HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_07082009 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 July 8, 2009
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair Listed below, Respectively
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
13 Charley Stump, Director of Planning None
14 Kim Jordan, Senior 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 - N/A
25
26 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION 6:03:00 PM
27 Site visit for agenda item 9A was verified.
28
29 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—May 13, 2009 &June 24, 2009
30 Corrections to May 13, 2009 Minutes:
31 • Page 3, line 15, term, `drainage swell' should read, `drainage swale.'
32 • Page 4, Lines 15 - 17, change sentence to read, `The sequencing shall specify estimated
33 duration of exposure of cleared areas ......'
34
35 Correction to June 24, 2009 Minutes:
36 • Page 2, line 38, add term, `and lighting.'
37
38 M/S Sanders/Helland to approve May 13, 2009 & June 24 2009 minutes, as amended. Motion
39 carried (5-0).
40
41 There was discussion concerning the format of the minutes and it was the general consensus of the
42 Commission to use the June 24, 2009 bulleted format unless directed by staff/Commission to provide
43 for more detail for a particular project.
44
45 Commissioner Sanders asked the minutes have more detail for pre-application review of projects.
46
47 Dotty Coplen stated it is important to decide what the purpose for minutes really is and while she
48 understands the reason for shortening the minutes, the needs of the public should not be forgotten in
49 this process.
50
51 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
52 None.
53
54 7. APPEAL PROCESS- For matters heard at this meeting, the appeal date is July 27, 2009.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2009
Page 1
1 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Major Site Development Permit 09-30-SDP-PC & Downtown
2 Zoning Code Workshop # 1 were properly noticed in accordance with the provisions of the
3 Ukiah Municipal Code.
4
5 9. PUBLIC HEARING
6 9A. Site Development Permit 09-30-UP-PC, 578 Clara Avenue, APN 002-138-05. Request for
7 approval of a Site Development Permit Amendment to allow modifications to the recreational
8 facilities approved as part of the Clara Court Affordable Housing Project.
9
10 Staff presented the staff report.
11
12 Summary of Commissioners Comments/Questions:
13
14 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:19:55 PM
15
16 Chair Pruden
17 • Is the Tot Lot for the Orchard Manor Apartments that will be shared with the Clara Court
18 development frequently used?
19 • The Clara Court project is low income housing and should not be mistakenly confused with
20 affordable housing according to housing law.
21 • Due to the density issue, it became apparent when the Planning Commission initially
22 reviewed the project that a recreational component was necessary whereby the apartment
23 complex contiguous to the project could offer this.
24 • Does not necessarily agree with the USDARD concerning eliminating the basketball half
25 court.
26 • Supports RCHDC leverage out as large a basketball shooting area as possible with the
27 lender.
28 • The recreation area is for tenants use only. The facility is not a public park.
29 • The benches should have backs.
30 • Supports planting an additional tree in the picnic/BBQ area.
31 • Bocce courts are expensive and not a necessary component for the recreation area. Another
32 option would be to provide for a Volley Ball area.
33 • Allow Jasmine to cover the cyclone fence.
34 • Agrees with staff relative to Condition of Approval No. 3A.
35
36 Commissioner Helland
37 • Inconsistencies between the recreational options listed on page 2 of the staff report and the
38 site plan concerning tether ball/paddle ball areas.
39 • Confirm number of benches.
40 • Clarification - Bocce Court is included in the site plan, but not listed as one of the recreation
41 options.
42 • Are there plans to provide adequate drainage for the area on the corner of Ford Street and
43 North Orchard that slopes downward be provided?
44 • Desires to see three drinking foundations for the recreation area.
45 • Supports planting trees south of the play and picnic area for shade purposes.
46 • Provide for a bike rack.
47
48 Commissioner Sanders
49 • Do the plans include lighting for the recreation area?
50 • The benches should be located near existing shaded areas.
51
52 Commissioner Whetzel
53 • Questioned whether the basketball shooting area can be enlarged?
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2009
Page 2
1 Commissioner Molgaard
2 • Requested clarification the proposed fence is L-shaped. Chain-link fences are institutional
3 looking and would rather see an alternative type.
