HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_08122009 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 August 12, 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 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
16 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
17
18 1. CALL TO ORDER
19 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
20 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
21 Ukiah, California.
22
23 2. ROLL CALL
24
25 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
26 Everyone cited the pledge of Allegiance.
27
28 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION - N/A
29
30 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—July 22, 2009
31
32 Commissioner Helland made the following corrections:
33 Page 4, lines 26 & 27, strike sentence, `She would support Farmers' MarkeY be allowed in two of the
34 three zones (UC and DC).
35
36 Page 4, line 33, revised to read, `Concurred that law enforcement writing a letter of public
37 convenience or necessity as a means of regulation of the number of alcohol outlets allowed is
38 relatively ineffective and could be improved.'
39
40 Commissioner Sanders requested the following language be added to her comments on page 5 of
41 the minutes:
42 • Planning Commission actions as they relate to Form Based Zoning should be approving
43 policies that encourage people to visit our downtown.
44 • Requests that Section 13, Administration and Procedures, be scheduled as soon as possible
45 rather than the October 14th date.
46
47 M/S Sanders/Helland to approve July 22, 2009 minutes, as amended. Motion carried (5-0).
48
49 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
50 None.
51
52 7. APPEAL PROCESS- N/A
53
54 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE — Downtown Zoning Code Workshop # 3 was properly noticed
55 in accordance with the provisions of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 1
1 9. PUBLIC HEARING
2 9A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop #3. Field trip and review and discussion of Section 6:
3 Architectural Standards of the draft Downtown Zoning Code (Form Based Code). Review and
4 Discussion of Sections 4 and 5 may also be continued if time allows.
5
6 Staff presented a brief staff report. Staff encouraged taking/collection of pictures of buildings for later
7 discussion. There are instances where pictures better represent a point than do words. The
8 Commission, public members and staff went on a walking tour of the Downtown area and Perkins
9 Street corridor to look at buildings and discuss examples of different architectural features/design,
10 form/design standards, presentation of storefronts, layout of site with regard to setbacks/street
11 frontage, parking accommodations and other relative design characteristics to include:
12 1. School Street @ Clay. Alex Thomas Plaza is an example of civic space that is allowed.
13 Parking at the front of the lot.
14 2. School Street to Perkins Street. Variety of storefronts and awnings, spacing of front doors,
15 and a mix of building heights.
16 3. School Street @ Perkins Street. Large blank wall rather than storefront at street level. Two
17 story buildings at corner.
18 4. Perkins Street @ State Street. Brewery turret. Brewery — entry not oriented to the corner.
19 County center building with "civic space." County building with parking at street level behind
20 he sidewalk.
21 5. Perkins Street @ Main Street. Currently parking lots rather than buildings define corners.
22 Library does not have a corner entry.
23 6. Perkins Street @ Mason Street. Rainbow Ag has a gallery frontage type, parking in front of
24 the building, and outdoor sales. Coldwell Banker building also has a gallery style frontage
25 type, parking to the side of the building. Furniture building appears to have a storefront and
26 appropriate amount of clear glazing, but may not have an architectural design that is
27 desirable.
28 7. Perkins @ Hospital Drive. Walgreens building would be located at the corner with parking
29 behind, with a shopfront frontage type and additional glazing.
30 8. Standley Street @ Main Street. Intersections defined by parking lots, Double frontage lots
31 provide an opportunity to have new development on Main Street with parking behind or
32 screened with a streetwall.
33 9. Standlley Street @ State Street. Nail salon has a corner entry with secondary entry and south
34 facing awning/functional awning. Law Office has a corner entry.
35 10. Standley Street to Oak Street. Good variety of storefronts.
36 11. Oak Street back to the Civic Center. discuss difference in development type from east side
37 of Oak Street to the west side of Oak Street. This is the boundary of the plan area and the
38 location of the GU zoning designation which is the least intensive zoning district.
