Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2004 0504 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2004 -459 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY - MAY 4, 2004 7:00 P.M. Moorpark Community Center 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. ROLL CALL: 799 Moorpark Avenue 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Regular Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2004. B. Regular Meeting Minutes of April 20, 2004. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: -- - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- ----------------- - - -- Any member of the public may address the Commission during the Public Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Discussion item. Speakers who wish to address the Commission concerning a Public Hearing or Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Discussion portion of the Agenda for that item. Speaker cards must be received by the Secretary for Public Comment prior to the beginning of the Public Comments portion of the meeting and for Discussion items prior to the beginning of the first item of the Discussion portion of the Agenda. Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing must be received prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing. A limitation of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Discussion item speaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Hearing item speaker. Written Statement Cards may be submitted in lieu of speaking orally for open Public Hearings and Discussion items. Copies of each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the Community Development Department/ Planning and are available for public review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the Community Development Department at 51 -7 -6233. \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2009 \09_0504_pca.doc Planning Commission Agenda May 4, 2004 Page No. 2 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (next Resolution No. 2004 -459) A. Consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -02, a Request to Amend Chapter 17.74 of the Moorpark Municipal Code Relating to the Development Standards of Specific Plan No. 2; and 'Residential Planned Development Nos. 2002 -03, -04, and -05, for Construction of a Total of 318 Single- Family Detached Residential Units within Specific Plan No. 2, Located Approximately One -half Mile North of the Northerly Terminus of Spring Road and Three - fourths of One Mile East of Walnut Canyon Road, on the Application of Pardee Homes. (Assessor Parcel Numbers: Portions of 500 -0- 270 -07, 500 -0- 270 -19, 500 -0- 270 -20, 512- 0 -160- 54, 512 -0- 160 -55, and 512 -0- 160 -70, 500 -0- 024 -03) (Continued from April 20, 2004 Meeting) Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -03, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -04, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -05, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -02. 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Consider Recommendation to City Council on Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines (Continued from April 20, 2004 Meeting) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines. B. Consider the Appeal of a Decision of the Community Development Director to Require a Conditional Use Permit for a Professional Office Use in the Commercial Office (C -0) Zone within 100 Feet of a Residential Zone at 724 Moorpark Avenue by Dick Wardlow, Property Owner and Appellant (APN: 512 -0- 062 -040) Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Community Development Director to require a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Agenda May 4, 2004 Page No. 3 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.) A. May 18, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting: • Possible Cancellation 11. ADJOURNMENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to review an agenda or participate in this meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Community Development Department at (805) 517 -6233. Upon request, the agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Any request for disability - related modification or accommodation should be made at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting to assist the City staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104; ADA Title II). ITEM: 6.A. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paqe 1 1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on April 2 6, 2004, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic Center; 3 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021. 4 1. CALL TO ORDER: 5 Chair Pozza called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 6 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7 Vice Chair Lauletta led the Pledge of Allegiance. 8 3. ROLL CALL: 9 Commissioners DiCecco, Landis and Peskay, Vice Chair 10 Lauletta and Chair Pozza were present. 11 Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community 12 Development Director; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; 13 Walter Brown, Assistant City Engineer; Laura Stringer, 14 Senior Management Analyst; Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner; 15 Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner; Steven Valdez, Planning 16 Technician; and Gail Rice, Administrative Secretary. 17 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 18 Commissioner Peskay commented on an article in the Los 19 Angeles Times regarding an upcoming conference ( "House 20 Divided ") on regional planning and housing issues in 21 Ventura County. 22 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 23 None. 24 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 25 A. Regular Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2004. 26 MOTION: Commissioner Peskay moved and Commissioner DiCecco 27 seconded a motion that the Planning Commission Regular 28 Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2004, be approved. (Motion 29 carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) \ \mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 000001 Draft \09 0406 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 2 1 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 2 None. 3 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4 (next Resolution No. 2004 -455) 5 A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone 6 Change No. 2003 -02, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5425, 7 and Residential Planned Development (RPD) No. 2003- 8 02, a Request to Subdivide Approximately 15 Acres for 9 Condominium Purposes to Develop 102 Duplex -Style and 10 Detached Condominium Dwellings and a Recreation 11 Facility, Located at the Terminus of Fremont Street, 12 South of Los Angeles Avenue (Hwy 118) and East of 13 Majestic Court, on the Application of Shea Homes, 14 Inc.; (506 -0- 020 -23, 506 -0- 020 -31, 506 -0- 020 -32, 506- 15 0- 020 -33, 506 -0- 020 -34) (Continued from March 16, 2004 16 Meeting) 17 Staff Recommendation: 1) Accept public testimony and 18 close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 19 PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption 20 of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditional 21 approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -02, Zone 22 Change No. 2003 -03, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23 5425, and Residential Planned Development No. 2003 -03. 24 Joseph Fiss presented the agenda report. 25 The Commission questioned staff on Millard Street and 26 conditions relating to fence heights. 27 Jeff Palmer, with Shea Homes, applicant, stated that 28 the applicant concurred with the conditions of 29 approval and that he was available to answer 30 questions. 31 Ro Hawkinson, resident, representing the Fremont 32 Street homeowner's group, commented on the wall height 33 around the property and requested that it be a minimum 34 of eight feet high. 35 The Commission confirmed with staff that the 36 conditions would cover Mr. Hawkinson's concern on the 37 height of the wall. \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \09 0406 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 3 1 One statement card was submitted which was neutral on 2 the project. The statement will be included in the 3 record. 4 Chair Pozza closed the public hearing. 5 The Commission questioned staff on the ingress /egress 6 to Los Angeles Avenue, the private recreation area 7 located at the end of Fremont Street, installation of 8 a gate that separates the Arroyo from the project, 9 front yard landscaping prior to occupancy, established 10 time limits in the conditions on the back yard 11 landscaping, side yard clearances of not less than 12 three (3') feet, adjusting the minimum yard setbacks 13 (add 3 feet) to pads 63 and 64 by reducing the 14 backyard setbacks on pads 67 through 70 to the 13 foot 15 minimum, and extension of Majestic Avenue to connect 16 with Moorpark Avenue. 17 MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner 18 DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff 19 recommendation. 20 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 21 B. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific 22 Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02, for 23 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally 24 North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land 25 Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal 26 Boundaries. Applicant: North Park Village, LP (APN: 27 500 -0- 120 -065; 500 -0- 170 -135; 500 -0- 180 -125, -135, - 28 145, -155, -165, -175, -185, -195, -205, -215, -225, - 29 235, -245, -255; 500 -0- 281 -165, -175; 500 -0- 292 -135, - 30 145, -195, -215, -225; 615 -0 -110 -205, -215; 615- 0 -150- 31 185) (Continued from March 16, 2004 Meeting) 32 Staff Recommendation: 1) Continue to accept public 33 testimony and close the public hearing; 2) Accept the 34 requested change to the Mitigation Monitoring Program; 35 and 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending 36 to the City Council certification of the Final 37 Environmental Impact Report and approval of General 38 Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific Plan No. 2001 -01 39 with revisions, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02. \ \mor pri sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \09 0406 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Page 4 1 David Bobardt gave the staff presentation. Mr. Bobardt 2 discussed a proposed change to the Specific Plan 3 relating to a future western access, adding Condition 4 Number 21 to stamp page 120 in the packet. He 5 commented on revisions to timing of certain roadway 6 improvements proposed by the applicant. He also 7 discussed a proposed change to the Mitigation 8 Monitoring Program related to Section 3.4 Air Quality. 9 He recommended that Condition a) 2. be changed to 10 reflect cessation of grading activities at wind speeds 11 greater than fifteen (15) miles per hour rather than 12 twenty -five (25) miles per hour. 13 Walter Brown, Assistant City Engineer, provided a 14 synopsis of dust suppression measures. 15 Kim Kilkenny, applicant, commented on the draft EIR 16 and Specific Plan process and provided a review of the 17 benefits of the plan, including: the fact that 18 seventy -five percent of the plan is set aside for open 19 space, nature preserve and parks; that the plan 20 provides a permanent open space buffer between 21 Moorpark and Simi Valley; that the plan preserves over 22 seventy -five percent of regulated hillsides; 23 preservation of major wildlife corridors and eighty - 24 two percent of mature trees; and the project 25 amenities, the 52 -acre recreational lake, lakeside 26 trail, expanded lakeside park, fire and safety 27 service, expanded school site. He stated that the 28 applicant was committed to construct improvements at 29 Campus Park Drive and Collins Drive and a new 30 interchange. He discussed status of groundwater and 31 water runoff issues. 32 Lynn Shackleford, resident, spoke in support of the 33 proposal, commenting that he was sure that there were 34 a number of people outside the area as well as people 35 in Moorpark would like to see the project built. He 36 stated that if the project does not get built that he 37 would consider moving outside of Moorpark. 38 James Carpenter, resident, spoke in support of the 39 proposal, commenting that he and a group of people in 40 the Villa Del Arroyo Mobile Home Park would like to 41 see this project move forward; and that North Park had 42 worked hard with staff to offer satisfaction to the \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04_0406_pcm.doc 000004 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 5 1 public; and that the project would be beneficial to 2 the residents and people outside of the city. He 3 stated the public's concerns had been addressed and he 4 would like to see it on the ballot. 5 Robert Hamburg, resident, not in support of the 6 proposal, commented that traffic was only going to 7 increase, that current highway improvements had been 8 put on hold and the project would bring people to the 9 parks, increasing traffic. He commented on the current 10 lack of service in the area, causing people to drive 11 to obtain services. He also commented on the impact 12 of the recent fires in October and access problems. 13 James Roller, resident, not in support of the 14 proposal, commented on the effects of valley fever and 15 the impact from construction activities disturbing the 16 soil and concerns that CALOSHA would not adequately 17 address the issue and effect on residents in the 18 surrounding community. He stated that a Phase 2 19 environmental study was necessary to adequately 20 address the issue. 21 Randy Griffith, resident, not in favor of the 22 proposal, commented on what he considered several 23 discrepancies with the ground water analysis report, 24 including: basin plan water quality table, Table 5 - 25 groundwater data, treated storm water, lake water 26 quality and lake - source water quality. He stated that 27 the report had not been adequately reviewed. He 28 expressed concern about the project moving forward 29 until the issues were addressed. 30 Martyn Keats, resident, not in support of the 31 proposal, commented that the project is a threat to 32 the rural nature of this city. He stated the western 33 entrance is not part of the EIR and had not been 34 proposed, studied or discussed. He commented on 35 property rights and zoning, freeway interchange and 36 open space issues. 37 Lisa Leal, resident, in favor of this proposal, 38 commented on the wildlife and nature preserve, 39 alternatives to the project such as piecemeal 40 development, and North Park's dedication to the City 41 of a large portion of the property. She stated if \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0406_pcm.doc UC;��UU Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 6 1 private ownership occurs, the amenities will not be 2 offered. North Parks offers solutions, relaxation, 3 industry and jobs. She suggested that people should 4 look at the website. 5 Twelve written statement cards were submitted and all 6 twelve were in favor of the project. The statements 7 will be included in the record. 8 Mr. Bobardt responded to questions related to the 9 report on groundwater, stating that Kennedy Jenks 10 worked very closely with the Fox Canyon Groundwater 11 Management Agency, which had accepted the report. 12 Chair Pozza questioned Mr. Keats' reference to EIR 13 implications regarding a potential for a western 14 access. 15 Mr. Bobardt responded that staff considered whether 16 such an access road would have any growth- inducing 17 implications. He noted that due to the use and zoning 18 of surrounding land as agriculture and open space, and 19 the fact that the property is outside the City, Sphere 20 of Influence, and CURB Boundary, growth- inducement 21 would be speculative and the issue would appropriately 22 be dealt with if development plans are ever submitted 23 for the property to the west, which is currently 24 outside the City boundary and Sphere of Influence. 25 Chair Pozza closed the public hearing. 26 MOTION: Commissioner Peskay moved and Commissioner 27 DiCecco seconded a motion to approve staff 28 recommendation, as amended. 29 Chair Pozza invited discussion on the Motion. 30 Commissioner Peskay's comments included the following 31 items for consideration: 32 • commendation to staff on work done and Mr. Bobardt's 33 portioning of issues 34 • the benefit of public input to the project 35 • satisfaction that cleanup related to petroleum 36 issues has been sufficiently addressed 37 • satisfaction that water quality and quantity has 38 been reconciled \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2009 Draft \09 0906 pcm.doc - - 0 (30006 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 7 1 • satisfaction that construction of the freeway 2 interchange is guaranteed and applicant will 3 collateralize the property for the guarantee 4 • concern with the projected impact on the 118 and 23 5 freeways 6 • the pressure in California to build homes, which 7 will create the traffic congestion with or without 8 the proposed project and that the issue needs to be 9 addressed as a regional problem 10 • recommendation for east /west access to the project 11 • concern that the EIR did not offer an analysis of 12 the fiscal and financial impact of this project on 13 the City and his understanding that the previous 14 developer could not offer a positive net revenue 15 versus expenditure analysis. 16 Commissioner DiCecco' s comments included the following 17 items for consideration: 18 • a detailed discussion of population trends, regional 19 and local housing needs, the effect on existing 20 families in Moorpark and quality of life issues 21 • the general public's negative perception of 22 developers and the relationship to housing demands, 23 economic considerations and profit margins 24 • constructive public input and comments versus 25 criticism without benefit of alternative suggestions 26 or recommendations other than "do nothing" 27 • Commission's role in the review process including 28 diversity of backgrounds and expertise, commitment 29 to Moorpark and the importance of public input in 30 the process 31 • the current urban nature of Moorpark and issues 32 relating to property owner development rights 33 • sensitive design should focus the "built" 34 environment in as compact an area as possible, 35 leaving balance in a natural state \ \mor pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0406 pcm.doc 07 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 8 1 • the need for regional solutions to traffic issues, 2 and better utilization of underutilized transit 3 system, Metrolink, or work in Moorpark and avoid the 4 commute 5 • although the developer followed the city's direction 6 on housing mix and density, and has committed not to 7 alter the housing mix which has the potential to 8 confuse the voters, Commissioner DiCecco stated that 9 he was in favor of a variety of housing types, 10 including multi - family, smaller lots or cluster 11 detached single family and especially mixed use. 12 • Commissioner DiCecco encouraged that affordable 13 housing be located in multiple places both on -site 14 and offsite, if necessary; and stressed that the 15 affordable housing should be built, not replaced by 16 in -lieu fees. 17 • letters and comments received rarely mentioned 2,100 18 acres of open space and included a suggestion from 19 one speaker that the State purchase the property 20 like it did for Ahmanson Ranch, which depleted $150 21 Million of a $180 Million fund setup for purchase of 22 parkland statewide 23 • the proposed open space also creates a buffer for 24 Moorpark from Simi Valley, allows for wildlife 25 corridors, and prevents the San Fernando Valley - 26 ization of the area 27 • approval of this project would allow Moorpark 28 control and planning for the area rather than piece 29 meal and spot zoning development that could occur if 30 the builder not voluntarily decided to come to the 31 City. The builder has demonstrated showed good 32 faith, professionalism and fortitude 33 • the EIR addressed important impacts of the project 34 Vice Chair Lauletta's comments included the following 35 items for consideration: 36 • the Planning Commission's role in making 37 recommendations to City Council \ \mor pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0406 pcm.doc 0011jUU8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 9 • Key issues include the 21 modifications to the Specific Plan (Exhibit C) and changes to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan • Staff identification of major /macro issues: ✓ maintenance of suburban rural character ✓ preserving natural features ✓ agricultural areas and hillsides ✓ residential product mix ✓ availability of public services ✓ buffer area and preservation of vegetation ✓ traffic impacts ✓ public transportation ✓ hazard mitigation ✓ noise compatible • Items for City Council consideration include: ✓ need for extensive "state of the art mitigation efforts to avoid oil abandonment problems both during and after construction, and to avoid the potential for exposure to the developer and the City ✓ habitat maintenance plan should have a monitoring and reporting program to ensure that it is functioning the way it was intended ✓ east /west connector makes sense ✓ provide as specific a description of the project as possible when it goes to the voters, including additional detail on proposed park and recreation facilities to let the voters know what they will be getting, and put the developer on notice as to what is expected ✓ concern with school district going to maximum capacity, and suggests that a supplemental site be considered to allow for an future high school site. ✓ concern that potential hazards to public or \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04_0406 _pcm.doc 000009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Page 10 private facilities that are below the lake level has not been sufficiently addressed ✓ phasing could be critical to success and the need to identify performance requirements and penalties through a Development Agreement ✓ supports 1,650 units, however expressed concern that the project was out of balance with too many high -end single family units ✓ process is governed by CEQA and any new issues will need to be addressed through additional environmental documentation ✓ the project provides an opportunity for infrastructure and natural preserve Commissioner Landis' comments included the following items for consideration: • discussed Hillside Ordinance, developers response to staff, Commission and public comments /concerns environmental impacts, urban sprawl issues versus land use issues, core issue does the city want a project of this magnitude • Questioned whether the project would change the nature of Moorpark, but the final decision is left to the voters. Commissioner Landis identified the key issues as: ✓ the lake to be public ✓ the 29 -acre park ✓ the fire station ✓ the 18 -acre school site ✓ the necessity of a western street extension ✓ this project's key highlight is the 52 -acre lake which is better than Westlake ✓ all impacts in the EIR have been addressed ✓ the benefit in varied lot sizes, allowance of larger estate lots, opportunity for mixed use ✓ recommendation the that City Council consider the use of gated communities as a traffic calming \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0406 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 11 1 device, not necessarily to keep people out, and 2 consider other security measures that may be 3 effective 4 Chair Pozza's comments included the following items 5 for consideration: 6 • discussion of the two part decision facing the 7 Commission: CEQA and General Plan 8 • quantitative piece relating to the environmental 9 process was followed by the Commission, resulting in 10 revised Draft EIR with mitigation measures that are 11 adequate and reasonable 12 • need to address best practices available for 13 monitoring of oil production areas 14 • supports a recommendation for City Council to 15 certify EIR 16 • concerns remaining for Specific Plan and Zone 17 Change: 18 ✓ traffic: Collins Drive intersection and two 19 freeways 20 ✓ regional traffic solutions inadequate concerning 21 improvements to freeways and there is a need to 22 demand regional solutions to support growth now 23 ✓ concern for adequate funding for schools because 24 of growth in general; and although the developer 25 has offered to fully mitigate impact on schools 26 for the North Park project, a school in that area 27 is only needed if North Park is constructed 28 ✓ concern with extreme growth rate increase of 600 29 over short period of time if North Park Village 30 is added to the General Plan and regardless of 31 intrinsic project benefits, the quality of 32 everyday life in Moorpark will be degraded for 33 quite some time 34 ✓ character of our City will be impacted by the 35 shear size of the project 36 • support for City Council certification of EIR, but 37 not General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change \ \mor pri sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2009 Draft \09 0906 pcm.doc 000011 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paae 12 1 • projects like North Park are the reason the SOAR 2 initiative passed 3 • supports moving the project forward to City Council, 4 because if the project receives support from the 5 City Council, then residents of Moorpark will have 6 the final word, but they should be well informed of 7 the issues 8 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 9 At this point in the meeting, the Commission recessed at 10 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. 11 C. Consider Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03, a Request 12 for a Wireless Telecommunication Facility on an 13 Existing Southern California Edison (SCE) Utility 14 Tower, with Proposed Underground Equipment, Located 15 South of Tierra Rejada Road and Southwest of 16 Brookhurst Court. Applicant: Wireless Facilities, Inc. 17 for Cingular Wireless. (APN: 506 -0- 010 -615) 18 Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, 19 accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 20 and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- approving 21 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -03, subject to 22 conditions. 23 Steven Valdez presented the staff report. 24 Commissioner Peskay questioned staff whether this 25 project was the same proposal that staff presented 26 last year, whether equipment was underground, and 27 whether the area was screened with fencing and 28 landscaping. He also suggested that any chain link 29 fencing be painted black. 30 Staff responded that it was a new proposal in the 31 vicinity of the prior application and that the 32 proposal included fending and landscaping. 33 Chair Pozza opened the public hearing. 34 Rob Perez, applicant's representative, stated he was 35 available for questions. 36 Commissioner Landis questioned the applicant whether 37 there were any changes regarding safety issues or new \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04_0406_pcm.doc OCX012 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Page 13 1 studies on health effects of the type of facility 2 proposed. 3 The applicant's representative replied that no new 4 information was available to his knowledge. 5 Commissioner DiCecco questioned the number of antennas 6 per arm and why they were needed. 7 Mr. Perez responded that they provided coverage needs 8 and represented new technology. 9 Chair Pozza questioned whether microwave dishes were 10 required on previous applications submitted. 11 Staff responded that some previous applications had 12 included microwave antennas. 13 Denise Jacobs, resident, not in support of the 14 proposal, commented on the previous approval and the 15 impact of the current proposal. She questioned whether 16 the proposal meets setback requirement per the 17 ordinance, and requested information on exposure to RF 18 radiation. 19 Rose Brown, resident, not in support of the proposal, 20 commented she was unaware that there was a previous 21 approval for AT &T to install facilities and if the 22 project was approved then another vendor would come, 23 and in several years and there would be additional 24 facilities. 25 Chair Pozza closed the public hearing. 26 Three written statements cards were submitted and two 27 were opposed and one was neutral on the project. The 28 statements will be included in the record. 29 Mr. Hogan advised the Commission that they were 30 precluded by federal law from considering health 31 aspects of the proposal, advised that the proposal was 32 considered a minor facility under the City's wireless 33 ordinance, and that the SCE towers were a location 34 where this type of facility was determined to be an 35 appropriate. 36 The Commission discussed adding the statement, "to the 37 extent allowed by Federal law" to paragraph E on stamp 38 page 140 of the resolution, and questioned the height 39 of the facility. \ \mor pri sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0406 pcm.doc 000013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 6, 2004 Paqe 14 MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Vice Chair Lauletta seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation as amended. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Consider Recommendation to City Council on Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines. By consensus, the Commission continued Item 9.A. to the next regular Planning Commission meeting of April 20, 2004. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.) A. April 20, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting: • Residential Planned Development Permit Nos. 2002 -03, -04 & -05, (Specific Plan 2, Pardee) Mr. Hogan briefly discussed future agenda items. 11. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner DiCecco seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Scott Pozza, Chair 27 ATTEST: 28 29 Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director \ \mor_pri —sere \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0406 pcm.doc 00003.= ITEM: 6.13. Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 20, 2004 Page 1 1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on April 2 20, 2004, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic Center; 3 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021. 4 1. CALL TO ORDER: 5 Chair Pozza called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. 6 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7 Commissioner Peskay led the Pledge of Allegiance. 8 3. ROLL CALL: 9 Commissioners DiCecco, Landis and Peskay, Vice Chair 10 Lauletta and Chair Pozza were present. 11 Staff attending the meeting included Barry Hogan, Community 12 Development Director; David Bobardt, Planning Manager; 13 Walter Brown, Assistant City Engineer; Laura Stringer, 14 Senior Management Analyst; Joseph Fiss, Principal Planner; 15 Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner; and Gail Rice, 16 Administrative Secretary. 17 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 18 None. 19 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 20 Mr. Hogan requested that if the public wanted to speak on 21 an agenda item, they would need to fill out a public 22 speaker card and should submit it to the secretary before 23 the public hearing on the item is opened, to avoid any 24 confusion. 25 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 26 A. Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission 27 Meeting Minutes of March 24, 2004. 