLARD Mayor Pro Tem ELOISE BROWN Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CUNT HARPER, PhD. Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk MOORPARK MEMORANDUM ITEM 11_M_ STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.R Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer O : The Honorable City Council F R OM : Patrick J. Richards, Direc,Jr of Community Developmen IE) A T E : January 28, 1987 S U S J E C T - APPEAL NO. 12 - PD -1044 (CALPROP) CONDITION COMPLIANCE - PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TRACT WALL /FENCING PLAN BACKGROUND The conditions of approval of the planned development permit for Tract 4037 require that the Planning Commission approve the wall /fencing plan. At its meeting of January 19, 1987, the Planning Commission reviewed the fencing plan and approved it with the staff recommendation, as described in the attached staff report dated January 5, 1987 (Exhibit A). Item #2 in the "recommended action" section requires that the wall height be increased from five feet to six feet. This was accepted by the Planning Commission. However, the applicant is appealing this part of the Planning Commission's action. (Please refer to the attached letter from the applicant, Exhibit B). It is noted that wall plans approved for the Pardee and Warmington projects do utilize a six -foot high wall /fence. The six -foot height was proposed by Warmington and Pardee orignally and not something that was negotiated or required as a condition of approval, as in this case with Calprop. Two additional items are requested by the applicant. One is that where a a side -yard fence extends up slope, that the up -slope portion be changed from slumpstone to wrought iron. Secondly, a requested change by the applicant is that the fencing on either side of the front gates be allowed to utilize wood. A slumpstone pilaster at the side wall of the house and at the intersection with the side -yard wall would be provided. Condition No. 2/A of the planned development permit specifically states that "no wood" be used. Staff's interpretation of this condition in the past has been to 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Califomia 93021 (805) 529-6864 t. The Honorable City Council Page 2 January 28, 1987 allow wood to be used for a gate only, but not part of any portion of the wall or fence. However, these two requests were not made to the Planning Commission, and should be returned to the Commission in the form of a a request for a modification rather than an appeal to the Council. However, since the Commission did review the applicant's request for the five foot height of the fence, the appeal of this subject only to the Council is appropriate and may be acted upon by the Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION Uphold the Planning Commission's action on this matter. PJR: i gb Exhibits: "A" - Staff report dated June 5, 1986 "B" - Letter from applicant dated June 22, 1986 THOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor DANNY A. WOOLARD Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CLINT HARPER Councilmember THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer TO: FROM: DAT E : SLJ13aECT : BACKGROUND MOORPARK MEMORANDUM The Planning Commission Michael A. Rubin, Senior January 5, 1987 �a . ITEM 9.a. City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK J. RICHARDS A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RPD -1044 (Cal Prop) Condition Compliance Review of Wall Plan The above request is related to a 66 lot subdivision (Tract 4037) bounded by Moorpark road on the northeast, Peach Hill road on the south, and easterly of Vista Del Valle Drive. The tract and planned development permit were approved by'-the City Council on October 21, 1985. The final map was recorded on September 10, 1986. A condition of approval of the planned development permit requires that the wall plan be approved by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION The wall plan consists of two materials - slumpstone and wrought iron. The walls are shown on the construction detail sheet as five (5) feet above finished grade with a pilaster extending an additional six (6) inches (see detail F). A slumpstone cap is proposed on top of the wall and pilaster. This type of wall is used through most of the subdivision. The perimeter wall on Peach Hill Road will be of this combination as well as the easterly half of the Moorpark Road segment of the wall. Where view lots exists:,, the:_rear wall is proposed to be a combination of four courses of slumpstone as a base with 3 feet of iron above (see detail E). This will be provided at rear lot lines of view lots as well as the side lot lines that border the westerly half of Moorpark Road. EXIII$ IT "A" 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 The Planning Commission p. 2 - January 5, 1987 DISCUSSION (continued) A variation of the above two wall types will also be used as a retaining wall in at least one location between Lots 11 & 12. This wall will be a 6 foot slumpstone base with 5 feet of iron above. A staff concern is the location of the walls on some of the corner lots. Ideally, a five foot setback between the sidewalk and slumpstone wall would be best for aesthetic relief. Some of the corner lots do not provide this separation of the wall and sidewalk because the top of the slope being adjacent to the sidewalk. It appears that this deficiency is a function of the design of the subdivision and is too late to allow for any setback now. Lots 30, 36, and 49 are three corner lots that appear to have walls located where they could be moved back from the sidewalk five feet. A second staff concern is that the fence height is only five feet. This applies to both the slumpstone and iron walls. -The pilaster extends one additional course above five feet. Staff's opinion is that the five foot height does not afford sufficient privacy and that this height should be increased to six feet. Sideyard gates will be provided as shown in detail J. No color of the gates is specified on the plans. The gates are proposed to be fabricated of resawn cedar with douglas fir frames. RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve the wall plan with the following modifications. 1. A side wall setback of 5 feet shall be provided on Lots 30, 36 and 49 unless it is adequately demonstrated that this is infeasible. 2. Wall height shall be increased to 6 feet from finished grade to the top of the top course of masonry or wrought iron (the top of the pilaster shall be located one course higher). 3. Gates shall be painted to match the color of the slumpstone. /crl ',TA ?E OEVELIA J January 22, 1987 Mr. Patrick Richards, AICP Director of Community Development City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA. 93021 ppf Frro ppr Re: Calprop Wall Plan Approval RPD - 1044 Dear Mr. Richards: The above approval is related to the 66 -lot subdivision known as Tract 4037, located at the intersection of Peach Hill and Moorpark Road. On Monday night, January 19, 1987, the Planning Commission approved the wall Plan as recommended by Staff for this development. There are a few modifications to our plan that we suggest because of their compatability within the overall scheme of the project and we respectfully request an appeal to the City Council of the approved Wall Plan for the following reasons. Firstly, the condition of a 6' wall surrounding lots is most confining and overwhelming. The County of Ventura's standard for walls does specify 5 feet which clearly provides for safety concerns. Aesthetically, a 5' wall looks more appealing, less overbearing and provides sufficient privacy. We request that the walls be approved for 5 feet overall height throughout this project. Additionally, we request the substitution of wrought iron fencing along the backyard slopes only in lieu of the present slumpstone wall. By utilizing wrought iron, the openness and "viewshed" created on the slopes provides for a more open and airy look. Moreover, block wall detail is very awkward when the wall is stepped to accommodate the slope. Mom JAN 2 3 1,987 Crt OF i : � �I ,�'K EXHI$ IT "$'• Calprop Corporation, 5456 McConnell Avenue. Suite 245, Los Angeles. California 90066 (213) 306 -4314 * 870 -1591 Mr. Pat Richards January 22, 1987 Page Two We also maintain that wood fencing or wrought iron along the front elevation connecting the house to the sideyard property line would not only enhance the aesthetic appeal to these homes, but would succeed in providing a more feasible access for any large equipment required to improve the backyard, i.e., a pool or extensive landscape. Of course, block pilasters should be utilized in conjunction with the wood or wrought iron. With these modifications to our existing approved Wall Plan, we feel our project will provide a very attractive neighborhood for the new homeowners. Your cooperation is most appreciated. Sincerely, CALPROP CORPORATION Robin N. Stone Vice President RNS:jn