Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_03112009 MINUTES CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Judy Pruden, Chair Listed below, Respectively Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair Linda Sanders Linda Helland Mike Whetzel (arrived 6:20 p.m.) STAFF PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Charley Stump, Director of Planning None Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Linda Helland is pleased to serve as a Planning Commissioner and briefly commented on her professional/educational background and committee participation to assist her in her new role. 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. 2. ROLL CALL Roll was taken with the results listed above. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—January 14, 2009 M/S Molgaard/Sanders to approve January 14, 2009 minutes, as submitted. Motion carried with Commissioner Helland abstaining. 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS— None 6:06:32 PM 7. APPEAL PROCESS- N/A 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE—N/A 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6:07:23 PM 9A. Revised Planning Permit Application. 9B. Existing Tree Policies Form. Senior Planner Jordan commented: • In response to concerns raised concerning City tree policies at the regular January 10, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, staff revised the Planning Permit Application form to include a Tree Policy section for use by staff as part of the project review process. • Staff also consolidated all of the existing policies related to the planting, maintenance, preservation and protection of trees into a Tree Policy document for use by staff as a more concise reference guide. • She referred to these documents and explained in more detail their use. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2009 Page 1 The Commissioners were highly complimentary of staff's work with the addition of the Tree Policy section to the Planning Permit Application form and the consolidated Tree Policy document as useful tools for evaluation and review of planning projects. Commissioner comments/questions/input: • Chair Pruden - Page 8, Size —Trees, Shrubs and Groundcover, 1- All trees should be of 15 gallon to 24" box in size. Should be called by`box size' rather than by'gallon' such as#15 box size or#24 box size. • Commissioner Helland — Planning Permit Application, Tree Policy Section, General Plan Open Space Conservation Is clarification necessary whether the policy must comply or applies to a project? Staff response: A yes or no checkmark would depend upon whether or not the goal/policy in the document is applicable to the project. Cited typographical errors in the Existing Tree Preservation Policies and Tools document and will inform staff. Questioned the difference concerning landscaping coverage relative to page 6, General Development Guidelines, New Development and Improvements, "all new site developments and improvements to existing sites in all zoning districts should include landscaping; 20% of the project site on new development projects should be landscaped" and page 8, Percentage of Coverage, "The landscaping coverage requirements in all commercial, industrial, and multiple family zoning districts shall not be less than 15% of the gross square footage of the parcel." Chair Pruden response: The sections differ. The first addresses that 20% of the development must go to landscaping to include a 10-year performance standard that parking lots for the development must provide for a 50% canopy. Staff response: The language pertinent to page 8 is not intended to be different. Staff has found when working with the various documents that they are not always consistent with one another and there are also many redundancies. The intent is to be able to provide an applicant with rules by topic relative to percentage of coverage. For instance, an applicant dealing with parking lot issues for his/her project would receive a document about every rule concerning percentage of coverage for parking lots. Cited page 10 as another example of a reference to percentage of coverage, "All new development shall include a landscaping coverage of 20% of the gross area of the parcel, unless because of the small size of a parcel, such coverage would be unreasonable. A minimum of 50% of the landscaped area shall be dedicated to live plantings." Chair Pruden stated the percentage of required landscaping coverage differs between C-1 and G2. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:16:46 PM Bruni Kobbe commented on the checklist and stated it is a way to streamline the process. Chair Pruden stated the checklist essentially allows staff to work with the rules currently in effect in a more concise manner. The document can be updated to reflect changes in policy as they occur. Commissioner Sanders supports allowing for more language and policies for the planting of native species. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2009 Page 2 Staff acknowledged the checklist does have limited information regarding native species. Staff does not have the authority to change policy wherein the intent was to get the policies and implementation measures compiled into one document. Chair Pruden responded: General Pan/Open Space Conservation Element, Policy OC-22.1, "Maintain, protect and replant stands of Valley Oaks" and OC-22.1(a), "When reviewing proposals for development, require that all Valley Oaks on the project area be identified, and ensure that all reasonable efforts have been undertaken to protect the trees" do address the matter of Valley Oaks. Policy OC-23.1 requires standards that include native plant landscaping be defined. This is the language currently adopted and what must be used. Commissioner Sanders stated her intent is to see language relative to the planting of native species in the Design Review Board document form for Commercial Projects Outside/Within the Downtown Design Review District. Staff response: The plan is to have all references to policies specific to projects available in one document and/or cross-referenced in other related documents without having to review every document individually to determine whether policy is applicable, which makes the project review process less time-consuming and cumbersome for staff and the applicant. Commissioner Molgaard commented while the documents have been complied with regard to tree preservation etc., she questioned whether there is an overall plan or has the idea of possibly formulating a committee/commission/interested group to provide feedback/information to City staff/Council relevant to tree preservation/maintenance issues still a consideration. Commissioner Sanders stated Mendocino ReLeaf and Friends of Gibson Creek met publically recently wherein a sub-group of interested and professional persons has been formulated. They are in the process of developing a draft plan to present to other interested public members at the April 9, meeting. Working with City department regarding tree maintenance/care and accountability were among some of elements discussed. Approximately 11 tree concerns were raised at the initial meeting. Chair Pruden stated several problems were identified at the initial group meeting, noting the process is only in the beginning phases how to move forward on a more effective maintenance/care program for the City's urban forest. Commissioner Molgaard asked if the primary focus is on tree maintenance/care and/or whether the focus is also on initial planning decisions regarding trees. She is concerned that there is a process in place regarding preservation of the City's urban forest in addition to maintenance/care. Chair Pruden commented there is really no deficiency of trees since a lot of trees are planted. The biggest problem is after they are planted in terms of maintenance, unnecessary removal, vandalism and/or improper cared. There has only been one initial meeting concerning tree management/preservation/care/policies and she is confident the process of addressing tree problems will progress as more people become involved and more meetings are held. It was noted the tree committee is open to the public. However, only two Planning Commissioners are allowed to participate per compliance with the Brown Act where the intent is to address tree issues and provide input thereof. Staff has completed the process of consolidating the numerous tree policies. Commissioner Whetzel commented at the January 14 regular Planning Commission workshop meeting concerning tree preservation and development of a corresponding plan to address tree issues and consolidate policies, there was discussion whether a Commission would be more beneficial as opposed to a committee/sub-committees working on tree issues. The Commissioners and public members were of the opinion that a Commission typically having to act in a more formal MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2009 Page 3 capacity may be problematic because a commission usually has fewer members than groups/committees and in a position to provide more input from interested persons and professionals. Commissioner Molgaard is supportive of the concept of the Planning Commission regularly receiving updates from the tree committee on their progress. Commissioner Sanders is a participating member of the tree committee and will provide input to the Commission. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:30:56 PM 10. NEW BUSINESS 10A. Pre-Application Review for Main Street Senior Village, 345 South Main Street and 215 Norton Street, APN 002-153-30 and 002-153-04, 30 one-story apartments, 2,800 square foot commercial building and associated site improvements. Senior Planner Jordan commented: • The initial project that was approved involved a series of planning-related matters pertinent to zoning changes, a BLA, GP amendment and other requirements identified in the staff report. • The revised project for a senior living village involves 30 one-story apartments in three buildings, one building to function as a community and laundry room, one commercial building, and 15 proposed parking spaces to be shared for the commercial space and apartments. • The revised project will require a GP amendment, a rezone to Community Commercial/Planned Development Combining District to allow for the commercial component and increase in density/intensity of the project, and a BLA. • Project issues include: o Parkinq to accommodate the commercial and residential use. The Zoning Ordinance requires one space for each bedroom for the apartments and one space for every 300 sq. ft. of commercial space for a total of 39 parking spaces. Provisions for a reduction for the required parking: 1. Senior Living Units — up to 30% reduction for projects that include at least 4 living units for seniors. 2. Residential Mixed Use — up to 35% reduction for residential mixed use projects where day and night time uses offset parking demand. 3. Discretionary Review—As part of this process, a reduction may be approved provided a find is made that there is a unique circumstance associated with the use or property resulting in a demand for less parking than required. o Density—The maximum density allowed is 28 units per acre. The proposed 30 units would result in a density exceed this maximum. o Site Plan — The location/building footprints/heights would have to be modified from those of the approved part of the PD plan. • Staff is asking the Commission to review the project as part of the pre-application process and provide input. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:34:31 PM It was noted the project is not proposed as being `affordable.' Commissioner Molgaard comments/questions: • The initial project had a two-story element and is disappointed the new project has one-story buildings. • While the concepts from the Form Based Zoning project charrettes are not codified, she is thinking ahead on ways to effectively shape the project into a nice development and in keeping with what aspects of projects the community has expressed they desire to see in the Downtown area and City corridors. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2009 Page 4 • Will the commercial building be two-story? • Will the `green' components from the first project be carried to the new project? • Will the apartments be considered `affordable.' • The project is attractively designed in that the units have that `small cottage feel.' Russell Leepin commented: • The intent is to design an architecturally pleasing mixed-use development having a `good' community feeling. • The element of affordability is a factor provided the project pencils-out financially relative to the parking and density issues. • It is his experience with senior developments that they be single-story. • There are no immediate plans on the use for the commercial building. • The commercial building would be two-story. • Each unit will have front porches with no `real' backyards. The 30 unit senior complex would be situated around a landscaped park-like common area for general use of seniors. The units will be grouped in one 12-unit and two nine-unit buildings. • There is a need for senior housing in Ukiah, noting many of the existing developments have large waiting lists. His has experience with senior developments in other communities. • There will be some `green' aspects to the project. Commissioner Sanders comments/questions: • Are water conservation plants proposed for the landscaping? Russell Leepin stated the landscaping species will be drought tolerant plants. It was noted the project will comply with `Title 24' regulations in terms of water conservation. Mike Whetzel comments/questions: • Expressed concern about the number of parking spaces. The number of parking spaces could be increased without requiring 39 spaces that would include shared parking for the commercial use. Increasing the number of parking spaces would take away from open space. • The project is located in the B-2 Infill Airport Compatibility Zone where density is an issue. Russell Leepin commented the new project has less people because the new project has 30 single- story units versus 17 three and two bedroom units for the initial project. Parking for the commercial use will be on-street as opposed to on-site. Chair Pruden stated the density for the project is approximately 50 persons per acre as opposed to 70 or 80 for the initial project. The staff report states the proposed parking will be shared for the commercial and residential uses and the Planning Commission during the discretionary review process will look at this aspect. Commissioner Helland comments/questions: • Expressed concern about the proposed parking/overall parking lot layout and favors review of a parking analysis for the project. • Favors the concept of providing for less parking for and supports building up rather than out. • Agrees senior citizen do need one-story living units. • While she supports/encourages property ownership and development of housing units having affordability, low income rental housing for seniors is needed in this community. • She is hopeful a `density bonus'would be applicable to the project. • She looks at projects having potential impacts to long-term health and supports projects that provide for walkability/open space. • The project should provide for handicap parking and accessibility for the units/livable units. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2009 Page 5 Russell Leepin commented: • Parking accommodations for the senior project he has been involved with vary. One senior complex provides for no on-site parking per City regulations. Many seniors do not desire to own vehicles. • All units will be accessible. The site will be flat for ease of mobility. Parking for the commercial use will be on-street as opposed to on-site. Chair Pruden is of the opinion seniors are living longer, healthier lives and like being mobile. Seniors do own vehicles and are driving well into their 80s. Chair Pruden commented the Planning Commission during discretionary review for the project will be looking for the following: • A Management Plan. • How long the apartments will be dedicated for senior housing. • `Low impact development,' which is a way to manage water runoff by removing curbing in the parking lots to allow excess water to flow into the landscaping. • Possibility of using permeable paving and/or pavers. • Opportunities for the residents to do container gardens/accessible garden space. • Whether tree species can include fruit or nut trees as supplemental food source. • There is quite a distance from the back units (eastern boundary) for seniors to navigate to the parking lot/laundry area and whether there is a way to make it more convenienUassessable. Chair Pruden stated the way to provide for more open space is to decrease the housing unit density. The applicants will have to evaluate the project in terms of density, parking, open space, and overall site layout relative to what elements are necessary for the project to work financially. Russell Leepin stated: • The