Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1988 0817 CC REG ITEM 09AJOHN PATRICK LANE Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk MOORPARK M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: August 11, 1988 (CC meeting of 8/17/88) r TEM `Y . STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police SUBJECT: APPEAL NO. AP -88 -11 (A &r CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) - PLAMiING COMMISSION DECISION ON APPROVED FENCING PLAN FOR RPD -1057 Background Attached are staff reports dated July 14 and 28, 1988 (Exhibits 1 & 2) dealing with the required Planning Commission review of the fencing plan for RPD -1057, an approved 93 lot residential planned development located at the extreme west end of the Campus Park area. Among the components of the fencing plan, as approved by the Planning Commission, are that a certain type of perimeter fencing be used and that masonry pilasters be required wherever wrought iron fencing is used as rear yard fencing. It is these two items that the applicant has appealed. Attached is the fencing plan as approved by the Commission (Exhibit 5). Discussion The applicant discussed with the Sheriff's Department the type of fencing that the Sheriff's Department would prefer in lieu of wrought iron. The Sheriff's Department is recommending that the perimeter fencing be chain link. The Conditions require the Director of Community Development and the Sheriff's Department to confer as to the need for perimeter fencing. The Sheriff's Department has indicated that perimeter fencing is needed and that chain link fencing of the tract would provide the best security. PJR:MAR:crl /881108A /CHRONI 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 August 11, 1988 Page 2 Chain link was approved by the Commission in only one of two areas where fencing would serve only as perimeter fencing. The other area of perimeter fencing was approved by the Commission to consist of running wrought iron. The areas where running wrought iron is to be used is much closer to homesites and more visible from nearby streets. The applicant wishes to take advantage of the Sheriff's recommendation to provide all perimeter fencing as chain link for the entire tract. Another concern of the applicant is the requirement for pilasters. The applicant wishes to limit the use of pilasters to the corners of rear and side lot lines only, and then only where these intersections exist at the end of a pad, not at the top of a slope. The Commission required placement of masonry pilasters every 16 ft. on center, where wrought iron was used as rear yard fencing. Attached also are the application for the appeal (Exhibit 3) and a letter from the applicant dated August 8, 1988 (Exhibit 4) explaining how the appeal affects the fencing plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Recommended Action uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Exhibits: PJR:MAR:crl /881108A /CHRONI 1. Staff report dated July 14, 2. Staff report dated July 28, 3. Appeal application 4. Letter dated August 8, 1988 5. Fencing plan as approved by Commission and highlighted appealed. 1988 1988 (applicant) the Planning to show items being "00"AR•Y, CVIFnpNIA City Council A.'T,,,r9 of ACTION: -,2-1982 - It BY io . JOHN PATRICK LANE Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk TO: MOORPARK EXHIBIT / M E M O R A N D U M The Planning Commission FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Developmen DATE: July 14, 1988 (PC meeting of 7/18/88) STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer SUBJECT: RPD -1057 (U.S. CONDOMINIUM) - CONDITION COMPLIANCE /REVIEW OF FENCING PLAN Background On November 3, 1986, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 86 -349 approving a residential planned development permit for a 93 lot single family residential subdivision on a 58 acre site west of Westwood Street. Among the conditions of approval of the RPD permit is that the fencing plan must be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of the first zoning clearance. Discussion The fencing plan has been submitted and is generally designed as follows: 1. All wall and fences are proposed to be 5 feet in height. 2. Masonry walls are proposed at entrances to side yards, and generally along limited portions of side property lines: Where a side property line is on a corner lot, the street side has a slumpstone wall for the entire length of that side property line. Where an interior side property line is shown, the masonry wall only extends 15 feet beyond the farther of the two houses on either side of the property line. These interior masonry walls are proposed to be of a different material - smooth precision block, tan colored. 3. Wrought iron is proposed, generally to fill in the areas not described in item 2 above. Iron would be used for PJR:MAR:crl 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 88147 /CHRON! July 14, 1988 Page 2 the balance of the side property line fences and at the rear of all lots. 4. Wood gates are proposed at both side yard entrances. 5. Chain link fencing is proposed as the balance of the tract boundary fence material. This is proposed to be located where the common area lots meet the tract boundary. Chain link would then meet the wrought iron. Chain link would also be used to fence off the flood control channel. Other additional elements are as follows: 1. Slough walls will be located throughout the tract. These will be approximately 18 inches in height and are shown to be of concrete block. A separate site plan will be provided at the hearing showing the locations of the slough walls. 2. An entry feature wall will be located at either side at both tract entrances on Loyola Street and College Heights Drive. A sign is proposed for the Loyola entrance. It has been undetermined yet as to whether a sign will be located at the College Heights entrance. Details of these entry feature walls and signs are shown on sheet A -2 of the attached plans. Staff has reviewed the fencing plan and has requested the applicant to make several revisions. The following are revisions the applicant has agreed to make: 1. Slough walls are indicated on the plans as being concrete block and the applicant has agreed to construct them of slumpstone. 