The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAG RPTS 1987 0105 PC REGvpIOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor FANNY A. WOOLARD Mayor Pro Tem ELOISE BROWN Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CUNT HARPER Councilmember THOMAS P.GENOVESE City Treasurer MOORPARK G E N D A MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 1986 7.00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. REORGANIZATION OF COMMISSION a. Selection of Chairman b. Selection of Vice - Chairman C. Comments 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued Business) a. Residential Planned Development STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J.KANE City Attorney PATRICK J. RICHARDS A.I.C.P. Director of Community Developmenf R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police Request to construct 22 single family residences on a previously approved 22 lot subdivision (TR- 3306). Located on Inglewood Avenue between Peach Hill Road and the Southern California Edison Company easement. b. Planned Development Permit No. PD -1056 Burger King Herman Li /Daniel Chu Requesting approval to construct a Burger King Restaurant. The restaurant will contain approximately 3,074 sq.ft. Located at the southwest corner of Los Angeles Avenue. The site fronts Los Angeles Avenue. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 6. 7. AGENDA - PLANNING COMMISSION p. 2 - January 5, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued Business) C. Tentative Parcel Mao No. 4220. Clifford & Christina Request to subdivide an existing 3.48 acre lot into three parcels of nearly equal size. Located on the north side of Los Angeles Avenue between Moorpark Road and Nogales Avenue. (Request continuance to January 19, 1987, for the purpose of resolving the outstanding matters discussed at the Planning Commission's December 10, 1986 hearing.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEM a. Development Plan Permit Nos. DP -355 & DP -357 Landscape review per Condition No. 10 of the previously approved Resolution Nos. PC -86 -113 and PC -86 -114 of Development Plan Permit Nos. DP -355 & 357. b. Residential Planned Cal ProD - Review o No. RPD -1044 Wall review per Condition No. 25 of the previously approved Resolution No. 85 -240 of Residential Plan Development Permit No. 1044. 8. INFORMATION ITEMS DISTRIBUTED a. Industrial Buildout b. Brown Act - dated November 14, 1986 C. Conflict of Interest - dated July 31, 1986 d. Permit Approval Process - Resolution No. 86 -276 e. City of Moorpark Map f. Land Use Map g. Subdivision Map Act Manual - 1986 Edition t AGENDA - PLANNING COMMISSION p. 3 - January 5, 1986 8. INFORMATION ITEMS DISTRIBUTED h. California Land -Use and Planning Laws i. Planning Commission's Handbook - Forthcoming ]- k. The Language of Zoning - A Glossary of Words and Phrases 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS 10. STAFF COMMENTS 11. ADJOURNMENT MOORPARK ..,.., V KLIEW Mayor city manaw A. .... Y�4. Mayor Pro Tem Cky 7 • ' • ~ • • •,,' �� JOHN GALLOWAY Ci��. Councilmember R. DENNIS DELZEIT CUNT HARPER. Phl). City Efogiriew C-oundimember JOHN V. GILLESPIE MAUREEN W. WALL Chief Clerk City City Treasurer City of Moorpark ) County of Ventura ) as State of California ) I, Maureen W. Wall, duly appointed and City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of California, do hereby certify that I posted a co,ppy o��fft�p the gg��(City C ci], Agenda for the meeting to be held % / attCt a follibwtng cation: ��e nvn2 u0x�tB r` Q u (� / �g7 City Hall 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Said agenda shall remain in place until after the meeting so that it is available for public review for at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Sec. 54954 et. seq. of the California Government Code. Maureen W. City Clerk Date l .r'. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6884 • - ITEM 9.a. MOORPARK THOMAS C.FERGUSON 0 Mayor c�•'I�/Zoo City Manager DANNY A.WOOLARD ' CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tern ,�� City Attorney ELOISE BROWN PATRICK J RICHARDS A.I.C.P Councilmemberv,� Director of Community JOHN GALLOWAY �'\� Development Councilmember Amor w P CLINT HARPER R. DENNIS DELZEIT Councilmember City Engineer THOMAS P.GENOVESE JOHN V.GILLESPIE City Treasurer Chief of Police MEIV[ORANDTIM T O : The Planning Commission , F ROM : Michael A. Rubin, Senior Planne . DATE : January 5, 1987 ST-1-13c-TEM' : RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RPD-1044 (Cal Prop) Condition Compliance Review of Wall Plan BACKGROUND 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, 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