likelihood the housing project will be dedicated for seniors is 55 years depending upon the type of loan financing for the project. • While the intent is to provide affordable senior housing, if the number of units is decreased to allow for additional parking/open space, the project may be able to remain affordable. Dottie Coplan lives in a low-income, HUD subsidized senior housing development. Seniors do feel more comfortable living on the ground floor. She supports the concept of providing for community gardens as much as possible for developments. She explained the parking accommodations in her senior living complex and noted the on-site parking spaces are used for the residents, family members and healthcare workers. Allowing for sufficient parking is important and she agrees many seniors are active, do own vehicles, desire to be self-sufficient and are driving longer. Chair Pruden stated it is the desire of the Commission for the project to succeed and she understands the success of the project depends upon financing. She recommended talking to the residents in other senior developments to get feedback about senior housing necessities. Commissioner Molgaard addressed low income level guidelines relative to rents charged and asked the applicants what their intent is in this regard. Russell Leepin stated the rent charged would depend upon the type of financing and has consulted with other low to moderate income housing developers in the community concerning the rents charged for this income level. Commissioner Helland supports that the commercial component remains part of the project. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2009 Page 6 Chair Pruden acknowledged that rents generate revenue not parking spaces. 30 units with a 30% parking reduction would result in 21 parking spaces. Even though on-street parking is available, it is not available specifically to the project. Again, seniors are more active and driving longer whereby adequate parking accommodations are necessary. Summary of project comments/recommendations: • Tonight's meeting is only a pre-application discussion. • Review other similar senior developments and determine what number of parking spaces would best meet the needs of the residents. • Possibly reconfigure the parking lot. The parking should be `adequate.' As presented, the project appears to be under-parked. The Planning Commission cannot grant special privileges and must adhere to the authority of the UMC in this regard. It may be the footprint of the commercial building can be reduced. • The design of the project is architecturally pleasing. • Determine the use of the commercial building to ensure the use is compatible/fits with a senior living project. • The project is close to the Downtown and general services and in a very desirable location. • Consider`low impact development' measures. • Provide for open space/garden areas. • Provide for a Management Plan. • Work with staff relative to the matter of providing for adequate parking and consider the corresponding risk to rent if the number of units is decreased to accommodate parking needs. • The project will require some `tweaking' so that the elements of primary importance discussed above can be considered to meet the project goals of successfully providing for senior housing and keeping it affordable. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:17:33 PM 10B. Commercial Development Design Checklist. Review and discussion of re-formatted Commercial Development Design Guidelines checklists. Associate Planner Faso commented: • In 2007, the Planning Commission adopted a Design Guidelines checklist intended to assist developers, staff, policy boards and the public in determining project consistency with the Commercial Development Design Guidelines. • To make the checklist more `user friendly' staff reformatted it. The staff report for this agenda item outlines how this works. The reorganization of the document provides for inserted sections to allow the applicant, staff and various recommending/decision making bodies to review how each project addresses the required design/site planning elements. Senior Planner Jordan commented the reformatting of the checklist and combining of sections allowed staff to produce a more clear and concise document and overall more useful tool. Planning Commission comments/questions: • The checklist functions as a worksheet and is helpful with shaping projects and making them workable. • The Commercial Development Design Guidelines function as guidelines, which is what staff has to interpret relevant to projects because they are not codified rules. It may be that the language is often vague requiring codification. • The checklist asks whether a project complies with the design guidelines or applies to a particular section. • Page 2, Walkable and Bikeable Communities, Sidewalks provide convenient and safe access (sidewalks sufficiently wide, without obstruction), and whether a specific number as to width of the sidewalk should be assigned wherein the intent is to ensure consistency with the guidelines as to whether the project applies. There was a discussion about sidewalk MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2009 Page 7 variations versus traditional sidewalks providing there is sufficient public right-of-way, noting they can be meandering and ADA compliant or moved back from the curb into a parkway to include trees or other landscaping features for a more aesthetically pleasing feel and appearance. Decisions can also be made about what staff/Planning Commission desire to see occur on the inside of a sidewalk whether or not a building should be constructed closer to the sidewalk or there should be more