HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_01112012 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 January 11, 2012
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Jason Brenner
8 Kevin Doble
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
19 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
20 Ukiah, California.
21
22 2. ROLL CALL
23
24 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
25
26 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 14, 2011
27 The minutes from the December 14, 2011 will be available for review and approval at the January 25,
28 2012 meeting.
29
30 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
31
32 6. APPEAL PROCESS—Chair Pruden read the appeal process. For matters heard at this meeting,
33 the final date to appeal is Monday, January 23, 2012.
34
35 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - Site visit for agenda item 9B was verified.
36
37 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Agenda items 9A and 9B were properly noticed in accordance
38 with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
39
40 9. PUBLIC HEARING
41 9A. Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit and Statement of Overriding
42 Considerations (File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC and 09-42-EIR-PC) Conduct a public hearing,
43 received public comment, provide Planning Commission comment, and provide direction to staff
44 on the Walmart Expansion Project 1) Major Site Development Permit and associated
45 modifications to landscaping requirements, and 2) Statement of Overriding Considerations. The
46 project is located at 1155 Airport Park Boulevard, APN 180-070-38, in the Airport Industrial Park
47 Planned Development (AIP PD). The project proposes a 47,621 square foot expansion of the
48 existing 109,030 foot store, for a total square footage of 156,651 to include expanded general
49 merchandise floor area and expanded grocery sales floor area, indoor and outdoor garden
50 centers, as well as the possibility of distilled alcohol sales, and a medical clinic and/or vision
51 center on a 13.44 acre site. Also included as part of the project is a change in store hours to 24
52 hours per day, seven days per week, modifications to the design of the exterior of the building,
53 the addition of new parking spaces, modifications to the landscaping, and other associated site
54 improvements.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 1
1 The proposed project requires approval of a Major Site Development Permit, two modifications to
2 the AIP PD landscaping requirements, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
3 As part of the Major Site Development Permit the Planning Commission will consider the
4 applicant's request for approval of modifications to the AIP PD landscaping requirements for
5 landscaping lot coverage and shade coverage. Approval of the project would also require a
6 Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable Traffic impacts
7 identified in the Walmart Expansion EIR.
8 This item was continued from the November 9, 2011 and December 14, 2011 Planning
9 Commission meetings. Since Planning Commission's certification of the EIR has been
10 appealed to the City Council, staff and the applicant are requesting this item be continued.
11
12 M/S Sanders/Doble to continue Walmart Expansion Project Site Development Permit and Statement of
13 Overriding Considerations File Nos.: 09-28-SDP-PC and 09-42-EIR-PC to the regular January 25, 2012
14 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried (5-0).
15
16 9B. Use Permit and Site Development Permit File No. 11-10-UP-SDP-PC: Conduct a public
17 hearing on the request from Guillon Inc. for Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit, Site
18 Development Permit, and Modifications to the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development
19 landscaping requirements for the construction of a 4,200 square foot commercial building, 17
20 parking spaces, landscaping and associated site improvements at 1230 Airport Park Boulevard,
21 APN: 180-080-78, in the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development. US Cellular has been
22 identified as the tenant for the building.
23
24 Senior Planner Jordan gave a staff report:
25 • An application has been received from Steve Honeycutt of Guillon Inc. for approval of a Major
26 Use Permit and Site Development Permit to complete Phase 2 of the undeveloped eastern (front)
27 portion of the parcel located 1230 Airport Park Boulevard in the Airport Industrial Park.
28 • The tenant identified for Phase 2 development is U.S. Cellular.
29 • The building footprint for Phase 2 is a 4,200 square foot commercial building, requiring 17 parking
30 spaces. Nine additional parking spaces would be located immediately west of the building. The
31 applicant is requesting of the approval of the following modifications to the Airport Industrial Park
32 Planned Development landscaping requirements:
33 1. Landscaping ratio in the previously developed lot be accepted despite falling short of 20%
34 landscaping of gross parcel area.
35 2. Shade area in both parcels to be calculated at 15 years growth in lieu of 10 years.
36 3. The site plan be approved without a walkway through the parking lot.
37 • In 2010, the Planning Commission approved Phase 1 of the project, the Sears Home Store and
38 vacant tenant space.
39 • No modifications to the existing development (Phase 1) on the site are proposed.
40 • The application also requests City Engineer approval of a two lot Minor Subdivision. The minor
41 subdivision is not under the purview of the Planning Commission but rather the City Engineer.
42 o Parcel 1 (western parcel)would be 54,094 square feet and has been developed as part of
43 Phase 1 development with a 16,000 square foot building, 64 parking spaces comprising of 55
44 existing parking spaces plus 9 parking spaces proposed as part of the Phase 2 project
45 development and associated landscaping. Access to the parcel from Airport Park Boulevard
46 would remain unchanged.
47 o Parcel 2 (eastern parcel)would be 21,230 square feet and proposed to be developed with a
48 4,200 square foot commercial building, 17 parking spaces and associated landscaping and
49 other improvements as shown on the site plans.
50 • The applicant has indicated the subdivision is being requested for financing purposes and that
51 Phase 1 and Phase 2 would operate as a single development and would cross over easements
52 for parking, access and the like.
53 • With regard to the proposed lot split into two separate parcels, there are some determinations the
54 Commission must make as opposed to the City Engineer based on the authority granted the
55 Commission by Airport Industrial Park Ordinance 1098.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 2
1 o One consideration is whether or not the rear setback being created for Parcel 2 is adequate
2 since this building is setback 6 feet from the property line since the rear setback is to be
3 determined as part of the discretionary review process.
4 o An additional consideration if the City Engineer approves the Minor Subdivision is that Parcel
5 1 would no longer have street frontage thus creating two issues, i.e., 1)the sign area allowed
6 is based on the frontage of the parcel and 2) offsite signs are not allowed which would
7 prohibit Phase 1 building tenants from having a sign on the monument sign since it would be
8 located offsite on proposed Parcel 2.
9 • The project is consistent with the Ukiah General Plan and the B1 Airport Compatibility Zone.
10 • The uses, development and design requirements are governed by AIP Ordinance 1098 and
11 staff's analysis of the project determined it is consistent with these requirements with the
12 exception of two requirements:
13 1) The shade coverage that requires a tree canopy coverage of 50% over all paved areas within
14 10 years of planting and
15 2) All new developments must include a landscaping coverage of 20% of the gross area of the
16 parcel, unless because of the small size of a parcel, such coverage would be unreasonable.
17 Since the project does not comply with the aforementioned requirements, the applicant has
18 requested Planning Commission approval of modifications to these requirements as allowed by
19 AIP Ord. 1098.
20 • Additionally, the Commission must also look at the Sign Program for the project:
21 o In 2011 the Commission approved a Sign Program for the site.
22 o One project condition for Phase 1 was that the Sign Program be amended to include Phase 2
23 of the project. The applicant has not submitted a revised Sign Program.
24 o The U.S. Cellular sign package includes:
25 ■ Building mounted signs on the north, south and east elevations
26 ■ Window signs on the north elevation
27 ■ 'No Entry' sign on the south elevation
28 ■ Tenant name on the monument sign
29 o Since the AIP Ordinance requires that signs "generally comply"with the UMC and also
30 requires a Sign Program, staff requests the Planning Commission approve amendments to
31 the Sign Program that allow Phase1/Parcel 1 tenants to use the monument sign and indicate
32 that the Sign Program requirements apply to both Phase 1/Parcel 1 and Phase 2/Parcel 2,
33 identifies both by the address and/or assessor's parcel number and that does not restrict the
34 sign area based on street frontage so long as the signs are located within the sign bands
35 identified in the Sign Program, and allows or prohibits as determined by the Commission the
36 `no entry' sign proposed for the rear of the building.
37 • Should the Planning Commission be in a position to approve the project at tonighYs meeting, the
38 Minor Subdivision will be heard by the City Engineer tomorrow afternoon.
39 • Staff is recommending approval of the Use Permit and Site Development Permit and if Planning
40 Commission approves the UP and SDP,
41
42 Commission:
43 Q1: Is the Minor Subdivision subject to CEQA review?
44 Q2: Requested clarification why a Use Permit is being considered and is the property zoned
45 retail/commercial?
