HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 0120 CC REG ITEM 11B7/a,7/01)
//,v �.
MOORPARk TEM
799 MoorparK Avenue Moorpar� $� (805) 529.6864
of "OOWARK, CALIFORN'A
City Co u cll Meet1P9
ACTION: I c f 1992
ACTION:
AGENDA RE
8y
TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRK LOVETT, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
DATE: JANUARY 13, 1992 (C.C. MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 1992)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REQUEST BY GERALD BRIDGEMAN REGARDING
OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR LDM 90 -7
Background:
At the City Council meeting on 12/16/92 the applicant, Gerald Bridgeman,
requested the City Council to consider revising a condition of the subject
four lot subdivision relative to street improvements on Wickes Rd.
adjacent to his property frontage. The condition calls for a 40 foot curb
to curb street improvement plus sidewalk. (Dec. 16th. staff report and
recommendation has been attached as Exhibit 1)
This item was continued, at the City Council's direction, until the next
regular Council meeting so members could become more familiar with the
project.
The applicant was directed to provide City Engineering preliminary plans
and estimates for the conditioned improvements.
Since that time the applicant's engineer has provided only an estimate and
rough plan sketch (Exhibit 2) of the proposed retaining wall, which would
be necessary to make the required street improvements in front of the
existing house. Incomplete, or absent, from the applicant's conceptual
plan and estimate were improvements such as grading, curb & gutter,
sidewalk.
After visiting the site with the applicant's engineer and reviewing the
estimate, it has been determined that the scope of the proposed wall, in
the provided estimate, does not accurately reflect the existing field
PAUL W. LAWRASON JR BERNARDO M PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY ROY E. TALLEY JR JOHN E WOZNIAK
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern counciimemoer Councilmember Councilmember
conditions. Staff noted that the maximum height of retaining wall would
be 7 -8 feet high at the most westerly end, with an average height of 4
feet over the entire length of the parcel in question. The applicant's
engineer has provided an estimate for portions of the wall to be up to 28
feet high.
Because of the error in the applicant's engineering estimate, resulting
from the height discrepancy and the insufficient information provided on
the conceptual plan and estimate, the data provided is considered not
complete or accurate for further Engineering Department review. Based on
staff's experience it is not anticipated that the cost of the wall (only)
will exceed $20,000. Grading, paving, curb, gutter, drainage and other
improvements associated with the widening will be in addition to the cost
of the wall.
M.
The Council may wish to consider either of the following courses of
action:
1. Continue the item for future discussion until such time that an
approved cost estimate and conceptual plan is received and reviewed
for all associated widening costs.
2. There be no change to the condition but the applicant be allowed to
pay for the costs of improvements in lieu of construction at this
time with the additional stipulation that he sign the appropriate
documents recognizing that the garage may have to be removed or
modified at his expense at a later date, and provide the necessary
offers of dedication for future slope easements with such
provisions applicable to subsequent owners. (Recommended per the
staff report dated December 16, 1992).
CCmemo /8ddgeman12093 /City Engineer /co
( Exhibit 1 ) ITEM Y. A •
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
�r
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Steven Kueny, City Manager
DATE: December 11, 1992 (CC Meeting of 12/16/92)
SUBJECT: Consider Request from Gerald Bridgeman Concerning
LDM 90 -70
BACKGROUND:
Several weeks ago Mr. Bridgeman asked for Council
consideration to revise the conditions of the subject map to
allow him to not make improvements to Wicks Road consistent
with adopted City standards or to modify the required
improvements. The adopted City standards call for a 40'
street from curb to curb plus sidewalk. Mr. Bridgeman gave
a presentation to the Council explaining the impact on the
slope of this driveway which would prevent access to the
existing one car garage and the apparent removal of several
trees near the property line. This matter was referred to
the Community Development Committee (Lawrason /Perez).
DISCUSSION:
Committee and City staff, including representatives of the
City Engineer's office, have discussed this on two occasions.
A number of options have been discussed including:
1. Status quo (existing City standards);
2. Require no improvements;
3. Partial improvements to the north side as proposed by
Mr. Bridgeman;
4. Full improvement of the north side of Wicks Road;
5. Vacating the road and have the affected property owners
accept it as a private road;
6. Modification of the present City standard to allow a 20%
slope for the driveway which would result in a small dip
in the pavement in the vicinity of the driveway. This
option has been presented by the City Engineer.
