HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1992 0909 CC ADJ ITEM 11B aP. ITEM i• a
MOORPARARKL, cAuFoRti;a
; j o �� 1 I me°vr�
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93E61-41-7413%)424- —
ACTION:
3$ 4-
o!/ / ACTION:
Zi/VAPIVirr_4(
MEMORANDUM .
BY
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: William Phelps, Director of Community Development
DATE: August 28, 1992 (CC meeting of September 2, 1992)
SUBJECT: REVISED PAD ELEVATIONS AND BUILDING ENVELOPES ON VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 4620 (JBH)
Background
The City Council approved Tentative Tract Map No. 4620 on January
9, 1991. Pad elevations and building elevations were approved to
both facilitate development and minimize grading on slopes of 20%
or more. On June 3 , 1992, the City Engineer recommended that the
Council approve a request to modify the grading plan per a revised
lot envelope plan. The applicant requested a modification to the
grading plan and envelopes to provide for maximum use of each lot
and to utilize the majority of level areas without extending
excessively into the slope areas.
The matter was removed from the consent calendar for further
discussion by the Council and the matter was referred to the
Community Development Committee. On July 2, 1992, the Committee
met with the subdivider, their engineer, and staff to review the
changes proposed for each lot. The committee found that: 1) the
grading revisions and other changes will not materially alter, or
change the basic parameters used for the initial approval of the
subdivision; and 2) approval of the revised grading plan should
be subject to compliance with the initial conditions of approval,
and payment of a fee to cover the total City cost incurred because
of the changes.
At the City Council meeting of July 15, 1992, the City Manager
suggested that the City Attorney review the City's Subdivision
Ordinance to see if it addresses the situation of modifying pads to
make better use of the property. The City Attorney stated that the
Subdivision Map Act does not address modifications to tentative
maps. The processing is governed by Moorpark's Subdivision
Ordinance. Under the Ordinance, a distinction is made between
minor and major modifications to tentative maps. Major
Modifications require the commencement of a new process whereby a
new tentative map would be filed and the entire subdivision process
would be initiated again. Minor modification is a term not defined
in the Code, but there are limitations as to what constitutes a
minor modification. Those limitations are: 1) the modification
PPOB:29:92/9:39OW1:\TP4620.CC
" 1
PAUL W.LAWRASON JR. JOHN E.WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M.PEREZ ROY E. TAL.LEY JR.
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember
Printed On Recycled Paper
would not affect the quality or quantity of required dedication,
2) it would not increase the total number or significantly alter
the configuration of proposed lots. If those factors did not
occur, it would be considered a minor modification. A minor
modification is acted upon by the Director of Community
Development; however, the Code does provide that within ten days
after the action by the Director, any interested person can object
to the decision of the Director. If that occurs, then it is
treated as a major modification, which requires going back through
the entire process.
The matter was continued to August 19, 1992 to allow staff time to
prepare responses from the City Attorney. On August 19, 1992, the
matter was continued to September 2, 1992, to allow time for the
City Attorney to meet with staff and the applicants attorney to
discuss this matter.
On August 26, 1992, staff met with the applicant, the applicant's
attorney and the City Attorney to discuss this matter. The issue
was whether the Director of Community Development considers
revisions to the pad envelopes and changes to the grading plan as
revisions to the tentative map. If these are considered to be
changes to the map, then the provisions of Section No. 8250-1 (e)
of the City's Subdivision Ordinance would prevail . However, if the
changes to the pad locations and changes to the grading plan are
not considered changes to the tentative map, then Section No. 8250-
1 (e)would not prevail.
Analysis
Section 66474.1 of the Subdivision Map Act States that a
legislative body shall not deny approval of a final or parcel map
if it has previously approved a tentative map for the proposed
subdivision and if it finds that the final or parcel map is in
substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map.
A part of the review process of evaluating proposed tentative maps,
the Department of Community Development requires conceptual grading
plans to make sure that the proposed access is feasible and that
there is a buildable site for each lot. The conceptual grading
plan is not actually a part of the tentative map itself. In the
case of this proposed subdivision, staff wanted to limit the amount
of grading and keep building areas out of slope areas greater than
20 percent. As a result the following condition of approval was
placed on the Tentative Map:
The area on each lot designated for residential development
(lot envelope areas) shall be shown on the final grading plan
and approved by the City Engineer and Community Development
Director prior to grading permit approval. The lot envelope
areas on Lots 5, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 52 shall be relocated so
as to minimize grading of 20 percent and greater slopes.
9999:99:9]/9a9Wa\9449]9.0C 2
Prior to final map approval, language shall be included in the
CC&R's which restricts grading for residential structures
(including swimming pools, spas, and tennis courts) to
designated envelope areas. The approved lot envelope areas
shall be graphically illustrated and described by a notation
on the final map and recorded. The CC&R's shall include
language clarifying that modifications to lot envelope areas
require City of Moorpark Community Development Director
approval.
It was not staff's intention to consider changes to grading plans,
or to building envelopes as changes to the subdivision lots in
terms of changes to the tentative map, but to ensure that once the
subdivision was recorded that future property owners and City staff
would be on notice that building could only take place within
certain specified areas, and that changes to the building areas
would require the approval of the City.
Changes to pad elevations, without changing lot shapes, sizes, or
quantities and without changing public improvements to be provided
is typically related to the grading permit which is a separate
process from the subdivision. The only exception is when the
change in the elevation of a building pad is greater than two feet
up or down, the City Council has made the determination to review
the grading plan.
Conclusion
Staff does not consider changes to the grading plan or building pad
locations as changes to the Tentative Map. Therefore, the
requested changes should be handled not as a modification to the
map, but changes to the conceptual grading plan.
