HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2005 0823 PC REGResolution No. PC- 2005 -485
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY - AUGUST 23, 2005
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. Special Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2005
B. Regular Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2005.
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 517 -6233.
Planning Commission Agenda
August 23, 2005
Page No. 2
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(next Resolution No. 2005 -485)
A. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -05, Zone
Change No. 2004 -04, and Residential Planned
Development No. 2004 -06 to Allow Construction of 200
Apartments on Approximately 10.57 Acres South of Casey
Road and West of Walnut Canyon Road on the Application
of Essex Portfolio, L.P. (Continued from June 28, 2005
meeting) (Staff: David Bobardt)
Staff Recommendation: Take public testimony, and
continue the item with the public hearing still open
to September 27, 2005.
B. Consider Tentative Parcel Map No. 5589 for the
Subdivision of an Approximate 0.28 Acre Parcel located
at 14364 Princeton Avenue. Applicant: Jose Villalobos
Ran el (Staff: Laura Stringer)
Staff Recommendation: Remove Tentative Parcel Map No.
5589 from the agenda.
C. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -06, Zone
Change No. 2004 -05, Tentative Tract Map No. 5576 and
Residential Planned Development No. 2004 -07 to Allow
Construction of 56 Single- Family Homes with Street
Access from Park Lane and Preservation of the
Birkenshaw House for Public Use at 251 Moorpark
Avenue, on the Application of Comstock Homes (Staff:
David Bobardt)
Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing and
take public testimony, and continue the item with the
public hearing open to September 27, 2005.
D. Consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2005 -02
Amending the Moorpark Municipal Code by Adding Chapter
17.50 (Art in Public Places) (Staff: Mary R. Lindley)
Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the Public Hearing,
accept public testimony and close the Hearing; and 2)
Adopt Resolution No. PC -2005- recommending to the
City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2005 \05_0823 pca.doc
Planning Commission Agenda
August 23, 2005
Page No. 3
No. 2005 -02, which adds Chapter 17.50 (Art in Public
Places) to the Moorpark Municipal Code.
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. September 27, 2005
• RPD No. 04 -06; GPA No. 04 -05; ZC No. 04 -04
(Essex /Colmer)
• RPD No. 04 -07; GPA No. 04 -06; ZC No. 04 -05; TTM No.
5576 (Comstock)
• RPD No. 2004 -05; General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -03,
Zone Change No. 2004 -03, and TTM No. 5347 (Birdsall)
• ZOA No. 2004 -03 (Animal Keeping Ordinance)
11. ADJOURNMENT:
-
--- ---- ----- ------ --- ------ --------- --------- ---- -- ----- ----- ----- ------ --- --- ----- --- -- ------ --- ----- -- -------- ---------
-
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's
Department at (805) 517 -6223. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to
this meeting (28 CFR 35.102 - 35.104; ADA Title II).
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \AGENDA \2005 \05_0823 pca.doc
ITEM: 6.A.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 14, 2005 Special Meeting
Paste 1
1 The Special meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June
2 14, 2005, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic Center;
3 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021.
4 1. CALL TO ORDER:
5 Vice -Chair Peskay called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
6 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
7 Vice -Chair Peskay led the Pledge of Allegiance.
8 3. ROLL CALL:
9 Present: Commissioners DiCecco, Landis and
10 Taillon, and Vice -Chair Peskay.
11 Absent: Chair Pozza
12 Staff Present: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development
13 Director; David Bobardt, Planning
14 Manager; Laura Stringer, Administrative
15 Services Manager; Joseph Fiss,
16 Principal Planner; Jared Rosengren,
17 Contract Planner; and Gail Rice,
18 Administrative Secretary.
19 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
20 None.
21 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
22 None.
23 6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
24 CONSENSUS: By consensus of the Commission, Item 6.A. was
25 pulled from the Consent Calendar and considered prior to
26 Item 7.
27 B. Special Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2005.
28 MOTION: Commissioner Taillon moved and Commissioner Landis
29 seconded a motion to approve Item 6.B. The motion carried
30 by voice vote 4 -0, Chair Pozza absent.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINU'T'ES \2005 Draft \05 0614 - special _Pcm.doc (t
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 14, 2005 Special Meeting
Pane 2
1 AT THIS POINT in the meeting Item 6.A. was heard.
2 A. Consider Commercial Planned Development No. 2004 -02 to
3 Allow Construction of a 19,539 Square Foot Retail
4 Commercial Shopping Center on Approximately 1.62 Acres
5 on the Southeast Corner Of Los Angeles Avenue and Park
6 Lane on the Application of Kylexa Enterprises, LLC.
7 (Continued from May 23, 2005)
8 Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. PC -2005-
9 recommending to the City Council conditional
10 approval of Commercial Planned Development Permit No.
11 2004 -02. (Staff: Joseph Fiss)
12 The Commission questioned staff on access and additional
13 architectural treatment on the rear of the buildings facing
14 Park Lane and Park Crest Lane.
15 Keith Palmquist, applicant, indicated he was available for
16 questions.
17 MOTION: Commissioner Taillon moved and Commissioner Landis
18 seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation and adopt
19 Resolution No. PC- 2005 -478, as amended to require
20 architectural enhancement to the rear building elevations
21 facing Park Crest and Park Lane. The motion carried by
22 unanimous voice vote 3 :1, Commissioner DiCecco dissenting,
23 Chair Pozza absent.
24 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
25 None.
26 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
27 (next Resolution No. 2005 -478)
28 A. Consider Commercial Planned Development No. 2005 -02 to
29 Allow Construction of an approximately 74,402 Square
30 Foot Retail Commercial Shopping Center on
31 Approximately 6.96 Acres on the Southwest Corner Of
32 Los Angeles Avenue and Moorpark Avenue on the
33 Application of Tuscany Partners, LLC. (Continued from
34 May 23, 2005)
35 Staff Recommendation: 1) Continue to accept public
36 testimony and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt
37 Resolution No. PC -2005- recommending to the City
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2005 Draft \05_0614_specia1_pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 14, 2005 Special Meeting
Paae 3
1 Council conditional approval of Commercial Planned
2 Development Permit No. 2005 -02. (Staff: Joseph Fiss)
3 Mr. Fiss gave the staff report.
4 The Commission questioned staff on what would happen to the
5 mature trees already on the site and addition of outdoor
6 sculptures.
7 Vice -Chair Peskay continued the open public hearing.
8 John Newton, representing applicant, spoke in support of
9 the project and introduced other representatives available
10 for questions.
11 Larry Greene, developer, spoke in support of the project
12 and commented on potential tenants for this site and
13 landscape changes.
14 Mark Pittman, architect, representing the developer,
15 indicated he was available for questions.
16 Kevin Williams, engineer, representing the developer,
17 indicated he was available for questions.
18 Paul Jordan, landscape architect, representing the
19 developer, indicated he was available for questions.
20 The Commission questioned applicant on whether occupancy
21 was intended for the second floor of the building and
22 addition of a play area near the food court.
23 Vice -Chair Peskay closed the public hearing.
24 The Commission discussed the loading area, walkways, the
25 necessity for handicap access to certain buildings,
26 enhancements to the project.
27 MOTION: Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Taillon
28 seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation, adopting
29 Resolution No. PC- 2005 -479, as amended to include the
30 fountain provide a design that would be more child -
31 friendly, enhancement of the rear elevations, strengthen
32 the pedestrian access and walkways between buildings G and
33 H and providing privacy to the apartments south of the
34 building. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote 4:0,
35 Chair Pozza absent.
36 B. Consider Modification No. 4 to Commercial Planned
37 Development Permit No. 1990 -02, for the Build -Out of
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2005 Draft \05_0614_specia1_pcm.doc
009,10c �
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 14, 2005 Special Meeting
4
1 Three (3) Existing Pad Areas with 17,324 Sq. Ft. of
2 Commercial /Retail Space and Conditional Use Permit No.
3 2005 -01 to Allow a 7,724 Square Foot Fitness Center
4 within 100 Feet of Residentially -zoned Property, on an
5 11.79 -Acre Site at 4279 Tierra Rejada Road, on the
6 Application of Constantino Noval (Continued from May
7 23, 2005)
8 Staff Recommendation: 1) Continue to accept public
9 testimony and close the public hearing; and 2) Adopt
10 Resolution No. PC 2005- recommending to the City
11 Council conditional approval of Modification No. 4 to
12 Commercial Planned Development Permit No. 1990 -02 and
13 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -01. (Staff: Jared
14 Rosengren)
15 Mr. Rosengren gave the staff report.
16 The Commission questioned staff regarding entry to the site
17 and buffers between the buildings.
18 Vice -Chair Peskay continued the open public hearing.
19 Ben Kalaf, applicant, spoke in support of the project, and
20 addressed landscape questions.
21 Kevin J. McConville, Fitness 19 representative, spoke in
22 support of the project.
23 Linda Shishino -Cruz, resident, spoke in opposition of the
24 project and commented on traffic and access.
25 John Shishino -Cruz, resident, spoke in opposition of the
26 project and commented on traffic, noise, privacy, and
27 smoking areas locations.
28 Vice -Chair Peskay closed the public hearing.
29 The Commission discussed an increase in walkways widths„
30 additional enhancement of the project, addition of outdoor
31 seating and the Community Development Director and City
32 Engineer review and approval of site distance at the
33 southerly access driveway.
34 MOTION: Commissioner Taillon moved and Commissioner DiCecco
35 seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation, adopting
36 Resolution No. PC- 2005 -280, as amended to include, addition
37 of outdoor seating, to address site distance issues, and
38 provide additional enhancements. The motion carried by
39 unanimous voice vote 4:0, Chair Pozza absent.
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINU'T'ES \2005 Draft \05 0614_special_pcm.doc `�Q{
0 . 0 C I
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 14, 2005 Special Meeting
5
1 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
2 None.
3 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
4 (Future agenda items are tentative and are subject to rescheduling.)
5 A. June 28, 2005 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
6 • ZOA No. 2004 -06 - Sign Ordinance
7 • RPD 2003 -04, TTM 5463 (Toll Brothers)
8 • RPD 1994 -01 (Mod), TTM 5464 (Toll Brothers)
9 • CPD 2004 -03 and CUP 2005 -04 (Warehouse Discount
10 Center)
11 • RPD 2005 -06 (Essex Portfolio)
12 B. July 26, 2005 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
13 • Cancellation (summer recess)
14 C. August 23, 2005 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
15 • RPD 2004 -05, TTM 5347 (Birdsall)
16 • ZOA No. 2003 -04 Animal Keeping Ordinance
17 Mr. Hogan briefly discussed future agenda items, including
18 that the July 26, 2005 Regular meeting would be cancelled
19 for summer recess.
20 11. ADJOURNMENT:
21 Commissioner Landis moved and Commissioner Taillon seconded
22 the motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
23
24
25
26
27
Scott Pozza, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director
S: \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2005 Draft \05.0614 special -pcm.doc
ITEM: 6.13.
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 28, 2005 Regular Meeting
Paqe 1
1 The Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on June
2 28, 2005, in the City Council Chambers; Moorpark Civic Center;
3 799 Moorpark Avenue; Moorpark, California; 93021.
