HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_04222009 1 MINUTES
2 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
3 April 22, 2009
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
6 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair Listed below, Respectively
7 Linda Sanders
8 Linda Helland
9 Mike Whetzel
10
11 STAFF PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
12 Charley Stump, Director of Planning Judy Pruden, Chair
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner
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 Vice Chair Molgaard at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary
20 Avenue, Ukiah, California.
21
22 2. ROLL CALL
23 Roll was taken with the results listed above.
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
26 Everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
27
28 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION —Site visits for agenda items 9A and 9B were verified.
29
30 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 25, 2009
31 The correct spelling of`Dottie Coplan' was noted to be `Dotty Coplen.'
32
33 M/S Helland/Sanders to approve March 25, 2009 minutes, as amended. Motion carried by an all
34 AYE voice vote of the Commissioners present.
35
36 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS- None.
37
38 7. APPEAL PROCESS— For matters heard at this meeting, the appeal date is May 13, 2009.
39
40 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE— Mural Permit 09-17-MP-PC and Pre-Application 09-18-PRE-PC
41 were properly notice in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
42
43 9. PUBLIC HEARING 6:02:28 PM
44 9B. Pre-Application 09-18-PRE-PC, Request for a Pre-Application review of exterior
45 modifications proposed for the building located at 955 North State Street, APN 002-040-43.
46
47 Associate Planner Faso presented a brief staff report regarding pre-application review for proposed
48 exterior modifications to an existing commercial building on North State Street. Staff requests the
49 Planning Commission consider the DRB comments provided for in Attachment 8 and make further
50 comments. The project will formally be reviewed by the Planning Commission for
51 consideration/approval of a Major Site Development Permit.
52
53 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:04 p.m.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 2009
Page 1
1 Brad Smith commented on his project objectives and is present to address questions and hear input
2 from the Commission. He provided general comments as follows:
3 • He recently purchased the commercial properly for the sole purpose of operating a sporting
4 goods store.
5 • Thanked the City Building and Planning Department for their assistance.
6 • He reviewed the Design Review Board comments.
7 • The proposed site plan is in progress, which will include provisions for
8 vegetation/landscaping. Primary objectives are to ensure the site is pedestrian friendly and
9 the building is architecturally pleasing and complementary with other buildings in the
10 neighborhood. He welcomes recommendations regarding vegetative species for the site.
11 • The site has restrictions that will affect the site plan and they include petroleum distillate
12 monitoring wells and a deeded parking easement that limit landscaping. Because of these
13 restrictions and completing improvements to the property/building, plans for the site and
14 building are being considered separately.
15 • The building footprint cannot be enlarged significantly because of the deeded parking
16 easements.
17 • There is a parking plan on file with the City.
18 • On-site parking is shared with AutoZone. There is sufficient parking for the use.
19 • The existing landscaping belongs to AutoZone.
20 • The existing building was initially built in 1953 with an addition to the front as a showroom in
21 1976-77. The original and/or rear portion of the building has a `trust arch-shaped' roof.
22 • The building has been a variety of uses over the years.
23 • He likes the building architecture and does not intend to `hide' the building features with
24 materials/treatments.
25 • The building has structural problems that are presently being corrected.
26 • The retail establishment will sell fire arms wherein security considerations will be paramount
27 to comply with State regulations. The plan is to display the guns in the front section of the
28 store.
29 • The improvements will include energy efficient features/materials.
30 • The existing building is not visually uniform wherein the intent is to make the outside of the
31 building to appear as one complete structure as opposed the current `choppy' appearance. In
32 order to facilitate this, the plan is to close-in the large bay doors and the front area windows
33 so that the outside of the building is of the same plain and then stucco the entire outside of
34 the building creating the appearance the building is one structure and built at the same time.
35 The proposed applique arches applied to the side of the building are intended to break up the
36 blandness of the walls. The building has several distinctly different eaves/building lines that
37 do not provide for a uniform appearance. The proposed architectural theme of the building is
38 a Mediterranean design that effectively includes a Spanish or Mediterranean tile roof, stucco
39 walls using natural/earth tone palette and structural alterations/amenities to establish a more
40 cohesive look.