46 Q3: Is retail/commercial allowed in mixed-use designations?
47 Q4: Was Phase 1 under-parked?
48 Q5: Questioned how Phase I was under-landscaped.
49 Q6: When the Sears building was proposed was this considered a phased development at that time?
50 Q7: Does Phase 2 have the same developer and architect?
51 Q8: Attachment 6, page 8 of the plans includes the percentages of landscaping. The parcel prior to
52 development in the front (Phase 2) is 14.4°/a landscaping coverage and inquired whether this was
53 what was approved? As built the exhibit indicates the parcel area is 75,324 sf having a
54 landscape area of 10,381 sf and/or 14.4% landscape coverage.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 3
1 Q9: Commissioner Brenner asked for additional information regarding how the parking and
2 landscaping for Phase 1 was calculated since Attachment 6/page 8 of the site plans shows a
3 landscape area of 10.2% for Phase 1 and 26%for Phase 2.
4 Q10: Requested clarification that 53 parking spaces are all that is required for Phase 1?
5 Q11: Is proposed 26% landscaping for Phase 2 accurate? Attachment 6/page 8 of the site plans shows
6 a parcel area of 21,230 sf with a vacant area of 5,510 for landscaping?
7
8 Staff:
9 A1: The Minor Subdivision is exempt from CEQA as there are no environmental impacts identified
10 related to the minor subdivision. Any environmental impacts that would occur would be the result
11 of the actual development and addressed by the Planning Commission.
12 A2: Where the proposed project is located, the west side of Airport Park Boulevard, is zoned Mixed-
13 use/Light Industrial. The opposite side of the street is zoned Retail/Commercial.
14 A3: All uses in the Mixed-Use/Light Industrial designation require a Use Permit. There are no uses in
15 this land use designation that are allowed by right.
16 A4: Phase I was parked adequately for the use that presently exists presently. Phase I has 55 parking
17 spaces with a mix of compact and standard spaces. A minimum of 53 parking spaces is required
18 for Phase 1. The required parking was based on a mix of retail (1 space for 250 sf and appliance
19 sales (1 space for 500 sf). Phase 2 would provide 9 additional parking spaces that would be
20 included on Parcel 1 for a total of 64 onsite parking spaces for Parcel 1. This exceeds the number
21 of onsite parking spaces required for Phase 1. However, this does provide additional parking
22 spaces for the vacant tenant spaces in the Phase 1 building and the additional parking could
23 provide more options for tenanting the vacant space. Based on 4,200 gross square feet, 17
24 vehicles parking spaces are required for the proposed project. The project provides exactly 17
25 parking spaces. Thirteen parking spaces are located to the north of the building and 4 spaces are
26 located to the south of the building. The project is consistent with the minimum number of
27 vehicles spaces required.
28 Based on the number of parking spaces provided for Phase 1, if the Sears store was replaced
29 with a retail or office use or wanted to convert to all retail and no appliances, there would not be
30 enough parking the way it is now with 55 spaces.
31 A5: Confirmed looking at the calculations now the landscaping does not meet the 20% landscaping
32 requirement for Phase 1. At the time when the Planning Commission reviewed and approved
33 Phase 1, there were no development plans for Phase 2 so what was proposed in terms of
34 landscaping for Phase 1 did exceed the 20% requirement because of the vacant area in front that
35 was not being developed at that time. What essentially occurred with regard to compliance with
36 the 20% landscaping requirement for Phase 1 was a combination of mathematical errors on the
37 part of the architect and the fact there was no conceptual plan for Phase 2 for the vacant lot.
38 Because of these issues, the landscaping turned out to be less than anticipated.
39 If the Minor Subdivision is approved, Parcel 2 would exceed the landscaping requirement at 26%
40 coverage and Parcel 1 would not.
41 A6: What was known during Phase 1 was the front part of the parcel was not going to be developed
42 as part of that project so no development was shown in this area. The applicant acknowledged
43 there would be a Phase 2 development at some point in the future when a tenant had been
44 identified and a project designed. Staff requested that the plans for Phase 1 identify the location
45 of future Phase 2 so that it was clear that this would occur at some future date but that no
46 design/development was proposed at the time of Phase 1.
47 A7: The developer for both phases is the same. Staff is not sure whether or not the architect is the
48 same.
49 A8. No, what was approved was the site plan for Phase I development.
50 A9: Explained Phase 1 has 55 parking spaces, which is adequate for the project. The parcel area for
51 Parcel 1 is 54,094 s.f. having a vacant area of 5,515 sf for landscaping. One way to increase the
52 amount of landscaping on the site would be for the 9 parking spaces for Phase 2 to become
53 landscaping rather than parking.
54 A10: Confirmed 53 parking spaces are the minimum required for Phase 1.
55 A11: The 26% landscaping coverage is what would result for Parcel 2 with approval of the Minor
56 Subdivision. Only the Planning Commission has the authority to modify the landscaping
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 4
1 requirements which would be required in order to approve the Minor Subdivision. Planning
2 Commission needs to determine tonight whether the landscaping for the project as a whole is
3 acceptable; whether or not the Commission is `okay' with less than 20% landscaping coverage for
4 Phase 1 and the project overall. Additionally should the City Engineer be in a position to approve
5 the Minor Subdivision, Planning Commission must be `okay' with the landscaping modification
6 percentage for Phase 1.
7
8 Commission:
9 • Overtime there have been many zoning changes in the AIP.
10 • What was known at the time the Sears building was proposed for Phase 1 was that the building
11 for Phase 2 when proposed would be architecturally compatible with the Sears building.
12 • Chair Pruden received questions from the public after approval of the back parcel for Phase 1
13 asking why the front portion of the project was not being developed.
14 • It was noted 55 parking spaces were approved as part of Phase 1. Phase 2 proposes 9 additional
15 parking spaces for the Sears building increasing the parking for the Phase 1 building to 64
16 parking spaces.
17 • Essentially what is occurring tonight is the Commission is reducing Phase 1 landscaping with the
18 action of approving the Phase 2 to less than the 20% required.
19 • The question is whether or not the Planning Commission supports the 9 parking spaces that were
20 initially to be shared parking to expand the landscaping percentage for Phase 1. This means
21 Phase 1 is approximately 4,000 sf short from reaching the 20% landscaping coverage for Phase
22 1 and Phase 2 combined. Including the 9 parking spaces which would provide about 1800 sf or
23 less of landscaping.
24 • Is the Planning Commission essentially supposed to view the project as a whole as opposed to a
25 future subdivision.
26
27 Chair Pruden: Adding the 10.2% for Phase 1 and 26% for Phase 2 would provide for 36.2°/o landscaping
28 and asked if there is a way to average this as if this were one development.
29
30 Staff: Related to the 20% landscaping standards, Planning Commission must make a decision about
31 whether or not less than 20% landscaping coverage for Parcel 1 is acceptable since this relates to the
32 proposed Minor Subdivision and for the site as a whole. According to the landscaping calculations
33 submitted, the maximum lot coverage for the whole parcel/project with Phase 1 and Phase 2
34 development is 14.6°/a.
35
36 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:23 p.m.
37
38 Steve Honeycutt, General Manager of Guillon Construction:
39 • Appreciates that two of the Planning Commissioners, Brenner and Doble, that were not
40 Commissioners at the time Phase 1 was approved are asking questions to understand what
41 transpired for Phase 1.
42 • Referred to Attachment 3 that addresses the project and noted Phase 1 has been completed and
43 Phase 2 is being proposed.
44 • The development has always been looked at by the developers as to two phases making up a
45 whole.
46 • The architectural and landscaping aspects are viewed as a combined project.
47 • A Minor Subdivision is being proposed only for financing purposes.
48 • What is problematic is knowing the two phases make up a whole and then having to look at each
49 phase separately in terms of landscaping, parking and everything else.
50 • Noted the proposed property line represents the distinction between Phase 1 and Phase 2
51 technically and what is there right now is paving for the 9 parking spaces and planter areas for
52 Phase 1. Phase 2 is presented by the yellow section on Attachment 6/page 8 of the plans.
53 • Accordingly, staff is analyzing the percentages etc., distinguishing between Phase 1 and Phase
54 2. Looking at the yellow area for Phase 2, the landscaping coverage percentage is 26°/a. This
55 occurs because the front 25-foot setback along Airport Park Boulevard was required as part of
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 5
1 Phase 1 and counted in the square footage for that landscaping ratio. Now with the parcel map
2 and the fact that this is now physically part of Phase 2, this area is calculated as part of the
3 landscaping coverage for Phase 2, calculating to 26% coverage. This is why Parcel 2 is over the
4 required 20% percent landscaping and is part of the information why we are under the 20%
5 landscaping requirement for Phase 1.