4 1. CALL TO ORDER:
5 Vice -Chair Peskay called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
6 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
7 Commissioner Landis led the Pledge of Allegiance.
8 3. ROLL CALL:
9 Present: Commissioners DiCecco, Landis and
10 Taillon, and Vice -Chair Peskay.
11 Absent: Chair Pozza
12 Staff Present: David Bobardt, Planning Manager; Laura
13 Stringer, Administrative Services
14 Manager; Joseph Fiss, Principal
15 Planner; Ed Courton, Associate Planner;
16 and Gail Rice, Administrative
17 Secretary.
18 4. PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
19 Vice -Chair Peskay announced the Annual Fireworks
20 Extravaganza, would take place on Sunday - July 3rd from
21 4:00 to 9:00 P.M. at Arroyo Vista Park.
22 5. REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
23 CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the Commission to hear
24 items 8.E., 8.A. and 8.D. prior to considering items 8.B
25 and 8.C, which would be considered together; then followed
26 by the remainder of the agenda as written.
27 6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
28 None.
29 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
30 None.
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2005
Draft \05_0628 _pcm.doc 0 ()f; 0c' S'
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 28, 2005 Regular Meeting
Page 2
1 AT THIS POINT in the meeting Item 8.E. was heard.
2 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
3 (next Resolution No. 2005 -481)
4 E. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -05, Zone
5 Change No. 2004 -04, and Residential Planned
6 Development No. 2004 -06 to Allow Construction of 200
7 Apartments on Approximately 10.57 Acres South of Casey
8 Road and West of Walnut Canyon Road on the Application
9 of Essex Portfolio, L.P. (Staff: David Bobardt)
10 Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing, take
11 public testimony, and continue the item to August 23,
12 2005, with the public hearing open.
13 Mr. Bobardt gave the staff report.
14 Vice -Chair Peskay opened the public hearing.
15 In response to Vice -Chair Peskay, Mr. Bobardt stated there
16 were no speakers.
17 MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Commissioner Landis
18 seconded a motion to continue the public hearing open to
19 the August 23, 2005 Regular Planning Commission meeting.
20 The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Chair Pozza absent.
21 AT THIS POINT in the meeting Item 8.A. was heard.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
A. Consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2004 -06 to
Chapter 17.40 (Sign Requirements) to Address
Banner /Special Event Signing, Open House, Garage Sale
Signing and to Reorganize the Sign Regulations for
Greater Clarity and Ease of Use (Continued from March
22n and April 12, 2005)
Staff Recommendation: 1) Accept
close the public hearing; and 2)
PC -2005- recommending to the
of ZOA No. 2004 -06 without
signing. (Staff: David Bobardt)
33 Mr. Bobardt gave the staff report.
public testimony and
Adopt Resolution No.
City Council approval
adding freeway pylon
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2005
Draft \05 0628_pcm.doc
0 0C
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 28, 2005 Regular Meeting
Paae 3
1 The Commission questioned staff regarding pylon and onsite
2 signs in commercial and manufacturing zones.
3 Vice -Chair Peskay continued the public hearing open.
4 David Morehead, M &M Development, was not in support of the
5 ordinance and requested more consideration to pylon signs
6 for his project at Collins and Campus Park Drive.
7 The Commission questioned staff on sign heights and
8 locations, process required for needed changes, removal of
9 signs in violation of the ordinance.
10 Vice -Chair Peskay closed the public hearing.
11 The Commission discussed procedures required for a
12 developer to request a change in the City Code and whether
13 pylon signs would be allowed on Los Angeles Avenue.
14 MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Commissioner Landis
15 seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation to adopt
16 Resolution No. PC- 2005 -481, with amendments to allow pylon
17 signs only for commercial retail shopping centers of 50,000
18 square feet or larger and only when located adjacent to the
19 SR -23 or SR -118 freeways. The motion carried by voice vote
20 4 -0, Chair Pozza absent.
21 AT THIS POINT in the meeting Item 8.D. was heard.
22 D. Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -04,
23 Commercial Planned Development No. 2004 -03 and
24 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -04, Consisting of an
25 Amendment to the Land Use Element that Would Allow
26 Sales, Distribution and Warehousing in the City's
27 designated General Commercial Land Use Area and a
28 Retail Center with a One -Story (With Mezzanine Level)
29 115,000 sq. ft. Single Tenant Building Over Thirty -
30 Five Feet (351) in Height and a 17,500 sq. ft. One -
31 Story Commercial Building on 8.15 -acres Located on the
32 North Side of New Los Angeles Avenue /White Sage Road,
33 Immediately East of the SR -23 Freeway, on the
34 Application of Brian Poliquin (Staff: David Bobardt)
35 Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing,
36 accept public testimony and close the public hearing;
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2005
Draft \05_0628 _pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 28, 2005 Regular Meeting
Pane 4
1 and 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC -2005- recommending
2 to the City Council conditional approval of General
3 Plan Amendment 2004 -04, Commercial Planned
4 Development Permit No. 2004 -03, and Conditional Use
5 Permit 2005 -04.
6 Mr. Bobardt gave the staff report.
7 The Commission questioned staff whether the General Plan
8 Amendment language would set any precedent for other
9 projects.
10 Vice -Chair Peskay opened the public hearing.
11 Brian Poliquin, applicant for Warehouse Discount Center,
12 spoke in support of the project and commented that the
13 Conditional Use Permit application was for additional
14 building height.
15 The Commission questioned applicant on excessive parking
16 for the site, the location of building equipment and
17 calculation of daily traffic trips to the warehouse.
18 Dale E. Jackson, resident, spoke in opposition but
19 supported the project and commented on the Sphere of
20 Influence, the residents affected by traffic generated from
21 this project and requested the addition of a traffic signal
22 on Nogales or Avenida Colonia.
23 Vice -Chair Peskay closed the public hearing.
24 The Commission discussed and recommended applicant enhance
25 the landscaping on the fagade facing the 23 Freeway, deeper
26 recess of the glazing windows, adding a pedestrian walkway,
27 and substitution of landscaping for excessive parking.
28 MOTION: Commissioner DiCecco moved and Commissioner Landis
29 seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation and adopt
30 Resolution No. PC- 2005 -482, subject to the Commission's
31 recommendation. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Chair
32 Pozza absent.
33 CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the Commission; that items
34 8.B. and 8.C. be heard together.
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2005
Draft \05_0628 _pcm.doc
OPC�0c A
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 28, 2005 Regular Meeting
Page 5
1 B. Consider Residential Planned Development Permit No.
2 1994 -01; Modification No. 6, General Plan Amendment
3 2003 -04, Zone Change 2003 -03, Tentative Map No. 5464
4 for Thirty -six (36) Single - family Residential Homes on
5 28.69 acres, North of Championship Drive, and West of
6 Walnut Canyon Road, on the Application of Toll
7 Brothers, Inc. (Staff: Joseph Fiss)
8 Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, take
9 public testimony and close the public hearing; and 2)
10 Adopt Resolution No. PC -2005- recommending to the
11 City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative
12 Declaration and recommending approval of General Plan
13 Amendment No. 2003 -04, Zone Change No. 2003 -03,
14 Tentative Map No. 5464, and Residential Planned
15 Development Permit No. 1994 -01 Modification No. 6.
16 MOTION: Approved staff recommendation, including adoption
17 of Resolution PC- 2005 -483. (2:0 voice vote, Vice -Chair
18 Peskay abstained, Commissioner Landis recused himself and
19 Chair Pozza absent.)
20 C. Consider Residential Planned Development Permit No.
21 2003 -04, General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -04, Zone
22 Change No. 2003 -03, and Tentative Map No. 5463 for
23 Fifty -One (51) Single - family Homes on 43.04 Acres
24 North of Championship Drive and East of Grimes Canyon
25 Road, on the Application of Toll Brothers, Inc.
26 (Staff: Joseph Fiss)
27 Staff Recommendation: 1) Open the public hearing, take
28 public testimony and close the public hearing; and 2)
29 Adopt Resolution No. PC -2005- recommending to the
30 City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative
31 Declaration and recommending approval of General Plan
32 Amendment No. 2003 -04, Zone Change No. 2003 -03,
33 Tentative Map No. 5464, and Residential Planned
34 Development Permit No. 1994 -01 Modification No. 6.
35 Commissioner Landis recused himself and left the dais for
36 Item Nos. 8.B. and 8.C.
37 Mr. Fiss gave the staff report.
38 Vice -Chair Peskay opened the public hearing.
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \F'.DMIN \COMMISSION \MINU'T'ES \2005
Draft \05_0628_pcm.doc
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 28, 2005 Regular Meeting
Paqe 6
1 Craig Messi, applicant, spoke in support of the project and
2 commented on compliance with the Hillside Ordinance,
3 physical constraints on the project and that public hearing
4 notification had included the current residents within the
5 Toll project.
6 Rob Talmadge, Jenson Design and Engineering, representative
7 for applicant, spoke in support of the project.
8 The Commission questioned applicant on the location of the
9 ancient landslide, and modifications to Grimes Canyon Road.
10 Nina and Gordon Mazur, residents, spoke in support of the
11 project and commented that truck traffic had been an
12 ongoing issue for years on Walnut Canyon and the proposed
13 development was not the cause.
14 Scott Husted, resident, spoke in support of the project and
15 provided a history of the property.
16
Tamara Husted, resident, spoke in support of the project.
17
David A Jacobs, resident, spoke in opposition of
the
18
project and commented on the density.
19
Carla Ryhal, land use lawyer, spoke in support of
the
20
project and commented on the Mitigated Negative
21
Declaration.
22
Mike Sullivan, resident, was in support of the project
and
23
stated concerns with the density, open space and park
or
24
recreational facilities for the development.
25
Tracy Ourhaun, resident, spoke in opposition of
the
26
project.
27
Chris Rodenfels, resident, spoke in opposition of
the
28
project and commented on the drainage issues.
29
The Commission questioned the applicant on the dedication
30
of open space.
31
Vice -Chair Peskay closed the public hearing.
\ \Mor__pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2005
Draft \05_0628 _pcm.doc
ow., 011
Planning Commission, City of Moorpark, California
Minutes of June 28, 2005 Regular Meeting
Page 7
1 The Commission discussed density, infill and public
2 notification of the hearing.
3 MOTION: Approved staff recommendation, including adoption
4 of Resolution PC- 2005 -484. (2:0 voice vote, Vice -Chair
5 Peskay abstained, Commissioner Landis recused himself and
6 Chair Pozza absent.)
7 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
8 None.
9 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
10 A. July 26, 2005 (Summer Recess)
11 B. August 23, 2005
12 • GPA 2004 -05, ZC 2004 -04, and RPD 2004 -06 (Essex
13 Portfolio, L.P.)
14 • RPD 2004 -05, TTM 5347 (Birdsall)
15 • ZOA No. 2003 -04 Animal Keeping Ordinance
16 • ZOA No. 2005 -02 Art in Public Places Ordinance
17 Mr. Bobardt briefly discussed future agenda items,
18 including that the July 26, 2005 Regular meeting would be
19 cancelled for summer recess.
20 11. ADJOURNMENT:
21 Commissioner DiCecco moved and Commissioner Taillon
22 seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:53 p.m.
