Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1987 0318 CC REG ITEM 08BTHOMAS C. FERGUSON %wMayor CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember BERNARDO PEREZ Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk MOORPARK M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Honorable City Council ITEM 9,A- 7/, STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE: March 12, 1987 (CC meeting of 3/18/87) SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1058 (GlenHaven, Inc.) BACKGROUND At its meeting of February 18, 1987, the Council reviewed the above request for a residential planned development permit. The site consists of 22 lots located south of Inglewood Avenue and west of Peach Hill Road. Four concerns were raised by the Council at the February 18th meeting. 1. Design of the planting area and the slumpstone wall at the west end of Inglewood Avenue. 2. The height of the pads of Lots 21 & 22. 3. The issue of how the rear three feet of the property could be used by the property owners to the south. 4. The subject of how the line of sight will appear between the rear yards of certain lots to the south in relation to the new homes to the north. All four of these items have been addressed by the applicant. Please see Items A, B, C and D in the attached letter and illustrations dated March 3, 1987. Staff is satisfied with these responses. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 The Honorable City Council p. 2 - March 12, 1987 One letter of correspondence on this matter has been received. Included is a letter dated March 5, 1987 from Mr. Gary D. Lincoln. The applicant has indicated that Lots 7, 9, 19 and 22 will all be plotted to allow the minimum five (5) foot setback on the north property line. This would give the existing homeowners to the south the maximum distance to the new residences. RECOMMENDED ACTION The staff recommendation remains as stated in the February 11, 1987 staff report to the Council. In addition if the Council concurs with the additional items proposed by the applicant (design of planter and slumpstone wall, lowering of pads of Lots 21 and 22, and the planting easement), the Council may wish to apply these items as additional conditions of approval. Staff suggests the following language: 1. The planter at the westerly terminus of Inglewood Avenue shall be designed in accordance with the configuration shown on attached Exhibit "A ". A decorative masonry wall, five (5) feet in height shall be provided at the end of the street. The wall shall be shown on the wall plan for the tract as required by Community Development Condition No. 14. Landscaping for the planter shall be included in the landscape plan as required by Community Development Condition No. 13. Lot 1 of Tract 3306 shall be deed restricted so as to provide maintenance of the street planter. 2. The grading plan shall be revised per Exhibit "B ". Final approval shall be made by the City engineer. 3. A three (3) foot planting easement shall be granted to the adjacent property owners to the south where applicable and only if desired by the affected property owners, or a lot line adjustment shall be accomplished for the rear three (3) feet of the subject property to the adjacent property owners to the south. Which ever method is used shall be subject to the approval of the Community Develop- ment Director. a'iz C� �'�'� .� ��� l�' ',( ;f �/l�, �• MQORPARK, CALIFORNIA ,Ue ?in LPL! '� �C %� E�)i; City Council M g 198 ----77 AU IC-IN: _d2a By �..C� GlenHaven March 3, 1987 City of Moorpark Planning Department 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Attention: Michael Rubin SUBJECT: TRACT #3306 PD -1058 Dear Michael, We are transmitting herewith the following: -.O*- W. CITY A. Ten sketches showing the design of planting area and the slumpstone wall at west end of Inglewood. B. Ten sketches showing revised grading on lots No. 21 and No. 22. C. Ten drawings showing the planting strips along south boundary of Tract #3306. D. Ten sets of sketches showing the "line of sight" condition which will exist for single story houses (lot #11) and for two of the two story houses (lots #5 & #12). A. The block wall at being 5 feet high that the westerly with a radius cor installation will hood. the end of Inglewood Avenue is indicated as due to the concerns of Council member Brown view not be blocked. The planter is concave responding to the street width. This be a very attractive element for the neighbor- B. Our Engineer, Widmer and Associates, re- analysed the grading for lots #21 and #22 and have determined that we can indeed lower the pad elevation of lot #22 by 12" and raise pad #21 by 12'' . I have spoken with Mr. Meifert, informed him of this result and have assured him that we will lower pad #22. Attached you will find 10 copies of my letter to him. We have also instructed Widmer and Associates to process a change order through the City Engineers reflecting this change. 601 Daily Drive Camarillo, California 93010 (805) 987 -9769 Michael Rubin City of Moorpark March 3, 1987 Page 2 C. We mailed letters to all twenty owners of adjoining homes on the south boundary of our tract explaining about the three foot planting strip. Ten copies of the letter are enclosed. We have received 13 written responses and 6 telephonic responses. Sixteen of the home owners indicated that they were interested in acquiring the three foot strip, three of the homeowners are not interested, and,yve have not received a response from one of the homeowners. We will continue our efforts to contact the last homeowner as well as the Countryside Homeowners Association. The enclosed drawing is self explanatory. D. Sketches showing the "line of sight" conditions which will exist at typical lots were prepared for the single story house on lot #11, the two story house on lot #5 and the two story house on lot #12. Should you have any questions please call our office so we may assist in whatever way we can. Yours very truly, GLENMOOR AT PEACH HILL GLENHAVEN, GENERAL PARTNER qu A ell PresiiAent HAR /mjr enc. cc: at Richards Widmer & Associates 'J INCA 1-1E p, TE TH i S U�T�L =IZ A� -�Pc R p 2.! tZ.C� Uri FWD" 'r N c T' IZ�M A� I N 1 tJ� No t CD I,u►u�"�. W I-p S IN Or- p?.e1 U ! IU (0( r5-L�NTIWq tP. qW March 5, 1987 Mr. Michael Rubin Senior Planner City Of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 RE: Glenhaven Project Case Number PD -1058 Dear Mr. Rubin: For the record, my name is Gary D. Lincoln and I own a home at 4277 N. Granadilla Drive in Moorpark. It is located at the north east corner of N. Granadilla Drive and N. Clavele Avenue and the rear yard of this property will be adjacent to a new house to be built on N. Clavele Avenue in the above referenced project. I have spoken to Mr. H.A. Russell of Glenhaven several times in recent weeks and have requested that the new structure to be built directly behind me be plotted as far to the north as possible, thereby utilizing the minimum side yard setback which I believe is five feet. Per the measurements given to me by Mr. Russell, this would at least provide for an eleven foot side yard between the new structure and my rear fence. He has been considerate in this matter and has stated that this could be accomplished. Since most of Glenhaven's rear yards will be adjacent to homes in my tract and those homes will be plotted to provide approximately 40 feet of yards between the structure and our rear yards, I feel that it should be warranted and conditioned that Glenhaven do all they can to mitigate the extreme closeness of new structures to those in my position. Walls, setbacks and landscaping should be considered. Please enter this letter into your case file and the public record and I will appreciate any efforts your staff and the City Council can provide in this matter. Re ctfully, , C Gary D. Li n 4277 ranadilla Drive Moorpark, CA 93021 cc: Glenhaven ... Oct, ow, ti MAN 0 91987 CITY OF MOMARK THOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor DANNY A. WOOLARD Mayor Pro Tem ELOISE BROWN Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CLINT HARPER, PhD. Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk MOORPARK = =EM a - s. STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer MEIV.LORANDZJM T O = The Honorable City Council FROM : Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development DATE = February 11, 1987 (CC meeting of 2/18/87) SZJ$JECT = PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1058 (Glenhaven, Inc.) BACKGROUND At its meeting of January 19, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC -87 -123, recommending a conditional approval of the above planned development permit. The resolution is attached for the Council's review. The final map for the 22 lot subdivision was approved on June 7, 1983 just prior to the incorporation of the City of Moorpark. A planned development permit was previously approved by the County; since construction did not start on the individual residences within the required time frame after approval the planned development permit lapsed. The applicant must now have City approval of a new planned development permit to complete the project. Staff reports dated December 10, 1986 and January 5, 1987 to the Planning Commission are attached. DISCUSSION The project site consists of: 22 lots, most of which front on Inglewood Avenue. Site boundaries are from Peach Hill Road to the east and the Southern California -.0;dison Company easement on the west. It is located in an area that has been developed for several years to the north and south. As such it represents an "inf ill" project. At the Planning Commission hearing on this matter, four concerns were raised: mix of single and two -story homes, windows at the second story overlooking existing backyards to the rear, the use of the slope to the rear of the lots fronting on Inglewood Avenue and the potential to improve the street configuration by including a cul -de -sac 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Califomia 93021 (805) 529 -6864 The Honorable City Council p. 2 - February 11, 1987 or a "knuckle" in the alignment between Inglewood Avenue and Cloverdale Street. All four of these issues were addressed in the staff report dated January 5, 1987. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the negative declaration. 2. Make the findings listed in the staff report dated December 10, 1986 as required by Section 8163 -3 of the Code. 3. Approve the planned development permit subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission (or as modified by the Council). 4. Direct staff to prepare a resolution conditionally approving this item for the Council's consideration at its next regular meeting. EXHIBITS: "A" - Resolution No. PC -87 -123 "B" - Staff Reports dated: January 5, 1987 & December 10, 1987 (pages 1 - 55) i- RESOLUTION NO. PC -87 -123 A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION OF _THE CITY_ OF -- MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING _ TO THE -CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL PLANN- ED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RPD -1058- OF A PREVIOUSLY _ - - APPROVED TRACT NO. TR- 3306-ON THE APPLICATION OF GLEN HAVEN, INC. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 507 - 261 -015 thru 075 & 507 -0- 262 -015. WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on December 10, 1987 and January-5, 1987, the Moorpark Planning Commission considered the subject application requesting approval of a residential development on a previously approved Tract No. 3306 for the construction of twenty - two single family residences. Location; Inglewood Avenue between Peach Hill Road and the Southern California Edison Easement. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after review and consider- ation of the information contained in the Negative Declaration, has found that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and has reached its decision in the matter; NOW, THEREFORE, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA , DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the findings contained,in the staff report dated January 5, 1987, which report is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein are hereby approved; SECTION 2. That at its meeting of January 5, 1987, the Planning Commission took action to request staff to prepare a Resolution with the attached ccnditions approving Residential Planned Developmelit . - Permit No. RPD -1058; said Resolution to be presented for Consent Calendar action at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The action with the foregoing directions was approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Butcher, Montgomery, Holland, Wozniak, and Perez; NOES: None; ABSENT: None. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED thi� 19th day of January, 1987. ATTEST: Acting Secretary Chakrman EXHTB =T '• A TT APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY- RESOLUTION NO. PC-87-123-Dated: 1/19/87 CONDITIONS FOR: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1058 APPLICANT: G1enHaven DATE: December 10, 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. That the permit is granted for the land as described in the application and any attachments thereto, and as shown on the plot plan submitted. 2. That the permit is granted for all of the buildings, fences, roadways, parking areas, landscaping and other features which shall be located substantially as shown on Exhibit "E ", except or unless indicated other- wise herein. 3. That the elevations and floor plans of all buildings shall be substantially in conformance with the elevation plans and floor plans labeled Exhibit C & D. 4. That subsequent to occupancy, minor changes or additions to approved structures, fences, etc, or the construction of patio covers and accessory structures may be approved by the Community Development Director through issuance of a zone clearance provided that the minor change a) is consistent with the conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC and R's) for the project; b) has been approved by the applicable Homeowners Association; c) clearly does not affect the design, integrity, or quality of the development; and d) is consistent with the regulations of the City Zoning Ordinance. Minor changes which do not meet these criteria will require a minor modification of the permit to be considered by the Community Development Director. Any changes determined to be major by the Community Development Director will require the filing of a major modification application to be considered by the Planning Commission. 5. That the final design of all buildings, communal open spaces, recreational - facilities, walls and fences including materials and colors, is subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Variation in roof colors is required. 