6 • At the time Phase 1 was proposed, there was a different architect. This particular architect made
7 an error in calculating the landscaping percentage for Phase 1 and was not discovered until last
8 summer when Phase 1 was completed.
9 • There is a now a new architect onboard.
10 • Looking at Phase 1 now, what one sees is a reasonably well-landscaped project. It is doubtful
11 when a person looks at the landscaping he/she could say it is under-landscaped. It is, however,
12 well short of the UMC 20% landscaping coverage requirement.
13 • What needs to be accomplished is to determine what needs to occur now. To possibly work with
14 in this regard, there are shared driveways north and south on both sides of the property limiting
15 the ability to provide landscaping in this area.
16 • What was done in Phase 2 was to design a small building within the parameters that are already
17 fixed in conjunction with the development that is existing for Phase 1 and provide for a well-
18 landscaped front portion of the property that complements and matches Phase 1.
19 • Since the project as a whole is short of the City's 20% landscaping coverage requirement as a
20 result of Phase 1 and because of splitting the property, the applicant must request a landscaping
21 modification for approval of the project.
22
23 Chair Pruden: The staff report indicates relief is being requested from the landscaping requirements for
24 the proposed Phase 2 project when in fact the relief is essentially for Phase 1.
25
26 Staff:
27 • The applicant needs the modification for the project, which is the entire site, Phase 1 and
28 Phase 2.
29 • Secondarily, the applicant is asking the City Engineer to approve a Minor Subdivision in which the
30 back portion of the property that would become Parcel 1 will not comply with the UMC 20%
31 landscaping standard.
32 • The Planning Commission is the body having the authority to make landscaping modifications,
33 which is necessary for the Use Permit and Site Development Permit and for compliance with the
34 landscaping requirement. Additionally, the Planning Commission needs to provide direction to the
35 City Engineer related to the Sign Program and rear setback since these are zoning requirements
36 that apply to the Minor Subdivision.
37
38 There was discussion regarding the 50°/a shade coverage requirement within 10 years of planting. Chair
39 Pruden noted this requirement is not working anywhere in the City. As a result, based on staff research
40 communities that have a shade ordinance most commonly use a 15 year tree canopy when calculating
41 shade coverage.
42
43 Staff: Planning staff was unable to find another community that used a 10 year canopy for the purpose of
44 calculating shade coverage. The City of Davis standard is an appropriate standard to use since the City of
45 Davis has a climate similar to Ukiah's. The tree canopy will typically double in size between 10 years,
46 making the15 year a more reasonable standard for calculating shade coverage. Past projects subject to
47 this shade requirement have not been able to provide the 50% shade coverage within the 10 year time
48 frame.
49
50 Steve Honeycutt:
51 • Is of the opinion the design for both Phase 2 with regard to pedestrian orientation, solar
52 orientation and other design aspects are good for such a small site.
53 • Clarified the proposed front building for Phase 2 is a `frame building' because it is small unlike the
54 back Sears building that is a 'tilt-up.'
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 6
1 Commissioner Brenner:
2 • Are the 9 parking spaces necessary for other possible uses?
3 • Appreciates the candor regarding the ratio calculation for Phase 1 landscaping.
4
5 Steve Honeycutt:
6 • Yes, the 9 spaces are necessary because as a developer, one is always looking for future
7 flexibility and making sure a future problem is not being created.
8 • The extra 9 spaces were basically all needed during the busy season for Sears Home Store last
9 month.
10 • To compensate for the deficit in landscaping for Phase 1, the intent is to implement landscaping
11 for Phase 2 in such a way that no one will notice a deficit exists.
12
13 Commissioner poble:
14 • Does Guillon Inc. Construction own property to the south? If so, this property could be tied into
15 the property to the south.
16
17 Steve Honeycutt:
18 • No, Guillon Construction owns no other property in the area. Noted, the driveway to the south is
19 actually shared. The property lines both north and south go down the middle of driveways.
20 • Talked about the sidewalks adjacent to the proposed 9 additional parking spaces for Phase 2 that
21 is intended to help pedestrian flow north to south in the area.
22 • Has consulted with Planning staff about converting those 9 parking spaces to landscaping. This
23 would increase the landscaping percentage by about 2.2% so there is still a problem with
24 compliance with the 20% landscaping requirement. Moreover, allowing for landscaping in this
25 location would put more landscaping in an area that is already overly-landscaped and in a place
26 that looks like the landscaping is for Phase 2.
27
28 Chair Pruden: Requested clarification that she is not misreading the staff report that converting the 9
29 parking spaces would bring the landscaping into compliance with the UMC landscaping standards.
30
31 Staff: The intent was to point out that converting the 9 parking spaces into landscaping would be an
32 opportunity to do more landscaping. The overall site is landscaped at 14.6%. Staff did assume
33 landscaping could be included in the 9 parking spaces because they do not currently exist or that
34 Planning Commission would prefer the 9 parking spaces be eliminated in favor of landscaping.
35
36 Commissioner poble:
37 • Elimination of the proposed 9 parking spaces would net 1,357 sf. to the existing 5,515 sf of
38 landscape area for Phase 1 increasing the landscape ratio from 10.2% to 12.7%.
39
40 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:35 p.m.
41
42 Commission commented on what does work for the project excluding the landscaping standards:
43 • Likes the design and materials for the proposed building.
44 • Likes that the building will open to the north parking lot rather than to the west.
45 • Approves of spandrel glazing for the windows on the east elevation. This type of glass has a
46 shining glassy surface that is not transparent as noted on page 3 of the site plans.
47 • The architectural design for the proposed new building will mimic the Sears building.
48 • The plant selection for the landscaping is appropriate.
49 • Will be interesting to see how the Cork Oaks work in the area as well as how the parking lot trees
50 will perform.
51
52 There was discussion about the landscape design, plant selection and other landscaping features such
53 as lattice work as provided for on page 7 of the site plans.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 7
1 There was discussion about parking and ways to increase landscaping by possibly eliminating the access
2 driveway into the parking lot located on the north side of the property on proposed Parcel 2/Phase 2.
3
4 PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED: 6:39 p.m.
5
6 Steve Honeycutt: The thought was that most people would likely use the 9 parking spaces on proposed
7 Parcel 1 for convenience purposes.
8
9 Chair Pruden: If the access driveway were eliminated as shown on page 8 of the site plans would this
10 have to be reviewed by Public Works or by some other process? This access driveway is very unusual
11 noting it may be difficult to maneuver particularly for trucks. The access driveway is likely not a
12 requirement for a parking lot of this size.
13
14 Staff: Would recommend if the Planning Commission wants to see the driveway eliminated that Public
15 Works look at the matter. However, Public Works did not comment on this driveway as part of their review
16 of this project.
17
18 Commission:
19 • Looked at the access driveway as shown on page 8 of the plans for proposed Parcel 2. It
20 appears the subject driveway would be more problematic than good.
21 • Presently the property is one parcel, but with the parcel split into Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 may
22 create problems in the future, particularly with regard to the deficit landscaping ratio for proposed
23 Parcel 1. Approving modification to the landscaping standards may raise questions for other
24 projects because what is granted for one project should likely be granted for another.
25 • Referred to pages 9 and 10 of the plans relative to the shade calculations for Phase 1 and Phase
26 2 and it appears the shade requirements are going to be met regardless if proposed Parcel 1
27 does not comply with the 20% landscaping coverage standards.
28 • Is concerned about the landscaping coverage percentages.
29
30 Staff: Modifications requested for a particular project should be looked at on a case-by-case and the
31 reason for granting a modification is specific to the project. The proposed landscaping modification for
32 this project does not apply to the Walmart project or other future projects. It would be an indication that
33 Planning Commission may approve the modification for less than 20°/a landscaping coverage based on
34 very specific issues related to this project only. We are not analyzing the Walmart project but rather the
35 proposed project.
36
37 Chair Pruden: What if we look at this project as it currently stands, which is one parcel, two phases, and
38 requested clarification by adding all the landscaping that currently exists the landscaping ratio is 14.6°/a?
39
40 Staff: Referred to page 9 of the staff report that looks at the project as it currently exists (one parcel with
41 an existing Phase 1 and a proposed Phase 2), and noted the percentage of landscaping would be 14.6%
42 and would provide 11,025 sf of landscaping. However in order to landscape 20°/o of the parcel, 15,047 sf
43 of the parcel would be required to be landscaped.
