HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_02222012 1 UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 February 22, 2012
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Mike Whetzel, Vice Chair Judy Pruden, Chair
7 Jason Brenner
8 Kevin Doble
9 Linda Sanders
10
11 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
12 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
13 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
14 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
15
16 1. CALL TO ORDER
17 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
18 Vice Chair Whetzel at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary
19 Avenue, Ukiah, California.
20
21 2. ROLL CALL
22
23 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Everyone cited.
24
25 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — The minutes from the December 20, 2011 and January 11, 2012
26 meetings are included for review and approval.
27
28 The Commission made the following change:
29 December 20, 2011 meeting minutes, page 5, correct Commissioner pobler to Commissioner poble.
30
31 M/S Sanders/Doble to approve December 20, 2011 minutes and January 11, 2012 meeting minutes, as
32 corrected. Motion carried (4-0).
33
34 ABSENT: Chair Pruden
35
36 5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
37 Mary Ann Miller:
38 • Expressed concern that the City no longer has a Design Review Board (DRB) and further
39 expressed disappointment the Planning Commission will not receive comments from the DRB
40 concerning the design aspects for projects.
41 • Holds high regard for the DRB and noted the Board is comprised of professional persons
42 qualified to make sound recommendations to the Planning Commission.
43 • Questioned whether or not it is possible to reinstate the DRB and how this can be accomplished
44 and again emphasized the importance of this body as a valuable City function.
45 • Would it be possible to provide for a design review fee that would accompany project applications
46 because this does involve people's time as well as staff time. Staff is not able to function without
47 funding. It would appear that some methodology can be formulated to again allow for design
48 review of projects. Do we consult with City Council and how can this be done?
49 • The public should be made aware the DRB no longer exists because only a few people know and
50 allow the public the opportunity to provide input whether or not a DRB provides a
51 necessary/valuable service and should be restored.
52 • There are many projects in the pipeline and it would be beneficial to have a DRB to help assist in
53 the process of making certain development and new development is architecturally a good fit for
54 Ukiah.
55 • Supports the DRB being restored.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 1
1 Commissioner poble thanked Ms. Miller for her comments and asked if she will also be making this
2 request of City Council as public comment at a future City Council meeting.
3
4 Mary Ann Miller would be amenable to addressing City Council about what can be done to restore the
5 DRB.
6
7 The Planning Commission agrees the DRB provides a very valuable service to them.
8
9 6. APPEAL PROCESS—There are no appealable items on this agenda.
10
11 7. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A
12
13 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE— N/A
14
15 9. PRELIMINARY REVIEW
16 9A. Preliminary Review for Demolition and Reconstruction of the Orchard Avenue McDonald's
17 Site & Building (File No.: 12-02-PRE-PC). Planning Commission review and comment on
18 preliminary plans for the demolition and reconstruction of the McDonald's located at 115 North
19 Orchard Avenue. The preliminary plans include the demolition of the existing building and all site
20 improvements and the rebuilding of the McDonald's building with drive-thru and construction of
21 new parking areas and access and installation of landscaping.
22
23 Senior Planner Jordan provided a staff report:
24 • Explained the project involves the complete redevelopment of the site, including the demolition of
25 all existing site improvements and the building. Page 1 of the staff report identifies what the
26 reconstruction of the site and building include.
27 • The intent of tonighYs meeting is for the Commission to ask questions, review the project and
28 provide direction to the applicant and/or applicanYs representatives about the proposed project
29 related to site planning and architecture, such as on-site drainage/storm water treatment
30 methodologies, building orientation, landscaping, pedestrian access and circulation, site and
31 building design articulations/treatments/color scheme, materials and/or other relative aspects.
32 • Since this is a preliminary review of the project, there are no specific submittal requirements. The
33 applicant is provided with the submittal requirements for a formal application and is encouraged
34 to provide as much information as possible in order to make the process productive.