39 Summary of Commissioners Comments/questions Section 6-Architectural Standards:
40
41 Chair Pruden commented two areas of interest in terms of architectural compatibility are Main Street
42 and School Street between Mill Street and Seminary Avenue; Some of the more recent projects that
43 occurred on Main Street were encouraged to be architectural compatibility with the Sun House
44 Museum. The two restored Victorian houses on South School Street that were restored and the new
45 apartment complex adjacent to Mendo-Lake Credit Union are examples of architectural/design
46 features/treatments applied to projects to complement existing buildings in the neighborhood.
47
48 Paqe 22 of Section 6: Architectural Standards
49
50 Staff explained:
51 • The contents/format and application of tables for the DZC is intended for ease of
52 understanding/clarity.
53 • The purpose of the category, `Modification to Standard' —The tables for the DZC provide the
54 criteria required to do a new project or make a change to the existing building. However, if a
55 developer/property owner desires to do something different and deviate from the standards,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 2
1 there is a process for this, which involves a minor exception (Zoning Administrator level) or
2 major exception (Planning Commission level).
3
4 Chair Pruden
5 • Glazing, clear glass over a minimum of 70% of the ground level fa�ade(s), questioned how
6 this is quantifiable? She used the Masonic Hall as an example of a building that essentially
7 lost 50% of its glazing on the Perkins Street side by removing the windows and in-filled with
8 brick.
9 • Allowing for appropriate window exposure creating a blank wall appearance when business
10 owners draw their window blinds cannot be regulated. This often occurs in restaurants
11 whereby the intent is to be able to look inside and for patrons to be able look outside.
12 • Use of reflective mirror/opaque glass windows in the Downtown is discouraged and does the
13 `Glazing' standard for the DZC address this matter?
14 • Front doors — spacing — Longs Drug Store used to have two functioning entrance doors and
15 while the two doors exist only one is functioning.
16 • Safeway has a major and a minor entrance whereby one is locked late at night for security
17 purposes. Businesses have a definite idea how they want to control traffic depending on the
18 time of day.
19 • Front doors —spacing —It is likely that most doors in the historical Downtown are closer than
20 30 feet, particularly on School Street.
21 • Recommended if concern is expressed about a particular number that the standard be
22 flagged for further discussion.
23 • Floor height — needs clarification how measured. Some buildings have dropped ceilings.
24 Since elevations can change for buildings, the standard must be clear about whether `the
25 mean' height is used to measure floor height. Is the intent of the floor height requirement is to
26 create 12 feet on the bottom floor?
27
28 Commissioner Helland
29 • Table 7—delete the asterisks or provide the reference for sections d, e, &f.
30
31 Commissioner Molgaard
32 • 30-foot door spacing requirement- Recalls the charrette discussion.
33 ➢ The Poma TV store was used as an example where a door had been painted on the
34 blank wall because most people essentially do not feel comfortable walking down a street
35 against a blank wall when there are no doors.
36 ➢ Painting a door on a blank wall may be one option to consider for safety precautionary
37 reasons, particularly if the retail establishment sells firearms.
38 ➢ It is likely an anchor building tenant would seek an exception to the 30-foot door spacing
39 or for some other standard before the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission.
40 ➢ Specific findings must be made for an exception and while this is important in the event
41 the Planning Director and Planning Commission change and provided the primary point
42 of encouraging people to walk/shop more and be healthier and use cars less remains the
43 objective, does this option match the objective of the standard in question in terms of the
44 potential flexibility more or less that is created?
45 ➢ Referred to the Pacific Outfitters project and her suggestion about putting a fake door on
46 the blank wall that fronts State Street and inquired at that time if this aspect corresponds
47 with the philosophy of the DZC.
48 ➢ Floor height — reference the standard that floor height will be measured as in the
49 California Building Code to reframe from coming up with a way to measure floor height.
50
51 Staff response to the questions/concerns raised by the Commission:
52
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 3
1 • The 12-foot height requirement applies to the ground floor and is intended to allow the space
2 to be converted from one use to another use as easily as possible. If a tenant installs a drop
3 ceiling this does not change the floor to ceiling height since the drop ceiling can be removed.
4 • Requiring the door spacing allows the building to be more functional over time and provides a
5 pedestrian oriented street level. The individual tenant could determine if the door should be
6 operable or not. The distance between the doors can be changed as part of the review of the
7 draft. The DZC would allow for an Exception to this requirement.
