HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0716 CC REG ITEM 09C Correspondence 1 II+• !o is
RECEIVED
JUL; 211997
- - 1
City of Moorpark
Community Development D,2n:Wment
July 21, 1997 '71 Z1 ( R 7
� S
To: Planning Commission
City Council
City of Moorpark —} _ C Q 'i) b
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021 ' .,,r�
cc: Ad Hoc Citizens Downtown Advisory Committee
Department of Community Development
Fr: Lori Rutter, Committee membere.-23
Re: Personal Views on the Draft Downtown Specific Plan
I offer my summary of the personal observations and recommendations for the Plan, as stated at
the regular City Council meeting of July 16, 1997.
Echoing two of the statements found in the article"Twelve Gates to the City" (forwarded to the
Committee by Mayor Hunter), we should build"a new front door to the City" and"depend upon
the community as co-authors of the Plan". Developers have pre-conceived notions about what
people want that are holdovers from the past and generally applied to all communities. Rather
than imposing new projects upon us, let architects express our vision in reality by integrating the
landscape and the residents into the planning process. Give greater aesthetic consideration to the
natural sites that identify Moorpark--its arroyo, orchards, canyons and other habitats--and begin
to link them to our major public areas, such as High Street. This will strengthen our rural
traditions, our cultural heritage, and community pride.
Again,here is my most specific wish list for the Plan:
Relocate the gazebo/bandshell feature from the Feed Depot to the property at Charles and Spring.
The Old Town area should have and maintain a connection between the rural soul of Moorpark
and its cultural and civic heart. I envision people visiting Happy Camp on foot and horseback
from this location, leisurely eating their picnics in the shade with live music nearby. This is such
a beautiful setting and should be preserved in the Plan.
C C ; C..-'s t.A""Ati4t,6Q4)`vs) C 0.4 a .. .� ; 02,_ I
2
The Magnolia Street Promenade did not fit well with our rustic or cultural vision of the Plan
area. It was viewed as high cost and low priority, with little perceived advantage.
Make the Feed Depot the site of a living community Christmas tree. The outdoor"room" is
important on High Street, but I would add a dramatic water effect that combines sculpture and a
public fountain, some chess tables and petanque (French bocce) courts--these are perfect
pasttimes for all ages and encourages social interaction for adults and children together.
Encourage Tipsy Fox to relocate to another vacant site away from High Street and bring the
Chamber of Commerce offices to this important eastern gateway. And/or changing the name of
the business would help to improve its image and the negative associations from the past.
Upgrade and stabilize the existing residences along the Walnut Canyon corridor as well as in the
Plan area. Improve the commercial/residential mix along old L.A. Avenue to Princeton Ave.
These both are valuable gateways to the City and should benefit the revitalization of the High
.. Street area.
Permit and encourage"sweat equity"projects within the Specific Plan area.
Create a Mixed-Use overlay zone for the Old Town commercial area to encourage a
neighborhood/retail density in the Plan area.
Much of the new retail in the Plan is still substantially too large for local (non-chain) merchants.
We need greater retail variety and density to distinguish High Street from other commercial areas
in town.
Allow a wide variety of light manufacturing in the C-OT zone uses to encourage trade artisans
such as cheesemakers, candymakers,vintners, etc.
Incompatible uses such as fast food drive-throughs and convenience stores should be specifically
excluded in the C-OT.
I disagreed with the Committee on the zoning for Moorpark Avenue. CPD and C-2 uses are the
same and out of synch with the Old Town commercial proposed uses. I do not like C-1 on the
East side for any reason. Keep C-OT throughout the Plan area.
C-OT zoning needs to have a strong and unique identity--defined by its signage, landscaping and
construction materials as well as its architectural style. Flexible and innovative new guidelines
for sign ordinances are needed. Establish new ordinances that restore the complexity and
abundance of native plant materials in the Plan area. Require the use of genuine and quality
construction materials to restore style and ambiance to High St.
(No exposed concrete block or simulated brick!)
3
Use alternative hardscapes--such as crushed gravel in parking lots, boardwalks instead of
concrete sidewalks, blackberry bushes instead of stuccoed low walls, etc.
