Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 0210 CC ADJ ITEM 11Bo of .o Al By ira,7 1ru; TEM/ /• 8.6 MOORPARk : W YA iY�tD$�I (805) 529-6864 with the applicant's engineer and reviewing the 'OORPAW. CALIFORNIA determined that the scope of Gty cou II Meetipg � the provided cf �qq�• the existing field PAUL W. LAWRASON JR BERNARDO M ' ACTION: Mayor 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 • 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 Tam Counc,imember 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. Recommendation: 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 /Bridgeman12093 /City Engineer /co (Exhibit 1) H PPP~ —A" -• ITEM • MOORPARK _Y 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 oOq� M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Steven Rueny, 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. PAUL W tAWRASON JR .rOHN F CVO /NIAh SCOTT MONTGOM[ ITV HERNAITUii M Pf I ±L! HOY F TAI 1 f _+ Mayor M.ivor •'r;) fem Councdmemh.rr Counc.dm.� m hnr GJUncdmem h— 5 (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 !2320392 ESTIMATED COST OF RETAINING WALL NEEDED IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT STREET IMPROVEMENTS ALONE THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY OF WICKS ROAD TO THE WESTERLY SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY, INCLUDING THE TRANSITION. HEIGHT LENGTH CONC CONC ft it tuft /ft cu ft 4 20 10.2 204 6 20 12.2 254 8 20 16.7 324 10 10 20.8 203 12 4 25.2 I00.e 14 4 30,1 120.4 16 4 34.5 139.2 IE 4 40.6 162.4 20 4 45.7 182,8 ._ 4 53.1 212,4 2a 4 64,7 250.5 26 4 75.6 314.4 28 60 89.9 5294 26 4 78.3 314.4 24 4 64.2 258,8 22 4 53.1 212.4 20 A. 45.7 182.8 !8 4 40.6 162.4 16 4 34.8 139.2 14 4 50.1 120.4 I2 4 25.2 10C.e io 4 20.E 02.2 8 4 13.2 6o.8 6 4 12.2 50.E 4 4 10.2 9� 210 9618 ESTIMATED COST OF RETAINING WALL, BASE ON PLACEMENT OF REINFORCES CONCRETE 9 $350.00 /CU ET R lEC EIV IE D AIV JEN93 9618 cu ft ;27 cu ft/cu yd x $350.00 /cu yd = $124,600 ADDITIONAL COSTS NOT ESTIMATED= 1. REMOVAL OF FIVE TREES AND APRROX. 100 FEET OF MATURE SHRUBS AND CHAIN LINK FENCE 2. RELOCATION OF ONE ROWER AND ONE GUY POLE 3. RELOCATION OF EXIST. WATER METER 4. RELOCATION OF EXIST. SINGLE CAR GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY 5. RELOCATION OF EXIST. GAS METER 5. 140 FEET OF CONC. CURD, SUTTER AND SIDEWALK 7. RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY S. 3200 SO FT OR BASE AND AC PAVEMENT N x w 60' 1 AP 'OV 0 ✓.c- - VED / JA N 0 8 1993 to K WICKS �iP `` 8H h , W c 10 Mt, AA A 0 Ber c ✓o/ /s mer e• •enoe .n rN:rimpM d 6" N'j Use Ngfar[oTom At H- /6 /B' 2o' Toe of 5 /0pe 1 To/ o/ We// M�215' rop of Foornp I `Ophmel Fodnp [•r• c� H: Y7. II ,� - � I i; 1 ,�f TYP ICAL LAYOUT EXAMPLE / ar.rm, r•e B I NumOlr ODOrr lO Dorr II. /O. ♦6- ► '• " '. .ner ✓•r avonar tram � � ° - e..�_ re- rop Nd d c Barr . 1-4 5 j;� i i i i�� I�Illr il. 11 I- /B' ,aS•�/ TABLE OF REINFORCING STEEL DIMENSIONS AND DATA RECE1vIED JAN 0 8 1993 L4rwrl LN• -�..1 Fw *Svt /av/s of swc*wpo one s/gve $to Toe of V ve /Mors•cf. • L . App W vfo 4MO1IS of top of rr._ l �.�"I/ r.r rAO.n dnwoor•. O1�� z -_rr`1 B •Ives Carol .tl-1 ri1B, - i 4e 36 •�� "br/ rB EAw•rar foco _: SAO'/ 0 r1 O /B - wrl/co/ Z /� . /Y{ ® p4N/B' hp sp/ico S Boller Bod/rcr wnA � e•r, 2 �© c - e — — -- p 1 •CNa 2' CNar 45 r RILE FOOT /NG SECT /ON SSAarI p (� awslf"f'o• jaw 'per • Bune/o eons �.o- /a✓M.?B'o/d JO' 4v / ; /op sd c• w. /A Conn JI B• [=y .� `14 0. r4 ca .'3 W Imo. 777 rt '^ r 35.,v, ro, - w L OS eo II W 14l'H-0 tt - - Lti+N•.a1 Aq W/Jfo M f iY 4ST PILE FOOTING SECr1O1v _ ie A•.n /o cem,nl a/O.he T /o o• poc•e m oea.INr NIa1 tna- far wl-d / -ftnp. All p.hs nor N Maven. s•• P! /• [orW/ PWhor sMNt. -- -- -- - - -- •k. 1S..a S @. 7l 72 i8 ?. �7b' orrtc nr/ rvvl nry oc ., .. vn sons _- •,�(� /B '3{µ /B •316 •3(Q59 6 @9 9015 I �B i� / 7 6 • __ _ 56p /a j_@ 6 15 4�9 54)9 ��IS B , 9�� fjRi � B 7 - y f SOTS F'- r 7 - J V' 7 T . -r , , 4-?Z- Far d f ds ne/ .1— one domop• no/n too e7'o Dnv _Qis-s . 6 -•6 - •6 6�6 /0_l [O-_� d7- • -.1 ,.T - t_ 2- L 4- 7 ToMJ _OOrs _ _ _4_•7 _4- 7 4- •7 �- 7 4 -•7 !- J 4- •7 .�-b . -.'7 1 _'7 - "? 1111 1s• w .n1 / 6 1 9 27 75 2B 3 3 - - - OvonrN.•t eo nor /nUvdr rAe .a// pp /.an o6a.o Gv /hr ,r J 3 LO 41 4 6 49 5J 57 62 F/rro/ron one o-• Io- etnpn pwpot•t anry. 15 20 23 17 -- - -3 3 56 4.1 47 55 59 65 71 .5 Far err, rr p7 0•spn N -4'rsr taws /aonnp 4nr� LnN,I rrp•H 13 IJ 21 23 29 34 JB 45 48 54 58 63 72 T5 .Nr• _ ta..• •.rn '6 ?? 74 _3>r- Si 83 105 153 I9P_, 249 J(�1r 4i)9 4d� 3G r•ww -7«,Tl a9 -- 125_- 163 zo?_ 234 301 3�9 40T 4so 57T a3S )o - ✓}B / - %w -- SNr e.n' JO i4 41 10 - BI u6 i4p _ l79 _7�7 P73 _376 e29 469 52B n•rN to.�.nn =/02 123 i6.7 XJ6. 152 J / i4 - 6 7SY 3J/ 64778b B§ 9 107 57ANpgrp D"WINC f=rse d 04rIS1 Of 1T UC=Upl3 - [5-1_.s - :�..✓ - v«... _ `�' CALIFORNIA 5 - RETAINING WALL TYPE I H - 4'- 30' ....r.. r -�- 8 3-I