8
9 Commissioner Whetzel
10 • Front door—spacing—The 30-foot spacing standard is not set in stone.
11
12 John Mayfield
13 • Front Doors — Spacing, Operable front doors spaced a maximum of 30 feet apart — Is this a
14 reasonable requirement to have more than one entrance to a building. Retail establishments
15 do not want a lot of entrances for security purposes.
16 • Floor height—standard unclear. There is a floor height and a ceiling height.
17
18 Don Larson
19 • Has never seen anything like a 30-foot door spacing requirement.
20 • Floor Height — clarification regarding the 12-foot clear measured from sidewalk level
21 standard.
22
23 Jim Mayfield
24 • Front Doors— Spacing — One way to address this standard would be to provide some type of
25 `feeling' of an entrance that may not be an actual operating door to help break up wall mass.
26 Requiring a door opening every 30 feet for a retail establishment is not practical.
27
28 Alan Nicholson
29 • It is common practice for larger developments in urban centers to have one large tenant with
30 multiple articulations/bays to break up the mass of the building and still have one or two
31 entrances.
32 • It appears the 30-foot door spacing intent is a way to break up building mass. There are
33 other ways to break up the mass other than doors and windows. There are some instances
34 such as Safeway for instance, where doors and windows could not be implemented to break
35 up the mass for the large blank wall on the west elevation and still provide for a pedestrian
36 friendly environment along the State Street side.
37 • Floor height — When an architect designs a building, this is done floor level to floor level as
38 the primary dimension. With regard to a 12-foot ceiling height for any type of scaled building
39 would have to take into account utilities and duct space and would essentially require a
40 minimum of 14 feet from floor to floor. The language or the requirement states floor height is
41 measured from sidewalk level, which would mean the language should reflect from first to
42 second floor and/or second floor height above the sidewalk. California Building Code issues
43 typically pertain/refer to `the mean' height. With regard to this 12-foot requirement, an
44 architect would use this standard allowing essentially for a 10-foot height if consideration is
45 given to utilities and duct space. If a tenant drops the ceiling height, it would have to be in
46 reasonable proportion with the street fa�ade height of the windows.
47
48 Paqe 23 of Section 6: Architectural Standards
49
50 Chair Pruden
51 • Openings, Above First Story —Minimum Opening, Minimum opening of 25% of total building
52 wall area for each fa�ade or elevation & Above First Story — Maximum Opening, Maximum
53 opening of 75% of total building wall area for each fa�ade or elevation —Are these standards
54 taken from the SmartCode?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 4
1 • Title 24 relative to the energy code does regulate the amount of square footage of windows
2 and glazing that is allowed.
3 • Modification — fa�ade, elevation — Typical reference to fa�ade and/or elevations begins with
4 determining the front fa�ade and then referencing that elevation as to north, south, east, or
5 west depending upon the direction of the building being discussed.
6
7 Commissioner Helland
8 • Residential and Lodging, Ground floor, elevated 2 feet above sidewalk on frontages; How
9 does this work in conjunction with accessibility?
10
11 Staff response to the questions/concerns raised by the Commission:
12 • Ground floor — We can add a footnote that states "except as required to comply with
13 accessibility requirements."
14 • The glossary defines "fa�ade" and "elevation." Facades face the street, so there is a higher
15 standard applied. Elevations face a non-street side or rear.
16
17 Commissioner Molgaard
18 • Existing Buildings, Modification — Fa�ade and Elevation — questioned a minor exception for
19 this standard when most of the community is already at buildout wherein future changes
20 made will be to existing buildings. Would this standard impede progress if this requirement
21 were allowed to go through too easily for existing buildings?
22
23 Paqe 24 of Section 6: Architectural Standards (example of mixed use concept)
24
25 Chair Pruden
26 • Substitute the graphic design with a local building example or keep the graphic model for
27 representation purposes?
28 • Mixed use, the design of the building allows for a mix of uses and for uses to change
29 overtime. The graphic design shows the ground floor as a law office. The storefront design
30 could be used to accommodate a retail use, restaurant, personal service, or another office
31 use. The upper floors could be used as residences or offices.