23
24 Scott Pozza, Chair
25 ATTEST:
26
27 Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \ADMIN \COMMISSION \MINUTES \2005
Draft \05_0628 _pcm.doc
ITEM: 8.A.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Mana a `
DATE: August 18, 2005 (PC Meeting of 8/23/2005)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -05, Zone Change
No. 2004 -04, and Residential Planned Development No.
2004 -06 to Allow Construction of 200 Apartments on
Approximately 10.57 Acres South of Casey Road and West of
Walnut Canyon Road on the Application of Essex Portfolio,
L.P.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
On June 28, 2005, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing
on this agenda item and continued the matter to August 23, 2005, to
allow the applicant time to make revisions to the project. Staff
has received plans for the revised project and is working with the
applicant on further revisions. It is expected that revisions will
be available for Planning Commission review at the September
Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Take public testimony, and continue the item with the public
hearing still open to September 27, 2005.
Attachment:
Planning Commission June 28, 2005 Agenda Report.
\ \Mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \2004 -06 Essex Apts.(old high
school) \Agenda Rpts \PC050823 Staff Report.doc 0 t 0
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Director ((��
Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Mana
DATE: June 21, 2005 (PC Meeting of 6/28/2005)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -05, Zone Change
No. 2004 -04, and Residential Planned Development No.
2004 -06 to Allow Construction of 200 Apartments on
Approximately 10.57 Acres South of Casey Road and West of
Walnut Canyon Road on the Application of Essex Portfolio,
L.P.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
On September 24, 2004, applications for a General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, and Residential Planned Development Permit were
submitted by Essex Portfolio, L.P., for the construction of a 200 -
unit apartment complex that would take access from Casey Road, just
east of the Moorpark Boys and Girls Club Gymnasium. The project
also involves a request for a Development Agreement with the City.
A City Council Ad -Hoc Committee (Mayor Hunter and Mayor Pro -Tem
Harper) was established to discuss the development of the property
with the former owner (Moorpark Unified School District) as well as
with the present owner (Colmer Development). More recently, the
Ad -Hoc Committee and staff have also been discussing development of
the property with the applicant, Essex Portfolio, L.P. As a
result, the applicant has been making refinements to the design.
The applicant was unable to complete plans in time for
consideration at this meeting and has requested a continuance of
the public hearing. The public hearing for June 28, 2005, had
already been advertised in the newspaper and notice mailed to
property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and continue the
item to August 23, 2005, with the public hearing open.
\ \mor_pri_eerv\City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \2004 -06 Essex Apts.(old high
school) \Agenda Rpts \PCO50628 Staff Report.doc
PC ATTACHMENT O0C.O1°
ITEM: 8.13.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development DirecWn
By Laura Stringer, Administrative Services ger,./
DATE: August 15, 2005 (PC Meeting of 8/23/05)
SUBJECT: Consider Tentative Parcel Map No. 5589 for the
Subdivision of an Approximate 0.28 Acre Parcel Located at
14364 Princeton Avenue. Applicant: Jose Villalobos
Rangel (APN: 513 -0- 032 -23)
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION
On February 26, 2005, Jose Villalobos Rangel submitted an
application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 5589 to subdivide a 0.28
acre parcel into two parcels (6,830 and 6,017 square feet) at 14364
Princeton Avenue (formerly Los Angeles Avenue). Due to
inconsistencies with the current General Plan designation (M-
Medium/4du/ac), Mr. Villalobos has withdrawn the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Remove Tentative Parcel Map No. 5589 from the agenda.
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \T P M \5589 Villalobos \Agenda Rpt�§)\ c
O5_0823withdraw.doc V O r:0 J
ITEM: 8.C.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Direc
Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Man to e
DATE: August 18, 2005 (PC Meeting of 8/23/2005)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -06, Zone Change
No. 2004 -05, Tentative Tract Map No. 5576 and Residential
Planned Development No. 2004 -07 to Allow Construction of
56 Single - Family Homes with Street Access from Park Lane
and Preservation of the Birkenshaw House for Public Use
at 251 Moorpark Avenue, on the Application of Comstock
Homes
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
On December 16, 2004, applications for a General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map and Residential Planned
Development Permit were submitted by Comstock Homes for a single -
family home subdivision and preservation of the Birkenshaw House on
approximately 8.84 acres of land north of the Moorpark Town Center
between Moorpark Avenue and Park Lane. A development agreement is
also sought for this project. Staff has been working with the
applicant on the overall site design, as well as the layout of
individual lots. The resulting plan includes 56 homes on compact
lots with access from Park Lane. The Birkenshaw House, built in
1920, would be preserved for public use as part of the development.
The exact uses are still being discussed by City staff and the
applicant and will be addressed through the development agreement.
Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to open the public
hearing and provide staff with any preliminary questions or issues
that the Planning Commission would like to be addressed. A
complete staff report and recommendation on the project will be
presented to the Planning Commission at the September 27, 2005
meeting. A landscape plan, site plan, floor plans, and building
elevations are attached, along with a Historic Resources Report,
for Planning Commission review.
\ \Mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \R P D \2004 -07 Comstock Homes \Ag R1� -,
Rpts \PC050823 Staff Report.doc 1 . o i c
Honorable Planning Commission
August 23, 2005
Page 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing and take public testimony, and continue the
item with the public hearing open to September 27, 2005.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Development Plans
2. Historic Resources Report
J
to
0
0
1
z
C)
0
FA
cc
MOORPARK
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
CONSTMMES
321 12TH ST SUITE 200
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
(310) 5r &5781
j.
ct
J
ii Iq
�D
�D M"
powm— �,Go
-7:
ff
IV
G PUBUC UrILITILS%SERVICES
In n. veer.. —wesor
507 77
-.0—W
CIVIL MINEFR:
M"-ZoLLM
7"
OWNER/DEMOPER
j
VICINITY MAP
SITE SUMMARY PARKING a•MARY
ARCHITECT:
uoss ones am W/�
W/— 0::
7
,14-
I.A
kr
A
Ic I.—V
Ore T-
SE(MION-A-A' SECTION "B-6"
SECTION "CC MMSECTIN "DO' 'A' SREE�-CROSS SECTION -B- STREET - CR055 SECTION - Om5- MO -a M SECTION "E-E"
,s c mwr ss �E LANE SACK (71055 SECTION WRPARKAVE.SEtBACK CRONis SS SECTION
NTS
CITY [CONCEPTUAL GRAIN
CM OF MOORPARK ITY OF MOORPARK GRADING, PAVING, AND DRAINAGE PLAN
F-
TENTATWE TRACT MAP #5576
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
LEGEND
2—
o
&-TR t T
TC w w
ct
J
ii Iq
�D
�D M"
powm— �,Go
-7:
ff
IV
G PUBUC UrILITILS%SERVICES
In n. veer.. —wesor
507 77
-.0—W
CIVIL MINEFR:
M"-ZoLLM
7"
OWNER/DEMOPER
j
VICINITY MAP
SITE SUMMARY PARKING a•MARY
ARCHITECT:
uoss ones am W/�
W/— 0::
7
,14-
I.A
kr
A
Ic I.—V
Ore T-
SE(MION-A-A' SECTION "B-6"
SECTION "CC MMSECTIN "DO' 'A' SREE�-CROSS SECTION -B- STREET - CR055 SECTION - Om5- MO -a M SECTION "E-E"
,s c mwr ss �E LANE SACK (71055 SECTION WRPARKAVE.SEtBACK CRONis SS SECTION
NTS
CITY [CONCEPTUAL GRAIN
CM OF MOORPARK ITY OF MOORPARK GRADING, PAVING, AND DRAINAGE PLAN
F-
TENTATWE TRACT MAP #5576
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
CRAFTSMAN
R E S I D E N C E O N E
FRONT ELEVATIONS
MOOYyark
IIII IIII11I111111111 VIII IIIIIII' M WILLIAM HEZMALHALC II
OORPARK, CALIFORNIA lI i
A •I iE C i5 NC.
M�1Ik�! fVRl�f�ll� `G�fI6YY
TI>' +wry EO LSD
COMSTOCK HOMES
r�
RfGHT
LEFT
REAR
FRONT
RESIDENCE ONE A
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Moor y a r k . -- -
IIIIIIII III II IIII 1111111 II IIIII WILLIAM MELMALHALCH
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA A R C" I* f e r I 4 e
COMSTOCK HOMES ��� �
r�
N,
Z *J
RIGHT
LEFT
REAR
t
R E S I D E N C E O N E B
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
- Mooryark
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
- COMSTOCK HOMES
va
WILLIAM H LHALCH i
AA R C H I i E C f S I N C
OPT. LOFT
WRATH
SERJ
B®RM 3
BATH 2
CJ
FAMNLY
ac
2-CAR . ACU
-13
1,743 TOTAL SQ, FT. L5 1� 71'
3 BDRM/3 BATH/OPT. LOFT
2-CAR GARAGE
R E S I D E N C E ONE
F L 0 0 R P L A N S
m o o ry a r k wt
WILLIAM HEZ M ALHALCH
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA A Q C H I T E C T s 1 4 c
COMSTOCK HOMES
A - CRAFTSMAN
RESIDENCE TWO
F R O N T E L E V A T I O NS
Mooryark
(z i " " " "'i " " " "'i " " " "'t MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
iV COMSTOCK HOMES
7 USCAN
Wlq CIHM Hu MA
a ��rdID a rw,�s a
RIGHT
"1►
LIMA]
REAR
FRONT
RESIDENCE TWO A
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Mo o ry ark
WILLIAM HEZM ALHALCH
uuumliuunidnnmul MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA A R C H I T E c T s I NC
COMSTOCK HOMES -
-.._-
RIGHT
I
_ I
L
LEFT
REAR
RESIDENCE TWO B
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
moo ryark
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
COMSTOCK HOMES
FRONT
vv
WILLIAM HLHALCII
ARC I T I CIS MC
M lll> }0 •p
I
La
.1, 41'0�
U-7
BDRM 2
BDRM 3
ra ac v;r x
ac
�TD ----- --
2 CAR GE
2,401 TOTAL SQ. FT.
5 BDRM/3 BATH/OPT. DEN;
OPT. M. RETREAT
2-CAR GARAGE LOT SIZE 45 x 8
R E S I D E N C E T W 0
F L O O R P L A N S
m o o ry a r k
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
COMSTOCK HOMES
WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH
ARCHITECTS INC,
wic
IL
N -
BATH
I
�%OCM
IR
A x v
; L
OPT. M RETREAT
M 41 41
j
.1, 41'0�
U-7
BDRM 2
BDRM 3
ra ac v;r x
ac
�TD ----- --
2 CAR GE
2,401 TOTAL SQ. FT.
