Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 1988 0718 PC REGMOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION City of Moorpark Minutes of: July 18, 1988 The regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission held on July 18, 1988 in the City Council Chambers of the Community Center located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m., Chairman Holland presiding. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairman Holland. 3. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Douglas Holland, Vice Chairman Scott Montgomery, Commissioner's William Butcher, John Wozinak and Paul Lawrason; Gll•7�i�Y�:�CiT7i OTHER CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development; Michael A. Rubin, Senior Planner; and Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of June 20, 1988 Minutes of June 27, 1988 Minutes of July 5, 1988 Motion(a): Moved by Vice Chairman Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Butcher to approve the minutes of June 20, 1988, June 27, 1988, and July 5, 1988 minutes with a minor modification to Commission Comments of July 5, 1988. Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Old Business None. 88197 /CHRONI 20 MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION City of Moorpark Minutes of: July 18, 1988 B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (New Business) None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ITRNS A. RPD -1057 (U.S. Condominum) - Condition Compliance /Review of fencing Plan Senior Planner Rubin presented this item to the Commission, reference: staff report dated July 14, 1988. The fencing plan has been submitted and is generally designed as follows: 1. All wall and fences are proposed to be 5 feet in height. 2. Masonry walls are proposed at entrances to side yards, and generally along limited portions of side property lines: Where a side property line is on a corner lot, the street side has a slumpstone wall for the entire length of that side property line. Where an interior side property line is shown, the masonry wall only extends 15 feet beyond the farther of the two houses on either side of the property line. These interior masonry walls are proposed to be of a different material - smooth precision block, tan colored. 3. Wrought iron is proposed, generally to fill in the areas not described in item 2 above. Iron would be used for the balance of the side property line fences and at the rear of all lots. 4. Wood gates are proposed at both side yard entrances. 5. Chain link fencing is proposed as the balance of the tract boundary fence material. This is proposed to be located where the common area lots meet the tract boundary. Chain link would then meet the wrought iron. Chain link would also be used to fence off the flood control channel. other additional elements are as follows: 1. Slough walls will be located throughout the tract. These will be approximately 18 inches in height and are shown to be of concrete block. A separate site plan will be provided at the hearing showing the locations of the slough walls. 2. An entry feature wall will be located at either side at both tract entrances on Loyola Street and College Heights Drive. A sign is proposed for the Loyola entrance. It has been undetermined yet as to whether a sign will be located at the College Heights entrance. Details of these entry feature walls and signs are shown on sheet A -2 of the attached plans. Staff has reviewed the fencing plan and has requested the applicant to make several revisions. The following are revisions the applicant has agreed to make: 88197 /CHRONI -2- MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION City of Moorpark Minutes of: July 18, 1988 1. Slough walls are indicated on the plans as being concrete block and the applicant has agreed to construct them of slumpstone. 2. Lot 56 is in a unique location. Its front yard is adjacent to the recreation area with no physical separation between the two. The applicant is willing to extend the side yard wall to a three foot height from the sideyard entrance to the front property line. 3. Several of the front yards will have a utility box in them. Where it warrants a slough wall will be provided, and constructed of slumpstone. 4. All masonary walls are required to be tan (in color) slumpstone masonary block. Testimony received by the following: A. Phil Vein, representing U.S. Condominium, 14714 Reedley, Moorpark, CA. Concurred with the following revisions: 1. Increase the height of the walls and fences from five feet to six feet. 2. Corner lot side walls on the street side shall have a setback for aesthetic purposes. For privacy purposes the walls shall be at the top of the slope. Lots 1, 25, 41, 76, and 93 are the corner lots where these conditions exist (one or both). The walls are located at the bottom of a slope and at the back of a sidewalk with no opportunity for a setback. Because of no side setback on the walls, three other lots (63, 77, and 86), are adversely affected. They are each a key lot (a. lot adjacent to a reverse corner lot). Without a side setback of the reverse corner lot next to them (lots 62, 85, and 93) a driveway visibility problem is created for lots 63, 77, and 86. These lots have minimal sight distance to see other motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians approaching from the direction of the corner next to them. 3. All masonry would be tan slumpstone, not just where it is highly visible on the corner lots and in the slough walls visible from the street. Motion(b): Moved by Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Lawrason that the applicant be required to provide the standard chain link fencing at the flood control channel. Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. Motion(c): Moved by Commissioner Butcher, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery that the applicant be required to provide chain link fencing at the perimeter area of the northwest corner of between lots 57 and 18. Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. Motion(d) Moved by Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner 88197 /CHRONI -3- MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION city of Moorpark Minutes of: July 18, 1988 Lawrason that the applicant provide wrought iron fencing at the perimeter of the Happy Camp Canyon area to lot 13. Motion passed on a 5 :0 vote. Motion(e): Moved by Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Wozniak to require that the applicant provide black vinyl chain link fencing in all areas where the chain link fencing is approved except for the flood control channel area. Motion passed on a 5 :0 vote. Motion f : Moved by Commissioner Wozniak, seconded by Chairman Holland that general concerns that the applicant may have in providing fencing of three (3) courses of slumpstone block combined with wrought iron and pilasters shall be provided as determined by staff. Motion passed on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Wozniak, Holland, Lawrason, Montgomery; Noes: Butcher. It was the general consensus of the Commission that staff review with the applicant slumpstone walls for the length of side yards and determine lots with solid wall rear fencing. Motion(g): Moved by Chairman Holland, seconded by Commisioner Montgomery to concur with staff's recommendation regarding monument signs, Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. B. Appeal No. 88 -8 (U.S. Condominum/A&R Development) Request to appeal the Director's decision to require a Major Modification. Senior Planner Rubin referenced staff report dated July 13, 1988. Testominy received by the following: 1. Phil Vein, representing U.S. Condominium and A&R Deveopment, 14714 Reedley, Moorpark, CA. Testified that the reasons for requesting deletion of this requirement was for the purpose of liability concerns that may be brought to the home owners association, childrens safety, and maintenance. Motion(h): Moved by Commissioner Butcher, seconded by Commissioner Lawrason to approve the approve the appeal overturning the director's r decision and to delete the requirement for a spa facility. Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 88197 /CHRONI -4- MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION City of Moorpark Minutes of. July 18, 1988 Mr. Vein concluded that concerns were not related to monies and that he would provide the City with a donation to the City to help facilatate a public ppool fund. C. Appeal No. 88 -7 LeClub Apartments - Sign Violation Presented by Director Richards, referenced staff report dated July 15, 1988. Testimony received by the following: 1. Leo Henaoeler, LeClub Apartment Property Management, 51 -201 majestic Court, Moorpark, CA. Informed the Commission of facts and figures relating to 370 rental units which he had determined was due to off site advertising. 2. Larry H. Miller, Attorney for the applicant, 5850 Canoga Avenue, Suite 400, Woodland Hills, CA. Supported LeClub off site advertising and referenced California Civil Code Section 713 which related to "Conditions of Ownership" - Local regulations; signs advertising property for sale, lease or exchange; which relates to the following: "Notwithstanding any provision of any ordinance, an owner of real property or his agent may display or have displayed on the owner's property a sign of reasonable dimensions, as determined by the city or county, advertising: (a) That the property is for sale, lease, or exchange by the owner or his agent; (b) The owner's or agent's name; and (c) The owner's or agent's address and telephone number." and although this site is zoned for residential use the opinion of advertising signs could be related to the rental of 370 apartments it could be consider as a business use and therefore be provided with the freedom to advertise. The Commission's discussion related to residential zoned property in relation to residential uses and determined that the off site signage was not permitted. Motion(i): Moved by Vice Chairman Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Wozniak to uphold the Diretor's decision that the permitted time periods for the on and off site signs and flags have been exceeded and direct the property owner to remove such signs permanently. 88197 /CHRONI -5- MDORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION City of Moorpark Minutes of: July 18, 1988 Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. D. PD- 1062/1063 (Embassy Group /National Convenience Stores) Compliance Review of Colors /Materials Motion(j): Moved by Vice Chairman Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Butcher that this item be considered at the Commission's meeting of August 1, 1988 to address the following concerns: Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. Staff suggested revisions to the sign program as follows: 1. Signs for the convenience store to match the colors and lettering style of the main building and that color be limited to one color. 2. Signs on the building -face for the Stop "N" Go store should face toward the parking lot. No building face signs should face the street. The monument sign will satisfy this need. 3. No signs should be permitted for the side elevations (north or south)of the main building (PD- 1062). Staff indicated additional clarifications. Staff had expected a much higher level of detail to be shown than what was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council during the Planned Development Permit approval process. As a result the following additional information must be known to evaluate the final materials and colors. 1. What was shown indicated differences in architecture between the Stop'N'Go store and the main building; the two buildings should be the same. 2. Insufficient detail was shown on the subject of any moldings, plant -ons and paving on this project, it was expected that some decorative paving materials would be used in strategic places. This was not shown on the material presented, other than use of a rocksalt finish on walkways. Some additional variation in the walkways as well as parking lot paving is expected. 3. Awnings were proposed to be a plastic vinyl fabric. This material was not acceptable. Staff recommended a standard canvas. Color has yet to be selected. 4. Where columns were shown, particularly on the Stop'N' Go pump island canopy, very little detailing was shown. Only a minor ribbed variation at each the 88197 /CHRONI -6- MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION City of Moorpark Minutes of: July 18, 1988 top and bottom was provided. Again more detail to vary the otherwise smooth plain finish of the columns is desired. 5. Lighting fixtures in the parking areas proposed are conventional. For a new commercial project; a more ornate fixture would be appropriate. The fixture proposed also creates too great of a light spillover onto adjacent property. 6. Additional lighting concern was that no accent lighting or down lighting is proposed. Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 10. INFORMATION ITEMS None. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. 12. STAFF COMMENTS 13. The Director requested vacation schedules. Commissioner Butcher will be absent for the Commission's meeting of September 5, 1988. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary CHAIRMAN 88197 /CHRONI -7- MOORPARK PI.AMDiING C0M4MISSION City of Moorpark Minutes of: July 18, 1988 s- 6. Additional lighting concern was that no accent lighting or down lighting is proposed. Motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 10. INFORMATION ITEMS None. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. 12. STAFF LOMMEWS The Director requested vacation schedules. Commissioner Butcher will be absent for the Commission's meeting of September 5, 1988. 13. ADJ0URIEGMPY There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m. le RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary 88197 /CHRONI -7-