44
45 The Commission discussed the possibility of eliminating the access driveway on proposed Parcel 2 and
46 the 9 shared parking spaces on the front portion of proposed Parcel 1 which would increase the
47 landscaping ratio to approximately 18%.
48
49 Commissioner Whetzel: Will employees park on the south side of the building?
50
51 Steve Honeycutt: The parking is not intended to be restricted in this location.
52
53 There was discussion generally about parking for the two phases and what spaces could be eliminated to
54 increase landscaping and how this could be accomplished.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 8
1 Commissioner Whetzel: Looking around at the other parcels and projects in the area for comparison
2 purposes, it does not appear these projects have met the 20% landscaping standard.
3
4 It was noted the AIP Ordinance 1098 has been revised over the years so projects like Walmart and/or
5 other older projects in the AIP, for instance, were not subject to the current 20% landscaping coverage
6 requirement since it did not exist at the time the project was reviewed. The appropriate approach for the
7 Planning Commission is to review each project individually because each project is different.
8
9 It was further noted when the Planning Commission reviews projects, they are informed the project either
10 meets the landscaping standards or that a modification to the standard is being requested.
11
12 Commissioner Sanders:
13 • Mr. Honeycutt has incorporated a lot of the requests made by the Planning Commission for the
14 original project in terms of circulation.
15 • Is of the opinion the building needs to have some versatility so the 9 parking spaces are
16 necessary in the event the building is split for use by other tenants.
17 • Is of the opinion the proposed 9 parking spaces should probably be retained making this less of a
18 hardship for future business and supports elimination of the access driveway as a possibility.
19
20 Commissioner Brenner: Asked if the parking requirements for Phase 2 were just barely met.
21
22 Staff:
23 • Phase 2 involves the construction of a 4,200 sf commercial building with trash/recycling enclosure
24 and electrical transformer on the south side of the building, 17 parking spaces, 9 parking spaces
25 for the existing building, site improvements such as pedestrian pathways and landscaping and
26 building mounted signs on the north, east and south elevations and the tenant's name on the
27 monument sign.
28 • The project as a whole (Use Permit and Site Development Permit) requires 17 parking spaces
29 based on 4,200 gross sf of gross floor area. The project provides exactly 17 parking spaces.
30 Thirteen parking spaces are located to the north of the building and 4 spaces are located to the
31 south of the building. With regard to the Minor Subdivision the City Engineer 17 parking spaces
32 will be needed on proposed Parcel 2.
33 • In terms of bicycle parking, fewer than 10 employees are anticipated to work at the store. Based
34 on one bicycle parking space for each 50 parking spaces plus one parking space for every 10
35 employees based, two bicycle parking spaces are required for the project.
36 • Concerned that removal of the driveway would affect the onsite parking because the required
37 parking must be provided including one planter strip every four parking spaces.
38 • There are some opportunities to modify the project so it is workable by possibly changing the
39 location of the property line.
40 • Commented on the discussions about the landscaping as one travels down Airport Park
41 Boulevard as to which projects are likely under-landscaped and not in compliance with the 20%
42 requirement. Does not know whether or not this experience is good or bad.
43 • The calculations for landscaping for this project were very conservative. There were no sidewalks
44 or walkways counted for the landscaping percentage. Does not know how the landscaping
45 percentage was calculated for the previous project or for other projects in the AIP. There may be
46 some differences in how these landscaping percentages were calculated since the ordinance not
47 does include a calculation method or define landscaping.
48 • It may be now that the focus should be on how the landscaping will look as opposed to what is
49 comparable and/or required in the Airport Industrial Park or if the Commission is of the opinion
50 the landscaping plan is a quality plan. These are some considerations that can be made.
51
52 Chair Pruden: The concern, of course, is the minimal landscaping on the back portion of parcel. What
53 makes the project more appealing is the nice landscaping on the front portion of the parcel. The front
54 parcel is not the issue.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 9
1 Staff: Noted looking at the project as a whole in some respects the parking lot is better landscaped than
2 other parking lots in the AIP.
3
4 Commissioner Brenner:
5 • This site is different than other sites, noting all sites differ in one way or another and offers more
6 constraints than others comparatively. Originally, the parcel was not 'master-planned' the way it
7 should have been and is willing to give a compromise to this end. However, wishes the
8 development was a better fit for the site.
9 • It may not be necessary to eliminate the northern access driveway shown on page 8 of the plans.
10 It may be that additional landscaping can be included in the driveway area. No matter what
11 approach is taken, it is unlikely the 20% landscaping requirement can be met for the whole parcel
12 after the proposed parcel split.
13 • The question is how to best compromise. Are we limited to adding more landscaping to the front
14 or can more be added to the back portion of the property?
15 • It may be important to spread the landscaping around by removing some of the parking spaces in
16 the rear parcel/Phase 1 and replace with additional landscaping.
17
18 Chair Pruden: Tonight the Commission is looking at the project as one parcel. It may be the applicant
19 needs to look at the plans and determine how to meet the 20% landscape standard based on the gross
20 area of the parcel and come back with a revised plan.
21
22 Staff: Clarified with regard to the parking and noted a specific number of parking spaces are required and
23 the project as a whole complies with the requirements. As part of the Minor Subdivision, if the property
24 line is as shown on the site, the project/Phase 2 will need all 17 parking spaces.
25
26 Commissioner poble: There are a net 11 parking spaces more than what is required for the two parcels
27 as two separate developments because there are reciprocal easements in the parking lots. So in
28 essence, we are dealing with 11 parking spaces.
29
30 The Commission noted if the driveway is eliminated, it appears there will be conservatively 2 more
31 parking spaces available on north side of the parking lot which could be replaced with 450 sf of
32 landscaping.
33
34 Chair Pruden polled the Commission and asked if there was a specific percentage of landscaping that is
35 less than the 20% requirement for the entire project the Commission would be comfortable with given the
36 project constraints. The current coverage for the entire parcel is 14.4%.
37
38 Staff: With some modification the percentage could reach a minimum of 17.2%.
39
40 It was noted some of the Commissioners support compliance with the 20°/a coverage requirement.
41
42 Commissioners Doble and Brenner agree one alternative would be to better distribute the landscaping
43 on the site between the two phases of the project.
44
45 Steve Honeycutt:
46 • For business reasons does not want to come back for further review.
47 • Prefers to work out the landscaping issue tonight.
48 • The landscaping issue is really about quantity versus quality.
49 • Supports the concept of looking at the quality of the landscaping and/or perception of landscaping
50 by providing landscaping in key areas so as to aesthetically balance the landscaping
51 proportionately giving the perception that the 20°/o requirement has been met as opposed to
52 focusing on establishing percentages/ratios and/or assigning quantitative values for the
53 landscaping since it is with certainty the landscaping standard cannot be met.
54 • Supports redistribution of the landscaping.
55 • Asked the Commission to consider:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 10
1 ■ Eliminating 3 of the 9 southerly parking spaces on the front portion of proposed Parcel 1,
2 which are further away from the entry of the parking lot and replace with landscaping.
3 • Eliminate one interior parking space on either side east and west for the northern middle
4 parking lot on proposed Parcel 1 and replace with landscaping.
5 ■ Eliminate the parking space in the northern landscape island adjacent to the one parking
6 space on the east side proposed to be eliminated and replace with landscaping.
7 ■ Eliminating these parking spaces is a way to distribute the landscaping between the two
8 phases and to locate it where it will have a bigger impact.
9
10 The changes proposed to the landscape areas for consideration by the Commission are referenced as
11 Exhibit 8A and attached hereto to the minutes.
12
13 Commission: In addition to the above-referenced proposed modification, recommends eliminating the
14 northern access driveway and replace with landscaping as discussed above on proposed Parcel 2 for
15 Phase 2 as shown on Exhibit 8A.
16
17 It was noted a recalculation of the aforementioned revisions will likely increase the landscaping ratio to
18 approximately 17%.
19
20 COMMISSION CONSENSUS:
21
22 Proiect Desiqn
23 Discussed the building design and supports the design, color and material aspects of the project with the
24 understanding that the building is a framed building as opposed to a tilt-up.
25
26 Landscapinq Modification—20% Coveraqe
27 Supports and accepts the modifications to the landscape area as shown on Exhibit 8A.
28
29 Agrees with the new findings regarding landscaping modifications to the AIP Ordinance 1098 landscaping
30 to provide 20% landscaping coverage of the gross area of the parcel as shown on Exhibit 8A formulated
31 from this meeting.