4
5 RCHDC Executive Director Bruce Alfano
6 • The amended recreation area is being proposed as part of the Clara Court project that was
7 approved because one of the primary lenders (USDA Rural Development)for the project had
8 health and safety problems with the basketball half court.
9 • RCHDC has proposed recreational options with input from representatives of the
10 Wagenseller neighborhood that would be acceptable to the USDA Rural Development
11 (USDARD).
12
13 RCHDC Project Manager Diane Brazer
14 • Discussed the list of recreational options (page 2 of the staff report) and the summary of the
15 recreational alternatives/activities suggested by the Wagenseller neighborhood that might be
16 used (attachment 5)and addressed/clarified some of their suggestions:
17 1. Two tetherball areas, not a tetherball and a paddleball area.
18 2. A picnic area with bench seating with two picnic tables, one BBQ area and groupings
19 of benches to allow for conversation space.
20 3. Basketball shooting area with pole in ground. The USDARD indicated a portable
21 basketball hoop in the parking lot would be acceptable. Because a portable
22 basketball hoop would not work, RCHDC has proposed a short, 10'x25' area to shoot
23 hoops.
24 4. 3' chain link fence around the L shaped on the north and east portion of the
25 designated recreation area to prevent basketballs/other types of balls from going into
26 the street.
27 5. It was the opinion of the Wagenseller neighborhood that a Bocce Court would not
28 likely be used by the tenants. While a Bocce Court is not on the proposed formal list
29 of recreation activities, it remains as an option.
30 • The Tot lot is for use by younger children; Use depends on the number of younger children
31 living in the housing complex and varies accordingly.
32 • No additional lighting is proposed for the project at this time.
33 • The current drainage plan in place appears to be adequate.
34 • Will look into providing for drinking fountains.
35 • There are four existing trees in the play area and RCHDC will look into planting additional
36 trees provided they do not interfere with play area, too close to the existing building or disrupt
37 the sidewalk.
38 • USDARD approval is required regarding the type of basketball hoop, preferably in-ground.
39 • There is an existing bike rack in the courtyard area next to the parking lot of the Orchard
40 Manor complex.
41
42 Diane Zucker
43 • Clarification whether the basketball hoop would be portable or in ground?
44 • The recreation area should look like one and supports the idea of having a drinking fountain.
45
46 Susan Sher
47 • The Wagonseller neighborhood has no recreation facilities/park and understands the
48 recreational area is for tenants in the Orchard Manor Apartments and Clara Court
49 development.
50
51 • Has heard that the Clara Court project may no longer be a low income housing project. If this
52 is the case, the project should not be allowed the density bonus originally granted for the
53 project and the project needs to be revised to reduce the density. The original project has
54 issues related to 32 units on a limited amount of space, this density would likely impact a
55 neighborhood that already has problems with traffic congestion/circulation/parking, lacks
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2009
Page 3
1 existing infrastructure/parks, and other relevant quality of life amenities, including safety
2 concerns.
3
4 Staff response to the questions/concerns raised by the Commission:
5 • Staff confirmed the Clara Court development is a low-income housing.
6
7 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 6:37:07 PM
8
9 Planning Commission Consensus:
10
11 Revised recreational facilities area to include the following:
12 • Benches with backs—located in shaded areas.
13 • Drinking fountain — location at the discretion of the applicant to facilitate hookup to existing
14 water and waste lines.
15 • Tether ball/paddle ball area — location at the discretion of the applicant, but shall not located
16 be within the dripline/canopy of the trees.
17 • Volleyball and badminton area with location for in-ground posts for the net - location at
18 discretion of applicant.
19 • Barbecue and picnic area—location shown on the site plan is good.
20 • Tree planted to provide shade for the picnic and barbecue area.
21 • Basketball shooting area that is as large as possible.
22 • Plant some type of vegetation, such as Jasmine, adjacent to the chain-link fence shown on
23 the site plan to screen and soften the appearance of the fence.