6. That all requirements of any law or agency of the State, Ventura County, and City of Moorpark, and any other governmental entity shall be met. 7. That the applicant agrees as a condition of issuance (or renewal) the use of this permit, to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City because of issuance (or renewal) of this permit, or in the alternative, to relinquish this permit. Applicant will reimburse the City for any court costs and /or attorney's fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of any such action. City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under the condition. 8. That prior to zone clearance a pad certification form shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works. Said form shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development prior to zone clearance or issuance of building permit. APPROVED AND - ADOPTED BY- RESOLUTION NO.-PC -87 -123 Dated: 1/19/87 CONDITIONS FOR: APPT.TCANT: UAIG: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1058 GlenHaven December 10, 1986 COMMUNITY-DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS - 9. That unless a zone clearance for a unit is issued within thirty -six (36) months after the date the permit is granted, this permit shall automatically expire on that date. The Community Development Director may, in his discretion, grant two separate 12 month extensions for issuance of a zone clearance for a unit in each phase, provided: a) the application for extension is made prior to the expiration of the initial thirty -six (36) months; b) there has been no change in the approved plans; c) there has been no change of circumstance which will revent the preservation of the integrity, character, utility or value of the property in the zone and the general area in which the use is proposed to be located or will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; and d) the permittee has diligently worked toward initiation of construction of each the phase of the development during the initial thirty -six (36) month period. 10. That signs are subject to the regulations of Chapter 12, Title 9 of the Moorpark Municipal Code. 11. That a transfer of this permit shall not be effective until the name and address of the transferee and date when such transfer shall be effective, together with a letter from the new owner certifying agreement to comply with all conditions of the permit is filed with the Community Development Director. 12. That the development is subject to all applicable regulations of the "R- P- D -4.5" (Residential Planned Development) zone. 13.a. That prior to issuance of the zone clearance,-- -a - landscaping, planting and irrigation plan for that phase, together with specifications and a maintenance program, shall be prepared by a state - licensed landscape architect. The Ventura County Guide to Landscape Plans, dated July 1982, shall be used. The landscaping plan shall show planting within the front yards of all residential lots in the subdivision; areas along any man -made slopes adjacent to the developed areas and along interior streets. Land- scaping in these areas shall incorporate drought resistant and native plant materials as feasible, and shall be chosen to-insure adequate erosiion control, and to mitigate the visual impacts of all man -made slopes three feet or more in height. Landscaping shall not cover any door or window. Landscaping at entrances and exits and intersections will not block or screen the view of a seated driver from another moving vehicle or pedestrian, nor be placed directly under overhead lights which could cause a loss of light at ground level. All of the landscaping described above, with the exception of that within individual lots, shall be maintained by the individual homeowners. b. Prior to preparation of the landscaping plan, the landscape architect shall consult with the Director of Community Development regarding species to be planted and the overall landscape concept to be used. c. Three set of plans shall be submitted for approval to the Director of Community Development. APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. PC -87 -123 Dated: 1/19/87 CONDITIONS FOR: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1058 APPLICANT: G1enHaven DATE: December 10, 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS - 13.d. The applicant shall bear the total cost of such review and of final install- ation inspection. All landscaping installation described above (with the exception of the private recreational facilities) shall be completed prior to issuance of the last certificate of occupancy. 14. That prior to issuance of the first zone clearance, the developer shall submit a plan showing fencing along the side and rear yards of each residential lot. Said fencing plan shall identify the location and materials to be used (wrought iron, pilasters, slumpstones, etc., but no wood) and shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Said fencing shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the affected lot. 15. Prior to the issuance of the zone clearance a plan showing the location of mail boxes shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval upon review by the Moorpark Postmaster. 17. That all residential units shall be constructed employing energy saving devices as may be appropriate to the State of the Art. These are to include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Low flush toilets (not to exceed 1 -1/2 gallosn).; b. Shower controllers. C. Stoves, ovens and ranges, when gas fueled, shall not have continous heating source to have night setback features. d. All thermostats connected to the main space heating source to have night setback features. e. Kitchen ventilation system to have automatic dampers to insure closure when not in use. f. Solar panel stubouts. g. Floor plans to demonstrate reservation of space for solar equipment adjacent to furnace. 18. That gutters and downspouts shall be provided over all garage doors and front entryways, unless covered. 19. If a model home complex is to be constructed, it shall be permitted within the tract boundaries, subject to issuance of a zone clearance. A site plan shall be submitted which indicated the location of dwelling units, sidewalks, landscaping, fencing, patios, directional and advertising signs, parking and lighting. APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. PC -87 -123 Dated: 1/19/87 CONDITIONS FOR: APPLICANT: DATE--: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1058 GlenHaven December 10, 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 20. That prior to issuance of a zone clearance, an "Unconditional" Will -Serve Letter for water and sewer service for that phase shall be obtained from Ventura County District No. 1. 21. In accordance with the Residential Development Management System, an allocation permit shall be required prior to issuance of a zoning clearance and /or building permit. 22. A garage door opener shall be provided with the residences on lots 6 and 8, to encourage use of the garage. ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS - January 5, 1987 l; An irrevocable offer for a landscape easement of approximately three feet abutting the south property line shall be made for the purpose of allowing property owners to the south to utilize the south slope created by the grading of this subdivision. 2. Lots 14 -and 22 shall have the building footprint located to provide a 12 foot side setback on the.south side of the property. Any south facing windows on those particular elevations shall be redirected east or west. 3. In the event that the applicant chooses to amend the site plan so that any of the two story models are reduced to one story, this shall only require approval of the Director of Community Development. 