Recommendation
Approve the modified grading plan per the revised envelope plan and
exhibit "A" subject to the following:
1. All previously approved conditions.
2. Applicant shall pay all additional staff costs associated
with this revision.
9888:28:92/9:298&:\9N620.CC 3
Exhibit A
POTTER ENGINEERING
CIVIL. ENGINEERS 12 N. ASH ST.
VENTURA. CA 93001
(805) 653-6373
March 25, 1992
City Engineer
City of Moorpark
111 A Poindexter Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
Attn: Dirk Lovett, Asst. City Engineer '
• Subject: Tract 4620, JBH Development. Revised lot envelopes
Dear Mr. Lovett:
Enclosed is a map of revised lot envelopes we propose for this project. Also is a plot of
these proposed envelopes superimposed over a print of the envelopes as shown on the
tentative map. These envelopes are revised to accomodate the final design of the pads.
410 The pads and envelopes are as we discussed in our previous meeting with you and Pat
Richards.
It is our understanding that these revisions are of such nature that an administrative or
Council consent approval will be sufficient.
Please let us know if you would like a meeting to go over this proposed revision to the
lot envelopes.
Very truly
0G
David L. Potter
Civil Engineer
410
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A
POTTER ENGINEERING •
®CIVIL ENGINEERS 12 N. ASH ST.
VENTURA, CA 93001
1805) 653-6373
March 25, 1992
City Engineer
City of Moorpark
111 A Poindexter Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
Attn: Dirk Lovett, Asst. City Engineer
Subject: Tract 4620, JBH Development, Revised pad grades
Dear Mr. Lovett:
Enclosed is a listing of the pad grades we propose for this project. Some of them
exceed the 2 foot limit of change allowed by ordinance. The primary reason for the
changes is the normal adjustment of final grades during the detail design stage.
Five lots which had been shown as having graded pads, will not be graded at this time.
These lots have a sufficiently gentle natural slope that is easily accomodated by a
® specific lot design with grading to fit the house architecture.
Thirty-three lots will have pad elevations essentially the same as shown on the tentative
plans.
The balance of 28 lots will have changes in pad elevations varying from 3 feet to 31
feet as can be seen on the attached list.
The average change for all lots is only 3".
We can meet with you at your convenience to go over the specifics of each lot if you
wish. Otherwise, please set the wheels in motion to have this matter reviewed for
approval by the staff and the City Council by consent action as previously discussed.
ery truly . . •,
111
David L. Potter
Civil Engineer
•
,
Page 2 of 3
Exhibit A l
/ _
11: TRACT 40_20 _
- PROPOSED PAD ELEVATION REVISIONS �_
• • MEM PROP ELEV DIFFERENCE REMARKS
- NO CHANGE
1104 730 742 12
all 802 798 1 -4 _ _ _
812 NATURAL-TO SUIT HOUSE
776 775 0 NO CHANGE' ' '
_
862 862 0 NO CHANGE
875 876 0 NO CHANGE
732 732 0 NO CHANGE
782 NATURAL-TO SUIT HOUSE
•• 758 7E8 0 NO CHANGE
_ 724_ 724 0 NO CHANGE
777• 777 _ 0 _ NO CHANGE
1k _817_ _804_ -13
• 665 860 5 ,
iti• -----16 ----,66-
_710 _705__ •5
{[� 78 - - -765 3
709_ _7_09 0 NO CHANGE
•t: 770 801 _
dj! 890 878 _
• 882 882 0 NO CHANGE
953 953 0 NM=NO CHANGE
0952 - 855 _3 _
961 _~_881_ 0 NO CHANGE •
890 890 0 NO CHANGE
ie. 922 917 -5 -- _- - - ..
890 890 0 MEM NO CHANGE
(f�� 830 812 -18
735 735 0 MEM CHANGE
•
720 720 0 NO CHANGE
• 708 708 0 NOCHANGE_
700 NATURAL-TO SUIT HOUSE
nia810 806_=__4 -
- 744- 764 10
!all__ 86 785 0 NO CHANGE _
_ 804 795 -9
808 800 -8 ,
802_ _802 0 NO CHANGE
rel 762 758_ -4
764 NI753 •11 __ -
• I_ 787 1 787_ _0 NO CHANGE
!�� 804 796_ 8
FA_____k5?___ 801__ -6
805 805 -0 NO CHANGE
41,10. 800 .--805 6
a- 800 _805 15
!MA 755- 782 -- 7
prEll 835 835 �0 NO CHANGE
Q• 765 768 3 I
• ' .. 8_65_ 865 0 NO CHANGE
Wel. 865 875 10 _ 1
840 MI 840 0 NO CHANGE
__680_ _ NATURAL-TO SUIT HOUSE
785 765 0 NO CHANGE
al 765_ 765_ 0 NO CHANGE
1111 878 878 0 NO CHANGE
• al 660660 0 NO CHANGE
• : 695 C 695 0 NO CHANGE
725 MI 725 0 NO CHANGE
OPE" 752 _ 758 6I 0 765 7_65_ 0 NO CHANGE --
Ail 785 778 -7
• 775 780 5-..
63 780 NATURAL-TO SUIT HOUSE -
64 _780 780 0 _-NO CHANGE
R5 __ -_755..._ _ _.. 755 - - . .- 0 -.. .._ - NO CHANGE--- -------
CD678 673 -. --.••_- -5� ..—.._._......_. Nnte•Only 3'nvu•p•—
- AVERAGE CHANGE t- - .0.24-=- _-. - -�-ohnn041 - Page 3 of 3