24
25 No need to provide for an additional bike rack — there is already a bike rack at Orchard Manor
26 Apartments.
27
28 Agree (Condition of Approval No. 3A and B) - Minor modifications to the location and type of
29 recreational equipment may be approved administratively by the Planning Director or Zoning
30 Administrator.
31
32 M/S Molgaard/Sanders to approve Major Site Development Amendment Permit 09-30-SDP-PC to
33 allow modifications the recreation facility previously approved by the Planning Commission with
34 Findings 1-3 and Conditions of Approval 1-4 with the addition of the amenities as discussed above.
35 Motion carried (5-0).
36
37 Clara Court Housing Project
38 578 Clara Avenue
39 APN 002-138-05
40 Application No. 09-30-SDPA-PC
41
42 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT FINDINGS
43 CLARA COURT—RECREATIONAL FACILITIES MODIFICATIONS
44
45 1. The proposed recreational facilities were developed in conjunction with representatives of the
46 Wagenseller Neighborhood Association, which was very involved in review of the original project.
47 The WNA is not opposed to this amendment and believes that they provide a wider range of
48 recreational facilities.
49
50 2. There was considerable public and Planning Commission comment regarding recreational
51 facilities as part of the review of the original application. The recreational facilities included in the
52 amendment provide a broader range of recreational options and opportunities for
53 neighborhood interaction and should appeal to a wider range of people. As such, the
54 modifications to the recreational facilities approved as part of the site development permit
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2009
Page 4
1 amendment are commensurate with or exceed the facilities approved as part of Site Development
2 Permit 04-49.
3
4 3. The facilities approved as part of this site development permit amendment address the concerns
5 of the public and Planning Commission raised as part of Site Development Permit 04-49 and
6 provide recreational facilities commensurate with or that exceed the facilities evaluated as part of
7 the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration.
8
9 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
10 CLARA COURT—RECREATIONAL FACILITIES MODIFICATIONS
11
12 1. Approval is granted for a Site Development Permit Amendment for the Clara Court Housing at
13 578 Clara Avenue to allow the modifications to the recreational facilities as shown on the site plan
14 received in the Planning Department and date stamped June 24, 2009, except as modified by the
15 following conditions of approval.
16
17 2. The following recreational amenities shall be included in the project:
18 • basketball shooting area that is as large as possible;
19 • tether ball/paddle ball area — location at the discretion of the applicant, but shall not
20 located be within the dripline/canopy of the trees;
21 • barbecue and picnic area—location shown on the site plan is good;
22 • tree planted to provide shade for the picnic and barbecue area shown on the site plan;
23 • benches with a back and located near shade;
24 • drinking fountain — location at the discretion of the applicant to facilitate hookup to
25 existing water and waste lines;
26 • area for volleyball and badminton with in-ground location for posts for net(s)— location at
27 the discretion of the applicant; and
28 • landscape plantings, such as jasmine, to screen the cyclone fence shown on the site
29 plan.
30
31 3. Building permit plans shall be revised to include the following and are subject to staff review and
32 approval:
33
34 A. Site plan that includes the modifications to the recreational facilities approved by
35 Planning Commission; and
36
37 B. Details and/or cutsheets for the recreational facilities approved the Planning Commission.
38
39 4. Modifications to the approved recreational facilities may be approved as follows:
40
41 A. Minor modifications to the location and type of recreational equipment may be approved
42 administratively by the Planning Director or may be approved by the Zoning Administrator
43 as part of an application for a Minor Site Development Permit Amendment. The level of
44 review(Planning Director or Zoning Administrator)shall be determined by the Planning
45 Director.
46
47 B. Major modifications to the location and components of the recreational facilities require
48 Planning Commission approval of a Major Site Development Permit Amendment.
49
50 5. All conditions of approval and mitigation measures from Site Development Permit# 04-49 remain
51 in full force and effect.
52
53
54 9B. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop #1. Review and discussion of Sections 1-3 of the draft
55 Downtown Zoning Code (Form Based Code).
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2009
Page 5
1
2 Staff presented the staff report.
3
4 Alan Nicholson asked staff to make certain the DZC workshops are well-publicized. He did not
5 receive a public notice for today's' workshop.