The City needs to create a separate tier of fees to lower costs to developers who rebuild in older
existing commercial zones and urban areas vs. Building in virgin agricultural land or open space.
Development at the City's core should pay substantially less than that further out.
Look into "scenic route" designation for the SR 23 from High Street to Fillmore. Could this
qualify it for funds or special attention from the County or State?
And last, but I think not least--rename and expand the Citizens Committee as a standing ad hoc
committee charged with studying, approving, and disapproving the aesthetic elements of
proposals in the Plan area that would go before the Planning Commission or City Council.
These members would serve staggered two or three-year terms, by appointment. I hope to have
information on a simgiilar committee from the City of Sonoma. This would provide for
outstanding creative and innovative discourse that is needed for the successful future of High
Street. The name could be "Old Town Partnership Committee".
If you really expect me to go to all the upcoming meetings before the Planning Commission
when it discusses the Plan, could you please give me (the Committee) some feedback on the
work we've done so far? I'm not alone in my concern that we have worked very hard for little or
nought. This would be a terrible blow to anyone and a tragic waste for the people of Moorpark.
My concern is that our visions are in contradiction to the powers at play in this City--perhaps
Staff, developers waiting in the wings, etc. No one is asking for assurances that are not yours to
offer; but some response is in order and only fair. Thanks again for listening!
Sincerely,
LL -2)
Lori Rutter, Chair
Architectural/Aesthetics Subcommittee
11 it. 6 /5-
RECEIVED
'JUL' 10 1997
July 10 , 1997 CITY OFMOORPARK
Mayor Patrick Hunter
City Council
799 Moorpark Avenue URGENT . PLEASE DELIVER TO
Moorpark , California 93021 ADDRESSEE IMMEDIATELY UPON
RECEIPT .
Re : Notice of Public Hearing
Zoning Map Amendments
Downtown Specific Plan
Dear Mayor Hunter :
We just received the attahced Notice today , July 10 , 1997 . It
proposes a number of zone changes in the Downtown Specific Plan Area ,
many of which are in direct conflict with the Downtown Citizens Advisory
Committee recommendations .
My concern , on behalf of the twelve citizens who put in many hours
of study in response to your request for careful consideration of the Draft
Downtown Specific Plan , is two-fold :
1 . The Downtown Citizens Advisory Committee recommendations ,
based upon detailed and reasoned study , have yet to be
considered by your City Council , as directed .
2 . A newly revised version of the Downtown Specific Plan
has apparently been prepared by the Consultant , which was
not available for our Committee ' s consideration ; and , which
may be the basis for the proposed "Zoning Map Amendments"
contained in the Notice of Public Hearing .
Additionally , we noted in a news article today that the Consultant who
addressed the Committee , along with yourself at its inception , apparently
was working on a further revision of the Plan during the same period the
Committee was convened . The possibility exists that the Committee ' s efforts
were not worthwhile if we were not studying the most current Draft Plan .
Also , you should be aware that our Committee was directed by staff not to
contact the Consultant , but to address all questions regarding the
Consultant ' s work to staff , period .
Now it seems that neither the Consultant nor the Committee had benefit
of each other ' s on-going efforts , possibly in different directions . We did
request additional input and availability of the Consultant to the Committee
early on to ensure clear understanding of the Draft Plan , but were denied .
I ' ve received contact from Committee Members already who have become
aware of the Notice , and who are asking why Committee recommendations were
not considered prior to the public proposal of these zone changes . And ,
•
C C cu �+e-A ' I0'W c/c�: u.rL j
' Mayor Patrick Hunter
July 10 , 1997
Page 2
when Committee Members become aware of a newly revised Plan they have
not seen , I expect tough , yet understandable questions regarding the
Committee ' s value and purpose , as originally commissioned .
Please contact me at your earliest convenience . On behalf of a
group that , in large part , worked very hard ; I want to understand what is
going on with this process . These people deserve to know whether their
effort was intented to be considered seriously , or not .