28 MOTION: Vice Chair Lauletta moved and Commissioner 29 Peskay seconded a motion that the Special Joint City 30 Council and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of \ \mor_pri sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 �1 + U 1 J Draft \04 0420 pcm.doc Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 20, 2004 Paqe 2 1 March 24, 2004, be approved. (Motion carried with a 2 unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 3 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 4 None. 5 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6 (next Resolution No. 2004 -458) 7 A. Consider Conditional Use Permit 2004 -01 to Allow a 8 Warehouse /Distribution Facility in an Existing 9 Building in the M -1 (Industrial Park) Zone, Located at 10 5316 Kazuko Court, on the Application of Warren 11 Distributing (Assessors Parcel Number 511 -0 -070 -675) 12 Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, 13 accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 14 and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending 15 to the City Council conditional approval of 16 Conditional Use Permit No. 2004 -01. 17 Joseph Fiss presented the agenda report. 18 The Commission questioned staff on the previous use of 19 the building and complaints of noisy machines received 20 by the City, the circulation pattern for trucks 21 distributing and delivering products, the loading dock 22 on the south side of the building and staff's 23 consideration of a condition prohibiting tractor 24 trailers. 25 Chair Pozza opened the public hearing. 26 Warren Weiss, applicant, stated that the project was 27 the company's sixth warehouse facility, while their 28 main facility was located in Santa Fe Springs. He 29 stated that the facility was to store automotive parts 30 for General Motors and Ford Motor Company for delivery 31 to new car dealers and auto parts stores. He commented 32 that the warehouse would require a small workforce and 33 that deliveries to the facility would be accomplished 34 with a 30 foot bobtail truck and that distribution was 35 accomplished with small pick -up trucks and vans. \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0420 pcm.doc - - 0 C ;' 016 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 20, 2004 Paae 3 1 The Commission questioned the applicant on the types 2 of sales and storage. 3 Dawn Newberry, resident, not in support of the 4 proposal, commented on business hours versus operating 5 hours, working on week -ends and who enforces if a 6 violation happens on the week -end. She stated the 7 current company used fork lifts, which have backup 8 buzzers which create noise. She expressed concern 9 that a distribution center would create traffic all 10 day in and out of the facility. She commented on 11 promises made and not kept by the current owner. She 12 stated concerns with the resale value of her property, 13 and concerns because of on -going issues with the 14 previous owner for the last five years. 15 No written statement cards were received. 16 The Commission questioned staff on adding a condition 17 that would govern work hours at the facility, whether 18 the previous use of the facility was conditioned, 19 whether outdoor storage was prohibited, whether the 20 applicant needed Saturday working hours, and if 21 product was picked up by car dealers or did Warren 22 Distributing make deliveries only. 23 Chair Pozza closed the public hearing. 24 The Commission discussed businesses in close proximity 25 to the facility and commented that warehousing would 26 be a more quiet use and the warehouse use was 27 conditional, where if violated, the permit could be 28 cancelled. 29 MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner 30 Peskay seconded a motion to approve staff 31 recommendation. 32 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) 33 Mr. Hogan commented that the City Council would make 34 the final decision on the project in a few weeks and 35 the property owners would receive a notice for that 36 hearing. \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0420 pcm.doc - - U�� �U17 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 20, 2004 Page 4 1 B. Consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -02, a 2 Request to Amend Chapter 17.74 of the Moorpark 3 Municipal Code Relating to the Development Standards 4 of Specific Plan No. 2; and Residential Planned 5 Development Nos. 2002 -03, -04, and -05, for 6 Construction of a Total of 318 Single- Family Detached 7 Residential Units within Specific Plan No. 2, Located 8 Approximately One -half Mile North of the Northerly 9 Terminus of Spring Road and Three - fourths of One Mile 10 East of Walnut Canyon Road, on the Application of 11 Pardee Homes. (Assessor Parcel Numbers: Portions of 12 500 -0- 270 -07, 500 -0- 270 -19, 500 -0- 270 -20, 512- 0 -160- 13 54, 512 -0- 160 -55, and 512 -0- 160 -70, 500 -0- 024 -03) 14 Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, 15 accept public testimony and close the public hearing; 16 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to 17 the City Council conditional approval of Residential 18 Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -03, Residential 19 Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -04, Residential 20 Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -05, and Zoning 21 Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -02. 22 Scott Wolfe gave the staff presentation and advised 23 that Condition Nos. 1 and 2 were being removed from 24 the Special Conditions in Exhibits A, B, and C, as the 25 project requires different mitigation requirements 26 which include dedication of 96 -acres of land as 27 resource conservation and preservation of open space 28 areas within the tract. 29 The Commission questioned staff on the setbacks for 30 this project and current city standards, whether the 31 project included a community pool and would it be a 32 gated- community. 33 Jim Bizzelle, Pardee Homes, applicant, provided a 34 brief overview of the project, including location of 35 the community recreation facilities and then 36 introduced his project team. 37 Chair Pozza opened the public hearing. 38 Gary Armstrong, RBF Consulting, applicant's 39 representative, discussed front and side yard setbacks 40 in each of the planning areas and stated that \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \CONLMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04_0420_pcm.doc u v Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 20, 2004 Paste 5 1 requested revisions to setbacks offered variety in the 2 streetscape. He provided an overview of the lot 3 summary. He addressed proposed language changes to 4 the approved specific plan. 5 Commissioner Lauletta questioned Mr. Armstrong on the 6 number of lots for which a variation of setbacks for 7 side, front yards and was being asked. He further 8 asked for clarification of what was being requested. 9 Staff provided additional information on the request 10 for side yard setback revisions. 11 The Commission expressed concern that the setback 12 requests were still not clear. 13 Staff provided additional information on the setbacks, 14 which was addressed further by the applicant. 15 Jeff Lake, Bassenian Lagoni Architects, applicant's 16 representative, commented on the building footprints, 17 discussed existing and proposed Specific Plan language 18 and the use of approved reduced front yard setbacks 19 for units with swing garages. 20 The Commission questioned Mr. Lake on the building 21 footprints, the Specific Plan as it relates to swing 22 and front load garages, setbacks in Planning Area 1, 23 the position of the parkways and driveway aprons, and 24 the sideyard setbacks for Planning Area 4. 25 Robin Lowe, LA Group, applicant's representative, 26 described the projects entry monumentation and 27 landscaping, providing details for Spring Road at 28 Charles Street and at A Street. 29 The Commission questioned Ms. Lowe on the recreation 30 areas including pools, maintenance of the landscape 31 and streetscape, entrances to the project site and 32 their construction timing in relation to the building 33 schedule. 34 The Commission questioned Highway 118 and SR -23 35 relationships with the project, the decision for gated 36 communities in the project and the market forces that 37 dictate construction type and access for motor homes. 38 Mark Stanley, resident, not in support of the 39 proposal, commented on his concerns regarding \ \mor pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \04 0420 pcm.doc U4-►;U13 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 20, 2004 Paae 6 1 maintenance of the landscaping, the location of power 2 lines and traffic signals. He commented on last year's 3 fires and ingress and egress, specifically in an 4 emergency. He questioned the maintenance of trees and 5 the height and maintenance of the wall proposed along 6 Spring Road. 7 Yolanda McAlevey, resident, not in support of the 8 proposal, commented on the ingress and egress into the 9 project and potential conflicts for traffic signals on 10 Spring Road at Charles Street and High Street with the 11 proximity of the railroad crossing.. She commented on 12 the wall along Spring Road and questioned what steps 13 would be taken to protect it from graffiti and her 14 concern of relocating the power lines behind her 15 property. 16 The Commission asked staff who would be responsible 17 for maintenance of the landscaping, walls and the 18 status of power lines along Spring Road and whether 19 roundabouts had been considered within the project. 20 One (1) written statement card was received in 21 opposition and the statements will be included in the 22 record. 23 Mr. Hogan answered Mr. Stanley's questions and 24 discussed the proposals for SR -23 access to this 25 development. 26 Chair Pozza closed the public hearing. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 The Commission discussed the garage, side yard and front yard setbacks, tandem garage spaces, creation of a matrix and revised layout to show the total number of lots and setbacks for each planning area and future improvements of tandem parking. MOTION: Commissioner Landis Lauletta seconded a motion to the public hearing closed, Planning Commission meeting directed staff to provide requested by the Commission. moved and Vice Chair continue this item, with to the next Regular of May 4, 2004, and a setback matrix as 39 (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2009 Draft \09 0420 pcm.doc Wu0020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California Minutes of April 20, 2004 Paae 7 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Consider Recommendation to City Council on Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines (Continued from April 6, 2004 Meeting) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines. By consensus, the Commission continued Item 9.A. to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on May 4, 2004. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.) A. May 4, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting: • Possible Cancellation Mr. Hogan briefly discussed future agenda items, indicating that there would be a meeting on May 4, 2004, for the continued items. 11. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Commissioner Landis seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. (Motion carried with a unanimous 5:0 voice vote.) The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Scott Pozza, Chair 25 ATTEST: 26 27 Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director \ \mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2004 Draft \09 0420 pcm.doc 0 U iJZI ITEM: 8.A. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo Prepared by Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner DATE: April 27, 2004 (PC Meeting of 05/04/04) SUBJECT: Consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -02, a Request to Amend Chapter 17.74 of the Moorpark Municipal Code Relating to the Development Standards of Specific Plan No. 2; and Residential Planned Development Nos. 2002 -03, -04, and -05, for Construction of a Total of 318 Single - Family Detached Residential Units within Specific Plan No. 2, Located Approximately One -half Mile North of the Northerly Terminus of Spring Road and Three - fourths of One Mile East of Walnut Canyon Road, on the Application of Pardee Homes. (Assessor Parcel Numbers: Portions of 500 -0- 270 -07, 500 -0- 270 -19, 500 -0- 270 -20, 512 -0- 160 -54, 512 -0- 160 -55, and 512 -0- 160 -70, 500- 0 -024- 03) BACKGROUND This item was originally scheduled for consideration at the Planning Commission's regular meeting held on April 20, 2004. At that meeting, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, accepted testimony from the applicant and the public, and closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission continued consideration of this matter to the meeting of May 4, 2004, directing staff to provide clarification on the requested amendments to the design standards and information on the number of houses proposed with reduced front yard setbacks. DISCUSSION Changes to Design Standards The following table reflects both the existing standard and the proposed amendment for each requested change to the Specific Plan Design standards for Planning Areas 1 -4. S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \2002 \03 Pardee \PC Agenda Report - cont.doc 0 0 C 0 2 Honorable Planning Commission May 4, 2004 Page 2 * May be reduced to 15' where the living space is closer to the street than the garage door or as approved by the Community Development Director. Habitable area with a setback of less than 20 feet shall be single story, with a maximum roof height of 18 feet. ** May be reduced to 15' where the living space is closerto the street than the garage door, where a garage doorfaces a side lot line, for a port cochere, or as approved by the Community Development Director. Habitable area with a setback of less than 20 feet shall be single story, with a maximum roof height of 18 feet. * ** May be reduced to 15' where the living space is closer to the street than the garage door, where a garage door faces a side lot line, for a port cochere, or as approved by the Community Development Director. Of particular note is a change in the requested side yard setback standard. At staff's recommendation, the applicant has withdrawn their request for a change to a seven and one -half foot (7.5') 0U, �U23 Planning Area PA -1 PA -2 PA -3 PA-4 Std. (3,500 sq. ft. min.) (6,000 sq. ft. min., 8,601 (6,000 sq. ft. min., 8,941 (6,000 sq. ft. min., 9,840 sq. ft. avg.) sq. ft. avg.) sq. ft. avg.) Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Front 20'min. 20'min* 20'min. 20'min ** 20'min. 20'min** 20'min. 20'min * ** Setback 3' -5' No More 3' -5' No More 3' -5' No More 3' -5' No More variation than 2 in a variation than 2 in a variation than 2 in a variation than 2 in a between Row with between Row with between Row with between Row with lots Same lots Same lots Same lots Same Setback Setback Setback Setback Side 5' min. No Change. 5' min. 5' min. 5' min. 5' min. 5' min. 5' min. Setback 2nd Story 2nd Story 7.5' avg. 2nd Story 7.5' avg. 2nd Story 7.5' avg. Deck or Deck or 2nd Story Deck or 2nd Story Deck or 2nd Story Balcony. 10' Balcony: 10' Deck or Balcony: 10' Deck or Balcony. 10' Deck or min. min. Balcony. 10' min. Balcony 10' min. Balcony 10' min. min. min. Rear Dwelling: Dwelling: Dwelling: No Change Dwelling: No Change Dwelling: No Change Setback 20'min. 15' min. 20' min. 20'min. 20'min. Patio: 10' Patio: 10' Patio: 10' Patio: 10' Patio:10' min. min. min. min. min. 2nd Story 2"d Story 2"d Story 2"d Story 2"d Story Patio: 20' Patio: 20' Patio: 20' Patio: 20' Patio: 20' min. min. min. min. min. Accessory Accessory Accessory Accessory Accessory Struct.:5' Struct.:5' Struct.:5' Struct.:5' Struct.:5' min. min. min. min. min. Parking No Tandem Tandem No Tandem Tandem No Tandem Tandem No Tandem Tandem Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Parking Allowed for Allowed for Allowed for Allowed for 3`d Space 3'd Space 3'd Space 3`d Space Eaves Consist -ent Comple- Consist -ent Comple- Consist -ent Comple- Consist -ent Comple - and with front mentary to with front mentary to with front mentary to with front mentary to elevation front elevation front elevation front elevation front Windows elevation elevation elevation elevation Solar No Design No Change Not in Front Delete Not in Front Delete Not in Front Delete Panels Standard Elevation Standard Elevation Standard Elevation Standard * May be reduced to 15' where the living space is closer to the street than the garage door or as approved by the Community Development Director. Habitable area with a setback of less than 20 feet shall be single story, with a maximum roof height of 18 feet. ** May be reduced to 15' where the living space is closerto the street than the garage door, where a garage doorfaces a side lot line, for a port cochere, or as approved by the Community Development Director. Habitable area with a setback of less than 20 feet shall be single story, with a maximum roof height of 18 feet. * ** May be reduced to 15' where the living space is closer to the street than the garage door, where a garage door faces a side lot line, for a port cochere, or as approved by the Community Development Director. Of particular note is a change in the requested side yard setback standard. At staff's recommendation, the applicant has withdrawn their request for a change to a seven and one -half foot (7.5') 0U, �U23 Honorable Planning Commission May 4, 2004 Page 3 setback requirement for six - thousand square foot lots. Instead, the applicant has agreed with staff's recommendation that the side yard setback for all lots within Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 should have a five (5) foot minimum, with an average of seven and one -half feet (7.5') for each side. This will enable homes on irregularly shaped lots to be moved forward somewhat, allowing for an increase in usable rear yard area. Front Yard Setbacks The following table reflects the layout of lots as currently proposed on the plans before the Commission. Minimum Front PA 1 PA 2 PA 3 PA 4 Total Setbacks No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 15' 21 22% 6 9% 10 13% 30 38% 67 21% 16' 7 7% 2 3% 0 0% 1 1% 10 3% 17' 10 11% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 11 3% 18' 18 19% 1 1% 5 7% 13 17% 37 12% 19' 6 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 2% > 20' 33 37% 60 87% 61 80% 33 42% 187 59% Total 95 100% 69 100% 76 100% 78 100% 318 100% It should be noted that many of the above setbacks which lie between fifteen (15) and nineteen (19) feet in the table above, would be permitted under the current standards due to the use of swing (side lot line - facing) garages. Of the six (6) units with less than twenty (20) foot setbacks in Planning Area 2, five (5) of them have swing garage units and would be permitted without the amendment. Of the fifteen (15) units in Planning Area 3, fourteen (14) have swing garages and would be permitted. Of the forty -five (45) units shown in Planning Area 4, eighteen (18) have swing garages, and would be permitted. The higher percentages of units with reduced setbacks in Planning Areas 1 and 4 can be decreased by sliding the units back in many cases. Many of the reduced setbacks proposed are an ideal situation to increase private usable areas in rear yards and the plotting of many of these units can be adjusted to meet twenty (201) feet in the front yard at the expense of non - required rear yard areas. Further, at least three (3) of the units in Planning Area 4 will need to be moved away from the street tc meet the 024 Honorable Planning Commission May 4, 2004 Page 4 "staggering" requirement which is reduction. proposed with the setback In order to reduce the perception of building massing against the street, staff recommends to the Commission the addition of a condition to the Resolutions for Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3. This condition will limit the height of habitable space, with a setback of less than twenty (20) feet to one story, to a maximum height of eighteen (18) feet. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission set the upper limit of units which may be at the fifteen foot (15') minimum setback at twenty -five percent (250). While this will require the re- plotting of a number of lots within Planning Area 4, the applicant indicates that this is feasible. Staff would also recommend that the discretion to determine appropriate setback mixes for the range between sixteen (16') and nineteen (19') feet be given to the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director will be able to balance the need to maintain an open streetscape with the need to maximize private usable open space in the rear yards. Also, as plotting revisions are inevitable through the construction process, this discretion will allow staff the flexibility to make changes and corrections as the project progresses without the need for formal modifications. STAFF RECObII4ENDATION Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -03, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -04, Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -05, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -02. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Draft Resolution 2. Site Plans for each Planning Area 3. April 20, 2004, Agenda Report, including attachments (except for Draft Resolution) OU.v025 RESOLUTION NO. PC -2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -02, TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2 AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NOS. 2002- 03, -04, AND -05 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TOTAL OF 318 SINGLE - FAMILY, DETACHED DWELLING UNITS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE -HALF MILE NORTH OF NORTH OF THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF SPRING ROAD AND THREE - FOURTHS OF ONE MILE EAST OF WALNUT CANYON ROAD, ON THE APPLICATION OF PARDEE HOMES. (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 500 -0- 270 -07, 512 -0- 160 -55, 512 -0- 160 -70, 500 -0- 270 -19, 500 -0- 270 -20, 512 -0- 160 -54, AND 500 -0- 024-03) WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on April 20, 2004, the Planning Commission considered Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -03 for the construction of 95 single - family, detached dwelling units on 17.7 acres within Planning Area 1 of Specific Plan No. 2; Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -04 for the construction of 145 single- family, detached dwelling units on 38.4 acres within Planning Areas 2 and 3 of Specific Plan No. 2; Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -05 for the construction of seventy (78) single- family, detached dwelling units on 24.7 acres within Planning Area 4 of Specific Plan No. 2; and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -02, to amend development standards within Specific Plan No. 2, located approximately one -half mile north of the northerly terminus of Spring Road and three - fourths of one mile east of Walnut Canyon Road, on the application of Pardee Homes. (Assessor Parcel Numbers: portions of 500- 0 -270- 07, 512 -0- 160 -55, 512 -0- 160 -70, 500 -0- 270 -19, 500 -0- 270 -20, 512- 0- 160 -54, AND 500 -0- 024 -03); and WHEREAS, at its meeting of April 20, 2004, the Planning Commission considered the agenda report and any supplements thereto and any written public comments; opened the public hearing, took and considered public testimony both for and against the proposal, closed the public hearing, continued the item to May 4, 2004 and on May 4, 2004 reached a decision on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission concurs with the Community Development Director's determination that the projects are S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \2002 \03 Pardee \Reso- Cond \PC 040504.doc PC ATTACHMENT 1 0 uf ul"0 6 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 2 consistent with the findings of the Environmental Impact Report, and any amendments thereto, approved in connection with the Moorpark Highlands - Specific Plan No. 2 and has considered information in the environmental document in its deliberations of the project before making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS: Based upon the information set forth in the staff report(s), accompanying studies, and oral and written public testimony, the Planning Commission makes the following findings in accordance with City of Moorpark, Municipal Code Section 17.44.030: A. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and provisions of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, in that the proposed project will provide for the orderly development of land identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as appropriate for residential development. B. The proposed project is compatible with the character of surrounding development, in that the surrounding development will include a variety of single - family, detached and attached homes, including some homes which are affordable to moderate, low, and very low income families. C. The proposed project would not be obnoxious or harmful, or impair the utility of neighboring property or uses, in that the use proposed is similar to uses existing or proposed to the south and west, and access to or utility of those adjacent uses are not hindered by this project. D. The proposed project would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, in that adequate provision of public access, sanitary services, and emergency services have been ensured prior to the processing of this request. E. The proposed project is compatible with existing and planned land uses in the general area where the development is to be located, in that the existing and planned land uses in the general area are generally single- family, detached residential uses, recreational uses, and the Waterworks facility, which will be sufficiently separated from this project to avoid impacts. 0U 027 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 3 F. The proposed project is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of the surrounding properties, designed so as to enhance the physical and visual quality of the community, and the structure(s) have design features which provide visual relief and separation between land uses of conflicting character, in that the proposed project complies with all development standards of the Moorpark Municipal Code, and the development will utilize high quality architectural materials and treatments to enhance the visual appeal of the structures to be constructed. SECTION 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of: A. Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -03 for the construction of ninety -five (95) single - family, detached dwelling units on 17.7 acres within Planning Area 1 of Specific Plan No. 2; Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -04 for the construction of 145 single - family, detached dwelling units on 38.4 acres within Planning Areas 2 and 3 of Specific Plan No. 2; Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -05 for the construction of 78 single - family, detached dwelling units on 24.7 acres within Planning Area 4 of Specific Plan No. 2 per Special and Standard Conditions of Approval per Exhibits A, B and C; and B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment development standards within Exhibit D. SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION OF Development Director shall certify resolution and shall cause a certifi� the book of original resolutions. No. 2002 -02, to amend Specific Plan No. 2 per ADOPTION: The Community to the adoption of this =d resolution to be filed in oU002(15 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 4 The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of May, 2004. Scott Pozza, Chair ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan Community Development Director Exhibit A: Special and Standard Conditions of Approval for Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -03. Exhibit B: Special and Standard Conditions of Approval for Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -04. Exhibit C: Special and Standard Conditions of Approval for Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -05. Exhibit D: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2002 -02. 0u 3 029 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 5 EXHIBIT A SPECIAL AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2002 -03 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The Pardee Homes architectural booklet titled "Moorpark Highlands," shall form the basis of the evaluation of architectural treatment to be incorporated on each residential structure for permit issuance. At a minimum, the drawings and color and materials samples that have depicted the respective architectural styles and sub - styles shall be incorporated in the project, as presented in the architectural manual. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for building permit for the first residential unit, the applicant shall submit wall plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The wall plans shall be approved prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 3. Within one year of the start of initial grading of Tract 5045, the applicant shall remove the existing walls along the west side of Spring Road between High Street and Los Angeles Avenue, and replace the existing walls with new decorative walls and landscaping. The new walls shall be a minimum of six (61) feet in height, of a decorative material, and have a design acceptable to the Community Development Director. Wall plans shall be submitted for approval to the Community Development Director within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a grading permit, or within thirty (30) days of the approval of this Residential Planned Development Permit, whichever is later. 4. At least twenty -five (250) percent of the dwellings, but no more than forty (400) percent, of the dwellings shall be represented by any one of the architectural styles. No sub -style shall be represented by more than forty (400) percent of the dwellings for each architectural style. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for building permits, the applicant shall prepare, and submit for approval, a minimum of three plans for the installation of an lattice - roofed patio cover in the rear yard of each floor plan proposed. These patio covers shall be offered as an option to home buyers, and the plans shall be made available to buyers in the event they decide to build the cover after they occupy the home. ®(',U3® Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 6 6. Any change in the architectural elements shall require prior approval by the Community Development Director. Approval of any change shall require the Director to find that the change is consistent with these approved conditions, the Zoning Code and compatible with the dwellings along that street frontage and the dwellings located within two - hundred (200') feet of the side property line, as determined by the Community Development Director. 7. No more than twenty -five (250) percent of the lots within each Planning Area may be at the fifteen (151) foot minimum setback. Setbacks in excess of fifteen (15') feet but less than twenty (20') feet shall be permitted at the discretion of the Community Development Director. 8. Habitable area with a setback of less than twenty (20') feet shall be single story, with a maximum roof height of eighteen (181) feet. STANDARD CONDITIONS A. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Community Development Department: 1. The Residential Planned Development Permit is granted for the land and project as identified on the entitlement application form and as shown on the plot plans and elevations incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A ". The location and design of all site improvements shall be as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations except or unless indicated otherwise herein in the following conditions. 