5 BDRM/3 BATH/OPT. DEN;
OPT. M. RETREAT
2-CAR GARAGE LOT SIZE 45 x 8
R E S I D E N C E T W 0
F L O O R P L A N S
m o o ry a r k
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
COMSTOCK HOMES
WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH
ARCHITECTS INC,
CRAFTSMAN
C V
R E S I D E N C E T H R E E
F R ON T E L E VAT E ON S
moo ryark
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
COMSTOCK HOMES
B - TUSCAN
WILLIAM HE CH
C 3 1
� 4 C H I i E C i 5 NC I
wmsl �.. rr�aN.�rw�iw
>r
'7 b'2
r
RIGHT
LEFT
REAR
RESIDENCE THREE A
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
moo rya rk
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
COMSTOCK HOMES
FRONT
wl _
WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH
A R C N I T F C T S NC
RIGHT
LEFT
REAR
2
FRONT
RESIDENCE THREE B
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
°I
m o o ry ark
II till IIIII1111111I W Am ILU HEZM I CALHALCH
RC I T E C
IIIIIIIIIIII
[+l MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA `u,�I
�/ I.___. A✓ .w a YI �A _
--' COMSTOCK 1 -TOMES
f
LOFT
OFT. LOFT AT SE)RM 4
o
C4
fA
1. 35'-(r
Li
iK,
STOFUO".
8DW 5
2,515 TOTAL 50, F
4 BDRM/2.5 BATH/OPT.TLOFT/
OPT BDRM 51 OPT. RETTEAT
2-CAR GARAGE
x 85'-
R E S I D E N C E T H R EE
F L 0 0 R P L A N S
o o ry a r k
WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA A k C N , T E C T N C
COMSTOCK HOMES
BDPW
x v!
OPT. BORM 5 AT STORAGE
A - CRAFTSMAN
5 - IUNLAN
R ESIDENCF. FOUR
FRONT ELEVATIONS
A4 o o ry a r k wl
__ - - - --
WILLIAM HLHALCH I Law
Ohiuuull:nuunluunlnl MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA A R C H I 1 E C T S : N C
Cti -- COMSTOCK HOMES
RIG 111
LEFT
r
L 'J
s
e�
REAR
RESIDENCE FOUR A
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
moo rya rk
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
COMSTOCK HOMES
FRONI
MR
WILLIAM HLHALCH
A R C N f E C i S Y C
RIGHT
LEFT
REAR
FKONT
RESIDENCF. FOUR B
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Mooryark
iuuwnllununi'I " "II'�t MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
COMSTOCK HOMES
bti
WILLIAM HEZ
A Q C n 1 1 E C T 5 I N C
NOR t LRS R!MMIO m� m
.4Y -(r
2,930 TOTAL SQ. FT.
5 �DRM/4 BATH/lECH
2-CAR GARAGE LOT SIZE 45' x
R E S I D E N C E F 0 U R
F L 0 0 R P L A N S
moo ry ark
WILLIAM tlEZ ALHALCI-I
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA AIC�, �ICll I
• . .
COMSTOCK HOMES
N KrrcK.N
Ak RATH
F,
4
!I�t
. °v
Es
FAMIY
MM
wic
7
Al'l 3
A TH 3
T
X,
� w
c—
bVING..
B TH
E?MY
BORM 3
•Z
P71T
'COL AZTYARD
BUIRM 5
7
. U
i
TI-I 2
2 CM Gk"CZ
2,930 TOTAL SQ. FT.
5 �DRM/4 BATH/lECH
2-CAR GARAGE LOT SIZE 45' x
R E S I D E N C E F 0 U R
F L 0 0 R P L A N S
moo ry ark
WILLIAM tlEZ ALHALCI-I
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA AIC�, �ICll I
• . .
COMSTOCK HOMES
HISTORIC RESOURCES REPORT
251 MOORPARK AVENUE
MOO R PA R K, CA
19 April 2005
Prepared for:
Comstock Homes
321 12th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Prepared by:
[USSAN BUENAVENTURA
!� RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
MISTORIC • RESOURCES • CONSULTING
n 152 WOODLAND DRIV[ ■SANTA tAUTA CA 930601
PC ATTACHMENT 2
00 «031 I
1. Introduction
This report was prepared for the purpose of assisting the City of Moorpark, California with respect to the
treatment of the Birkenshaw residence and property at 251 Moorpark Avenue regarding the development of the
entire property (APN 511 -0- 080 -355), in response to the offer by the family to donate a portion of the prop-
erty including the residence to the city. (Figure 1]
This report discusses the historical background of the property, describes the buildings and landscaping and
assesses the historical and architectural significance of this property in accordance with the City of Moorpark
Landmark Criteria for Evaluation. An accompanying report to this document entitled "Birkenshaw Residence
Adaptive Reuse Analysis" has been prepared by Gary E. Blum, Historic Resources Consultant.
This report was prepared by San Buenaventura Research Associates of Santa Paula, California (Judy Triem, His-
torian; Mitch Stone, Preservation Planner) for Comstock Homes of Manhattan Beach, California, and is based
on a field investigation and research conducted in February and March, 2005.
2. Historical Background of James Birkenshaw and the Birkenshaw Ranch
Brief Historical Background of Moorpark
The town of Moorpark was established along the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way in 1900 by Robert and
Madeline R. Poindexter. Poindexter had acquired a portion of the former Rancho Simi lands, known as the "Lit-
tle Simi" from Thomas Scott, who had purchased 99,009 acres in 1864 to explore for oil. After having little
success at oil development, Rancho Simi was sold to a syndicate, among whose members was Thomas Bard. In
1887 the syndicate established the Simi Land and Water Company to subdivide and sell the lands. Robert
Poindexter was hired as secretary of this company.
Poindexter laid out the town lots surrounding the depot. By April 6, 1900, the railroad station, a section
house, corral and chutes for cattle had been constructed. Trains arrived daily from Montalvo. High Street, par-
alleling the railroad tracks just north of the depot, became the commercial district. The Southern Pacific Mill-
ing Company warehouse was built adjacent to the railroad tracks. A Methodist Church building and parsonage
from the nearby community of Epworth were moved into Moorpark in 1907 on land located at Walnut and
Charles streets and donated by the Poindexter family. A school was also moved from Peach Hill into the town
to land donated for a school by the Poindexters. The first newspaper, the Moorpark Star, began operation in
1910. The Moorpark Hotel was built across from the depot at High and Bard streets. In 1915 the Moorpark
Walnut Growers Association built a warehouse next to the railroad where growers could take their walnuts for
grading, bleaching and shipping, thus providing jobs for local citizens during the walnut season.
The Southern Pacific Warehouse stored locally grown grain, including barley, oats, wheat and black -eyed
beans. Grains were stored for both seed and feed purposes, with about thirty percent sold for seed. The black -
eyed beans were cleaned, packed and shipped to southern states. During apricot season, in July, the dried
fruit was weighed and shipped through the warehouse.
Apricots the first and most successful crop raised in the Moorpark area with around 1,000 acres devoted to
apricots in 1915. During the 1920s and 1930s, apricot cultivation reached its preeminence. The name Moor-
park was taken from a variety of apricot, although it was the royal apricot that was grown by most ranches in
later years. The warm, dry inland climate, free from coastal fog, provided an ideal climate for this crop. Moor-
park became known as the apricot center of Ventura County.
_r
I�
� f
r�1
J Imo_', - =1RM
It •
{l ;
11•
II•
Il•
Ila
I I
II;
II 6
II:
Ilr
II +w
II'
n=
2.
SITE LOCATION
Source: 7.5 Min. USGS Quadrangle, Moorpark (1951, rev 1969, 1974)
I �
•
a
0
■ am
E- 0600 rt
0••6.0.
rtrsr.66s
6000.
006601
*6!!'
s6%664
•066W
R!•t91
•o*
9011401
lb ,� ..
San Buenaventura Research AgWa� ies 34
Historic Resources Report: 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (2)
During picking season, families traveled to Moorpark from many parts of California to pick and pit apricots,
often living in tents on the ranches during the few weeks in July when harvesting occurred. During the 1920s
Moorpark held an apricot festival at the end of the season, promoted by the Chamber of Commerce, which
wanted to put Moorpark "on the map," and publicity campaigns touted "Moorpark, Star of the Valley" and
"Home of the Apricot." (Gunter, 1969: 111)
The town experienced slow but steady growth. By the 1920s, High Street merchants provided most conven-
iences to the local population —a grocery store, bank, elementary school, hardware store restaurants and agri-
cultural related businesses serving the surrounding farmers. During the 1930s, Moorpark was the only town in
the east county to boast a movie theater. The Moorpark Theatre, built around 1930, provided entertainment
not just to local residents but to the nearby communities of Simi Valley, Somis, Camarillo, and Thousand Oaks.
During the Depression, many ranchers began to raise poultry for egg production. By 1961, poultry became a
prominent area business when Julius Goldman established Egg City, with a million -hen capacity.
Moorpark remained a rural agricultural community until the mid- 1970s, when Moorpark College was built east
of town, and Campus Park, a 1,500 unit residential subdivision was constructed near the college. During the
1980s growth continued with development south of the original townsite. In addition, commercial develop-
ment occurred along Highway 118. During this time, the older commercial district along High Street (original
Highway 118) was redeveloped. Many older buildings, including the railroad depot, were demolished. Others
were modified by the attachment of Western facade to the building. Moorpark incorporated in 1983.
Historical Background of James Birkenshaw and family: 1892 to 1920
James Birkenshaw was the fourth of eleven children born to Henry and Emma Birkenshaw. His parents had
emigrated to Canada from England. They were farmers, eventually owning two farms in the County of Kent,
Ontario. Born in Ridgetown, Ontario on December 4, 1867, James Birkenshaw came to California in 1886 to
work on a grape ranch in the Santa Cruz Mountains owned by one of two brothers he'd known in Canada. In
1892 he moved to Ventura County to work on the ranch of the other brother, David Finney. Birkenshaw lived
on the property and managed his 120 acre apricot ranch in the Fairview district.
By 1894 Birkenshaw decided to homestead his own property in the Fairview district. He filed his homestead
claim at the recorder's office on October 17, 1894 on an 80 acre parcel. He planted apricots on his land, and
soon became acquainted with local apricot grower Aratus Everett. In June 1909 Birkenshaw married Everett's
daughter, Edith. Their first child Mary Edith was born on October 23, 1910; followed by Eva Louise on Novem
ber 11, 1911; Howard James on January 18, 1913; and George Everett on May 24, 1914.
Aratus Everett, born in Michigan in 1845, came to Ventura County in 1869 to work for an uncle in Montalvo.
He married Eva Gerry and the couple had five children, including Edith. By 1890 Everett had purchased 143
acres in what later would become the Moorpark area and planted apricot trees, eventually becoming one of
the largest apricot growers in the county. Between 1892 and 1913 he had acquired three additional ranches
for a total of 1,835 acres. Everett and his family remained on their Montalvo ranch until around 1908, when
they built a house and moved to Moorpark.
The Birkenshaw family: 1920 to present
Apricots were a successful crop for Birkenshaw. He was able to purchase additional land, including a 36.17
acre parcel located on Moorpark Avenue and Highway 118, from Thomas and Elizabeth Hill on November 23,
Historic Resources Report: 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (3)
1916. A house was built in 1920, designed by Los Angeles architect Alfred Priest. By this time, the children
were all of school age, and a bedroom was planned for each child.
Precisely why the family moved to Moorpark is unknown, but they were probably motivated to be closer to the
social and economic life of the growing town. Schools, a church, numerous stores and the railroad, all of
which could be found in Moorpark by 1920, would have eased the family's daily activities. The Birkenshaw's
had always wanted a walnut orchard, and it is believed the property contained walnut trees when it was pur-
chased from the Hills.