32 • The McNab's building has the capability of a residential use on the second floor in terms of
33 mixed use. In order to accommodate a residential component, the building would require a
34 seismic retrofit whereby the property owner must weigh the importance in terms potential
35 financial incentive versus improvement costs.
36
37 Paqe 25 of Section 6: Architectural Standards (Example of new infill for a new development in the
38 downtown)
39
40 Commissioner Sanders
41 • Roof, the roof is flat with a parapet. Flat roofs are common for commercial buildings. The
42 parapet provides architectural detail and can also be used to screen roof top equipment —
43 Would roof gardens be allowed?
44
45 Commissioner Helland
46 • Where would `roof garden' fit with the green building code? The living roof or cool roof has to
47 do with energy efficiency and should be encouraged. She questioned where in the DZC
48 standards this should be addressed? It may be that a green building ordinance is the place.
49
50 Staff noted a preference has been expressed that the elements of roof gardens, living roofs, cool
51 roofs be included in the DZC document so it is clear from a planning perspective that such structures
52 are allowed. They could be included in the roof section on page 23.
53
54
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 5
1 Chair Pruden
2 • Such features as a gazebo or like structures on top of a roof that could accommodate these
3 features would be considered `accessory' and would not be specifically addressed in the
4 standards unless it were a building height issue. There has been some discussion about the
5 Palace Hotel, which has three stories, and whether there is the ability to put an outdoor
6 rooftop pavilion making it essentially a four-story building.
7
8 Staff noted building heights are measured in stories rather than in feet. If the rooftop structure is
9 enclosed, it would be considered a story and subject to the building height requirements.
10
11 Staff stated the approach to this is twofold:
12 1. The zoning code may allow for four-stories in which case a rooftop pavilion is not an issue.
13 2. If the zoning code does not allow for four stories, then an exception to the standard
14 could be sought.
15
16 Chair Pruden
17 • The City has parapet roofs on many of the older buildings whereby the actual roof is from 3 to
18 5 feet below the parapet, which allows for some interesting opportunities/possibilities with
19 some articulation modification.
20 • How should solar features on rooftops be treated?
21
22 Staff indicated most communities require solar panel to be flush mounted so that they are subtle in
23 appearance. When this is the case, they do not increase building height.
24
25 Alan Nicholson
26 • Garden roofs are doable and LEED offers incentive points for green building application. The
27 application of `Cool' roofs is now drawing attention. A cool roof does not necessarily imply a
28 white roof and there is an actual Cool Roof Association.
29 • Reference page 23, Roofs, flat, enclosed by a parapet with a minimum height of 42-inches or
30 as needed to screen mechanical equipment. This would screen HVAC or solar features.
31
32 Chair Pruden
33 • Questioned the HVAC screening technique used on the roof of the Ukiah Natural Foods
34 store.
35 • How should a pergola be treated?
36
37 Staff clarified outdoor room/living roof— If an outdoor room becomes such, it is considered a part of
38 the building and would be counted as a `story.' A pergola is not necessarily considered a room; If, for
39 instance, a shade structure was to be considered with the roof garden, this would not constitute a
40 `room.' If the proposed structure has four walls, this constitutes a room and should be counted as a
41 story.
42
43 John Mayfield
44 • Some communities ban white roofs because of impacts from glare.
45
46 Don Larson
47 • White roofs are common in other countries and can have a positive effect on the
48 environment.
49
50 Chair Pruden
51 • Recommended the amended language for page 23, `roof' include the element of
52 glare/reflective heat rather than roof color/materials.
53
54 Paqe 26, Section 6: Architectural Standards ( example of Hotel concept)
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 6
1 Chair Pruden
2 • Rendering depicts a hotel concept that looks like a four-story building.
3
4 The Commission liked the rendering and found the design of the hotel to be architecturally pleasing.
5
6 There was discussion about porte-cochere as a design feature, citing the various hotels in the
7 community having this design and other design features on the rendering.
8
9 Commissioner Sanders
10 • Inquired about the expression lines on the hotel rendering.
11
12 Paqe 27, Section 6: Architectural Standards (example of anchor building)
13
14 • Rendering shows the 30-foot door spacing along the street frontage.