2. All conditions of Tentative Tract Map 5045 and any subsequent modifications shall apply to this Residential Planned Development Permit. 3. Unless the Residential Development Permit is inaugurated (building foundation slab in place and substantial work in progress) not later than three (3) years after this permit is granted, this permit shall automatically expire on that date. The Community Development Director may, at his /her discretion, grant up to two (2) 1 -year extensions for project inauguration if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if Applicant can document that he /she has diligently worked towards inauguration of the project during the initial three -year period and the Applicant has concurrently requested a time extension to the tentative tract map. The request for extension of this entitlement Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 7 shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the permit. 4. Prior to occupancy of each dwelling unit the Applicant shall install front yard landscaping as approved on the landscape plans. 5. All air conditioning or air exchange equipment shall be placed at ground level, may not be placed in a sideyard setback area within fifteen (15') feet of an opening window at ground floor level of any residential structure, and shall not reduce the required sideyards to less than five (5') feet of level ground. 6. All facilities and uses other than those specifically requested in the application are prohibited unless an application for a modification is submitted to the Department of Community Development consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. 7. Garages shall maintain a clear unobstructed dimension of twenty (201) feet in length and ten (10') feet in width for each parking stall provided with a minimum of two garage - parking stalls required for each dwelling unit. 8. Rain gutters and downspouts shall be provided on all sides of the structure for all structures where there is a directional roof flow. Water shall be conveyed to the street or drives in non - corrosive devices as determined by the City Engineer. 9. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, working drawings, grading and drainage plans, plot plans, final map (if requested by the Community Development Director), sign programs, and landscaping and irrigation plans (three full sets) shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. B. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Engineering Division: 10. The City Engineering Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 5045 apply to Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -03. C. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Ventura County Fire Department: 11. All conditions of Tentative Tract Map 5045 shall apply. 000032 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 8 D. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1: 12. All conditions of Tentative Tract Map 5045 shall apply. E. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Police Department: 13. Prior to issuance of building permits for either the residential or recreational components of the project, the Police Department shall review development plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services. To the degree feasible, public safety planning recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans. The Applicant shall prepare of list of project features and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. Review and approval by the Police Department of all defensible space design features incorporated into the project shall occur prior to initiation of the building plan check process. F. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Moorpark Unified School District: 14. Prior to issuance of building permits for the residential units, all legally mandated school impact fees applicable at the time of issuance of a building permit shall be paid to the Moorpark Unified School District. -End- 0 U ; 0 33 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 9 EXHIBIT B SPECIAL AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2002 -04 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The Pardee Homes architectural booklet titled `Moorpark Highlands," shall form the basis of the evaluation of architectural treatment to be incorporated on each residential structure for permit issuance. At a minimum, the drawings and color and materials samples that have depicted the respective architectural styles and sub - styles shall be incorporated in the project as presented in the architectural manual. 2. At least twenty five (250) percent of the dwellings, but no more than forty (400) percent, of the dwellings shall be represented by any one of the architectural styles. No sub -style shall be represented by more than forty (40 %) percent of the dwellings for each architectural style. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for building permits, the applicant shall prepare, and submit for approval, a minimum of three plans for the installation of an lattice- roofed patio cover in the rear yard of each floor plan proposed. These patio covers shall be offered as an option to home buyers, and the plans shall be made available to buyers in the event they decide to build the cover after they occupy the home. 4. Any change in the architectural elements shall require prior approval by the Community Development Director. Approval of any change shall require the Director to find that the change is consistent with these approved conditions, the Zoning Code and compatible with the dwellings along that street frontage and the dwellings located within two - hundred (200') feet of the side property line as determined by the Community Development Director. 5. Garages shall maintain a clear unobstructed dimension of twenty (20') feet in length and ten (10') feet in width for each parking stall provided with a minimum of two (2) garage - parking stalls required for each dwelling unit. 6. No more than twenty -five (25 %) percent of the lots within each Planning Area may be at the fifteen (151) foot minimum setback. Setbacks in excess of fifteen (15') fees but less ® ► i0 3 4 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 10 than twenty (20') feet shall be permitted at the discretion of the Community Development Director. 7. Habitable area with a setback of less than twenty (20') feet shall be single story, with a maximum roof height of eighteen (18') feet. STANDARD CONDITIONS A. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Community Development Department: 1. The Residential Planned Development Permit is granted for the land and project as identified on the entitlement application form and as shown on the plot plans and elevations incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A ". The location and design of all site improvements shall be as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations except or unless indicated otherwise herein in the following conditions. 2. All conditions of Tentative Tract Map 5045 and any subsequent modifications shall apply to this Residential Planned Development Permit. 3. Unless the Residential Development Permit is inaugurated (building foundation slab in place and substantial work in progress) not later than three (3) years after this permit is granted, this permit shall automatically expire on that date. The Community Development Director may, at his /her discretion, grant up to two (2) 1 -year extensions for project inauguration if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if Applicant can document that he /she has diligently worked towards inauguration of the project during the initial 3 -year period and the Applicant has concurrently requested a time extension to the Tentative Tract Map. The request for extension of this entitlement shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the permit. 4. Prior to occupancy of each dwelling unit the Applicant shall install front yard landscaping as approved on the landscape plans. 5. All air conditioning or air exchange equipment shall be placed at ground level, may not be placed in a sideyard setback area within fifteen (15') feet of an opening window at ground floor level of any residential structure, and 0 J0 35 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 11 shall not reduce the required sideyards to less than five (5') feet of level ground. 6. All facilities and uses other than those specifically requested in the application are prohibited unless an application for a modification is submitted to the Department of Community Development consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. 7. Rain gutters and downspout shall be provided on all sides of the structure for all structures where there is a directional roof flow. Water shall be conveyed to the street or drives in non - corrosive devices, as determined by the City Engineer. 8. Garages shall maintain a clear unobstructed dimension of twenty (20') feet in length and ten (10') feet in width for each parking stall provided with a minimum of two garage - parking stalls required for each dwelling unit. 9. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, working drawings, grading and drainage plans, plot plans, final map (if requested by the Community Development Director), sign programs, and landscaping and irrigation plans (three full sets) shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. B. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Engineering Division: 10. The City Engineering Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 5045 apply to Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -03. C. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Ventura County Fire Department: 11. All conditions of Tentative Tract Map 5045 shall apply. D. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1: 12. All conditions of Tentative Tract Map 5045 shall apply. E. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Police Department: 13. Prior to issuance of building permits for either the residential or recreational components of the project, the Police Department shall review development plans for the ;036 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 12 incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services. To the degree feasible, public safety planning recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans. The Applicant shall prepare of list of project features and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. Review and approval by the Police Department of all defensible space design features incorporated into the project shall occur prior to initiation of the building plan check process. F. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Moorpark Unified School District: 14. Prior to issuance of building permits for the residential units, all legally mandated school impact fees applicable at the time of issuance of a building permit shall be paid to the Moorpark Unified School District. -End- 000037 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 13 EXHIBIT C SPECIAL AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2002 -05 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The Pardee Homes architectural booklet titled `Moorpark Highlands," shall form the basis of the evaluation of architectural treatment to be incorporated on each residential structure for permit issuance. At a minimum, the drawings and color and materials samples that have depicted the respective architectural styles and sub - styles shall be incorporated in the project as presented in the architectural manual. 2. No more than forty (40 %) percent, but no less than twenty (20 %) percent, of the dwellings shall be represented by any one of the architectural styles and no sub -style shall be represented by more than forty (40 %) percent of the maximum number of dwellings allowed for the primary architectural style. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare, and submit for approval, plans for the installation of an open patio cover in the rear yard of each floor plan proposed. These patio covers shall be offered as an option to home buyers, and the plans shall be made available to buyers in the event they decide to build the cover after they occupy the home. 4. No more than twenty -five (25 %) percent of the lots within each Planning Area may be at the fifteen (15') foot minimum setback. Setbacks in excess of fifteen (15') feet but less than twenty (20') feet shall be permitted at the discretion of the Community Development Director. STANDARD CONDITIONS A. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Community Development Department: 1. The Residential Planned Development Permit is granted for the land and project as identified on the entitlement application form and as shown on the plot plans and elevations incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A ". The location and design of all site improvements shall be as shown on the approved plot plans and elevations except 0,14-1 1%J1038 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 14 or unless indicated otherwise herein in the following conditions. 2. All conditions of Tentative Tract Map 5045 and any subsequent modifications shall apply to this Residential Planned Development Permit. 3. Unless the Residential Planned Development Permit is inaugurated (building foundation slab in place and substantial work in progress) not later than three (3) years after this permit is granted, this permit shall automatically expire on that date. The Community Development Director may, at his /her discretion, grant up to two (2) 1 -year extensions for project inauguration if there have been no changes in the adjacent areas and if Applicant can document that he /she has diligently worked towards inauguration of the project during the initial three -year period and the Applicant has concurrently requested a time extension to the Tentative Tract Map. The request for extension of this entitlement shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the permit. 4. Prior to occupancy of each dwelling unit the Applicant shall install front yard landscaping as approved on the landscape plans. 5. All air conditioning or air exchange equipment shall be placed at ground level, may not be placed in a sideyard setback area within fifteen (15') feet of an opening window at ground floor level of any residential structure, and shall not reduce the required sideyards to less than five (5') feet of level ground. 6. All facilities and uses other than those specifically requested in the application are prohibited unless an application for a modification is submitted to the Department of Community Development consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. 7. Garages shall maintain a clear unobstructed dimension of twenty (201) feet in length and ten (10') feet in width for each parking stall provided with a minimum of two garage - parking stalls required for each dwelling unit. 8. Rain gutters and of the structure directional roof street or drives the City Engineer. downspout shall be provided on all sides for all structures where there is a flow. Water shall be conveyed to the in non - corrosive devices as determined by 00 00:39 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 15 9. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Clearance for construction, working drawings, grading and drainage plans, plot plans, final map (if requested by the Community Development Director), sign programs, and landscaping and irrigation plans (three full sets) shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. B. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Engineering Division: 10. The City Engineering Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 5045 apply to Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -03. C. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Ventura County Fire Department: 11. All conditions of Tentative Tract Map 5045 shall apply. D. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1: 12. All conditions of Tentative Tract Map 5045 shall apply. E. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Police Department: 13. Prior to issuance of building permits for either the residential or recreational components of the project, the Police Department shall review development plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services. To the degree feasible, public safety planning recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans. The Applicant shall prepare of list of project features and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. Review and approval by the Police Department of all defensible space design features incorporated into the project shall occur prior to initiation of the building plan check process. F. For compliance with the following conditions please contact the Moorpark Unified School District: 14. Prior to issuance of building permits for the residential units, all legally mandated school impact fees applicable at the time of issuance of a building permit shall be paid to the Moorpark Unified School District. -End- ©C 040 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 16 EXHIBIT D PROPOSED REVISIONS Zoning Ordinance Amendment (revised text in Italics) Section 17.74.040.1 Single - family residential site development standards. B. Specific Plan No. 2 Residential Planned Development Single - family (SP2- RPD -SF) 2.5 to 4.5 du /ac Zone. Planning Areas (P.A.) 2, 3, and 4. 1. Minimum lot area: six - thousand (6,000) square feet. 2. Building Setbacks. a. The Front setback minimum for six - thousand (6,000) square foot lots is twenty (201) feet for products where the garage door(s) is even with, or forward of living space, and all garage doors face the street. In order to encourage a varied street scene and reduce the potential for a garage door dominated project, the front setback may be reduced to fifteen (15') feet where any of the following design elements are incorporated into the architecture of the homes: Living space is forward (closer to the street) of the garage door Swing garages with the opening facing the side lot line Products that incorporate port cocheres, or other architectural features that screen at least a portion of the garage doors from the street Or as approved by the Community Development Director. Any two adjacent lots may have the same front setback, however the third consecutive lot should vary the front setback by three (31) feet or more, as appropriate to the street and lot configuration and to provide variety in the streetscape. 0 c�U41 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 17 b. Side setback minimum for a single- family dwelling unit adjacent to a street is ten (10') feet, with the exception that the minimum side setback adjacent to Spring Road shall be twenty (20') feet. c. Side setback minimum for a single - family dwelling unit on an interior lot shall be five (5') feet with an average of seven and one -half (7.51) feet on each side. Side setback minimum for a second story deck or balcony is ten (10') feet. d. Rear setback minimum for a single - family dwelling unit is twenty (20') feet, for an enclosed patio or open patio cover is ten (10') feet, for a second story deck or balcony is twenty (201) feet, and for an accessory structure is five (5') feet. e. For projects on a hillside area and where it can be clearly established that reduced setbacks will enhance preservation of natural terrain and reduced grading, front setbacks may be reduced by the approving authority to ten (10') feet as applied to the main portion of the dwelling. Garage setbacks shall normally be twenty (20') feet except for a side loaded garage where a minimum driveway depth of twenty (20') feet from the right -of -way edge shall be provided. 3. Maximum building height: a. Thirty -five (35') feet for dwelling units; b. Fifteen (15') feet for accessory structures; C. Twelve (12') feet for a patio cover and second floor deck or balcony, not including railing height; No more than three (3) stories shall be permitted. 4. Fences and Walls. Fences and walls shall comply with the provisions of the Moorpark Municipal Code, with the exception that sound attenuation walls shall be constructed to a height as required by a city- approved noise study for the Residential Planned Development Permit. oc(, 042 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 18 5. Parking. Parking the City of Moorpark noted in this chapter spaces are allowed. 6. Signage. Signage the City of Moorpark noted in this chapter. shall comply with Chapter 17.32 of Municipal Code, except as otherwise Tandem, i.e. end to end, garage shall comply with Chapter 17.40 of Municipal Code, except as otherwise 7. Recreational Amenities. Residential Planned Development Permit areas with single- family lots that have an average size of less than seven - thousand (7,000) square feet shall include private recreational amenities such as, but not limited to the following: clubhouse, restrooms, swimming pool and spa, play apparatus, picnic shelter, barbecue area with seating, court game facilities (non - lighted) , and multipurpose fields. The types of amenities shall be reviewed and approved with the required Residential Planned Development Permit. 8. Eaves and Window Treatments and Surrounds. The eaves and window treatments and surrounds on all sides of a structure shall be complimentary with the eaves and window treatments and surrounds on the front elevation. 9. Wrap- Around Front Elevation Treatment. The architectural style and treatment included along the front elevation of a single- family unit shall continue along each side elevation until commencement of fencing or other architecturally feasible termination point as determined by the Residential Planned Development Permit approval body. C. Specific Plan No. 2 Residential Planned Development Single - family (SP2- RPD -SF) 6 du /ac Zone. Planning Area (P.A.) 1 1. Minimum Lot Area: three - thousand - five - hundred (3,500) square feet. 2. Building Setbacks. a. Front setback minimum for three- thousand -five- hundred (3,500) square foot lots is twenty (20') feet for products where the garage door(s) is even with or forward of, living space, and all garage doors face the street. In order to encourage a varied street 000043 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 19 scene and reduce the potential for a garage door dominated project, the front setback may be reduced to fifteen (151) feet where any of the following design elements are incorporated into the architecture of the homes: Living space is forward (i.e. closer to the street) of the garage door Or as approved by the Community Development Director Any two adjacent lots may have the same front setback; however the third consecutive lot should vary the front setback by three (3) or more feet, as appropriate to the street and lot configuration, and to provide for variety in the streetscape. b. Side setback minimum for a single - family dwelling unit adjacent to a street is ten (10') feet, with the exception that the minimum side setback adjacent to Spring Road shall be twenty (201) feet. C. Side setback minimum for a single - family dwelling unit on an interior lot shall be five ( 5' ) feet. Side setback minimum for a second story deck or balcony is ten (101) feet. d. Rear setback minimum for a single - family dwelling unit is fifteen (15') feet, for an enclosed patio or open patio cover is ten (10') feet, for a second story deck or balcony is twenty (20') feet, and for an accessory structure is five (51) feet. 3. Maximum building height: a. Thirty -five (351) feet for dwelling units; b. Fifteen (15') feet for accessory structures; C. Twelve (12') feet for a patio cover and second floor deck or balcony, not including railing height. 4. Fences and Walls. Fences and walls shall comply with the provisions of the Moorpark Municipal Code, with the exception that sound attenuation walls shall be constructed 0U 0044 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 20 to a height as required by a city- approved noise study for the Residential Planned Development Permit. S. Parking. Parking the City of Moorpark noted in this chapter spaces are allowed. 6. Signage. Signage the City of Moorpark noted in this chapter. shall comply with Chapter 17.32 of Municipal Code, except as otherwise Tandem, i.e. end to end, garage shall comply with Chapter 17.40 of Municipal Code, except as otherwise 7. Recreational Amenities. Residential Planned Development Permit areas with single - family lots that have an average size of less than seven - thousand (7,000) square feet shall include private recreational amenities such as, but not limited to the following: clubhouse, restrooms, swimming pool and spa, play apparatus, picnic shelter, barbecue area with seating, court game facilities (non - lighted), and multipurpose fields. The types of amenities shall be reviewed and approved with the required Residential Planned Development Permit. 8. Eaves and Window Treatments and Surrounds. The eaves and window treatments and surrounds on all sides of a structure shall be complimentary with the eaves and window treatments and surrounds on the front elevation. 9. Wrap- Around Front Elevation Treatment. The architectural style and treatment included along the front elevation of a single- family unit shall continue along each side elevation until commencement of fencing or other architecturally feasible termination point, as determined by the Residential Planned Development Permit approval body. 0(3D045 i n c H 0 I �x• JE ~ \ Mw {{ oi l o: -14 bit ri i y - #gp �, `v 11-I i® I fe 1 lj�I N �! i i oil y � o 1 IOL1 � O I � A 1 — 1 I \ � � �� °•`� � ,.�3 � �' � E '`��. !� „� 11 �, ' r+ 4p 1 1 JI I 0 0 V 0 4 '7 ��� M - ■ • 'wu - Y'A' STREET COLLlCM W ENTRANCE A' STREET COt1ECTM fp7 NTERWM � / • i ' �!•r \ .`\ S7TaEE� SEC —T�� STREET SECMIN � ' \ Nk dV All �{ All ♦ �. ko. lie Al I Sit dwV I a�� iv I i I N CQL((ECTQR STREE7 N ANDR STREET SECTKW STREET __ - d 111 tA -- --- - - - — - - 1 - - - -- - - tit 1 I / / '' if f oa�,, Isaac s f n -- � O• E � a e4 `�a PLANWO CONSULTINO ��� r[� 1 � R� y � 1 1 _ 1 1 r TO: FROM: DATE: MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Honorable Planning Commission Barry K. Hogan, Community Prepared by: Scott Wolfe, Development Directo Principal Planner April 9, 2004 (PC Meeting of 4/20/04) SUBJECT: Consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -02, a Request to Amend Chapter 17.74 of the Moorpark Municipal Code Relating to the Development Standards of Specific Plan No. 2; and Residential Planned Development Nos. 2002 -03, -04, and -05, for Construction of a Total of 318 Single - Family Detached Residential Units within Specific Plan No. 2, Located Approximately One -half Mile North of the Northerly Terminus of Spring Road and Three - fourths of One Mile East of Walnut Canyon Road, on the Application of Pardee Homes. (Assessor Parcel Numbers: Portions of 500 -0- 270 -07, 500 -0- 270 -19, 500 -0- 270 -20, 512 -0- 160 -54, 512 -0- 160 -55, and 512 -0- 160 -70, 500- 0 -024- 03) BACKGROUND In 1995, Morris on- Fount ainwood- Agoura submitted applications for the development of Specific Plan Area No. 2. These applications included the request for approval of the Specific Plan, as well as, a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and a Development Agreement. The Specific Plan and accompanying applications were approved on September 15, 1999. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 5045, which included the entire Specific Plan area, was approved on August 2, 2000. In April of 2001, Pardee Homes entered an agreement to purchase the property from Morrison - Fountainwood- Agoura. In February of 2002, Pardee Homes submitted an application for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and for approval of the Residential Planned Development Permits for Planning Areas 1 -4. PC ATTACHMENT 3 V U v' +l 6 0 S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \2002 \03 Pardee \Agenda Rpts \PC Agenda Report.doc Honorable Planning Commission April 20, 2004 Page 2 DISCUSSION Project Setting Existing Site Conditions: The subject property consists of 445 acres of land within the approved Specific Plan Area No. 2, located north of the existing northerly terminus of Spring Road, and approximately one -half mile east of Walnut Canyon Road. The site is currently vacant. Several types of plant communities previously covered the site until the October 2003, wildfires burnt most of the existing vegetation on the property. The site is generally in a natural state, with only a few utility lines and crude dirt roads crossing the site. Previous Applications: Specific Plan No. 2 was approved in September of 1999. The Specific Plan identified the project area and established overall development patterns for 570 residential units in neighborhoods of varying densities, a public school site, a public park site, numerous areas of public and private open space, and an area set aside as a habitat preserve for the coastal sage scrub community which currently exists on -site. Along with the Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map No. 5045 was approved, which established the proposed subdivision of the subject property. In December of 2003, the Community Development Director approved a Permit Adjustment for the Tentative Tract 5045, making minor adjustments to the street pattern and slightly reducing the number of residential units within the Specific Plan area to 552. In January of 2004, the City Council approved a Modification to Tentative Tract 5045, allowing the installation of gates to the entries to each of the individual neighborhoods within the Tract, and allowing the private maintenance of neighborhood streets within the Tract. GENERAL PLAN /ZONING Direction General Plan Zoning Land Use Site SP 2 SP Vacant North OS (County) OS Agricultural (County) Medium Low Single Family South Density R -1 Residential Residential (ML) Low Density Single Family East RPD /OS Residential/ Residential (L) Vacant OS /Medium Vacant /Waterworks West Density OS /RE District/ SFR R Residential Honorable Planning Commission April 20, 2004 Page 3 General Plan and Zonina Consistencv: The Specific Plan, as adopted, is consistent with the adopted General Plan of the City of Moorpark. The individual land use designations within the Specific Plan area serve as the designations of the General Plan Land Use Element would. There are no proposed changes to these designations, nor are there any proposals within the proposed projects which would result in an inconsistency with the Land Use designations. The Specific Plan also adopted development standards, incorporated as a chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, which identified specific requirements for the development of the various Planning Areas within the Specific Plan. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment proposes changes to this chapter of the Municipal Code. The proposed changes are as follows: Plannina Area 1: 1. Allow for increased flexibility in front yard setbacks (with reductions to a minimum of fifteen [151] feet from the currently required twenty [20'] feet) if the living space is forward of the garage door to produce a more varied streetscape. Additionally, front yard setbacks for any three consecutive lots, shall vary the front setback a minimum of three (3') feet from lot to lot. 2. Rear yard setback is changed from the currently required twenty (20') feet to the standard R -1 setback of fifteen (15') feet. 3. A requirement to give the same architectural treatment to all eave and windows and other features on all sides of a structure, as are found on the front elevation, is proposed to be changed to require the architectural treatment on the sides to be complimentary to the treatments on the front elevation. Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4: 1. Allow for increased flexibility in front yard setbacks (with reductions to a minimum of fifteen [15'] feet) if specific architectural features are utilized to produce a more varied streetscape. Approved architectural features would include: • Living space is forward (closer to the street) of the garage door; • swing garages with the opening facing the side lot line; 2 Honorable Planning Commission April 20, 2004 Page 4 • products that incorporate porte cocheres or other architectural features that screen at least a portion of the garage doors from the street; or • as approved by the Community Development Director. Additionally, front yard setbacks for any three consecutive lots shall vary the setback by a minimum of three (3') feet from lot to lot. 2. Side yard setbacks minimums for all interior lots shall be seven and one -half (7.5') feet with a minimum separation between structures of fifteen (15') feet. This would be an increase in setbacks for lots smaller than 7,000 square feet. 3. An allowance is made for the use of tandem parking (i.e. end to end) for the third space within garages. 4. A requirement to give the same architectural treatment to all eave and windows and other features on all sides of a structure, as are found on the front elevation, is to be changed to require the architectural treatment on the sides to be complimentary to the treatments on the front elevation. 5. Given the recent adoption of Solar Energy Design Standards by the City Council, staff is recommending, although the applicant has not requested, the removal of a prohibition of the placement of solar panels on front elevations visible from public streets. State law pre -empts the City's ability to regulate the placement of these facilities in this manner. Project Summary The proposed Residential Planned Development projects address the architecture and plotting of units for Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4. Planning Areas 5, 8, and 9 will be addressed as future requests. RPD NO. Acres Planning Area Number of Units Average Lot Size Range of Unit Size 02 -03 17.8 1 95 5,294 sf 2,112 sf to 2,566 sf 02 -04 17.7 2 69 8,601 sf 2,609 sf to 3,116 sf 02 -04 20.7 3 76 8,941 sf 2,609 sf to 3,116 sf 02 -05 24.7 4 78 9,840 sf 3,083 sf to 3,763 sf � J 1.11 05.3 5:3 Honorable Planning Commission April 20, 2004 Page 5 Proposed Project Architecture: Planning Area 1 - The proposed homes range in size from 2,112 to 2,566 square feet. There are three different plans proposed, with all being two -story units, although Plan 1 appears to be a single - story unit from the street. Plan 1 (a 2,112 square -foot plan) will offer two bedrooms and two bathrooms, with an optional third bedroom in place of a bonus room. Plan 2 (a 2,276 square -foot plan) will offer three bedrooms and two and one -half bathrooms with options for another bathroom and up to two more bedrooms. Plan 3 (a 2,566 square -foot plan) will offer four bedrooms and between two and one -half and four bathrooms. The buildings conform to the maximum building heights within the RPD zone (the tallest unit is a maximum of 25'0" high), and the arrangement of homes will be monitored to ensure an open "feel" to the neighborhood with a varied streetscape. Each of the three product types will be built with one of three different architectural vocabularies: Cottage /Craftsman, Italian or Early Californian. Each architectural style will be utilized in at least 25% of the homes to be built. Each architectural style will have three color /material schemes, especially selected to accentuate the style. Between the variety of floor plans with added room options (5), architectural styles (3), and color schemes (3), there will be forty -five (45) combinations available. The ability to reverse floor plans to optimize placement on a lot offers ninety (90) possible configurations of products within a development of 95 units. This should result in a neighborhood of compatible homes but lacking the repetition often found in residential tract homes. Planning Areas 2 & 3 - The proposed homes range in size from 2,609 to 3,116 square feet. There are three different plans proposed, with all being two -story units, although Plan 1 also appears to be a single -story unit from the street. Plan 1 (a 2,609 square -foot plan) will offer three bedrooms and three and one -half bathrooms, with an optional fourth bedroom in place of a loft. Plan 2 (a 2,900 square -foot plan) will offer five bedrooms and three bathrooms. Plan 3 (a 3,116 square -foot plan) will offer five bedrooms and four bathrooms. The buildings conform to the maximum building heights within the RPD zone (the tallest unit is 30'1" high at its highest point), and the arrangement of homes will be monitored to ensure an open "feel" to the neighborhood with a varied streetscape. Honorable Planning Commission April 20, 2004 Page 6 Each of the three product types will be built with one of four different architectural vocabularies: French, Italian, Spanish, or Traditional. Examples of these styles are attached. Each architectural style will be utilized in at least 200 of the homes to be built. Each architectural style will have three color /material schemes, especially selected to accentuate the style. Between the variety of elevations with added room options (4), architectural styles (4), and color schemes (3), there will be forty -eight (48) combinations available. The ability to reverse floor plans to optimize placement on a lot offers ninety -six (96) possible configurations of products within a development of one hundred - forty -five (145) units. This should result in a neighborhood of compatible homes but lacking the repetition often found in residential tract homes. Planning Area 4 - The proposed homes range in size from 3,083 to 3,763 square feet. There are three different plans proposed, with one being a one -story unit and two being two -story units. Plan 1 (a 3,083 square -foot plan) will offer three bedrooms and three bathrooms, with an optional fourth and fifth bedrooms in place of a den and office. Plan 2 (a 3,554 square -foot plan) will offer three bedrooms and three and one -half bathrooms, with optional fourth bedroom and an additional bath in place of a bonus room, and an optional fifth bedroom in place of an exercise room. Plan 3 (a 3,763 square -foot plan) will offer five bedrooms and four and one - half bathrooms. The buildings conform to the maximum building heights within the RPD zone (the tallest unit is 27'10" high at its highest point), and the arrangement of homes will be monitored to ensure an open "feel" to the neighborhood with a varied streetscape. Each of the three product types will be built with one of four different architectural vocabularies: Early Californian, Italian, Traditional, or Monterrey. Examples of these styles are attached. Each architectural style will be utilized in at least 200 of the homes to be built. Each architectural style will have three color /material schemes, especially selected to accentuate the style. Between the variety of elevations with added window elevation options (7), architectural styles (4), and color schemes (3), there will be eighty -four (84) combinations available. The ability to reverse floor plans to optimize placement on a lot offers one - hundred - sixty -eight (168) possible configurations of products within a development of seventy -eight (78) units. This should result in a neighborhood of compatible homes but lacking the repetition often found in residential tract homes. 00 0; Honorable Planning Commission April 20, 2004 Page 7 Setbacks: Although the project setbacks meet or exceed the current standards for single - family, detached residential development on all of its lots, except in the case of front yard setbacks, they do not meet the setbacks established for Specific Plan No. 2. Front yard setbacks as proposed are typically at the minimum of twenty (20') feet, although there are instances where the house may extend into the setback area up to a maximum of five (5') feet if certain architectural amenities are provided. The requested Zoning Ordinance Amendment addresses reduction in front, side and rear yard setbacks as established for Specific Plan No 2. This issue is discussed further in the Analysis section below. Parking: The project proposal meets the minimum requirements for off - street parking, but includes a request for tandem parking within the garage areas. This issue is discussed further in the Analysis section below. Circulation: The project's circulation system is proposed to consist of private streets within a gated community. While meeting City street standards, the use and maintenance of these streets would be limited to residents and invited guests. Automatic gates would restrict access to the project. Access to and from the project would be primarily taken from "A" Street, a proposed public arterial street through the center of the Specific Plan area, which will connect to the future extension of Spring Street as proposed within Specific Plan No. 2. ANALYSIS Issues As the subdivision for this project has been previously approved, many of the issues associated with this development have been resolved. However, the development of the subdivision, including architectural design, building plotting, and other design standards, are appropriately addressed at this stage. Staff analysis of the proposed amended project has identified the following areas for Planning Commission consideration in their recommendation to the City Council: • Reduced Front Yard Setbacks • Reduced Side and Rear Setbacks ou4_' OLb Honorable Planning Commission April 20, 2004 Page 8 • Allowance for Tandem Parking Reduced Front Yard Setbacks: The typical required front yard setbacks within the planning areas of the Specific Plan ranges from a minimum of twenty (20') feet in the areas with small to moderately sized lots, up to thirty -five (35') feet in areas with larger lots. The function of these setbacks is to ensure adequate sight distances from the front yards and driveways entering the street, as well as, to give an open, spacious feel to the neighborhood. Reductions in front yard setback down to a minimum of fifteen (15') feet are proposed to be permitted in the various planning areas with single- family detached homes, provided that the developer provides at least one of a variety of design elements for each lot for which setbacks are to be reduced. These design elements include: • Living space forward of (closer to the street) the garage door; • swing garages of either 90° or 180 °, with the entrance facing either the side or rear property lines; • garages in the rear, even if facing forward, such as courtyard style homes; • products that incorporate porte cocheres, detached "casitas" (flex space), or other architectural features that screen garage doors from the street; or • as approved by the Community Development Director. The goal of allowing these reductions in setback is to provide a varied streetscape and to encourage the use of designs which move the parking area further to the rear of the lot or screen the parking area behind the house or as a detached architectural feature. This "cleans up" the visual aspect of the neighborhood by reducing the visibility of parked cars in the neighborhood. As the lot sizes decrease, the design features available to the developer to take advantage of the reduced setback decrease as well, with only the placement of living area forward of the garage door being suitable for the lots in Planning Area 1. In an effort to discourage the appearance of a "flat" streetscape and to avoid the abuse of the provisions allowing for reduced setbacks, the developer will be required to vary the setbacks on homes. Two adjacent homes may have the same setback but the third Honorable Planning Commission April 20, 2004 Page 9 consecutive lot must vary the front setback by at least three (31) feet. Side and Rear Yard Setbacks: The requests for reductions in side and rear yard are driven more by market demand than by design. The demand for larger homes has prompted Pardee to seek changes to these setbacks. While the requests often result in reduced setbacks, they will frequently also result in an increased setback on an adjacent lot, due to building separation requirements. The goal of these requests is to allow greater flexibility with the placement of houses on the lots, while maintaining the desired spaciousness of the neighborhood and avoiding a "solid" or cluttered appearance between homes. A reduction in rear yard setbacks will have the effect of reducing private usable open space. While the reduced setbacks are not out of character with what has been built in the rest of the City, staff wants to ensure that the utility of these rear yard areas for recreational activities is not altogether eliminated. In most cases, the yards will be too small to accommodate a swimming pool. However, other typical backyard activities (child play area, BBQ, spa, etc.) can be undertaken in these areas, even with reduced setbacks. To facilitate these uses and to allow for ease of permit processing for future homeowners, staff has suggested a condition which will require the applicant to provide plans for patio covers for each floor plan. These would be approved before construction, and could be built as an option to the home buyers before they move in or could be added following move -in, eliminating the need of the individual homeowner to develop new plans for submittal and reducing the time necessary for plan check and permit issuance. Allowance for Tandem Parkinq: Tandem parking is a configuration in which vehicles are parked end to end, rather than side by side. This type of parking is generally not permitted to provide required parking but is occasionally allowed to provide parking space in excess of required minimums. The reason that tandem parking is not generally allowed is that the vehicle in one tandem space cannot move without the removal of the vehicle in the other tandem space. Realistically, this relegates one tandem space to vehicular storage, rather than active parking or requires extra effort and cooperation on the part of the vehicle users. The Specific Plan establishes Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 as the requirements for parking within these planning areas. This chapter requires two garage spaces per single - family residence. The f �lv 1lZ�V Honorable Planning Commission April 20, 2004 Page 10 applicant is requesting the allowance for tandem parking within these planning areas to allow for a third parking space, which is beyond the minimum required parking. As this request does not affect the minimum required parking for the project, and instead provides additional space which may be used for parking, staff finds the applicant's request for the allowance of tandem spaces in keeping with the intent of the Moorpark Highlands Specific Plan and the Municipal Code. Findings The following findings are proposed for-the Residential Planned Development Permits: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and provisions of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, in that the proposed project will provide for the orderly development of land identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as appropriate for residential development. 2. The proposed project is compatible with the character of surrounding development, in that the surrounding development will include a variety of single- family detached and possibly attached homes including some homes which are affordable to moderate, low and very low income families. 3. The proposed project would not be obnoxious or harmful or impair the utility of neighboring property or uses, in that the use proposed is similar to uses existing or proposed to the south and west, and access to or utility of those adjacent uses are not hindered by this project. 4. The proposed project would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, in that adequate provision of public access, sanitary services, and emergency services have been ensured prior to the processing of this request. 5. The proposed project is compatible with existing and planned land uses in the general area where the development is to be located, in that the existing and planned land uses in the general area are generally single- family, detached residential uses, recreational uses, and the Waterworks facility, which will be sufficiently separated from this project to avoid impacts. 6. The proposed project is compatible with the scale, visual character and design of the surrounding properties, designed so as to enhance the physical and visual quality of the community, and the structure(s) have design features which provide visual relief and separation between land uses of GCOOS3 Honorable Planning Commission April 20, 2004 Page 11 conflicting character, in that the proposed project complies with all development standards of the Moorpark Municipal Code, and the development will utilize high quality architectural materials and treatments to enhance the visual appeal of the structures to be constructed. PROCESSING TIME LIMITS Time limits have been established for the processing of development projects under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5), the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Title 7, Division 2), and the California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines (Public Resources Code Division 13, and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3). However, since a Zoning Ordinance Amendment accompanying the Residential Planned Development Permits is a legislative act which must be approved before the RPD permits can be approved, the various time limits do not apply to these projects until the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is approved or the applicant revises the applications so that the Amendment is not required to approve the RPD permit requests. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary for a project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Some projects may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of significant effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts. Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may determine that a project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. In such a case, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared. For many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will prove to be sufficient environmental documentation. If the Director determines that a project has the potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation cannot be readily identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared. 0000160 Honorable Planning Commission April 20, 2004 Page 12 An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 96041030) has been prepared and certified for this project. No new information or impacts that require preparation of a new or subsequent EIR have been identified as a result of any proposed modification to the project. The Community Development Director has determined that the projects are consistent with the EIR prepared for Specific Plan No. 2. STAFF RECObWMATION 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution No. Council conditional Development Permit Development Permit Development Permit No. No. 2002 -02. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Project Exhibits PC -2004- recommending to the City approval of Residential Planned No. 2002 -03, Residential Planned No. 2002 -04, Residential Planned 2002 -05, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment A. Site Plan B. Floor plans and elevations 3. Draft PC Resolution for Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -03; Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002- 04; Residential Planned Development Permit No. 2002 -05; and Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2002 -02. 4. Excerpt from Chapter 17.74 of Moorpark Municipal Code (Existing) OUC-0'61 f7r 97. ,7 -7 HIGH STREET LU a ]k F"LEGENDOoOOG2 Moorpark j City of Moorpark PC ATTACHMENT 1 i Planning Division Site Location M ap Pardee Site Location: East of Walnut Canyon Road O O m Cl) Pq8 g.. t :1 1&foorPark iilwww+++" ! � ° <i44awtY pa Y•ir2W N* to ^ �RE � kwRN AY: af�.lYY•f71 °t �rR �.: t rF � • Y4 YY f0 •!K ♦ Y 4� «o �.�w�� �. q.gYrff4•'s�tY f�a� �► �! � tti�! . C ; �.y{t... rn�yyss q�c 2. °mac •' 't � `�t O � • _ •t•to• •�,ti `�. °�- sty. tsrr Y y4!•oy �• �; °. • t ire, � - R,` r its `' • t •� •*,r/Ui.• ° °• Pq8 &9 Sits Phan highlanCIS P41 /B E•• F E i }y• » � i PA 41 r QI* Supplemental Architectural Exhibits Moorpark Highlands Tract Number 5045 Specific Plan Number 2 Moorpark, CA Prepared for Pardee Homes 10880 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite 1900 Los Aneeles. California 90024 310.375 3525 10 February. 2007 Prepared by: Bassenian Lagoni Architects 2031 Orchard Drive. Suite 100 Newport Beach. CA 92660 939.553.9100 PC ATTACHMENT 2 —B O�p�'�OS4 BEDRM 2 BONUSROOM/ OPT. BPD 3 i OPT BEDRM 3 I � ra- �o•Q f•a , DrEpm CATS _ �!,��. , a � I GREAT ROOM l M. BATH EN I i .� GARAGE 7 o Y. OPTIONAL DEN i i L uUor I � I I ' I 6 PLAN 1 000065 2.1123Y. EWSM 'TENTATIVE MAP) a�ss�nN LICCH Pardee Homes (R M O O R P A R K ,Ofq.,'RJla,R ltVp. AR,, ,fOD P A - 1 1p ANDf¢y. G 10001 � !�. • ... �, OIO).T1lfU � y u � 8-21-02 O3Y01I1! �• -- A U -F - R -- l. U 4' _D S i -V -K ..H.1 (1X4) EARLY CALIFORNIA REAR I�\ I ROOFPLAN I i3in�r.t__iii�- 7r,2s:r •e.cal'..c•. di�;��.?x�:,5.- x-�•c.:�c� LEFT 5710 -. • ;.^+'-- 7�r - --t - �•ri-�Jr- nza7,'.sr 7Vni�i;s Pardee Homes lapo avnalmi■ ■Lw. surre )soo LO■ ANOatia. a rooH 1 alm •.o-»s� PLAN 1 ELEVATION A (REVISED TENTATIVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A - 1 8 :) 0; —1111 1. BASE STUCCO 2. ACCENT STUCCO MATaUALf w mvocn c.t■s ■. raAT coNan■ Tni c Ilu■ucAN■ slrtmcws o noN c Geca■wnve va+r r. ovo■m ■Anal TAVs o �TVCCo K ■TVCLOO�IOAM Tall ). v000 sNVrtals I Q1W0■ 1mp10 OIAROT ■OA■D) K aVOGD IA ■OA L CSIUIICaf M liON ■Val@ N. WOZ Vpm O. COlU4.f � M000 bT■Wll O ■TaKC'O g1Lm) � DRITIIAiTVI NLf T al'000 MSC+O v. ■■CEi{ 00 0066 a�s6uwN � --o B --U F R I- I. G . M . O -J 2.H` C:UT -FAUE / CRAFTSMAN REAR ROOF PLAN .ti rr r LEFT i RIGHT _Pardee Homes i rw.o vnnm,a �Lw..vrre r•ao Wf Ar•D¢ea. G •aSL PLAN 1 ELEVATION B (REVISED TEN'T'ATIVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A - 1 ouoiru 1. BASE STUCCO 2. ACCENT STUCCO MAIQUI! ■ ' T CONGO T C. MoRNG.M.,M1mT D. aION L DaDMATTVa Vp.'T I. LOCfIm RARSII TALL. O l.oCCb N .1VCC0OVpl IOAA1 TRW L MOOO fIRJI'IT13 1. 4TWDR faJD•O aMDY aowrrD) R w'oop IA3CU L. CLYV.WI W a w o. Cpa G .TVCCOIOIa,ViP L .trCfiDN oM 0O . D�LVItAYfVa Ives T. rood RAado 0CC1067 � T I� two •tlM 1 1 • ..o .a. —a � _— _' .. ...... ....... . II i REAR I 1 i lil . i h'v ROOF PLAN - -- LEFT RIGHT Pardee Homes �wro w�naaoar rtw. nrrz Iwo Los wr�omrs. a roo�. o�ol.,eam PLAN 1 ELEVATION C (REVISED TENTATIVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A - 1 rawiia 1. SASESTUCCO 2. ACCENT STUCCO MATOLVJ A CONOICif LTp2 r. MT COIICIIiTi TE2 C. IMrIGNC f11IJT'fU5 D. ROIV L O�CVrATM Vpli i lOOrm rARII TAII.. 0. RVCW K RlR'CV O.O11041TfW L FOOD fMliTQS l MOOD twfOw L ODLUWR O. CdlrRt _ r. rooD romans D m,DLO aomms A ncrwnwL awrwaa DDOSf a. osroowwTm rvn� T. ♦'OOp rA1Oq �. reLVa OC CO68 LACO Pardee Homes iouo.vnA m BLVD. wm I�00 l AMOi . G f n1m 4754= GARAGE fl v ift'.5 ■" • FLOOR ADDENDA C FLOOR ADDENDA g PLAN 1 (REVLSED TENTATTVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A - 1 8 -23-02 msoi�a 00 0-069 atiiar OPT. DECK OPTIONAL LOFT . 177 SP. OPTIONAL BEDRM 4 BATH 7 BEDROOM S AT ELEVAMON 2C . 177 S.P. WaW 1 I I-- I I I b I I i HOBBY ROOM OPTIONAL HOBBY ROOM . 164 S.P. Pardee Homes �M+O.vYim1� RVD. t11I111+00 1p A1+06L. G �+ n1m +».a7n `y-°°- PAMB.0 ' Mme. II _— 11 PDR OARAOE - -- - _- DEN /PARLOR OPT. BPDRM ..,.....ter -- bE PLAN 2 2,276 S.F. 2439 SQFf. W/ BEDRCK*4 3 (REVISED TENTATIVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A - 1 833-02 ®a�u+ i 000,0 <0 R A H V - -A I F .1; �'; * Yj is���+ .0 EARLY CALIFORNIA u ilk ili:?5i N! �EEEiiiiEi-iE I.. 'a '!. . ` kQ6. Pardee Homes lo•o vB nml• nw H.TR luo LOf AMpNd. G 0001. alol osssn PLAN 2 ELEVATION A (REVISED TENTATIVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A - 1 R1011L i ........ ...I i ROOF PLAN _ _r _ 1. BASE STUCCO 2. ACCENT STUCCO wAnffsAls. w CWQIT•fTl2 • MT CONOI•!! iIIl G MV•11ICwM fNLTTfJtS D. ff11N l WLaRATM VfNi f. 6100lfD MR1ml TAD! 6. lSOCLO M fiIRLOOV¢POAM TRW I WOOD f!(lli'fYll• Q'fOICR lmOlO OIA•DY •OMD) C MQOp •ASCU L CRVI••1• O COURJ •. 'ODD HIHIQ) Q. fiVR0,0lf/ml •. f•(.RfOfIK OAlAO•DOO•f s. D•cvlwYtn sys T. FOOD RAO�q v Qv J C" V, .8cm 94SSENnN °=11MIT -R -B -H -1 -O 1 -K - -2.H -M -- L; (1X4) ��tf +�f COTTAGE/ CRAFTSMAN 7w 0-VEN-7- Pardee Homes — vaa.mu R1.w . Iwo LAS AMA . CA 1 4 u)o) us11a PLAN 2 ELEVATION B (REVISED TENTATIVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A - 1 mloi)m \.. ... i ROOF PLAN ,y. _.....,R._ I BASE STUCCO x. ACC&* r STUCCO A1ATmUAIl: w eona[re sTnt s. rur oonaLtte Tn.e c. HwucAere 1MLmn11 l WOSW WfU TALL! O ITUOLO K SI.Kt.00YQ.0AA/iflW t FOOD tlRll'IlA1 1 SiTfDOl1�10 HARDY pND) c MOODrA1 L. co�tnD)1 L{ SIONR YtNml N �II(2 Vp®t O. CORlO_S I FOOD 101TQ11 p STVRV M111m) R SELZIONAI OARAOS DOORf 1. DlCOIIAIiVS RRS T. MOW RAO.Oq O O@M!Y W Y RLQS1 0(100'72 aass� �r t x s �r A R —1 F -D - C- Q -L - -U I. Pardee Homes], IOab.m,,.D,l, 1LVD. aITTL IAfO lA! wMOa1lJ. G 1dY]w cnm An >sss I a I i t PLAN 2 ELEVATION C (REVISED TENTATIVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A - 1 6270. Ax i ROOFPLAN„ - - 1. EASE STUCCO 1. ACCENT STUCCO alwaanlAas. w ODtIOIlTt L111! .. l T CONOii. MA C. MIIWCAM 311lI1'IDIa D YON C D�IIATaVl vp+f o. stucco „. ai11(1000VO m 11DA L .'ODD SM rn= 1. Wrr2LMC a (IAIIDT DOA.D) a: WOOD FAf L COLD 1 M MTQ Vdml O OD>lO.a -� � TODD aOTi� p stucco paflml ti 32C MW W OAMO[ DOOwa a. Da1CO11AtM anu t. �000 llwll.Dao u Omg2Y W v .�Qfa 000.0'73 I a�ss>;r�nN LAGON fir-_► SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA B GARAGE oc -•�o- ZNTBY� DEN / ()FT. PARt.O B Pi. BEDRM a 2.,•d FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA B PLAN 2 Pardee Homes (REVISED TENTATIVE MAC M O O R P A R K G0 0310 3 P A - 1 Tis e -zsm mso�is a��nr� nn SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA C OARAOE - -- DENT PARLOR 'ae „d BEXHPLM 4 I FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA C PLAN 2 Pardee Homes (REMED TEN ATE MAP) M O O R P A R K 8 -23-2 ^N �'0 0'75 Orr. DP= OPTIONAL LOFT - -*qp- --- I " 5 k2 A4 4 . sa:D�RM 61 EeDRM 3 BEORM 4 II BEDRM 6 AT ELEV. CSL' - 2- ok --OP-nONAL SAY 71NOOK,- raTCHES wopicsHop Lr,,No QAJtA0E DA. 3 OIN40PT ------------- PLAN 3 2,-463.P. wi BZMM 6 orr 2.M Sy- Pardee Homes (REMED TENTATM MAY) MOORPARK P A MW 8-23-w �©LT ;d--� 41- It -. - o A --T --F -K .- S 2.H t 4-u (IX4) 40, REAR .... W-ri Pardee Homes ■ ANC . C�5. 1A Mm .11. PLAN 3 ELEVATION A (REVISED T'EN'TATIVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A ROOF PLAN ► .. ....... . Li 1: BASE STUCCO 2 ACCENT STUCCO MATOLYt F aroo■ec ■An■■T- 0 com" Q mcm T. MOODRMDq O V. J P R K .O B -M -2,H -1 C (IX4) s.r COTTAGE / CRAFTSMAN Pardee Homes laudsr¢a�[[t.w fLTre :.a Lrn Anony. a vm:,. � c�lolmaw I PLAN 3 ELEVATION B (REVISED TENTATIVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A - 1 F.+1.O: ox>al:le 1. BASE STUCCO 2. ACCENT STUCCO MATQUIl: A conanxsT[.[ T ca«am w O L401I •NVR[Af !. DILaIATM VQlT i CVMtDWIfA TAD.f O fTVttO K fTl)aCO O�'ml LOAM T[W MOOD [Illll'IW 1 IOCfQ10[ SEDM OlA[DY [OARDI C �000IASOA L CRl11.Q4 N [[KIC VL�[OI O xo"[ I W000 iOf11mJ ` O snlcco ron.ms R ACl1Q�A1 OAMO[D000f s. OCO[ATI.'[ Im T MOOD [A6a.O L CIa1D.lY CAI v [[mss 0000 S LAGC f -, -- REAR 1 1 \ � I %r ROOFPLAN LEFT Pardee Homes laudsr¢a�[[t.w fLTre :.a Lrn Anony. a vm:,. � c�lolmaw I PLAN 3 ELEVATION B (REVISED TENTATIVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A - 1 F.+1.O: ox>al:le 1. BASE STUCCO 2. ACCENT STUCCO MATQUIl: A conanxsT[.[ T ca«am w O L401I •NVR[Af !. DILaIATM VQlT i CVMtDWIfA TAD.f O fTVttO K fTl)aCO O�'ml LOAM T[W MOOD [Illll'IW 1 IOCfQ10[ SEDM OlA[DY [OARDI C �000IASOA L CRl11.Q4 N [[KIC VL�[OI O xo"[ I W000 iOf11mJ ` O snlcco ron.ms R ACl1Q�A1 OAMO[D000f s. OCO[ATI.'[ Im T MOOD [A6a.O L CIa1D.lY CAI v [[mss 0000 S LAGC -A -D - R K -2.14 -O -O 1. l ITALIAN . PAZ -. -"o :!. f .�•r..r.. sl- -Ji�Y,y1!+:.iA'f4� �= �?.r•,..t...�a.�_.- F.'r -v :'T t Pardee Homes )osro.�'nsMnae eLVO s.rte )ano Los wNOU.es voo:.. PLAN 3 ELEVATION C (REVISED TENTATIVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A - 1 5 -21 -02 1. BASE STUCCO 2. ACCENT STUCCO MATm1UlS w �rz s TDt 1 r1..T COMOIETL TDI C MOMIUNE SNVTTLIS D ROM e Dacawwme Yprr r coosr� ■wrru rwus L .✓OOD fM)TTLIf ! tl(iDO01t SmOO OUItDY WMD) R- MOOD rwfM L C04 S M STONE vQiLCI N t111CIC v!1)011 O CTll 9" _ •. V000 rOTi.m.r O Sll)CLO ICTIfImI s. secnor.wL Owswoe DOOSs s. WCORATfv6 nrea T FOOD MRD+O u omwev w v .-I - -- 0000 9 -- _ SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA oARAOE -- '�r BA. 3 DEN /OPT. BBDRM ._ ' ®I FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA B B o V,j . O PLAN 3 Pardee Homes (REVISED To- rrATrvE MAP) M O O R P A R K aim • ».eeu p ,A - 1 6 -23-M m Ilx B o V,j . O SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA C GARAOE BA J DEN /O_ FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA C PLAN 3 .Pardee Homes MWSED TENTAnVE MAP) M O O R P A R K P A 8-23-02 —Il. In moo BEDPLM 4 NOOK PAMMY 7' y 7�TeA. Z - Jc\ 3 BEDPM 2 2f— ± GAXAGE Pardee Homes GARAGE — e. - 9 PLAN 1 ±2.303 S . F (2,609 S.F. W/ LOFT M O O R P A R K PA -2/3 07-11-02 3. ,Mom 000, 082 KrrCHEN T DtNW(3 WING NLBATH PD DEN/ OVr. B EDFLM 4 y 7�TeA. Z - Jc\ 3 BEDPM 2 2f— ± GAXAGE Pardee Homes GARAGE — e. - 9 PLAN 1 ±2.303 S . F (2,609 S.F. W/ LOFT M O O R P A R K PA -2/3 07-11-02 3. ,Mom 000, 082 ADDENDA _ C - GARAOe BFDRM 2 �� GARAGE ..• ��� �`�-- '•s��o' I al�I ADDENDA _ g 0�f0- 083 T_ PLAN 1 Pardee Homes M O P O R P A - 2 A R K / 3 iwro wa��a n.w. rvrre arm i.os wnvnu, a rood. o�m •�-vv 77 -11-02 Qa Im 0�f0- 083 T_ F '-f - H r -O r7 -R ............. _ —... ....., i R �t I REAR i 7 ROOF PLAN t LEFT 1. .A!! STUCCO z. ACCFW T STUCCO fsfs .- 4.- '..- n�y�+,�-- !rrst- ',1'.C:F r:'�:±+- rr..f'C -., ,__yu. , t'�_.,i-- !:'�': - "• rATSUA.i A CCIrOR. }T.j .. MT COMOIRC 7slA c. Nuarr.Arre fMUrrrAf o stow . eaoo.wTTVa very ,a snxco ova raw nur rc w VASM L COLUbM ft lIOle Yetml M. N]fs VV� O. C0.1eJ I- �WDTOI}m) Q. f'ITRLO Tmsd) i !L•TlprAI.OARAO. 000.f f. OlCQATIV. !!® u. ommeT a,r Bk%MN I� X30,084 PLAN 1 ELEVATION A Pardee Homes] MOORPARK PA -2/3 laae.ru.,,mte.�vo ,,mc,+m LtN ANOq)J. G MVl. (11O, .1lJf]� 7 -J i lil ouai,n rATSUA.i A CCIrOR. }T.j .. MT COMOIRC 7slA c. Nuarr.Arre fMUrrrAf o stow . eaoo.wTTVa very ,a snxco ova raw nur rc w VASM L COLUbM ft lIOle Yetml M. N]fs VV� O. C0.1eJ I- �WDTOI}m) Q. f'ITRLO Tmsd) i !L•TlprAI.OARAO. 000.f f. OlCQATIV. !!® u. ommeT a,r Bk%MN I� X30,084 > vac -:nrl REAR amp m f LEFT 1' �s�la PLAN 1 ELEVATION B Pardee Homes. M O O R P A R K P A - 2 / 3 logo w¢alale nw a.ma I.nn Im AN(Imy�. a sons. mm mane ? -] 1-02 _� meal u• i ROOF PLAN STVCCD i Z. ACCPM JNCCO MATRRIAII' A oDNQl1L }Tyi 1. MT OONg67R S92 C. NURRIG�NR f11VT'1TJl' o. son o. mxco R 7TUROOVY 10AIA TRM L Toom INOTTAR I RRTYUR SomQ IIIAIIOf ROARDI R. vloOO♦A7fOA L CV11�OIf N. RRR3 m"m O. CVRICJ p. NOOD O iT1R.0 r'Olflml L RlCI1fINAL OARA0600(11U T w RA[JQ ". RRm1f r-- I�. REAR ��s LEFT Pardee Homes 1 -- &Wk- PLAN 1 ELEVATION C M O O R P A R K P A - 2 / 3 7-11-02 —.1— BASE STUCCO 2. ACC STUCCO IAAIYUU t. MT COtgtC}f t611 D MM O. w wma" ovm MTEA -OW -DOD 4MA wwcan b Pardee Homes lO, ANORe. G fOm� PLAN 2 ±2.900 S.F. M O O R P A R K PA -2/3 07-1 1-02 ®0112) MOM O008'7 BEDAM .5 l l . wows / —/FAMILY SHOP L —� .2 - �I• BA . NOO K' GARAGE ; . I .ev ....r Gee. '•' � ._ . zS '•d WINO I bb Y b a Pardee Homes lO, ANORe. G fOm� PLAN 2 ±2.900 S.F. M O O R P A R K PA -2/3 07-1 1-02 ®0112) MOM O008'7 . ............ :..: .......... OFT. DECK a. Bpmfkm 3 BEDMM 2 2p. Im BRDRM yu W6 M. RATH: BA- 2 BFDRm 4 -A rflar jMv-z 07.!-?Vr PLAN 2 akl�. Pardee Homes M O O R P A R K mm� P A - 2/3 088 07-11-02 dwiWo-bro-I SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA. ----------------- Pm'mcccice" EN-KXY Pardee Homes 11`U1 ^140111LAII. CA DIM-- FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA B B OCIC-089 PLAN 2 M O O R P A R K P A - 2 / 3 7-11-02 �Ilv B OCIC-089 Orr. Lorr b,d SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA c ;x PORTECOCHERE oll FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA C SASSU." VC1090 PLAN 2 Pardee Homes M O P O A R P 2 A R K / 3 MLL loaq t.as ANGMJU. C^ mm .,a -"u 7-11-02 SASSU." VC1090 1 +L -T rO -R _H_0 to t-1 r-U t� REAR f �lw po Pardee Homes. IOIp T.tl1�[1LV0 fIDTD IRO LOS ANOpPJ. U .OD2� .11 352, LEFT RK3HT PLAN 2 ELEVATION A M O O R P A R K P A - 2 / 3 7-11-02 —1- is � \ \ \WIWIWI iii I I i I ROOF PLAN rn 1. BASE STUCCO - - 2. ACC04TSTUCCO iMT�LLLJ� A CQIOff1 }T1J D. /1011 ORTIIIATM VpT C. WOIm M'Ia TA¢! O. /Tl1CL0 k lIVRTlWOIMKTRD,1 L DODO ORRIeI 1. RifD11Q lW10 DUl1DT �ONIO1 C .YOOp I,AgA L RltA1WA K IIOI� Vp� N. �111CR Vii ®1 O. c� t. MODD TO}9ofJ Q. f/RR'CO fOftlm! 1L >RCJ1011ALOYAOI DOOLI 1 DlLQATM COO T. f10DD RA6d10 U. C1001RT W v RlOtl 00,091 I r 13 --- , G, K 7. 7. K Wjv COASTAL REAR LEFT RIGHT 'Pardee Homes. iwq LOS ANOCLLa. Cl —4 ...... ... .... L. _J J fL rE rU r N j J J�. PL-AN 2 ELEVATION B M O O R P A R K P A — 2 / 3 7- 11 02 11-11.11 cl _7 ROOF PLAN i -TUCCO BA ES 2. AC= SrUcco M TwU A 8 MT C-K3tM rMZ D .ION L 0 3TUCCO rarnm, SASSMM LACAZ" '0092 ---- gaw .H rB . O f- P 1-R 1t .O sM lLP 1 K —U rt3 REAR .i LEFT RIGHT Pardee Homes IO.fO..�„RG f1LVD. ,l:Ri iaT �Dl „N„fJ.Gf. CA ,00f. PLAN ELEVATION C M O O R P A R K P A - 2 / 3 7-11-02 —11, 1. BASE STUCCO 2. ACCENT MCCO — TvULf: A CO,.C•RR YIIIl s. RAT COMOtR TIl c In,,ufcafn fwvr,nu O ICON G OKSIIIATI,7 vf,i, r. ovolm lArry rev o mxco x mxco ovv ro.,f. nem i wood RBmva 1. fRT110>l fB1O,D OUfIDT lOMD1 G ,RIOD rua� L CO<.M" k fIOTA,TO.i1t O cold I. .10M ro,avi O frucco RllflfYl R 1GCI,OKAL011GA0l DOOIII f. D�ATM RRI T FOOD 11.,6DID V CI@pfT GI v. IU!S,Cmf r - -- o� �C)093 Pardee Homes (310)m .I ��o-vv - — --ar b a `�,r BERM NOOK 7 BA. iIr WORK Plmo _ SHOP S ]O'r•GmN . i GARAGE 9 PLAN 3 ±3,116 S.F. M O O R P A R K PA -2/3 07.11-02 Ms llr b b !i mssel" ° )0094 PLAN 3 MOORPARK E?�`U95 Pardee Homes p A_ 2 i 3 �U- ,ono..asfms uw. svRa ,fao 07-11-M -- - ---------- 3t Is BA� 3 BEDPLM 4 r A SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA GAJtAO p DININO 1v - Ls FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA B VC09G PLAN 3 M O O R P A R K Pardee Homes PA -2/3 ANUILIS. CA (31047su 7-11-02 VC09G Pardee Homes �auo we a Ay o a . (31M nma nao 4 asoan� p1C�tsffia SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA C FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA _ C PLAN 3 M O O R P A R K P A - 2 / 3 7 -11-02 ouon Ett�ct c,09'7 . / r A [ F . f L I / r D ! 'r R I f r 0 .11, 11 1 1 / r D I Mai. 'UK" REAR ir RIGHT Pardee Homes PLAN 3 ELEVATION A M O O R P A R K P A - 2 / 3 7-11-02 1. BASE STUCCO 2. A CCMM STUCCO ■ PUT comc i C I RAPR TARS O 5T m c .000?A L miuws SAS04AN IPOC ��loveoqs r H r 1) r. L r- I^ R F u r G F H K COASTAL LEFT Pardee Homes.! RIGHT PLAN 3 ELEVATION B M O O R P A R K P A - 2 / 3 7-11-02 - 4ii. ROOF PLAN L BASH STUCCO 2. ACCEN-rSTUCCO L. CVI.UMIf O. COIUWl .. flfCfIOMK OwlIw06 DOOR! I- BISSD4AN -1 =Tn""(10099 r rR -K .E. rHrP rM rP 1 l it i LEFT RIGHT Pazdee Homes i IOIIq MR.11WlP. •L'�'1741.^l'F. 1�✓J. 1.0! AHOpE]. CA WUt� 1]101 ��J.J1J PLAN 3 ELEVATION C M O O R P A R K P A - 2 / 3 7 -1 t -02 ROOF PLAN BASESTJCCO 2. ACCENT STUCCO surpuwl� 1 cor+an[ s.r¢� s nwr conam me c Hvpxpc we s]rtmgs e DlcoRAr — o sruccv K !]VCCOOVR ]OMI]}p1 L MOOD>MJir�f ]. IXRl]01I fo>aQ I]].4Dr bMDI R. WOOOFA L COLU\Mf O CO�1B! o- stucco ]�an]mr ■ MMONALODUOCOOORs s oacaume]vas wood swe�o u. C 0p[T w v •ecrtu 81cn100 _ wr ,p --- Y4• -------- M. BEDRM x" IM Pardee Homes PLAN 1 3,083 SQ. FT. M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7-11-02 WOR"H] A B.Sse4m o0clol L/CC" M-- ,.IF =�I-r , S& 2 tr. i — GARAGE. L BEDRM 2 I BEDRM 3 . 1. A HA. GARAGE BEDRM 2 BEDR�. 73� Pardee Homes iAtl.1'IIJifDla tiw MT! ism --------------- PLAN I M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7-11-02 Ql Ilm 000102 LACC" K A v E- r2X6) v G Q - D P R 1 kit EARLY CALIFORNIA , .,fJ 4v Pardee Homes It .A r'.l3JIDtG »LV031'Rl!Irvl I G1 ANU 1F5. CA WAIF R00F PLAt __. __....._. -- PLAN I ELEVATION A M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7 -11 -02 -.1. 1. BASE STUCCO 2. ACCENT STUCCO JIATYJUAIJ w cnra[n 3TO.e •. rur coaa¢J• Tns D. GON Y [ID03® RARE TALLi a sJVao N. sJVCro ova wAw TJUa r WDDO SJRmu• 1 O(TA11all 3mDq Dw1DY •OMDI � waoD rwscTA O. CDR•°•. ° WODD RJ•JOIIl C. 3mccO rOf3 1 3lCIIOIVAL OARAO! DOORS 1 DlOORATIY• tors MOOD RARING U. C101.MEY C.V �' RJVSC. -ate, , 000103 �`S1f.'�1r ': f7piSticSi l��d�.iJ�1+���+�7ibC:Y��• Pardee Homes It .A r'.l3JIDtG »LV031'Rl!Irvl I G1 ANU 1F5. CA WAIF R00F PLAt __. __....._. -- PLAN I ELEVATION A M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7 -11 -02 -.1. 1. BASE STUCCO 2. ACCENT STUCCO JIATYJUAIJ w cnra[n 3TO.e •. rur coaa¢J• Tns D. GON Y [ID03® RARE TALLi a sJVao N. sJVCro ova wAw TJUa r WDDO SJRmu• 1 O(TA11all 3mDq Dw1DY •OMDI � waoD rwscTA O. CDR•°•. ° WODD RJ•JOIIl C. 3mccO rOf3 1 3lCIIOIVAL OARAO! DOORS 1 DlOORATIY• tors MOOD RARING U. C101.MEY C.V �' RJVSC. -ate, , 000103 12X4.ZX6) B M i K -P (I X6.2x21 -'F F R c- TRADITIONAL RIGn i Pardee Homes PLAN I ELEVATION B M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7 11-02 �- .12, I BASE STUCCO 2 ACCENT STUCCO Z1=1 (' HMIUCANetMliTe4! o m...CO Q —c- RECTds 000104 RF—AR RIGn i Pardee Homes PLAN I ELEVATION B M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7 11-02 �- .12, I BASE STUCCO 2 ACCENT STUCCO Z1=1 (' HMIUCANetMliTe4! o m...CO Q —c- RECTds 000104 (!Mj I (IX4) 1 H H -H G L v A D R -H G �W-Ln- MEN Pardee Homes LOS LA 900 }4 k, .. . ........ .. ..... PLAN I ELEVATION C M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7 1. BASE STUCCO I ACCFNT STUCCO NATtlUALt K, m;ccOO-"M K. p- L 0 coplow C,* � Revs BkM-IAN l 001105 �� LACC" 4 Z ,_— _ _ PLAN 2 3,554 SQ. FT. (3,835 SQ. FT. W/ OPT. LOFT) Pardee Homes MOORPARK -- PA -4 Coro vnsmu �iw. ■tms �soo �.a wnaai+. a wvu �nm osua 7 -11 -02 m+mm» Off. CAoG � I BEDRIN. W OFT. DEN t. W •.. PAAMY :i3''I y, j II _ ----------- --- .�) 'i1 pDit .^ u� { �':• L - ,'� ^ �.{ _ Y _ ----- GARAGE • 1.AU GARAGE .. I f i ,_— _ _ PLAN 2 3,554 SQ. FT. (3,835 SQ. FT. W/ OPT. LOFT) Pardee Homes MOORPARK -- PA -4 Coro vnsmu �iw. ■tms �soo �.a wnaai+. a wvu �nm osua 7 -11 -02 m+mm» Off. CAoG SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA B OARAOE _ f� j r FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA B� 061CIOT PLAN 2 Pardee Homes M O O R P A R K " P A - 4 ,a..V'ORJf. G.001. t�,� nsua 7-11-02 mso„a 061CIOT SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA C FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA C PLAN 2 ® 0 �� '108 PA -44, nom w�e�i uw. aurr� nae td AlRll1.►�,G10m. �S mloiu, Pardee Homes M M O O O O R R P A A R R K K ® I Ix., i (IX6) K S F L .-0 A T G MONTEREY REAR LEFT RIGHT I Pardee Homes W. If w1w E 76 11 jlrl, PLAN 2 ELEVATION A M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7-11-02 I BASE grUCCO I Al:(:7..TUCCO c M—C alulTms F vxPUSa0IUrt41TA o. rtvcm L COLUbQ4 U CUIlpf v. wcnsa L.Gcm 000109 ,^Xh.2Xa, K U 1 ➢ I (IX12X2) 11X41 1 8 G H t . H L H N R aj•� _ f� TRADITIONAL " ate;; REAR r -EF .a U '-•''V G.: �- - -_ - -- fir: - -J F •,_ Boor• rl_nrr 1. RASE. STUCCO 1. ACCENT STUCCO rNATeRw3 w ca +care s.rn� s Flat cewoeere t¢a C NOMICANl9N{1TTlAS D. IRON OECOIIAirVe V,H P CI�I� R PM TARS 6. S—M N SiVCCppVPJ{M TRDI I w sN rri 1 E%Te m.-_OUROY ROARDI R •'OMPASOA . COlL101S Sl Tfl)N!. VENEpI O OpR)8Lf WOOO FOfSMIII O SSL'cm FOfslm, R SECRONAL OARApE 1YJ0113 3. MCOOAT" VM T R'ODO_&_u L' CNISINEY CAI � RLCGSS PLAN 2 ELEVATION B Pardee Homes MOORPARK P A — 4 ��' o c c U Iolsu wti.uoeP wLTV. sum- n I �''�T� � \ �� l OS ANp4E5. C'A MI•ta 'vv — µ�1 m r.ona (IX4, 2 ttX6.1X4) (2X4) 1 H H V Q H H V K . a G G H R ITALIAN 1 .7'54•.' `�. ,.r�•jgQ�31'` LEFT ._:r. s sty�L'•�:'.hC e.l'Ei:r;.:ii y?ji!:::s `- RIGHT Pardee Homes ' idb`wD -1HOlE ELW S. Tfti laOn �� 4b ANOI.I Fl.•.A P003� i -• 1,x:1 1 X1. HOOF PLAN PLAN ELEVATION C M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7.1102 0.1111 i:P I. BA$E STUCCO 2 ACCF-VT STUCCO SJATEIWI! A cnr:cwETE s Ins 6 MT CONCRETE - C MIwRICwM SNI -JTL1S D IRp1 E DP<[111ATIVE VFM f [IOIYLU SMIPJI TM, G S1l:CLV m�cm ovFA rowfr n s wrwosln.TTOIs ). E)CTOtgR Smp1O 0/AR R. MOOD FASCU L CO(.USpIS P WOOD lOTMP1F 0. SSVCCO FOJSIQIP R SECTIONAL. f1AMGE IYJORS — s. IXRMIw mEPLR! WOUD EALJNG r.nnanercu w Re®ss �ej 0€1 C,121 4� a 4L 01 Pardee Homes (0000 w.om(s faw. nmi (fao (na wnofaaa. a nova+ (f IOI.�Yfflf PLAN 3 3,763 SQ. FT. (3,932 SQ. FT.W /OPT. LOFT) M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7 -11 -02 OYOI 111 b' ba 006112 .�. PAMMY � (•• \. RIiQ 7400 Q'.N uvwG � --- _- f•- .fie' I A BA. V ENTRY PDA GARAGE ._.; uu DEN y — GARAGE Pardee Homes (0000 w.om(s faw. nmi (fao (na wnofaaa. a nova+ (f IOI.�Yfflf PLAN 3 3,763 SQ. FT. (3,932 SQ. FT.W /OPT. LOFT) M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7 -11 -02 OYOI 111 b' ba 006112 OPT. LOFr AODT'L ZR .169 S.F. OPTIONAL DECK Pardee Homes laud rnma u.w. flora Ifoo t.0� ANOYSi. G f W]A p161 rf)fif PLAN 3 M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7 -11 -02 aD a11L s�ssat�nt� o® OO CII13 SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA B FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA B PLAN 3 Pardee Homes MOORPARK �— PA -4 �auo wvarmie u.w. svrrtt irm tos wrwL -es. a rave cum• +�»ss 7 -1I-02 oasa�a j 0C 114 _-:�� SECOND FLOOR ADDENDA-- c DU�&G 1 PDR ENTRY LAU DEN GAP-AGE IV -FIRST FLOOR ADDENDA _ El BA_ GARAGE I. u). °- C PLAN 3 Pardee Homes M O O R P A R K &kSSD4M o(IT115 P A - 4 OM411-1123 7-11-02 Y ,2X41 I 2X4 JX4) X D G F F v S --p .-A F H R � a `t.4 . -W 41 EARLY CALIFORNIA LEFT RIGHT Pardee Homes PLAN 3 ELEVATION A M O O R P A R K P A - 4 1.)I 02 0 'C"116 a'SSD4AN LACC" R(X)F PLAN I BASESTUCCO 2 ACCENT STUCCO ZIT =NCIP�—i C D. OION E O Q SWCCO POTSKELF NALGARAOINI T I romw PLAN 3 ELEVATION A M O O R P A R K P A - 4 1.)I 02 0 'C"116 a'SSD4AN LACC" (IX6.ZX4) 1 1 ('_ -X61 tIX4) K G G N ] P T -B 1 - -K H --R a a.L _. 1,✓.�:�- 1,�-. °•t'- '�.s� -- --- r° s�t6�° '�'���,:Dhh��r~^»�S.:t ?:.s; -.. .- _.- .. �_` -- a TRADITIONAL �__ �_ '► -- - - - - - - REAR r 1111111 ';�' a�ie��s`.t� i -. �✓,.:,i;_:,'.•:a<<:: �.,_...,_...>_.- .....r....__ [i00FPLAN.._. a all�. Pardee Homes ia�so wILSNas BLVD s1IT>E IMn PLAN 3 ELEVATION B M O O R P A R K P A - 4 ' -11 02 1. BASE STUCCO 2 ACCENT STUCCO MATWOAIs �. LuruuTtE Srn,e [ NLTIRICAt'E SHVR8R5 O OION C OQOOIIATfVEV[NT -5 ID RAIfIDt TA l O STl'CCO N snlccD Dvu M nw 1 MooD SertnTTTaa UC'lIDUOR fO)Q10 fI5AROT WMDI R wOOD IASCIA L LYfLL?QIS M STOV! VFII ®t O 1011p3 I. MOOD lOT]Ilpl Q. J!l.TYOlOI�Mp.F - SCCf10NAL GAMO[ p(tOlA 5 UCC — IOI1{ wpp0 •A6AY1 , U/QN[T CAI v •CCISS B�� Oft 11 s -. QW OW 12W 2 fIX4) I 4 K I H N -K I A H H V G ITALIAN Vim, Pardee Homes hlG nX4) H R a �� Z4 PLAN 3 ELEVATION C M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7 11A, 00('118 MEN RODE: FLAN I BASF STUCCO 2 ACCENT STUCCO MATPRUIS F -IO w — 1A G. en'CYO W� SHUTT2" e�m4lwa smog (NAIIDV WARD, L I-- I. 0 WOOD RADDNi (I,DC,PY CAI PLAN 3 ELEVATION C M O O R P A R K P A - 4 7 11A, 00('118 MEN ITEM: 9.A. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Direct r. Prepared by Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner ' DATE: April 23, 2004 (PC Meeting of 05/04/04) SUBJECT: Consider Recommendation to City Council on Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION This item was originally scheduled for consideration at the Planning Commission's regular meeting held on April 6, 2004. Due to the length of the hearings preceding this item, by consensus, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the Landscape Standards and Guidelines to its next regular meeting of April 20, 2004. At the April 20, 2004 meeting, the matter continued again to the Planning Commission meeting of May 4, 2004. No changes have been proposed for this item since the previous meetings. You may refer to the April 6, 2004, Agenda Report for details on this item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS: 1. April 6, 2004 Agenda Report (without attachments). 2. Draft Resolution PC -2004- S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \Z 0 A \2002 \Landscape Guidelines \PC Agenda Report040505QQ C 1 19 MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Barry R. Hogan, Community Development Direct Prepared by Scott Wolfe, Principal Planner DATE: March 17, 2004 (PC Meeting of 04/06/04) SUBJECT: Consider Recommendation to City Council on Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines BACKGROUND As part of the annual City Council Goals and Objectives, the City Council has identified, for the past several years, the need to adopt guidelines for preparation of landscape and irrigation plans. This goal is currently listed as item number F -8 on the list of departmental goals and objectives. In support of this Goal of the City Council, Community Development staff has worked with the City's Landscape Consultant to develop a series of standards and guidelines to ensure that the landscaping of new development projects, as well as, that of public facilities and streetscapes, is designed to achieve the desired outcome at maturity. DISCUSSION The attached document represents a comprehensive program for the implementation of landscape design policies and regulations which are already in existence within the City today. The benefits to be gained from these Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines will be realized by both City staff, as well as, by private land owners and developers, through the clear communication of expectations and standards pertaining to the installation and maintenance of landscaping and irrigation systems. The Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines begin with general information which pertains to all projects in the City. This information identifies points of concern which should be considered when designing the landscape and irrigation plans for any project. Issues such as water conservation, fire hazard mitigation, public S: \Community Development \DEV PMTS \1P A\20�TTACi uit11V`T Q��120 `PAAgenda Report.doc Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 2 accessibility, and development of community character are addressed in a very general way, so that landscape designers can understand these concerns before considerable time is expended in design. Landscape Plan submittal requirements and processing procedures constitute the next portion of the document. These sections establish standards for submittals and outline the general processing steps to enable applicants to navigate their way through the Landscape Plan review process as easily and expeditiously as possible. The procedures and requirements sections address the format of plans, the content of submittals, and the process from the time -of.submittal to the final inspection of landscaping and irrigation and the release of sureties. Next, the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines identify design standards to be used for different types of projects. These project types range from public concerns such as streetscapes to private developments. Separate requirements exist for single - family residential projects, as well as, commercial and industrial projects, and treatments of utilities. Parking areas have their own requirements in the document as well. Finally, the Standards and Guidelines provide a series of aids to applicants designing and submitting plans to the City. Applications and other forms are included in the "Attachments to the Standards and Guidelines." Other helpful information is included, such as plant lists, submittal requirements, and standard details for the installation of plant materials and irrigation equipment. It should be noted that these Standards and Guidelines are intended to provide direction to applicants and guidance to staff in processing requests for landscape approval on public projects, and private commercial, industrial, institutional and residential projects. The Standards and Guidelines are not, however, intended to dictate planting requirements for individual private residential properties. While the plant lists and planting methods included in the document may prove useful to homeowners, they are not to be enforced as the only list of plants or methods acceptable to the City. Homeowners will retain their own freedom to design the landscapes on their property, subject only to property maintenance provisions of the Municipal Code and individual Homeowners Association regulations. Many of the provisions of the Standards and Guidelines use mandatory language ( "shall ") rather than directory language ( "should "), which is not typically true of "Guidelines." The OoC,121 Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 3 provisions using the mandatory language are Standards to be adhered to in all instances, while the provisions with directory language are Guidelines. This fact should be viewed in light of the intent that these Guidelines be adopted as general policies, which set direction and guide both staff and applicants in the accomplishment of the goal of ensuring a pleasant and livable community, enriched with desired landscape amenities. However, in some instances, there may be situations which are better addressed by a practice which may not strictly adhere to the guidelines set forth in the document. In those situations, the Community Development Director may adjust the guidelines to best meet the needs of the City. The Commission should be aware that the Director's ability to adjust provisions in the Standards and Guidelines does not extend to those mandatory items that require compliance with other City, State, or Federal requirements, such as Title 24, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and local health and safety requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines is considered to be a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requiring an appropriate level of environmental review. In accordance with the City's environmental review procedures adopted by resolution, the Community Development Director determines the level of review necessary for a project to comply with CEQA. Some projects may be exempt from review based upon a specific category listed in CEQA. Other projects may be exempt under a general rule that environmental review is not necessary where it can be determined that there would be no possibility of a significant effect upon the environment. A project which does not qualify for an exemption requires the preparation of an Initial Study to assess the level of potential environmental impacts. Based upon the results of an Initial Study, the Director may determine that a project will not have a significant effect upon the environment. In such a case, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared. For many projects, a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration will prove to be sufficient environmental documentation. If the Director determines that a project has the potential for significant adverse impacts and adequate mitigation cannot be readily identified, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared. The Director has reviewed this project and found it to qualify for a General Rule Exemption in accordance with Section 15061 of C0'6l_2a Honorable Planning Commission April 6, 2004 Page 4 California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). No further environmental documentation is required. STAFF RECOWENDATION Adopt Resolution No. PC -2004- recommending to the City Council adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines. ATTACHMENT: Draft Resolution PC -2004- O00123 RESOLUTION NO. PC -2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the City Council has established a goal of developing a policy document addressing Landscape and Irrigation system design for projects on both public and private property; and WHEREAS, the adoption of Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines will serve both project applicants as well as City staff responsible for processing project applications by outlining submittal requirements, applicable standards, and processing procedures; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after discussion of the matter at its regular meeting of May 4, 2004, determined that the draft Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines presented by the Community Development Department would support the objectives desired by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission concurs with the Community Development Director's determination that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by the general rule that CEQA only applies to projects that may have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark recommends to the City Council the adoption of the Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION: The Community Development Director shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. PC ATTACHMENT 2 000124 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 2 The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of May, 2004. Scott Pozza, Chair ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan Community Development Director Exhibit A - Draft Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines 00CY125 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 3 LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CITY OF MOORPARK Community Development Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 805 - 517 -6224 000126 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Water Conservation 1.2 Ecological Viability 1.3 Development of Community Character 1.4 Public Access and Enjoyment 1.5 Fire Mitigation SECTION 2 PROCESSING PROCEDURES 2.1 Pre - Submittal Meeting 2.2 Conceptual Landscape Package Submittal 2.3 Conceptual Plan Review and Approval 2.4 Guarantee /Surety and Exoneration of Surety 2.5 Installation and Inspection 2.6 Enforcement SECTION 3 PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Plan Check Fees 3.2 General Plan Preparation Requirements 3.3 Planting Plan Requirements 3.4 Soils Analysis 3.5 Irrigation Plan Requirements 3.6 Maintenance Program SECTION 4 INSTALLATION VERIFICATION 4.1 Approved Plans /Conditions 4.2 Landscape Condition Compliance Review 4.3 Maintenance Program SECTION 5 INSTALLATION ENFORCEMENT SECTION 6 WATER BUDGET AND PROJECTED WATER USE CALCULATIONS SECTION 7 PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY 7.1 Parkways and Streetscapes 7.2 Median Island Planting Requirements SECTION 8 COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MULTI - FAMILY PROJECTS SECTION 9 UTILITIES SECTION 10 PARKING AREAS SECTION 11 EROSION CONTROL AND NATURAL AREAS SECTION 12 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 12.1 Water Efficient Model Home Requirement 12.2 Private Front Yards 12.3 Street Trees 12.4 Streetscape Concept 12.5 Wall and Fencing 00012'7 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 5 ATTACHMENTS: I LANDSCAPE SUBMITTAL PLAN CHECKLIST • General Plan Requirements • Slope Planting Plan Requirements • On -Site Planting Plan Requirements • Irrigation Plan Requirements • Landscape Inspection Requirements (City Maintained and Master Association) • Landscape Inspection Requirements (Sub- Association, Commercial and On -Site Areas) • City Approval Block (must be on title sheet) II GENERAL RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST III INVASIVE AND PROHIBITED PLANT LIST IV RECOMMENDED TREES FOR STREETS V REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN REIVEW VI APPLICANT'S LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT'S CHECKLIST AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE VII CITY STANDARD PLANTING DETAILS 1 -1 Tree Planting Detail 1 -2 Tree Guying Detail 1 -3 Tree Planting on Slope Detail 1 -4 Shrub Planting Detail 1 -5 Shrub on Slope Planting Detail VIII CITY STANDARD IRRIGATION DETAILS 2 -1 Remote Control Valve Detail 2 -2 Anti - siphon Valve Detail 2 -3 Backflow Preventer Detail 2 -4 Bubbler Detail 2 -5 Pop -up Rotor Detail 2 -6 Rotor On Slope Detail 2 -7 Pop -up Spray Head Detail 2 -8 Riser Spray Detail IX PLANTING DESIGN REQUIREMENT FIGURES 12 -1 Slope Planting w/View Fence (Elevation) 12 -2 Slope Planting w /Screen Wall (Elevation) 12 -3 Slope Planting at Single - Family Residence (Plan View) 12 -4 Slope Planting a Multi - Family Residence (Plan View) 000128 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 6 SECTION 1 GENERAL The purpose of this guide is to assist in the preparation of landscape plans while incorporating water conservation measures, design aesthetics and landscape consistency throughout the City of Moorpark. It has been prepared by the City of Moorpark Community Development Department as a guide for use by landscape architects and others involved with the development of projects within the City. These standards and guidelines include water use requirements and the City's minimum landscape standards established to create a sense of community character. The landscape plans must meet the basic criteria within these standards and guidelines. Items which utilize mandatory language ( "shall ") are considered standards and must be adhered to. Additionally, certain projects may be required to exceed the minimum standards to achieve specific objectives. The items which utilize directory language ( "should ") are considered guidelines, and may be interpreted with some flexibility to meet goals which result in community benefit. The Community Development Director may waive any guidelines as deemed necessary and appropriate. 1.1 Water Conservation Water conservation through landscaping offers the greatest single opportunity for water savings in the urban area. About forty percent (40 %) of urban water is used to irrigate landscaped areas in California. A water - efficient landscape includes water efficient (drought tolerant) plants, efficient irrigation systems, proper soil preparation, responsive maintenance and watering schedules, and reuse of water (wherever possible) such as grey water, reclaimed or recycled water systems. Water - efficient design can both reduce project costs and reduce the amount of water usage for landscaping. Due to the increasing demand for water and the limited supply in Ventura County and within the City of Moorpark, water - efficient landscaping shall be required in new developments and existing developments undergoing significant modifications. Included within these standards and guidelines are Water Budget and Projected Water Use Calculations as well as a list of City approved plants and their suggested landscape use. The applicant may expand upon the material list with approval by the Community Development Director, but all suggestions must meet the basic criteria within the standards and guidelines, including: • Drought tolerant planting; • Limitation of lawn areas; • Efficient irrigation; • Proper soil preparation, including use of mulch • Responsive maintenance and watering schedule; • Use of surfaces that allow percolation of stormwater, such as turfcrete, gravel, porous pavements, vegetative groundcover, mulch, etc; • Surface drainage through bioswales; and • Stormwater storage for reuse onsite, such as cisterns. 000129 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 7 1.2 Ecological Viability The landscape plans should incorporate sensible conservation of public resources, including water, soil, biodiversity, energy resources, air quality, agricultural, recreational and wildlife open space, and other such resources in the public interest. Judicious conservation is cost - effective in both project construction and maintenance. Landscape plans that incorporate conservation also integrate with the character of the City's community and environs. The applicant is encouraged to take full advantage of the wide range of possibilities in design and technology within the framework established by this guide. A list of invasive and prohibited plants is provided (Attachment III). The Community Development Director or his /her designee may allow usage of select plants on this list in landscape areas that do not interface with sensitive ecological zones. Methods of increasing ecological viability include: • Reduced disturbance of soil and natural terrain through minimizing grading and working with the natural topography as much as possible; • Narrower road design and layouts with shorter road lengths, to reduce infrastructure costs and impermeable surfaces, as well as to increase opportunity to conserve natural resources, viewsheds and other space- requiring amenities in newly developed areas; • Native topsoil conservation and renewal, by saving topsoil and replacing it after grading, by re- vegetating with native plants, and other landscape regeneration methods; • Minimization of runoff via on -site stormwater retention /infiltration through open - bottom and vegetated swales and /or detention /retention basins, and other aesthetically enriching project amenities; • Slope stabilization with appropriate vegetation; • Use of drought - tolerant non - invasive native plants adjacent to designated natural resource areas and waterways; • Use of recycled materials of local origin for hardscaping, mulching and /or soil amendments; • Protection of viewsheds and open space areas; and • Multiple uses for landscapes, such as stormwater parks, to maximize available land area and natural resources, and to increase the quality of public service or economic opportunity. 1.3 Development of Community Character It is the intent of these standards and guidelines to provide a sense of community character that is compatible with the City's culture and environment, and to strengthen the perception of the community as a unique place. The aim of community character development is to create and enhance a community identity, to increase the enjoyment and sense of community among the public, and to enhance the image of the community as a desirable place to live, work and shop. 000130 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 8 a. Design with consistency and maintain a high standard of aesthetics: 1. Design elements should complement the architectural theme. 2. Private and public uses should be visually separate, but aesthetically consistent. 3. Public and Private streets should take on an individual appearance with a common street tree and design intent. 4. Landscape areas and streetscape should include `surprises' such as a large focal tree. b. Introduce design ideas that complement the City's cultural heritage and natural history such as: 1. ranch' style and early Spanish architecture; 2. natural landscape elements such as native trees and shrubs; 3. natural building material such as river rock and boulders; 4. the City's agricultural heritage; 5. the railroad; 6. the arroyo; and 7. local chaparral and riparian plant communities. C. Integrate conservation and efficiency whenever possible, to enhance enjoyment of the unique characteristics of the area, such as: 1. mild, sunny climate; 2. maritime weather patterns; 3. distinctive shape of the existing terrain; 4. viewsheds; 5. beauty of local natural history; and 6. local building materials. 