Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 1987 0216 PC REGMOORPARK THOMAS C. FERGUSON STEVEN KUENY Mayor City Manager DANNY A. WOOLARD CHERYL J. KANE Mayor Pro Tern City Attorney ELOISE BROWN PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Councilmember Director of JOHN GALLOWAY o Community Development Councilmember R. DENNIS DELZEIT CLINT HARPER, PhD. City Engineer Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE MAUREEN W. WALL Chief of Police City Clerk THOMAS P. GENOVESE A G E N D A City Treasurer MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION February 16, 1 7 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of February 2, 1987 & f- January 19, 1987 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 6.a. Planned DevelODm 56, Burger King - Herman I Denying approval of a request to construct a Burger King Restaurant at the southwest corner of Los Angeles /Moorpark Avenues. Approval of Resolution No. PC -87 -131 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS (New Business) 7.a. Development Plan Permit No. 354 - Anthony Annotti Requesting approval to construct a 12,000 sq. ft. Mini - Storage facility. Located approx. 750 ft. south of Poindexter. THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO THE COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 2 1987 7.b. Amendment to the Sign Ordinance Revise the Sign Ordinance regarding tract pole flags and temporary commercial window sign coverage. THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO THE COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 2 1987 Those who wish to address the Moorpark Planning Commission on any item are required to fill out a Speaker's Card, and present it to the Secretary prior to the item being heard or they may not be heard. AGENDA - PLANNING COMMISSION p.2 - February 16, 1987 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS 8.a. Discussion of topical items for Joint Meeting, City Council/ Planning Commission meeting of February 25, 1987. 8.b. Annual Work Program review of various projects proposed by the Department of Community Development during the year 1987. 8.c. Reconsideration of Wall Plan - CalProp 9. INFORMATION ITEMS 9.a. Slide presentation, "Image of Our City" presented by Mr. Chris Roberts, Pacific Coast Landscape. 9.b. Recreation Fees re Development Projects. 9.c. Traffic Operations in the Honeybee Street, East Colverdale Street Area. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS 11. STAFF COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Copies of the reports or other written documentation relating to -each item of-business on � - the agea are. on file in the office to the City Clerk_and_ are available for public-review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be- directed to the Department of Community /' Develovment. (805) 529 -6864. ( .— iFIOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor DANNY A. WOOLARD Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CUNT HARPER Councilmember THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer CITY OF MOORPARK COUNTY OF VENTURA STATE OF CALIFORNIA MOORPARK 7 STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J.KANE City Attorney PATRICK J. RICHARDS AI.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police I, Celia LaFleur, duly appointed Deputy City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of California, do hereby certify that I posted a copy of the Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting to be held lul /(o gf , 1987 at the following location: City Hall Council Chambers 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 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 Section 54954 et.seg. of the California Government Code. dz4 4z��Ce� Celia LaFleur Deputy City Clerk Date: 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Ca6forma 93021 (805) 529.6864 8 - MOORPARK =TEM 8 . c. THOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor DANNY A.WOOLARD ,�" `4�. `"����'`- "^"L- �irK City Attorney Mayor Pro Tern o ,�1 ELOISE BROWN Alin oPATRICK RICHARDS,A.I.C.P Councilmember t> A Director of JOHN GALLOWAY i V� Community Development Councilmember °°-�v, 9 R.DENNIS DELZEIT CLINT HARPER,PhD 4°� 4 City Engineer Councilmember O JOHN V GILLESPIE MAUREEN W WALL Chief of Police City Clerk THOMAS P.GENOVESE City Treasurer MEMORANDUM T O : The Planning Commission :FROM : Michael A. Rubin, Senior Planner ./ DATE : February 11, 1987 (PC meeting of 2/16/87) S U$J E C T : RECONSIDERATION - REVIEW OF WALL PLAN RDP-1044 - CalProp REQUEST Reconsideration of wood vs . slumpstone at front setback and use of wrought iron on up slopes in-lieu of slumpstone wall. BACKGROUND At its meeting of January 19, 1987 , the Planning Commission reviewed the wall plan of the above tract. The Commission approved the staff recommendation as per the attached staff report dated January 5 , 1987 . The applicant requested that the Commission consider a five foot high fence/wall as per the plans . The Commission upheld the staff recommendation on this issue. However, the applicant intended to request two other modifications to what was indicated on the plans . The two proposed changes are as follows : 1 . Request to utilize wrought iron on sideyard property lines where an uphill slope is present (level pad areas would remain as slumpstone) . The request is made to provide a more open airy feel to the backyards . 2 . Request to use wood in lieu of slumpstone at entrances to sideyards (facing the street) . A slumpstone pilaster would still be provided at the side wall of the house and at the intersection of the sideyard wall. Condition No. 21.a. of the planned development permit specifically states that "no wood" be used. The staff interpretation of this has in the past been to allow a wood gate only. No other components of the fence have been permitted to use wood. • 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 K The Planning Commission p. 2 - February 11, 1987 The applicant feels that wood is more aesthetically pleasing and is easier to remove for pool or landscape construction. DISCUSSION The use of iron on the uphill slopes is generally acceptable to staff providing that the pickets be located four (4) inches on center. Other tracts have had fencing plans approved with iron fencing being used in this location. Staff will not object to the use of iron as proposed. Since the conditions specifically state that "no wood" be used, staff is obligated to enforce this condition. Wood deteriorates and becomes a future maintenance problem after a few years , whereas a masonry wall generally is maintenance free. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve the request to substitute iron with pickets of 4" on center for slumpstone on uphill slopes on sideyard locations only. 2. Disapprove the request to use wood as part of the wall/fencing material other than as a gate with gates painted or stained to match wall material .