In 1933, as a member of the Simi Lion's Club, Birkenshaw spoke to the club about the walnut industry in Cali-
fornia from his perspective as board member of the Moorpark Walnut Growers Association and of the State
central board of the California Walnut Industry. He began by telling the group, "About seventeen years ago, I
decided I wanted a walnut orchard," and then proceeded to tell them how Northern California was producing
superior walnuts compared to Southern California. He predicted that within fifty years, that no walnuts would
be grown south of Ventura County. This prediction came true sooner than he forecasted —by 1970, virtually no
walnut orchards remained in Ventura County (Moorpark Enterprise, 8/3/33).
James Birkenshaw took his knowledge of the walnut industry to heart and replaced the walnut trees on his
home property with Valencia orange trees around 1939. The family also owned acreage in the San Fernando
Valley which was planted in both walnuts and citrus during the 1920s and 1930s. Edith Birkenshaw also
owned land outside of Moorpark inherited from her family. Crop records made during the Depression indicate
that the family continued to profit from their walnut trees.
In addition to Birkenshaws involvement in agriculture, he also found time to volunteer in the community. He
was elected vice- president of the newly- formed Moorpark Chamber of Commerce in 1923. This was an impor-
tant period in the growth of Moorpark, which was advertising in Eastern newspapers to attract new settlers. A
water district was formed during this time and Birkenshaw was involved with its establishment. Birkenshaw
also served as a trustee for the Flory Street School and on the board of directors of the new American Com-
mercial and Savings Bank that opened a new branch in Moorpark in 1921.
The Moorpark Community Methodist Church was very important to James Birkenshaw, who no doubt was influ-
enced by his own father, an active Canadian Methodist who served as the Superintendent of the Sunday
School. James Birkenshaw was a church trustee and taught the boy's Sunday School class. James also served
on the finance committee. James and Edith donated a parcel of land to the Northridge Methodist Church in
1926. When a new church building was constructed in Moorpark in 1951, the Birkenshaw family, as well as the
Everett family, were among the largest donors. The Birkenshaws donated the alter, and Mrs. Grace Everett, the
Wurtitzer organ.
James Birkenshaw died at the age of 82 on February 1, 1950.
Edith Birkenshaw
Edith was born in Montalvo on April 14,1878, and attended schools in Montalvo. Having a strong business
sense, Edith helped her father Aratus Everett manage his Moorpark ranch. She inherited the ranch in 1922,
continuing to run it throughout her life.
Edith Birkenshaw served as a deaconess in the Community Church and took her job so seriously that she was
fondly nicknamed "Deke." A firm believer in temperance, she donated to the WCTU, an organization opposed
to alcohol. As a church member, she served on the temperance committee.
000040
Historic Resources Report. 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (4)
In addition to managing the farm she inherited from her family, she found time for artistic pursuits. She took
up oil painting and a number of her landscapes and still lifes are found throughout the house today. A quilt-
ing group met in the play room at the Birkenshaw home from the 1920s through the 1940s. Some of the quilt-
ing frames and supports remain in the playroom.
Edith opened up their home to local teachers who had a difficult time finding housing in Moorpark. The bed-
room at the end of the upstairs hallway was reserved for teachers. One of the teachers, Willie Kantz, who
taught the Mexican children, lived at the Birkenshaw house for thirteen years. The family also entertained the
teachers and other guests at dinner in the large dining room on numerous occasions.
Her grandchildren, Jim Birkenshaw and Linda Birkenshaw Kelley, recall their grandmother as a small woman
(barely five feet in height) but a real dynamo, with tremendous fortitude. She ran the house of four children
and guest teachers as well as the Everett farm. In the early days, everything was done by hand — washing
clothes, ironing, canning, etc. Linda Birkenshaw Kelley remembers the family making grape juice from the
concord grapes they raised behind the main house, which was used for the church communion, and one hu-
morous occasion when her grandmother was bringing the bottles up from the cellar, the bottle had fermented,
exploding its purple juice all over the ceiling.
Edith died on April 10, 1958 at the age of seventy -nine.
Birkenshaw Children
Mary Edith Birkenshaw was the first child, born on October 23, 1910, and lived the longest of the four chil-
dren, surviving just one day short of her 90th birthday. She lived in the family home almost her entire life
except for the brief time she attended Santa Barbara Teacher's College. She apparently never completed her
studies and returned home. She never worked outside the house and never married. Following her parents
death, she lived in and maintained the house until her own death in 2000. She was a very reclusive woman
and did not join local organizations, instead focusing her attention on her immediate family and running the
house. Her brother Howard managed the orchard until 1985, when his health began to fail. Howard's son Jim,
along with his wife JJ, managed the property from 1985 until the present.
Portions of the ranch were sold off. Around 1981 the oranges were removed on what became the shopping
center in 1983, south of the remaining property. The remaining orchard behind the house was removed in
1992, the last year oranges were harvested on the property.
Eva Louise Birkenshaw was born November 11, 1911. She attended Moorpark schools and graduated from UCLA
with a teaching degree. She did not pursue teaching, however, but went to work for an orthopedist in Los
Angeles. She married late in life (1959) to Ed McGuire, and the couple moved to Arizona. She died in 1995.
Howard James Birkenshaw, born January 18, 1913, became interested in agriculture at the age of twelve and
helped his father by driving a team of horses in the fields. He did not finish high school but instead worked
on the family farm and eventually married Veda Huston in 1939. Veda had graduated from the University of
Minnesota and worked as a medical technician at St. John's Hospital in Oxnard. The couple raised their family
of three children in Moorpark. The Birkenshaw family acquired the 240 acre Clarence Everett ranch on Highway
118 in 1956 using proceeds from the sale of the San Fernando Valley ranch in Northridge. Birkenshaw was
active in agricultural organizations as a director of the Ventura Tomato Growers Association and the farmers
Water Company. He was also a member of the Ventura Walnut Growers Association and the Santa Paula Orange
Association. He died in 1987 at the age of 74.
Historic Resources Report: 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (5)
George Birkenshaw, the youngest of the children, was born in 1914. He attended UCLA followed by U.C. Davis
where he studied equine breeding. He raised Arabian horses then changed to thoroughbreds. During World War
II, he joined the Army and trained at Camp Roberts before being sent to Belgium, where he earned the Purple
Heart. He purchased the ranch of Frank Everett in 1950 with his brother Howard. He may have been the first
to bring avocados to Moorpark around 1957 -58. He lived at the Birkenshaw house from 1920 to 1968 with his
sister Mary, with whom he was quite close. He married late in life to Betty Lou Meyers in 1968 at the age of
56. He and his new bride purchased a home in Thousand Oaks, where he lived from 1968 until his death in
1976.
3. Property Description
Landscape Setting
The present eight acre (originally thirty -six acre) ranch fronts onto Moorpark Avenue at its eastern boundary;
a shopping center is located on its southern boundary; Park Lane is its western boundary and a residential
property bounds it on the north.
The house is located on the east end of the property with the garage directly behind it and to the north. A
driveway extends straight back to the garage area with an adjacent semi - circular driveway located in front of
the house. A recently constructed wrought iron fence extends across the front of the property. Between the
fence and the house are a number of mature trees, one star pine and the others of an undetermined variety of
pine. A low hedge runs along the perimeter of the semi - circular driveway and also along the straight driveway
and the southern end of the house. On the other side of the hedges are several rows of orange trees that ex-
tend from the front to behind the house.
At the back of the house are several mature palm trees, a grouping of mature California pepper trees, and a
walnut tree from the original orchard. There is also a avocado tree that George Birkenshaw planted for graft-
ing rootstock. Surrounding the rear and side of the house are smaller shrubs -- rose bushes and camellias and
a small plot of grass. At least one of the rose bushes is an old Cecil Brunner rose. North of the house is a red-
wood tree planted in 1996 in memory of Jim and JJ Birkenshaws son, Shawn.
Description of House
The large one - and -a -half story residence is Colonial Revival in style with a symmetrical facade. The modified
L -plan features a tall side gable roof with an intersecting front gable at the rear of the house. The eaves are
boxed with returns, and have a slight overhang with a wide band of trim below, typical of the Colonial Revival
style. A distinctive feature on the front of the house are the two, one -story five -sided bays located at each
corner with their hipped roofs and pairs of French doors on each of the five sides. The porch extends across
the front of the house under a shed roof supported by four large rounded capped columns. Behind the columns
are a series of four pairs of french doors and at each end of the porch is an engaged pilaster with a large
multi -paned front door with sidelights in the center. [Photo 1]
Above the porch is a long shed roof dormer with a pair of two double hung wood windows with multi -panes in
the upper portion divided by a french door opening onto a small balcony. The dormer is covered with shingle
siding.
The remaining windows on the north, south and west elevations are double hung one- over -one wood windows
arranged single, in pairs or in threes with wood mouldings. Under the gable peak is a rounded horizontal vent
ennoI;L
Historic Resources Report. 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (6)
with a decorative keystone. The rear gable roof features a gable dormer window on the southern elevation.
[Photos 2 -4]
The house is covered with narrow rounded clapboard siding. The roof is covered with composition shingles,
and two brick chimneys punctuate the roofline. The house has a partial basement and a poured concrete foun-
dation.
The only apparent change to the exterior of the house is the removal of the gabled dormer window at the rear
of the house on the west elevation. Substituted for this dormer is a skylight window.
The interior of the house has retained its original appearance from the time it was built in 1920. Almost all of
the ceilings are coved. The wood baseboards are intact throughout the house as is the original oak flooring.
Most all of the light fixtures are original. The living room has the original stained wood crown moulding along
the ceiling and surrounding the fireplace. The fireplace tiles were made by Ernest Batchelder, a prominent
tilemaker from Pasadena. Openings between the living room, dining room and sunroom feature French doors.
[Photo 5]
The sunroom is located within the hipped roof bay at the southeast corner of the house. This room features
two built -in book cases with glass doors on either side of the entrance.
The dining room is located to the north of the living room and also has crown moulding. The wood in this
room has been painted. Adjacent to the dining room to the north is the breakfast room under the five sided
bay. A small pantry room connects the breakfast room to the kitchen on the northwest corner of the house.
The kitchen and pantry contain their original floor to ceiling cupboards and drawers. The kitchen tile dates
from circa 1945. Adjacent to the kitchen is the back porch which is enclosed. The rear portion of the house
contains an office, three bedrooms and a bathroom. The upstairs contains a small room for trunk storage,
three bedrooms, a bathroom and the playroom. The bathrooms have the original tiles and tub.
Description of Garoge
The three car garage, built in 1920, is rectangular in plan with a medium side gable roof and exposed rafters
under the eaves. The roof is covered with composition shingles. The three large wood doors slide on overhead
tracks. The garage is covered with horizontal wood siding and rests on a concrete foundation. [Photo 6]
Description of Water Tank
Adjacent to the garage, on the west side, is a large round metal water storage tank used over the years for
storing rainwater. [Photo 6]
Room -by -room Inventory of Significant Items
A preliminary inventory of each room was conducted with Jim Birkenshaw to identify what items are signifi-
cant. The items are described below. It should be noted that this is in no way a complete inventory of all ob-
jects in the house which will be done at a later time.