6
7 There was discussion how this can best be achieved.
8
9 Summary of Commissioners Comments Section 1- Purpose:
10
11 Chair Pruden
12 • The DZC sections can be revisited at any time during the various workshop sessions.
13
14 Commissioner Sanders
15 • Discussion and possible changes to the various sections will be a progression.
16
17 Commissioner Molgaard
18 • Possibly add language that the `Purpose' is to create a safe environment from a public safety
19 standpoint.
20
21 Summary of Commissioners Comments Section 2 -Applicability :
22
23 Chair Pruden
24 • Item 4 should not end with etc.; Replace language with `such as' and proceed with citing the
25 development standards.
26 • Item 5, parking standards and procedures, add the term `landscaping' after design to read,
27 ......regulate the number spaces and the design and landscaping......
28 • Section B, should the term `existing' with reference to the City of Ukiah Zoning Ordinance be
29 included or is it already implied.
30 • The issue of final boundaries will unfold as the process of the workshop discussions continue
31 and whether there is need to redefine them.
32 • The DZC Map is key to the discussions and applicability and should be represented in color
33 for purpose of clarity and understanding.
34 • Should the text address the final boundaries when they have been determined or allow the
35 map to speak to this issue by simply modifying the map.
36
37 Commissioner Molgaard
38 • DZC Map — what is the difference between `parking structure preferred' and `public parking
39 existing' and whether this is in keeping with the intent of the original charrette.
40
41 Staff response to the questions/concerns raised by the Commission:
42 • Section B contains standard language.
43 • The original DZC map before the charrette was smaller than what came out of the charrette
44 for the study area whereby the question of densities/traffic and accompanying environmental
45 effects were raised. It became apparent in terms of environmental effectiveness the study
46 area may need to be reduced so as to avoid a more intense/complex level of environmental
47 review. Potential modifications to the map and corresponding boundaries are scheduled to be
48 discussed later in the workshop process.
49
50 Summary of Commissioners Comments Section 3 -Zoning:
51
52
53 Chair Pruden
54 • C (2), Civic Space — Existing: Existing civic spaces within the district include the Alex B.
55 Thomas Plaza and the Mendocino County Courthouse and should also include the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2009
Page 6
1 Mendocino County annex (former Bank of America building), County Child Support building
2 (former Rexall Drug Store) and the Library. These buildings are owned by the County of
3 Mendocino.
4 • The green triangle on the map represents the small pocket park near the Depot area. Since
5 the property is leased, there is no reason to include it in the `Civic Space— Existing' narrative.
6 • The Civic Space — Preferred includes the Deport area, Gibson Creek Corridor, and Railroad
7 Deport property located to the west of Leslie Street.
8 • Item 4, Public Parking — Existing: The City owns the property in the Downtown area that is
9 used for public parking, including an entire block between Main Street and Mason Street and
10 Standley Street and Smith Street.
11 • It may be the term `variable'for the GU zone should be reviewed.
12 • Expand the Downtown Core-There is a block split between Perkins Street and Church Street
13 having a mix of uses and higher densities that possibly should not be part of the Downtown
14 Core.
15 • It may be that during the discussions that modifications will be made to the GU, UC, and DC
16 zones and DZC map.
17 • The Gibson Creek Corridor- The Creek maneuvers in various ways under State Street and
18 Perkins Street whereby the primary daylighting of the Creek would occur between Main
19 Street and School Street allowing the ability for a nice amenity in the future.
20
21 Commissioner Helland
22 • Clarification—Should the green area outlined in the DZC Map for the plaza or the Depot be in
23 the `Civic Space— Preferred' or`Civic Existing?'
24 • Item B1, General Urban Zone, questioned the narrative "Setbacks and landscaping are
25 variable" and how was this decided? Page 10 of the staff report that addresses the individual
26 transect zones for the more urban, private spaces discusses shallow setbacks. Questioned
27 the determining factors to apply variable setback versus shallow setbacks for the urban
28 zone?
29 • DZC Map—Why is the area north and south of Perkins Street east of the hospital designated
30 GU as opposed to Urban Core? This inquiry encompasses questions about setbacks and
31 other design issues in a place that is very urban oriented.