PAU1. W f AWRASON Al .JOHN I �VGINIAr, SCOT T MONTGOMf liv HETANAHOO LI Pfl+[ I HOY 1. IAI I f + ++
Mayor Mavor ;1•n Iem Council Merl p.rr Counc.dmemn,,r Councilmamn.••
(Exhibit 1)
7. Allow Mr. Bridgeman to make any needed property
dedication for any slope easements that may be needed,
deposit the current cost of improvements and related
costs with the City to meet his obligation, sign a
waiver on potential future impact to the existing single
car garage and defer the actual improvements;
8. At Mr. Bridgeman's cost, perform a study to determine if
a 32' instead of a 40' street is acceptable. After the
committee meetings, the City Engineer informed me that
it would cost an estimated $8,000.00 to survey Wicks
Road between Moorpark Avenue and its terminus to
determine the precise location of the right -of -way. If
32' of construction is allowed, it would appear that we
would want to move it as close to the toe of the slope
on the north side as feasible to avoid the construction
problems on the south side. At this time, I don't know
the total cost of the improvements Mr. Bridgeman is
required to make to determine whether it would be cost
effective for him to perform such a study.
Since Mr. Bridgeman will receive the benefit of a
subdivision, he should meet the City standards for
improvements to his property. He has indicated he does not
want to make the improvements because of the impact on the
existing single car garage. In pure economic terms, he will
have the benefit of three additional lots for sale or
development as a trade off for any changes to, loss of, or
restricted use of the existing garage. While there are
several options to consider, I believe the best one is to
have Mr. Bridgeman prepare the plans to conform to existing
City standards and, at his option, deposit the equivalent
amount of monies for the improvements and related costs with
the City in lieu of actual construction. Minor improvements
to the road as proposed by Mr. Bridgeman offer short term
benefits but does so at the expense of the long term
improvement of the road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that there be no change to the condition
but the applicant be allowed to pay for the costs of
improvements in lieu of construction at this time with the
additional stipulation that he sign the appropriate documents
recognizing that the garage may have to be removed or
modified at his expense at a later date, and provide the
necessary offers of dedication for future slope easements
with such provisions applicable to subsequent owners.
SK:db
c: \wp51 \ccagenda \Bridgemn.LDM
(Exhibit 2)
LDM 90 -1
ESTIMATED COST OF RETAINING WAI._(.._ NUEDED IN ORDER TO
CONSTRUCT STREET !MPROVEME.NTS ALONG. THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT -OF -WAY OF WICKS ROAD TO THE WESTERLY SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY, INCLUDING THE TRANSITION.
HEIGHT
LENGTH
CONC
CONC
ft
ft
cult /ft
cu ft.
4
20
10.2
204
6
20
12.7
254
Ell
20
16,7
334
10
10
20.6
20e
12
4
25.2
100.8
14
4
30.1
120.4
16
4
34.8
139.
1E
4
40.6
162.4
20
4
45.7
182.9
22
4
53.1
212.4
24
4
64.7
250.0
26
4
78.E
714.4
25
60
89 9
5794
26
4
78.._
314.4
""
4
64.7
:58,0
22
4
51.1
212.4
20
A.
45.7
182.2
18
4
40.1
167.4
16
4
34.B
13 %2
14
4
30.1
120.4
12
4
25.7
1.0 0. 8
10
4
20.E
8"
%3
4
16.7
6o.8
6
4
12.7
50.B
4
4 - --
10.2
--
210
9618
ESTIMATED COST OF RETAINING WALL, BASE ON
PLACEMEN-f OF REINFORCES CONCRETE @ $150.00/CU FT
RECEIVED
JAN 0 6 1993
9618 cu ft: 27 cu ft /cu yd x ` Z50, 00 /cu yd = $124,600
ADDITIONAL COSTS NOT ESTIMATED:
1. REMOVAL OF FIVE TREES AND APPROX . 100 ii � FEF_T
OF MATURE SHRUBS AND CHAIN LINK FENCE
2. RELOCATION OF ONE POWER AND ONE GUY POLE
Z. RELOCATION OF EXIST. WATER METER
4. RELOCATION OF EXIST. SINGLE CAR GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY
5. RELOCATIDN OF EXIST. GAS METER
6. 140 FEET OF CONC. CURD. 6UTTER AND S I DEWALI:'
7. RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY
G. ZD!::iC: 50 FT OF BAST AND AC PAVEMENT
4.
x
W
U�
-- 1
SEE OET ,so'vc_
- - - - - -- -590
�ECElVEp 7
JAN 0 8 1993
/rye 3'► '� W a W J
— d) P_
na�ecEL �
Zzi
�O
j JyE l e
/
W �
�1 u n n
v
h
Q
o
N�
�0
Iii/ /CKS
N /S. S
— 00-7
o
1
RECEIVED
JAN 0 8 1993
Ll Fee Aww /-is e/ Irwdrpl
/ttl LMt 7 -
v,. N.nfo�cdn.n/ /ar N• /6' /e' zo'l / Brn r w u c/u/t'mdMfs / a - , be rortd I N' B
LLf2__ / / - rrd SAW* see - 119= —,-=—
of 6' .4 F
YN.Nr EASr_r r o�nuMwr B^1998 _tt
1 To/ of Wo/r N: - Too of s/.w /n/rstc,,w a4�?' h
Tot o/ SloLp. y1 77 _,Ipvnopq/t drab of /00 of •,, w
iL �� FI N, 2< l._. o wo// ore IA~ elsewhere. n " r w•I
I {.. -bE _`W�TOp a /Foafrp N•?2' )I �-q) a t� .Ciw ^i ro asa
`O ,W. /FOofmp Lot \I N. 20'
•� �e L07ou1 Lett N: /B
4
1T1 "'f/col z b
N: t6. W _ _Swf® IqN /B'ApWict y
TYPICAL LAYOUT EXAMPLE I �> sent sxe /pct ran
fo. /omn revu•.ed, rn ;o'a s to-s /+. 14' I "" Jd 2 . _ C __ --�`�— ! . - - -..