4. A six foot masonry wall shall be constructed at the Southern California Edison Company Easement adjacent to the westerly terminus of Inglewood Avenue. A five foot landscaped area shall be provided in front of this wall. Wall and planter shall be shown on the landscaped plan which is subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. No delivery prior to 9:00 a.m. and no construction prior to 8:00 a.m. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION CONDITION 5. An in -lieu fee for private recreational facilities of $1,180.00 per unit shall be paid. The fee shall be utilized to offset costs of improvements in Peach Hill Park. If the fee is paid within one -year of the date of City Council approval the fee shall be at the stated amount. If it is paid after this date, the fee shall be computed again and an appropriate allowance shall be made for an increase in the Consumer Price Index. APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. PC -87 -123 Dated:.1 /19/87 CONDITIONS FOR: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1058 APPLICANT: G1enHaven DATE: December 10, 1986 -- VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. A licensed security guard is recommended during the construction phase, or a 6 foot high chainlink fence shall be erected around the construction site. 2. Construction equipment, tools, etc., shall be properly secured during nonworking hours. 3. All appliances (microwave ovens, dishwashers, trash compactors,etc.) shall be properly secured prior to installation during nonworking hours. All serial numbers shall be recorded for identification purposes. 4. If an alarm system is used, it should be wired to all exterior doors and windows and to any roof vents or other roof openings where access may be made. 5. All exterior doors shall be constructed of solid wood core minimum of 1 and 3/4 inches thick or of metal construction. 6. Doors utilizing a cylinder lock shall have a minimum five (5) pintumbler operation with the locking bar or bolt extending into the receiving guide a minimum of 1 inch. 7. All exterior sliding glass doors or windows shall be equipped with metal guide tracks at the top and bottom and be constructed so that the window cannot be lifted from the tract when in the closed or locked position. 8. Upon occupancy by the owner or proprietor, each unit shall have locks using combinations which are interchange free from locks used in all other separate dwellings, proprietorships, or similar distinct occupancies. 9. Address shall be clearly visible to approaching emergency vehicles and mounted against a contrasting color. 10. Front door entrances shall be visible from the street. APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. PC -87 -123 Dated: 1/19/87 *CONDITIONS FOR: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 1058 APPLICANT: G1enHaven DATE: December 10, 1986 VENTURA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS - - 1. _ That street signs shall be installed -prior to -any occupancy._ 2. That prior to zoning clearance, the applicant shall submit plans to the Ventura County Bureau of Fire Prevention for the approval of the location of fire hydrants. Show existing hydrants on plan within 500 feet of the development. 3. That a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute shall be provided at this location. 4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to combustible construction and shall conform to the minimum standards of the County Water Works Manual. 5. That all grass or brush exposing any structures shall be cleared for a distance of 100 feet prior to framing, according to the Ventura County Weed Abatement Ordinance. r t THOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor DANNY A. WOOLARD Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember CLINT HARPER Councilmember THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer MOORPARK IVI_EMORANIDTim T O . The Planning Commission Michael A. Rubin, Senior Planner 0-to, DATE : January 5, 1987 S iJ $ J E C T : PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. PD -1058 (G1enHaven) BACKGROUND J l tvtry MUCIV T City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney PATRICK J. RICHARDS A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police At the Commission's meeting of December 10, 1986, a public hearing was held on the above project. The staff report dated December 10, 1986 is again provided for the Commission's information (see Attachment "A "). Four issues were raised at the hearing which required further work on the part of the staff and the applicant. They are as follows. DISCUSSION 1. Mix of single -story and two story homes The project site abutts single story residences entirely to the south. A mix of single and two -story homes are across the street to the north. Since the pad elevations of the proposed homes is generally two feet higher than the pads of the homes to the south, a privacy concern has been raised. To mitigate the concern, the applicant has offered to reduce the number of two -story homes. Originally the 22 lots were plotted with 14 two -story and 8 single -story models. This has now been revised to nearly a reverse proportion. The revised site plan shows 9 two -story and 13 single -story floor plans. As part of the revision, four different plans are now offered as opposed to three originally. Two are single- story, and two are two - story. EXEH =BZT " B 99 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 The Planning Commission p. 2 - January 5, 1987 2. South facing second story windows. EAA Related to the above concern is the location of second -story windows facing the existing homes to the south. The elimination of several second story models also reduces the privacy concern of these windows. The applicant has revised the rear elevation of the two -story models so that they only include a frosted window facing south. The windows that previously faced south have been reoriented to the side elevations. The room affect- ed is the master bedroom in both of the two -story plans offered. 3. Planting easements. Since the subdivision has its location generally higher than the subdivision to the south a down -slope will exist from the new subdivision to the old. When the new lots are provided with block walls, the walls would normally be located at the top of the slopes. This would create a "no mans land" since the subdivision to the south is already fenced. To alleviate this problem the applicant has offered to provide a "planting easement" to the benefit of the property owners to the south. The easement would enable the neighboring property owners to use the slope for additional rear yard landscaping. Use of the easement would "also enable the indiv- idual rear yards to be extended an additional three feet in depth.to the north. An alternative to the planting easement discussed above would be a lot line adjustment. This would enable property lines to be adjusted to conform to the useable rear yard space in both the proposed project site and the neighboring proper- ties. This would increase the size of the individual properties by extending the depth of each lot, approximately three feet. An appraiser from the County Assessor's Office was contacted by the staff regarding the subject of dedicating an additional three feet of land to the bordering property owners. It was the appraiser's opinion that no increase in property taxes would occur due to the small size of the dedication. The additional three feet would have a negligible effect on the value of these properties. The staff favors the lot line adjustment alternative. It is preferable because it provides for 100% ownership of land by owners who will be using the land and have the responsibility for maintaining it. 4. Existing street configuration. The westerly terminus of Inglewood Avenue ends in a dead -end configuration at present. No cul -de -sac is provided. At the public hearing the concern was raised that either a "knuckle" design or a cul -de -sac-- be provided. 