41 • Other design aspects with regard to lighting, window treatments, doors, interior security
42 measures, and other exterior features/materials are specifically addressed in attachment 1 of
43 the staff report.
44
45 It was noted the location of the guns in the building does not have an effect on the level of security.
46
47 The Commission/applicanUapplicanYs representative discussed the project and project compatibility
48 with the Commercial Design Guidelines Checklist:
49 ➢ SITE PLANNING — Site design is compatible with the natural environment, and
50 incorporates the major existing features (trees, landscaping, city creeks, riparian habitat,
51 lot shape, size, relationship to surrounding area)
52 -The applicant is amenable to landscaping the site to allow for a pedestrian
53 friendly environment that will include a bench, working with legal counsel concerning
54 the well issue and closure thereof, and working with site restrictions relative to
55 parking and the deeded parking easement.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 2009
Page 2
1 -The parking plan is existing and cannot be implemented for approximately three
2 years and this is a problem. It is likely the existing parking plan was facilitated to
3 accompany the parcel split for the subject property. The applicant supports having
4 approximately 40 parking spaces.
5 -There was discussion whether the site has ample parking. The applicanYs
6 representative stated parking is sufficient and noted parking will be shared with
7 AutoZone. The applicant is working on appropriately mitigating the site restrictions
8 resulting from the monitoring wells, deeded parking easement and other on-site
9 restrictions.
10 -The applicant will submit a landscaping and parking layout plan when the project
11 goes through discretionary review.
12 -There are plans to landscape the rear of the property.
13 -The applicant will work with AutoZone to develop the landscaping.
14 -The Commission was in agreement with the Design Review Committee comments
15 regarding Site Planning and had no other comments.
16 ➢ PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION — Site has pedestrian orientation, consistent with uses,
17 design and architecture.
18 -The DRB comment: Needs to be consistent-would like to see more pedestrian
19 orientation. Removal of the storefront removes the current pedestrian orientation of
20 the front of the building (clear glass open to sidewalk) and is inconsistent with the
21 architecture of the building. Removal of the storefront and glass does draw from
22 some of the pedestrian orientation. Has consideration been given to alternative
23 options such as implementing a false window that would essentially preserve the
24 building orientation from North State Street?
25 -The entrance of the building does not face the street. The entrance to the building is
26 on the north elevation allowing for a pedestrian walkway that is ADA accessible
27 from the parking lot.
28 -In terms of building perception from the street and preservation, there are options:
29 1. Leave the storefront as is, and construct a wall inside as a security
30 precaution. Applicant did not favor this approach.
31 2. Construct fake windows on the front of the building.
32
33 Applicant supports closing off of the front windows and constructing stucco
34 arches in place of the windows, noting the building perception essentially
35 generates southbound as one travels south on State Street rather than the
36 west elevation. The Ukiah Civic Center and the Safeway store are examples
37 of effective application of arch design on the exterior walls of the buildings.
38 Attachment 6 demonstrates the use of the arch design with murals on one of
39 the applicanYs other retail sporting goods store as a way to break up the
40 mass of the building. The application of the arch design would take away
41 from the stoic appearance of the building and provide character/interest to
42 attract customers. The intent is to replace the windows that front North State
43 Street with the arch design and continue the design on the north elevation.
44
45 The applicanYs goal is twofold: 1) the project is community oriented having a
46 nice appearance and 2) the project depicts the store will sell sporting goods
47 products/equipment.
48
49 -DRB summary of comments:
50 1) Supports retention of the storefront and windows.
51 2) Does not approve of having a blank wall that faces the sidewalk.
52 3)The building has good architecture and form.
53 4) Measures related to security should be done inside the building and would
54 not support a false window in the front of the building.
55 5) Interested in maintaining the existing building lines and expressed concern
56 about changing the shape of the building and introducing architectural
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 2009
Page 3
1 features/treatments that do not match the existing architecture and
2 building form.