Regards ,
41 Dow awn Citizens Committee
Ali"
John W . Newton
Chair
cc : DCC Members
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND
INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a public hearing will be held before the
Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark, California, at the meeting on
Monday, the llth day of August, 1997, beginning at 7 :00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers at the Moorpark City Hall located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark,
California, 93021, to consider the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan and
associated General Plan. Amendment, .and Zone Change.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN, that pursuant to California State law,
an evaluation was conducted to determine if the proposed project could
significantly affect the environment, and that based upon an Initial Study
and analysis of available information, it is proposed that there is
..u.bctant; ai ,; ence that rhp Giani.ficant effects of the nronosed uroiect on
they environment can be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the
adoption of mitigation measures; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration
is intended to be adopted in compliance with the State California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The public review period for the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study is from July 9, 1997, to August
11, 1997, and written or verbal comments on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration/Initial Study must be received by 5 :00 p.m. on August 11, 1997.
Entitlements: Specific Plan No. 95-1 (Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan)
General Plan Amendment No. 97-1
Zone Change No. 97-5
Applicant: City of Moorpark
Location: The Specific Plan area includes High Street, at its core,
along with other parts of Downtown Moorpark, such as
residential neighborhoods to the north of High Street, the
railroad right-of-way south of High Street, and the
properties along Moorpark Avenue from City Hall south to
Los Angeles Avenue. The Specific Plan area also extends
east of Spring Road, between Flinn Avenue and High
street/Los .yrigele5 Avenue.
Proposal: The proposed project consists of: (1) A General Plan Land
Use Element Amendment to revise the land use designations
shown on the Land Use Plan (Exhibit 3) for various
properties within the Specific Plan area and to amend the
Land Use Element text pertaining to land use
classifications; (2) A Zone Change to revise Title 17,
Zoning, of the Moorpark Municipal Code to include new
zoning standards, revise the list of permitted uses, and to
revise the City Zoning Map for the Specific Plan area; and
(3) Adoption of the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan, which
includes land use and zoning maps, a streetscape
beautification program, pedestrian and traffic circulation
improvements, and specific design guidelines and
development standards to guide future development within
the Specific Plan area.
•
...•n...n,ns....I....,,... >.nsrn
I C itic?3 1 i , , Y'TcT ,,L,
9 i,1�CIS u� �•lu + it '� -
c.
r� ' , ,
I 6 2 _' 1 (7U) '7'{j�17n 1 (7-14U)
I
1 12 1 f 1 f7U} •c--. 1 (7-14U) g,
9 7 pi
w
7 cco
c
Ln� High Street
.I 1r E - 1[ I i r i
17— 13
14 I _ _iii
. .� h —
;-
: .1-1 : F13 .'-• ':.- a -4 Flo,q... 1.,cs ::;- ,vrap _t& , -
431
_li , '0i QI:JEIEFLi a
_� 4 , : __t, I p-2,c3i,i2_,:d..t1 17/Clt---.ei Li --
n- I -LII ar, M�� � i ra?r'1f4-11 LTA j 4
' a ! _tea f .,0/ I i
ft
f i Cirlit '-n°-- Legend
r rat
_ "Lil,! C C ) fl/ 7 1 R-1 and RPD-7U to RPD-7U-14U
---� C t 2 R-1 to C-O
3 R-2 to RPD-7U
I - ( 4 C-1 to C-O
...I I C 5 C-1 to CPD
l
J-i 6 C-2 to C-O
�.. i . ��
4, 3 - I I {�. 7 C-2 to C-OT
-1' I l I [` I 8 C-2 to Cl
,J I ' l [Uj 9 C-2 to I
i I1 1 �� -a, 10 CPD to C-O
11 I ,u 11 CPU to C-OT
L Lr' 12 CPD to I
�' , Li 13 M-1 to C-OT
di` I Flory School 3 ( 14 M-1 to CPD
= l 15 M-2 to C-OT
il
.IIIMI. IIIIIi MM-•... Specific Plan Boundary
_
Los Angeles Avenue
-1 c
Figure 5.
Zoning Map Amendments
Initial Study