3 The Planning Commission p. 3 - January 5, 1987 4. Existing street configuration. (continued) At the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and Cloverdale Street, the knuckle configuration would adversely impact the first two lots fronting on Cloverdale Avenue;= both of these lots would have all or part of their front setbacks reduced. A car parked on either driveway would very likely extend behind the sidewalk, violating the intent of the 20 -foot setback. Driveway visibility would be impaired and an increase in the potential danger to pedestrians would occur if the setback were reduced. As an alternative to the knuckle a cul -de -sac was explored. The cul -de -sac alternative does not directly impact the residences on cloverdale Street as does the knuckle. However, the cul -de -sac design would require Lots 1 and 2 to be redesigned to accommodate the front setback and have small rear yards. It would very likely also require a useless remnant of property to be attached to both Lot 1 and 4305 Cloverdale Street. The above alternatives have been discussed with the city engineer's office. It is the opinion of the City Engineer that little benefit would be gained by a new street figuration and that the present configuration has served adequately and would continue to be adequate after the homes are cons- tructed as proposed. Therefore, staff is recommending that Condition No. 22 be deleted. All four of the above concerns have been addressed by the applicant. The responses are provided on the following pages. See Exhibits "1 ", "2 ", "3", and "4 ". On December 17, 1986, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this project. Due to the small size the Parks Commission did not require on -site private recreational amenities to be provided. Rather, an in -lieu fee was required. The fee established was $1,180 per unit. This is based on an $800. per unit amount that was required by the county in 1979, plus $380 per unit representing a 47.5% increase since 1979 in the Consumer Price Index. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve the revised site plan with 9 two -story and 13 single -story plans and with the street configuration as proposed originally by the applicant. 2. Make the findings and approve the negative declaration as recommend- ed in the December 10, 1986 staff report. 4 The Planning Commission p. 4 - January 5, 1987 3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council conditional approval of Residential Planned Development Permit No. RPD -1058 for consideration at its next regular meeting of January 19, 1987. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibits "1 ", "2111F "3" and "4" Landscape Maintenance Agreement - Draft Landscape Maintenance Agreement - Sample Reciprocal Vehicular & Pedestrian Access Agreement - Sample Staff Report - December 10, 1986 Additional Information Memo - December 10, 1986 Revised Site Plan VA The Planning Commission p. 1 - January 5, 1987 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION CONDITION 1. An in -lieu fee for private recreational facilities of $1,180.00 per unit shall be paid. The fee shall be utilized to offset costs of improvements in Peach Hill Park. If the fee is paid within one -year of the date of City council approval the fee shall be at the stated amount. If it is paid after this date, the fee shall be computed again and an appropriate allowance shall be made for an increase in the Consumer Price Index. Le GlenHaven ONE STORY /TWO STORY HOUSES AT TRACT #3306 In an attempt to address the desires and requests of our neighbors to the south and the often conflicting desires of our neighbors to the north, GlenHaven has replotted the houses on Tract #3306. We have reduced the number of two story homes to nine and have increased the number of one story homes to thirteen. By increasing the number of single story homes we have felt it necessary to incorporate another single story plan type which we have designated as plan four. Plan four will contain 2000 square feet but will only have a double garage whereas the other plan types will have three car garages. Plan One, the smallest two story house would be located on lots 5, 8, 13, and 18. These homes would have sixty -four foot deep rear yards, so impact on the neighbors to the south would be neglegible since their houses would be 80 feet apart. We have avoided plotting these houses across from the southerly entrances to Skylark Court, Ashtree Street, Clavele Court, and Cloverdale in order to maintain their open view to the south. Plan Three, the larger of the two story homes would be located on lots 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22. Lot 14 backs up to the wall on the existing handball court, and lots 19, 20, 21 and 22 at the east end of the tract are approximately five feet EXH =B =T " 1 •• j 601 Daily Drive Camarillo, California 93010 (805) 987 -9769 7 lower than the existing homes to the north, and will have a one story garage portion on the south thus reducing their impact on the existing homes on that side. GlenHaven LINE OF SIGHT -TWO STORY HOUSES Our adjoining neighbors to the south are concerned that two story homes which we might build would have a view (or "line of sight ") into their back yards. The Plan- One,.two -story hou -se presently has rear facing second story windows only in the master.bedroom. GlenHaven is willing to modify the design of this master bedroom by moving these windows to the side of the house and install only two 2' x 5' obscure glass windows for light and ventilation on the rear facing wall of the house. Thus there will be no direct "line of sight" from these homes into the rear yards of their southerly neighbors. (It should be noted here that one of these four Plan -One homes is proposed for lot #8 whose rear lot line backs to lot #10, not to our southerly neighbors). The Plan Three, two -story homes have rear facing windows in the master bedroom and master bathroom which are on the second story. The windows in the master baths will, of course, be obscure glass. We would like to point out that this plan type on lot #14 backs up the the 10 ft. high wall on our southerly neighbor's handball court. The others, on lots #19, #22, and lots #20 and #21, back up to each other, there- EXH =B =T 2 601 Daily Drive Camarillo, California 93010 (805) 987 -9769 4 fore, we believe, eliminating direct "line of sight" into the rear yards of our neighbors to the south. !0 GlenHaven DEDICATION OF PLANTING EASEMENT TO ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS OF SOUTH SIDE OF TRACT #3306 GlenHaven has learned in discussions with Mr. Warren Bossard, Subdivision Title Officer, at Lincoln Title Company, that a document can be prepared and recorded wherein we offer a slope easement for landscaping purposes to each of the adjoining home owners on the south side of our tract. Each of these Owners would have the option to accept or reject the offer. The agreement would stipulate that those who accept would landscape and maintain the easement parcel