1.4 Public Access and Enjoyment The landscape plans shall meet all Title 24 and ADA accessibility requirements as well as all applicable codes for fire and building in order to promote health, safety and community welfare. The intent of these standards and guidelines is to universally provide safe access for use and enjoyment, on new projects and on modifications of existing projects. a. ADA accessibility and Title 24 requirements shall be incorporated for public, commercial and industrial projects, for both new projects and modification of existing projects. b. Landscapes shall be viable, functional and attractive, to provide universal access, use and enjoyment. Landscapes shall provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community, through compliance with all applicable ordinances for fire, health and safety. OVG131 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 9 C. In addition to ADA accessibility, landscapes should be designed for specific user populations as needed, whether for an elderly population, youth, or for specific disabilities such as blindness. Specific landscape functions and amenities should be considered. Examples include: 1. raised beds to wheelchair height and reach for handicapped and elderly access in a community garden; 2. casual seating located along pedestrian ways positioned for "people watching ", such as benches, steps, planters or grassy slopes, with a view onto a park, plaza or street; and 3. textured surfaces along pedestrian ways to guide non - sighted pedestrians. d. Landscapes shall enhance the microclimate and character of pedestrian ways and gathering places by adequately providing the following: 1. shade, from trees or from overhead structures; 2. screening; 3. seating; 4. lighting; 5. circulation, including adequate separation of pedestrian, bicycle, equestrian and vehicular circulation; and 6. attractive gathering spaces with focal amenities. 1.5 Fire Mitigation A Fuel Modification Plan may be required when a proposed project contains or is bounded by hazardous native vegetation as determined by the Ventura County Prevention District, This plan will demonstrate how the proposed project will mitigate potential fire hazards. The final Fuel Modification Plan shall be submitted in conjunction with landscape plans prior to review by the City. The final approved Fuel Modification Plan may take precedence over these standards and guidelines. SECTION 2 PROCESSING PROCEDURES 2.1 Pre - Submittal Meeting A pre - submittal meeting familiarizes the applicant with the review process, and identifies the information and materials necessary to file landscape plans. A pre - submittal meeting can be arranged by contacting the case planner at the Community Development Department. 2.2 Conceptual Landscape Package Submittal After the applicant has prepared all the information identified during the pre - submittal meeting, the landscape package shall be formally submitted with the required fee deposit in accordance with fee schedule and signed Reimbursement Agreement. (See Attachment V) Elements to be included in the conceptual landscape plan package are as follows: 000132 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 10 a. existing trees and shrubs to be removed and /or protect in place; b. structures or buildings to be removed and /or protect in place; C. tree, Shrub and Groundcover Plant Palette; d. street tree plan; e. general plant sizes and locations; f. all design elements, site features and flatwork, including elevations or perspective drawings of those features; g. project entry monumentation layout and elevations or perspective drawings. h. walls and fences including details; paving and walkways; j. color and material schedule. Samples should be included for City to review; k. all site amenities. At a minimum, the site amenities should reference color and material (i.e. wood, metal, etc.); I. site and landscape lighting; M. preliminary parking lot shading plan if applicable. Plan should address all four seasons (refer to Section 10); and n. preliminary utility screening plan (refer to Section 9). 2.3 Conceptual Plan Review and Approval Upon receipt of the landscape package, the City's case planner shall review it for completeness and forward it to the City's consulting landscape architect for review. The consultant's review, which normally takes two weeks, consists of an on -site inspection and package review for consistency with City standards as outlined by this guide. Upon completion of the review, the consultant returns the package to the Planning Division with recommendations for approval or modification. This process is repeated until approval is achieved. Based upon the recommendations of the City's consulting landscape architect and case planner, the Community Development Director shall approve the project's landscape package. 2.4 Guarantee /Surety and Exoneration of Surety A surety bond may be required as a condition of approval in the following cases: a. To assure plant viability at least one year after installation. b. To assure installation of plants after issuance of a Zoning Clearance by the Planning Division and Certificate of Occupancy by Building and Safety. (This would normally be allowed only on non - sloped areas of residential projects where the applicant is providing landscaping). If, upon final landscape inspection, the Community Development Director determines that the landscaping and irrigation have been installed in accordance with the approved plans, the Community Development Director may recommend that the guarantee /surety be returned to the applicant. 000133 Resolution No. PC- 2004 -_ Page 11 2.5 Installation and Inspection Landscaping for commercial, industrial and residential sloped areas shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City Building and Safety Division. The applicant's landscape architect shall be required to certify in writing to the Community Development Director that all work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications (Attachment VI). The City's landscape consultant will conduct the final landscape inspection after receipt of the certification. (See Section 4 — Installation Verification and Attachment I — Landscape Submittal Plan Checklist & Landscape Inspection Requirements) 2.6 Compliance Discretionary development permits may be conditioned for follow -up inspections to verify a maintenance program, water management auditing, or compliance with environmental mitigation measures. Failure by the applicant, successor in interest, or homeowner's association to maintain installed common area landscaping and /or irrigation systems will constitute a violation of the Conditions of Approval and /or Mitigation Measures of the development permit. SECTION 3 PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The project's landscape package shall be prepared by a California Registered Landscape Architect, unless waived by the Community Development Director. Plans must be wet - stamped, signed and dated. Plan submittals shall include the following: (see Attachment I — Landscape Plan Review Checklist) 3.1 Plan Check Fees The applicant shall pay the deposit fee in accordance with the fee schedule and submit a signed reimbursement agreement to cover landscape review and inspection. Fees shall include costs of any required follow -up inspections. (See Attachment V — Reimbursement Agreement for Plan Review) 3.2 General Plan Preparation Requirements (See Attachment I — Landscape Plan Review Checklist) a. Base Sheets: Plans shall be drawn on clear and legible base sheets prepared especially for the landscape submittal. 2. Plans shall not exceed 30" x 42" or be less than 22" x 36" in size. 3. Base Sheets should accurately and clearly show the following existing and proposed features: a) property lines; b) streets, street rights -of -way, access easements and /or public or private driveways, walkways, bike paths, and any other paved areas; C) all existing and proposed buildings and structures; 000134 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 12 d) parking areas, lighting, striping, curbs and wheel stops; e) all existing and proposed trees, shrubs and other significant landscape features; i.e., water courses, rock outcroppings, etc.; f) grading areas; top and toe of slopes, slope direction (engineer's Precise Grading plans must included with submittal); g) all Utilities, including street lighting, fire hydrants, transformers, electric meters, irrigation equipment, air conditioning units, etc.; h) existing native vegetation, on -site and on contiguous parcels, may be shown in a generalized manner; and i) Fire Clearance Zone, if applicable (Approved Fuel Modification Plan must be included with submittal). b. Scale: The scale shall not be smaller than 1"=20' unless prior approval is received from the Community Development Director. C. Title Block: A title block shall be included on all plans indicating the names, addresses and phone numbers of the applicant and the landscape architect. The title block shall include a north arrow and scale for each sheet. Each sheet shall be clearly labeled. The title block shall include the California Registered Landscape Architect's seal. Each sheet shall be 'wet- signed' for final approval. d. Title Sheet: Content of the Title Sheet shall include the following: 1. Project Title; 2. Title block; 3. Vicinity Map; 4. Location Map; 5. Sheet Index; 6. Landscape Approval Block (see Attachment I — Landscape Plan Review Checklist); 7. Landscape Inspection Schedule (see Attachment I — Landscape Plan Review Checklist); e. Other Items. 1. One (1) copy of the engineer's precise grading plans shall be included with the landscape submittal. 2. The final Fuel Modification Plan shall be included with the landscape submittal if applicable. 3.3 Planting Plan Requirements (See Attachment I — Landscape Plan Review Checklist) Plan Preparation Requirements: a. A Horticultural Soils Analysis with recommendations shall be attached to the landscape plans. (See Section 3.4 below) O0G135 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 13 b. The plans must include notation that a ninety (90) day maintenance period is required and that expenses are to be paid for by the owner. C. The planting plan shall include maintenance notes on either the plans or in the specifications. d. Planting specifications shall be included. e. Existing and proposed grades and drainage elements are shown f. All design elements shown on the approved Landscape Concept Plan; i.e. recreational areas, outdoor eating areas, trails, etc. g. Location and spacing of all plants are clearly identified. h. Common and botanical names of all plants are listed. i. Size and quantity of all plants are listed. j. Seed mix information including: 1. rate; 2. mix; 3. mulch; 4. binder; 5. fertilization; and 6. inoculation. k. Planting details I. General planting notes M. Planting specifications n. Maintenance notes (see Section 4) 3.4 Soils Analysis A soils report performed by a laboratory that is a member of the California Association of Agricultural Laboratories shall be attached to the landscape plans. The soil sample tested shall be taken after site grading and the date of the sample shall be included on the report. The planting backfill mixture and soil amendments shall be based on this analysis. Use of soil amendments produced from recycled yard trimmings and /or organic wastes of local origin is encouraged, whenever feasible. The report shall include the following: a. Determination of soil texture indicating the percentage of organic matter shall be indicated. b. An approximate determination of the soil infiltration rate shall be indicated. A range of infiltration rates should be noted, where appropriate C. Measure of pH and total soluble salts shall be indicated. d. Amendments and recommendations for improving water - holding properties shall be noted. ®fit0136 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 14 3.5 Irrigation Plan Requirements (See Attachment I - Landscape Plan Review Checklist) All landscape areas shall be provided with an approved irrigation system that meets the requirements of this section. Specific site conditions and proposed landscape materials will determine the design of the irrigation system. The irrigation system shall deliver water efficiently and uniformly. All equipment shall be designed for installation per manufacturer's recommendation, and conform to Uniform Plumbing Codes and all local regulations. a. When considering design alternatives, the following criteria shall be utilized: 1. Head -to -head coverage: The irrigation design shall provide adequate "head -to -head" and sufficient water for the continued healthy growth of all proposed plantings with a minimum of waste or overspray on adjoining areas. 2. Reduced Pressure Backflow Device: Notation shall be on the landscape plan that the backflow device must be tested at a minimum of once a year. All backflow devices shall be installed in a mesh enclosure with green or tan powder coating. 3. Uniform distribution: The distribution of uniformity of an installed sprinkler system shall meet or exceed seventy percent (70 %). 4. Controllers: Automatic irrigation controllers are required with separate programs for each landscape area with a different irrigation need. Controllers shall be capable of controlling the operating time for each circuit, the starting time and daily schedule of operation. Each controller must be able to accommodate multiple schedules and contain fourteen (14) -day minimum clocks; percentage switches; repeat cycles; the ability to schedule by the day of the week; and rain sensing override devices. A watering schedule shall be placed in each controller. 5. Soil moisture sensors: Soil moisture sensing devices are suggested in representative areas of the landscape plan. 6. Point irrigation: Drip emitters and bubblers are recommended for trees and shrubs. 7. Runoff and overspray: Soil types and percolation rate shall be considered when designing irrigation systems. All irrigation systems shall be designed to avoid runoff, low head drainage, overspray, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent areas, walks, roadways, or structures. The water application rate shall attempt to match the infiltration rate of the soil. Repeat cycles shall be utilized in an effort to avoid runoff. Sprinkler heads should be properly located to minimize landscape water overspray or runoff onto hardscape, unplanted areas, or areas of dissimilar water needs. 8. Quick couplers: Quick couplers or hose bibs are required at one- hundred foot (100') intervals throughout the project. 00013'7 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 15 9. Sprinkler heads: Sprinkler heads shall be selected for proper area coverage, precipitation rate, operating pressure, adjustment capability, and ease of maintenance. Heads or emitters shall have matched precipitation rates within ten percent (10 %) for each control valve circuit. Above ground risers are not allowed next to sidewalks, driveways, or curbs and are discouraged anywhere people can easily access; these sprinklers must be the pop -up type. In areas less than six feet wide, drip emitters and bubblers are recommended. 10. Rain sensing override devices: Rain sensing override devices are required on all irrigation systems. 11. Back -up System: The irrigation system shall be installed with a back -up system should an operating valve fail to shutoff or a break in the mainline occurs. The back up system should either consist of a normally open master valve with flow meter or a normally closed master valve. On large irrigation systems, a normally open master valve with flow meter will be required. 12. Piping: Plastic (PVC) mainline piping requires placement not less than 18" below final grade and minimum twenty -four inches (24 ") below finish surface of streets, with lateral lines requiring 12" depth. UVR (Ultra Violet Resistant) above ground pipe shall only be installed on slope areas. Galvanized lines shall be above ground. Other piping shall be considered for drip or temporary irrigation. Piping for reclaimed water systems shall follow current County Health and State Health standards for pipe color, depth and separation. All irrigation piping under streets or flatwork shall be sleeved with sch 40 PVC minimum two (2) times the diameter of the pipe enclosed. 13. Water meters: Landscape irrigation systems shall be on a separate water meter unless waived by the Community Development Director. A separate meter provides for monitoring of landscape irrigation efficiency. 14. Reclaimed water: If reclaimed water is available, and if installation is determined to be feasible and is approved by the Ventura Councy Environmental Health Division in conjunction with the local water purveyor, a reclaimed irrigation system shall be installed. b. Plan Preparation Requirements 1. Irrigation Plans shall be separate from Planting Plans, and shall have clear graphic indication of all system components with an irrigation legend on each sheet and shall include the following: a) equipment manufacturer; b) type of equipment; C) model number; d) precipitation rate; e) size; f) gallon per minute (GPM) demand; 000138 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 16 g) pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) demand; h) radius of cover for each head type; i) name and telephone number of the water purveyor; j) design and static water pressure (contact water company) and note reference engineer and date; k) point of connection (location and size); 1) backflow protection as approved by Ventura County Environmental Health; m) controllers, including number of stations; n) remote control valves including gallonage requirement, piping, heads and quick couplers (or hose bibs); o) pipe sizes indicated numerically (i.e.' /z ", 1/4 ", etc.); and P) rain shut off device. 2. The plans shall include the landscape inspection requirements. The inspection schedule shall be included on the Title Sheet. (See Attachment 1) 3. The plans shall include an irrigation schedule. 4. Worst case pressure loss calculation for the circuit with the highest demand, farthest distance from the POC and highest elevation shall be provided. 5. Details and specifications shall be provided for all irrigation system components. 3.6 Maintenance Program Landscapes of residential common areas and commercial or industrial projects shall be carefully and competently maintained to ensure water efficiency and high quality appearance. A watering schedule encased in plastic shall be kept inside each controller (with reduced as -built plans showing hydro- zones). Maintenance guideline notes must appear on the planting plan drawings. Using these standards and guidelines, a schedule for ongoing maintenance shall be prepared and shown on the planting plan. The maintenance guidelines shall be as follows: Post - installation Maintenance Standards and Guidelines a. Any alterations to the landscape must be approved by the Community Development Director. b. Control all harmful diseases and pests. All chemical applications must be per state licensed advisors and applications. C. Pruning shall be done to keep plants within special limitations, removal of deadwood, cross - branching, etc., per International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards. Plants shall never be sheared unless specified on the approved plan. 000139 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 17 Trees are to be allowed to grow to the designed size to provide maximum shading of paved areas. d. Water shall be applied for optimum plant growth with minimal runoff or overspray. Adjust controllers per current California Irrigation Management Information System (CI MIS) data. Information can be obtained at www.cimis.ca.gov . e. Always replace heads with the same kind of head, or head with a matching precipitation rate. f. Backflow device shall be tested and certified annually by the Ventura County Environmental Health Division. g. Inspect tree supports frequently, and remove as soon as the plants will stand without support and will be able to resist wind damage. Never allow support materials to girdle the trunk or branches. h. Landscape irrigation shall be scheduled during the night or early morning hours. i. A regular maintenance schedule shall include checking, adjusting, and repairing the irrigation equipment; aerating and de- thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; weeding; and removing litter in all landscaped areas. SECTION 4 INSTALLATION VERIFICATION 4.1 Approved Plans /Conditions Copies of the approved landscape plans and conditions are kept and available at the City of Moorpark, Community Development Department. 4.2 Landscape Condition Compliance Review Prior to completion of the landscaping and prior to final inspection, the City's landscape consultant shall inspect the site and certify that the landscape complies with these standards and guidelines per the attached inspection schedule (see Attachment 1). The applicant shall notify the City a minimum of forty -eight (48) hours prior to inspection. Upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and prior to final inspection, the applicant's landscape consultant shall inspect the site and certify that the landscape complies with these standards and guidelines. Certification shall be accomplished by completing the Certificate of Compliance checklist (see attachment VII). Concurrently or afterwards, the City's landscape consultant shall inspect the landscape planting and irrigation installations for final conformance with the approved plans and specifications. The applicant must also employ a certified backflow tester to certify the backflow device. A second inspection of residential common areas, commercial or industrial projects shall be conducted by the City's landscape consultant one year after certification to assure condition compliance including irrigation efficiency and plant viability. 4.3 Maintenance Program Landscapes of residential common areas, commercial or industrial projects shall be carefully and competently maintained to ensure water efficiency and high quality appearance. A watering schedule and as -built plans shall be encased in plastic and shall be kept in each controller. 000140 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 18 SECTION 5 CONTINUED COMPLIANCE REQUIRED The applicant, successor in interest, or homeowner's association shall maintain installed landscaping and efficient irrigation systems in compliance with the Conditions of Approval and /or Mitigation Measures of the development permit. SECTION 6 WATER BUDGET AND PROJECTED WATER USE CALCULATIONS Each landscape plan must have a water budget and projected water use calculations. Each project site is allowed a certain amount of water based upon the climate of the site and the total square footage of the planting area. Any plant can be used, provided the combined projected water use of all the plants does not exceed the water budget. A water budget calculation is based on the site's size and the reference Evapotranspiration (ET) factor. Included in the calculation of ET factors are evapotranspiration rates, precipitation rates, a crop coefficient and an allowance for uniformity. The reference ET factors within Ventura County are available at the CIMIS website at www.cimis.ca.gov. The water budget and projected water use calculations shall be submitted as part of the irrigation plan. The projected water use shall not exceed the water budget. A reproducible hydro -zone map showing separation of planting areas with plant factors shall be submitted as part of the landscape package. Areas such as parks, golf courses or school yards where turf provides a playing surface may require additional water. A statement to that effect shall be included with the planting plan, designating areas to be set aside for such purposes. The designated recreation area may receive more water than the water budget allows on a case -by -case basis. Such additional allocation shall be consistent with Ventura County's policy regarding the use of reclaimed water for golf courses. Calculating the Water Budget of a Project Site A site's water budget is determined by multiplying the square footage of the planting area by the site's ET factor. After you have determined how much water is in your budget, you can then calculate the projected water use of your proposed planting plan. To calculate the water budget of a site use this formula: Water Budget (Gallons/Year) _ (ET) x (.8) x (LA) x (.62) Water Budget = Maximum Applied Water Allowance (gallyr) ETo = Reference Evapotranspiration (incheslyr) .8 = ET Adjustment Factor LA = Landscaped Area (in square feet) .62 = Conversion Factor (to gal.1sq. ft.) This formula is based on California state law (Assembly Bill 325). Calculating the Project Water Use of a Landscape Plan: The total amount of projected water use should be less than or equal to the site's water budget. To determine the plant factor, multiply the plant factor of each planting hydro- 000141 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 19 zone by its square footage. Then add the results and complete the calculation of projected water use for the entire planting area. Generalized plant factors are: .3 = low water using plants, .5 = average water using plants, and .8 = high water using plants. These factors must be agreed upon by the designer and the City. If a plant is not on the list, an equivalency determination will be made by the Community Development Director. Any changes in the irrigation system or landscape will require new water projections. To calculate the projected water use of a landscape plan, use this formula: Projected Water Use (Gallons /year) _ (ET) x f(PF) x (HAA x (.62) IE ETo = Reference Evapotranspiration (inches/year) PF = Plant Factor (.1 low through .9 high) HA = Hydro -zone Area (square feet) (.62) = Conversion Factor (to gallons/square foot) IE = Irrigation Efficiency (minimum .625) For the purpose of determining the projected water use, irrigation efficiency is assumed to be 0.625 or better. Irrigation systems shall be designed, maintained and managed to meet or exceed 0.625 efficiency. If the plant factors average 0.5, the water budget will be met at an irrigation efficiency of 0.625. SECTION 7 PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY Special attention should be given to the planning and design of areas that are to be maintained by the City and /or are within the public right -of -way. These areas should utilize drought tolerant planting material, planting material that is low maintenance and utilize water conservation techniques without compromising the aesthetics of the design. 7.1 Parkways and streetscapes The design and layout of the streetscape is not only important to identify and individualize the project area, but also to capture the characteristics of Moorpark. The following goals should be considered: • The street tree should be of the same species for each street to promote consistency and area identity. • The streetscape must be designed with parkways. • Sidewalks should meander whenever possible. • Secondary trees outside of the right -of -way should consist of randomly spaced tree groves and informal massings. • Trees and shrubs should be chosen to provide varying texture, color and form. • The landscaping should be consistent with the architectural theme. • Shrub plantings should consist of layers of planting of varying heights. a. General Streetscape Requirements 000142 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 20 1. There shall be a minimum of one (1) shrub per ten (10) s.f. and one (1) tree per four - hundred (400) s.f., exclusive of street trees located within the parkway area. 2. Shrubs shall be minimum 5- gallon size. 3. Accent and perennials shall be located in groupings or massings along the planting edges at a distance not to exceed twenty feet (20') on center. The accent and perennial groupings are exclusive of the shrub - planting requirement. Accent and perennial plant massings shall consist of minimum 1- gallon container size plants with a minimum of twenty-five (25) plants per grouping. Larger groupings at a distance greater than thirty feet (30') may be installed provided the plant quantities are met. 4. With the exception of street trees and median island trees, the minimum tree size is 15- gallon. 5. All shrub areas shall be installed with flatted groundcover unless the landscape is installed with container plantings that will fill in within one year. 6. All shrub areas shall be installed with minimum one -inch (1 ") depth of bark mulch. 7. Turf may be allowed within the parkway area but not in the median island areas. 8. All planting shall be drought tolerant and low maintenance. 9. Six -inch (6 ") wide concrete headers shall be installed between turf and shrub areas. 10. Turf shall not be installed on slopes that exceed a 4:1 ratio. b. Street Tree Requirements 1. Street trees should be spaced according to the mature canopy size of the tree, but in no circumstance should the spacing exceed thirty feet (30') on center without City approval. 2. Street trees shall be minimum 24" box size with minimum 1 '/4" caliper. Trees shall be between eight (8') to twelve (12') height with a minimum two foot (2') wide spread. 3. Trees shall be standard trunk, not multi- trunk. 4. All street trees within ten feet (10') of walks, curbs, or other hardscape areas shall be installed with a linear root barrier ten feet (10') in length by twenty -four inch (24 ") in depth installed against the hardscape area centered on the tree trunk. 5. Trees shall be located per the sight distance requirements established by the City Engineer at intersections. Unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer, street trees shall not be closer than twenty-five (25') to the back of curb return. 000143 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 21 6. Street trees shall be located no less than five feet (5') from curbs, sidewalks and other hardscape areas, unless they are located in parkways. 7. Street trees shall be located no less than ten feet (10') from utility poles and light standards, fire hydrants, utility structures and driveway aprons. 8. Trees that may exceed twenty feet (20') vertical height at maturity shall not be located under utility lines. 7.2 Median Island Planting Requirements a. General Requirements 1. There shall be a minimum of one (1) shrub per ten (10) s.f. and one (1) tree per four - hundred (400) s.f. 2. Shrubs shall consist of minimum 5- gallon container sizes. 3. In median islands ten feet (10') wide or greater, accent and perennials shall be located in massings along the planting edges at a distance not to exceed thirty feet (30') on center and shall be exclusive of the shrub - planting requirement. Accent and perennial plant massings shall consist of minimum 1- gallon container size plants with a minimum of twenty -five (25) plants per grouping. Larger groupings at a distance greater than thirty feet (30') may be installed provided the plant quantities are met. 4. Median island trees shall be minimum seventy -five percent (75 %) 24" box size and twenty -five percent (25 %) 15- gallon container sizes. 5. All shrub areas shall be installed with flatted groundcover unless the landscape is installed with container plantings that will fill in within one year. 6. All shrub areas shall be installed with minimum 1" depth of bark mulch. 7. Turf is not allowed in the median islands. 8. All planting shall be drought tolerant and low maintenance. 9. All trees shall be installed with a linear root barrier ten feet (10') in length by twenty -four inch (24') in depth installed against the hardscape area centered on the tree trunk. b. Planting Design Requirements 1. Median island trees shall consist of a variety of tree species of varying form, texture and color. Flowering and canopy trees are encouraged. 2. Trees shall be located per the sight distance requirements established by the City Engineering Department. Trees shall not be installed adjacent to a turn pocket. 3. Shrubs located adjacent to the turn pocket shall not exceed eighteen inches (18 ") in height. Larger shrubs are permitted at a distance of twenty feet (20') from the beginning of the turn pocket, but shall not exceed thirty inches (30 ") in height. 