3 6) Supports the use of stucco.
4
5 The Commission supports the comments made by the DRB and had no further
6 comments.
7
8 ➢ LANDSCAPING — Scale and nature of landscape materials is appropriate to the site and
9 structures
10 -The landscaping is limited by deed restriction.
11 -A full landscaping plan will be submitted.
12 -Recommendation to use the existing landmark Oak Tree located in front of the
13 Goodwill store as a symbol of native species when the project gets to the point of
14 landscaping.
15
16 The Commission supports the comments made by the DRB and had no further
17 comments.
18
19 ➢ FA�ADE, ROOFLINE — Buildings are visually cohesive, compatible and complementary
20 (scale, proportion, design, style, heights, mass, setbacks)
21 -The DRB recommends design the modifications to be compatible with the existing
22 design and architecture of the building. Proposed curved features are not compatible
23 with the design of the building. The Board likes the revised entry on the north
24 elevation without the arch.
25 -The point the DRB makes is the original lines/form of the building are existing and
26 there is no need to introduce new architectural features and pay the associated
27 costs. The DRB supports maintaining the existing square and arched portions of the
28 buildings. Introducing the proposed curved architecture does not really enhance the
29 building. Money for improvements might be better spent cleaning up the building,
30 making the necessary structural improvements, and for landscaping.
31 -The Commission was in agreement with the DRB comments regarding the fa�ade,
32 Roofline as provided for on pages 4 and 5 of the Commercial Design Guidelines
33 Checklist.
34 -The applicant is supportive of saving money with regard to improvements and is
35 amenable to maintaining the arched portion of the building, not having a portico on
36 the front portion of the building, and maintaining the square form on front portion of
37 the building as opposed to adding the arched features and without adding an extra
38 structure. The applicant does not agree with the form of the roof eves on the front of
39 the building and the broken lines distinguishing the bottom and top portions of the
40 build, noting this design is not architecturally pleasing. Improvements will have to be
41 made to the eves because of rot. The applicant supports cleaning up the
42 appearance of the roofline and adding materials/treatments to make the building
43 look more uniform and having more of a distinguishing character. The building
44 requires new gutters.
45 -The DRB supports maintaining the portico and does not support the proposed
46 arched design/Mission-style architecture on this building.
47 -The intent of the applicant is to produce a quality project wherein the exterior and
48 interior portions of the building are appealing/pleasing to the public. In order to
49 accomplish this goal, the building needs the highs and lows of the roofline leveled
50 out and shielded them with some type of enhancing treatment.
51 -The Commission agrees with the DRB the application of an enhancing treatment
52 would not be `true enough' to the existing design of the building as if two different
53 styles of architecture were combined. It may the front of the building should be a
54 different height either to match the existing `pop-up' portion of the building and the
55 older portion to the rear of the lot, which is essentially a separate issue the DRB did
56 not specifically address.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 2009
Page 4
1 -Attachment 3 shows the difference in the building's elevation. The front section is
2 higher than the back and the applicant wants the front and back portions of the
3 building more homogeneous, possibly straight-lined.
4 -The DRB addressed the fact the building is older and has a style and character of a
5 particular era that is architecturally pleasing.
6 -The applicant supports the building look modern and proposes to apply
7 materials/treatments to achieve a more modern appearance as opposed to the
8 current sort of hodge-podge building design and uneven rooflines.
9 -It may be a smoothing out of the lines encompassing a more modern look is a good
10 idea, particularly in retrospect with the arched rear portion of the building in
11 connection with the multi-level front section. The Commission would need to see a
12 drawing/picture of what this might look like without the arched roof where the intent
13 is to make the building more consistent with the different styles of architecture and
14 design aspects.
15 -The DRB does, however, have a firm opinion about maintaining the three different
16 rooflines.
17 -It may be with certain design treatments, including structural and repair
18 improvements in an effort to make the overall appearance of the building more
19 homogeneous, the rooflines would not have to be modified to accomplish this effect
20 and all aspects of the building tie-in well with one another. The element of tying
21 in/balancing key components such as the entry, the front of the building, the
22 landscaping in such a way that complements the rectangular form, wherein the
23 existing form can effectively be maintained in an architecturally pleasing manner.