and that the agreement cannot be terminated without approval by the City of Moorpark. We are attaching hereto a very rough outline of this agreement and copies of two agreements in Thousand Oaks which were of a similar nature. We will have Mr. Bossard at the planning commission meeting to answer any questions you may have. E17:K = T 3 601 Daily Drive Camarillo, California 93010 (805) 987.9769 R 0 U G H O U T L I N E EXCLUSIVE LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT A. WHEREAS, Glenmoor at Peach Hill, a Limited Partnership is the owner of Tract No. 3306 in the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of California as per Map No. recorded in book , page of maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county; and B. WHEREAS it is the desired intention of Glenmoor at Peach Hill to offer to those property owners whose lots adjoin the southerly lot line of Tract No. 3306 a landscape easement three feet in-depth for the full width of their lot, said easement to be for the exclusive use of landscaping, etc., etc .............. C. WHEREAS D. WHEREAS E. WHEREAS ...........) ...........) as required It NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants and conditions the parties hereto for themselves, their successors, assigns, legal representatives, future encumbrances, executors and administrators agree as follows: 1. The Owners grants . . . . . 2. The Owners grants . . . . . 3. The Owners grants . . NOTE 4. The easements, licenses, rights and privileges herein granted by each of the parties hereto to the other party shall terminate by the mutual written agreement of the parties hereto or their successors in interest and upon written approval by the City of Moorpark. EXECUTED this day of GLENMOOR AT PEACH HILL a Limited Partnership By: GLENHAVEN "General Partner" By: H. A. Russell, President By: Barbara J. Russell, Secretary - Treasurer IZ R C0_;W <D AT REOU' EST OF, COX'- t%�!0 41Il: - 01 Teccrdin :; requested by and when recorded sail to: 2001 111,11crest Partnership c/o Investment Building Group 515 S. Flower Street. Suite 970 Lox Angeles. California 90071 Fr U /i/ c's-66 - -ib 1-11755- RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COUNTY, CALIFORNIA i 3(1 Mt 4 PK DECO 11 1985 RI:.'00 D. DEMI. COUNTY RECORDER NON - EXCLUSIVE ACCESS AND PARKING EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEKENT WHEREAS. 2001 HILLCREST PARTNERSHIP a California Limited Partnership (02001"). is the owner of all that certain real property located in the city of Thousand Oaks. County of Ventura. State of California. more particularly described in Exhibit "A" Tract Map No. 3976 recorded in book 101. pages 92 and 93 of maps. Ventura County attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto (the "Property "): and WHEREAS. it is the desired intention of 2001 to develop all of the Property as seven separate parcels: and WHEREAS. it is the desire and intention of 2001 to impose certain restrictions upon the Property. relating to access. parking and maintenance for the benefit of said Property. the improvements thereon and the future owners thereof. NW. THEREFORE. 2001 hereby declares and grants: A non - exclusive access. parking and maintenance easement to provide parking for 30 cars for the benefit of Parcel f4 for the use of a portion of Parcel 13 described as that area whose northern boundary is 102 feet south of the northern boundary of Parcel 03 and whose southern boundary is 237 ft. south of the northern boundary of Parcel /3 and whose western boundary is the western boundary of Parcel /3 and whose eastern boundary is the eastern boundary of Parcel /3 as shown on Exhibit E (this property is sometimes herinafter referred to as the Covenant Property). This covenant and agreement between the owners of said parcels is for purposes of vehicular parking and pedestrian travel for entry into and egress therefrom and shall be maintained.by the owner of Parcel I3 and used by the owner of Parcel /4. and its successors in interest. and by the-employees. customers. patrons. and business invitees of the owner of Parcel /4. The owner of Parcel 13 hereby grants to the owner of Parcel #4. and to its successors and assigns. an easement in and to said land so used for access and parking. Said easement shall not be obstructed in any manner such that ingress and egress is hindered. The owner of Parcel f3 encumbered by said easement shall be responsible for maintaining. repairing and replacing the paving. curbing. landscaping and other improvements to the lend of said easement in a condition as originally installed or such substitute 13 14 as shall in all respects be equal in quality. use and durability. The owner of Parcel /4 shall reimburse the owner of Parcel #3 thirty -five percent (35%) of the costs of such maintenance. repair and replacement of the paving. curbing. landscaping and other improvements to the land of said easement provided. however. that the owner of Parcel 04 shall not be required to reimburse the owner of Parcel 13 for any single work or contract of maintenance. repair or replacement which costs in excess of One Thousand Dollars ($1.000) unless the owner of Parcel f4 has first approved such cost in writing. such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. Failure to approve or disapprove within ten (10) days after a request has been made shall be deemed an approval. Notwithstanding the foregoing. the owner of Parcel /3 shall not be required to wait ten (10) days after a request has been made for the consent of the owner of Parcel 14 for any repair or maintenance. regardless of cost. if the owner of Parcel f3 reasonably believes that an emergency exists or safety will be endangered if the repair or maintenance is not done. The owner of Parcel i4 shall also be responsible for the reimbursement of twelve percent (12x) of real estate taxes paid by the owner of Lot 03 on the land within Lot 03. In addition. the owners of Parcel /3 and Parcel /4 shall be required to carry adequate liability insurance and provide each other with certificates of insurance showing each other named as additional insureds. Amounts to be reimbursed hereunder shall be paid within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a demand therefor. which shall be accompanied by reasonable explanatory documentation. Such amounts not paid when due shall'bear interest at the rate of ten percent (10x) per annum from the date due until paid; and the owner of Parcel f3 shall have the right to enforce payment by all rights and remedies provided by law. In addition to the foregoing. if the owner of Parcel /4 fails to reimburse the owner of Parcel f3 as provided herein within sixty (60) days after written demand therefor. then the owner of Parcel /3 may. without further notice. suspend the right of the owner of Parcel i4 to enjoy the benefits of this Declaration until such time as tbe.._met of Parcel !4 reimburses the owner of Parcel 13 for its share of costs (in accordance herewith). interest through the date of payment. and the attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the owner of Parcel /3 in enforcing its rights hereunder. In the event the owner of Parcel 13 fails to perform the maintenance. repair and replacement responsibilities imposed by this paragraph. and such failure continues without cure or the commencement and diligent prosecution of necessary work to effect such cure for a period of thirty (30) days after receipt of a demand for such performance from the owner of Parcel 14. then the owner of Parcel I4 may undertake