It should also be noted that original receipts exist from items purchased for the house after its completion in
1920. Many of these items still remain in the house and the receipts can be used establish dates for many
pieces of furniture, rugs, piano, etc.
00C0iV
Historic Resources Report. 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (7)
Living Room. Two Hepplewhite replica tables, piano, shell box from 1880s, small vases and other items on
fireplace mantle, signed print, family photos.
Dining Room. Buffet with fruit bowl and glass vases; items in glass cabinet (cabinet itself only 25 years old)
- Mission plate, glassware and china; dining room table and chairs
Breakfast Room. Table, knickknacks in new cabinet.
Sunroom. Bookcase with school books from early 1900s, yearbooks, bible, autograph books, George Birken-
shaw's baby shoe, painting palette used by Edith Birkenshaw; table, chair; painting by Edith Birkenshaw, fam-
ily photo
Central hall - first floor. Three paintings by Edith Birkenshaw; mirror
Office. James' large desk (contains George's letters from World War II); Edith's small desk filled with numerous
papers including her father's will; silver cup awarded to Edith in 1927 for champion apricot pitter; wooden file
case; two leather chairs (originally in living room); family photos, four Birkenshaw children, Birkenshaw fam-
ily in Canada.
Master bedroom - first floor. At end of hall on southwest corner, original 1920 bedroom set; painting by
Edith Birkenshaws friend from Redlands.
Mary's bedroom - bottom of stairway. Furniture all ca 1880s from Everett family
Bedroom at end of hall on north side. Rug from dining room, dresser.
Kitchen. China dish set in cupboards, custard cups
Second floor Hallway. Library table, bookcase (Everett), early 1900s schoolbooks from Ventura High School,
belonged to Edith's younger sister; painting.
Second floor trunk room and attic area. Everett trunk, ca 1880s, bible stand, business files of James Birken-
shaw (canceled checks, etc.), Barker Brothers catalog from ca 1920.
Eva's bedroom - next to trunk room. Original bedroom set from 1920s.
George's Bedroom - middle bedroom on second floor. Furniture from relatives, desk containing George's army
papers, scrapbook, photos, ribbons won by George in horse shows.
Teacher's Room - end of hall. Original bedroom set from 1920, original rug
Playroom. James Birkenshaw trunk from ca 1880s; Flory Family mahogany dining room set (date unknown);
wicker furniture (originally in sunroom); quilt stands and frame; leather rocker from homestead house.
Additional items held by family. Two fruit box brands for the Everett and Birkenshaw ranches as well as
some large panoramic photographs of the Clarence and Aratus Ranch during apricot harvest in 1911. These
items are in the family collection.
00004AL
Historic Resources Report: 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (8)
There are numerous table floor lamps, china and glass vases, figurines, candlestick holders, etc. throughout
the house. These items will be inventoried at a later date.
Alfred Priest, Architect
James Birkenshaw hired Los Angeles architect Alfred Priest to design the house on Moorpark Avenue in 1919.
Apparently James' brother, John, a San Francisco carpenter, offered to draw up plans for the house in 1918,
but James decided to hire a licensed architect. John apparently constructed the house from plans drawn by
Priest. John Birkenshaw eventually moved to California and died in Los Angeles County in 1945 at the age of
eighty -five.
Alfred Priest was born in Nebraska in 1888 and came to Los Angeles in 1906. His education consisted of night
school classes and as a draftsman in an architectural firm. He eventually opened his own office in Los Ange-
les. His residence was in Glendale. He designed numerous houses, schools, businesses and clubhouses in Ven-
tura County, Glendale and Los Angeles County throughout his short career from circa 1908 to his untimely
death in 1931. His notable buildings in the Los Angeles area include the Theodore Roosevelt Intermediate
School in Los Angeles and the Hoover High School (1928), Elks Club (1918), and the Public Service Building
(1929), all in Glendale. (Withey, 1956: 490)
Alfred Priest gained an early foothold in Ventura County, first working in Oxnard around 1909. He designed a
number of brick buildings in downtown Oxnard and was then asked by the city in 1910 to design the pagoda
for Plaza Park. He branched out to design residences, including many for ranchers. These included a large
Craftsman residence for the Gabe Gisler family in Camarillo in 1911; an 11 room house for Mrs. James Doud in
Oxnard in 1919; a 12 room house for Tom and Anna McLoughlin in 1918; and a ten room hollow tile residence
for James Gill in Somis in 1919.
Priest was responsible for at least twenty -two individual commissions in Ventura County between 1913
through 1930. They included numerous brick commercial buildings in Oxnard, movie theaters in Oxnard and
Santa Paula, and many substantial ranch residences. His styles ranged from Craftsman to the various Period
Revivals of the 192Os: Spanish Colonial, Mediterranean, Colonial Revival, and the Moderne of the 193Os. Per-
haps among his most prominent Ventura County buildings are the Masonic Lodge in Ventura (1929) and the
E.P. Foster Library (1920s, extensively altered in 1950s).
Birkenshaw may have heard about Alfred Priest from other ranchers for whom he had designed houses during
the late 191Os. Priest went on to design an elementary school in Moorpark in 1927, probably at the behest of
James Birkenshaw, who served on the school board and who by then would have been quite familiar with his
work.
4. Significance Discussion
In order to determine the significance of the Birkenshaw property, the Moorpark City Landmarks criteria will
be used as a basis for discussion.
Local Landmark: Significance and Eligibility
Section 15.36.060 of the Moorpark Municipal Code sets out the following criteria for designation of a city
landmark. A building needs to meet only one these criteria to qualify:
0041,045
Historic Resources Report: 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (9)
1. It is associated with persons or events significant in local, state or national history;
2. It reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state or local history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, style or period of architecture or of a method of
construction;
4. It is strongly identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture, history
or development of the area;
5. It is one of the few remaining examples in the area possessing distinguishing characteristics of an
architectural type of specimen;
6. It is notable work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has significantly influenced
the development of the area;
7. It embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represents a
significant architectural innovation;
8. It has a unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar
visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the area;
9. It has unique design or detailing;
10. It is a particularly good example of a period of style;
11. It contributes to the historical or scenic heritage or historical or scenic properties of the area (to
include, but not limited to landscaping, light standards, trees, curbing and signs).
The Birkenshaw property on Moorpark Road is (1) associated with both persons and events important in Moor-
park history. James Birkenshaw and his family were closely associated with the development of agriculture in
Moorpark, especially during the peak output of apricots and walnuts, the leading Moorpark crops during the
1920s and 1930s. Birkenshaw occupied a leadership role by serving on the board of the Moorpark Walnut
Grower's Association as well as the California Central Board of the California Walnut Industry. He helped pro-
mote water development in Moorpark through his involvement in the establishment of the water district. Birk -
enshaw also played an important role in the development of Moorpark as a community by serving as a school
trustee and on the board of directors of the first bank in Moorpark. Both he and his wife were very active in
the Moorpark Community Methodist church, serving on the board and on various church committees. Edith
Birkenshaw's ties to Moorpark's teachers included providing them with room and board in their own home,
helping them integrate into the community.
The Birkenshaw Ranch (2) reflects a period of Moorpark history between 1920 when the family moved into the
property and 1958 when Edith Birkenshaw died. The Birkenshaws continued to farm the property until rela-
tively recently, when the majority of Valencia orange trees were removed. This time period reflects an impor-
tant period in agriculture for Moorpark, when crops changed from apricots to walnuts and then from walnuts
to citrus. By the end of the 1950s, both the Southern Pacific warehouse and the walnut warehouse were torn
down, apparently no longer needed for their original uses.
The Birkenshaw house (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a style of architecture and method of
construction. The house was designed in the Colonial Revival Style by a prominent Los Angeles architect, Al-
fred Priest. This style was relatively rare in Moorpark as well as the rest of the county. By the early 1920s,
most residences were built in the Mediterranean, Spanish Colonial Revival or English Cottage styles just be-
ginning to become popular following World War I. Characteristics of the style are its simple rectangular vol-
umes, covered by a gabled roof; its symmetrical balanced multi-paned windows and doors and its colonial
detailing seen in the large round capped porch columns and engaged pilasters.
The house is (4) strongly identified with the Birkenshaw family, two generations having lived on the property.
The significance of the Birkenshaw family is discussed under Criterion 1. The house is (5) one of the few re-
006040
Historic Resources Report: 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (30)
maining examples in the Moorpark area possessing distinguishing characteristics of the Colonial Revival style.
It is probably the only example of this style in Moorpark.
The Birkenshaw residence is (6) a notable work of architect Alfred Priest, whose work has significantly influ-
enced the development of Southern California. A book entitled The Oxnard Pagoda: A Community Gathering
Place, by Jeffrey Maulhardt, discusses the work of Alfred Priest, the designer of a significant number of com-
mercial and residential buildings in Ventura County, primarily in Oxnard. The Birkenshaw residence was de-
signed around the same time as houses for several other ranchers in the Oxnard and Santa Paula area. In al-
most all cases, these were the second, and more substantial homes built for farmers who become successful
during the first two decades of the 1900s.
The house (7) does not embody elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that rep-
resents a significant architectural innovation. Alfred Priest was a notable architect, but he was not particu-
larly innovative. He designed in the predominant styles of the period. His designs were very well executed, but
they were not known for their innovations.
The Birkenshaw property is not in (8) a unique location, but its physical characteristics (i.e., the house, citrus
trees and mature pine trees) represent an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.
The Birkenshaw house does not (9) exhibit a unique design or detailing. It is a typical and distinctive exam-
ple of the Colonial Revival style, as discussed under Criterion 3. The Birkenshaw house is (10) a particularly
good example of the Colonial Revival style, discussed under Criterion 3.
The Birkenshaw property (11) contributes to Moorpark's scenic heritage because it retains landscape elements
which reflect its historic past. The citrus trees surrounding the house were planted in the 1930s and are the
remnants of the original 40 acre ranch. The mature Star Pine and semi - circular hedge in the front yard are
good examples of period landscaping.
Conclusions
The Birkenshaw property meets nine of the eleven criteria. Therefore, it appears to be eligible for listing as a
City of Moorpark landmark. In addition the house has retained an extremely high level of integrity. Virtually
no alterations have occurred, except for a minor dormer change, throughout its eighty-five year history, a
remarkable record. The house is in excellent physical condition, having been well - maintained over the years.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the residence, aside from its integrity and condition, is the interior. All
of the interior woodwork, the wood floors, the Batchelder tiled fireplace and period lighting are intact from
the 1920s. The majority of the furnishings are family pieces from the 1920s or earlier. In addition to the fur-
nishings, the home features many small period items, including china and glass vases, figurines, souvenir
plates, etc. Some of these may be quite rare and valuable. A complete inventory will be undertaken to de-
scribe and determine the exact value of each item. If interpreted properly, the large number of personal family
items, including photos, letters, scrapbooks, etc., have the ability to tell a detailed story about the family.