15
16 Alan Nicholson
17 • An anchor building of the size depicted in the rendering is preferred to be two, three or four
18 stories.
19 • The doors shown on the ground level could be the access doors for the upper level uses.
20 • Inquired about the lot frontage requirement and allowance for building articulation.
21 • The building should show some height variation.
22
23 Commissioner Whetzel
24 • The rendering resembles the appearance of the former Woolworth stores.
25
26 Chair Pruden
27 • Cited a project in Novato where the bottom floor is a grocery store, Whole Foods, and the
28 upper stories are residential uses as an example of the anchor building depicted in the
29 rendering. A mixed use building of this caliber would require mitigation measures to address
30 noise and other nuisance impacts generated from the grocery use to make the grocery use
31 compatible with the residential use.
32 • An anchor building is intended to be built as one large building.
33
34 Commissioner Helland
35 • The architectural features of the second and third floors on the rendering are somewhat
36 monotonous and would like to see more articulation/architectural detail and/or variation.
37 • Would like to see a variation to the roofline in the form of a parapet or the like to draw from
38 the institutional form.
39 • The table requirements do state the maximum fa�ade width is 75 feet since the Commission
40 is concerned that there is sufficient language in place to address the overall appearance of
41 the building and the need to vary the roofline with some type of articulation or provide for
42 other acceptable design features to dress up the building.
43
44 Commissioner Molgaard
45 • Agreed the second and third floor need more architectural detail.
46
47 Chair Pruden
48 • It is not clear from the rendering whether the architectural features are recessed or whether
49 all the elevations are `brought ouY or flat.
50
51 Commissioner Whetzel
52 • The DZC allows for some type of`encroachment'for bay windows/balcony for the second and
53 third stories on the front fa�ade.
54 • One advantage is that if the anchor tenant business failed, there would be other shops.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 7
1 Paqes 28 & 29, Section 6: Architectural Standards (example of County Courthouse concept &
2 Courthouse Square Rendering)
3
4 Chair Pruden
5 • The illustrations demonstrate design variations relative to the County Courthouse concept.
6 • The rendering on page 28 does resemble the 1920's addition to the earlier courthouse, which
7 is no longer in existence and is a very nice courthouse design. The `Indiana Limestone'
8 material is very architecturally pleasing.
9 • The rendering of the courthouse square on page 29 is too grandiose/palatial for downtown
10 Ukiah.
11 • There is continuity between public and commercial uses in the illustration on page 29.
12
13 Staff stated the intent is not about who is using the building, but about providing for good form that is
14 pedestrian friendly and the design can effectively withstand time.
15
16 Alan Nicholson
17 • Supports replacing the color rendering on page 29 with an actual picture/illustration from a
18 book for purposes of providing a better example of a courthouse square for Ukiah.
19
20 Staff does not have the ability to modify the illustration to depict a more realistic rending of Ukiah's
21 courthouse. The illustration can be removed entirely or provide an actual picture.
22
23 Page 29 — The Commission supports looking into changing the illustration to provide for a more
24 realistic example of what Ukiah's courthouse square should look like.
25
26 Commissioner Sanders
27 • Does not like the rendering and depiction of Gibson Creek because it is `culvertized' and
28 unnatural.
29
30 Staff indicated again the renderings and illustrations are what the City Planning budget allows.
31
32 Paqes 30 & 31, Section 6: Architectural Standards (State Street rendering & Perkins Street
33 rendering)
34
35 Chair Pruden
36 • Some of the renderings are recognizable such as the Palace Hotel, the Marks building and
37 other landmark buildings. The existing Courthouse is not depicted because of possible
38 relocation to a Civic space. Some of the buildings added fit nicely with the existing buildings.
39 • The only recognizable depiction in the Perkins Street rendering is the existing house on the
40 corner of E. Perkins Street and Leslie Street whereby the other buildings have been added
41 into the illustration.
42 • If consideration is to be given to adding sidewalk widths and potentially eliminating a traffic
43 lane that undergrounding of utilities should be a consideration.
44
45 Alan Nicholson
46 • These illustrations were inspired by the charrettes. The Perkins Street rendering depicts very
47 wide sidewalks with a median down the center of the street and questioned whether this can
48 be accomplished.