24 -The roofing material can also help improve the appearance of the roofline.
25
26 ➢ SIGNS
27 -The proposed sign for the site is on a short pole. It is not a monument sign.
28 -The existing sign was permitted to be a 5 feet by 9 feet on a pole and could be used
29 for the sporting goods store.
30 -How much signage is allowed for the project will be determined as part of the
31 analysis for the Major Site Development Permit.
32
33 ➢ LIGHTING
34 -No further comments.
35
36 ➢ GREEN BUILDING
37 -The applicant indicated attachment 2 in the staff report is no longer a consideration.
38 -Attachment 2-1 provides a better understanding of the project. The applicant does
39 not support having windows for this project because they allow for easy access. The
40 bars on the windows will be constructed on the inside. The small windows on the
41 north elevation shown in the attachment are proposed because structurally nothing
42 can be done about the concrete on top of the existing bays. These windows will
43 have bars and are high enough above the ground that access would not be easy
44 and would break up the mass of the wall.
45
46 ➢ VISIBILITY AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN
47 -The project should be fully ADA compliant.
48
49 ➢ ENERGY CONSERVATION
50 -The applicant indicated the existing building currently contains no energy
51 conservation features.
52
53 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:02 p.m.
54
55 The applicant is asked to consider the DRB/Commission comments for the Major Site Development
56 Permit.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 2009
Page 5
1
2 9A. Mural Permit 09-17-MP-PC, Request for approval of a Mural Permit to allow a mural on the
3 building located at 290 East Gobbi Street, APN 002-311-35.
4
5 Associate Planner Faso presented the staff report.
6
7 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 7:08
8
9 No one came forward.
10
11 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:08
12
13 The Commission unanimously supported approval of the project, as presented.
14
15 M/S Helland/Whetzel to approve Mural Permit 09-17-MP-PC with Findings 1-4 and Conditions of
16 Approval 1-9 as outlined in the staff report and as discussed above. Motion carried by an all AYE roll
17 call vote of the Commissioners present.
18
19 MURAL PERMIT FINDINGS TO ALLOW
20 A MURAL TO BE INSTALLED AT 290 E. GOBBI STREET
21 The following findings are supported by and based on information contained in this staff report, the
22 application materials and documentation, and the public record.
23
24 1. The proposed mural supports the Ukiah General Plan's Community Design ElemenYs "sense
25 of place "because the aesthetically pleasing mural created by local children creates a
26 positive feeling of community belonging. Furthermore the sense of place is supported by the
27 fact that the mural depicts enjoyment of local community activities.
28
29 2. The proposed mural is consistent with criteria contained in Section 3225 (G) of the Ukiah City
30 Code, supported by the following.
31
32 A. Compatibilitv with surroundinq environment and community In qeneral.
33
34 Staff has visited and evaluated the proposed location and has determined that the site is
35 an appropriate location for the proposed mural since it is a commercial property and is
36 surrounded by commercial uses. Furthermore the proposed mural will fit the scale of the
37 building.
38
39 B. Appropriateness of the proposed mural to the site.
40
41 The existing site contains a commercial building that houses the offices of Tapestry
42 Family Services. Tapestry Family Services is a community-based nonprofit organization
43 that provide programs for children and their families with special needs. The children
44 who participate in Tapestry's after school program will create the mural. The theme of
45 the mural will be the children's interpretation of their experiences in the after school
46 program.
47
48 The proposed site is located in are area that will be highly visible to the General Public
49 and therefore will create a positive community feeling and " Sense of Place", as noted in
50 the General Plan Community Design Element.
51
52 C. Relationship to use of buildinq upon which the mural will be place.
53
54 As mentioned above the mural will be located on the existing building of Tapestry Family
55 Services and will represent positive community services provided by the after school
56 program. Therefore the mural would be consistent with the use the building.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 2009
Page 6
1
2 The addition of the mural on the south wall facing Gobbi Street will add interest to the
3 building and will compliment the site as a whole.
