HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1984 0424 PC REGMoorpark California
April 24, 1984
The regular meeting of the Moorpark Planning Commission was called
to order at 7:18 p.m. by Chairman Hartley. All members were present
except for Commissioner Miller.
The minutes of April 10, 1984 were approved.
Item 4 - Lot Line Adjustment No. 250 (Marlborough Development Co.),
Request to adjust a lot line to accomodate an existing fence
which was built over the present lot line within Tract 2723
(Village Heights). The area to be exchanged will be approximately
300 square feet.
The public hearing was opened. There being no one from the public
wishing to testify, the public hearing was closed. Upon motion of
Commissioner Weak, seconded by Commissioner Prieto, the subject
request was approved 4 - 0.
Item 5 - Development Plan No. DP -301 (Ted Tomasovich, CC$F, 23 Freeway
Properties Inc.)
Request to construct a 104,500 square foot industrial building in
the freeway Business Center. Science. Drive and New Los Angeles Ave.
Following staff presentation and questions by the Commission regarding
traffic and drainage, the public hearing was opened. Testifying were:
Robert Lumly, CC$F, 911 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1010, Los Angeles CA
Stephan B. Barasch, 25 N. Mentor, Pasadena, CA (project architect)
George Moore, 21 S. California, Ventura CA (project landscape architect)
Questions were asked of the applicant and his representatives regarding
the colors and materials of the structure, the consistency of the architecture
with the Metal Bellows building, the treatment of the loading doors
at the rear of the structure, treatment of roof mounted equipment and
the landscaping of the project. At the request of Commissioner Weak,
the applicant agreed to enhance the treatment of the rear of the building
by painting two dark bands along the rear which would match the appear-
ance of the treatment of the remaining sides of the structure.
It was moved by Commissioner Weak to accept the staff recommendations.
The motion was seconded iry Commissioner Prieto and passed 4 - 0. The
Commission also indicated that based on the information presented,
no further review in accordance with Conditions 10, 14 and 16 by the
Commission would be required.
Item 6 - Commission Comments
A question was asked regarding the agenda for the joint Pity Council/
Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 25. In response the
agenda was distributed to Commissioners.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
to April 25, 1984 for a joint meting with the City Council at 7:00 p.m.
AT EST: Respectf ly submitted
c� i