the work demanded and. in such event. shall be entitled to all the rights and remedies of cost and reimbursement provided herein. If any damages. losses. costs. expenses. suits. attorneys* fees. or the like (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'Loss' or Losees'). occur on. about or as a result of the use of the Covenant Property. the liability with respect to the Losses shall be u apportioned between the owners of Parcel 13 and Parcel •a. as follows: ..1 C.l (A) To the extent a Loss was caused by the reckless or willful act of either. said party shall bear the burden of the Loss; (E) Other than a willful or reckless act. to the extent a Loss is caused by the repair or maintenance to the Covenant Property (or the failure to do either). then the Loss shall be equally apportioned between the owners of Parcel 03 and Parcel 14; (C) To the extent a Loss is caused by the act (loss Causing Act") of either owner. except as specifically provided in Subparagraph (d) above. then the liability for such Loss. to the extent caused by the Loss Causing Act. shall be borne by such owner; (D) To the extent that a Loss is caused by. or results from an act other than as described in Subparegrapha (A) - (C) above. then the Loss shall be equally apportioned between the owners of Parcel 03 and Parcel f4. The owners of Parcel 13 and Parcel f4 each hereby release the other and waive their entire right of recovery against the other for any Loss covered by any applicable insurance policy. regardless of the cause of such Loss. This covenant and agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the owners. and future owners. encumbrancers. their successors and heirs or assigns. All written notices and demands of any kind which either party may require or may desire to serve on the other in connection with this Agreement may be served (as an alternative to personal service) by registered or certified mail. Any such notice or demand so served by registered or certified sail shall be deposited in the United States sail with postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the party no to be served and delivered to the party. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and may not be modified. amended or otherwise changed in any manner except by a writing executed by the owners. and approved by the Director of Planning for the City of Thousand Oaks. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement- shall. for any reason. be held to be invalid. illegal or unenforceable in any respect. such invalidity. illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement. but this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid. illegal or unenforceable provision had never been set forth herein and the some shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. i.a :.a �.a r� G1 is 14 If any party hereto becomes a party to litigation arising out of this Agreement or the performance hereof. the court in such litigation shall avard all costs and expenses. including actual attorneys' fees. to the party prevailing in said litigation. 2001 HILLCREST PARTNERSHIP By: Investment Building Group. General ,Partner ,, By: c -/'" r ' Jack M..Langson. President By: David R. Denton. General Partner r Edward T. Dewey. General Partner V �rZ VZ CAT. NO. N0400634 j (TCo"fation as a Partner ass a Pannershrpt J TICOR TITLE INSURANCE r STATE: OF CALII OR \IA (:OUXT%' OFF Ss. 1 On before me, the undersigned. a Notary Public in knJ for said Statc, personally appcared i persunally known to ntc or proved to me on the basis ut satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed 4d the within instrument as the President, and s r personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence >t to be the person who executed the within instrumcne-as the Secretary• of the curporatron that executed the.within instrument on mss_ behalf of the partnership that executed A:. C the within instrument, arwd aeknuwledged to me that such ;� • :;A�:, 1 I S_GA: % ,.]s eorptwation executed the same as such partner and that Sr. q- fi ►:; r: r. C*',:;. ; - �;:•:�aviA J r Such partnership executed the Same. I wITNtSS my hand and official seal. CA Signature f "is area for a(frcul Notarial waif CAT. NO. NNOOa]0 TO =t.« CA 41-471 Old TICOR TITLE INSURANCE (Partnership) STATE: OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF 1 On before me. the undersigned, a Notary Public in rind for Said State, personally appeared Y i personally known tome or •r proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be tthe person who executed the within instrument as i is c• Ai, ___, of the partners of the partnership .� -: „ c: ^,A! � ~ that executed the within instrument. and acknowledged ; r. -,:; r r ro. t •t•roaNrA to me that such partnership executed the Same. wITNF.SS my hand and official seal. {r, a• ��„ •. ::.�.' '.:•+T9 L w: ; ;•r , , •+ tr. -, M3 S. 1979 tr•, i. ' � 1 Signature U1 (This area for officul notarial wei) vi �rZ 17 141.7 55 EXHIBIT A .14" • —40 41 1 qL ul t�k 6 % r 0. I-At. 1. P Vic-GED 0 0 —6' EASEVAEuT OF UX Le VO4 rCK R, 211 eor.4 ED-50+4 compAin rc WS5-15ioo•W RAP. W F"IOLC ONES. CO-CUIrb A"Z Nc-m, W- TAL lborrinWit.- 11WRP105c'.1. 0-cot P104 0 Fq s viepot -I.. mi --1-\ li 5 SG, %I t It. 11 Ell OUTAIL A pid: 2 ^L)L -e- 2 IVICIN 1,11 lilt M." 0 0-11 U? R.CL 11,21or(ot No* F 0 Y w. 1 !,0 Ac VA L 4• \` '; Vil 'a 2.11 &C 1.06 K. 3 7-37-T Ur 311 ro 3) -E jty4l� C, 'p- I I'll 111 fallot -- L 5EM OETAI es d s-sr,pr—war— 0 SaIr if 'I ,� " - ) , -- A 0. Vr OF, GaticIIIAt- u lo.1I ,loot C.Uiclt Cot 04WIM AND ot- CID s Pt! R 4074 OR 4 ?5AC A 2.05 AA=. (16 1 Ac. pl < U 0 ko TAr . ...... YAM 141 13 ut I Art c. It c, RCE 11-CAC-OIC-4 ? JG p 00. P TAINCeC) Z LEGEND T 0 1 1 1", i, A 't-ACT 140 7445, eo M Vt. fl. -No 1117 rcbc K 'PlAcy 140 1-:.us1 -I. 411.4 R.•^•A Ir dwolr .117 5 It i RECCADII:C RF�UF:.'•TFD AY CONTINLNIAL LAN.' C1 Cl.E -1t l 022030 Recorded at request of and when recorded mail to: RECORDED IN OMCK RECORDS CITY CLERK OF VENTURA COUNTY. CALIFORNIA City of Thousand Oaks i P. 0. bos 1496 MAR d 1985 AT 8:01 A.M. + I:.: Thousand Oaks, California 91360 '-"$ RICIiARO D. DEAN. COUNTY RECORDER 71 l /�;l. 5 ;�� .Lu•� Ls C RECIPROCAL VENICO'LAR AXD PEDESTRIM ACCESS ACREEMENT W I T N E S S E T N: A. WHEREAS, 2001 Rillcrest Partnership is the owner of a parcel of land hereinafter referred to as Lot 3 of Tract #3976 in the City of Thou End Oaks, County of Ventura. State of California as per map .:. 3 recorded in Book,., Page `�Z of Maps in the office of the County i Recorder of said county; and E. WHEREAS, 2001 Nillcrest Partnership is the owner of a parcel 3—A" g of land hereinafter referred to as Lot 4 of Tract #3976 in the City of s ' Thousand Oaks. County of Ventura. State of California as per map recorded in book /&/ , Page Y.Z- of Maps in the office of the County 8 .3 Recorder of said county; and o- . 3 C. WHEREAS, NEC Financial Services Corporation has beneficial interest in a deed of trust on the property described herein as Lot 3 a a !! and Lot 4 which deed of trust was recorded on July 19, 1984. Instrument +'9 No. 079522. Official Records. County of Ventura; and P E D. WHEREAS, Continental Land Title Company is the trustee of the y Y m deed of trust on the property described herein as Lot 3 and Lot 4 which + 4; -' deed of trust was recorded on July 19, 1984. Instrument No. 079522. 1z o Official Xecords, County of Ventura; and E. WHEREAS, Cal American Savings and Loan Association has beneficial interest in a Second deed of trust on the property described herein as Lot 3 and Lot 4 which deed of trust was recorded on May 7. 