32 New Findings:
33 ■ The Phase 2 building is moderately sized and located on a smaller parcel.
34 ■ Unlike parcels located on the east side of Airport Park Boulevard and designated Retail
35 Commercial which are required to maintain a 60 foot setback from the Highway 101 property line,
36 the side and rear setbacks for this project are determined as part of the Use Permit process. The
37 larger rear setback required for parcels designated Retail Commercial provides an area for
38 landscaping that helps to comply with the landscaping coverage requirement and to address
39 aesthetic concerns related to US 101's designation as a Gateway in the General Plan.
40 ■ Due to the existing setback to the west property line, location of shared driveways and site
41 circulation, and pedestrian walkways (many of which are required by Building Code), locations for
42 additional landscaping are limited without reducing the size of the Phase 2 building or removing
43 parking.
44 ■ The parcel is developed with drive aisles on the north and south sides of the parcels eliminating
45 the opportunity for landscaping in this area.
46 ■ The project would provide more than 50% shade coverage within 15 years of planting and the
47 project provides an attractive landscaping area at the front of the site that comprises most of the
48 25 foot width of the required from setback.
49 ■ The project provides one tree in a linear landscape planter between every four parking spaces as
50 required by AIP Ordinance 1098.
51 ■ The reduced landscaping coverage balances the requirement for landscaping coverage and the
52 need to provide onsite parking sufficient to attract tenants.
53 ■ The retrofit of the project with additional landscaping (Exhibit 8A from this meeting) in Phase 1
54 and the revision of Phase 2 to remove parking spaces and increase landscaping distributes the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 11
1 landscaping coverage within the project site and provides an attractive entrance into the parking
2 facility from adjacent parcels.
3
4 Landscape Modification— Pedestrian Walkway through Parking Lot
5 New Finding: The project is consistent with the AIP Ordinance 1098 requirement to provide defined
6 pedestrian walkways in parking lots with 12 of more parking spaces (north parking lot) and a modification
7 to this requirement is not required based on the following:
8 1. The project provides walkways around the parking lot at the north side of the building,
9 including a walkway along the front of the site, a walkway in the landscape area to the north
10 of the parking lot, a walkway on Phase 1 along the property line proposed as part of the
11 minor subdivision, and a walkway along the front of the store.
12 2. The seven parking spaces located directly in front of the building have access to the walkway
13 located at the front of the building.
14 3. The eight parking spaces (see Exhibit 8A) located in the northern part of the parking lot have
15 access to the walkway located in the landscape area adjacent to the northern property line
16 which connects to the walkway located along the project frontage and along the property line
17 proposed as part of the minor subdivision.
18
19 New Condition: The Commission added a project condition that reads, `Revised landscaping and parking
20 is shown on Exhibit 8A. As part of this plan, the landscaping coverage percentage shall be revised to
21 reflect these changes and shall be shown for the existing parcel, proposed Parcel 1 and proposed Parcel
22 2.'
23
24 Staff: Commission needs to discuss the Sign Program.
25
26 Siqn Proqram
27 • Discussed the signage for the site relevant to Phase 1 and Phase 2 as provided for in attachment
28 3 and noted it to be conservative.
29 • Included a finding that reads, `As conditioned, the project was found to be consistent with the AIP
30 Ordinance 1098 requirements that signs generally comply with the City of Ukiah Sign Ordinance.
31 Amendments to the sign program that allow the signage for Phase 2 consistent with the sign
32 program approved for Phase 1 have been approved and are required by the conditions of
33 approval.'
34 • Agrees and accepts Condition of Approval 6G that reads, `The amended the sign program 1)
35 identifies that the Sign Program applies to both buildings/sites and references them by assessor's
36 parcel number and/or address 2) allows tenants of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 to be include on
37 the monument sign 3) limits signage to the sign bands identified and does not apply a sign square
38 footage limitation for the site provided the sign is limited to the location and 4) addresses the `no
39 entry' sign.
40 • Accepts the signage as proposed.
41
42 Maintenance Aareement
43 • Recommends the City Engineer include a condition of approval for the Minor Subdivision
44 requiring a maintenance agreement for the shared facilities on the site i.e., access, parking,
45 landscaping, and drainage in the event one or both of the parcels is sold in the future.
46
47 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:23 p.m.
48
49 M/S Doble/Whetzel to approve Major Use Permit and Major Site Development Permit No. 11-10-UP-
50 SDP-PC with accepted Findings 1-8 as provided in attachment 1 of the staff report and with the added
51 findings to agree with Table 2: AIP Ordinance 1098 Consistency Analysis on pages 9 and 10 of the staff
52 report and the additional language to address the retrofit of the parking lot modifications as shown on
53 Exhibit 8A and as discussed above. Motion carried (5-0).
54
55 M/S Brenner/Doble to approve Major Use Permit and Major Site Development Permit No. 11-10-UP-
56 SDP-PC with accepted Conditions of Approval as provided in attachment 2 in the staff report with the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 12
1 addition of a condition from the Planning Commission that the landscaping coverage percentages shall be
2 revised to reflect the changes as shown in Exhibit 8A regarding proposed Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 as
3 discussed above. Motion carried (5-0).
4
5 Staff: Staff will provide the following recommended conditions from the Planning Commission to the City
6 Engineer for consideration to be applied to the Minor Subdivision.
7
8 Plans submitted for building permiUfinal map shall include the following and are subject to staff review
9 and approval:
10
11 1. Revised landscaping and parking as shown on Exhibit 8A and as part of this plan, the
12 landscaping coverage percentage shall be revised to reflect these changes and shall be shown
13 on the plan for the existing parcel, proposed Parcel 1 and Parcel 2.
14 2. Amended the sign program that 1) identifies that the Sign Program applies to both buildings/sites
15 and references them by assessor's parcel number and/or address 2) allows tenants of both
16 Phase 1 and Phase 2 to be include on the monument sign 3) limits signage to the sign bands
17 identified and does not apply a sign square footage limitation for the site provided the sign is
18 limited to the location and 4) addresses the `no entry' sign.
19 3. Easements agreements for the use and/or maintenance of shared facilities such as access,
20 parking, landscaping, and drainage.
21 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
22 Staff noted the Planning Commission will likely review the Site Development Permit and Statement of
23 Overriding Considerations for the Walmart Expansion Project at the regular meeting January 25, 2012
24 meeting pending the outcome of the appeal by Council at the regular January 18�h meeting relative to the
25 EIR portion of the project.
26
27 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
28 Commissioner Sanders has the packet ready for distribution to the stakeholders regarding the Master
29 Tree List formulated by TAG to pass on to the Planning Department and hopefully if on schedule this
30 matter will go to City Council at the regular February 1, meeting.
31
32 Chair Pruden will not be able to attend the regular February 22nd Planning Commission meeting.
33
34 12. ADJOURNMENT
35 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
36
37
38 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
39
40 USE PERMIT &SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS
41
42 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GUILLON RETAIL BUILDING PHASE 2
43 A 4,200 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND
44 ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE EASTERN (FRONT) PORTION OF THE SITE 1230
45 AIRPORT PARK BOULEVARD
46 APN 180-080-78
47 FILE NO. 11-10-UP-PC-MIS-CE
48
49 1. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City of Ukiah General Plan as described in the staff
50 report.
51
52 2. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with AIP Ordinance 1098 and City of Ukiah zoning code as
53 described in Table 2 of the staff report.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 13
1 3. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master
2 Plan as described in Table 1 of the staff report.
3
4 4. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Use Permit as
5 required by AIP Ordinance 1098 based as described in Table 3 of the staff report.
6
7 5. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the findings required for approval of a Site
8 Development Permit as required by Ukiah Municipal Code section 9263 as described in Table 4 of
9 the staff report.
10
11 6. The modification to the AIP Ordinance 1098 landscaping requirement to provide 50% shade coverage
12 of all paved areas within 10 years of planting was approved based on the following:
13
14 A. Based on staff research, communities that have a shade ordinance most commonly use a 15
15 year tree canopy when calculating shade coverage. Staff was unable to find another
16 community that used a 10 year canopy for the purpose of calculating shade coverage.
17 B. The City of Davis standard is an appropriate standard to use since the City of Davis has a
18 climate similar to Ukiah's.
19 C. The tree canopy will typically double in size between 10 years and 15 years, making the 15
20 year standard a more reasonable standard for calculating shade coverage.