32 • Item 5, Parking Structure and/or Anchor Tenant Opportunity Sites — Preferred — the term
33 `anchor tenanY is not listed on the map relative to `Parking Structure Preferred' special
34 designation and should likely be added.
35 • Item 3, Civic Space, Gibson Creek Corridor — `Any future development shall consider
36 daylight, re-establishing and proving public access to the creek corridor or granting to the City
37 a 60-foot right of way for the future daylighting, restoration and operation of a publicly
38 accessible creek corridor in a location approximately as shown on the Circulation Map' and
39 whether this matter should be discussed later as to how this would be implemented.
40
41 Commissioners Whetzel
42 • Why not expand the Downtown Core Zone?
43
44 Jim Mayfield
45 • The series of workshops are beneficial in order to dissect and decide what components of the
46 SmartCode are relevant to Ukiah and a good fit.
47
48 Staff responded to the questions/concerns raised by the Commission.
49 • The City leases the ground where the pocket park is located. The property belongs to the
50 railroad.
51 • GU Zone, variable setback — Moving through the Transect Zones from the Natural Zone
52 towards the Downtown Core Zone, the General Urban Zone in this community encompasses
53 a single-family residential zone where a more variable type setback is found, such as Oak
54 Street adjacent to the proposed plan boundary. Application of the SmartCode and the
55 corresponding transect zones to rural communities such as for Ukiah is not always a good fit.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2009
Page 7
1 In keeping with the language that people involved in the charrette preferred, such terms in the
2 narratives were retained. No changes were made to the transect zone language or to the
3 definitions of the three zoning districts. There is sort of `a disconnecY in this regard since
4 Ukiah is a rural community wherein the concept of developing the Downtown for Ukiah differs
5 from New York City, for instance.
6 • When reviewing the SmartCode concepts, it is important to look at what is there versus what
7 would be the preference. Workshop #2 will cover developmenUarchitectural standards for
8 different areas, which do change for the type of buildings/uses that would be allowed. The
9 DZC map may make more sense after looking at the development standards required of the
10 different zones- GU, UC, DC. It is important to note what the community would like to happen
11 to ensure that the standards will implement this.
12 • The definitions and glossary will be discussed in October. Recommendations can be made to
13 staff in this regard prior to the actual discussion.
14
15 Planning Commissioner Consensus
16 • `Variable setback'to remain flexible.
17 • In general, the intent is for commercial buildings to be developed as close to the street
18 frontage as possible. Oak Street in the General Urban Zone has a mix of commercial and
19 residential buildings whereby flexibility in terms of setbacks/zoning standards needs to be
20 considered/applied. Further consider the term `variable' setback in the GU Zone. The variable
21 setback allows development of the east side of Oak Street to be more compatible with the
22 development on the west side of Oak Street that is not included in the boundaries of the plan.
23 • Add anchor tenant to the Parking Structure Preferred.
24 • Storefront Frontage — Section requires that commercial establishments have a storefront.
25 What about a hair salon? Does such a use require a storefront?
26
27 10. ONGOING EDUCATION
28 10A. Top Ten Mvths of Downtown Planninq
29
30 The above-referenced publication is for the Commissioner's information.
31
32 11. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
33 Planning Director Stump reported:
34 • The CalStar project may be on the July 22, 2009 Planning Commission agenda.
35 • Briefly discussed the WalMart interior project and necessary requirements for
36 grocery/exterior expansion/modification. WalMart intends to conduct a comprehensive EIR
37 for the expansion project.
38 • Redevelopment, economic development, planning/building and project grant administration
39 are now working together as one unit as opposed to operating separately as in the past.
40 • Briefly commented on anticipated CIP projects.
41
42 12. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
43 Commissioner Sanders asked about the publication, Top Ten Myths of Downtown Planning' and
44 whether some of these myths would be considered for Ukiah in connection with the DZC project
45 process.
46
47
48 13. ADJOURNMENT
49 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:03:16 PM
50
51
52 Judy Pruden, Chair
53
54 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2009
Page 8
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2009
Page 9