The family maintained an exceptional archive that contains, among other items, the complete specifications
of the house, as prepared by architect Alfred Priest, and a 34 page document detailing every aspect of how
the house was to be constructed. All the receipts for work completed and items purchased in the construction
of the house are in the archives. The archives also includes four pages of items purchased from the Pasadena
Furniture Company for the house following its completion in 1920. The Selected Sources section details just a
few of the many archival papers found in the Birkenshaw collection.
000'04`
Historic Resources Report.• 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (11)
The three remaining grandchildren of James and Edith Birkenshaw have many personal stories of their grand-
parents and life on the ranch that can contribute to the interpretation of the rich history of this pioneer fam-
i ly.
It is extremely rare to find a family home which has retained as many historical documents and objects as are
found in the Birkenshaw Residence. Even more exceptionally, the family has expressed a willingness to part
with them for the greater good of preserving the history of Moorpark. It is especially rare to encounter a po-
tential house museum project which offers an opportunity to interpret a family's history in such depth and
detail. Of particular importance are the period furnishings, which would be of great value in interpreting the
history of agriculture and domestic life in Moorpark from 1920 through 1958.
5. Recommendations
In our opinion, if the City of Moorpark accepts the gift of the Birkenshaw property, the city should implement
the following measures:
1. The Birkenshaw house, garage, cistern and grounds (including all the present landscape features on
the donated grounds - Figure 2) should be designated as a Moorpark City Landmark. Any changes to
the house or donated grounds should be made according to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards.
2. The entire contents of the house should be inventoried by a certified appraiser and the period and
value of each object established. This inventory should provide the basis for selection of final items
to remain in the house when and if it becomes a historic house museum.
3. A nonprofit organization with a board of directors should be established to run the house and an
endowment fund established to guarantee the long term maintenance of the property.
4. A qualified professional experienced in house museum management should be hired to set up the
operation, interpretation and maintenance of the house museum. The interpretation of the property
will be based on this study as well as additional studies that may be completed by a qualified profes-
sional experienced in museum interpretation.
5. A comprehensive landscape maintenance plan should be developed for the area illustrated in Figure
2. This plan should be based on a complete inventory of historic landscape materials and provide for
the continued maintenance of the property's historic landscape features.
r -�
Dli
jI
r 77oc.
00C
OOC
00C
100--
W 0
p
Figure 2. EXISTING LANDSCAPE MATERIALS
Source: Phil May, Landcape Architect
INlllf�l
San Buenaventura Research AssQiQeVOa—q
Historic Resources Report: 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (12)
6. Selected Sources
Birkenshaw, John, correspondence to brother James Birkenshaw, November 6, 1918, Birkenshaw Family ar-
chives.
Birkenshaw, James, correspondence to Moorpark Enterprise, Letter to Editor, Date unknown, regarding forma-
tion of Water District No. 1, Birkenshaw Family archives.
Birkenshaw, James, copies of agreements for delivery of walnut trees, 1922; orange trees, 1937, 1939, Birken-
shaw Family archives.
Cameron, Janet Scott. Moorpark: The Star of the Valley. Anderson, Ritchie & Simon, 1967.
Canoga Citrus Association, crop records for 1944 for James Birkenshaw, Birkenshaw Family archives.
Commemorative Biographical Record of County of Kent, Province of Ontario, Canada. Toronto, 1904, pp. 660-
661 located in Birkenshaw Family archives.
Durley, W. Mark. correspondence to Mr. and Mrs. James Birkenshaw, May 8, 1945. Birkenshaw Family archive.
Everett, Aratus, correspondence written to family, January 29, 1868, Birkenshaw Family archives.
Everett, E.E., correspondence written to family, May 19, 1922. Birkenshaw Family archives.
Gunter, Norma. The Moorpark Story. Moorpark: Moorpark Chamber of Commerce, 1969.
Gunter, Norma. A Diamond for Moorpark: 1975. Moorpark: Moorpark Chamber of Commerce, 1974.
Gunter, Norma. The Moorpark Story. Moorpark, CA: Moorpark Chamber of Commerce, 1969.
Interviews with Jim Birkenshaw, grandson of James Birkenshaw, by Judy Triem on February 17th and 24th,
2005 at Birkenshaw Ranch on Moorpark Avenue.
Interview with Linda Birkenshaw Kelley, granddaughter of James and Edith Birkenshaw, by Judy Triem on
March 19, 2005.
Maulhardt, Jeffrey. The Oxnard Pagoda: A Community Gathering Place. Oxnard: Mobooks, 2003.
Moorpark Enterprise. 8/3/33. "Talks on State's Walnut Situation. Birkenshaw tells Lions of Production in Other
Parts of California," p. 1.
Moorpark Enterprise. May 3, 1923. "Last Chapter is Written in Pioneer's Life. A. Everett Passes Away Suddenly
in Los Angeles Last Thursday." p. 1.
Moorpark Enterprise. February 27, 1936. "Mrs. Everett, Quarter Century Resident, Dies. A Pioneer in Moorpark,
She Had Been a Resident of The County 63 Years."
Moorpark Enterprise, Souvenir Edition. "Moorpark Home of the Apricot, Walnut and Beans. ca 1914.
000050
Historic Resources Report: 251 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark (13)
Moorpark Walnut Growers Association, Growers Statement for James Birkenshaw, 1937, Birkenshaw Family ar-
chives.
Official Board and Church Committees of the Community Methodist Church, 1937, 1941 -42, Birkenshaw Family
Archives.
Pasadena Furniture Company, receipts from sale of furniture in fall of 1920 to furnish new residence, Birken
shaw Family archives.
Priest, Alfred. Specifications of a Two -story twelve room frame residence for Mr. James Birkenshaw at Moor-
park, California. 1919. Birkenshaw Family archives.
San Fernando Valley Walnut Growers Association, Growers Statement for James Birkenshaw, 1937, Birkenshaw
Family archives.
Triem, Judith P. Ventura County, Land of Good Fortune. Northridge: Windsor Publications, 1985.
U.S.G.S. Map, Moorpark, 1951 (photorevised 1967)
Ventura County Grant Deeds, Book 153, page 29. Located at Ventura County Recorder's Office, microfilm.
Ventura County Records Office, Declaration of Homestead, James Birkenshaw claimant, October 16, 1894.,
Homestead Book #2, page 259.
Weil, Martin Eli. "The Work of Alfred F. Priest (1888- 1931)." Researched for an architectural assessment of the
Glendale Public Service Building, September 9, 1991.
Withey, Henry F. & Elsie Rathburn Withey. Biographical Dictionary of American Architects (Deceased). Los Ange-
les: Hennessey & Ingalls, Inc., Facsimile edition 1970.
000WDI
PHOTO 1. Subject property: 251 Moorpark Avenue, eastern elevation (17 February 2005).
PHOTO 2. Southern elevation of main residence (17 February 2005).
San Buenaventura Research Ass (04ft"Or:"
'0 A.
PHOTO 3. Western (rear) elevation of main residence (17 February 2005).
PHOTO 4. Northern and western elevations of main residence (17 February 2005).
San Buenaventura Research AsseO O S 433
PHOTO 5. Living room of main residence facing south (17 February 2005).
PHOTO 6. Garage and cistern, southern elevation (17 February 2005).
5 n.
San Buenaventura Research n IM-
PHOTO
�-'
ITEM: 8.D.
MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo
BY: Mary K. Lindley, Parks, Recreation, an ommulci�
Services Director
DATE: July 28, 2005 (Meeting of August 23, 2005)
SUBJECT: Consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2005 -02
Amending the Moorpark Municipal Code by Adding Chapter
17.50 (Art in Public Places)
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission is being asked to conduct a public
hearing on a proposed ordinance that, if approved by the City
Council, would amend the Zoning Code by adding a public art
requirement.
As a condition of approval, the City has required commercial and
industrial development projects to design and install art work
within their project area, or to pay an in lieu fee. The option
to install art work or to pay the in lieu fee is at the City's
discretion. The value of the art work and the fee is currently
based on a formula of $.10 per square foot of the project's
building space. In lieu fees are accounted for separately in a
public art fund to be used by the City for the design and
installation of art work in locations accessible to the public.
When a developer proposes an art piece, a committee of the City
Council (comprised of two Councilmembers, one Parks and
Recreation Commissioner, and two public members with staff
provided by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Director) reviews the proposed design, makes comments, and
refers a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council
has the final approval authority.
\ \Mor O A \2005 \ -02 Art in
_
Places \Agenda Reports \050823 PC Agenda Report.doc
Honorable Planning Commission
August 23, 2005
Page 2
The proposed ordinance defines and formalizes the process
applicants must comply with and makes two significant changes to
the existing practice. First, the proposed ordinance changes the
current practice from a formula of $.10 per square foot of
building space to a percentage of the total building valuation
for the development as the basis for the fee. Said percentage
would be set by City Council resolution. This methodology is
widely used by other jurisdictions and ties the value of the
obligation to the value of the project. Second, the proposed
ordinance would apply to residential developments.
Other provisions of the proposed ordinance include:
■ Continuation of the current configuration of the Public
Art Advisory Committee and its role;
■ All new residential developments of more than four (4)
units, and all commercial and industrial development
projects, with a building valuation exceeding $500,000,
must comply with the public art requirement;
■ Projects involving exterior modifications, alternations,
additions, and remodeling of existing residential
buildings of more than four units, and remodeling of
existing commercial and industrial buildings, must comply
with the public art requirement;
• Development applicants must continue to own any art work
they installed and said applicants must record a
maintenance covenant on the subject property which
provides for the ongoing maintenance of the art work; and
• If art work is to be designed and installed by the
applicant, said design must be approved prior to issuance
of a building permit and installation must occur prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. If in lieu fees
are to be paid, said payment must be received by the City
prior to issuance of a building permit.
Consistent with the current practice, the process for approving
an applicant's proposed art work is set forth in the ordinance
as follows:
■ The applicant submits an application for placement of art
work to the Community Development Director with a copy to
the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Director.
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \Z O A \2005 \ -02 Art in Public _
Places \Agenda Reports \050823 PC Agenda Report.doc ()C. 1 �`
Honorable Planning Commission
August 23, 2005
Page 3
The application must include preliminary sketches
depicting the proposed art work, evidence of the value of
the art work, preliminary site plans sufficient to
evaluate the proposed location of the art work, and a
narrative statement indicating how the art work will be
displayed in a public setting. The application will be
reviewed by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services
Director for completeness and when complete it would be
submitted to the Public Art Advisory Committee for its
review and comments. The Committee will make a
recommendation to the City Council as to whether the
proposed art work should be approved or denied.
The process for the City's use of funds deposited in the art
fund is not included in the proposed ordinance, which only
addresses the public art requirement for development projects. A
separate procedure will be created for the use of the art fund
to design and install art work on public property.
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 can not be readily identified, an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) is prepared.
\ \Mor_pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \Z 0 A \2005 \ -02 Art in Public O ii ry
Places \Agenda Reports \050823 PC Agenda Report.doc
Honorable Planning Commission
August 23, 2005
Page 4
The Director has reviewed this project and found it to qualify
for a General Rule Exemption in accordance with Section 15061 of
California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). No further
environmental documentation is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Open the Public Hearing, accept public testimony and close
the Hearing; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. PC -2005- recommending to the City
Council approval of Zoning ordinance Amendment No. 2005 -02,
which adds Chapter 17.50 (Art in Public Places) to the
Moorpark Municipal Code.