21 D. Past projects subject to this shade requirement have not been able to provide the 50% shade
22 coverage within the 10 year time frame, but have been able to provide the 50% shade
23 coverage within 15 years of planting or at maturity.
24 E. The project would provide more than 50°/o shade coverage of paved areas within 15 years
25 using the City of Davis method.
26
27 7. The modification to the AIP Ordinance 1098 landscaping requirement to provide 20% landscaping
28 coverage of the gross area of the parcel was approved based on the following:
29
30 A. The Phase 2 building is moderately sized and located on a smaller parcel.
31 B. Unlike parcels located on the east side of Airport Park Boulevard and designated Retail
32 Commercial which are required to maintain a 60 foot setback from the Highway 101 property
33 line, the side and rear setbacks for this project are determined as part of the Use Permit
34 process. The larger setback required for parcels designated Retail Commercial provides an
35 area for landscaping that helps to comply with the landscaping coverage requirement and to
36 address aesthetic concerns related to US 101's designation as a Gateway in the General
37 Plan.
38 C. Due to the existing setback to the west property line, location of shared driveways and site
39 circulation, and pedestrian walkways (many of which are required by Building Code),
40 locations for addition landscaping are limited without reducing the size of the Phase 2
41 building or removing parking.
42 D. The parcel is developed with drive aisles on the north and south sides of the parcels
43 eliminating the opportunity for landscaping in this area.
44 E. The project would provide more than 50% shade coverage within 15 years of planting and the
45 project provides an attractive landscaping area at the front of the site that comprises most of
46 the 25 foot width of the required from setback.
47 F. The project provides one tree in a linear landscape planter between every four parking
48 spaces as required by AIP Ordinance 1098.
49 G. The reduced landscaping coverage balances the requirement for landscaping coverage and
50 the need to provide onsite parking sufficient to attract tenants.
51 H. The retrofit of the project with additional landscaping (see Exhibit 8A from this meeting) in
52 Phase 1 and the revision of Phase 2 to remove parking spaces and increase landscaping
53 distributes the landscaping coverage within the project site and provides an attractive
54 entrance into the parking facility from adjacent parcels.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 14
1 8. The project is consistent with the AIP Ordinance 1098 requirement to provide defined pedestrian
2 walkways in parking lots with 12 of more parking spaces (north parking lot) and a modification to this
3 requirement is not required based on the following:
4
5 4. The project provides walkways around the parking lot at the north side of the building,
6 including a walkway along the front of the site, a walkway in the landscape area to the north
7 of the parking lot, a walkway on Phase 1 along the property line proposed as part of the
8 minor subdivision, and a walkway along the front of the store.
9 5. The seven parking spaces located directly in front of the building have access to the walkway
10 located at the front of the building.
11 6. The eight parking spaces (see Exhibit 8A) located in the northern part of the parking lot have
12 access to the walkway located in the landscape strip adjacent to the northern property line
13 which connects to the walkway located along the project frontage and along the property line
14 proposed as part of the minor subdivision.
15
16 9. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the AIP Ordinance 1098 requirements that signs
17 generally comply with the City of Ukiah Sign Ordinance. Amendments to the sign program that allow
18 the signage for Phase 2 consistent with the sign program approved for Phase 1 have been approved
19 and are required by the conditions of approval.
20
21 10. Public Notice of the project was provided in the following manner as required:
22
23 A. Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries on December 29, 2011;
24 B. Posted on the subject property in three places on December 29, 2011; and
25 C. Published in the Ukiah Daily Journal on January 1, 2012.
26
27 11. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
28 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15300, Class 3, New Construction and Conversion of Small
29 Structures which allows the construction of commercial buildings up to 10,000 square feet in
30 urbanized areas based on the following:
31
32 ■ The building would be 4,200 square feet which is less than the square footage allowed by this
33 exemption;
34 ■ The project site is located in an urbanized area in an area zoned for commercial, mixed-use
35 and light industrial development;
36 ■ The retail sales use of the building would not involve the use of a significant amount of
37 hazardous substances and has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who had no comments
38 related to hazardous substances;
39 • Public facilities and services including water, sewer, electric, and transportation are available
40 to serve the site and the project has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and
41 Electric Utility Department for the ability to provide services and facilities to serve the site;
42 ■ The project site and surrounding area are not environmentally sensitive as the site is located
43 in an urban area that is mostly developed with commercial uses, there are native or mature
44 trees on the site and the site and surrounding area does not provide habitat or include water
45 courses.
46
47 In addition, the project is subject to the applicable mitigation measures from the 1995 Redwood
48 Business Park EIR which have been included as conditions of approval for the project.
49
50 USE PERMIT &SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
51
52 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GUILLON RETAIL BUILDING PHASE 2
53 A 4,200 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND
54 ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE EASTERN (FRONT) PORTION OF THE SITE 1230
55 AIRPORT PARK BOULEVARD
56 APN 180-080-78
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 15
1 FILE NO. 11-10-UP-SDP-PC-MIS-CE
2
3 1. Approval is granted for the construction of a 4,200 square foot building and associated site
4 improvements as shown on the plans, sign package, and lighting details submitted to the Planning
5 Department and date stamped January 5, 2012 except as modified by the following conditions of
6 approval.
7
8 2. The Minor Subdivision subject to review and approval of the City Engineer shall not become
9 approved until the Planning Commission decision has become final by the required appeal period
10 expiring without the filing of a timely appeal. Should a timely appeal of the Planning Commission
11 decision be filed, approval of the Minor Subdivision would be void until the appeal has been resolved
12 and the Use Permit has been approved by the City or withdrawn by the applicant.
13
14 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for this project, the Minor Subdivision referenced above in
15 condition #2 shall be approved by the City Engineer and the approved map shall be recorded.
16
17 4. Similar commercial uses that are consistent with the parking and airport compatibility criteria are
18 allowed uses allowed pursuant to this Use Permit. Future tenant(s) shall provide written
19 documentation to the Planning Department as part of the building permit, business license and/or
20 other permit required to allow occupancy that addresses the Airport Compatibility Criteria and parking
21 requirements and is subject to Planning Department review and approval.
22
23 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the approved awnings and bench for Phase 1 (File No. 09-31)
24 shall be installed.
25
26 6. Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and
27 approval:
28
29 A. Draft access agreement for the monitoring wells.
30 B. Draft access easements for the north and south shared driveways.
31 C. Information as to the density of the use (number of persons per acre). The maximum allowed
32 density is 60 people per acre.
33 D. The location and design specifications for parking for two bicycles. The preferred design of
34 the bike rack is an inverted "U". Bicycle spaces shall be located proximate to the front each
35 tenant space.
36 E. A lighting plan (see condition #7 below).
37 F. Documentation that all buildings and vegetation will be constructed and maintained at heights
38 consistent with the side slope criteria of the Ukiah Municipal Airport Master Plan.
39 G. Amended sign program that 1) identifies that the Sign Program applies to both buildings/sites
40 and references them by assessor's parcel number and/or address 2) allows tenants of both
41 Phase 1 and Phase 2 to be included on the monument sign 3) limits signage to the sign
42 bands identified and does not apply a sign square footage limitation for the site provided that
43 the sign is limited to the this location and 4)addresses the"no entry" sign.
44
45 7. The Lighting Plan required as part of the condition #4 above shall include the following and is subject
46 to staff review and approval:
47
48 A. Lighting that uses the minimum wattage and is of a quality that provides adequate security,
49 but is not excessive and does not result in excessively bright night glow.
50
51 B. Sufficient details regarding the proposed type, wattage/luminescence, and illustration of the
52 area illuminated by each exterior light shall be provided so that Planning Staff can determine
53 the brightness and quality of the proposed lighting.
54
55 C. Exterior lighting (including signs) shall have built in motion and dusk to dawn sensors.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 16
1 D. A photometric plan that demonstrates that the project lighting will not be overly bright or
2 extend over property lines.
3
4 8. Signs require application for and approval of a Sign Permit from the Planning and Community
5 Development Department and shall comply with the Sign Program for the project approved by
6 Planning Commission (see condition#7).
7
8 9. Any rental or lease agreements involving the subject property shall include an advisement that the
9 property is located in close proximity to the Ukiah Municipal Airport and is subject to occasional
10 aircraft overflight and may be subject to aircraft noise or related disturbances.
11
12 10. Permit from the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District referenced below in Standard
13 Requirements.
14
15 11. These conditions of approval (including the standard requirements) shall appear as notes on the first
16 sheet of the building permit plans.