1984,. instrument No. 050047, Official Records. County of Ventura; and P. WHEREAS. Foundation Capital Corporation is the trustee of the Second deed of trust on the property described herein as Lot 3 and Lot 4 which deed of trust was recorded on May 7. 1984 instrument No. 050047. Official Records of the County of Ventura; and C. WHEREAS. An application was submitted to the City of Thousand Oaks. by 2001 Nil lcrest Partnership for permission to develop Lot 3 and Lot 4 and as a condition to approval of the proposed development the City of Thousand Oaks required the parties set forth above to enter into this agreement and to record it. ze 2i NOW. THEREFORE. in consideration of their mutual covenants and conditions. the parties hereto for themselves. their successors, assigns. legal representatives. future encumbrancers. executors and administrators. agree as follows: 1. The owner of Lot 3 hereby grants to the owner of Lot 4 for the benefit of Lot 4 a nee- exclusive easement. license. right and privilege over that portion of Lot 3 particularly described and shown in Exhibit "A" for vehicular and pedestrian access for the use of the customers. invitees. licensees. sub - tenants and coacessioaaries of the owner of Lot 4 and its lessees, for ingress to and egress from that j portion of Lot 3 for the passage of vehicles and pedaatrians. i 1 2. The owner of Lot b hereby grants to the owner of Lot 3 for the benefit of Lot 3 a non - exclusive easement. license. right and privilege over the vehicular and pedestrian access of that portion of s Lot 4 particularly described and shown in Exhibit "A" for the use of ! their customers. invitees. licensees, sub- teaaots and concessionaries of the owner of Lot 3 and its lessees. for ingress to and egress from that portion of Lot 4 for the passage of vehicles and pedestrians. 3. The non - exclusive easements. licenses, rights and privileges granted herein are for the benefit of the Lots described herein and shall run with the land. This agreement shall be recorded. 4. The non - exclusive easements. licenses. rights and privileges herein granted by each of the parties hereto to the other party shall terminate by the mutual written agreement of the parties hereto or their successors in interest and upon written approval by the City of Thousand Oaks. EXECUTED this flo 'day of To+•.r.a► 1985. 2001 $ILLCREST PARTNERSHIP' a California Limited Partnership By: Investment Building Croup , a California corporation "Ceneral Partner" Q N N •Jack K. Langson. President W By: David R. Dentoo. 'Ceneral Partner" M. fW- 1. 1- TAGGED CAL IF<>K*41^ O� 4e, 41F r j 64EM OR T" 5CCk4G 25SG mcm. 'o .4 a. - . 0 25 o 4T. 4 VICINITY MAP V5 ro CA* I.vp TAGGED SCALD : V- @CC-jo* 10 STAkCIA1 -aUWVeV 0 2.11 Ac. V4 5 fft-vt Pit&. 4 1.61 AC. or 1A 5r=12 DETAIQ Ls. T504 I I.K • d rialn"t . I $464t. aw w w Of $I LT LI'Jf- 55' EASEOAFENT Of Gf%le"AL TELeP%-0*4e cA>%Avpj►*4,c FOR eir-asit OR acTM ploo-r- Lwke7. cowoulls AND N4- Ckor-w-.&L ruotpo'-%es PER Ar-- FD. I•n• 1. r- '.0 $43.54, 1 7 --X IA, R c E. 156AC. �VK 4'2 42' FD. 1 -LP TAC�Cm ED N-1 ?I tA Ira 14 • L--v 2777-MR-Wr- uj GRAPUC 5CALP- SC.^4- fi : V. 100 T ACT 7ra IN THE CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP I NORTH, RANGE 20 WEST. RANCHO EL CONEJO. PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK I PAGE 746 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF VENTURA COUNTY. APRIL 1964 4.,.Y 2: JOCL SOLVIERMA" L ASSOCIATES Z03CO v(•-TumA SLWO wOOOLAftO ..ILLS CAL1fO0Ift1A 14)64 Exhibit "A" (cont.) ..o 0 O O L 22 CAT. NO. MN0Oa30 TO 219. CA 41_431 A� TICOR TITLE INSURANCE (partnenhip) STA1 F OF (CAI IFOKNIA t � COt:XT \• Ol- 1 -os Angeles ` on January 16. 1965 before me. the undenquwJ• a Notary Public in and for vod State. pen+rnail% appeared David R. Denton pcnonady known to one or praoonJ to me on the burs of satisfactory evWcace to be the prMon _ Who executed the within instrumxnt as one of the partners of the partnership that executed :he within instrument. and acknowledied 1.1 me that such partnership executtJ the same. %!TNFSS my hanJ anJ ailfieW w3l- Signature �^ CiFFICIAI. SEAL SFiARON A KING o NOTAW pMoC - CAIX0Q A ((it wn,s CnuRTT r s, of .«sr+ ear -+ frrG ». Has 022030 (This area fw Wsicid ae"faal ar+N l CAr do M«oosx TO 211"4CA i1 071 TICOR TITLE INSURANCE ti w 1 Katn as a Partner of a Partnership) STATE: OF CALIFOK \IA COUNTY OF Los Angeles SS. 1 On January 16. 1985 before me• the undcru gncd, a Notary Public in and (tw said State, perwnally Appeared Jack M. Langson i pcnonAly knooan to me or prtwed to me on the basis of satisfactory• evidence to be the perwin who executed + the within instrument as the - ----- --- ----------- President, and t brnY opf t si>ce.wre�+Acrne i cure' uRd- rh � xr tnthnreery ++ra --- ---- ---- me sf+�-----"- --- -- Secrctar)- Of Investment Building (:roue the corporation that executed the with n instrument on I ! behalf of 2001 Hillcrest Partnership the partnership that executed OMCIAL SEAL the within instrument. and acknowledged to me that such � $NARAN A KING corporation vxceuteJ the same as such partner and that i NOTUrr ouet#C - Cxt1VCQN A6 �.- s such partnership executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 1 vr'� W a�a rear -s AM :7. Ills 022030 Signature (phis area for o11KYg nuaw i wdl 1 tq GlenHaven - CUL -DE- SAC /KNUCKLE /DEAD END STREET - AT WESTERN END OF INGLEWOOD AVENUE Our engineer, Widmer & Associates have prepared sketches showing the two suggested alternatives for the dead end at the westerly terminus of Inglewood Avenue as shown on the recorded map. Sketch "A", showing the "knuckle" connection to Cloverdale Street, shows a fairly severe impact on the lot at 4305 Cloverdale,..removing a strip across their front property line which is about nine feet deep at its maximum. This knuckle would also interfere with an existing catch basin located at the southeast corner of the lot at 4305 and would extend into the southeast corner of the adjoining lot as well. Sketch "B ", showing the Cul -de -sac approach shows the Cul -de -sac bulb extending approximately forty feet into the fronts of lots #1 and #2, in addition to creating two somewhat unusable triangles of land, one at the side of 4305 Cloverdale and one at the front of lot #1. In a meeting with Mrs. Linda Todd, owner of the property at 4305 Cloverdale on December 22nd, 1986, Mrs. Todd stated that she did not like the idea of the "knuckle" or the concept of the Cul -de -sac. She would much rather see the street terminate in a dead end as originally plotted. EXH213 =T " 4 T• 601 Daily Drive Camarillo, California 93010 (805) 987 -9769 ZS Tom Wolfington of Widmer & Associates who has been involved with this tract since before it was recorded, is of the opinion that the termination of Inglewood in a dead end is the best and most efficient use of the land involved. He has conferred with John Knipe of the City Engineers office who appears to be of the same opinion. Obviously, G1enHaven would like to see the dead end design be retained, as it has been for an identical situation on E. Mesa Verde Drive three blocks to the north, inasmuch as it will maximize the land use for lots #1 and #2 and will not adversely impact the existing homes on Cloverdale. The widen- ing of Inglewood.Avenue. to a full 40 ft. will allow room for street sweeping and maintenance, will not create unusable triangles of land, and by being used for daily access to drive- ways of lots #1 and #2 will discourage any improper or illegal usage.