49
50 Chair Pruden stated it is possible to have a median on Perkins Street by reconfiguring the street and
51 turn lanes and also allow for wider sidewalks.
52
53 Staff indicated the City is discussing about a Capital Improvement Plan (C.I.P.) to implement a
54 median on E. Perkins Street.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 8
1 Commissioner Sanders
2 • There are no utility lines shown in the rendering and inquired whether there are plans to
3 underground utilities.
4 Staff indicated the undergrounding of utilities has been an ongoing topic of discussion for a number of
5 years. Undergrounding of utilities has occurred on parts of State Street.
6
7 Staff response to the questions/concerns raised by the Commission:
8 • Glazing —The percentage of glazing is calculated based on the square footage of a building
9 wall having a particular plane. The 70% figure is from the charrette and is likely considered
10 the recognized standard for a comfortable pedestrian orientation. An applicant would request
11 a modification to this standard via an Exception. The DZC does not regulate the interior of
12 the building. The intent is that the building form is constructed so that it is functional overtime
13 for a variety of uses with few modifications. Since the standard requires "clear" glass,
14 reflective mirrored glass windows would not be allowed for developments in the DZC.
15 • Front Doors- Spacing — Operable front doors spaced a maximum of 30 feet apart along the
16 block face-
17 ➢ The 30-foot standard came out of the document prepared for the charrettes.
18 ➢ This number can be modified. 30-feet appears to be an appropriate number.
19 ➢ If a project required discretionary review for site development permit, the exception
20 for the 30-foot door spacing standard would be considered with the SDP
21 ➢ It is important to get the building `form' right so that it can be divided into smaller
22 tenants (shops) over time, particularly if the building were a large anchor tenant
23 building whereby the doors would be spaced where it makes sense for them to be
24 spaced. Whether or not these doors are operable is not really the issue.
25 ➢ A tenant could have two `real' doors where only one is functioning. The suggestion
26 may be made that the requirement makes the door operable every 30 feet or as
27 recommended as part of this process.
28 ➢ Form based codes do not include fake doors or other elements as solutions.
29
30 • Floor height— measured from sidewalk to ceiling and more clearly identified in the definition
31 of floor height. The intent is the first floor has a 12-foot floor height from the ground floor to
32 the ceiling above. The objective of the standard is to make certain the construction is done
33 right because the building will be in existence a long time. A person that complies with the 12-
34 foot height standard can construct a drop ceiling and if later the building changes to another
35 tenant that may need the additional height, the building can accommodate this because of
36 the 12-foot height requirement.
37 • Staff will work on revised language and a definition and include an illustration if possible.
38 However, the intent of the requirement is not really about adjusting the ceiling height based
39 on different tenant preference/need, but the construction of a useable building that will stand
40 the test of time.
41 • Above First Story Minimum/Maximum opening —The intent is to discourage a situation where
42 there is a solid wall of glass because this type of architecture is `more modern' and not
43 architecturally compatible with the other buildings in the DZC boundary. The 25%/75% of
44 total wall areas for each fa�ade or elevation allow for building code compliance for egress
45 and Title 24, avoids the creation of a mostly blank wall, and avoids the solid glass wall.
46 • Modification — Elevation & Fa�ade — Distinguished fa�ade versus elevation. A fa�ade faces
47 the street and an elevation does not. A building can have more than one fa�ade.
48 Requirements for features that are not facing public frontage are less restrictive. The intent is
49 to focus on that portion of the building giving that faces the public realm and allow for greater
50 flexibility on elevations since they are typically less visible to the public and do not have street
51 frontage.
52 • Page 23, for clarity purposes, add the term `roof gardens/living roofs' to the roof category,
53 address the use of"white" roof and potential impacts to neighboring properties as well as the
54 use of solar features. The intent of adding language to the `roof' section concerns the matter
55 of glare rather than material or color.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 9
1 • Building code issues should be distinguished from height and form that pertain to planning
2 issues.