35 • For preliminary applications, staff does not provide analysis. Instead, as part of the memo for the
36 project, staff provides general information that is applicable to the project such as the General
37 Plan land use designation, zoning district, airport compatibility zone, location within the Downtown
38 Design District, etc.
39 • The project is not subject to review by the DRB. The DRB was established by the Ukiah
40 Redevelopment Agency. With the elimination of RDAs by the State, the DRB is no longer an
41 active board since it was established under the authority of the RDA.
42 • The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Draft Downtown Zoning Code (DZC).
43 The draft document includes limitations on fast food restaurants and has yet to be adopted by the
44 City Council.
45 • The project would require Planning Commission approval of a Major Site Development Permit.
46 • Since this is not a formal application, staff did not analyze the project for consistency with the
47 minimum parking required. The parking requirement was provided as part of the staff inemo.
48 However, this was informational only and there was no expectation that Planning Commission
49 would review the project for consistency with parking or any other City requirements identified in
50 the memo for the project.
51
52 Commissioner Sanders: Is surprised that because the RDA has been eliminated the DRB has been
53 eliminated. General Plan goal CD-3, `establish design review guidelines tailored to neighborhood
54 character' and refers to a design review board. Is it the decision of City Council or staff whether or not the
55 DRB can be activated or eliminated?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 2
1 Staff: When the State eliminated RDAs in California, this action eliminated the DRB. The RDA
2 established the DRB and this is where authority for this Board existed. When the RDA was eliminated the
3 Board ceased to exist. Even though City Council created a successor agency, the successor agency only
4 deals with the disposition of the assets and obligations of the Agency. It does not have the authority to
5 continue those boards/commissions established by the Agency. Planning Director Stump reviewed the
6 resolutions that established and modified the DRB. It was clear that the Board only had authority under
7 the RDA. Accordingly, when the RDA ended so did the DRB. There has been some decision about what
8 happens next. If the Council chooses, it could reappoint and establish the DRB under its authority. Since
9 the City Council is a separate entity from the RDA, the DRB does not continue to exist because the same
10 five members of the RDA were the same members as Council.
11
12 Commissioner Sanders: Saw the bid announcement in the newspaper for the Perkins Street/Orchard
13 Avenue improvement project that the City put out and inquired when this work is expected to start and
14 whether or not this will impact the applicant's plans for redevelopment of the site and building?
15
16 Staff: The applicant has been advised that the improvement project is occurring. The applicant did meet
17 with the City Planning and Public Works to talk about what is proposed for that particular intersection.
18 There will be an effort to effectively coordinate both projects.
19
20 Efrain Corona of McDonald's USA, LLC, applicant representative:
21 • Provided the Commission with color and material samples.
22 • The existing building is nearly 40 years old. It is architecturally, functionally, and operationally
23 outdated. The site and building is no longer able to function well operationally by today's
24 standards as a fast food restaurant.
25 • Referred to the proposed site plans and generally addressed the scope of the work.
26 • Engaged a local landscaper as a consultant for the project.
27 • Addressed vehicle and pedestrian circulation on the site.
28 • Explained the purpose of the building orientation in conjunction with how the drive-thru wraps
29 back around the front of the building.
30
31 Commissioner Sanders:
32 • Likes many aspects about the design:
33 o Interested in using vegetative swales
34 o LED interior lighting
35 o Pervious paving that is being considered
36 o The larger/higher windows
37 o Use of solar tubes
38 o Allowing for electrical vehicle charging stations
39 o Smaller building footprint
40 o Less Parking
41 • Noted the project design is contemporary and does not have problem in this regard.
42 • Informed applicant that Perkins Street is a gateway location.
43 • Asked about the necessity of having the driveway/drive-thru at the front of the building.
44 • Recommends the project be integrated with the Pear Tree Center by providing good pedestrian
45 connections and access.
46 • Recommends providing better pedestrian access and circulation on-site.
47 • Supports encouraging pedestrian access to the building from Perkins Street and strongly
48 supports providing for pedestrian access to the building from the public sidewalk. This
49 component is currently not part of the site design. As it is now pedestrian circulation does not
50 provide for a good flow.