17
18 From the Planning Commission
19
20 Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following and are subject to staff review and
21 approval:
22
23 A. Revised landscaping and parking as shown on exhibit 8A. As part of this plan, the landscaping
24 coverage percentages shall be revised to reflect these changes and shall be shown for the
25 existing parcel, proposed parcel 1 and proposed parcel 2.
26
27 From the Public Works Department(Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works)
28
29 12. On or before the fifth day after final approval of the
30 Permit, the applicant and property owner shall sign and subsequently comply with an Access
31 Agreement in substantially the same form as the Access Agreement executed on March 19, 2010 by
32 the previous property owner, or as modified with approval with approval of the City Attorney.
33
34 13. The applicants shall comply with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan dated July 2010
35 prepared by EBA Engineering which is consistent with the requirements of the North Coast Regional
36 Water Quality Control Board. Any plans for reuse or disposal of contaminated soil shall be reviewed
37 and approved by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
38
39 14. The inverts of all new storm drains constructed on the property shall be designed and constructed to
40 prevent groundwater intrusion; said design shall be approved by the City Engineer. Any underground
41 structure, which must be situated five or more feet below the ground surface shall incorporate special
42 design measures approved by the City Engineer to preclude discharging into the storm drain system.
43
44 From the Public Works Department(Ben Kaqevama, Senior Civil Enqineer)
45
46 15. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a grading and drainage plan and an erosion and
47 sediment control plan, prepared by a Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval of the
48 Department of Public Works. Storm drain inlet filters shall be installed and maintained in all onsite
49 storm drain inlets.
50
51 16. The Grading and Drainage plan from Rolls Anderson and Rolls shows an incorrect graphic scale of 1"
52 = 20'. The grading and drainage plan submitted for building permit shall correct the graphic scale on
53 the grading and drainage plan.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 17
1 17. Any existing curb, gutter and sidewalk in disrepair that is adjacent to the subject property shall be
2 required. All work shall be done in conformance with the City of Ukiah Standard Drawings 101 and
3 102 or as directed by the City Engineer.
4
5 18. All areas of circulation shall be paved with a minimum of 2" of AC on 6" of Base or other suitable
6 surface approved by the City Engineer. This includes the proposed driveways and parking areas. If
7 heavy truck traffic is anticipated from the solid waste company, delivery trucks, or other heavy
8 vehicles, the pavement section shall be calculated appropriately to ensure that it can withstand the
9 loading.
10
11 19. Capital Improvement fees for water service are based on the water meter size. The fee for a 3/4'
12 meter is currently $660.00. A fee schedule for water meter sizes is available upon request. If
13 required, there is a cost for City crews to construct the water main taps for proposed water services.
14
15 20. All irrigation and fire services shall have separate and individual water and sewer services.
16
17 21. Existing sewer laterals planned to be utilized as part of this project shall be cleaned and tested in
18 accordance with Ukiah Valley Sanitation District Ordinance No. 30 and replaced if required. If an
19 existing lateral is to be abandoned, it shall be abandoned at the main to the satisfaction of the Public
20 Works Department.
21
22 22. Applicable Ukiah Valley Sanitation District sewer connection fees shall be paid at the time of building
23 permit issuance.
24
25 23. All work within the public right-of-way shall be performed by a licensed and properly insured
26 contractor. The contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit for work within this area or otherwise
27 affecting this area. Encroachment permit fee shall be $45 plus 3% of estimated construction costs.
28
29 From the Building Official (David Willouqhby)
30
31 The following are required to be incorporated into building permit plans and are subject to staff review and
32 approval.
33
34 24. This project is required to comply with all of the 2010 California Codes including the California Green
35 Building Standards Code which includes all of the nonresidential mandatory measures contained in
36 Chapter 5 (Planning and design, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and
37 resource efficiency, and environmental quality).
38
39 25. If the west exterior wall of the building is less than 10 feet from the property line proposed as part of
40 the Minor Subdivision, it will need to be 1 hour fire resistive construction with a minimum 30" parapet
41 wall. Opening protection is based on Table 705.8 of the 2010 CBC.
42
43 26. On the outside of the building, provide egress illumination with battery backup to the public way.
44
45 27. Provide detectable warning strips (3 additional areas) at the westerly sidewalk on either side of the
46 driveway and at the termination of the sidewalk on the south end (include a striped walkway across
47 the driveway).
48
49 From the Fire Department (Chuck Yates)
50
51 28. Separate permits are required for the sprinkler and alarm systems.
52
53 From the Electric Department
54
55 29. The final location and details for the transformer and other electrical requirements are subject to the
56 review and approval of the Electric Department.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 18
1
2 From Redwood Business Park EIR 1995 Mitiqation Measures
3
4 1. The Redwood Business Park EIR 1995 includes mitigation measures that apply to development in the
5 Redwood Business Park area of the Airport Industrial Park Planned Development. The following
6 mitigation measures from the EIR apply to the project and included as conditions of approval.
7
8 2. Lighting should include shielded, non-glare types of lights to minimize impacts to night-time views.
9 Sign lighting should be kept to an absolute minimum. A lighting plan should be reviewed by the City to
10 insure that the project lights do not affect airport operation. See condition #4 and 5 above.
11
12 A. All construction activities shall specify construction dust mitigation requirements. These
13 requirements are outlined below:
14
15 B. Provide equipment and personnel for watering of all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at a
16 frequency sufficient to avoid visible dust plumes. An appropriate dust palliative or
17 suppressant, added to water before application, should be utilized.
18
19 C. Suspend earthmoving or dust-producing activities during periods of high winds when dust
20 control efforts are unable to prevent visible dust plumes.
21
22 D. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the
23 wind.
24
25 E. Sweep construction area and adjacent streets of all mud and debris, since this material can
26 be pulverized and later resuspend by vehicle traffic.
27
28 F. Limit the speed of all construction vehicles to 15 miles per hour while on the site.
29
30 G. All material transported by truck will be covered or wetted down as needed to suppress
31 visible dust.
32
33 3. Future businesses shall provide bicycle storage/parking facilities.
34
35 4. To ensure that buildings and other improvements do not collapse or fail, it will be necessary for each
36 individual project in the business park to undergo a complete geotechnical investigation, including
37 subsurface exploration. The analysis shall be conducted by a registered engineering geologist or
38 geological engineer. Field and laboratory data should be analyzed to provide the following
39 geotechnical information:
40
41 A. A description of the soil and geological conditions observed, including faulting and
42 landsliding.
43
44 B. Site grading recommendations.
45
46 C. Recommended foundation types and design criteria.
47
48 D. Retaining wall design criteria, as necessary.
49
50 E. Recommendations for slab-on-grade construction, as applicable.
51
52 F. Geotechnical engineering drainage recommendations.
53
54 G. Recommended additional supplementary services.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 19
1 5. Future projects will be bound to construct the project per the recommendations of the geological
2 report.
3
4 6. Future applicants must obtain a General Construction Activity Permit from the Regional Water Quality
5 Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB will require specific conditions to minimize erosion and
6 sedimentation. Some of the likely conditions required strictly for erosion control are listed in the
7 Geology and Soil section of the [RBP] EIR. Others related to other water quality issues are described
8 in the section on Hydrology. RWQCB has the ability to review these mitigation measures and add or
9 subtract mitigations as they see fit.
10
11 7. Developers of each project on the site must develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and
12 obtain a General Construction Activity Permit from the RWQCB.
13
14 8. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 8:00
15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction work shall occur on Sundays and holidays recognized
16 by the City of Ukiah.
17
18 9. Construction equipment shall be properly muffled and maintained.
19
20 10. Stationary equipment like generators, compressors, and concrete pumpers shall be stationed to avoid
21 noise impacts on residential areas to the north of Talmage Road. Shielding shall be used if necessary.
22
23 11. The buildings shall include a sprinkler system as required by the Fire Department. Hydrant
24 construction, building access, and building construction are subject to the requirements and approval
25 of the Fire Department.
26
27 12. Water mains on the RBP shall be sized to provide fireflow required by the Fire Department. The final
28 required fireflow will be known only when the future occupants of the site are finalized and the sizes of
29 buildings known. It is possible that existing mains provide the required fireflow; a fireflow analysis must
30 be conducted to determined required sizing and whether main looping is necessary. The final required
31 fireflow will be determined by the Fire Department. The applicant shall be responsible for requisite
32 engineering analyses and required water main improvements.
33
34 13. All development in the RBP shall be constructed per the requirements of the Fire Department.