3 • Pages 24-31 (local exhibit of buildings versus illustration/rendering). The intent is to provide
4 illustrations of possible design outcomes using the requirements of the code to help users of
5 the document better understand the written requirements. In order to provide specific design
6 direction regarding the architectural elements and design that the community desires, an
7 appendix could be created using photos of buildings and design elements that are to be
8 incorporated into projects that are located in the plan area. This appendix could change over
9 time as community preferences change since the document would not be part of the code.
10 • Page 25, Roof— Roof garden. A roof garden would most likely be considered an accessory
11 use rather than a primary use. Accessory uses are not usually identified in a use table and
12 are allowed provided such uses are `accessory' to a primary use. It is likely the building code
13 would regulate a roof garden.
14 • Page 26, Expression lines. Expression lines are horizontal lines that separate the ground
15 floor from the upper floors helping to define the ground level, typically retail uses from the
16 upper floors. Such lines are required for mixed use buildings.
17 • Page 27 — Anchor Building. The code requires a certain percentage of the building to be
18 located at the frontage line. The remaining percentage of the fa�ade could be `stepped back'
19 to allow for building articulation. There are requirements for building type, block perimeter,
20 setbacks/lot line fa�ade width/orientation, lot frontage at buildout, lot coverage and other
21 anchor building requirements designed to create a pedestrian friendly and walkable
22 community. There is also a requirement the windows must be recessed in order to provide
23 articulation. The result of these requirements is a good building form. If the Commission
24 wants to break up the fa�ade, this can be addressed through individual storefronts using
25 different color schemes/materials, varied parapet heights, and architectural articulation.
26 Getting the form right allows the building to be more usable over time and to be converted
27 from one large tenant to several smaller tenants or to other uses. Language could be added
28 to the table to require the facades to be differentiated using the methods suggested by the
29 Commission.
30 • Pages 28/29. If the Commission would like to delete an illustration of the courthouse,
31 recommends eliminating the illustration on page 28 since the illustration on page 29 includes
32 examples of code elements that are not included in other illustrations in the code, such as
33 Gibson Creek and riparian trees.
34 • Page 31 — (street). It is important to make sure there is sufficient right-of-way to
35 accommodate the necessary improvements and any preferred amenities such as the median,
36 wider sidewalks, street trees, and bike lanes. When this not addressed and incorporated into
37 the street sections included in the code, it creates community expectations that cannot be
38 met due to insufficient right-of-way and provides incorrect design direction to property
39 owners, developers, and design professionals in regards to street improvements.
40
41 Consensus of the Commission:
42 • Page 22 - Understands the intent of the 30-foot front door spacing and that a tenant can seek
43 a minor exception. Revise the table to require doors every 30 feet, but not to require that all
44 doors be operable.
45 • Page 22 — Floor height requirement— Revise the term so that it is clear that this refers to the
46 distance on the ground floor between the ground floor and the top of ceiling. Include an
47 illustration to provide clarity.
48 • Page 23 - 25%/75% standard of total building wall area for each fa�ade or elevation for
49 above first story minimum/maximum opening—no change to the language in the tables.
50 • Page 23 - Modification—elevation &fa�ade—no change to the language in the tables.
51 • Page 23 - add language to the tables about garden/living roof, cool roof that it is allowed in
52 addition to language about appropriate screening of HVAC/solar features and use of "white"
53 roofs to the Roof category. In this language to the Roof section, address the element of glare
54 rather than color or materials.
55 • Page 24—no additions/change to the language.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 10
1 • Page 25—no additions/change to the language.
2 • Page 26—no additions/change to the language
3 • Page 27 - Add language to the standards table to require building articulation that
4 differentiates each tenant space and to require roof height variation through the use of varied
5 building heights or varied parapet heights.
6 • Page 28—no additions/change to the language.
7 • Page 29 — Possibly look into changing the illustration to provide for a more realistic example
8 of what Ukiah's courthouse square should look like with regard to Gibson Creek and trees in
9 the riparian areas. No changes or flags for further review to the quantifiable language
10 requirements.
11 • Page 30-31, no additions/changes to the language.
12
13 Alan Nicholson
14 • Concerned that the boundaries currently include the north side of Seminary Avenue and not
15 the south side. It seems that Seminary Avenue is an important street and that both sides
16 should be included in the code boundaries so that the requirements are the same and
17 development of the area is compatible.