51 • Would like to have public access from Perkins Street that does not have to cross the parking
52 IoUdrive-thru.
53 • Okay with the proposed landscaping and noted it to be a significant improvement over what is
54 existing.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 3
1 • With regard to the building design, does not have a problem with the yellow accent other than
2 they where they close to the roof/roofline, looks like visual clutter.
3 • Addressed storm water treatment on the site and asked the applicant to consider planting areas
4 that are `below grade'to allow water to enter these areas.
5 • As part of the formal application, provide information about the exterior lighting. The community
6 has expressed concern about lighting in that it should create light pollution and recommends
7 lighting be downcast.
8 • Would like to see some outdoor seating.
9 • Would like to see a designated pedestrian access from Orchard Avenue.
10
11 Commissioner Brenner:
12 • Is pleased McDonald's is upgrading the design of the building and site. Is of the opinion the site
13 plan as designed is not appropriate for that location. Project site has two fronts, Orchard Avenue
14 and Perkins Street. The site is located on one of the City's primary gateways.
15 • The design does not correspond to the intent of the draft Downtown Zoning Code (DZC).
16 • Recommends the applicant review the design and siting standards included in the draft (DZC)
17 since the document was developed with a lot of community input and reflects the desire of the
18 community for building and site design. Since the DZC has not been formally adopted, it is up to
19 the applicant how much of the development standards should be carried into the project.
20 • As designed, the project is not consistent with some of the design standards included in the DZC.
21 Recommends the project be built to the design standards of the DZC as much as possible in
22 which there will likely be compromises that have to happen not only on the part of the applicant,
23 but for everyone. In addition to the many tables in the DZC that address development and as to
24 what is an acceptable standard, the DZC has development and architectural standards regarding
25 window glazing, buildings on corner lots, frontages, drive-thru facilities, fencing, site screening,
26 outdoor lighting, landscaping, maintenance, fa�ade orientation, awnings, galleries and arcades,
27 materials, roofs, windows, doors, accessibility to name some of the development topics and
28 corresponding requirements.
29 • Project has the parking fronting Perkins Street which is a City gateway. Consider moving the
30 building to the south in order to anchor the corner of the site and provide for an entry. This would
31 also facilitate pedestrian access from Perkins Street.
32 • Recommends reviewing the draft DZC for design standards concerning corner buildings.
33 • Understands the reason for having the drive-thru in front of the building.
34 • Could be okay with the wrap around the drive-thru if the building were 'flipped' and moved closer
35 to Perkins Street.
36 • The location of the trash enclosures makes them very visible on a City gateway and at a
37 prominent intersection.
38 • Should provide frontage on at least one street. It may be this has to be Orchard Avenue.
39 Consideration also needs to be given to Perkins Street since it is a City gateway.
40 • Recommends a different color scheme. The draft DZC recommends a darker color at the base of
41 the building and a lighter color above. The color shown on the plans is too dark, especially for this
42 area. Consider a different, light color palette.
43 • Appears the project may not provide the required number of parking spaces. If this is the case,
44 the landscaping shown on the plans would be reduced to less than what is being shown which
45 changes the look of the project.
46 • Expressed concern about the north and east elevations. All of the elevations will be very visible
47 and need to be designed in a manner that reflects this.
48 • Would like to see a site layout plan/rendering that is most feasible for site access and circulation,
49 building orientation, pedestrian orientation, and compliance with City parking and landscaping
50 requirements that also shows landscape screening for the driveway frontage, how the trees would
51 look at maturity to better understand how the development would look and how it would
52 effectively function.
53
54 Commissioner poble:
55 • Relative to the formal Site Development Permit application:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 4
1 o Include the planned improvement on the plans in order to understand how the project
2 and improvements planned for the intersection are coordinated.
3 o Provide rendering to show how the drive-thru in front of the building would be screened
4 from Orchard Avenue and how the site would look from Perkins Street.
5 • No pervious pavement is shown on the plans, but it is discussed in the McDonald's Rebuild
6 project description.
7 • Recommends using more landscaping for water treatment.
8 • Ensure appropriate plants are selected for water treatment areas.
9 • Recommends incorporating curb cuts on the west side and use landscaping for water treatment.
10 • Recommends providing for bio-retention areas.