000144 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 22 4. Turf is not permitted in median islands. 5. An eighteen -inch (18 ") wide hardscape edge shall be installed along the entire length of the median island adjacent to the curb for maintenance. The hardscape band shall consist of either colored, stamped concrete, or concrete pavers, to match the architectural theme of the project. SECTION 8 COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MULTI - FAMILY PROJECTS Landscape screening is particularly important with respect to commercial, industrial and multi - family street frontages. The large building mass, parking areas and maintenance staging areas are all relatively visible from the street frontage and require landscaping to soften the architecture and screen utility structures. a. General Planting Requirements 1. Minimum percentage of landscape coverage shall be provided within on- site parking areas consistent with Chapter 17.32 of the Moorpark Municipal Code. 2. There shall be a minimum of one (1) shrub per one - hundred (100) s.f. and one (1) tree per five - hundred (500) s.f., exclusive of street trees located within the parkway area. 3. Shrubs shall consist of eighty percent (80 %) 5- gallon and twenty percent (20 %) 1- gallon of each variety. 4. Turf shall not exceed ten percent (10 %) of the total landscape area, exclusive of the parkway area. 5. Large groupings of accent, perennials and annuals are encouraged. 6. Trees shall be a minimum seventy -five percent (75 %) 24" box and twenty - five percent (25 %) 15- gallon. 7. All shrub areas shall be installed with flatted groundcover unless the landscape is installed with container plantings that will fill in within one year. 8. All shrub areas shall be installed with minimum one -inch (1 ") depth of bark mulch. 9. The planting palette shall be consistent with these standards and guidelines. 10. Turf shall not be installed on slopes that exceed 4:1. b. Planting Design Requirements. 1. The landscape buffer shall consist of tall vertical trees adjacent to the building and lower canopy trees adjacent to the street frontage. 2. The tree planting shall consist of a mixture of evergreen, deciduous and flowering trees. 3. All utilities, trash enclosures, maintenance staging areas, etc. shall be screened from view. 000145 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 23 4. A parkway with street trees shall be installed at the street frontage. 5. Large specimen trees and enhanced landscaping shall be located at the entry locations. Specimen trees shall be minimum 36" box size. 6. Parking areas should be screened from public view from the street. SECTION 9 UTILITIES To reduce the visibility of generally unattractive utility equipment, landscape screening shall be incorporated. For the purpose of these standards and guidelines, utility structures are any appurtenances that are above ground and have been installed in conjunction with new construction or are existing and part of a newly renovated project (i.e. electric meters, transformers, irrigation equipment, air conditioning units, etc.). The landscape plans shall identify all utility structures on site and provide appropriate screening. a. General Design Requirements 1. All utility structures shall be screened from view with appropriate landscaping. 2. Utility structures shall utilize camouflage, disguising the facility as a natural or more aesthetically pleasing man -made object to soften its visual impact on its surroundings. 3. Access to utility structures shall be maintained, while at least seventy-five (75 %) of the shall be screened from view. 4. Bollards shall not be installed with any new utility equipment unless required by governing agency. 5. All utility equipment shall be located at the rear of the property. 6. All utility equipment shall be located in shrub areas with a minimum of three feet (3') clear distance around all sides for appropriate landscape screening. 7. Screening shall take into consideration traffic sight distance requirements established by the City Engineer. SECTION 10 PARKING AREAS Parking lots should be designed to provide ease of access and safety as well as to enhance the visual quality of the City. The ultimate goal of the design is to provide a safe environment, minimize the visual appearance of the large expanse of asphalt and to reduce glare, ambient temperature and traffic noise. a. General Design Requirements 1. A minimum of fifteen percent (15 %) of the total parking area shall consist of landscaping. Landscaping shall be computed on the basis of the net parking facility, which includes parking stalls (covered and uncovered), aisles and walkways, but does not include required landscaping adjacent to streets and within the public right -of -way. 000146 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 24 2. All parking rows shall terminate with a planter or island that is a minimum of five -foot (6) width. Parking rows shall not exceed forty feet (40') in length without the addition of a planter finger or island. 3. A minimum of one (1) tree per every four (4) stalls is required to meet the shade requirement. 4. There shall be a minimum of one (1) shrub per ten (10) s.f. 5. Shrubs shall consist of eighty percent (80 %) 5- gallon size and twenty percent (20 %) 1- gallon size. 6. Interior shrub planting shall not exceed thirty inches (30 ") in height. 7. Turf is not allowed in parking areas. 8. Additional groupings of accent plants and perennials are required. 9. The minimum tree size is 24" box. 10. All shrub areas shall be installed with flatted groundcover unless the landscape is installed with container plantings that will fill in within one year. 11. All shrub areas shall be installed with minimum one -inch (1 ") depth of bark mulch. 12. The planting palette shall be consistent with these standards and guidelines. b. Planting Design Requirements 1. The parking area and parked cars shall be adequately screened from view from the street frontage with landscaping. 2. There shall be a minimum of fifty percent (50 %) tree shade coverage of the parking area. This is determined at two- thirds (2/3) tree maturity or fifteen (15) years after installation. 3. A shade coverage exhibit must be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 4. A minimum of one (1) 'finger' planter, five feet (5) in width, shall be provided at a minimum of every forty (40) lineal feet, and at the end of every parking aisle. 5. A minimum of one (1) 'diamond' planter shall be provided at every fourth stall within the parking area or as needed to obtain the shade coverage requirement. 6. A minimum of one (1) 'finger' planter, five feet (5') in width, shall be provided at every eight (8) stalls adjacent to the building or street frontage. Additional tree massings shall be included adjacent to these areas to provide the shade coverage required. 7. Decorative paving material is encouraged to break up the large expanse of concrete or asphalt. 000147 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 25 8. Landscape areas shall be designed so as to discourage pedestrians from crossing any landscape areas to reach building entrances or parked vehicles. 9. Landscape islands shall be designed with walkways that encourage pedestrian circulation through the parking area. 10. Wheel stops are not allowed. 11. An eighteen inch (18 ") wide concrete band adjacent to the access side of the vehicle shall be installed adjacent to the median island curb for pedestrian access. 12. Median islands shall be a minimum of five feet (5') wide without a walkway and fifteen feet (15) wide with a five -foot (5'), walkway not including the curb. SECTION 11 EROSION CONTROL AND NATURAL AREAS Erosion control landscaping is required to reduce soil erosion and excessive runoff due to construction activities. Erosion control landscaping can also provide an aesthetically pleasing hillside with the proper selection of plant material and design intent. a. General Design Requirements 1. Slope planting design should incorporate three (3) levels of vegetation: ground cover, shrubs and trees. Each planting level should provide varying levels of height, texture and color. 2. 'Ornamental' orchards are strongly discouraged and shall only be considered on a case -by -case basis and accompanied by a long -term care and maintenance plan. 3. A minimum five -foot (5) wide Transition Zone of ornamental planting shall separate streets or sidewalks from native areas. The planting species chosen for these areas shall not be invasive or subject to naturalizing and shall be drought tolerant. 4. Pepper Trees are strongly discouraged except as specimen trees within the historic downtown area. 5. Eucalyptus Trees are strongly discouraged and shall only be considered on a case -by -case basis. 6. All manufactured slopes, three feet (3') or greater in vertical height, shall be planted with groundcover from cuttings, shrubs and trees. Hydroseed may be considered adjacent to naturalized areas with prior City approval. 7. All manufactured slopes, five feet (6) or greater in vertical height, shall be installed with jute mesh or equal per City approval. 8. Shrubs on slopes shall be planted at a minimum of one (1) shrub per one - hundred (100) square feet. 9. Trees on slopes shall be planted at a minimum of one (1) tree per three - hundred -fifty (350) square feet. O00148 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 26 10. Minimum tree size is seventy -five percent (75 %) 15- gallon and twenty -five percent (25 %) 24" box. 11. Minimum shrub size is sixty percent (60 %) 5- gallon and forty percent (40 %) 1- gallon. 12. All slopes planted with cuttings shall be treated with a pre- emergent herbicide per the manufacturer's recommendations and must be identified on the landscape plans. 13. Any existing slope area cleared by construction activity shall, at a minimum, be "'re- vegetated" with a hydroseed mix and temporary irrigation system. The restoration requirement for cleared areas will be per the City's discretion. At a minimum the cleared area shall be restored to its original condition. 14. All existing vegetation shall be retained to the greatest extent possible. The City shall determine mitigation measures for the loss of existing trees. 15. To the greatest extent possible, existing trees that cannot be preserved shall be relocated on site. 16. All manufactured slopes shall be permanently irrigated with an automatic irrigation system. 17. Unimproved disturbed and slope areas shall be landscaped within one - hundred- eighty (180) days following the issuance of a grading permit and /or within thirty (30) days prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 18. Temporary slope erosion control plans are required if the unimproved areas are not permanently planted and irrigated through the rainy season. 19. All slope erosion control plans, temporary slope erosion control plans and landscape plans that include disturbed areas, shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit and shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 20. All hardscape structures such as bench drains and slough walls shall be designed to blend into the hillside with matching colored concrete or masonry color. 21. All hardscape structures shall be screened with plant material. 22. Slope landscaping shall not be accepted by the City until 100% planting coverage has been attained. b. Planting Design Requirements 1. Slope planting shall promote varying height, mass, texture, color and form. Large masses of shrubs shall be designed in groupings. 2. The slope planting must reinforce the theme of the hillside area. 3. Plant material shall reinforce the natural hillside terrain and /or general manufactured topography. 000IL49 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 27 4. Low growing and medium size shrubs shall be placed at the lower slope areas in large massings. Medium and large shrub massings should be intermingled at the mid and upper slopes areas. Plantings must respect neighboring views (see fig. 12.1 & 12.2 in Attachment IX). 5. Canopy trees shall be placed at the lower slope areas and shall not grow above the height of the top of slope at view conditions. Canopy trees shall be placed in random clusters adjacent to property lines to open view corridors. Vertical trees shall be located at the upper slope areas adjacent to property lines at view conditions (see fig. 12.3, 12.4 in Attachment IX). 6. Trees located on large slopes shall be grouped in clusters to maintain a natural appearance. C. Irrigation Design Standards 1. All manufactured slopes shall be installed with a permanent, automatic irrigation system. 2. UVR PVC, or "brownline ", may be installed only on master association or LMD slopes. However, all toe -of -slope conditions shall be buried and installed with pop -up heads. 3. Private slopes shall be installed with buried PVC pipe. 4. All slope irrigation shall be installed with an approved means of backflow prevention. 5. Separate circuits shall be installed for top, toe and mid slope conditions. 6. Spray heads shall be designed to avoid bench drains. Heads shall be installed on both sides to maintain coverage. 7. Spray heads shall be designed with respect to the topography. 8. A master valve with flow sensor is required at all point of connections. 9. Rain sensing override devices are required. 10. Worst case pressure loss calculations shall be included for the circuit with the highest volume, the circuit with the longest run from the POC and the circuit at the highest elevation. 11. An irrigation schedule shall be included within the irrigation controller box. 12. All necessary means shall be taken to prevent low head drainage. The plans must specify that any head that drains for more than sixty (60) seconds requires a check valve. SECTION 12 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 12.1 Water - Efficient Model Home Requirements a. General: These requirements apply to all Residential Zones whenever model homes are involved. If there are two or more model homes, one shall be designed to meet the water - saving landscaping condition for residential tracts. 000150 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 28 Each "water- saving" model home shall contain exclusively low -water use plant materials and efficient irrigation systems with appropriate signs and information for prospective home buyers. b. Water Meter: Each model in the complex, including the low -water use model, shall be equipped with a water meter to generate records on how much water the landscape uses. The information will be used in public information materials about the model and the water - saving potential for low -water use landscapes. C. Plant Material: All plants used are to be low -water using types and readily available in Ventura County or other nearby sources. The plants used should be attractive, including some flowering types, require relatively little maintenance once established, and enhance the appearance of the model. d. Use of Lawn: When there are two models, the use of lawn in the water - efficient model shall not exceed twenty -five percent (25 %) of the net landscaped area with no limit on front yard use. When there are three or more models, the use of lawn shall be no more than total fifteen percent (15 %) of the net landscaped area of the water - efficient model. The net landscaped area is the gross area minus the house foot print, the driveway, detached garage, attached covered patio, slopes of 3:1 ratio or steeper and higher than four feet. Low -water use varieties of lawn shall be used. e. Irrigation System: The irrigation system serving a low -water use landscape shall include a bubbler and /or drip system valve. Any sprinklers shall be located properly to minimize overspray onto unplanted areas. At least one (1) moisture sensor should be used with a sign indicating its location. The moisture sensor will override the controller if the soil is too wet to require irrigation. f. Signs: Signs identifying aspects of the landscape design and irrigation shall be placed around the model. These signs should be clearly marked on the landscape plan for the model. The criteria below should be used in developing and placing the signs. 1. Entrance Sign: A maximum four (4) square foot sign shall be located in front of or at the entrance to the model home. The sign shall indicate that the model is landscaped with low -water using or drought tolerant plant materials and that an efficient irrigation system has been used. 2. Identification Signs: Small, maximum one (1) square foot, Identification signs shall be placed throughout the landscaped area identifying the irrigation system used, the different sub -areas of the landscape, and any other features that contribute to the overall water conservation theme (hardscapes, redwood bark, mulch). One (1) sign shall identify the moisture sensor in the display. 3. Interior Signs or Displays: A drawing or combination of drawings should be displayed inside the model providing a schematic of the landscape. These drawings should include a key identifying the plants in the yard. It is suggested that this schematic also be printed in a one (1) page handout to be available at the model or the sales office. The drawings could be simplified renderings of the landscape plan itself, using common 000151 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 29 names rather than the botanical names for the plants. The drawings should be colorful, easy to read, and framed for protection. g. Literature: A package of literature describing water conserving landscaping shall be given out to individuals upon purchase of a home in the tract. This literature and additional materials shall be displayed inside the model, also enclosed in a frame, with a note indicating where this material can be obtained. 12.2 Private Front Yards Residential landscapes are those which occur on private property outside the street right -of -way. These areas are installed and maintained by the homeowner or homeowner association. The following suggestions are provided to assist the homeowner or the association in establishing a well conceived and balanced landscape design with the emphasis on allowing the maximum amount of creativity as possible while still meeting the intent of these guidelines. a. Water Conservation: 1. Turf areas should be limited to one -third (1/3) of the total landscape area. The remaining area should include one -third (1/3) shrubs /groundcover and one -third (1/3) hardscape. 2. Irrigated areas should be separated between turf and shrub /groundcover areas. This allows for different watering schedules to meet the various water needs of different plant materials. 3. Automated irrigation controllers and remote control valves should be utilized to efficiently monitor watering schedules. This prevents accidental all night watering and also provides freedom to leave the landscape for prolonged periods of time without creating stress conditions. 4. Irrigation design should include properly sized sprinkler heads (spray radius) and provide head to head spacing of sprinklers to insure adequate coverage. 5. Water overspray should be kept to a minimum of one foot (1') to two feet (2') on hardscape surfaces and avoid spraying on walls and fences. 6. Bubbler and drip irrigation is encouraged for use in small landscape areas. 7. Turf varieties should be selected for durability and reduced water needs. Alta fescue and Bermuda hybrids (with perennial rye grass used as a "nurse crop" in winter) are encouraged. 8. Shrubs selected should be compatible with the climatic conditions of the inland valleys (hot and cold) and somewhat drought tolerant. b. Planting 1. Trees should be selected based on their size at maturity. O0C1�2 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 30 2. A balance of evergreen and deciduous (leafless in winter) trees should be planted to provide a seasonally changed landscape. 3. Shrubs and groundcovers should be selected based on their eventual size to avoid an "overgrown" or butchered appearance. 4. Foreground and background relationships should be utilized in shrub and groundcover plantings. 5. Screening (planting of trees and /or shrubs of undesirable views is encouraged. 6. View opportunities should be maintained as a courtesy to adjacent property owners. C. Installation: All planting areas should be loosened to a depth of six inches (6 ") and rototilled in two (2) directions with soil amendments and conditioners as required by soil type. d. Maintenance 1. Landscape areas should be maintained in an attractive condition at all times. 2. Regular fertilization with a well - balanced fertilizer should be done to avoid stressed conditions and prevent disease. e. Safety 1. Water overspray on hardscape areas should be avoided and kept to a minimum. 2. Pop -up sprinkler heads on swing joints should be used along walkways to avoid a "trip hazard ". 12.3 Street Trees It is the goal of the City of Moorpark to create an overall cohesive theme in terms of street tree design and species selection. Street trees should be incorporated into the overall landscape theme of the development. The designer shall refer to the approved Street Tree List. The following guidelines serve to create a visible community character that will foster a unique image: Planting Design: Within all residential projects, minimum 24" box size street trees shall be planted as follows: a. Cul -de -sac: minimum one tree per street frontage (maximum thirty feet (30') on center). b. Interior Lot: minimum one tree per street frontage (maximum thirty feet (30') on center). C. Corner Lot: minimum three trees per street frontage (maximum thirty feet (30') on center). oitC1113 Resolution No. PC -2004- Page 31 12.4 Streetscape Concept The Streetscape Concept is the primary landscape framework for the City of Moorpark. The intention is to establish the theme for each major street in the City. The streetscape components consist of sidewalks, street trees, landscape areas behind the sidewalk, and median islands where they occur. Larger specimen trees should be planted at highly - visible focal points, such as entry gates, major intersections and other landmarks. Median islands along arterials should be planted with the same palette as adjacent parkways. A different, but complementary palette should be used along collector streets within the project and another different, but complementary palette along residential streets. Each palette may differ from area to area, but they should reflect the theme which is established by the arterial and collector streets. The designer shall verify final tree selection with the Community Development Director. 12.5 Walls and Fencing The perimeter wall acts as a divider between residential and commercial areas from a street. The wall blocks noise and creates privacy. The treatment of wall can add special dimension to the streetscape concept. The design of walls should be consistent throughout neighborhoods of the City to create a community theme. The following are guidelines for walls which are located along streets, public space, the rear street of double frontage lots, and the side street yard of double frontage lots: a. Wall niches are prohibited. A minimum five -foot (5') planter area shall be provided for trees, shrubs and vines adjacent to all walls. b. Chain link, plastic and wood fencing is not permitted, except in rural areas, subject to Community Development Director approval. C. The minimum wall setback shall be determined by the Conditions of Approval for the project. Walls shall vary in setback to provide areas for landscape features that create interest and reduce the linear aspect of appearance of a walled street. d. Use of decorative masonry block, pilaster, wrought iron and other decorative treatments are required. e. Precision concrete is not permitted for walls adjacent to a street. f. The texture and color of walls shall match the theme of the development or adjacent surroundings. g. In residential areas the wall height shall be a minimum of six feet (6') when located in a street sideyard. Wall heights in excess of six feet (6') shall require adjacent landscaping on the street side to soften the overall height. h. Walls over six feet (6') high and retaining walls over three feet (3') high require certification by a Registered Engineer. i. The use of vines, shrubs, and trees shall be required to break the monotonous pattern of the wall. Landscaping shall be approved by the Community Development Director. 0001,11-11 6100 6410 6430 6440 9002 $ 127,670 9103 $ 25,000 9002 $ 72,296 9002 $ 23,114 9010 $ 15,956 9004 $ 500 9010 $ 4,664 9011 $ 2,274 9010 $ 11,646 9011 $ 413 9012 $ 143 9011 $ 1,288 9012 $ 60 9013 $ 12,830 9012 $ 155 9013 $ 2,410 9014 $ 1,895 9013 $ 7,666 9014 $ 335 9224 $ 3,000 9014 $ 1,061 $ 30,996 $ 163,768 9016 $ 624 9018 $ 295 9020 $ 300 9122 $ 15,000 9123 $ 20,000 Total Est 2003 -2004 GF Cont. 9208 $ 100 $ 354,195 9220 $ 150 9221 $ 200 9222 $ 400 9223 $ 250 9224 $ 300 9232 $ 100 9251 $ 600 9254 $ 800 9255 $ 400 9424 $ 300 $ 134,431 Occl ITEM: 9. B. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo n Prepared by David A. Bobardt, Planning Managlir (� DATE: April 28, 2004 (PC Meeting of 05/04/04) SUBJECT: Consider the Appeal of a Decision of the Community Development Director to Require a Conditional Use Permit for a Professional Office Use in the Commercial Office (C -O) Zone within 100 Feet of a Residential Zone at 724 Moorpark Avenue by Dick Wardlow, Property Owner and Appellant APN: 512 -0- 062 -040) BACKGROUND On April 15, 2004, Bob Gehricke submitted an application for an Administrative Permit to remodel and occupy an existing vacant building at 724 Moorpark Avenue for a professional office building. On April 22, 2004, Community Development staff told Mr. Gehricke that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for the proposed office use. On April 26, 2004, Dick Wardlow, property owner of the building site, filed an appeal of the decision to require a Conditional Use Permit for an office use on the site. The appeal application is attached. DISCUSSION Appeal Process - Section 17.44.090 of the Moorpark Municipal Code (Zoning) allows all actions and decisions of the Community Development Director to be appealed by any person to the Planning Commission. The appellant has the responsibility to state the justification for the appeal in the application, and the Planning Commission then reviews the application in the same form as reviewed by the Community Development Director. A decision on an appeal is subject to the same public action process as the original decision; in this case, since the decision to require a Conditional Use Permit is an administrative interpretation of the code, no public hearing is required. The decision of the Planning Commission can be further appealed to the City Council. \ \mor pri sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \APPEALS \2004 \ -01 Wardlow \040504 PC Report . doc 00015G Honorable Planning Commission May 4, 2004 Page 2 Determination of Permit Process - The determination of the appropriate permit process is made by Community Development staff. The first step is to determine if the Zoning Code applies to the action in question. If it does apply, then the Zoning Map and Code are reviewed for review process and standards. Section 17.04.040(B) of the Zoning Code states the authority of the Zoning Code as applicable to the proposed project: B. No person shall use or permit to be used any building, structure or land, or erect, structurally alter or enlarge any building or structure, contract for advertising space, pay for space, or advertise on any structure except for the uses permitted by this chapter and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter applicable thereto. The continuation of an existing legally entitled use (provided there is no permit expiration) would not require new permitting in accordance with Section 17.52.110(C) of the Zoning Code, which states: C. If the use is existing lawfully as a permitted use of any kind, the existing use is deemed to be conforming without any further action. Any modifications or expansions of the use, change of use, or additional use shall conform to this title, including requirements for type of permit. Internal remodeling or minor architectural changes or embellishments involving no change in basic architectural style shall not result in a requirement for a new permit. For the proposed use in question, the past permitted uses need to be considered to determine if the application involves a change in use. According the Community Development Department's Zoning Clearance files, the most recent permitted use on the site was for an antique and art store, with a Zoning Clearance issued in 1999. A copy of the Zoning Clearance is attached (Attachment 2) . A television repair business also recently existed in the same building, adjacent to the antique and art store. This business apparently was established prior to Cityhood, and no Zoning Clearance exists in the City's files. The Business Registration for the television repair use expired on March 31, 2003, and the Business Registration for the antique store expired on January 5, 2004. An office use would have had to legally exist in the building in the past 180 days for new use to be considered the continuation of an existing use. No evidence was provided by the appellant indicating that an office use had ever been legally established in the building. Use of the building as a professional office is therefore a change in use subject to review under current zoning requirements. 00015"7 Honorable Planning Commission May 4, 2004 Page 3 The Downtown Specific Plan, adopted in 1998, established the zoning for the site. Attachment 3 includes the Zoning Map. The zoning for the property is Commercial Office (C -0). Section 2.2.4 of the Downtown Specific Plan indicates that land uses in the C -0 Zone shall be permitted as designated in Table 17.020.050 and 17.020.060 of the City Zoning Code. Table 17.20.060, which identifies permitted uses in commercial and industrial zones, is attached (Attachment 4). This table notes under C. Office and Professional Uses, that professional and administrative office uses in the C -0 Zone, normally permitted by Zoning Clearance, require a Conditional Use Permit if within 100 feet of a residentially -zoned property. The C -0 Zone covers the subject site and the adjacent lot to the east. Beyond these two lots, the property is zoned Single Family Residential (R -1). The subject site for the proposed office use is located approximately 45 feet from the R -1 Zone. No evidence has been provided by the appellant to indicate that the property is more than 100 feet from a residential zone. STAFF RECOMMNDATION Deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the Community Development Director to require a Conditional Use Permit. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application for Appeal 2. Zoning Clearance 3. Zoning Map 4. Excerpt of Zoning Code (Section 17.20.060) 000158 FEE: Based upon original filing deposit or current fee schedule- $ I /00 s= APPLICANT t Telephone: (_} ,11 APPEAL NO. IN 1 CITY OF MOORPARK APPEAL APPLICATION DATE SUBMITTED: -/+ �;-z M DECISION TO BE APPEALED: (Explain which decision by which decision - making authority you wish to appeal. For example: Appeal of Planning Commission decision on XYZ project.) r7 11 _ In. - A-/ ) ;,onFatan ��"y �T -7;7- /V �O 2 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (Please expl6ey "6uf rd93nsLfor b�i�ng t incorrect decision was made. You must present specifics based upon the record. New information not presented during the hearing is not acceptable.) (Attach extra sheets as necessary) ACTION REQUESTED: (Explain what it is you want the hearing body to do. Provide justification for your recommendation.) (Attach extra sheets as necessary) APPLICA NT SI AT06 GEIV I jf,, , 2 r 2004 Dated: z cddappealapp. 