4
5 D. Impact on motorist and traffic hazards.
6
7 The mural will be noticeable to the public from Gobbi Street; however staff believes that
8 the mural will not be overbearing in appearance and therefore will not be a hazard to
9 traffic.
10
11 E. Advertisinq potential.
12
13 The mural will not advertise products but will convey a message of community
14 involvement and well being.
15
16 3. The proposed mural is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not cause impacts to
17 traffic, pedestrians or bicyclists.
18
19 4. The proposed project, as conditioned, is exempt from the provisions of the California
20 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1(a),
21 projects involving alterations to exterior of an existing building, with no expansion to the
22 exiting use. The exemption is based on the following:
23
24 • The proposed project only involves minor alterations to the exterior of the building.
25 • The proposed project does not involve an expansion of the exiting use.
26
27 MURAL PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
28 1. This Mural Permit is granted only for the proposed mural addressed in the staff report and shall
29 not be construed as an approval for any additional murals or as eliminating or modifying any
30 building, use requirement.
31
32 2. This approval is not effective until the 10 day appeal period applicable to this Permit has been
33 exceeded, and any timely filed appeal has been reviewed.
34
35 3. This approval shall be null and void unless the California Environmental Quality AcUFish and
36 Game filing fee of $50 payable to Mendocino County is filed with the City of Ukiah Planning
37 and Community Development Department within five (5)days of this approval.
38
39 4. No Permit or entitlement shall be deemed effective unless and until all fees and charges
40 applicable to the application and Conditions of Approval have been paid in full.
41
42 5. All use shall conform to the application approved by the Planning Commission and to any
43 supporting documents submitted therewith or made part of the administrative record,
44 including staff reports, maps and renderings submittals or documents.
45
46 6. This approved Permit may be revoked through the City's revocation process if the approved
47 project related to the Permit is not being conducted in compliance with the stipulations and
48 conditions of approval; or if the project is not established within two years of the effective date
49 of approval; or if the established and use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has
50 been suspended for twenty-four(24) consecutive months.
51
52 7. This approval is not effective unless and until all other required discretionary entitlements
53 have been granted, issued or approved as applicable.
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 2009
Page 7
1 8. All murals will be maintained in good condition. At any point as their condition becomes
2 deteriorated by graffiti, weathering or other means, as determined by the Planning Director,
3 they will be removed or obscured by the applicant or property owner.
4 From the Buildinq Official ( David Willouqhbv)
5
6 9. A building permit is required before attachment of the mural to the building.
7
8 10. ONGOING EDUCATION
9 10A. Framework for Communitv Sustainabilitv
10 10B. Critical Thinkinq for Sustainable Communitv Decision-Makinq
11
12 The above-referenced publications are for the Commissioner's information.
13
14 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
15 Planning Director Stump reported:
16 • There will be a regular Planning Commission meeting on May 13 wherein the Planning
17 Commission will review a Major Site Development Permit for the proposed SkatePark project.
18 • The City Council met in joint session yesterday with the County Board of Supervisors
19 focusing on the topics of the Revenue Sharing Agreement, the Valley-wide Traffic Impact
20 Fee, and the Courthouse relocation project.
21 • On May 6, City Council will review/consider/approve the Cityview Trail project as worked on
22 by the Path, Open Space, and Creeks Commission, the Ukiah Valley Trails Group and other
23 interested persons.
24 • A meeting is being arranged with CALTRANS Aeronautics relevant to the CALSTAR
25 relocation project.
26
27 There was a discussion concerning the Cityview Trail use as to whether it would be for multi-
28 purposes or for hikers only.
29
30 12. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
31 Commissioner Sanders reported there will be a follow-up meeting with Tree Committee on June 4.
32 At this point the committee is focusing on issues that pertain to public trees.
33
34 13. ADJOURNMENT
35 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:14:16 PM
36
37 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
38
39 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
40
41
42
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 2009
Page 8