11 • It appears the project would raise the grade of the site. This provides flexibility and an opportunity
12 for drainage solutions.
13 • Would like to see outdoor seating. This would be good for the project since this feature `invites
14 people in.'
15 • Based on the explanation from the applicant, okay with the driveway in front of the building if it
16 avoids putting cars back out onto Orchard Avenue in order to enter the parking lot.
17 • There is no curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the north side. Will Public Works require sidewalk
18 improvements here?
19
20 Vice Chair Whetzel:
21 • Based on the explanation from the applicant, is okay with the drive-thru wrapping the building and
22 the reason why this must occur. If anyone has children and has used this technique/feature
23 before this type of design is more accommodating to customers.
24 • Consider moving the building closer to Perkins Street to provide a better presence on the City's
25 gateway.
26 • Asked whether the location of the trash enclosure works. It is located at the end of a parking row
27 next to the drive aisles.
28 • The Planning Commission chairperson does not consider Crape myrtle a tree. May need to
29 consider a substitute.
30
31 There was Commission discuss whether an opportunity exists to provide access the site from the JC
32 Penney parking lot located to the north of the site.
33
34 The applicant indicated this was not an option since Penney's has said they would not allow access
35 through their site from the McDonald's site.
36
37 Staff:
38 • Addressed the site plan with regards to access and circulation and noted the City requested the
39 applicant move the driveways as far away from Perkins Street as possible in order to improve the
40 circulation at Perkins StreeUOrchard Avenue intersection so this may be what is driving the site
41 plan. Is not sure how this affects or not the ability for the applicant to move the building closer to
42 Perkins Street. It is not the responsibility of staff or the Commission to design the project.
43 • Emphasized again the need to have the access driveways as far from Perkins Street as possible.
44 • Would like to know if the Commission is okay with 1) the design of the building which has been
45 described by the Commission as "contemporary" since this is not a design that we often see 2)
46 the drive-thru wrapping around the front of the building since this pushed the building further
47 away from Orchard Avenue which is contrary to pedestrian orientation which tries to located
48 building closer to the street and 3)the colors of the building.
49
50 There was Commission discussion about realistically how much pedestrian access is on Perkins Street in
51 terms of changing the site plans and possibly `flipping' the building with regard to building presentation on
52 a corner lot that is a city gateway and if this would work. It was noted Orchard Avenue is an important and
53 well-traveled thoroughfare so in terms of building orientation and site constraints, appropriate site access
54 and circulation, how the drive-thru facility would work and other development considerations, it is likely
55 more feasible the building front faces Orchard Avenue.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 5
1 Applicant:
2 • The purpose of the driveway in front of the building is to allow users of the drive-thru to enter the
3 parking lot eat their food. Many customers purchase food from the drive-thru and then eat on the
4 site in their car. Approximately 25% of the customers do this.
5 • Is unsure how much pedestrian activity exists on Perkins Street.
6 • It is McDonald's practice to use permeable paving. It will not be known until the soils report has
7 been completed if permeable pavement is feasible for this site.
8 • Will review the DZC and do what is possible for compliance with the standards thereof.
9 • Will consider the above-referenced comments to help shape and provide for an aesthetically
10 pleasing project.
11
12 Commission:
13 • Recommends a lighter color palette. The building color shown on the plans is too dark for this
14 area.
15 • As part of the formal application may want to propose more than one color palette.
16 • Is okay with the contemporary design of the building.
17 • Okay with the location of the drive-thru at the front of the building based on the reason for this
18 design provided by the applicant.
19
20 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
21 Senior Planner Jordan reported the Commission will begin deliberations for the Walmart Expansion
22 Project concerning the Site Development Permit, corresponding landscaping modifications and Statement
23 of Overriding Conditions at the March 14`" meeting.
24
25 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT
26 Commissioner poble would like an update on the progress of reestablishing the DRB.
27
28 Commissioner Sanders would like to see all the Walmart Expansion Project minutes prior to the March
29 14'h meeting if possible.
30
31 12. ADJOURNMENT
32 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
33
34
35 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
36
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 22, 2012
Page 6