35
36 14. Plans submitted for building permit shall be routed to the Police Department of review and comment
37 on site lighting and security.
38
39 15. The developers shall pay the required developer mitigation fee.
40
41 16. The project will be required to pay all pertinent hookup fees.
42
43 17. No future hookups will be approved unless there is adequate treatment disposal capacity.
44
45 18. Require water conservation engineering for all developments in RBP. All landscaping should focus on
46 using species that have a low water demand.
47
48 19. All development shall be required to include water conservation fixtures. Development proposed in the
49 RBP should be required to install toilets that use no more than 1.5 gallons per flush. Commercial and
50 industrial developments should be required to install low flow urinals and flow restrictors on all faucets.
51
52 20. All businesses shall be required to institute a state-of-the-art recycling program. All packing material
53 used in stores shall be recycled. Containers shall be placed in the parking lot of all commercial outlets
54 and at other locations in the RBP to collect at least glass, aluminum and newspaper; it is further
55 recommended that plastics, glass, and tin be recycled. Smaller containers to collect glass, aluminum
56 and clean paper shall be placed outside take out restaurants.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 20
1
2 21. This recycling program shall be formalized in a recycling statement that is approved by the City and/or
3 the MSWA and the City and/or the MSWA shall have the authority to ensure that future development
4 on the RBP complies with the recycling conditions set forth in this statement.
5
6 22. Scrap timber products should be stockpiled and made available to the public or sold so that it does
7 not end up in the landfill. Scrap metals shall be recycled whenever feasible. Buildings should be
8 insulated using recycled materials if feasible. Whenever feasible, other recycled materials should be
9 used.
10
11 23. All new development will be required to pay the connection fees current at the time application is
12 made.
13
14 Standards Conditions of Approval
15
16 1. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to this Use Permit has expired
17 without the filing of a timely appeal. If a timely appeal is filed, the project is subject to the outcome of
18 the appeal and shall be revised as necessary to comply with any modifications, conditions, or
19 requirements that were imposed as part of the appeal.
20
21 2. No permit shall be issued and this Permit is not effective unless and until all fees and charges
22 applicable to the application, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures have been paid in full.
23
24 3. All use, construction, or occupancy shall conform to the application approved by the Zoning
25 Administrator, City Engineer, Planning Commission or City Council as applicable, and to any
26 supporting documents submitted therewith or made part of the administrative record, including staff
27 reports, maps, sketches, renderings, building elevations, landscape plans, and other submittals or
28 documents.
29
30 4. Except as otherwise specifically noted, this Permit shall be granted only for the specific purposes
31 stated in the action approving the Permit and shall not be construed as eliminating or modifying any
32 building, use, zoning or other requirements except as to such specific purposes.
33
34 5. This approved Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved project
35 related to the Permit is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and conditions of
36 approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date of approval; or if the
37 established and use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for twenty-
38 four(24) consecutive months.
39
40 6. This approval is contingent upon agreement of the applicant and property owner and their agents,
41 successors and heirs to defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers,
42 attorneys, employees, boards and commissions from any claim, action or proceeding brought against
43 any of the foregoing individuals or entities, the purpose of which is to attack, set aside, void or annul
44 the approval of this application. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages,
45 costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees that may be asserted by any person or entity,
46 including the applicant, arising out of or in connection with the City's action on this application,
47 whether or not there is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of the City. If, for any
48 reason any portion of this indemnification agreement is held to be void or unenforceable by a court of
49 competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
50
51 7. This approval is not effective unless and until all other required discretionary entitlements have been
52 granted, issued or approved as applicable.
53
54 8. Any work, improvement, expenses or other encumbrance incurred by the applicant, owner or other
55 party in reliance upon any entitlement, approval or permit which has not been granted, issued or
56 approved is at your own risk.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 21
1
2 9. All conditions that do not contain specific completion periods shall be completed prior to release of
3 final building inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building.
4
5 10. Applicant shall be required to obtain and maintain any permit or approval, which is required by law,
6 regulation, or ordinance of any Local, State, or Federal agency. Applicant/owner or other person in
7 possession of the project site shall grant permission to employees of the City of Ukiah and others
8 authorized by the City of the Ukiah to enter upon the subject property as necessary to inspect the
9 property and process the required entitlements.
10
11 11. A copy of all conditions of this Permit shall be provided to and be binding upon any future purchaser,
12 tenant or other party of interest.
13
14 12. All Conditions of Approval for this project shall be provided to all contractors and persons working on
15 the project. Conditions of Approval shall be prominently displayed on all sets of plans for all
16 ministerial permits required to develop the property, including building permits and permits for grading
17 or site preparation.
18
19 13. Any construction shall comply with the "Standard Specifications" for such type of construction now
20 existing or which may hereafter be promulgated by the Engineering Department of the City of Ukiah;
21 except where higher standards are imposed by law, rule, or regulation or by action of the approving
22 body.
23
24 14. In addition to any other condition imposed, any construction shall comply with all building, fire,
25 electric, plumbing, occupancy, and structural laws, regulations and ordinances in effect at the time the
26 Building Permit is approved and issued.
27
28 15. Sewer, water, electric and fire protection improvements and services shall conform to the
29 specifications of City Public Utilities, Public Works Department and Fire Departments.
30
31 16. The project shall comply with the following requirements to reduce air quality impacts related to
32 project construction:
33
34 A. All grading shall comply with Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Rule 1-430,
35 Fugitive Dust Emissions.
36
37 B. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, road construction, and
38 building construction institute a practice of routinely watering exposed soil to control dust,
39 particularly during windy days.
40
41 C. All inactive soil piles on the project site shall be completely covered at all times to control
42 fugitive dust.
43
44 D. All activities involving site preparation, excavation, filling, grading, and actual construction
45 shall include a program of washing off trucks leaving the construction site to control the
46 transport of mud and dust onto public streets.
47
48 E. Low emission mobile construction equipment, such as tractors, scrapers, and bulldozers shall
49 be used for earth moving operations.
50
51 F. All earth moving and grading activities shall be suspended if wind speeds (as instantaneous
52 gusts)exceed 25 miles per hour.
53
54 G. Adjacent roadways exposed to dust, dirt, or other soil particles by vehicles tires, poorly
55 covered truck loads, or other construction activities shall be cleaned each day prior to the end
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 22
1 of construction activities using methods approved by the Director of Public Works/City
2 Engineer.
3
4 17. Prior to issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy, applicant shall submit to the Department of
5 Planning and Community Development a completed Mendocino County Air Quality Management
6 District `Air Quality Permit Checklist' if required by district rules.
7
8 18. If, during site preparation or construction activities, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are
9 unearthed and discovered, all work shall immediately be halted, and City Planning Department staff
10 shall be notified immediately of the discovery. The applicant shall be required to fund the hiring of a
11 qualified professional archaeologist to perform a field reconnaissance and, if deemed necessary, to
12 develop a precise mitigation program approved by the City prior to the continuation of any site work.
13
14 19. The use, site, improvements, landscaping, and all other elements shall be operated and maintained
15 consistent with the approved project and in good standing and repair for the life of the project,
16 notwithstanding any change in ownership.
17
18 20. All required landscaping shall be properly maintained to insure the long-term health and vitality of the
19 plants, shrubs and trees. Proper maintenance means, but is not limited to the following:
20
21 A. Regular slow, deep watering when feasible. The amount of water used shall fluctuate according
22 to the season, i. e., more water in summer, less in the winter.
23
24 B. Additional watering shall occur during long periods of severe heat and drying winds, and reduced
25 watering shall be used during extended periods of cool rainy weather.
26
27 C. Fertilizer shall only being used on trees during planting. Shrubs may receive periodic fertilizer
28 according to the recommendations of a landscaping professional.
29
30 D. Weed killers shall not be used on or near trees.
31
32 E. The tree ties and stakes shall be checked every six months to ensure they do not constrict the
33 trunks and damage the trees.
34
35 F. Tree ties and stakes shall be removed after 1 to 3 years to ensure they do not damage the trunk
36 of the tree and its overall growth.
37
38 G. Any tree that dies or is unhealthy due to pests, disease or other factors, including vandalism, shall
39 be replaced with the same or similar tree species, or an alternative species approved by the
40 department of Planning and Community Development.
41
42 H. All trees shall be properly pruned as appropriate. No topping cuts shall be made. All pruning shall
43 follow standard industry methods and techniques to ensure the health and vitality of the tree.
44
45
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 11, 2011
Page 23