18
19 Chair Pruden stated the map will be discussed later when it is time to discuss the DZC boundaries.
20 The problem with expanding the boundaries too far out is the concern for the triggering of CEQA
21 review. However, it is important to review the boundaries in the various transect zones.
22
23 Staff indicated that the DZC is subject to CEQA review. The extent of CEQA review will be
24 determined in part by the plan boundaries since they relates to development potential.
25
26 Chair Pruden commented if a project was located in the Downtown Design district and not in the
27 DZC district, the applicable design guidelines for commercial establishments would differ because of
28 the applicable commercial code requirements for these districts. This aspect can be discussed at a
29 later date.
30
31 The Commission discussed the agenda for the regular August 26, 2009 meeting. The plan is to
32 review the CalStar project and if time avails public workshop for Sections 5 and 7 of the DZC will
33 occur.
34
35 There was a brief discussion about the process of taking in public input/comments for the DZC.
36
37 10. NEW BUSINESS
38 10A. Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. Determine Planning Commission meeting dates
39 for September and November.
40
41 Staff indicated the Housing Element Update is an upcoming topic of discussion that must be placed
42 on the Planning Commission agenda.
43
44 The Planning Commission discussed the upcoming Planning Commission hearing dates and
45 concluded:
46
47 The regular September 9 meeting will be cancelled to due Veterans day, a City holiday.
48 The regular November 11t" meeting was changed to November 5.
49 The regular November 25th meeting will be cancelled due to the Thanksgiving holidays.
50
51 11. ONGOING EDUCATION
52 11A. Requlatinq the Architectural Character of a Communitv
53
54 The above-referenced publication is for the Commissioner's information.
55
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 11
1 12. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
2
3 13. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
4
5 Commissioner Sanders expressed the following concerns:
6 • Notification process to the public for the DZC.
7 • The City website has two categories that address the DZC, noting there is a site for the DZC
8 project on the homepage, but the workshop information for the FBZ (Form Based Zoning) is
9 separate and inquired why these items are not connected?
10 • The more current Planning Commission minutes have not been posted to the City's website.
11 • Staff is pressing the Planning Commission too hard in order to meet a deadline for
12 completion of the DZC project review. She has no idea of the deadline date. She does not
13 understand the need for the project to be completed by the end of this year, if possible, when
14 the DZC project started way back in 2006.
15 • The DZC workshop relative to use was not orchestrated well. It was her understanding during
16 the charettes that the focus of the requirements would be on the exterior of the building and
17 building form rather than the use. The focus should be on the original intent of the charrettes
18 rather than the use.
19 • Requests staff distinguish between `code versus buildings.' According to the public, the
20 rationale of the workshops are simply not coming across as originally intended in the
21 charrettes with regard to what types of projects/architecture/buildings the public would like to
22 see occur in the Downtown area and Perkins Street corridor.
23 • There is simply too much emphasis on the use of buildings rather than building form.
24
25 Commission Helland stated as representatives of the public, the element of use is important and it is
26 likely a common misconception of the Form Based Zoning Code that this aspect would not be
27 considered even though `use' is deemphasized compared to `form.'
28
29 Staff noted
30 • While it is important to complete the DZC project, it is not the intent of staff to press too hard.
31 We also hear from some people that the process is not moving quickly enough.
32 • The objective of the DZC is to determine the form of the building in order to have buildings
33 that function well and can be converted from one use to another over time. It is a common
34 misconception that use is not addressed in form based codes. However, use is typically
35 included in such codes.
36 • Very little of the document addresses uses. The document with illustrations and the glossary
37 may be 70 pages. Of this, four pages are devoted to use.
38 • Based on previous experience, use is often the most challenging topic of review since people
39 are often less familiar with uses and the associated definitions.
40
41 There was additional discussion of alternative methods to inform the public about the DZC workshops
42 including meetings with Rotary members and other active organizations to encourage DZC
43 participation and input.
44
45 14. ADJOURNMENT
46 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
47
48
49 Judy Pruden, Chair
50
51 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
52
53
54
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 12, 2009
Page 12