landscaping. Also, mini-parks in parking lots are allowed to occur, which include benches and other pedestrian friendly amenities. Sidewalks do not necessarily have to be constructed in a straight line wherein variations are an option. It was noted sidewalk widths are dictated by the Public Works Department in compliance with ADA standards. • Are there established guidelines for bike racks for developers to look at? Staff indicated the zoning code has requirements in this regard. There are different models of bike racks and the Planning Commission does make recommendations about preference/design depending on the project. • Page 5, should the concepts of visitability and universal design be separated and/or have separate checkmark sections to include possibly assigning a specific percentages to visitability for projects outside the Downtown Design District in terms of whether the site and its elements are accessible to people at differing stages, ages and circumstances of life? Staff indicated the aforementioned recommendation could be referenced/tied to building code requirements. Chair Pruden stated the Planning Commission does not review interior matters for projects, only access to interior features for buildings/developments. 11. ONGOING EDUCATION 11A. Green Buildinq Creates Jobs, Saves Enerqv and Saves Money, USGBC, January 2009. The above-referenced publications are for the Commissioner's information. 12. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Stump reported: 1. Briefly discussed the March 25 Planning Commission agenda items to include a status report/schedule relative to the `Downtown Zoning DistricY project. 2. The 2009/10 City budget has a significant shortfall for this fiscal year. The Code Compliance Officer has been laid off among other positions and there are vacancy positions that will not be filled at this time. It is not known at this time whether the Planning Commission will be affected by the Budget problems. Code Compliance issues will be handled by the City Planning and Public Works Departments. 3. The Airport Commission recently discussed Airport Compatibility Zone issues in conjunction with the Downtown Zoning District project. 4. The Environmental Review document relative to the City View Trail above the Municipal Golf Course is out for public review. 5. The City and LAFCO are meeting regarding the Municipal Service Review document. 6. The matter of the Palace Hotel is moving forward wherein meetings are being held with the property owners. 7. Many FIP grants have been made for improvement projects and the program is nearly out of money for this fiscal year. 8. Staff has been working with the Court Administrator, Judges, and City Council sub-committee regarding the Courthouse relocation project. 9. The environmental document has been completed for the Skatepark on Low Gap Road and the project is progressing. The Planning Commission will review this project. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2009 Page 8 10. A new City electric substation will be built on Gobbi Street. The Planning Commission will also review this project. 11. The City has received a building application from Kohl's for an extensive interior remodel of the former Mervyn's building. 12. The City Planning/Building Department anticipates that a building permit will be issued shortly for the construction of an auditorium for the S.P.A.C.E. building project. 13. The DRB roles and responsibilities have expanded beyond decisions concerning the FIP. The DRB has been making recommendations to the Planning Commission concerning design issues within and outside the Commercial Design Review District. A question was recently raised whether the Board has jurisdiction for such decisions for projects outside of the District. It has been determined by reviewing the adopted Resolution that the DRB purview is the Downtown Design Review District. The Downtown Design Review District boundaries have expanded over time. The current adopted Resolution relevant to jurisdiction pertains to projects within the Downtown Design Review District, which essentially encompass Gobbi Street, Low Gap Road, the Downtown, and the City gateways. There was a brief discussion how the City will address code violation complaints. 13. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS Commission Sanders enrolled in the `Green Building' certificate program at SSU. Commissioner Molgaard inquired regarding staff update regarding the parking lot trees at Wal-Mart. She supports the concept of staff or concerned citizens bringing the matter of the parking lot trees to the attention of Wal-Mart. Staff responded Wal-Mart is planning an interior building remodel and is hopeful this will extend to the parking lot to include the trees that have not been able to thrive. Commissioner Molgaard cited maintenance issues with regard to some of the canvas awnings in the Downtown and unsightly problems with mold. She is willingly to volunteer with other interested persons in an effort to clean awnings in the Downtown. Commissioner Molgaard is disappointed with the muffler site development permit project that was approved by the Planning Commission relative to design and aesthetics. Staff stated the project may improve in terms of aesthetics as it nears completion. Commissioner Helland commented on free training courses related to code compliance issues and healthier homes/home protection to be conducted in Santa Rosa in April. Chair Pruden commented on the proposed acknowledgement and placement of new pedestrian signs in the Downtown. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at. 8:06:40 PM Judy Pruden, Chair Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2009 Page 9