10.0 1.0 1 Page 1 of 2 PC ATTACHMENT 1 OOCIJL59 CITY OF MOORPARK ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION FEE: Deposit per Current Fee Schedule DATE SUBMITTED: YASM $ `,b t( v APPLICANT Telephone:`L� PROPERTY OWNER: /ye%� W1 o6a-J 03-:5 Wig Telephone: (?tc) LOCATION DESCRIPTION: (In simple words, tell where property is within the City) ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERM: �� Z r L PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (Describe exactly what type of use you are proposing. Example: Construct a 500 square foot second dwelling unit with attached 400 sq. ft. garage on a one acre lot.) (Attach extra sheets as necessary) cddadpapp.9.27.01 PROPERT�dQN&Ex"�2RE:, :. Dated: "/ / 5 Q Z/ CITY OF MOORPARK Page 1 of 2 OOG160 PERMIT f 1 , C) CITY OF MOORPARK REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PROCESSING PERMITS/ENTITLEMENTS I, the undersigned property owner or applicant, hereby authorize the City of Moorpark to review the submitted Plans for the above named referenced permit /entitlement request(s) in accordance with the M99rpark Municipal Code including Title 17 Zoning. I am herewith depositing S�_ to cover staff review, coordination and processing cost based on real time expanded. I understand that if the final cost is less than the deposit fee, the unexpended portion will be refunded after receipt and approval of a written request. I further understand that if the final cost is more than the deposit fee. within 30 days of receiving billing from the city. I shall pay the balance due not to exceed seventy five percent (75X) of the deposit fee unless the City Council authorizes collection of more than 75% of the deposit fee. I also understand that the City Council may approve the collection of an additional deposit. Pursuant to the Zoning Code. Discretionary Permits may only be granted if all billed fees and charges for processing the application request that are due for payment have been paid. If in the course of processing such plans, the applicable billed fees and charges have not been paid. the City may, after a hearing deny such plans based upon the applicant's failure to pay said fees and charges. /G16 l�,f�; C � l��� Name of Property Owner or Designee* (print or type) 2 17�Aq 7— /�`16Z�K-574W-lzf' Address of Property Owner (do not use Post Office Box) Name of Applicant (if different than Principal) Address of Applicant k Signature (do not use Post fice Box) s--/ L-2 (If Corporation, list corporate officer(s) authorized to act on behalf of the corporation.) 00()161 cddreimburse.10.02.01 Page 1 of 1 Lr fY OF MOORPARK 799 Moorpk Avenue MOORPARK, CA 93021 (905) 5174200 TOLD ?If DAT! m6q-'ckn+ S Q Sid. P?vrckk - AOORESS c .. Z� 7► !� Y . . �8 � V L • � � w V •i My L v� l ❑ CASH ❑ CHARGE ❑ MERCHANDISE RETURNED ❑ C.O.D. ❑ PAID OUT ❑ PAID ON ACCOUNT QTY. DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT 0© •' .. _© d �a � a � v 3434 THANK YOU 1 233 High St., Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 553 -0505 City of Moorpark Appeal Application Permit #2004 -06 Grounds for Appeal: The current usage and improvements at 724 Moorpark Ave. are currently zoned and has been occupied as offices /retail since the 1950's. The property's past uses as offices, retail and commercial space conformed to the city's zoning standards throughout that time. Mr. Hogan states that the building I purchased is within 100 feet of residential. Thus requiring a Conditional Use Permit, which includes approval from the City Council, $4,400.00 in fees, and an approximate three months delay. 000163 The property at 724 Moorpark Ave. consisted of a commercial /office building and a two - family duplex on the same lot. In January 2004, the lot was split upon close of escrow. Neither buildings have been moved or relocated. I bought the building & lot on Moorpark Ave. The land with the duplex on it, facing Charles St., was sold to another party. To make sure that there would be no zoning problems, before I closed escrow, my architect personally dis- cussed with two of Moorpark's planning department employees if there were any anticipated concerns or problems faced with the remodeling of the building. They did not know of any. Later, Mr. Hogan stated that he would have put all rulings in writing if we had asked. This is valuable information in retrospect. It seems reasonable that the 100 feet from residential would be waived due the zoning being "grand fathered". When I had the property appraised, the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan, table 4 (see copy attached) showed the Professional Office category on the use list as "Planning Commission — approved planned development permit ". This contrasted with other uses and key codes that indicated they would need a condi- tional use permit. However, as Mr. Steve Kueney stated, the appraiser doesn't run the City of Moorpark. 000164 Inconsistency: A Conditional Use Permit is normally used for a re- zoning question so that the City of Moorpark can control the use of various properties located within its boundaries. Mr. Hogan's ruling is in direct opposition to the published Commercial — Old Town zoning and the spirit /intent of the Downtown Redevelopment District's goals to improve the C -OT area. This is based upon all comments throughout the years from all Planning Department & City Council Members. Reportedly, over $ 1,000,000. per year has been given the City of Moorpark to help redevelop this area and accomplish exactly what I want to do. This fact was among the ones I considered when I made the decision to go ahead with my purchase. Overreaching: To require a C.U.P. on a Professional Office use in an area zoned C -OT would mean that any and all properties applying for permits would require the $4400 fee and a 3 month delay. If so, I can't think of any situation or use where this wouldn't apply. The fees and-,delay is punitive and will tend to discourage -most future developments. I am concerned with the consistency or lack thereof on this matter. 00(3165 Facts Misapplied: To require a C.U.P. on an application to occupy a building as Professional Office usage at a location that for years had been zoned as Commercial / Offices misses the mark. This is not a re- zoning usage or a conversion to a new use question, but is consistent with past usage. 2 O00IGG Dick Wardlow 233 High St., Moorpark, CA 93021 (805) 553 -0505 fiction Requested: 1. Reverse Mr. Hogan's decision to require a C.U.P. on an existing Professional Office (C -OT). 2. A refund of my additional $1,100 I paid due to the mistake or misinterpretation on this matter. 3. It is important that each voting member go on record as being pro- business in our city. A no vote on the reversal would speak volumes and send the wrong message to future applicants, the citizens of Moorpark, and Moorpark's business community. 4. Set up and improve the zoning permit system so that future property purchasers do not have to beg to get the private property rights guaranteed them by the constitution. Arbitrary, confusing, contradicting zoning wording is often punitive and helps neither the public okhe Council Members. • 5. Brief the City Manager, Mr. Hogan, and staff on your improvements to help future applicants. i 000167 �j -1�OL Molds No obvious molds were noted. However, mold infestations are most likely found in covered or hidden areas of a structure affected by long term leaks or water invasion. The appraisers are not expert in the finding of molds and professional inspections should be obtained to actually determine the condition of the improvements. Adverse Conditions: As of the date of inspection no major adverse environmental conditions were apparent. However, professional inspections should be obtained to actually determine the condition of the improvements. If there are existing reports from past inspections they should be reviewed to determine any potential environmental risks and indicated remediation work needed. This appraisal report assumes there are no adverse physical or environmental conditions affecting the subject. ZONING The subject property is located in the city of Moorpark and zoning is controlled by the city. The available information indicates the property is zoned COT, Commercial. Old Town. This zoning designation is in conformance with the development pattern for the area and the existing classification allows for the development with a wide array of commercial uses. The subject site contains enough land to adequately support the improvements for the property. We know of no deed restrictions, public or private, that further limit the subject's use. We cannot guarantee that no such restrictions exist. These restrictions are a legal matter and only a title examination by an attorney for a title company can usually uncover such restrictive covenants. The current usage and improvements are felt to be in conformance with the underlying zoning. It would appear that the property's past uses as offices, retail and commercial space conforms to the city's current zoning standards. 0001 b$ 20 '7&**1/s4Zs4 V ow veow.c SAcc -�i4 x7etw Tab1c 4 PERMITTED USE LIST FOR OLD TOWN COMMERCIAL (C-OT) ZONE SYMBOL KEY . �.. s A Temporary use permit Permitted by zone clearance 0 Planning Commission - approved planned development permit p City Council - approved planned development permit_. _..... ....... ........ .... _ ... ... ..... ............ ........... _ ....... _....._ _ -___.......................... .................................. Planning Convnission- approved condtional use perrvt ■ city Council- Qndtional Use Permit ................ ....... Administrative Permit ................... _..... ........ _.... _ _ ..__ . _...... ................... ................. ; _ .. _.... _... �_......� t ,Lrj's�l�- 'f���k'� s.���� USE UST' " '�Comme�cial" Alcoholic beverage sales Beer and wine sales in restaurants All other alcohol sales ■ Amusement and recreational facilities (see definitions in Chapter 17.08) 0 Art galleries, museums, and botanical gardens Automobile repair, including component repair Automobile service stations Banks and related financial offices and institutions 0 Barber, hairstylists, marficurists Tanning centers Bars, taverns, and nightclubs Care facilities: For 9 or more persons (Day) co Churches, synagogues, and other buildings used for religious worship Club projects, temporary outdoor Clubhouses With alcoholic beverages Communications facilities Radio and television broadcasting studios Crop production Dog and cat grooming Dressmaking and tailor shops Dwelling for superindendent or owner ■ Dwelling, caretaker Education and training (see schools) Festivals and similar special events, temporary outdoor A Government buildings, excluding correctional institutions ■ Fire stations Libraries and infomiation center ■ roc _ 000169 28 Table 4 (continued) Grading not in conjunction with a dmdopment project Less than 5,000 cubic yards More than 5,000 cubic yards Health club/gymnasium (see definitions) 0 Health services such as professional offices and outpatient clinics Hotels, motels and bed% -vxH reakfast inns 0 Kennels (animal hospitals, boarding and grooming - small animals) Laundry service (laundromats) Laundry service (light) Manufacturing associated with crafts ad artisans ( incl. assembly, exhibits, demonstration) Manufacturing and repair of photograhic and optical goods Martial arts and dance studios Motion picture and N production, and related activities and structures Temporary (maximum 47 days in any 180 -day period) A Offices: business, professional, and administrative, except health and veterinary 0 Optical Goods Organizations (professional, religious, political, labor, trade, youth, etc.) Parks — public Parking lots Public utility facilities Offices Only • Pharmacy, accessory retail, for prescription pharmaceuticals only Photocopy /quick printers' 0 Photofinishing (1 -hour photo) 0 Produce stands, retail A Repair of personal goods such as jewelry, shoes, and saddlery Restaurants, cafes, and cafeterias Restaurants and cafes outside eating area Retail trade (see definitions in Chapter 17.08) includes retail only nurseries and excludes lumber and building materials sales yards, pawnshops, and liquor stones Outdoor sales area Outdoor sales area temporary A 0C 01"10 29 CITY OF MOORPARK PAGE I OF O ZONING CLEARANCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZONING CLEARANCE NO. `r �n`7 CASE REFERENCE NO�_� '.D USEISI MAIL ADDRESS ,CAN BUILDINGS AND ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION AND I ACTUAL DISTANCES TO PROPERTY LINES AND BETWEEN BUILDINGS D-�Ct;l <� -G�C7 ,512E (Jr SLI%) dt()05j,'�. C "41.te;j hews) [J - S�+, LKS) fire S�f. ALL ZONING CLEARANCE APPLICANTS IN VERIFY MUST U ( PERSON) WITH THE BUILDING TT WIDTH DEPARTMENT IF ANY ADDITIONAL PERMITS ARE NECESSARY. MOST ACTIVITIES LOT DEPTH AUTHORIZED BY A ZONING CLEARANCE WILL ALSO REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT. PRIOR MAX HEIGHT TO THE START OF ANY WORK, THE APPLICANT MUST ALSO OBTAIN FROM THE BUILDING DIVISION, AT 18 EAST HIGH STREET, ANY ADDITIONAL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR ANY MIN SIDE YO BUILDING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, OR OTHER WORK, OR FOR ANY c OCCUPANCY. IF YOU ARE UNSURE, CONTACT THE BUILDING DEPT. AT (805) 529 -6864 S EXT. 421. IVIRONMENTAL OpCyMENT EXEMPT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION APPROVAL, IF REQUIRED, IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE 7b PROPERTY OWNER. ;p SEE PAGE 2 I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS ZONING CLEARANCE, INCLUDING THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY ME IS CORRECT AND THAT I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THE CITY'S ZONING CODE AND THIS PERMIT. I FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT I MUST RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK AUTHORIZED IN THIS PERMIT. OFFICE USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE MESSOR PARCEL NO )� - D-�Ct;l <� -G�C7 ZONE �} (J 0\ CODE SECT NO TT WIDTH LOT DEPTH I LUf AHFA MAX HEIGHT IN Ff10NT YO. MIN REAR VD MIN SIDE YO MIN SIDE YD (REAR I* N 01ST BETWEEN SLOGS --� REQUIRED PARKING (Y' ■ 20' par space) ­7 OPEN:_ CARPORT: GARAGE: IVIRONMENTAL OpCyMENT EXEMPT O ND/CND C] EIR SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR REQUIREMENTS SEE PAGE 2 NOTICE: THIS CLEARANCE BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN, OR IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FORA PERIOD OF, 180 DAYS AFTER ZONING CLEARANCE APPROVAL BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. STATEMENT: I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT i HAVE READ THIS ZONING CLEARANCE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO CO *PLY WI HALL PROVISIONS OF THE CITY ZONING CODE. PPl S N DATE ! NG LEA E ROVAL _ DATE 1 111.1-111.1162 wNEN PROPERLY THN 1s A d PC ATTACHMENT 2 «� CITY OF MOORPARK PAGE 2 0F__2L_ '~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3% ZONING CLEARANCE PATIO COVERS /SECOND STORY DECKS /RESIDENTIAUADDITIONS ROOF COVER ONLY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION APPROVAL ON HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION APPROVAL NOTED ON PLANS NO HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION PRESENT FOR THIS TRACT ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION FORM REQUIRED OCCUPIES % OF REAR YARD AREA EXTERIOR COLORS AND MATERIALS TO MATCH EXISTING BUILDING NO ENCLOSURE, INCLUDING GLAZING OR SCREENING ON THE REAR SIDE OF THE PATIO COVER MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT OF FEET, WALL(S) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL(S) NOT TO BE USED AS A LIVING SPACE EXEMPT FROM MEASURE F PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND ENCLOSED TWO CAR GARAGE REQUIRED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN RESOLUTION APPLY OTHER POOLS /SPAS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NUMBER EQUIPMENT TO BE ENCLOSED BY A 4' MASONRY WALL EXCEPT ON SIDE WHERE ACCESS PROVIDED OR ABUTS HOUSE ONE PIECE POOUSPA SELF CONTAINED POOUSPA EQUIPMENT A 5' PERIMETER WALUFENCE REQUIRED IN BACKYARD SEE ATTACHED REQUIREMENTS FOR POOUSPA CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OTHER MMERCIA NE _xr NO INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA PERMITTED NO SEATING ALLOWED / ANY ADDITIONAL SEATING REQUIRES A NEW ZONING CLEARANCE SIGNS WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE SIGN PERMIT _.Z CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN RESOLUTION FG S5D, APPLY EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM STREET FUTURE ROOF EQUIPMENT /SCREENING REQUIRES SEPARATE ZONING CLEARANCE THIS ZONING CLEARANCE EXPIRES ON X BUSINESS REGISTRATION PERMIT REQUIRED, NO. X OTHER - Pro�..>eA ,,_se_ 1 a P .'ff�� 0.1 lAe o�CoS •'3 e.1,/re d. P SOLD � .sue M-. y ,brt �� _t- 1 INDUSTRIAL �/ /�r�'c. ,., ��•.a.,e t#,S Fecw, c°tcF, a-, NO RETAIL SALES ALLOWED �e ONLY INCIDENTAL RETAIL SALES ALLOWED NO INCREASE IN FLOOR AREA PERMITTED SIGNS WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE SIGN PERMIT EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM STREET FUTURE ROOF EQUIPMENT /SCREENING REQUIRES SEPARATE ZONING CLEARANCE THIS ZONING CLEARANCE EXPIRES ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN RESOLUTION APPLY BUSINESS REGISTRATION PERMIT REQUIRED, NO. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORED OR GENERATED ON SITE OTHER TEMPORARY USE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION MADE THAT THIS RESOLUTION IS AN APPROPRIATE TEMPORARY USE IN THIS ZONE 00 0174(2 THIS ZONING CLEARANCE EXPIRES ON DISTRIBUTION: WHITE - PLANNING CANARY - BUILDING AND SAFETY PINK - APPLICANT ..- .........................: ......... ........ . ...... .......... . .................... 1 1 . .. ......... ?� ' 1\ l 10 lk►� H b �H W W RPD- 7 -14u' R -1 �— RP01-2()ts. RPD -15u It lS � . �+ J•_ (� li-1 FI � 1 n .;' 1 i i. ��r' � _'! I CI. -A IPnOU•Iri•1 � Pm k.InN Not to S ale Multi -F.—y R.• -n4N 1; r'I • Density bonus of up to 14du allowed with lot F+ consolidation and replacement structures, and j up to 20 du allowed upon meeting criteria for low /very low income or senior housing. [1I e I. 11 T7i Los Angeles Avenue Specific Plan Zoning Map Leaend E] (R - 1) Single Family Residential a (R - 2) Two - Family Residential B(RPD) Residential Planned Development, 7- 14units/acre ® (C - 0) Office ® (C - 1) Ncighborhm d Commercial ® (C - OT) Old Town Commercial (C -2) General Commcrcial (CPU) Commercial Planned Development (1) Institutional © (M - 1) Industrial Park emmm— Specific Plan Boundary 17.20.060 Table 17.20.060 PERMITTED USES IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES [Blank] = Not permitted, NZC = No Zoning Clearance required, ZC = Permitted by Zoning Clearance, AP = Administrative Permit, CUP = Conditional Use Permit, TUP = Temporary Use Permit 315 (Moorpark Supp No 3, 12 -03) PC ATTACHMENT 4 000174 CPD Zones C -O C -1 I C -2 GOT M -1 M -2 I A. RETAIL AND SERVICE USES I. Adult businesses CUP CUP 2. Automobilelli t truck/motorcycle AP AP AP AP AP AP a. Rental (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residen- tially zoned pro y a conditional use permit is required) b. Brakes, oil changes tires and shock sales and installa- AP AP AP AP tion, tune -ups (with or without hydraulic lifts) (if within one hundred (100) feet of residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) c. Engine rebuilding, transmission repair, steam cleaning, CUP CUP auto body, painting d. Sales, service and parts CUP CUP 3. Automobile service stations with or without mini -marts CUP CUP and with or without beer and wine sales for off -site con- sumption 4. Body piercing and/or tattoo CUP CUP 5. Building supplies (ifwithin one hundred (l00) feet ofa AP CUP residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 6. C ber cafes, video/computer arcades, game rooms CUP CUP CUP 7. Car washes, self- service or automatic with or without CUP automotive services stations 8. Hay and feed sales CUP CUP 9. Hotels, motels and bed- and - breakfast inns CUP CUP CUP CUP 10. Kennels and catteries CUP CUP 11. Liquor stores (when located no closer than one thou- AP AP AP sand (1,000) feet of any other liquor store or public or private school) (i f within one hundred (100) feet ofa resi- dentially zoned property a conditional use permit is re- quired) 12. Massage, therapeutic when in compliance with Chap- AP AP AP ter 5.48 (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residen- tially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 13. Nurseries (retail) with or without container grown CUP plants when all equipment and supplies kept in an en- closed area 14. Nurseries (wholesale and/or retail) with or without CUP container grown plants when all equipment and supplies kept in an enclosed area 15. Pawnshops when in compliance with Chapter 5.32 CUP 315 (Moorpark Supp No 3, 12 -03) PC ATTACHMENT 4 000174 17.20.060 Zones CPD C -O C -1 C -2 C -OT M -1 M -2 I 16. Pest control services (if within one hundred (100) feet AP AP of a residential ly zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 17. Private post offices, parcel services, copy centers (if ZC ZC ZC ZC within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 18. Psychics, fortunetelling, and spiritual advisors when CUP in compliance with Title 5 of the Moorpark Municipal Code 19. Recreation vehicle storage yard when not located on CUP parcels adjacent to arterial roads or freeways as shown on the Moorpark circulation element ma 20. Recycling centers - CUP CUP CUP 21. Recycling drop -off bins when located in an area de- ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC termined by the community development director not to be in conflict with parking, vehicle or pedestrian circula- tion (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 22. Rental and leasing of large equipment with/without AP AP outdoor storage and repair (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 23. Retail shops and services, except as otherwise indi- ZC ZC ZC ZC cated in this table, including, but not limited to an- tiques, art/art supplies, auto supply, bakery, barbers, beauty salons, bicycle sales/service, book and station- ery, camera/photo, carpet salestcleaning, cigar/cigarette sales, clothing and fabric, computer sales, copy services and supplies, day care, department and variety, dry cleaners, florist, flooring/carpet sales/service, food and market, gift and novelty, hardware, home and office furniture, jewelry, key and locksmiths, music, news- stands, pet grooming, pet supplies, pharmacy, photo /camera, pool supplies, sporting goods, small equipment rental (no outdoor storage), spa, toy and hobby, used merchandise, video/DVD /CD sales and rental, wireless sales/service and uses which the community development director determines to be similar when in compliance with Section 17.20.020 (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 24. Retail sales combined with limited distribution and/or AP warehousing (if within one hundred (100) feet of a resi- dentially zoned property a conditional use permit is re- wired) (Moorpark Supp No 3, 12 -03) 316 0001175 17.20.060 Zones CPD I C -O C -1 C -2 C -OT M -1 M -2 1 25. Retail sales in the M -I and M -2 zone limited to a AP AP maximum of twenty percent (20 00) of the gross floor area of the building in which it is located. In an in- dustrial complex the twenty percent (20 %) shall be computed on the basis of the cumulative total (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 26. Retail sales (temporary) in the M -1 and M -2 TUP TUP zones. Issuance of a temporary use permit shall take the place of a zoning clearance. 27. Thrift stores, consignment store (if within one ZC ZC ZC hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) B. EATING AND DRINKING PLACES Zones C -2 C -O C -1 CPD C -OT M -1 M -2 1 1. Alcoholic beverage sales for off -site consumption when in conjunction with another city approved use AP AP AP AP AP a. Beer and /or wine (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) b. Beer, wine and other alcoholic beverages CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP 2. Bars with or without entertainment including, but CUP CUP CUP CUP not limited to cocktail lounges, cabarets 3. Breweries, micro breweries, wineries /tasting rooms a. With or without restaurant and with or without CUP CUP AP AP outdoor seating b. With or without restaurant and with entertainment CUP CUP CUP CUP and with or without outdoor seating 4. Restaurants and similar establishments engaged primarily in the retail sale of prepared food for on- site or off -site consumption in accordance with the restrictions below: a. With or without entertainment and with or without AP AP AP AP AP on -site consumption of beer and wine and with or without outdoor seating (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) b. With or without entertainment and with on -site CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP consumption of beer, wine and other alcoholic bever- ages and with or without outdoor seating 317 (Mixxpark Supp No 3, 12-031 0001"76 17.20.060 Zones CPD I C -O C -1 C -2 C -OT M -I M -2 1 c. With drive -in or drive - through facilities (off -site CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP sale of all alcoholic beverages is prohibited) with or without outdoor seating C. OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USES Zones C -2 C -O C -1 CPD C -OT M -1 M -2 I 1. Banks and other financial institutions (if within one ZC ZC ZC ZC hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 2. Laboratories: research and scientific (if within one AP ZC ZC hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 3. Professional and administrative offices, including, ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC but not limited to: accounting, advertising agencies, chiropractic, collection services, dental, direct mail marketing companies, employment agencies, engineer- ing services insurance, investment, medical, optical and related health services, planning services, real estate services, secretarial services, travel agencies, and uses which the community development director determines to be similar when in compliance with Section 17 20.020 (if within one hundred (100) feet of a resi- dentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 4. Veterinary offices and animal hospitals a. Without boarding (keeping of animals indoors and on- AP AP AP AP AP AP site for medical purposes shall not be considered board- ing, if within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) b. With boarding indoors or outdoors CUP CUP CUP D. MANUFACTURING, ASSEMBLY, AND DISTRIBUTION USES Zones C -2 GO C -1 CPD GOT M -1 M -2 1 1. Cement, concrete and plaster, and product fabrication CUP 2. Distribution and transportation facilities CUP CUP 3. Heavy machinery repair, including trucks, tractors and CUP buses 4. Manufacturing and assembly including, but not lim- ZC ZC ited to appliances, cabinets, cleaners, clothing, com- puters, cosmetics, detergents, electronics, furniture, leather products, machinery, medical and scientific instruments, paper, perfumes, pharmaceuticals, photo- graphic and optical goods, plastic products, signs and advertising displays, soap, textiles and other uses which the community development director determines to be similar when in compliance with Section 1720.020 (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use rmit is required) (Mctorpark Stipp. No 3, 12 -03) 318 17.20.060 318 -1 (Moorpark Supp.No 3.12 -03) 000, i7s C -2 ones C -O C -1 CPD C -OT M -1 M -2 1 5. Outdoor storage when in conjunction with a city ap- CUP AP proved use and when all storage is screened by an eight (8) foot high masonry wall architecturally matched to the structure. (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residen- tially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 6. Warehousing, including self - storage or mini - storage. CUP CUP Self- storage or mini - storage shall not be permitted on parcels adjacent to arterial roads or freeways as shown on the Moorpark circulation element ma 7. Welding (if within one hundred (100) feet ofa residen- AP ZC tiaily zoned property a conditional use permit is required) E. PUBLIC AND SEMI- PUBLIC USES Zones C -2 C -O C -1 CPD C -OT M -1 M -2 I 1. Amusement and recreational facilities as defined in Chapter 17.08 a. Arcades (video and computer) CUP CUP CUP CUP b. Health club /gymnasium/fitness center /spa (if within AP AP AP AP CUP one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 2. Care facilities, including adult day care facilities, Alz- CUP CUP CUP heimer's day care facilities, congregate living health fa- cilities, child day care centers, community treatment fa- cilities, foster family and adoption agencies, hospices, long -term health care facilities, residential care facilities for the elderly, residential care facilities for persons with chronic life- threatening illness, skilled nursing and inter- mediate care facilities, social rehabilitation facilities, therapeutic day services facilities, transitional housing placement facilities, and transitional shelter care facilities as defined in Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code. 3. Clubhouses, social clubs, service clubs with or without AP AP AP AP AP alcohol (if within one hundred (100) feet of residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 4. Communication facilities, including wireless in accor- CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP dance with the requirements of Chapter 17.42 (Minor facilities) require only planning commission approval; pre-approved locations require only an AP) 5. Energy production from renewable resources CUP CUP 6. Governmental uses including, but not limited to city CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP offices, community rooms, fire stations, human service centers, libraries, police stations, public utility facilities 7. Hospitals including urgent care (if within one hun- AP AP AP AP dred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a con- ditional use permit is required) 8. Places of religious worship CUP CUP 318 -1 (Moorpark Supp.No 3.12 -03) 000, i7s 17.20.060 9. Public education and training facilities including, but ZC not limited to colleges and universities, elementary, mid- dle and high schools, professional and vocational schools 10. Recreational facilities (private) with/without food AP AP AP AP AP CUP services, including but not limited to bicycle and skate parks, golf courses, gymnasiums, fitness, health spas, martial arts, racquetball, yoga. Bicycles and skate parks shall be in compliance with Section 17.28.240 (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 11. Utility structures (electrical boxes, transformers and AP AP AP AP AP AP AP valve apparatus that have no covered floor area and are attached to the ground by poles, columns or pedestals shall not require a zone clearance) F. ACCESSORY AND MISCELLANEOUS USES Zones C -2 C -O C -1 CPD C -OT M -1 M -2 I 1. Dwelling, caretaker for selfstorage or mini - warehouse AP 2. Outdoor sales CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP 3. Retail shops and services as listed in Table AP 17.20.060(Ax22) when the uses are determined by the community development director to be ancillary to the office uses of the zone (if within one hundred (100) feet of a residentially zoned property a conditional use permit is required) 4. Temporary uses including, but not limited to cami- TUP TUP TUP TUP TUP TUP TUP vals, Christmas tree sales, circuses, festivals, movie and television production, sidewalk sales, special events, outdoor sales, when in compliance with Chapter 17.44. Issuance of a temporary use permit shall take the place of a zoning clearance. Temporary uses lasting more than one hundred eighty (180) days require an AP. (Ord. 297 Exh. A (part), 2003) (Moorpark Stipp . No 3, 12 -03) 318-2 0001"'9