2. Lot 56 is in a unique location. Its front yard is adjacent to the recreation area with no physical separation between the two. The applicant is willing to extend the side yard wall to a three foot height from the sideyard entrance to the front property line. 3. Several of the front yards will have a utility box in them. Where it warrants a slough wall will be provided, and constructed of slumpstone. The following is a list of other revisions staff has asked of the applicant, which the applicant has indicated is not feasible to make due to cost considerations: 1. Increase the height of the walls and fences from five feet to six feet. 2. Continue the wrought iron fencing around the perimeter of the tract rather than the chain link that is proposed. PJR:MAR:crl 88147 /CHRONI July 14, 1988 Page 3 3. Corner lot side walls on the street side should have a setback for aesthetic purposes. For privacy purposes these walls should be at the top of the slope. Lots 1 , 25, 40, 41, 62, 76, and 93 are the corner lots where these conditions exist (one or both). The walls are located at the bottom of a slope and at the back of a sidewalk with no opportunity for a setback. Because of no side setback on the walls, three other lots (63, 77, and 86), are adversely affected. They are each a key lot (a lot adjacent to a reverse corner lot) . Without a side setback of the reverse corner lot next to them (lots 62, 85, and 93) a driveway visibility problem is created for lots 63, 77, and 86. These lots have minimal sight distance to see other motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians approaching from the direction of the corner next to them. 4. Continue masonry walls for entire length of side yards, not just limited to 15 feet beyond the farther house. Wall should be continued to the end of the pad. This would provide adequate privacy as well as a continuous appearance of the wall material. 5. All masonry should be slumpstone, not just where it is highly visible on the corner lots and in the slough walls visible from the street. Recommended Action Pending public testimony from the applicant, approve the fence /wall plan as proposed by the applicant and as modified by the staff. Exhibits: 1. Fence and wall plan PJR :MAR:crl 88147 /CHRONI JOHN PATRICK LANE Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk MOORPARK EXHIBIT � M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Planning Commission STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development 1*6(W) DATE: July 28, 1988 (PC meeting of 8/1/88) SUBJECT: RPD -1057 (U.S. CONDOMINIUM CORP.) - CONDITION COMPLIANCE /REVIEW OF FfikTCING PLAN(CONTINUF.D FROM PC MEETING OF 7/18/88) BACKGROUND At its meeting of July 18, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the fencing plan for the above project. At the conclusion of the meeting the Commission arrived at the following decisions regarding the various components of the fencing plan in addition to those items the applicant and staff agreed to prior to the July 18, 1988 meeting. 1. Perimeter fencing at southerly tract boundary beyond (lot 94) shall be constructed of wrought iron. (This was originally proposed to be chain link by the applicant.) 2. Rear yard fencing that abutts the tract perimeter was proposed to be wrought iron by the applicant, who subsequently offered to provide slumpstone pilasters at the intersections of side and rear property lines. This was approved by the Commission. 3. The open space lot 96 was originally proposed to be standard chain link. The Commission determined that black vinyl covered chain link would be appropriate for this location. 4. For lots in the interior of the tract, the rear fence should be constructed of three courses of slumpstone with the balance of the height to be wrought iron where view lots exist (otherwise six -foot high slumpstone would be required). PJR:MAR:crl 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 88277 /CHRONI -- July 28, 1988 Page 2 5. Side property lines should be generally provided with a masonry wall for the entire length of the pad. The original plan proposed masonry only to a distance of 15 feet past the farther of the two houses adjacent to the side property line. The Commission left the precise details of this item to be worked out with the applicant and the staff since this requires a lot -by -lot review. A meeting was held between the applicant and the staff and this item was satisfactorily demonstrated to the staff that compliance would be met. This agenda item is being returned to the Commission only in the event complete resolution of the fencing plan is not made between the applicant and the staff prior to the August 1, 1988 meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION Review the material presented, accept testimony from the applicant, and take action as deemed appropriate. Exhibits: 1. Previous staff report dated July 14, 1988. 2. Revised fencing plan. PJR:MAR:crl 88277 /CHRONI TO: X C I T Y OF M O O R P A R K 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 APPEAL FORM City Council Planning Commission EXHIBIT 3 Appeal No. tiF�� (I (TRACT 3049) (zlM- lam% I hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission which was given on August 1, , 19 88 The decision was as follows: A. (In Part) Install 6' High Slumpstone Pilasters ar16' o.c + wherever there is iron fencing B Decision did not consider recommen- dation for type of perimprer fencing by Sheriff's Department The grounds of appeal are: (attach extra sheets as needed) A. Pilaster on slopes are impractical and serve no or very little purpose. B. Cost of additional pilasters approximately any will e detrimental to view. D. Very little benetit derived. E. Sheritt's recommendations should e considered. I request that the appropriate decision - making body take the following action: 1) Allow us to install' 53.*_ 6' high slumpstone pilasters generally on flat property corners. This will omit approximate y 4 pi asters. Consider the Sheriff's Deot. recommendation to use 6 high heavv dutv chain link nerimeter fencing in 11CU V1 WLVV1 L1L LLU11 allU k)11G5LUL5. kWC WUU-LU ay-LU Name of Appellant A + R DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Address of Appellant 6685 Princeton Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021 Telephone Number of Appellant ( 805 ) 529 -3338 Is the appellant a party in the application? YES If not, state basis for filing appeal as an "aggrieved person ". (Si n (Tture of Appellant) PHILIP H. VEIN Date: DIRECT R OF DEVELOPMENT 5/84 A +R IF v IF I • The City of Moorpark Planning Department 799 Moorpark Ave. Moorpark, Ca 93021 Attn: Mike Rubin Re: Tract 3049 - Appeal of Fencing Dear Mike, EXHIBIT Aug. 8, 1988 Enclosed herewith are eight (8) copies of the plans in support of our appeal. Please note the color coding indicates our appealed items. Pink and blue represent concerns of the Sheriff's Department. The appeal is to change from wrought iron to black vinyl chain link. Orange indicates the pilasters that would remain if our appeal is granted. Please don't hesitate to call if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, ;Z- j4ei Director of Development PV /rak encls. rak /fenceappeal