Attachment:
Draft Resolution No. PC -2005-
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \Z O A \2005 \ -02 Art in Public 0 r J
Places \Agenda Reports \050823 PC Agenda Report.doc
RESOLUTION NO. PC -2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -02: ADDING CHAPTER 17.50 (ART
IN PUBLIC PLACES) TO THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on August 23,
2005, the Planning Commission considered Zoning Ordinance
Amendment No. 2005 -02: adding Chapter 17.50 (Art in Public
Places) to the Moorpark Municipal Code to require certain
development projects to provide public art; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of August 23, 2005, the Planning
Commission considered the agenda report and any supplements
thereto and written public comments; opened the public hearing
and took and considered public testimony both for and against
the proposed ordinance and reached a decision on this matter;
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
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines in
that there is no possibility that this ordinance 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. GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY: The
Planning Commission finds the
Public Places) of the Moorpark
the City of Moorpark General
Plans.
proposed Chapter 17.50 (Art in
Municipal Code consistent with
Plan and all adopted Specific
SECTION 2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The
Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2005 -02 (Exhibit A) , which adds
Chapter 17.50 (Art in Public Places) to the Moorpark Municipal
Code, requiring certain development projects to provide public
art.
\ \Mor _pri_sery \City Share \Community Development \DEV PMTS \Z O A \2005 \ -02 Art in Public
Places \Resos &Ords \050823 PC Reso.doc
P C ATTACHMENT ` � 1.1
Resolution No. PC -2005-
Page 2
SECTION 3. 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.
The action of the foregoing direction was approved by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August, 2005.
Scott Pozza, Chair
ATTEST:
Barry K. Hogan
Community Development Director
Exhibit A - Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2005 -02
Q (1 C. 000
Resolution No. PC -2005-
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 17.50
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Sections:
17.50.010 Definitions.
17.50.020 Public art fund.
17.50.030 Public art advisory committee.
17.50.040 Projects subject to provisions of this subchapter.
17.50.050 Exceptions.
17.50.060 Development obligation.
17.50.070 Covenant for Maintenance.
17.50.080 Art in phased developments.
17.50.090 Time of compliance.
17.50.100 Art work valuation
17.50.110 Application and approval procedures for art work.
17.50.120 Maintenance and ownership of art work.
17.50.130 Return of fees.
17.50.010 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
"Art work" means creations of art, including but not
limited to, the following media and materials:
1. A sculpture which may be freestanding, wall- supported
or suspended, kinetic, electronic, or in any material or
combination of materials;
2. Affixed murals, mosaics, or paintings in any material
or combination of materials;
3. Decorative, ornamental, or functional building
elements such as archways, columns, fountains etc., or other
architectural elements of a building, as approved by City,
commissioned for the purpose of creating a permanently affixed
piece of art.
"Building Valuation" means the total value of the
building, excluding land value, off -site improvement costs,
interior improvements, parking facilities, and public facilities
as determined by the Building Official.
OVC( O _11
Resolution No. PC -2005-
Page 4
"Public place" means any exterior area on private or public
property which is easily accessible or clearly visible to the
general public.
17.50.020 Public art fund.
An "Art Fund" shall be created where fees are deposited
pursuant to this chapter. The fund shall be maintained and used
solely for the City's Art in Public Places program:
1. For the acquisition, installation, improvement,
maintenance and insurance of an art work; and
2. For the acquisition and improvement of real property
for the purpose of displaying art work, which has been or may be
subsequently approved by the City.
3. For maintenance of and utility charges related to
property purchased pursuant to subsection A.1.1 and A.2.
17.50.030 Public art advisory committee.
A. The Public Art Advisory Committee, herein referred to
as Committee, shall consist of five (5) members to be appointed
by the City .Council. The committee shall be comprised of two
Councilmembers, one parks and recreation commissioner, and two
public members. Committee members shall serve two -year terms
coinciding with the term of the mayor. The mayor shall solicit
nominees from the members of the Council. The committee shall be
responsible for the review of proposed art work plans required
pursuant to section 17.50.040 and make recommendations to the
City Council.
17.50.040 Projects subject to provisions of this
subchapter.
A. All new residential developments of more than four (4)
units, and all commercial, and industrial development projects,
with a building valuation exceeding Five Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($500,000) shall be subject to the provisions of this
Subchapter.
B. Including but not limited to exterior modifications,
alterations and additions, all remodeling of existing
residential buildings of more than four (4) units, and all
remodeling of existing commercial, industrial, and public
buildings, shall be subject to the provisions of this Subchapter
when such remodeling has a valuation exceeding Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($250,000).
Resolution No. PC -2005-
Page 5
17.50.050 Exceptions.
The following developments or modifications, alterations,
and additions to the developments are exempt from this chapter:
low or moderate housing, senior housing, performing arts
facilities, museums, public buildings, interior remodel /tenant
improvements and national and state disaster repairs/ rebuilding
required by code. This exemption shall apply only as long as the
exempt use is maintained.
17.50.060 Development obligation.
A. Any development subject to this chapter pursuant to
section 17.50.040, shall be obligated to contribute to the
City's Art in Public Places program. The amount of such
contribution shall be a percentage of the total building
valuation for the development. The percentage required to be
contributed shall be set by City Council resolution.
B. At the City's sole discretion, an Applicant may
satisfy the contribution obligation required by subsection A in
one of two (2) ways:
1. through payment in cash of the contribution amount
directly to the Art Fund (the "In Lieu Fee "); or
2. through installation of an approved art work, equal to
or exceeding the value of the contribution amount, pursuant to
17.50.100. Art work must be installed in a Public Place;
specific site location to be approved by City.
C. Fifteen percent (159.) of the revenue generated from
the art fund may be allocated for City administrative costs.
17.50.070 Covenant for maintenance.
A. The applicant must record a maintenance covenant on
the subject property, in a format approved by the City, which
provides for ongoing maintenance of approved art work prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or prior to the final
building permit sign off.
B. Removal of approved art work on private property
pursuant to this chapter without City approval, is a violation
of this ordinance.
Resolution No. PC -2005-
Page 6
17.50.080 Art in phased developments.
For developments to be built in phases the applicant shall
provide the City with a detailed phasing plan and timeline. In
phased developments the applicant may be required to install
public art in each development phase at the City's discretion.
17.50.090 Time of compliance.
A. If City approves applicant's payment of an in lieu art
fee to satisfy its public art obligation, such payment shall be
made prior to issuance of building permit. As used in this
Chapter, "applicant" shall be an applicant for a building permit
for a development which is subject to this Chapter pursuant to
section 17.50.040.
B. If City approves applicant's installation of an
approved art work on private property to satisfy its public art
obligation, the art work shall be approved, as provided herein,
prior to issuance of a building permit. Said approved art work
must be installed and complete prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
C. The applicant must record a maintenance covenant of
the subject art work as provided in section 17.50.070, prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
D. If any approved art work placed on private property
pursuant to this Subchapter is removed without City approval,
the Certificate of Occupancy may be revoked.
17.50.100 Art work valuation.
A. Expenses which may be used for calculating the value
of the art work are limited to:
1. Fees for the artist, structural engineering and
fabrication;
2. Mountings, pumps, motors, or subterranean equipment,
pedestals, or materials directly necessary for installation of
the art work; and
3. Lighting elements integral to illuminating the art
work.
B. Expenses not allowed to be calculated in the value of
the art work include, but are not limited to:
Resolution No. PC -2005-
Page 7
1. Expenses to locate an artist;
2. Architect and landscape architect fees;
3. Landscaping around an art work;
4. Transportation of the art work;
5. Utility fees associated with activating electronic
or water generated art work; and
6. Lighting elements not integral to the illumination of
the art work as determined by the City.
17.50.110 Application and approval procedures for art work.
A. Application procedures. An application for placement
of art work on private property shall be submitted to the
community development department with a copy to the park,
recreation, and community services department and shall include,
but not be limited to:
1. Preliminary sketches, photographs or other
documentation of sufficient descriptive clarity to indicate the
nature of the proposed art work;
2. An appraisal or other evidence of the value of the
proposed art work, including acquisition and installation costs;
3. Preliminary plans containing such detailed information
as may be required by the community development department to
adequately evaluate the site location of the art work in
relation to the proposed development and its compatibility with
neighborhood in which it is located; and
4. A narrative statement indicating how the art work will
be displayed in a Public Place freely available to the general
public at least ten (10) hours each day, or equivalent
alternatives acceptable to the City.
B. Approval.
1. The Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Director
shall review the application for completeness, and if it is
found complete, prepare a recommendation to the Committee.
O��i;,:�
Resolution No. PC -2005-
Page 8
2. The Committee shall be responsible for reviewing the
proposed art work for its aesthetic quality and harmony with the
existing and proposed on -site improvements, and the proposed
location of and public accessibility to the art work.
3. The Committee shall provide a recommendation to the
City Council regarding the site location and conceptual design
of the proposed art work.
4. At the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting,
following the action by the Committee, the Parks, Recreation,
and Community Services Director shall present the Committee's
recommendation for Council consideration. Action by the City
Council is final.
17.50.120 Maintenance and ownership of art work.
A. All art work placed on the site of the applicant's
project shall remain the property of the applicant; the
obligation to provide all maintenance necessary to preserve the
art work in good condition shall remain with the owner of the
site.
B. Maintenance of art work, as used in this Subchapter,
shall include without limitation, preservation of the art work
in good working condition to the satisfaction of the City;
protection of the art work against physical defacement,
mutilation or alteration; and securing and maintaining fire and
extended coverage insurance and vandalism coverage in an amount
to be determined by the City. Prior to placement of an approved
art work, applicant and owner of the site shall execute and
record a covenant in a form approved by the City for maintenance
of the art work. Failure to maintain the art work as provided
herein is hereby declared to be a public nuisance.
C. In addition to all other remedies provided by law, in
the event the owner fails to maintain the art work, upon
reasonable notice, the City may perform all necessary repairs,
maintenance, or secure insurance and the costs therefore shall
become a lien against the real property.
17.50.130 Return of Fees
A. Fees paid into the City art fund which are not
committed within five (5) years from the date of payment may be
returned to the then current owner of the development project,
with all interest actually earned thereon, if a written request
is filed with the City Clerk during the fifth year after
Opt ,0r..
Resolution No. PC -2005-
Page 9
payment, and refund of the fees is approved by the City Council.
The request for return shall be verified, and include the date
of payment, the amount paid and method of payment, the location
of the new development for which the fee was paid, and a
statement that the applicant is the payer of the fees or the
current owner of the development project.
B. The City Council shall determine if return of the then
uncommitted portion of the fees and interest is appropriate and,
if so, the method of refund. No refund shall be appropriate if
the City Council determines any one (1) of the following
applies:
1. The City Council finds the fee is needed for the Art
in Public Places program.
The administrative costs of refunding uncommitted fees pursuant
to this Subchapter exceeds the amount to be refunded; provided
notice of a public hearing on this issue has been published and
posted on the site of the development project in not less than
three (3) places.