o y9 0 ? CNe ? �/1ar 45T P /LE FOOT /NG SECT /ON
Nwnder teore (� err ds'� A ^ -- N•4 TMr N-27'
.nerrn Gsronrt /ran I 16 M6' I I ,sAwl D
/op d feof.^p to rpper " B fea G I - Sep -t (C� N I o^sfnwf m /MM r�
ewd(�era 1 I I h61 I I I I l
-0• I Brnsf. onr: .-.r- •d. / /ep sa:c: s. k
N • 6 3. 6d! I j - }-' 9tP c r2. 6 IjFI /or N.28'md JO' wt! /AT Censf J/
r4 m .�S'
4' I
Bw.eN j } — —
I . M, B � � P.
1; its I, ;} i -4 t�1B , rt
Ir- `� �y II YY I I' I f i i I =.N. 10
W
TABLE OF RE /NFORC /NG STEEL OLMENS /ONS AND DATA r 3se.
IS dq - W/4 JOr NtAi'
�n -- 4 - 6- - -s i�1_ =. !F /± /� /a4_ '� 2e 9 N1z' �-- 45T PILE FDOT /NG SELT /ON .'ll
.3, 2' !- ?,. Z 4 2 lfy -ems' 9'O ��O_ i/'O /2.O' 13.3' 1I! T3'.�' 16T9 Igo/gro/A'ts' W/3 /a NSL7
C _ 1.O` /''I /`s' ?-O' 2•-I 2 B 3: w 3' -4 j'.e ISO' I�3' 1�9 ?' -/' 3-1 _.c N- z4' TArr N.30'
�• ?r �•'4• ¢' -Q._. 4• 9:4'. j I/'.q M' - -- _. Nevnfrca.+nr etror4d rr ro of o'xtd .n ood,r.on
F_3ers / •T._ LT _ ''O l�� ro that sno.n /r �..oe loonnp. All p,Ka.wr
i
B�/ �? -_ /j 7/1_/j. t�tj /2- �•? �-.. /}- Yr /'� -- ' /_•_� /2 1 -.•r1z Y6t 12/z aAOw^. set pit. Lo7ou/m Olntr rAltra.
Jj [Z -3�2 SPREAD FOOT ING SECT /ON
drs —'S ®/B •S!B ''K :3Q9- s6 9 •9 ®/5 3! B R2_ .� /_ _ '�e�1 j ..� NOTE'S•
dots ��1B ,SIB ®A}'. ♦�9 3�9 $�l3 Bt8 // _9 �p B 7 .9{67 est
dvs 6: —¢ b r -6 4 - tb f9_I 1¢-J. p- �7 . - L-!T. i -!Z_ 1 Fr agds nr sno. -n old del ^opt nom set
Idgl Oiarr 1- •7 4 - -. 4 . 7 4_7 1- V 1; ♦ r7 _ �/ -!7 T7 >`rT Oronrrnes do not wchot the ro // Pedro- odor! 6W/tr
l,r 4rw enr 16 19 2 2 25 28 33 35 40 41 46 49 53 57 6 2 l7trotgn "one rt /r desrpn P -Posts or✓n
i1 NM 0W r1 IS--- IC - -- -13 27 J3 36 4.7 I7 SJ 39 63 7/ 73 Fr p". l Deno➢ Oevpn N•4'ost some /oonnp dn^t'ae^s
es Dta.pn M•6
1wM/wlaaH 13 1/ 21 23 19 34 38 43 4e 54 SB 65 72 73
/rtI
sa.ae evn /B ?2 2B !>_._ .. 3i s3 163 4491 /55 _ /92 �9...d49Sd
5 iL 3-- -2d 2 2.51 30 i 34 �_ 43 O 52. i 33 _ J70 A6 ! iO4 B
sr.N awm 30 _ SI I1 10 B�_ tr6 1i0 179 21.7 27.? 316 429 169 S B
to _i2 i_ i67 t7B_ -2S O1 _11B 6 43E� Sal d�7 Js6 B93 iUJd
SIANUARO OAAWISaC tAw r( ;1A M OF ST1111CTVIIE]
CALIFORNIA 3/87 �7 ON d v